It hasn’t been easy watching the House Republicans debate the non-binding anti-escalation bill over the last three days. I’ve watched quite a bit of it…several hours today alone. Part of my problem has been listening to the same old stale rhetoric about the United States being in a fight for survival. Let me be plain: the only fight for survival we are engaged in is in stopping the neo-conservatives from breaking our military, draining our treasury, and using nuclear weapons. And that’s the problem. I don’t consider Moqtada al-Sadr to be my enemy. I consider Dick Cheney to be my enemy. I think he is a traitor…he probably thinks I am a traitor.
But I still have a problem with the Murtha Plan. Murtha is going to attach ‘requirements that troops be given at least a year’s rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide’ to the next military appropriations bill.
The idea is not really to make sure that all troops being deployed to Iraq are well-trained and equipped. The idea is to make it impossible for Bush to sustain troop levels because he will not be able to replace troops that are rotated out. It’s a backhanded way of ending the occupation of Iraq. And it’s not surprising that the Republicans are going nuts about it. It is a very controversial thing to do and it could set a troubling precedent.
Murtha’s plan represents an absolute vote of no confidence in the President as commander-in-chief. Of that, there can be no doubt. The Republicans are squealing that the Democrats are hypocrites to unanimously approve General Petraeus but then turn around and undermine his mission. They’re saying that, if we don’t think the mission will work, we should just defund it rather than try to micromanage the deployments or strangle off the supply of troops. These are valid criticisms.
The commander-in-chief has a job to do and he can’t do it with Congress interfering in his ability to deploy troops. But here is the problem for Republicans. They aren’t giving us any alternatives. They won’t vote to defund the war. They will filibuster any attempt to defund the war. So, defunding the war isn’t an option.
The people clearly want Congress to end the war. How can it be accomplished? Murtha’s plan has a lot of advantages. It creates votes that the Republicans will be loathe to oppose. Do they want to vote for sending troops into battle without proper training and equipment? Do they want to vote for longer deployments? So, the first point is that Murtha has crafted a strategy than can actually win votes. Even more clever, he is going to attach it to the military appropriation so the President cannot veto it without losing his funding for Iraq.
It all looks like it can be effective. And it is more important to be effective than it is to do things a better way and be ineffective. But this is a very ugly way of getting this done. There is going to be a lot of bad blood about this for a very long time to come. The Republicans will argue forever that the Democrats used a cheap stunt to undermine the war effort. Rather than leaving the responsibility for losing in Iraq at the administration’s doorstep, they’ll be placing it on Congress. To some extent, they would attempt to do this no matter what strategy the Democrats used to end the war. But this one will have especial resonance because it involves, not voting to end the war, but interfering in the President’s ability to wage the war.
I wish there were some other way. Here’s what I hope will happen. Rather than see our effort in Iraq end because of an inability to meet Murtha’s high deployment standards, I’d like to see the President see the writing on the wall. It’s over. Stop struggling. Your legacy is already fucked. If you want to salvage something, get together with Congress and work out a phased withdrawal. Bring in the Jordanians, the Turks, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Egyptians. Sit down and figure something out. Knock off all the crap about Iran. We have enough on our plate right now.
And if the President won’t do that, then Murtha should go ahead and carry out his plan. But if we go that route we should set John Conyers free to start impeachment hearings. If we get to that point, it would be better to just replace our commander-in-chief.
the vote on the Iraq War Resolution is starting. It’s on C-SPAN.
Respectfully disagree:
Murtha is only asking that the same standards that the Pentagon recommends be adhered to. Murtha knows the generals, he’s still speaking for them.
But he should keep it simple. Don’t embed too many specifics. Think of the world in sound bytes.
2008–Why did you vote against body armor, Mr. Republican?
what part do you disagee with?
Don’t disagree…I am just concerned that the Dems will over-explain it, get into long, drawn out amendments when it can be really simple, black and white.
While the effect of this may be to create something less subject to opposition, might it be that Murtha actually wants to help those stuck in that quagmire? It is remotely possible.
yes. That is what he is doing.
Boo, when are you going to get over this wide-eyed hope that Bush will do something right? He and Cheney are the enemy: of freedom, of the troops, of America. Congress has the power of the purse. It has not only the right, but the obligation to use it.
