Murtha predicts most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year

can become a private enterprise handled by corporations like Blackwater and DynCorp, and Halliburton and Bechtel who have already garnered much of the US's business thanks to privatization measures started by Dick Cheney as Sec of Defense under Bush1.

And it should become an open debate for America. I think we should push for this to become a public concern. These creeps need to be openly and publicly asked if this is their intention.

They would only answer no.

...all we gotta do now is get a Dem in the WH.

He is much stronger because of it. Any republicans want to take a close look at Congressman Murtha's actions. Strength through humility and a change of course when the course is wrong. You don't have to a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Is he the mouthpiece for the grunts? Are there some disgruntled military people who having been shunned in the Pentagon now have convinced Murtha to speakout about the reality of the occupation?

How many congresscritters silently support Murtha?

Is Murtha opposed to war, or is he opposed to the way this one has been managed?

Too many questions I know, but the answers will tell us what is to happen.

in early September.

Kerry submitted a withdrawal plan in the Senate, Murtha submitted a withdrawal plan in Congress, and Gen. Casey submitted a withdrawal plan to the Pentagon....all three withdrawal plans within a short timeframe.

I believe it was more coordinated than media has noticed.

Yep, those guys in Iraq would be shunned in the pentagon, eh? Heck, all they can do is send bad news, who wants to hear bad news all the time?

Who has listened to them: Kerry, Murtha and Casey. Kerry must have got a headful of awful, gut wrenching stories from those guys on the ground.

How many of lower staff in the Pentagon are beginning to grumble, one must wonder?

a different story than Kerry and Murtha did, unless Joe went to specified lackies for BushInc, while they sought out the real guys facing fire.

He's all for war, that's all we need to know. Joe wouldn't hear bad news if it smacked him in the ear. He's set for life and he had the VP stolen from him without so much as a whimper. Forget him.

The thing is someone is finally speaking for the grunts. Ya know, kids like Casey Sheehan.

too, and Kerry and Murtha found those guys, while Joe found Bush lackeys to talk to.

No doubt, guys like General Casey are seeing it through the eyes of grunts and those facing fire.

The pride is back. It's great having a Democratic leader with backbone and a willingness to speak out -- and others smart enough to follow.

It's not exactly backbone when you only summon the "guts" to stand up and speak out when you have overwhelming public opinion on your side and when there is little to no public support for your political opponents.

Nothing has changed in the last six months except for public opinion and white house momentum. Murtha and ever other democrat in congress has had more than enough time to know that we need an exit strategy and that the war was wrong - maybe if he had started speaking out six months ago I would call it an act with "backbone." But not now.

While I welcome Mr. Murtha to the chorus of brave voices who have been speaking out against this war since day one, I am not going to paint him as some kind of courageous hero for looking at some polling data and deciding that it was politically "OK" to go critical now.

in its time and this was the time for Murtha to come out..he even says he wishes he would have done it earlier.

I'm sure he doesn't want our praise, either..he's more concerned for the soldiers.

Murtha's transformation is remarkable and his public stand, admitting his mistaken support of Bush's invasion, did take backbone.

Many of us on DU, myself included, are inclined to be anti-war. Others, such as Congressman Murtha, are not so inclined.

If Bush's invasion had been proven the right thing to do, publicly announcing past opposition to have been wrong would take a certain amount of intellectual honesty and backbone.

In the present case, since those of us who opposed the war have been proven correct, I am more than willing to credit those who supported it and have now changed their position, similar credit for intellectual honesty and backbone. As for those, such as the junior Senator from New York ... .

There is no evidence I am aware of that makes Murtha's newfound vocal chords any more likely to be an act of deep courage and backbone than it is an act of political calculus.

As I said originally, while I welcome murtha to join the vocal. But I don't feel incline to greet him as some kind of champion for justice or courageous actor in this instance.

The "inclination" of someone for or anti war is irrelevant. There was enough evidence, point blank, proving the illegitimate grounds of this war. So anyone who supported it this long is responsible for not knowing better. They're are NO people who supported the war as long as Murtha did who were "innocently" misled. They had everything they needed to know, and ignored it. Only now, with its become "popular" do they began to speak out...

view naive in the extreme.

Given Mr. Murtha's district and his background, his original stance was to have been expected.

He has not claimed to have been innocently misled. But I can assure you he was predisposed by his experience in life to follow the flag and the commander in chief, even an un-elected one, in time of war. While I am unfamiliar with his congressional district, I would not be surprised if he is still ahead of his constituents on this issue , despite feelings on DemocraticUndeground and, increasingly, in the country as a whole.

If his admittedly late conversion took no backbone, then I wonder what is keeping so many of our Democratic leaders, even those with presidential aspirations, from being equally forthright in their opposition to the continuance of the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.

