Murtha In The Crosshairs

Hot Air has the video: Rep. Jack Murtha confronted about Haditha accusations

And as Hot Air notes, it just so happens that the charges against another Marine got dropped today.

Gateway Pundit has more: Cold-Blooded Jeff Gannon Confronts Murtha on Haditha (Video)

Murtha Quickly Redeploys to the Next Question.Washington reporter Jeff Gannonconfronts "Cold-Blooded" John Murtha during a Congressional Press Conference yesterday on Capital Hill. Gannon asks Murtha if he will apologize to the Haditha Marines he slandered!

More here.

The man has no shame.

Trouble for Murtha

Thomas More Law Center Agrees to Represent Haditha Marine

According to this article, the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to represent Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani in a civil suit against Rep. John Murtha if/when the charges against him are dropped.

Sounds like Murtha may be paying for his words "in cold blood" in cold, hard, cash.

Yet Another Haditha Marine Cleared

Ace:

Official Recommendation: Drop Charges against another Marine in Haditha case

The recommendation now goes to Marine Lt. General James Mattis. Mattis has already dropped charges against two other Marines based on similar recommendations.

More from Let Freedom Ring: Another Marine Deserves a Murtha Apology.

What say you, Jack Murtha?

Who Is Living In Palaces?

Remember Jack Murtha's accusation that U.S. troops were living in palaces in Iraq? His rhetoric undoubtedly brought to mind fat-bellied soldiers, wining and dining on Saddam's stock of wines and finest eats.

Well, as Mario Loyola writes, it isn't the troops who have it good, it's the diplomats.

Haditha Charges Dropped

...against one of the accused Marines.

Marine's Charges Dropped in Iraq Deaths

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A general dropped all charges Thursday against a Marine who
had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005. "The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision.

What say you, Jack Murtha?

Others covering the news:

assaulting the spire, Riehl World View, Euphoric Reality, Conservative Thoughts, and Chickenhawk Express.

A Dearth Of Integrity

Let Freedom Ring Blog:

The last thing John Murtha will vote for is genuine ethics reform. It’s a matter of public record that he’s one of the sleaziest, most unethical politicians in our nation’s history. He’s essentially the ruler of his military earmark ‘kingdom’. He’s earmarked funds, which are essentially no-bid contracts, to his friends who comprise the military infrastructure. In return, he’s received millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions.

There won't be any reform in this Congress under Jack "Ethics Reform is pure crap" Murtha.

The War On Terror's Greatest Hits

Hypocrisy left and, well... mostly left. In no particular order of ridiculousness...

I. Nancy Pelosi, speaking to NPR News in one of her [not so] finest moments:

Reporter: “In Afghanistan, why are more troops the answer? Why would one consider more troops going into Afghanistan, and not Iraq?”

Pelosi: “They’re two different situations - the war on terror is in Afghanistan."

II. John Edwards 2007: The "war on terror" is nothing but a "bumper sticker."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats — including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who said they did not believe there was a global "war on terror."

III. John Edwards 2004: "I think we will be united with this President throughout this war on terrorism."

IV. al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri:

Ayman Al-Zawahiri defended the Islamic State of Iraq — the insurgent umbrella group headed by Al Qaeda — against critics among Islamic militant groups, saying it was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a "caliphate" of Islamic rule across the region.

"The Islamic State of Iraq is set up in Iraq, the mujahedeen (holy warriors) celebrate it in the streets of Iraq, the people demonstrate in support of it," Al-Zawahiri said, "pledges of allegiance to it are declared in the mosques of Baghdad."

V. Brigadier General Kevin Bergner Multi-National Force-Iraq Spokesperson:

"The security environment in Iraq continues to be characterized by a number of threats... today we will provide an update on the principal near term threat to Iraq, which is al Qaeda of Iraq. In their own statements, al Qaeda leaders have declared Iraq their central front... our intelligence community, the government of Iraq, and the MNF all assess aqi as the main near term threat. AQI is a network led and fueled by foreign extremists who envision a new caliphate, and according to al Qaeda senior leader Zawahiri's latest video, they claim the al Qaeda gateway to victory starts in Iraq."

