[Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?

[D&D Stice]

Long overdue from Congress.  As far as I am concerned they have abdicated
their oversight and budgetary responsibilities.

David Stice

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "R22 List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:39 AM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?


>     Congressman John Murtha Representing the 12th District of
> Pennsylvania <http://www.house.gov/murtha/index.shtml>
>
> *For Immediate Release*
> *May 18, 2006*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Murtha press conference transcript on Iraq
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Washington D.C. *- The following is a transcript of a press conference
> held today by Congressman Murtha regarding the lack of progress in Iraq.
>
>         Six months ago today, I introduced my resolution to redeploy the
> troops. Since that time, we've lost 370 Americans, we're spending $9
> billion a month, incidents have increased from 550 a week to 900 a week,
> and we lost 1,000 Iraqis in the last month.
>
>     My plan ...recognizes we have done everything we can do militarily
> in Iraq and we must redeploy. The president insists our military needs
> to stay the course, but there's no plan for progress. I have not seen a
> plan.
>
>     One of my military friends said to me (that) when you open up the
> strategy for victory, there's nothing inside. That's the problem that I
> see, and that's the thing that's so difficult for me to accept.
>
>     Now (there are) those who disagree with me.  Even a fourth-grade
> class the other day (asked), "What happens if we leave?"
>
>     Well, what happens if we leave today? What happens if we'd left six
> months ago? They have to settle this themselves. There's no plan to make
> things better.
>
>     And so it's time for us to leave, to redeploy. And I say that ...
> the success of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. The Iraqis must settle their
> differences, and we must set a timetable for the Iraqis to take complete
> control of their country.
>
>     Now, every time a timetable has been set here in Congress, we meet
> the timetable. Every time they set one in Iraq, they meet the timetable.
> But here we have no timetable. It's open-ended. And only Iraqis should
> settle these problems. And they aren't looking for an American solution.
> We give them an American solution, they forget it and it won't work in
> the end.
>
>  ...I measure this differently than they do. Oil production is still
> below prewar level. Electricity in Baghdad is 2.9 hours per day.  Now,
> we realize that electricity production is spread out over the country,
> so it's a little bit different. But it's still only 9 or 10 hours a day
> throughout the rest of Iraq. But (it's) 2.9 hours a day in Baghdad.
>
>     Far more than half the Iraqis are unemployed. There's 90 percent
> unemployment in Al Anbar province, and that's a province where we have
> the most trouble.
>
>     And when I visit the severely wounded -- I go almost every week
> (and) I was just there last week -- at our military hospitals, I ask,
> "What happened to you?" And they say, "I was looking for IEDs and I was
> blown up."
>
>     That's their mission. That's a hell of a mission. I mean, that's not
> what they should be doing, and that's what they're doing, and that's how
> they get killed, over and over again. Sixty-seven percent of the people
> killed in Iraq have been killed with IEDs.
>
>     Over the last six months, more Iraqis have died in sectarian
> violence. (Do) you know what the definition of sectarian violence is? A
> civil war. Two factions inside a country fighting for supremacy. That's
> sectarian violence. We're caught in a civil war, and our military is
> caught in between. We got 100,000 Shi'as fighting with 20,000 Sunnis.
>
>     And we have alienated every country in the region. They used to say,
> "We're with you in fighting terrorism, but we're not with you in
> fighting in Iraq." In fact, the war in Iraq has been more harmful. I
> believe it's been more harmful to us than beneficial in fighting
> counterterrorism. We've diverted ourselves away from terrorism to the
> war in Iraq.
>
>     If you remember ...on the bottom of most of the television stations,
> they ran, "A war on terrorism." Now they're running, "A war in Iraq."
> And that's the way it should be, because that's what we're involved in.
>
>     Recently, the president of Iran visited Indonesia, a country with
> the largest Muslim population. He visited a prominent university and was
> overwhelmed with applause from students who supported his stance against
> the United States.
>
>     Many see the United States as being at war with all Muslim nations.
> You know it's not true, but that's the way they see it.
>
>     So who really wants us in Iraq? The Iraqis do not. It's interesting.
> In a recent poll the Iraqis termed those who attacked Iraqis as
> terrorists or criminals. Yet 88 percent describe those who attack
> coalition forces as freedom fighters or patriots. In other words, (if)
> they attack us, they're freedom fighters or patriots.
>
>     The American public certainly does not support this war.
>
>     I'll tell you who wants us in Iraq: Iran, Russia, China and North
> Korea and Al Qaida. There's only 1,000 Al Qaida, 1,000 Al Qaida. The
> rest are Iraqis (and) we're caught in between.
