For Immediate Release
November 17, 2005
The Honorable John P. Murtha
War in Iraq
(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, �the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.� General Abizaid said on the same date, �Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.�
For 2 � years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited.
The evidence that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, even before 9/11, is very clear from many documents and the accounts of many people including many inside the administration.
What's less clear is his motives, which may be some combination of:
-Finishing his father's work
-Desire to get control of Iraqi oil
-Desire to carry out the wishes of his "big oil" friends [probably related to control of Iraqi oil]
-A true belief that Sadam represented "evil" and should be removed on moral grounds
-An incorrect belief on Bush's part after 9/11 that Iraq was more involved in terrorism than it really was
Whatever, his actions have backfired in almost every conceivable way:
-He will have caused the death of more than 2,000 Americans
-He will have caused the disability of more than 10,000 Americans
-He will have cost the US over $300 billion
-He has caused the death and disability of tens of thousands, perhaps over 100,000 non US citizens
-The US will not get Iraqi oil
-It is very likely (but not yet certain) that the Government that finally evolves in Iraq will be a radical fundamentalist Iraqi state
-Bush's actions have strengthened the terrorist and done more for their recruiting than anything they could have done on their own
-The insurgency in Iraq has made the terrorists a far more effective and more deadly force to deal with. They have honed their skills greatly at the expense of the US.
Basically, I don't see how ANYONE could have done a worse job than Bush has done. He has done immense damage to the US while making our enemies far stronger, more united and more dangerous in their opposition to us.
Re: "Powell had every clue."
If this is true, then we have an even bigger problem with Powell. How could he be against the invasion of Iraq behind closed doors and then be a proponent of invasion in front of the United Nations?
At the time of his United Nations presentation my thought process was along the lines of "well, Bush is clueless, but if Colin Powell says we need to go into Iraq, then we must need to go in."
In hind sight, Watz, I believe you are correct: that Powell knew invasion was a mistake, but he felt more of an obligation to the President than to his country or his own conscience. How else can his presentation at the United Nations be explained?
I had high hopes for Powell.
Re: "at the time I knew Bush was clueless, but I trusted C. Powell. Now I know he had no clue either."
Powell had every clue. In fact, it was reported (back at the time, before Iraq was even invaded) that Powell tried to explain to Bush his "Pottery Barn Rule" ... that invading Iraq would be like being a bull in a pottery barn and that "if we break it (Iraq), we own it (Iraq)" (and are then responsible for cleaning up the resulting mess. [Do a google search on "colin powell pottery barn rule" for lots of hits, this was also discussed in Bob Woodward's book]. No, Powell was not clueless, but he was on the President's "
The real problem was that Bush wanted to invade Iraq as a personal agenda, for reasons that are not entirely clear, and was willing to at least bend, if not fabricate the available intelligence to support that outcome. When Bush first met with Clinton after the election, while Clinton was still in office, all he wanted to talk about was invading Iraq (this was pre-9/11).
Similarly, if you read the material published by Richard Clarke, former Bush national security advisor, he also recants how BEFORE 9/11, Bush was obsessed with invading Iraq and finding the intelligence to justify such an action.
Where I fault Colin Powell, frankly, is in not having run for President himself. He could have been the GOP nominee in 2000 if he had been willing to run.
But Clinton, Powell and Gore were all intelligent enough and had enough knowledge of history to understand the full implications of invading Iraq. [For the people who doubt Gore's intellect or wisdom, read the thread starting with post 826809 entitled "Watz - enjoy this"].
However, Bush not only has no such intellect or sense of history himself, he surrounds himself exclusively with like-minded people, and he doesn't listen to the few people in his administration (Powell and Richard Armitage) who were trying to tell him what he was getting into. One of Bush's problems (just one of many) is that in his mind, there is such thing as a "loyal opposition". In Bush's mind, opposition, by definition, is disloyal, and because of it, Colin Powell was not part of Bush's "inner circle", and his views therefore had no weight and were not strongly considered.
>>> Tax, very profound of you:
"all is not lost if one is beheaded"
You are a real sharp cookie, no doubt about it. <<<
In case of tax, beheading really doesn't take away much from Tax, his head is empty.
Tax, very profound of you:
"all is not lost if one is beheaded"
You are a real sharp cookie, no doubt about it.
Re: OT - Murtha's speech
by: taxitallbthruz 11/18/05 04:55 pm
Msg: 826725 of 826725
"..Dont think a war can be won with an opponent who uses be-headings"
all is not lost if one is beheaded, they can still post on a message board :) ( i saw the coward you were responding too)
Posted as a reply to: Msg 826705 by profiler1030
Roman wasn't there for promoting democracy and wasn't fighting terror in a foreign country.
When you try to be the good guy, you can't make any mistake, especially there is a freedom of press.