VI. Congressman Gary Ackerman (D) of New York:

For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, because they’re very brave with the terrorists. I mean, if the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad.

VII. Young Male Gang Raped for Refusing to Convert to Islam

VIII. Murtha last year on the accused Haditha Marines:

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.———-“It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

IX. "They went into houses and killed women and children... in cold blood!"


X. Investigator Recommends Dropping Charges on Haditha Marine:

The investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against Marine LCpl. Justin Sharratt accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in Haditha, Iraq.

XI. Now Congressman Murtha is running for cover from the press about his hyperbolic comments.

XII. Biden/Kerry in June, 2005:

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."

XIII. Biden in February, 2007:

Appearing on Face the Nation the next day, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, proposed his alternate route to stopping Mr. Bush from sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. "I've been working with some of my colleagues to try to convince them that's the way to go – to repeal and restate the president's authority," Biden told Bob Schieffer. "Make it clear that the purpose that he has troops in there is to in fact protect against al Qaeda gaining chunks of territory, training the Iraqi forces, force protection and for our forces. It's not to get in the midst of a civil war."

Murtha: Obviously, it's America's fault

Every action results in a reaction. Isn't that some kind of law of physics? Science is not my strong-suit.

Action: Aspiring terrorists plot to blow up fuel supplies at JFK airport.

Reaction: Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha deduces that the war in Iraq is to blame.

More at Flopping Aces and NewsBusters.

Perhaps the Congressman can help me with the chronology, my memory must be failing. Was 9/11 perpetrated before the war in Iraq, or after? How about the first World Trade Center bombing? The USS Cole bombing? The African embassy bombings? The Khobar Towers?

Rather than use the JFK plot as a jumping off point to analyze domestic terrorism in an intellectual manner, Murtha resorts to his bumbling, meandering, tired old ad hominem attacks.

On the other hand, Counterterrorism Blog explores the Ramifications of the JFK Plot:

The take-down of the suspected radical Islamic terror cell threatening to blow up JFK airport yesterday highlights, yet again, key national security issues related to our immigration system. The alleged ringleader of the plot, Russell Defreitas, is reported to be a 63 year old naturalized US citizen from Guyana. It is not yet clear from released information when he naturalized; however, information gleaned from the criminal complaint indicates he developed his Islamic-inspired hatred for America years ago. The question, of course, is did he harbor such anti-American feelings before he became a naturalized US citizen? If he did, he likely would have lied in the process of becoming naturalized.

It may be too much to ask from a politician to hold a frank and honest discussion on a Sunday news program, given the need to use the pulpit to resort to partisan politics. However, that in mind, Murtha's ignominious comments are no easier to swallow.

Murtha the... Liar? Fool? Moron?

The Blog Confederate Yankee does a great job summing up Jack Murtha's fallacious diatribe about General Petraeus refusing to meet with Congress. Read it here: Murtha's Mangled Memory.

Not only did John Murtha speak with General Petraeus for half an hour the day prior to the closed session, he also attended the closed session as well.

Honest mistake, faulty memory, or political treachery?

You decide.

Iraq Attack

As Democrats today proposed to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months, China hurled its own salvo's:

China on Thursday criticized the United States for trampling on Iraq’s sovereignty, using its campaign against terrorism as an excuse to carry out torture and violate the rights of its citizens.

The charges came in a report titled the “Human Rights Record of the United States in 2006,” China’s response to US criticism of Beijing’s human rights record in a report released Tuesday by the US State Department.

While it is true that many will smirk and shake their head at the thought of China accusing any nation of human rights abuses, these blows come at the same time Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars writing in Foreign Policy, estimates that the United States is spending money at a rate of $250,000 a minute in Iraq. Ouch.

China's criticisms are no surprise, they are playing good cop to our (percieved) bad cop. Why not capitalize on our bad press? Their moves are calculated and obvious.