Yeah, it would be nice if our government operated on the basis of reason, good intentions, and transparency, but we’re a long way from that vision. It doesn’t matter what Bush says, it doesn’t matter what the GOP says. We’ve all been bitching for years about the Dems’ lack of spine. Now they’re finally doing what they have to do the way they have to do it — so what’s with the handwringing?
I do agree that anything Congress can do short of impeachment is only a partial solution to a true national crisis. It’s way past time to play the impeachment card against Bush AND Cheney.
It’s handwringing over the gray areas in the separation of powers. This administration is really forcing our hand, but I would vastly prefer not to have Congress interfering in troop movements. It’s dangerous territory and it will not be forgotten or forgiven.
Big hug and kisses Boo. 1000%
Couple of questions:
Did you include Joe Lieberman among the Republicans that are going nuts? Josh Marshall’s finds Joe predicting a Constitutional Crisis.
Now we all know him to be the neo-Cons’ darling.
Have you read Murray Waas’ “Cheney’s Call” and if we look closely at the exhibits offered at Libby’s trial, we see that Cheney is in fact President of the United States, Bush just pretends to be…every now and again.
Since Cheney does give instructions, scuttles and usurp we should be able to impeach him.
Let the Impeaching begin.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Clearly, Murtha’s bill is getting into the commander-in-chief’s territory. But I wouldn’t worry about bad precedent. Everything that’s happened in the past six years sets a bad precedent.
I am surprised to see the usual liberal hand-wringing from you, BooMan, about responding in kind to the Rethugs. We must fight fire with fire.
And worrying about creating “bad blood”? These people have turned the US government into a criminal conspiracy! How can there not be bad blood with such people?
Hopefully, this will give Dems some much needed exercise in flexing their muscles. Their political skills for fighting the criminal predations of the Rethugs are badly atrophied.
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress
It is absolutely, 100%, the prerogative of Congress to set requirements for deploying troops. Indeed, given that Bush has been deploying inadequately trained and equipped troops for years, they’re shirking their (implied) Constitutional duties if they do not put some restrictions on him.
As with Obama’s “wasted lives” comment (the normal and traditional way to describe soldiers who die in combat without benefiting their nation) the right is in a panic over this idea as it threatens the constricted discourse they need to keep the populace assenting to this horror of a war.
may want (as I do) to include language in their bill that any additional funding beyond present levels will be retricted to efforts aimed at bringing troops home.
This accomplishes a multitude of good things:
1. The Republicans are going to claim that the surge is needed to “protect” our eventual troop withdrawl and avoid a precipitous retreat (“like the Democrats are doing” — political aside). So let’s appropriate their argument and admit it’s true;
2. Such a restriction will force the administration to begin an actual withdrawl of military personnel and not just draw down the mercenaries we’ve got over there;
3. Such a restriction effectively prevents further escalation of fighting forces, whether military or mercenary;
4. Such a restriction is easily seen by the American people as a direct strong support of troops as opposed to a support of the war. Republicans can not conflate the legislation as being anti-troops because it is anti-stay the course.
By whom?
The South? The reddest of the Red States?
The American people are convinced that this war is wrong; that starting it was wrong, that the administration of this war is wrong, that continuing it is wrong, and that the “Commander-in-Chief” is a boob, a numbskull, a criminal, a liar and an ass who hides behind the generals when it suits him, & overrides them when it suits him.
The people know that this war defiles everything that America stands for, and that the sooner the troops are brought home, the sooner we stop the deaths and the maimings and the loss of treasure that are all this war has brought.
At some future time, if a war is just, the American people will support it. And woe to any political party that hamstrings a future “Commander-in-Chief” to score political points based on this “precedent”.
If I’m missing someting here, speak up & set me straight, but I support Murtha at this point in the game & think his strategy is solid.
“Rather than see our effort in Iraq end because of an inability to meet Murtha’s high deployment standards, I’d like to see the President see the writing on the wall….”
And I’d like monkeys to fly out of my butt [Seriously, they’re meant to be free].
C’mon, Booman, do you really think that Bush will have an epiphany and do anything so sensible? There is absolutely NO indication that he will do so, thus, your post can be summarized as: I don’t like Murtha’s plan because it sets a precedent for micromanagement of CIC/Presidential powers, but if Bush doesn’t accede to it [which he won’t] I guess it’s a Good Thing.”
I suggest that you either promote the Murtha plan or dis’ it, but please do one or the other on grounds of constitutional principles, not on the basis of what Bush may or may not do.