Jack Murtha's response to stopping the funds for war.

[djjimz]

Here is the response I received from John Murtha when I wrote him asking him to join the 70 members of the House pledging to stop the funding of the war.
What are your suggestions for my follow up response?

Dear James:

I have been working as hard as anyone in this Congress to get our troops out of Iraq . It has been nearly two years since I spoke out and said this policy has failed and we must get our troops out of Iraq .

This Congress has already sent a supplemental to the President that would have set benchmarks and timelines for the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq . Instead of demonstrating to the American people and the Iraqi Government that our commitment is not open-ended, the President vetoed our bill and refuses to recognize that this war cannot be won militarily. Unfortunately, we did not have the support of a 2/3 majority in Congress to override the President's veto.

Some have suggested that since the President refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out. When it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this President.

Following is what I wrote to my Colleagues in the House following the failed vote to override the President's veto. I assure you, I am continuing to work as hard as I can to press both my Colleagues in Congress as well as the President on this issue.

"I believe we all agree that the current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and that a substantial change in direction is needed. As Democrats in the new majority, we are under an election mandate to pursue this change. We must continue to press the Bush Administration to pursue an Iraq strategy based on redeployment and an Iraq policy centered on diplomacy, regional support, international cooperation and the empowerment of the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny.

In recent meetings with the White House, I sense a willingness to change. I am encouraged and believe this is a direct result of our efforts.

For the first time, I hear statements from Republicans in Congress of a need for enforceable benchmarks and a redeployment plan. The Associated Press reported on May 22, 2007 that Iraq is devising a plan in the case of U.S. redeployment, and the Administration is finally engaged in dialogue with Iran and Syria over the future of Iraq .

We must not accept that a vote cast to fund the military was a vote in support of the President's current Iraq policy. Similarly, we must not be fooled into thinking that the President's current surge tactic is bringing about the necessary improvements needed to stabilize Iraq in the long run. Facts on the ground in Iraq contradict any contention that real progress is forthcoming. An increased presence of United States military personnel in Iraq will not bring about the change needed. Only the Iraqi people can institute the change through a political process based on inclusive governing and by the equitable sharing of oil wealth. Iraq 's oil sector generates 67% of its GDP and 95% of the government's internal revenues.

To date, oil and electricity production remain below pre-war levels, and unemployment is estimated to be 60% to 70% in some areas. Attacks have increased to over 1,100 per week, and more than 2 million Iraqis (predominantly skilled middle class workers and administrators) have fled Iraq. U.S. troop deaths have climbed to their highest level for any two-month period of the war.

I have said it before and will say it again, the military, especially the Army and the Marine Corps, can not sustain this conflict without doing irreparable damage to the force. The Army and Marine Corps have already been forced to compromise their rotation and deployment policies, going from a 2:1 home/deployment cycle to less than a 1:1. Stop loss continues and 80 percent of our National Guard units are not combat ready due to lack of equipment. Because of equipment shortages, the Army has no ground strategic reserves.

In short, the situation in Iraq can not be solved by the United States military. Improvements will only come when the Iraqi Leaders make the necessary reforms to solve their own political discord that today prevents Iraq from establishing a functional central government and a government that is capable of uniting its people and protecting its borders. Diplomacy, international cooperation, and regional assistance must replace the use of U.S. military force in Iraq . In the coming months, we must continue pressure on this Administration to stop the surge and begin to bring our troops home."

Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHA
YOUR CONGRESSMAN

[endarkenment]

1. Once again, heck this bullshit worked last time, why not?

We have to continue to fund the war because we have to support the troops. I am disgusted.

[djjimz]

3. Me too!

I just don't get it.
And Murtha will not get my vote again if he doesn't sign on.
:shrug:

[Robbien]

2. This is EXTRA money on top of the defense budget and on top of the

"emergency" supplemental budget.

But Murtha is supporting this obvious political maneuver? Just two months ago Congress approved two budgets for the bombing and corruption of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This third budget request is not needed. It is just pure pork and is another way Bush gets to thumb his nose at the Congress.

[Supersedeas]

4. and the Media can't come to terms with these less than complicated issues

[mrbscott19]

5. Murtha may be right

The question is whether Bush would keep the troops in Iraq or not once the $$$ runs out. If running out of $$$ automatically means that the troops come home, then thats what should be done. But I doubt thats how it would go. I believe Bush and co. would keep the troops in the field until they had no food, no water, and no weapons. And in that case Murtha is absolutely right.

[endarkenment]

7. Oh bullshit.

This is the same lame justification for continuing to fund the war we heard last timem around. What happens when you fund the war is you get more war. Oddly enough, what happens when you defund the war is that the war ends.

[jmp]

9. I guess our troops will just have to ...

Stop following orders then, huh?

[Robbien]

10. Sure. Two months ago they authorized the Iraq budget. Why $50B more now?

No reason. Just Bush showing off by telling the world he has the dumb Dem congresscritters under his thumb.

[old guy]

6. If someone always gave you everything you asked for,

you would keep asking until they refused to give you any more. It is long past time they refuse to bankroll these crooks. The troops will see no difference if this $50B is refused. All propaganda all the time. Just saying.

[jmp]

8. "What are your suggestions for my follow up response?"

"Coward"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Defunding this illegal war is a no brainer...

...the fact that so many Congress members won't do it speaks volumes about who they actually answer to, and it's NOT the people.