CNN saying Murtha getting little to no backup from his fellow Dems

[Lex]

in Congress.

Just now on CNN.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

1. from what I've seen on DU, it doesn't seem to be TOO far from the truth...

Anyone know anything different (I hope, I hope!)

[Jon8503]

16. Its totally disgusting. Here again the dems give the republicans and

the media more ammo. Really pisses me off. No way I can support this party the way they are operating. Gutless wonders.

Cannot believe this is my 2000 post & I am saying this about the dems.

[blm]

45. Far from truth.

Murtha throws out a vague 6mo plan on the day that Kerry is scheduled to FINALLY get airtime for his detailed 13-18mo withdrawal plan submitted 3 weeks ago?

Murtha submitted his plan to PULL Republicans into compromise TOWARDS the 13-18mo plan.

Kerry and Murtha have history of working together.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[oasis]

50. Kerry's plan was getting no media play. All we would hear was "The Dems

want to criticize Bush but have no plan". Now we have a chance for the truth to find its way to the American public. :woohoo:

[blm]

51. I can always count on your comprehension skills, oasis.

Salute to you.

[oasis]

52. Above all, we Dems must no surrender our ability to reason.

:hi: back at ya.

[Strawman]

2. that's a RW talking point

to try to reverse the momentum that's going to end this war. He may not have alot of support today, but the bandwagon will be full soon enough

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. That's my gut feeling too. 1) It sounds like something the GOP would say &

2) it's CNN. They're not exactly investigative journalists over there. (Except for Anderson, I guess.)

[Lex]

14. Ed Henry was the CNN reporter who said that, btw.

That no one from the Dem side of the aisle was coming to Murtha's defense or giving him support on his views expressed yesterday.

I have to say I haven't seen the Dems do that either, sadly.

[...of J.Temperance]

19. Forget it...obviously the wrong thread to ask the deleted question in

Carry on.

[Strawman]

25. it's not fair to come to that conclusion 24 hours later

Vietnam didn't end overnight either. Elites like Murtha and other members of congress hold press conferences and articulate newsworthy opposition, there's a snowball effect. Now that he has stepped forward others can feel safe to deal with reality and come forward. It might take months, but the trend shows this is exactly what is happening.

Before Murtha I think there was still a stigma of being anti-military by being anti war. Supporting the troops and being pro-military is a strong strong social norm in this country. Up until now, the * administration had sucessfully linked being pro-military to being pro-war. Murtha coming forward proves that has totally crumbled and will embolden other people who support the military and whose primary social groups are linked to military life to voice their opposition without fear of being socially isolated. I think this is a big, big symbolic turning point.

Scottie tried desparately to repair the anti-war = anti-military link last night by trying to put forth this idea that Murtha had joined the extreme left. It's pathetic and it's not going to work anymore. There are going to be more Murthas and all the spin in the world can't stop it.

[Lex]

27. You know, I believe you are right about this.

I hope you are!

Maybe Murtha has set wheels into MOTION and they are creaking to life.

[Lex]

I hope you are right Strawman. We need some solidarity.

A unified message.

[Strawman]

32. Yeah. That's right

The admin is trying to isolate Murtha. Having a prominent (e.g. on Meet the Press regularly type) Dem support his call for immediate troop withdrawl would certainly help prevent that from happening. Eventually they will jump on the bandwagon when the political advantage of being squarely on the side of reality is a risk-free proposition. This war will end soon, but it's disappointing that many of these Dems didn't do what they could have done to make it end sooner.

Too many of them are too worried about being called a name like flip-floppers or weak by the RW blabbermouths and bullies to support immediate troop withdrawl. Maybe they want the elections and some of these other key events to fail first so that the Republicans can't say "we could have won if we had stuck around, but you Democrats are a bunch of wusses who surrendered." Meanwhile people keep dying and getting wounded and we spend billions and erode our military capability that we might need for a war that is not one of choice.

They're thinking in the past and what hurt in the last election and not seizing an opportunity to ride the wave of public opinion to get us the fuck out of there. And what they're doing is putting the political fear of being labeled as the people who lost us the war and gave up above other concerns. They're putting their own political asses first and the troops and the Iraqi people and the American people second.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Maybe not yet. But he will once this settles in.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. We need to hear some back-up, quick. What this man did...

was magnificent, and if he's sabotaged by our own, it's tragic. Plus, the guy will play across America, if given a chance by our side.

[LisaLynne]

It could be true, but ...

I agree that it's also the RW tactic to bust momentum. About the same thing as trying to claim that nobody's really against the war. If you don't love *, you're a tiny, tiny minority, so you'd better just shut up.

