Comments on: McConnell Wins Again

By: peter

peter — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:45:29 +0000

Re 33 and 34: the Post excerpt is from an editorial, not a news report. The Times had a similar editorial. However, let’s forget the distinction and assume that it is accurate and fair. If this is the wrong bill to bring to the floor, then fine: someone will write a better bill. I think there should be an up-or-down vote on whether to fund sending more troops to Iraq, and my guess is that there will be a bill introduced in the House after the Continuing Resolution mess is sorted out. The issue is what, if anything, Congress ought to do regarding the escalation of the war, not whether Murtha’s bill is transparent or opaque. I think Murtha is a latter-day Eugene McCarthy: a flawed individual who turns out to be a lightning rod for controversy and the one who starts the long chain of events which results in the end of American involvement in a catastrophic war.

Re 35: agreed — Biden is an idiot for choosing a campaign appearance in his hopeless attempt to be nominated over voting on the resolution.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:03:51 +0000

If someone wanted to vote for cloture on the resolution and wasn’t present, then he is an idiot. So, I’m not surprised that Biden forgot to show up.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:07:02 +0000

Let me highlight the key claim made by Murtha in the conference call and case you missed it in the long excerpt:

His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.”

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:06:14 +0000

Well, since you missed it, let me bring you up to speed with what the Washington Post reported:

[Murtha] would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said.

Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq “would be more stable with us out of there,” in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce “massive civilian casualties.” He says he wants to force the administration to “bulldoze” the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to “get our troops out of the Green Zone” because “they are living in Saddam Hussein’s palace”; could he be unaware that the zone’s primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha’s remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not “the real vote”? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

You see anything dishonest or worth complaining about there?

But by all means, embrace the Murtha plan…that’s your right – just be honest about what it is, and don’t hide behind the ‘readiness’ facade…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:01:04 +0000

Re the Murtha news conference: I’ve been playing golf so I missed the news cycle, and didn’t see the reporting or your blogging about it. However, while it is uncertain whether a cap on spending will pass, it appears increasingly likely that Congress will take up the issue sooner rather than later. You and others have said that if the Democrats want to stop the war, they should vote to cap or reduce spending. Now that there is a movement to do exactly that — with John Murtha leading it — you are complaining that they are doing the very thing you said they should do. Something wrong with this picture?

Re the cloture vote: I’m not sure which ten Senators missed the vote, but one of them was Biden, who presumably would have voted to have the debate. Whether the others missed it because they support the escalation, oppose it, or were simply too cowardly to vote is something I don’t know. However, it is wrong to assume that the ten votes which didn’t happen would all be to choke off the debate.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:49:31 +0000

I would add that just because someone voted for cloture, it doesn’t mean that they necessarily would have voted in favor of the bill — Ben Nelson (D-NE) essentially said that his position amounted to as much. And I think we can all recognize that the senators who were not present knew that their non-votes would essentially be going against cloture, so you still get 56%.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:30:21 +0000

Peter, the Washington Post reported on, and I blogged about it, and I’m sure you saw it, a Murtha conference call where he basically said that he was ‘prettying up’ his proposal to make it about ‘readiness’ because his attempts to be honest about stripping funding to end the war wouldn’t sale. Glad to see you’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:51:53 +0000

1) The Washington Post reported this week that the army is behind procurement of advanced Humvee protection against roadside bombs, but the administration is so eager to send soldiers into war that they will be sent without this protection. A week or two ago, the administration announced plands for reduced funding for VA hospitals.

a) in your opinion, is this supportive of the troops?
b) John Murtha has yet to file his bill, so it is unclear what will be in it. However, it is likely to include restrictions for sending soldiers to battle without adequate protection. In what way does that deny adequate funding for the troops?

2) The surge is open-ended. Otherwise the administration would announce its expiry. Absent Congressional intervention, it is hopelessly naive to expect that the troop level at the end of the summer will be the same as it was in January. Do you really think that the chaos in Iraq will subside in six months?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:10:54 +0000

Peter:

Gregg’s bill conflates providing adequate funding for soldiers on the ground — which nobody opposes — with an open-ended commitment to keep them there in perpetuity.

Nonsense. The adequate funding for soldiers on the ground is explicitly opposed by John Murtha, whose “Slow Bleed” ideas have the endorsement of Nancy Pelosi.

The surge is not an open-ended commitment to keeping our soldiers their in perpetuity. It is intended to last until late summer, though of course, circumstances could change…

Talk about fogging the issue…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:22:01 +0000

Sorry, cloture