Memo to Murtha

Before I say anything else, Congressman Murtha, let me thank you -- for your long public service in Washington and, before that, in Vietnam.

And let me commend you, too, for sparking an honest debate. Until now, what has passed for debate on Iraq has been mostly slander – for example, calling President Bush a liar and questioning his patriotism. Yes, questioning his patriotism: because anyone who would lie to get America into a war for reasons unrelated to national security would not be a patriot. He'd be a traitor. I ask you, sir: Has such a vicious charge ever before been leveled at an American president in a time of war – or even a time of peace?

But you have not taken this low road. Instead, you have said you believe the war in Iraq “cannot be won” and that “it's time to bring the troops home.” This is a discussion worth having.

You also say that “80 per cent of Iraqis want us out.” I'm not sure where you got that figure but it's probably low. I'd guess that close to 100 percent of Iraqis – as well as 100% of Americans – would love to see U.S. troops heading home for the holidays. But some of us think it matters whether we leave Iraq after we've defeated our enemies – or whether we leave Iraq after having surrendered to our enemies.

When you suggest that planning for the war in Iraq was flawed, I think you have a point. American leaders, in the Pentagon and elsewhere, crafted an effective strategy for toppling Saddam Hussein. Once that mission was accomplished, however, they had only a vague idea about how to transform Iraq into a free, independent and self-reliant nation within a short period of time. Maybe that's because no one had ever attempted such a feat before.

Clearly, we should not fail again to plan adequately. So I would ask you about your plans for the aftermath of the defeat you say we must now accept.

For example, it's obvious that if the U.S. military can't stand up to al-Qaeda in Iraq, the fledgling post-liberation Iraqi military won't have a prayer. That means we must plan for the possibility that al-Qaeda will come to power in part or all of Iraq. What, if anything would you propose to do in response to that?

Even if al-Qaeda only manages to shore up its positions in the Sunni areas of western Iraq, we must expect it will use that base to continue attacking Jordan and other countries in the region. Maybe we'd send advisors to help the Jordanian king? But help him do what exactly? Decide when the fight has become hopeless?

Also possible: The “Party of Return,” Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein, could take over (maybe in some kind of de-facto coalition with al-Qaeda). They might even release Saddam from the jail where he has been awaiting trial (odd, isn't it, how trials, like wars, aren't as speedy as they used to be?) and restore him to power. What would we do in that case – ask the U.N. to re-start sanctions and the Oil-for-Food program?

The Shia of Iraq would turn to Iran's mullahs for protection against both al-Qaeda and the Baathists. To whom else could they turn? If what followed was an Iranian anschluss – annexation – of southern Iraq, will you have a plan to deal with that contingency?

Iraqis who “collaborated” with us would undoubtedly face execution – perhaps tens of thousands of would be killed for revenge or just to send a message. I guess Congress could offer a resolution condemning such behavior. Thousands, perhaps millions of Iraqis would no doubt flee the country. Should the U.S. accept them as refugees? Or turn them away?

In many other countries where al-Qaeda has been applying pressure -- Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand to name just a few – three things would now be clear: (1) It is dangerous to be allied with the U.S.; (2) it is futile to resist al-Qaeda; and (3) bin Laden and Saddam were correct in predicting that if you bloody Americans, they will always turn tail and run.

As evidence they'd cite not only Iraq but Mogadishu and Beirut and, of course, Vietnam, where you served honorably. In truth, after that defeat – while millions of Southeast Asians suffered and died – Americans got on with their lives and we even went on to win the Cold War. Is that the idea, Congressman? To cross our fingers and hope that our defeat in Iraq will follow the Vietnam pattern? Because if so, I have to say candidly, sir, that isn't much of a plan.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Good article by Mr. May. But I take issue with these statements:

...Once that mission was accomplished, however, they had only a vague idea about how to transform Iraq into a free, independent and self-reliant nation within a short period of time. Maybe that's because no one had ever attempted such a feat before...

The Executive branch through DOD had a very good idea of how to transform Iraq into a free, independent, self-reliant nation. And it is doing so. Further, it did so with both Germany and Japan following WWII. This is not new stuff.

What is new since WWII's end is the constant meddling by the State Department. Secretary Rice is bringing this under control. Additionally, though not new, Congressional (especially Democrat congressmen) and media interference has slowed Iraq's progress to being a free sovereign state.

Mr. May has rightly called Representative Murtha on the carpet for he and his fellow Democrats lack of any plan. But he is incorrect in maintaining the Administration did not have an effective post-war plan for Iraq's revitalization as a free nation. That is another media myth.

