14 April 2006
Taking a Lesson from the Man with the Stick
In a Huffingtonpost.com article, Rep. John Murtha reminds us that Teddy Rooesevelt, one of the most enthusiastic speakers from the bully pulpit in the history of American political discourse, once said:
Wow. Revelation. I'm shocked, shocked, i tell you, that anyone could think that the Presdient of the United States might be a shameless liar.
Murtha continues
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.At about the same time, the White House Press Office is branding a New York Times piece on exactly what the intelligence community actually told President Bush while he was busy telling the world that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction as "irresponsible journalism", because it implies that the Shrub may have actually deliberately told the US public and the world an untruth.
Wow. Revelation. I'm shocked, shocked, i tell you, that anyone could think that the Presdient of the United States might be a shameless liar.
Murtha continues
When you go to war there should be a threat to our national security, we should use overwhelming force, and there should be an exit strategy. All three of these principles were violated in Iraq. The war was mishandled, misrepresented, and mischaracterized.In November of last year, Murtha introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives. (It has over 100 co-sponsors). It reads:
But let's get the facts straight, it is not the questioning of the President's "stay the course" war policy in Iraq that brings down morale. It is being sent into battle with inadequate life-saving equipment, it is over deploying our military for extended periods of time, it is giving our military an unclear and ill-defined mission in Iraq and one where they see no end in sight.
Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';Of course it hasn't passed the Republican-controlled House, and it really wouldn't have any binding force if it did -- but the Rough Rider with the glasses and the Big Stick would probably approve. ¶ 11:16 PM
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
