WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2007
Murtha Vows To Stop Troop Buildup
Antiwar Democrat Says He'll Use Power Of Purse To Restrict Bush
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Congress Continues Iraq Debate
Democrats are seeking to pass a non-binding resolution opposing the president's war plan for Iraq, even as Mr. Bush voiced his support for his strategy. Sharyl Attkisson reports.
-
Video
'60' Preview: Iraq In Peace
Watch a preview of Bob Simon's "60 Minutes" report on Kurdistan, a part of Iraq that's peaceful and stable, where business is booming and Americans are beloved. It airs Sunday, Feb. 18, 7 p.m. ET/PT.
-
Video
House Debates Iraq
The House began debating a resolution opposing the President's troop buildup in Iraq. Sharyl Attkisson reports it wouldn't force President Bush to change his strategy but could shape future policy.
-
Photo
Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., plans to use the appropriations process to prevent more troops being sent to Iraq. (CBS/AP)
-
Who's Who
Congress Reacts To Plan
Reaction to President Bush's new Iraq stategy, which includes an increase in troops.
-
Interactive
New Plan For Iraq
Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
Rep. Jack Murtha, one of the most vocal congressional opponents of the war in Iraq, is vowing to block President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 U.S. combat troops to Iraq by restricting the administration’s military options in a new wartime spending bill.
“We’re gonna stop this surge,” the Pennsylvania Democrat declared in an interview posted on the Website MoveCongress.org.
Stepping up his campaign against the White House, Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, told Tom Andrews, a former congressman-turned-activist, in the online interview that he would attach so many conditions to an upcoming spending bill for Iraq that the Pentagon would not be able to find enough troops to carry out the president’s “surge” plan.
The Andrews group, the Win Without War Coalition, is part of a larger federation of anti-war groups sponsoring the site.
Murtha will oversee the $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that the House will consider in mid-March. And he wants to impose new restrictions on how the president can deploy combat forces from the United States to Iraq, allow combat veterans to have at least one year stateside before returning to the frontlines and prevent the Pentagon from keeping soldiers and Marines already in Iraq in uniform after their enlistments expire.
“This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge,” Murtha predicted of next month’s floor fight over the wartime supplemental appropriation. “We’re trying to force redeployment [of troops outside Iraq], not by taking money away but by redirecting it.”
Murtha is not pushing a total cutoff of funds for the war in Iraq. But he is considering measure to limit the military actions Bush can take against Iran, although the congressman was more cautious than his statements about Iraq.
“We are looking at the possibility of putting language in the bill that says you can’t go into Iran unless you have authorization [from Congress],” Murtha said.
Murtha also intends to push a provision to bar the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and to raze the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
The strategy being employed by Murtha and other House Democratic leaders would force Bush and Republican congressional leaders to accept the new troop restrictions, or face the possibility the supplemental spending bill would falter, thus cutting off all funding for the war.
Democrats are betting that Bush and the Republicans won’t take that risk and will go along with the Democratic proposals. And Republican leaders are not taking Murtha’s threats lightly.
The Republican National Committee has e-mailed supporters, urging them to contact newspapers and other media outlets to object to the congressman’s proposals.
The RNC was reacting to a story in The Politico on Wednesday that spelled out the Democratic strategy of cutting off the supply of troops available for the war, while retaining funding for forces already deployed in Iraq.
Without the troops to execute the surge, the Pentagon would find it increasingly difficult to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
Republicans have repeatedly charged that Democrats want to “cut off funding for the troops,” and the Democratic strategy seeks to deflect those charges.
The Democratic plan was characterized in The Politico as the “slow-bleed strategy,” which was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts.
The RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert.
“‘Slow bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy,” RNC Chairman Mike Duncan wrote in his e-mail, which included a Web link to donate to the GOP.
“Cutting and running is bad enough,’’ he said. “But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq.”
The National Republican Congressional Committee and Senate Republicans are also preparing to use the “slow-bleed” line in their own news releases, slamming Murtha and the Democrats.
By John Bresnahan
TM & © 2007 The Politico & Politico.com, a division of Allbritton Communications Company.





- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 14
- next
See all 687 CommentsThis resolution is a disaster of historical proportions.
The Democrap Party today will show the world what wimps and whiners that Democrats really are.
Heaven help us.
....
SOMETIMES I WONDER IF LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.....most people I know are a glass is hal-full kind of people, whereas liberals see nothing but doom, gloom, and surrender.
.........
This resolution is a disaster of historical proportions.
The Democrap Party today will show the world what wimps and whiners that Democrats really are.
Heaven help us.
....
SOMETIMES I WONDER IF LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.....most people I know are a glass is half-full kind of people, whereas liberals see nothing but doom, gloom, and surrender.
......
Murtha is saving the country and the troops from Bushes next failed plan. No more ignoring experts, generals and the will of the American people. The "Decider" needs to be put on permanent lame duck status before he screws anything else up.
Posted by notblue at 10:49 AM : Feb 16, 2007
Please explain to me how carrying out the WILL of the PEOPLE of this nation helps the enemy? When our NATION no longer has the right or ability for the PEOPLE to stop a Mad Dog President, who has lied and failed from day one, we no longer are what we claim to be.
How many lies do we have to uncover? How many of Bushes failed plans should we endure? How many blank checks does Congress have to write him? How many lives have to be lost before the last of his followers realize he is absolutely incompetent and cares nothing for the troops? Is a Trillion dollars enough? Is 3,100 dead and 50,000 wounded Americans enough? How about 500,000 Iraqis?
notblue, proccessor2
When do we get to expect results? When should we hold the "Decider" acountable.
You are right, we shouldn't leave Iraq in chaos. But the only hope for acomplishing this is bringing Iraq's neighbors to the barganing table. Bush is unable or unwilling to do this so the present plan will only be an escalation of a failed policy.