FROM: http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26389

____________________________________________________________

"MURTHAGATE" - the loud tear-filled call for immediate withdrawal was a smokescreen
A commenter on this blog - "Noble" - suggested that perhaps (1) Murtha's sudden BIG LOUD TEAR-FILLED call for "immediate withdrawal from Iraq," (an OLD position for him, but one that he had NEVER tried to BROADCAST AS LOUDLY OR AS WIDELY BEFORE), AND (2) the sudden "play" it got from the House Democrats - led by Nancy Pelosi the Minority Leader - was a smokescreen intended to BOTH misdirect attention from impending ethics investigations over them both using influence to steer DOD business to their relatives and business friends.

Specifically it seems that Murtha steered business to HIS BROTHER'S LOBBYING FIRM - KSA - and helped Pelosi get a big project for her district which DIRECTLY BENEFITTED A RELATIVE OF HERS.

KJ Lopez of NRO's THE CORNER linked to a JUNE 13, 2005 LA TIMES article about just such an impending investigation: LATIMES (this link is to an anti-Bush blog which excerpted the article; the actual article has"mysteriously" disappeared from the LATIMEs own website) -
LATIMES: "When Congress passed the $417-billion Pentagon spending bill last ear, Rep. John P. Murtha, the top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, boasted about the money he secured to create jobs in his Pennsylvania district.

But the bill Murtha helped write also benefited at least 10 companies represented by a lobbying firm where his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is a senior partner, according to disclosure records, interviews and an analysis of the bill by The Times."
ROLL CALL put it this way:
Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother's lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee...

According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well. KSA directly lobbied Murtha's office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.

In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.

Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).
Murtha also flexed his muscles with the DOD to get his boss, Pelosi a big DOD deal for her district:

The agreement came a few weeks after the Navy sent Newsom a letter saying that it was having doubts about going ahead with an agreement that was announced with great fanfare in Washington in January 2002 by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, then-Mayor Willie Brown and Navy Secretary Gordon England.

When he was in Washington last Wednesday, Newsom met in the Capitol offices of Pelosi, the House minority leader, with Pelosi, Navy Assistant Secretary Hansford T. Johnson, representatives of California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a big gun brought in by Pelosi to convince the Navy the time for delays had passed.

Murtha, the powerful ranking Democrat on the House military appropriations subcommittee, made it clear to the Navy that he wanted a binding agreement signed by Wednesday. Another meeting was held in Pelosi's offices Wednesday, minus Newsom, and the Navy signed the accord.
According to THE HILL Murtha is ther number one Democrat money grubber in the Congress from the defense industry:
For the past three years, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has been the No. 1 beneficiary of defense campaign donations in the House and has not fallen below No. 3 for Congress as a whole.

In fact, for just the 2006 cycle, Murtha ranks No. 1 overall, with $188,350 in donations from the defense industry. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) follows with $118,350. In 2004, Murtha ranked behind only President Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, in overall defense-industry contributions, with $284,750.

During the 2002 election cycle, when Murtha was forced to campaign for his seat because of state redistricting that pitted him against a fellow congressman in the primary, he again scored No. 1 in all Congress, pulling in $309,299 in political donations from defense companies.

In 2000, Murtha slipped behind Hunter, who at that point was running for Armed Services chairman. “Murtha walks on water. If you want anything done on the committee, you go to Murtha. Murtha is the reason why the [defense appropriations] bill gets done each year,” said Ashdown about the veteran Congressman known to be a dealmaker who frequently reaches across the aisle.

But Murtha also has raised some watchdogs’ concerns because his brother Robert “Kit” Murtha runs KSA Consulting, a lobbying group that represents some 10 smaller defense companies. In 2004, Murtha’s brother was able to secure $20 million in the defense-spending bill for his clients. Kit Murtha repeatedly has denied working directly with his brother’s office.

I suspect that the tear-filled PR move Murtha made last week was intended to divert attention. My commenter "Noble" put it this way:

I am wondering IF he has Proposed this controversial CUT AND RUN proposal as a smoke screen, so he can come back and tell the public that the Bush White House is investigating him because they are trying to punish him..."

YES NOBLE, I THINK SO.

# posted by reliapundit : 1:11 PM
[okay,the American Thinker.com directed me to the Astute blogger.com site for this huge news.off the top of my head,the liberal media of course will never report this,and I even have my doubts about fox.the democraps will scream a deliberate smear.BUT,they no longer control the media and if this is true-it surely will come out and be absolutely corroberated!jco]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.