Should we support a primary challenge to John Murtha for voting for the war funding?

[Freddie Stubbs]

Murtha justified his voted by saying that not passing the funding would harm the troops.

"This is not a game. They run out of money next week"

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07145/788992-84.stm

Considering his military record and his opposition to the war, I am willing to give Mr. Murtha the benefit of the doubt on this vote.

[mike_c]

1. absolutely-- I'd love to see Murtha replaced by a real progressive democrat...

...who is more interested in justice than "the troops." In a skinny minute.

[TahitiNut]

3. A lot of folks don't realize he's very conservative - to the right of most Dems in Congress.

As an independent liberal, I find that I'm ONLY supportive of the Progressive Caucus ... and cannot, in good conscience, be actively supportive of the (so-called) "Blue Dog Democrats." One of the major reasons I ever voted Republican prior to the realignment (i.e. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and the fallout) was due to the 'Dixiecrat' contingency in the Democratic Party ... a cabal of bigots, imho.

[WI_DEM]

31. His conservative working class district would probably not support a dem who thinks the way most on

DU do, so it might very well be a pick up for the GOP.

[hfojvt]

35. I also tire of people in Congress for life

I support term limits even though they were part of the 'contract on America'. I am tired of the incumbentocracy, although it would hurt to lose people like Byrd and Kennedy.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. I think we just need to get rid of the incumbency money advantage

If the challenger had just as much money as the incumbent, it would be a hell of a lot easier to unseat an incumbent.

[endarkenment]

2. Every yes vote deserves a primary challenge.

Nobody gets a pass. Nobody gets to take our loyalty for granted. I made this clear to my rep, and you should make this clear to yours.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Absolutely!

[mvd]

5. No, because I also don't think cutting off funds is the answer

I think we need them for the armed forces' safety and orderly withdrawal. And I do want withdrawal to start now.

[mike_c]

6. not one dime of the supplemental appropriation will be used for withdrawal...

...or even for "funding the troops." Funds for that purpose were alloted through the general appropriation that provides the military with its operating budget. The supplemental is to pay the additional costs of MAINTAINING occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan-- infrastructure, ordnance, transportation, etc. Without that money the occupation would have to be withdrawn-- the BEST way to achieve a withdrawal, short of passing legislation requiring an end to the war, is to stop providing SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations for it.

The "funds are to support the troops" meme is a LIE. The supplemental is to support the OCCUPATION and KEEP the troops in danger. Murtha is just as guilty as the republicans in maintaining that lie.

[mvd]

7. We also need to beef up Iraqi security forces

To blunt any short term chaos. I know that in the long run at least, our staying there will hurt things more.

On edit: maybe putting conditions on funding is the best answer. And certainly we don't need the amount of funds we provided Bush, because much of that is for maintaining deployment.

[mike_c]

8. you're arguing that we should actually STAY in Iraq...

...for the time being, or until some "objective" is achieved, like "beefing up Iraqi forces?" Notwithstanding that four years of bloody occupation has not been able to achieve that goal, do you have any estimate of what is a reasonable amount of time to continue trying?

[mvd]

9. No, I would start withdrawal now, like I said

But in the meantime, we owe Iraq funds for reconstruction caused by the disastrous occupation - plus send funds to help keep things secure. But the Iraqis should be in charge of security.

[mvd]

11. In fact..

I agree with Barbara Lee - we needs funds, but for a "fully funded withdrawal." I'd like to cut out the funds for supporting the occupation.

[mike_c]

12. I agree that we owe restitution to Iraq...

...but again, not one dime of the supplemental appropriation will be used to pay restitution, so I'm at a loss to understand why you support its passage. It won't help the troops in any material way, it will actually worsen their plight by maintaining the occupation, it won't help bring peace to Iraq-- just the opposite-- and it won't provide any restitution for the destruction of their country. What possible reason can there be to support it?

[mvd]

13. Some of the funds in the bill would help, but not nearly enough

So I would have voted against the bill as presented.

[Virginia Dare]

18. No, he's arguing that we need to leave safely and gradually...n/t

[mike_c]

22. like in Vietnam...?

Fifteen years was not long enough to leave "safely and gradually." How much longer do you think we should stay in Iraq?

