An Alarming Vision: John Murtha As Commander-In-Chief
If this is not a call to arms, then you’re not paying attention. John Murtha, whose intention to wreck our Iraq policy under the guise of ‘readiness’, a man whose ignorace of Iraq was justly denigrated by the Washington Post, and whose plans and tactics are under fire from even such steadfast war opponents as the New York Times and Bob Schieffer, may just be able to pull it off, according to this horrifying article by Bob Novak:
After 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised “second step” against President Bush’s Iraq policy (after the “first step” of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.
Indeed he is. Murtha and his ally House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were humiliated last Nov. 16 when the Democratic caucus overwhelmingly voted against Murtha as majority leader. Three months later, Murtha has shaped party policy that would cripple Bush’s Iraq troop surge by placing conditions on funding. That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.
…[U]nless there is an unexpected retreat by Democrats, Murtha will be driving U.S. policy. That is an improbable elevation for a House member best known until now as a purveyor of pork. An ideological moderate (a 65 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and 40 percent from the American Conservative Union in 2006), he became a hero to the left by advocating “redeployment” of troops from Iraq.
That prompted Murtha to announce his candidacy for majority leader, which appalled Democrats who knew him well. Two prominent Democrats reminded me that Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam investigation. He embarrassed himself on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last June by suggesting a redeployment of troops from Iraq to Okinawa. A year earlier, the Los Angeles Times reported that firms represented by his lobbyist brother received funds approved by Murtha’s appropriations subcommittee.
…Murtha has made clear that the nonbinding resolution, whose merely symbolic nature infuriates antiwar activists, was only the “first step.” In his interview, Murtha, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, did not hide the purpose of setting standards for training, equipping and resting troops: “They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work.”
…It seems all but certain that Democrats will pass what Murtha frankly calls an attempt to prevent funding of the surge. Improbable though it may seem, blunt and brassy Jack Murtha is moving close to command over U.S. policy on Iraq.
The blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy of this manuever is disgusting, but it is overshadowed by the very real danger it poses to our efforts in Iraq. If Murtha prevails, than all of our blood and treasure will have been in vain. There can be no letup. If you care about winning the war, if you care about our standing in the world, if you care about the War on Terror, and, yes, if you care about our troops, let there be no mistake: the Murtha plan must be defeated…
Mark, I think you need a sedative. The “Murtha Plan” is not going to pass any time soon. It would need to get through the senate (which doesn’t even have the votes to end debate on a non-binding resolution) and then be signed by the president. What do you think the odds of that happening are? So take a deep breath.
The bottomline is that nothing will happen until enough time has passed that people feel comfortable concluding that the “surge” has failed. At that point, I think we’ll start to see much more bipartisan movement to do something in Congress.
As for Murtha’s plan itself, I fail to see why it is producing such screaching hysteria on the Right. Congress surely has the power to both set funding levels and make rules regarding troop deployment. Bush already has his “surge”. If that fails, why on earth shouldn’t Congress take steps to reduce our troop presence in Iraq? The framers vested these powers in Congress precisely because they were worried about the President getting the country embroiled in endless conflicts abroad.
If you disagree with the Murtha Plan, that’s fine. But stop acting like it’s some afront to our very system of government. It’s not. This is how our government was intended to operate.
Gee, I guess Novak, the Washington Post, the NY Times, etc., etc., all need a sedative, too.
No, Anonymous, the time for action is now, before the plan gains any momentum. If Murtha wants to end the war, let him do it above board, instead of relying on this ‘readiness’ ruse that is fooling no one…
Maybe you missed it when Pelosi basically gave her assent to this ruse – I didn’t…
One more thing, Anonymous – you know me, I like to think I’m a reasonable guy. I realize I’ve upped the rhetoric over the last few days – but it’s become clear to me that the Democrats are taking their rhetoric up several notches, too, and these wild Vietnam comparisons and so forth cannot go unchallenged…
Mark, don’t worry, I still think you’re a reasonable guy. I just think you’re overreacting. First, you’re wildly overestimating Murtha’s chances of success. Second, you anger at his strategy seems a bit misdirected. The only reason Murtha and company are considering this more roundabout way of reducing troop levels is because the Republicans have demogogued the hell out of the more straight forward method, i.e., reducing funding. At every opportunity, Republicans suggest that a vote to cut off funding would result in troops suddenly running out of bullets or armor or food in the middle of a fight. That’s a transparently ridiculous claim, but it’s been so effectively demogogued by Republicans that Murtha and company feel they have to try something more indirect.
But what he’s doing is not dishonest. It’s clear to everyone what Murtha wants to do; he wants to reduce troop levels. He’s very up front about that. And he’s being more honest than his Republicans colleagues who claim that defunding the war would put the troops in danger (which is ludicrous).
Ludicrous? How can you say that? You act as if funding and our efforts on the ground are totally unrelated. I don’t even see how you can make that assertion…please explain…
Gents: Murtha’s plan involves moving funding forward, and given his position on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, by which he wishes to affect or direct the military action in/toward Iraq, The assumption is that in order for his plan to succeed it must be moved from committee to the House and, if approved, to the Senate. But if it does not go forward, or passes the House only to fail in the Senate, hasn’t Murtha partly achieved his goal of denying funding? Babys out with bathwater, I know, but the net affect is the same: surge not funded, or, at least, delayed.
So, while the rhetoric has become overheated I do think the sense of urgency is well-placed.
Murtha? Undistinguished? My god. Have you completely forgotten about his appearance on the FBI videos negotiating a bribe. Though it appears he did not take it, he certainly showed he was open to it.
Obviously they’re related. That’s why cutting off funding would be an effective way of changing policy. My point is that reducing funding does not put our troops in danger. That claim is pure demogoguery. It’s not as if the troops would be fighting and suddenly run out of equipment and food. That would never happen. A funding cut off would force the president to start withdrawing troops, i.e. to implement a different policy.
We can disagree over whether that new policy is the best one, but the idea that somehow the troops on the ground will go without supplies and or something is just stupid. That’s not how things work.