Beside, I don't really know if it matters what any of the politicians do or don't do. I think there is a grass roots turning against the war and the people who got us into it and I'm hoping we still have enough of a democracy for that to make the difference.

[Hugin]

5. I could hardly watch even the normally bland MSM this morning.

The blare of the Right Wing Noise Machine is FULL VOLUME!

Every possible angle of propaganda is being thrown out.

The desperation is palpable.

[Loonman]

6. I hope he gets the backup and support

I'm sick of glad-handing professional politicians. Time for the Dems to keep the pressure on bush.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Hmm, maybe he's got a point. Say, where's Lieberman these days?

Usually, he's got a lot to say about these things ....

[Jacobin]

12. He's usually seen on Faux News these days

I'm sure he'll be on to disparage those who don't want to make Iraq a permanent colony.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Oh,yeah, He's best friends with Hannity, isn't he?

They even see each other socially, I hear.

[Jacobin]

8. Idiot Rat Bastards

They just don't have a clue, do they?

Do they really believe these fraudulent 'elections' are gonna change things and Iraq is gonna be all sunny and nice?

Are they still buying Smirk's bullshit?

Our party is completely delusional.

[MrModerate]

10. The WaPo said the same thing.

Disturbing. Caution (which I'm generally in favor of) may be trumping principle. I think the bandwagon has arrived and it's time for dems in congress to get on.

[annabanana]

11. We can change that...

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Harry Reid, for starters..
http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

[annabanana]

17. my text:

Murtha is right. All Democrats ought to support him, loudly and often. He knows the business from the top down and from the bottom up.

How can Americans put more stock in the words of the new "ivory tower ideologues" with their garlands of flowers post war planning...than they do in the words of a battle tested veteran who has served his country so long and so well..?

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Must be from Mr. Anonymous Source a.k.a Karl Rove

What 'backup' are they expecting? A unified rally with picket signs against Bush?

From what I've seen/heard, they are backing him up. They're just not coming out angry (which would then be described by the WHIG Redux as 'raving, lunatic Liberals' and 'demonic Democrat Party'). :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

15. I know he didn't ask for others to join him in sponsoring his bill.

He got a standing ovation after talking to the House Democratic Caucus.

You know that a large portion of House Dems that have always been against the war would join him.

I think they want to keep it as just Murtha because he has a lot of credibility by himself. It looks idiotic when the WH and Republicans call him a crazy, lefty, Michael Moore loving loonie.

I think this is strategic - perhaps even by Murtha himself.

[Rose Siding]

18. Press ghouls. Pelosi was smart about this

She put out press releases about it the day before.

snip>
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues at a closed meeting yesterday morning that she, too, would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal, according to several who attended. But by day's end, Pelosi -- a liberal who has sharply criticized Bush's handling of the war -- chose merely to praise Murtha and say he deserved to have "his day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700794.html

Look how long it took the WH to play the Michael Moore card. She stood back so not a single report could say "joined by the liberal SF leader".

MeDermott and Feingold have been supportive already. There will be others

[NNN0LHI]

20. If CNN is saying that you know its a lie n/t

[Lex]

23. Except sadly who *is* coming out strongly with Murtha?

I hope we see some press conferences and some press releases TODAY from some Dems in Congress standing with Murtha, endorsing his words from yesterday.

[KSLeftyMom]

26. I have to (painfully) give Katie Couric credit for this morning...

She interviewed some scary Stepford Wife looking White House chick and really hammered her. Twice the woman didn't answer her question and instead went back to the stay the course kind of talking points and Katie told her that she hadn't answered her question and repeated it. Once in a while, she does a really good job -- wish she'd get back to her journalism roots more often like that.

[Jon8503]

28. Normally I would agree but it is true, dems are afraid to go out and

say we need to just get out now and support him like they should. No wonder they have the reputation of being afraid to take a stand. Just like some of them were afraid to not vote for the war. Now they are afraid to take a stand of saying he is right lets get out now.

A decorated war veteran with extensive military knowledge is saying we need to get out now and they are hanging back. They are gutless so far.

[Armstead]

22. Alas it seems to be true -- "I respectfully disagree"

Once again, the Democratic Establishment seems to be surrendering in the "Framing Wars."

Instead of saying "I respectfully disagree" with Murth, like Kerry has done, they ought to be saying "We agree with Cong. Murtha. The only question we have to work out is the actual timetable and methods."