[mvd]

24. Hopefully FULL withdrawal will take only a few months

Many say it could take up to a year, but I'd strive for less.

[mike_c]

29. that would be my hope as well-- I believe Kucinich has stated...

...that a full withdrawal could be accomplished in 90 days.

Nonetheless, I have NO confidence that even the democrats in congress are really interested in a full withdrawal. They keep appropriating funds for the largest embassy (and military compound) in the world in Baghdad-- who will occupy that embassy if the U.S. withdraws? If they anticipate withdrawal, at any time, why do they keep building that compound?

Who will occupy the permanent military bases the U.S. is building all over Iraq if the U.S. withdraws? If congress anticipates their withdrawal, why do they keep approving funds for those bases? These are examples of the sorts of things the supplemental appropriation "to support the troops" is actually paying for.

It is actually meant to support the occupation, and maintain it indefinitely, because U.S. foreign policy depends upon permanent control of oil resources and political conditions in the middle east.

[Virginia Dare]

28. I don't think we should be there in the first place..

but I don't pretend to know how to get us out safely. I know we probably won't even start the withdrawal process before the end of the year. The U.S. military doesn't turn on a dime.

[LSK]

37. wrong, Bush would steal money from everywhere else to keep the war going

Like stealing from Vets and Walter Reed.

[mike_c]

40. congress can prevent this, and remember that the executive...

...does not have unlimited discretionary spending authority. Money appropriated for the VA, etc is misspent if used for other purposes. That's a federal crime-- stealing, as you noted. An impeachable offense, in fact-- it's fiduciary irresponsibility.

[Virginia Dare]

41. I've lost count of all the impeachable offenses..

again, you can't impeach WITHOUT THE VOTES..

[mike_c]

44. good lord-- do you think the house would not impeach if a bill of impeachment...

...were introduced? If a genuine list of crimes was elucidated? What good is a dem majority in the House if they would ignore high crimes and misdemeanors in a bill of impeachment? The house has plenty of votes to impeach-- all that is needed is a simple majority.

Conviction in the senate-- well-- I think that would depend on the bill of impeachment from the House. If it's for lying about a sexual liaison, I doubt it would be worth the effort. But I also think it's way premature to suggest that the Senate would split exactly on party lines over a genuine bill of undisputed felonies. If it did, I think the republican defense of Bush would destroy the republican party. The senate would have to debate those felonies. Publicly.

[Virginia Dare]

47. Okay, so let's go with your scenario..

Congress pulls the funding. Bush farts around for a few months, maybe 6 until things get really bad and he has to play monkey business with the books to keep things going.

A few more months go by and Congress impeaches, another few weeks or a month go by, Bush is removed from office, so we now have President Cheney. President Cheney announces Mission Accomplished: I'm bringing all the troops home tomorrow!! Yay! We won!!!

Is that how you see it?

[mike_c]

53. please-- that's not only simplistic, it's irrational....

No, here's a much more likely scenario, IMO. If congress stops the supplemental appropriations, Bush will go into frothing-at-the-mouth overdrive for a short time, but the generals will tell him in no uncertain terms, behind closed doors, that after some threshold date is passed PLAN X for getting out of Dodge will have to begin execution. Period. If congress sticks to its guns. The generals already know that they have a boondoggle worse than Vietnam on their hands.

I think it's quite possible that Bush/Cheney will try to precipitate a constitutional crisis, challenging Congress's authority or attempting to do something really stupid, like an executive order giving them even more power-- they are looking at utter failure and might act like cornered animals-- but that would only stiffen the resolve of congress to smack them down hard.

[Virginia Dare]

54. Exactly, and that is what Bush is..

simplistic and irrational, so you can bet where he's involved, that is where we would end up. I think the Generals have already had that closed door meeting with him, as have the Democratic leaders, as have a group of moderate Repubs, but he still chooses not to listen. It will most definitely take a crisis to get him out of the process, but this is not the one.

[mike_c]

59. I'm not so sure....

I am CERTAIN that the Pentagon planners have contingency plans for withdrawing under a variety of conditions, but I really doubt that any of the general staff have yet told Bush that they will be implementing them on such and such a date. That's what I think will happen if Congress pulls the plug, by whatever means.