The dollars we are spending in Iraq, if accurate, are breathtaking. It is easy for Americans to stop and think what we could have done with all that money channeled somewhere else... erase poverty? Combat global warming? Pay down the debt? It is true that the number is staggering, and we also know that the figure will continue to grow.

However, put aside the monetary loss in dollars and cents, and it is difficult to quantify our immeasurable gains/losses with respect to world perception. I do not mean whether or not the world likes us - which is certainly important. Rather, how can we measure our enemy's perception? How much fear have we stricken into their souls? How many terrorist attacks have we deterred by tying up fanatical jihadis in the desert? How closely are North Korea, Iran, Russia and China watching our steps?

In the West, our perceptions of life, liberty and happiness are not comparable with other lands. We value life more than many other regions of the world... but not because we have a superior culture or values. Life is taken much more often in developing countries around the globe, and thus death is viewed differently. So is power.

It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts.

~Bill Vaughan

Our Islamic enemies in the middle east; the insurgents and jihadis - have a radically different view of death (as glorious in the name of jihad, which will reward them with 72 virgins in heaven). Yet, they also have a radically different view of life. Not only do they wish to be ruled under the thumb of strict Shari'a law, bound by the letter of the Koran, but in daily life, throughout the wilds of the middle east, power carries the day.

Power brings us full circle to Iraq. The United States has shown the world that we can invade a malignant dictator's country, occupy it with 100,000+ troops, support a democratically elected government, and still lose less than 3,300 soldiers in over four years. That must send chills into the Sunni, Shi'ite, Communist, repressive authoritarian bones of our enemies. The knowledge that a superbly equipped and efficient American military machine has stood up to Islamic fascism, looked into the eye of false prophets and zealous clerics while taming a dangerous foreign land is not to be underestimated.

All of this taken together has me perplexed. Why Democrats in Congress have:

proposed legislation Thursday that would have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 -- or sooner if certain benchmarks of progress aren't met.

The troop withdrawal timetables are embedded in appropriations legislation that provides money for care of wounded troops, for better equipment and training, and for expanded operations in Afghanistan.

The plan will "refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting the war on terrorism where it began," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said at a Capitol Hill news conference.

Democrats may be right. If these benchmarks are met, the U.S. could surely safely stand to slowly pull out of Iraq. But it begs the question - wouldn't the president remove our troops if the country was stable? What leads Pelosi, Murtha, et. al to believe that they have more information than the President on this matter? Why would a Congressman want to micromanage a war? I would not want that responsibility if I were in Congress.

By playing the silent, supportive role, Congress could reap greater rewards. If the war goes well, they can claim that they've been supporting it and have supplied funding. If the war turns even more sour, they can blame the President. It's virtually a win-win for them. Yet, by interjecting their own spin, their own detailed plans, they are setting themselves up for an equal share of the blame should Iraq spiral out of control. Their rhetoric also helps to vindicate the terrorists' thinking.

Lastly, I do not necessarily fault Congress for taking an active role, but the aggressive manner in which some, like Representative Murtha, have virtually thrown a monkey-wrench into the debate through bumbling words "Our troops live in palaces," to trumping their own leadership by grandstanding and offering multiple plans for action. If Congress wants to support the troops, do so by formulating a coherent policy, one that will not require the Congress to micromanage the war.

Loose talk about the troops, rambling interviews on movecongress.org, and desecrating soldiers' memories by calling their lives wasted serves no purpose.

The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
~ George Orwell

Whoever does not have the stomach for this fight, let him depart. Give him money to speed his departure since we wish not to die in that man’s company. Whoever lives past today and comes home safely will rouse himself every year on this day, show his neighbor his scars, and tell embellished stories of all their great feats of battle. These stories will teach his son and from this day until the end of the world we shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for whoever has shed blood with me shall be my brother. And those men afraid to go will think themselves lesser men as they hear of how we fought and died together.
~ Shakespeare, Henry V

Democrats: Iraq plan, the remix

Congressman Jack Murtha failed miserably when he sought to surprise everyone (and his own party) by throwing an Iraq plan together without telling anyone. His idea takes a good deal of decision-making power out of the hands of the military and the President, and puts it in Congress' hands. Because most rational Democrats realized this policy was doomed for utter failure and would have meant disaster for our troops on the ground, CNN reports: House Democrats try again on Iraq

House Democrats on Wednesday continued to work on a compromise plan for the Iraq war that would try to bridge differences within the party after backing away from legislation that would set conditions on war funding.