>
>     And while the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, this
> administration says things are going very, very well. They want to
> sanitize this war and put a positive spin on things. And they ignore the
> real story.
>
>     Secretary Rumsfeld says progress in Iraq is evidenced by how many
> satellite dishes he sees on a rooftop. Now, what's wrong with that? They
> only have 2.9 hours of electricity. So if they have satellite dishes,
> they can't watch them 21 hours a day.
>
>     This trivializes the situation that our Marines and many of our
> soldiers are facing every single day. Every convoy's attacked. Every
> convoy's attacked. IEDs (are) exploding all around them. (They're) being
> shot at every day. (They're) watching their buddies die. (They're)
> unable to trust the Iraqis. They don't know who their friends are and
> who the enemies are.
>
>     They're under constant and severe stress. Karl Rove recently said
> the public is sour on the war. The use of the word "sour" disgracefully
> minimizes the public reaction to the way the administration has run the
> war.
>
>     Try disillusioned, betrayed, deeply concerned about the lives of our
> service members, the future of the military and the future of the
> country if we continue down this open-ended, ill-defined path.
>
>     The Army's broken. It has serious recruitment problems. Stop-loss,
> in effect, is a draft of 50,000 soldiers who can't get out. The Army
> Reserve and Guard have been mobilized. And (our) young officer corps is
> being hollowed due to the large numbers leaving the service.
>
>     Last year, the Army promoted 100 percent of its eligible Army
> officers from lieutenant to captain, up from a historical average of 70
> to 80. This has a detrimental effect on the quality of forces down the
> road. If you remember, what I said was (that) I'm not only worried about
> the troops, I'm worried about the future of the military. This is a
> direct sign of the cost of the military.
>
>     Of course, these huge bonus incentives to the personnel costs even
> affect health care. The Quality of Life Committee couldn't put $700
> million in the quality of life for TRICARE because they didn't have
> enough money ... TRICARE is one of the most important health care
> problems for the military, and they were short.
>
>     Now, we're going to try to work that out, but at the present time
> they're short.
>
>     Now, not having adequate forces in Iraq, the National Guard's being
> replaced by Air Force and Navy.
>
>     I'm talking to a retired three-star general, and ... he said to me
> that he was in a room full of Navy officers, all different specialties.
> One of them was a ship driver; in other words, he was captain of a ship.
> They had mobilized him to go to Iraq to do civil affairs, in two weeks.
> He said the whole room was not trained to do the job.
>
>     Now, what does it mean when they're not trained. This war is coming
> at a huge consequence, the unspoken consequence of an overstretched and
> overstressed force. And when you send in untrained people, you get Abu
> Ghraib.
>
>     I've told the story about the young person from my district who was
> untrained in that prison, who had a court order against him that he was
> not able to (see) his family because he abused them. He told the Army
> that, and the Army still put him in a position to oversee Abu Ghraib.
> And you know the tremendous impact this had on our troops.
>
>     And anybody that's been in combat knows it sears your soul, it's
> something that you never forget, and you live with it for the rest of
> your life...
>
> Now, two days after I made my statement, on November 19th, we had an
> incident in Haditha in Anbar province, where a Marine was killed with an
> IED. Time magazine reported it, and it's kind of a puzzling report,
> because they're investigating it right now. Let me tell you what the
> consequences of this have been.
>
> It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight.
> There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops
> overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent
> civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell.
>
> Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops
> for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our
> effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.
>
> We can't operate, we can't sustain this operation. Eighty percent of the
> Iraqis want us out of Iraq; 47 percent say it's all right to kill
Americans.
>
> It's time to redeploy and let the Iraqis settle this themselves.
>
> Be glad to answer any questions.
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     The administration continues to give optimistic assessments of a
> shift of weight of burden from U.S. forces over to security and
> administration defense...
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, let's look at the incident. Let's look at the incidents.
> Incidents from 550, November 17th, until now, 900 incidents. A thousand
> Iraqis killed in the last month. The incidents are more than they ever
> have been before.
>
>     And then, of course, electricity. None of the things I measure are
> better.
>
>     If they have 250,000 members of the brigades trained, let them do
> it. They only have 1,000 Al Qaida. So let them handle it. We can't do
> this. You can go back and look at the chaos after the Indian and
> Pakistan division, and you're going to have some chaos. There's no
> question about it. It's not going to be easy. And that's what people ask
> me the most.
>
>     But there's going to be chaos six months from now because there's no
> plan. That's what I object to. There is no plan for success.
>
>
>
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     What is your current timetable, recommended timetable for
> withdrawing the troops? And to further develop the point about the chaos
> that might ensue, what is your response to that? There are a number of
> your Democratic colleagues who are concerned that the region will
> descend into chaos.