:hi:

And find out what Bush's approval rating is, and what the opinion of the war is?

Not exactly a big risk.

credential waiving to be irrelevant.

There were a handful of congressmen with actual backbone who voted no from the beginning. They did so because they knew what I knew as a civilian, and what anyone who wanted to see could have known - that there was no legitimate case for invasion. Period.

Murtha's district and his background are irrelevant. There was more than enough information there form day one so that I, as a civilian, knew there was no legitimate case for war. What's more since that time the evidence of the illegitimacy of this war has mounted to staggering, downright stupefying levels. Yet only know, when the tide of popular opinion has turned do we see these "courageous men" stand up.

It doesn't exactly take an advanced degree to understand why our democratic leaders aren't being as (what you choose to call) "forthright." Aspiring political candidates have learned that its more important to be consistent than it is to be right, so don't expect any major stance changes from them unless Bush loses another 10 points. Corporate Shill-o-crats are making money hand over fist on this war, and basically agree with the corpo-fascist neo-conservative agenda for the world, so they have no pressing reason to be vocally opposed.

If we were having more success in Iraq, and if public opinion were still with the President, John Murtha would still be standing by this war and by the President's side. Murtha is not standing up and saying "I was wrong about the war" - he's standing up and saying "I shouldn't have voted for the war, given what I know now about how that war would be handled. Murtha has no problems with the illegality or immorality of the war - he has problems with the fact that a) we are failing to win it and b) public opinion is turing against it.

And I don't call those things characteristics of a "backbone" nor do I call them "courageous." And what I think is actually naive, good sir, is to need a "hero figure" so much that we put the blinders on and fail to tell the truth about people.

i won't engage the "backbone" discussion ... Murtha said he should have spoken out sooner ...

what's important is that he has changed the national dialog about Iraq ...

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/13302081.htm

Posted on Thu, Dec. 01, 2005
Murtha says army is 'broken, worn out'

Associated Press

LATROBE, Pa. - Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.

Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year: "I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."

- snip -

He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war: "I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."

MORE

I predict. I can't comment other than that because I have no way of knowing.

predicted this predictament several times over the past few years. I don't think they are going to be as controversial as all that. Did you see Rumsfeld's general yesterday basically telegraphing disdain for Rummie and his propaganda?

I haven't been over to any RW sites lately because I'm out of TUMS (I'm serious) so I don't know whether they have crucified poor Murtha more than they did last week or not.

he's just a lowly enlisted guy ;) but he says Bush is absolutely destroying the military. I could not repeat why here without him telling me while I typed it (I don't understand all things military and would probably screw something up). He isn't a gung-ho army type but after 10+ years in the military, it makes him sad to see it.

said he made a mistake voting for the IWR..

I saw Nancy Pelosi on Jon Stewart's last night and she is supporting Murtha's resolution which astounded me!

Pelosi to support it. I will see if I can find it and post the link.

welshTerrier2's "Understanding Murtha's 'over-the-horizon' Redeployment"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2285174

That cleared up some understanding for me, too.

when one makes a mistake' (not exact quote) then he commented, 'like I made a mistake when I voted for this war' he said how he could admit to a mistake and change course and so should bush*.

older and wiser and evolves but not our chump chimp.

which itself means Congress abdicated its responsibility unconstitutionally.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

""SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq....""

AS HE DETERMINES...NOT CONGRESS ! UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

A draft is now a certainty.

Stan Goff, a retired special forces Seargeant. He's said from Day One, bring our troops home.

He said, "the troops belong to the people of the United States. These men & women should only be used for defending this country, and never for wars of profit". He said their efforts are in fact ours, and Bush & Cheney hijacked them for their own purposes.

Bring them home.

The Democrats with "courage" and "backbone" were the ones who voted NO on the IWR regardless of the political consequences. There were over 100 who stood up AGAINST the bush* machine, and they should be honored and remembered for their wisdom, judgement, and integrity.

I DO welcome the voices of those who are moving their political wagons to the PEACE TRAIN now that the polls support it, but will NEVER put them on the Honor Roll.

Hidden Agenda : A national draft in the future
by Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-10.htm

"President Bush will be forced to decide whether we can continue the current course in Iraq, which will clearly require the reinstatement of the draft. The Pentagon has objected to a draft but, the President has ignored other Pentagon recommendations in the past."

...prepare the 20 year olds. They go first along with medical personnel...

And when the civilian casualties go up even further....what will be the fall out?

These people always act as if there's no such thing as consequences to actions.

Thats the truth and he knew it, the IWR despite the cover everyone tries to take from its parsed to hell and back meaning was a vote for war. Authorizing Bush was giving him the go ahead. Murtha gains respect for admitting this, I wish more Dems would.