Instead of debating the war this week, the chamber will complete a homeland security bill that implements the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

Some Democrats say:

Senate Democrats on the left who voted against the war in 2002 say they will not support any measure that backs an Iraq mission.

"I'm not going to go for something that says, 'OK, here's a new mission, we're going to authorize this,' " said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin. "I want to get us out of there."

Others say:

On the other side of the spectrum, some moderate Democrats in the Senate told CNN they are not comfortable with passing something that doesn't have bipartisan support and are unsure about supporting something that looks like Congress micromanaging the war.

On the face of it, the average observer may think the Democrats have decided on tactical retreat; knowing they could not agree even amongst themselves, it was better to watch and wait for the war to get worse (which they believe is inevitable). These Democrats (and some Republicans) may be waiting a long time. Since the surge has begun, attacks have been down sharply in Iraq.

Rather, beyond lacking votes for their micromanagement bill, and beyond the newfound stability on the ground in Iraq, Democrats may have realized a few things. For one, they should stick to their strengths, such as the issues that got them elected: Domestic issues. Ethics reform. The environment.

Secondly, Democrats surely realize that one reason they were divided amongst themselves was... their arguments for withdrawal hold no water. Worse, still - the arguments for staying in Iraq and fighting are so much stronger.

For example, Max Boot's Going it alone because we have to powerfully lays out the recent history of U.S. and allied armed conflicts, and further documents American's hegemony:

TONY BLAIR'S decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq is understandable.
The prime minister had to make a difficult decision about where to allocate
Britain's scarce resources...

The tragedy is that he had to rob Peter to pay Paul because Britain can't
maintain 7,000 troops in Iraq and 7,000 in Afghanistan. Those are hardly huge numbers for a country of 60 million with the fifth-largest national economy in the world. Yet even as Britain has continued to play a leading role in world affairs, it has allowed its defenses to molder.

The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing
has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.

Britain is hardly alone in its unilateral disarmament. A similar trend can be discerned among virtually all of the major U.S. allies, aside from Japan. Canada is a particularly poignant case in point. At the end of World War II, Canada had more than a million men under arms and operated the world's third-biggest navy (behind the U.S. and Britain), with more than 400 ships. Today, it has all of 62,000 personnel on active duty, and its navy has just 19 warships and 23 support vessels, making it one-fourth the size of the U.S. Coast Guard.

The primary culprit is declining defense spending among U.S. allies. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, defense budgets among NATO members, excluding the U.S., have fallen from 2.49% of gross domestic product in 1993 to 1.8% of GDP in 2005. Britain is actually above the norm, spending 2.3% of GDP, or $52 billion, on defense. Canada, with a defense budget of $13 billion, is below the norm, at 1.1%.

But all those expenditures fade into insignificance by comparison with the U.S., which spends $495 billion a year, or 4% of the world's largest GDP, on its armed forces. That's more than the rest of NATO combined, even though the other countries have, in aggregate, greater demographic and economic resources. Unless the other NATO members are willing to step up their spending — and what are the odds of that? — there is scant chance that their gripes about American unilateralism will ever be rectified. We act alone, or almost alone, not out of choice but out of necessity.

Boot makes a number of excellent points. But Democrats may also feel besieged from what they may think are traditional bastions of anti-war thinking. TimesWatch reports: Another Times Reporter Goes on Rose Show and Says Bush's "Surge" May Work

Here's an excerpt from Sabrina Tavernise's lead-off interview with Charlie Rose :

"It's surprising, I know, because it seems like such -- you know, such an unmitigated sadness and tragedy for a lot of people -- you know, for the nation, for the people there, but, you know, it's really – it's really true that if you held an election tomorrow and you asked every single Iraqi, are you -- would you do it again? Would you have the U.S. do it again? You'd have close to 80 percent of the population, which is the Shiites and the Kurds, saying yes, they should.

