There's an interesting article in today's Washington Post entitled, "Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs: Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks." The gist of it is that Murtha supposedly "botched" the launch of a plan to "grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment." According to the Post story, Murtha's appearance on the liberal, anti-war Moveon.org site (2/15) apparently backfired big-time, "unit[ing] Republicans and divid[ing] Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week." Aside from the venue of Murtha's announcement, many Democrats reportedly viewed Murtha's announcement as "disloyal" to Nancy Pelosi, coming just a "day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke." Whoops.
Anyway, the end result of all this is that "the Democratic rank-and-file cracked -- on the left and the right." Which leaves us...somewhere, nobody knows where, on a strategy to stop the Iraq "surge." My question for the day is this: was Murtha's big mistake his appearance on MoveOn, his timing and not so much his venue, the unwillingness of Democrats to fight back hard enough against Republican attacks, all of the above, or none of the above? What do you think?
That House Dems can't get behind this speaks volumes about a leadership vacuum in that body. Hopefully Pelosi can get the caucus, minus the Republican Lites, back on board after the recess.
Congress is EXPLICITLY given the power in Article I Section 8 to regulate the armed forces ("To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces") and organize and govern the militia ("To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"), along with the power of the purse. It seems to me that actually amending the rules regarding the deployment of troops is the BEST way to reshape war policy without treading on Article II, Commander-in-Chief territory.
That the Democrats still don't know how to read and use the Constitution to fight this inept President and Republican talking points is disheartening. We know that they are 100% dishonest and will say whatever it takes to try to tar and feather the non-true believers. Seeing "Blue Dogs" and other Dems directly using their talking points in such an article is sickening.
Murtha's plan, however ham-fisted he may have been in introducing it to the caucus, ought to be fought for. It's the only way to gain enough leverage in the fight over veto, by tying it to the actual appropriations for the war, to have a realistic chance of passing.
First most of the American people who remember Vietnam are against such action.
Second it will play right into the President's and Carl Rove's plan. They want out but do not have the courage, so they are attempting to embarrass the Democrats and use it against them. Can't anyone see the spin and recognize it for what it is?
Third it is the entire Republican Parties plan to embarrass the Democrats. There are few Republicans who have the guts to save lives and really want to win Iraq the right way. To win the way the Baker commission suggested, is not the Republican ideal so they will not follow it. Had they decided to go this route they would all be endorsing it.
This week turn on CSpan1 and 2 and listen to all the Republican spin about defunding. Don't fall for it as you listen. Really keep an open mind and the spin will become reality for what it is and the truth will be known. It is all a plan to force defunding and embarrassing for '08.
Politics are moe important then American lives to Republicans and Carl Rove and Dick Cheney and Condi. Bush is just their puppet.
In 2000 it was apparent this country was in trouble when I heard Bush say' "I am a deligator", which means he does not have ideals of what to do, so he delegates to others in hope they will come up with the right answer. Those words are a true indicator the man is NOT a leader. Never was a decider and never will be a decider.
He is a Deligater, period.
But remember Murtha's long connections with the ,ilitary insiders at the Pentagon. Would he have come out with this plan if it did not really suit his military friends? Is perhaps this plan really what the military insiders want, and Murtha is merely expressing it for them? Or, at least, expressing his understanding of what the military really wants, but cannot express against their Commander in Chief while they are still on active duty? (See the article on RK below this one, about militaryflag officers ready to resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran).
And for heaven's sake, where is Pelosi in all this? Congress may not be in session, but she is still Speaker; where is the Democratic Majority leader, Hoyer? Why have they not spoken up forcefully in response to the Republican smears? Once again, the Democrats should make instant response to Republican smears and attacks of any kind; Murtha should not be left twisting in the wind. It would not have taken much (a phone call between Pelosi and Hoyer? conference call among Pelosi-Hoyer-Murtha?) to come up with a story line and a few attacks of their own.
In this day of Instant Messaging the Democrats' inability to "fill the vacuumn" is not understandable; really, not acceptable. Get on the ball, Nancy and Stenny.
But even that is unusual. In the past, when top ranking military leaders retired, they still stayed above the fray and refrained from criticism of the president, except in cases where they had an active interest in entering politics themselves.
It's obvious from the number of retired officers now critical of Iraq and from Murtha's public statements, which probably do reflect a lot of the active military leaders' opinions, that the military is as deeply troubled about this war as the rest of us.
And yes, Teddy is also right to ask where is the Democratic leadership. With Bush's approval ratings in the low 30s at best and public disapproval for the war at an all time high, why are they still so timid about taking a stand?
They shouldn't defund it because that could be spun as pulling the rug out from under the troops all ready there. But short of that they need to speak with one voice in condemning the administration for getting us into an unnecessary war and for the incompetent way it has conducted the war.
That, after all, is what they were elected to do.
One must ask Why? Why, again and again, when someone, whether Republican or Democrat, raises their head above the crowd and implies some criticism, why do they always cave in? Can it be that the universal spying on everyone instituted by Bush has provided him or Rove with various tidbits of derogatory information on opponents that they can use to blackmail these opponents, and buy their silence? Do the Republican big money bags secretly buy the opponents off some how? How else to explain the consistent derelection of duty?