Posted by skyk at 10:57 AM : Feb 16, 2007
It has nothing to do with the "will of the people". Truth be known, the majority don't favor a timed withdrawal or pulling out before the country is stable. Maybe you're referring to the will of the HOLLYWOOD people?
Posted by nikosk1 at 11:05 AM : Feb 16, 2007
Shame on you for honoring a "war monger" like Murtha! War is NOT the answer! How can you respect someone for killing innocent woman and children??? He's a baby killer - like John (shoot them in the back) Kerry.
Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.
Bushies
What you Neocons fail to understand is that the moment this turned into a CIVIL WAR. All hope for "victory" was lost. It's done. There's no military solution that we can impose on this. Are Armies are trained to defeat other Armies not to play referee in a CIVIL WAR. You have to bring Iraq's neighbors to create a political solution. Anything else is just throwing fuel on the fire.
Posted by bluestardad at 11:09 AM : Feb 16, 2007
I appreciate your family's sacrifice and your daughter's service, but surely she must have known that being in the military is not having the latitude to pick and choose where and when we deploy. She's doing her duty and we respect her for it. Do yours by supporting her in her choice.
It's not a "civil war"......you don't know the definition of a "civil war". If you did, you would be proudly displaying your lack of understanding.
It's a CIVIL WAR people! Bush has no hope for resolving this as long as he's still in denial about this essential fact.
Google the phrase "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" along with the name "Thomas Jefferson" and you will find thousands of Web pages attributing the sentiment to the third president of the United States. The trouble is, notes reader Dave Forsmark, who has been waging a one-man campaign to correct what he believes to be a blatant misattribution, "the quote is about two years old, not 200. It was made by [historian] Howard Zinn in an interview with TomPaine.com to justify his opposition to the War on Terror." Someone erroneously attributed the quote to Jefferson soon after, and now seemingly everyone is doing it.
Nice try....go back to listening to Al Frankin while he's still on the air. Your Kool-Aide is waiting.
bigwhtneocon
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.
It's a CIVIL WAR!
Email your senators tell them your views! http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_in
formation/senators_cfm.cfm or http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
bigwhtpony
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have abandoned their homes and businesses to escape this CIVIL WAR. The country is segregating itself into Sunni and Shia. At least 3,000 Iraqis a month are dying in civil conflict. That's the reality.
Please tell us how this is not a CIVIL WAR?
Posted by frankly6 at 11:22 AM : Feb 16, 2007
Pretty good. That's correct.....textbook definition. They are not fighting for political power.....the two factions think their version of islam is the correct one. Believe it or not, that's what the fighting is all about.
Same with the protestants and catholics in northern Ireland. Not a civil war. If we can prop the government up to the point where they can take care of themselves, we will be able to turn it over and leave.
Posted by mocaleo at 11:23 AM : Feb 16, 2007
What's a matter jamocha ******? they don't have free speech in the s*hithole where you live?
Good job Dumbya!
Nothing is improving.
Iraq is in a shambles. There is nothing we can do to improve it. Most certainly, Iraq will not be able to create th sort of democracy that President Bush has spoken of since he had to shift his justification for the Iraq War from WMD's to democracy.
One of the main reasons that this will be impossible is embedded in Islam itself.
We revere our founding fathers for having the wisdom to realize that religion and government do best when they have as little to do with each other as possible.
Not only is this notion foreign to Islam. It is contrary to Islam, which teaches that government must be based on shariah (Islamic religious law).
As such, trying to turn Iraq into anything resembling democracy is like trying to apseurize sewage.
Dude that's Bullsh#t and you know it. Religion is just part of it. It's the deviding line. The north and south of the situation if you will. The main beefs are political and economic. Politicly the Sunnis are having a problem going from being the dominant force to playing a minority role. Economicly they are fighting for the division of oil wealth which lies almost exclusively in Shia territory.
About your last post.
You told him off good! I hope your daughter returns home safely soon!
Go get them Murtha!!!
Posted by bluestardad at 11:33 AM : Feb 16, 2007
So let's make the death a meaningless one by leaving. Died for nothing. That satisfy you. And you don't know anything about me, so shove your insults up your bluestar starfish!!!
I served my time in the rmy, army reserve, and the national guard. 10 years combined to be exact. I never saw combat but I did my time. So dry your eyes, blow your nose, and quit complaining. Your daughter has more going for her than you do.
I'm glad you think it's all about how Bush looks and not about three thousand dead American soldiers - lost in a hopeless mission.
What you Neocons fail to realize here is that this is now a CIVIL WAR. We are now playing referee in this CIVIL WAR and getting shot up by both sides. There is no military victory to be had here. The solution is mostly political. If there is to be a possitive outcome, it's going to have to be brought about by bringing in Iraq's neighbors.
Posted by bthale at 11:34 AM : Feb 16, 2007
That's EXACTLY what it is, bthale. I guarantee you that if this were Kerry or Gore running the show, these folks would be on the front row throwing their underwear up on the stage.
Email your senators tell them your views! http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_in
formation/senators_cfm.cfm or http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
charles1502
When the President has proven himself untrustworthy and incompetent someone must stand up and make him acountable. That's what's happening here. No more blank checks. No more failed plans that ignore the advice of generals and the will of the American people. No more wasted lives playing referee in a CIVIL WAR.
Posted by bthale at 11:34 AM : Feb 16, 2007
Yep! Altho he does well enough on his own w/o my help! This war is based on lies. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. I haven't hated a lying Moron as much as BushII since Ronnie ***!
They would rather bleed our military to a slow death than allow them a successful completion of the mission.
Impeach the traitor Democrats!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 14
- next
See all 687 Comments