>
> *Congressman Murtha: *
>
>     There's chaos now. What happened during the election? When the
> cleric said we don't want any chaos, for two or three days they had no
> chaos. They have to do this themselves. We can't do it. What is the
> mission of our troops? Our troops are looking for IEDs, that's what
> they're doing, and they're getting killed looking for IEDs.
>
>     The Iraqis have to settle this themselves. I don't know how deep the
> chaos will be, but you're losing 1,000 people in the last month, and
> they're Iraqis. We lost 370 U.S. during this period of time. It's worse
> than it was six months ago.
>
>     My timetable is to immediately ... say to them, "Look, you're going
> to have to take over yourselves; this is your responsibility, and we're
> redeploying our forces." The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>     And I've never said an immediate withdrawal, but on the other hand,
> the longer the withdrawal is, the more vulnerable our troops are,
> because the vulnerability comes in the logistics tail that they have to
> face because that's where all the IEDs are.
>
>     So I'm convinced that there'll be continued chaos because it's a
> civil war. But like our civil war, only they can handle it. The British
> got out. The British said, after 200 years in India -- maybe it was more
> years than that -- if we get out, there's going to be chaos. There was
> chaos, but they finally settled it.
>
>     And what I'm saying is, six months from now it's not going to be any
> better because I've not seen any plan that's going to make it better.
> And the only people can settle is the Iraqis.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     Six months since you first introduced this, what's your sense of
> support in Congress for this proposal?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, I'll say this. In Congress more and more people are talking to
> me, more and more people. They're concerned about the very thing this
> gentleman here asked about, what happens afterwards. But I try to
> explain to them it's not going to be any better, it's going to be the
> same. It's going to be the same six months from now as it was six months
> ago. It's going to even be worse.
>
>     And our troops are the ones paying the price for it. The Iraqis
> (have) got to settle it themselves.
>
>     More and more people are coming around to understanding what we're
> paying and the price we're paying.
>
> I met with three mothers the other day. And this mother said to me,
> "These aren't figures. This is my son. This is the light of my life,"
> she said, "and he's gone."
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     (OFF-MIKE)
>
>
> *Congressman Murtha: *
>
>     Yes. If you look, the basis laid for it. It happened on November
> 19th. It was discovered by Time magazine in March, and they started to
> investigate it in March. And I kept hearing reports from Marines who had
> come out of the field that something like this had happened.
>
>     And now I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was
> no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus.
> There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes
> inside the house where the Marines had gone in.
>
>     So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the
> tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out
> in combat.
>
> (There is) stress and the consequences. You saw the other day where we
> have so few people. I think it was today's paper (that) they have an
> eight-page report that I looked at that shows some people with
> psychological problems are being given drugs and sent back into combat.
> That's how short they are. And we don't have enough troops.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     (OFF-MIKE) Time did the report and now the Pentagon's doing an
> investigation?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     The Pentagon has relieved three officers ...hopefully you will see
> the report in the paper shortly about what the results are. But there's
> no results so far as I've seen that indicate that it was the fault of
> the Iraqis in this case. One man was killed with an IED, and after that
> ... they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.
> And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     The power of Congress in all of this is the power of the purse. They
> haven't listened to you for six months. All of the talk up to this point
> has been support the troops, support the troops, support the troops.
>
>     In order to make your point and get some action, are you willing to
> lead a movement to withhold funds, cut down the appropriations for the
> military that funds their operation?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, I've never been willing to cut funds even in Vietnam, toward
> the end of the war, for the Vietnamese. I think you have to fund the
> troops who are out in the field. I think we have to have a plan from the
> executive branch which shows a timetable to get out, and it has to be a
> short timetable.
>
>     And you're going to see that. You're going to see that this fall.
> ...What I see is them moving in that direction. I see reconstruction
> money cut off. I see the State Department rehabilitation money -- the
> money that they usually use for helping democracies -- cut out. And I
> see one brigade delayed in their deployment.
>
>     So you're going to see a substantial redeployment. At least they
> won't replace people that are in there. They've got 250,000 troops
> trained, according to the reports that we see.
>
>     Now, I talked to the troops. You may have seen the other day they
> had these troops trained, they were graduating, they took their uniforms
> off and threw them down on the ground. Well, you know, that's what the
> troops tell me versus what the generals tell me is how well trained they
> are.
>
>     The general in Haditha area told me when I was there -- this was
> last August -- he said, "I don't have enough troops to do my mission."
>
> And this is true, I think, all over the country.