[LSK]

46. once it goes into the black hole of Defense, it is lost

[mike_c]

48. but it is still under PENTAGON control....

The Veterans Administration is not funded through the defense budget. Sure, Bush could divert money from things like building new bombers and running military bases to maintaining the occupation, for a while. But he'd lose all military support in the process. Bush cannot maintain this occupation in a vacuum-- he needs congressional and military support.

[Virginia Dare]

10. What are the odds of somebody more liberal getting elected?

or would you just end up with a Repub? :shrug:

[mike_c]

14. yes-- the risk aversion strategy....

That's why we're in this mess, IMO. I don't think it's going to get us out.

[Virginia Dare]

16. So targeting a Democrat and getting a Republican..

how does that get us out?

[mike_c]

20. targetting a conservative blue dog dem and getting a liberal dem...

...would help immensely.

Leaving the blue dog conservative unchallenged is guaranteed to keep us in Iraq-- and although Murtha has expressed opposition to the war, he consistently votes to keep it going. Letting him remain unchallenged is a sure recipe for getting exactly the same thing that any republican replacement might give us. So what do we have to lose?

We cannot make ANY progress if we are too fearful to take any risks. If we're going to give up hope of making progress, what is the point in even having elections?-- we could simply appoint politicians for life and never have to risk their seats at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. You're assuming that his rural, culturally conservative district would elect a liberal Democrat

A much more likely scenario is that liberal Democrat losing to a Republican in the general election. Would that be preferable?

[mike_c]

33. would I prefer a conservative republican or a liberal democrat...?

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think? Of course I would prefer a liberal democrat. And the only way to get one is to challenge the blue dogs in the primaries.

If the 12th district voters are not interested in a liberal challenger then the primary challenge will fail. Nothing lost. But if the 12th district dem constituency feels that a liberal dem would better represent their interests, who are we to deny them that opportunity, even if they fail in the general election? Should we have prevented Lamont from challenging Lieberman?

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. Who thinks that the Lieberman Lamont thing turned out well

All that did was drive Lieberman closer to the Republicans.

[Virginia Dare]

32. It sounds nice, but not very reality based...n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Considering that the district is rural, pro-life and anti-gun control in

an area of the state where Republicans usually win elections; not very good.

[dogday]

17. Wake up and smell the coffee

We will be in Iraq for the next 20 years... I doubt that one politician in Washington does not know this.. They all do...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=969423&mesg_id=969423

[bdamomma]

50. or what * said 50 years, what a fuckhead * is.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

19. Why the NAFTA debate sig?

Gore supported NAFTA. Perot didn't.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Should Barney Frank be challenged?

David Obey? Charlie Rangel?

[mike_c]

23. how did they vote on the supplemental war appropriation...?

If they voted for it, then I'd certainly like to see them replaced by a dem that will ACT to end crimes against humanity, otherwise, no.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. they voted yes

as did Jerry Nadler.

If you think Barney Frank and Jerry Nadler are going to be replaced by somebody MORE liberal, you're dreaming.

[mike_c]

26. perhaps, but that should not preclude CHALLENGING politicians...

...who do not represent our interests. If they do indeed represent the majority interests of their constituency then the primary challenge will fail. That's what the primary system is for. Why have primaries at all if we are afraid to challenge poor leadership?

[Virginia Dare]

39. Guess what, your interests aren't the same as every other

person's in your District, they aren't even the same as every other Democrat's. You will NEVER find a politician that you will agree with 100% of the time. The meme that every Democrat who voted for this bill did so because they don't want to get out of Iraq is FALSE. Just because you disagree with this particular vote is not a reason to boot every single one out on their asses. It was a failed tactic, it was going NOWHERE.

[mike_c]

42. so they voted for it because they wanted out of Iraq...?

I mean, what kind of sense does that make? What do you think that money will be spent for? It is to INCREASE our penetration into Iraq and MAINTAIN the occupation. It's to continue construction of the embassy compound, the permanent military bases, the infrastructure of permanent garrison occupation, and the economic colonization of the middle east. Do you think any in congress are unaware of this? In voting for the supplemental appropriation they wedded us even more tightly to a long future in Iraq. How can you continue to believe that they are committed to getting us out of Iraq when their actions say exactly the opposite?

