posted on February 25, 2007 10:27:15 AM new
FLAT on it's FACE. LOL
========
Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs
Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page A05
The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.
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.
Rep. John P. Murtha provoked Democratic dissension and Republican opposition when he discussed his Iraq plan in a Web site interview. (By Haraz N. Ghanbari -- Associated Press)
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.
Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.
"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.
The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress.
From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats.
When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.
Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further.
Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds.
By the end of the recess, Murtha's once promising strategy was in tatters.
<snip>
[murtha] "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war," he said of his proposal. "This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge."
To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.
"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."
Even after that Web appearance [moveon.org], some senior Democratic aides say Murtha might well have been able to save his plan if he had quickly laid it out before the Democratic caucus and marshaled Democratic leaders behind a defense.
Instead, the House recessed for a week, Murtha disappeared from the media, and Democratic leaders were silent, saying they could not discuss Iraq legislation because no real plan existed.
In the face of an unanswered Republican assault, the Democratic rank-and-file cracked -- on the left and the right.
"While we're all for troop readiness, we're all for them having all the equipment they want," Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, "I'd be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground."
Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.
=====
So there ARE some democrats who have some SENSE after all. They're NOT willing to HURT our troops on the ground like the radical liberals are. NOT willing to support a SLOW BLEED of our troops.
That's GREAT news for our troops fighting in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 25, 2007 10:49 AM ]