>
>     I talked to one of the generals who was in the original meeting when
> they asked for a number of troops. Now, this is the first time I'd heard
> this firsthand. There were five people in the room: Secretary Rumsfeld,
> Secretary Wolfowitz, General Pace, General Myers and this three-star.
> And he said, "We asked for 350,000 troops." And of course they didn't
> get 350,000 troops.
>
>     So when they say they got the number that they asked for, that's
> just not true.
>
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     Congressman, in the context of your resolution and your concern
> about the troops, what do you think about the president's plan to send
> the National Guard down to the border? A lot of people are saying
> they're stretched pretty thin already. They're even talking about giving
> them a seat on the Joint Chiefs.
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, there's a couple things about deploying the National Guard
> again. We didn't have adequate equipment down in Katrina. And this is
> one of the major problems with the National Guard in the United States.
> The ones that have been deployed have left their equipment over in Iraq
> or their equipment's been depleted or they never got their equipment in
> the first place.
>
>     And the plan, as I see it, they're going to send them over for two
> weeks to do administrative work. Well, what kind of administrative work?
> Are they trained to do this kind of work -- backup, technology? I mean,
> it takes more than two weeks to learn a job.
>
>     So I'm not sure what he has in mind here. I'm not sure how this
> would work. If they're only going to send them for two weeks, by the
> time they get there, by the time they learn the job, they'll be coming
> home.
>
>    So I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of this is.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     If U.S. soldiers killed innocent women and children, obviously
> they're responsible, but you alluded to a sort of broader responsibility
> for something like that. Can you explain that?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Yes, exactly. I feel that the tremendous pressure and the
> redeployment over and over again is a big part of this. These guys are
> under tremendous strain, more strain than I can conceive of. And this
> strain has caused them to crack in situations like this.
>
>     This is going to be a very bad thing for the United States. But the
> point is, it's not caused only by the troops, it's caused by the fact
> there's so few of them, and they go out every day, and 42 percent of
> them don't understand what the mission is.
>
>     I mean, I don't make excuses for them, I'm just understanding what
> their problem is.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     Have you read that report?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     I have not read it, no.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     But you're aware of...
>
> *Congressman Murtha: *
>
>     I'm basing it on information that I've gotten from -- all the
> information I get. It comes from the commanders. It comes from people
> who know what they're talking about.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     Mr. Murtha, there are polls out today that suggest that there's even
> more of an erosion for support on the Iraq war among the American
> people. Is that the kind of thing that it would take, do you think, to
> get the attention of the administration, to set a timetable? And if
> that's not, then what is?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, I'll tell you what they're looking at. And I don't know this
> from the inside. They're looking at this election. They're looking at a
> Democratic Congress.
>
>     In '74, we picked up 36 of the 43 contested seats. That's the
> Democrats. Thirteen of the seats Republicans retired, we picked them all
> up.
>
>     Now, in '94 we expected to lose 18. We lost 52. This is going to be
> a tidal wave. And there are no checks and balances at the present time,
> and that's what they're worried about. They're worried about subpoena
> power and investigating these things.
>
>     And that's why I predict that they'll start to withdraw troops in
> the very near future or not replace them, one or the other.
>
>     You can't sustain a deployment like that when the public doesn't
> support it.
>
>     And then, on top of that, we got a supplemental where the Army is
> really hurting.
>
>     Now, why is the Army hurting when we put so much money into
> supplementals? It's hurting because the cost of contracting out where
> they don't have enough troops...which is sometimes three times as much
> for the people doing the same job. In other words, you got a guy making
> $140,000 standing beside somebody making $40,000 or $50,000.
>
>     And so O&M costs have skyrocketed, so they're running out of money.
> And they have to have that money, they say, by the end of this month,
> this supplemental. I hope we'll get it done. But my staff tells me it's
> not likely, (that) it's going to be very difficult.
>
> QUESTION:
>
>     Is it possible that the administration will, in effect, do just what
> you outlined in your resolution and at the same time continue to
> criticize you for you it? And if so, what would you think of that?
>
> *Congressman Murtha:*
>
>     Well, I think that's entirely possible. I would hope, whether they
> continue to criticize me or not, that they do this, because the country
> can't stand this kind of divisiveness. I mean, every place I go people
> stop me, and mothers wearing 82nd Airborne stop me and said, "I've got
> two sons in Iraq, I agree with you." People in the military said, "Keep
> telling the truth."
>
>     You see the polls. I mean, it's overwhelming that they know -- only
> the Iraqis can handle this. That's what it amounts to.
>
>     Thank you very much.
>
>
>
> (####)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Home <http://www.house.gov/murtha/index.shtml> | Press List
>       <http://www.house.gov/murtha/newsroom.shtml>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.2/349 - Release Date: 05/26/2006
>