"When you say work -- I think that the surge could definitely have an effect, a good effect, in the neighborhoods for bringing violence down. I think it could. I mean, I studied a number of different neighborhoods where the mere presence of American troops actually did bring down the murder rate. In one particular example, by about a third, which is significant, you know, significant. It's a lot of bodies that aren't turning up in sewers every morning. So that's not small.

She sums it up:

"I think that American soldiers have a very important function in Iraq right now. I think that -- that if everyone left immediately, it would be an unmitigated disaster."

Words like these, echoed from the lips of a New York Times reporter, do not bode well for the Democrats' Iraq pullout hopes. The time has come for those who believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, which I believe it was, to open their mind to the facts on the groun. America is not losing in Iraq. The reality of the war does not support inflammatory rhetoric which is embellished by staunch anti-war advocates.

Both left and right want America to prosper. Let's start by helping America win in Iraq.

Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs - Slow Bleed Is Dead

Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy but a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided 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.



read more | digg story

Did Murtha say the troops lived in palaces?

Which palace, this palace?
Army to return Saddam palace complex to Iraq
10/5/2005

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army is returning Saddam Hussein's most elaborate presidential complex, a sprawling network of 136 buildings overlooking the Tigris River here, to Iraq's government.

Although the palace may have fared better in American hands...
Palace transfer reportedly gave keys to looters

BAGHDAD, Iraq – On Nov. 22, the top U.S. military and civilian leaders in Iraq handed over Saddam Hussein's most lavish palace compound to the safekeeping and control of the new Iraqi army and government, in a ceremony whose intended symbolism was as impossible to ignore as the military brass band.

Or this palace?
Hurry Up and Wait
Among the rear echelons in Iraq
by Max Boot 03/20/2006, Volume 011, Issue 25

I write these words, for instance, while sitting on a patio at one of Saddam Hussein's palace complexes in Baghdad, now part of sprawling Camp Victory adjacent to Baghdad International Airport. The weather is perfect (about 70 degrees, with a light breeze), the water in the man made lake is lapping gently against the patio, and the beige-stone Al Faw Palace (now the headquarters of Multi-National Corps-Iraq) looms majestically in the background. The stillness is interrupted only by the occasional thwup-thwup-thwup of a Blackhawk flight.

Who would expect such a moment of bliss in the middle of a war? Yet there were several such pleasant interludes during a week spent hopscotching around U.S. installations in central and northern Iraq. For all the hazards of duty in Iraq--and make no mistake, every Humvee or helicopter ride risks disaster--I discovered that troops (and their visitors) can enjoy considerable comforts while on base.

Yet no matter how luxurious the base, the specter of death is never far off, whether in a random mortar or rocket attack, or in all the facilities named after soldiers killed in action. (To take only one of countless examples, Forward Operating Base Gabe in Baqubah, home of the 1st battalion, 68th Armor Regiment--itself named for a slain soldier--has a physical fitness center named after Specialist Isaac M. Nieves, who died on April 8, 2004.) Even the tranquility of the patio at Camp Victory was broken in the early evening by a haunting memorial service for a sergeant slain a few days earlier.

Life ain't easy on base

"I've never worked as little as a 12-hour day yet," one sergeant told me. Eighteen-hour days seem to be the norm, and days off are unheard of. (Soldiers do get a couple of weeks of R&R in the rear or back home in the middle of a one-year deployment.) In many units, one soldier will be sent to fetch lunch from the DFAC (dining facility) so that everyone else can continue working. Others skip lunch altogether or gobble a PowerBar on the run.

One colonel, a brigade commander, told me that the only break he gets comes when he gets his hair cut. I believe him--after all, we were conducting our interview at 10 p.m., and he was still in the office. "If you work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, and you don't drink alcohol, it's amazing how much you can get done," a senior general joked.