[BOSSHOG]

24. MEANWHILE OUR KIDS CONTINUE TO DIE

[saracat]

29. That is ridiculous. Kerry has been EVERYWHERE

saying almost the same thing as Murtha. He has been pointing about Cheney's five deferrments . He has been screaming about the deliberate denial of VA benefirts.He has been attacking the credibility of the Administration, and challanging their statements about INTEL. He is expressing outrage at the politicizing of Vetrans Day and the use of it to support a War based on falsehoods. Nobody supporing Murtha? Do they have ears?

[Strawman]

30. It's my understanding that he has not supported immediate troop withdrawl

I think that's what people mean.

[blm]

35. 20,000 after Dec election and the rest by end of 2006, using benchmark

events for a steady draw down. He wants NO permanent bases as that would send a clear signal we have no intention of staying and he wants Iraqi businesses to get the construction projects over the American corps getting them now.

What people seem to be missing is that Murtha came out with his 6mo plan on the day thatKerry was FINALLY getting media attention for his withdrawal plan.

Coincidence? Could Murtha have offered his vague 6mo plan to FORCE Republicans into compromise TOWARDS the detailed 13-18 mo senate plan?

Kerry and Murtha are allies.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[Strawman]

36. Kerry's plan is different

Even the first troop withdrawl of 20,000 in December is conditional upon the success of the Iraqi elections and all these other "successes" that aren't likely to happen. I don't get the logic of leaving even fewer troops in there over an extended period of time. They'll still be targets and have even less strength to respond.

[blm]

43. That's why the plan is layered every step of the way. Kerry said it can't

be won militarily - not anymore - it can only be done POLITICALLY.

That means showing the Iraqi people we are NOT occupiers and have no interest in permanent bases - turn the bases already built over to the Iraqis. The construction contracts all must go to Iraqi businesses so the people see they are keeping the money there and it is not being used as a cash cow for American businesses.

All these things must be happening AS we are approaching each benchmark for military withdrawal.

[Strawman]

46. I do like the fact that Kerry said this

It's important to defend Murtha while the admin is trying to make him look isolated and Kerry sure did here. He was absolutely spot on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5392265

Hopefully he can come around on the specifics of the withdrawl plan later on :)

[blm]

47. He already did that. He submitted his plan 3 weeks ago and again last week

in a formal senate bill.

Strategy for Success in Iraq bill.

Remarks of Senator John Kerry Introducing the Kerry Iraq Bill

The following is the text of John Kerry’s Floor Speech today introducing his amendment outlining withdrawal from Iraq:

Mr. President, later today my Democratic colleagues and I will offer a critical amendment on Iraq. I am pleased to have worked on this amendment and to be a cosponsor. I look forward to participating in the debate when the amendment comes up. But I have come here now to introduce a bill that lays out in greater detail the comprehensive new strategy that I believe the president must implement to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home in a reasonable timeframe.

A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we enter a make or break six month period in Iraq, his lonely journey compels us to talk honestly about the steps we must take to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by conflict.

While some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no - in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism. We have a responsibility to our troops, our country and our conscience to be honest about where we should go from here.

There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.

We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue a political settlement that gives Sunnis a real stake in the future Iraq and while reducing the sense of an American occupation. That means a phased withdrawal of American troops as we meet a series of military and political benchmarks, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as we meet the first benchmark - the completion of the December elections.

We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq - Sunni versus Shiia - will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops. The reality is our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ‘’Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.”

It comes down to this: an open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

The Administration must also use all of the leverage in America’s arsenal - our diplomacy, the presence of our troops, and our reconstruction money — to convince Shiites and Kurds to address legitimate Sunni concerns about regional autonomy and oil revenues and to make Sunnis accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. We cannot and should not do this alone.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that also includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis. To maximize our diplomacy, the President should appoint a special envoy to bolster Ambassador Khalilzad’s commendable efforts.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that will include improved security assistance programs, and joint exercises.

To show Iraqi Sunnis the benefits of participating in the political process, we should press these countries to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas.

We also need to jump start our own lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

On the military side, we must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn - ideally by the end of next year.

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

The Administration must prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

Finally, we must alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

If the President still refuses to take this new course. Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months so we can take on a new role as an ally not an occupier. Only then will we have provided our troops what they deserve - leadership equal to our soldiers’ sacrifice.

[Jon8503]

31. Kerry said on Hardball & elsewhere he could not agree with Murtha

on immediate troop withdrawal. He was again a little confusing trying to make a point of getting out but in a somewhat discombobulated way. End result however, was no immediate troop withdraw.