[Virginia Dare]

45. Because maybe they feel that once a mission is already in place..

you don't abandon the mission?

Perhaps they feel that just pulling the funding isn't the right way to get out? I realize that you disagree with that, but maybe, don't you think, that just maybe that's the way THEY might look at it?

Or are you telling me that some of these Reps who voted for this bill but also voted against the IWR suddenly changed their minds and now they're for the occupation?

[endarkenment]

49. "you don't abandon the mission? "

Well of course if you support the war, as it seems you do with that statement, then of course you would not be opposed to continuing to fund the escalation of that war.

By the way, what exactly is the mission?

[Virginia Dare]

56. I have no idea...

but apparently we're on one, because people seem to be getting killed. And no, I don't support the war/occupation, never did and never will, you can search my posts if you'd like.

[endarkenment]

68. But we should continue to fund it even if we don't support it

and do not even know what it is, because it is 'the mission' and 'people are getting killed'?

[mike_c]

55. "just pulling the funding" might not be the best way to get out...

...but continuing to write blank checks to maintain the occupation is certainly the best way to stay in. I mean, congress can't have it both ways, and if Bush won't cooperate on a negotiated middle ground then congress must choose one course or the other.

Again, I think "the mission" is in fact permanent occupation of Iraq and control of middle eastern politics and resources. Economic imperialism and militarism. I don't believe that anyone in congress is so naive as to believe anything else. Ultimately I think that is why the only option open to congress at this point that would actually end the occupation is "off the table." The original bill congress sent Bush would have allowed for meeting many of the neocon objectives as conditions for withdrawal, but given a choice only between forcing a certain withdrawal and funding unconditional maintenance of the occupation, congress chose the latter.

[Virginia Dare]

58. Exactly right, CONGRESS not the DEMOCRATS...n/t

[mike_c]

60. well, you can't lay the responsibility on congress but absolve the dems....

Not since January 1, 2007.

[Virginia Dare]

65. I don't absolve anybody..

but I'm not delcaring betrayal either.

[endarkenment]

67. So it was the other Virginia Dare who wrote:

"Exactly right, CONGRESS not the DEMOCRATS...n/t"

Or perhaps it was you who wrote that but we need a secret decoder ring to understand the message there that is no absolving Democrats for what Congress did.

[Virginia Dare]

72. No decoder ring necessary..

just pull your head out of your ass and will all become very clear to you.

[endarkenment]

61. Wow that is one specious argument.

And how exactly was congress able to make this decision? Could it be that it required the support of enough DEMOCRATS in BOTH HOUSES? Hmmmmm?

[Virginia Dare]

64. The Democrats are united for timetables..

the Republicans are united for no timetables, and Bush holds the veto power. That's how I see it, what's specious abuot that?

[endarkenment]

66. The Democrats voted to give Bush a blank check.

You can spin that anyway you want, but that is what they did.

[Virginia Dare]

71. I believe MOST Democrats voted against that...n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Not the ones in the Senate

[Virginia Dare]

63. delete...

the Republicans are united for no timetables. Bush holds the veto power. That is how I see it.

[endarkenment]

36. If (votedYesToEscalation) { primaryChallenge(); } nt.

[mike_c]

43. lol-- good one...!

:rofl:

[endarkenment]

51. There was a bug in my code, I had to fix it. nt.

[WI_DEM]

30. Nope.

[LSK]

34. maybe we should burn Durbin at the stake too

:sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

38. It is not "the stake" it is "popular democracy".

There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with running primary challenges. It is called democracy, representative democracy.

[TwilightGardener]

57. No--he voted his conscience and common sense here, I believe.

He is very connected with the military brass, and has been a forceful advocate in military affairs and in ending the war--why get rid of that level of expertise for an untested newbie? Doesn't make sense--for ONE vote you didn't agree with!

[skipos]

62. Remember when DUers wanted him to run for President?

You are only good as your last vote around here.

[KamaAina]

70. Why single out Murtha?

At least 100 House Dems must have voted for the sack of poo. Shall we go after them all? That would almost be tantamount to forming a third, Peace Party...

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Because people respect his opinion on military issues