No alcohol? That's right: No booze is allowed at U.S. bases in Iraq; troops have to make do with nonalcoholic beer. This abstinence policy is prompted by the desire not to offend local sensibilities even though many Iraqis are happy to take a drink themselves. Given how common pre-combat drinking or drug-taking was in centuries past (think of the rum ration), the U.S. armed forces today may field the soberest soldiers ever sent into harm's way.

For intelligence specialist Amber Fisher, life in Camp Victory was no picnic: She's enjoying life in Verona after year in Iraq

Her 12- to-14-hour days in Camp Victory were "fast-paced and overwhelming." Ms. Fisher worked every day and didn't even take a two-week leave during her stay. She didn't want to experience the sadness she witnessed in those who returned from leaves and had to become re-accustomed to life in Baghdad.

Ms. Fisher said she became used to the nightly mortaring outside the camp -- earsplitting from inside the trailer in which she lived with five other soldiers. "Imagine sleeping at 3 a.m. and there would be an explosion that would shake the trailer so loudly, it would be deafening. Lights would fall from the ceiling. We had several windows blown out," she said. By the time a team went out to investigate, they would find only the tubes from the rockets.

American troops have lived no bucolic, lackadaisical lifestyle in Iraq, whether they're in a palace or not. As for Murtha's call to limit American troop deployments to one year, here is some history:

During the two months that the Battle of the Bulge was fought, 80,000 Americans died. My grandfather survived the battle, which began for him after only two months rest from the battle of the Hurtgen Forest.

33 months - The average length of active-duty by U.S. military personnel during WWII. My grandfather served 53 months; from May 1941 - October 1945.

16 months - The average time U.S. personnel served overseas during WWII. My grandfather served 33 months: November 1942 - August 1945.

Supreme Sacrifice 292,000 - The number of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines killed in battle in WWII. The 39th infantry regiment, 9th Infantry Division, in which my grandfather served, suffered a 251% casualty rate.

Democrats on Iraq

This week, Hillary Clinton has called for a pull out from Iraq within 90 days. No word yet whether or not Congress will cut funds. Probably not.

Senator Chuck Schumer boldy stated:

“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”

Representative Jack Murtha offered his "slow bleed" plan:

Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, has said he would seek to block new deployments by requiring troops to meet a series of conditions and training guidelines. A day before the vote, he presented his plan in a 24-minute broadcast on MoveCongress.org, a Web sitededicated to ending the war.

As Decision 08 noted, both the New York Times and Washington Post strongly criticized Murtha's plan:

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. ...So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill... rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

The New York Times continues the same thread:

We fear that clever maneuvers like the one proposed by Representative John Murtha, reportedly with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a “support the troops” measure won’t help contain the war or make American troops safer. Mr. Murtha would link this year’s war financing to the Pentagon’s adoption of new deployment rules, including longer stretches from the battlefield for returning troops, more specialized training and better defensive equipment. That would let representatives cast a politically safe vote for financing the war, while forcing the Pentagon to gradually reduce the number of active duty troops available to serve in Iraq.

This page has advocated many of the same reforms — but not as a back-door way of forcing lower troop numbers in Iraq. Congress’s overriding goal must be to find the most responsible way to extricate American troops from what is becoming an increasingly unwinnable war, while trying to contain the suffering and minimizing the damage to American interests in the region.

However, Maureen Dowd warns Democrats: "Dems Risk Image Woes Over Iraq War Moves"

Still, the small but vocal band of lawmakers led by Kucinich who are pushing for an immediate cutoff of war funding and withdrawal of troops could pose a problem. Democrats could suffer politically if the party is perceived by the public as being too quick to pull the plug on the mission.

Lawrence Haas, former communications Director for Al Gore, echoed that warning in The Examiner:

But, in playing to their anti-war political base, congressional Democrats are pushing party orthodoxy on foreign policy further to the left. After a two-year campaign, any successful Democratic candidate for president may wind up with little leeway to project U.S. power abroad.

The Democrats are on a slippery slope. They are now fighting a war on multiple fronts; supporting the troops, conducting oversight, placating the anti-war base, pushing for a withdrawl, and, ostensibly, helping protect the country from terrorism. That's a lot of wars to be fighting at once.