[blm]

48. Murtha's plan is not for immediate troop withdrawal either. He's for

redeploying the troops NEAR Iraq after 6mo so they could still be close to go back in when chaos erupts.

His plan was deliberately vague in my book, just so he could bait the Republicans into moving towards compromise and supporting the Dem withdrawal plan.

[Jon8503]

49. Did'nt understand it that way but since he is going to be on with

Russert, we should have a much clearer picture of what he is talking about Sunday morning. Thanks.

[adarling]

33. I know Boxer is behind him and was happy about it

personal source :)

[BrotherBuzz]

34. Ummm, has one democrat attacked his words?

[Lex]

37. Is that the benchmark of support now?

I hope not.

Now is the time for strong words from the Dems. We have the momentum at this point and are taking the stage away from the Repugs because people are growing sick of them.

[Rose Siding]

38. Murtha's statement met "very positively" within the Dem caucus-

After first stating her consistent views on the war (" My views on Iraq are well known. I have said from the start that the war is a grotesque mistake. I have said that when it came to the execution of the war, the President showed no leadership because he had no judgment, no knowledge and no experience. I said that the emperor had no clothes. Did I say that already? So I have been a critic of the war from the start.").....

snip>
Ms. Pelosi. Today, I think we should all savor the very thoughtprovoking statement that Mr. Murtha made. He made it with great knowledge. He made it with great passion. He made it with great determination. I think it is something we have to take into consideration very seriously.

Q Politically speaking, does that hurt Democrats to not come out with one voice? Obviously, the President is not doing well in large part because of the public concern about the war. Does it not put pressure on you as Leader to get your Caucus or work with Senator Reid to get one message so that the public sees an alternative?

Ms. Pelosi. I guess where you and I differ on this conversation, when it comes to war I don't think we should be politically speaking. This is about protecting the American people, and we have to do the right thing.

Q But politics puts people in charge.

Ms. Pelosi. That's right. And the President is in charge, and it's his war. It's Mr. Bush's war, and he should be held accountable for it.

Q To what extent are Mr. Murtha's views shared within the caucus?

Ms. Pelosi. The courage of his statement, and the eloquence with which he presented it, and the passion and knowledge that he brought to the conversation were met very positively by our colleagues. What that means in terms of their votes remains to be seen.

From yesterday's press conference that CNN must have missed.

[bluedog]

39. oh they are there........in the background

if the vote came up with a solid plan......I'd bet it would pass........the Democrats are playing it "Coy".........Not letting it all hand out and NOT showing their cards.

[countryjake]

40. Toss all of those success-minded Dems into a C-130...

and let Murtha take them on a guided tour of Iraq. Rep. Murtha said in his statement that he'd just recently returned from visiting the troops on the ground; perhaps a little enlightenment is now due for a few of those who think it's worth as many lives as it takes to "Win" in Iraq!

Eight of our soldiers died on Wednesday...anyone think this may have influenced a decorated Marine veteran of two foreign wars to see the blood on his own hands? The man spoke from his heart, as a soldier representing other soldiers, addressing what he sees as the only position he can take which truly is in the interest of Americans and most certainly supports our troops.

Here was Sen. Kerry's response to Rep. Murtha's speech:

BLITZER: Let's talk about a proposal that was put out today by Congressman John Murtha, who's very involved in the Armed Services Committee. He says there should be an immediate withdrawal over the next six months of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Good idea?

KERRY: I respectfully disagree with John Murtha. And I laid out a plan which is, I think, a good plan, a solid plan. It builds consistently on everything I said throughout the campaign last year of what you need to do to be successful. And I believe my plan supports the troops in the right way.

[bunkerbuster1]

41. Has it not occurred to anyone that CNN sucks?

And that on this issue, the corporate media outlets are doing as they are always wont to do, which is repeat Republican talking points?

For christ's sake people, don't take this stinky-ass bait.

[Lex]

44. CNN does suck. But I believe the Dems need to come out strong

in support of Murtha.

Or else this kind of media spin will fill the airwaves and newspapers.

That's exactly how Kerry got Swiftboated--by dismissing the media and the spin.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

42. Just as I thought

One trick ponies. A DUer recently made a list of all the good things democrats have done. They had a really great week...but I said it once and I'll say it again. If doing your job once a year really was a job, then america would have a very low unemployment rate right now. There'd be no problems with the economy. It just isn't rational. It's completely insane.

Republicans stole only seats, not voices, not outrage. I said in another thread the difference between pacifism and cowardice. This is NOT pacifism. It is cowardice.

Of course, on edit, this statement only holds truth if it is not infact a lie propogated by CNN ^_^