Raising the temperature in Congress over U.S. policy in Iraq, a pro-military Democrat who once voted to back the war now says it is time to bring the troops home
Good! But, like Bill Clinton, his reasons for now opposing the war have nothing to do with it being based on lies nor does he question the decades-old US policy of imperialism that fueled it.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Rep. John Murtha said Thursday.
And he was expecting, what? You invade a country, you should expect the locals will fight back. Except of course if you are arrogantly convinced of your superiority and thus assume the populace will not dare oppose you. A mistake the Pentagon made in Vietnam too.
"They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
The insurgents want the US out. Insurgents are like that. They dislike having their country invaded, homes bombed, and populace terrorized by foreign powers lusting for their resources and occupying their homeland.
This is a lesson that should have been learned by our rulers in Vietnam, but I guess not.
I don’t agree with everything Murtha said (transcript), and I certainly don’t respect him for his vote for the war in 2002. However, he makes a lot of valid points, as well as great talking points for those of us supporting immediate withdrawal. Chief among these are 1) Things are getting worse; 2) Our troops are the targets and focus of the insurgency; 3) and let’s declare victory and come home–Iraq has no WMD’s, Saddam is out of power–we won. He also calls the war a “flawed policy wrapped in illusion,” and says that “The main reason for going to war has been discredited.”
Murtha supplies plenty of solid talking points for Democrats looking to change their tune. Even Dems like my senators (Levin and Stabenow) and representative (Dingell), who all voted against the war, have argued that we can’t “cut and run.” Murtha provides them with forceful arguments that not only can we, but we have to (although they’d be wise not to call it “cut and run”). While preparing the way for impeachment by pointing out the lies of the administration is important, it is not something that most Dems are in a position of strength to argue, since most of them voted for the war, or at least accepted the WMD lie as gospel (as the Repugs have been pointing out for the past week). But there is nothing hypocritical about pointing out the obvious–the war is going badly and the occupation IS the problem.
Hopefully Murtha and Republicans like “Freedom Fries” Jones can do what we peaceniks haven’t been able to for nearly three years: bring the troops home!
Actually, Clinton’s reasons for opposing the war actually are because it was based on lies as well as the questionable tactics used in waging the war.
But as for the invasion, Clinton apparently has no problem with that and Hillary seems to agree. They, if they could, would have no problems in carrying on the war.
There are still no creditable politicians taking a stand on ending it.
It almost certainly will carry on until the 2008 election and at this point, will carry on beyond that.
It’s because of us peaceniks that some in Congress are finally moving against the war!
I just wish some of them would actually criticize the reasons for the war. And then explore why the US seems to like to invade countries.
I’ll identify myself as Bob G. to distinguish myself from the worthy proprietor of this establishment. I wrote the first comment above.
All I’m saying is that while I agree that 1) the war was based on lies and that the invasion was a crime, and 2) that the troops should be brought home ASAP, starting now, it doesn’t mean that the two have to be argued as one point. I don’t agree with the arguments that we can’t leave now, but most Democrats, even those who opposed the war, make those arguments. And theoretically, I can see the validity of them. Suppose an illegal invader were actually showing progress in helping to rebuild the country and provide it with stability and improve the freedom of the citizens. In my mind, this wouldn’t justify the invasion, but it would arguably support the case for slowing the withdrawal. Murtha is providing the argument that progress is not being made; in fact things are getting worse for both Iraq and the US by our continued presence. It isn’t an argument for or against the legality of the war. It is a practical and moral argument against the occupation, one which people who supported or opposed the war originally can latch on to without necessarily appearing hypocritical (although most Republicans have tossed that opportunity out the window just since yesterday).
So, I guess I agree with the other Bob; Murtha’s reasons for ending the occupation have little to do with it being based on lies. I just don’t have a problem with that. Murtha’s reasons are valid, even if incomplete.