Murtha's anti-surge plan

Posted: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:05 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Security

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Rep. Jack Murtha (D) says that he has figured out a way to stop Bush's so-called troop "surge" before it is completed, while still maintaining Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge not to cut off funding for "troops in the field." He tells MoveCongress.org in a Web cast this morning that he plans to attach strings to the president's $100 billion war funding bill that will effectively force the Administration to stall the troop increase.

The provisions he proposes include:
-- prohibiting the Pentagon from sending people back into battle until they have had a year at home after being deployed. He says he has figured out that in order to fulfill the surge requirements, the Defense Department would have to send people back after seven months at home;
-- prohibiting the Pentagon from extending tours;
-- ending the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy;
-- and prohibiting the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

He says that the Pentagon would have to "certify" that any units deployed in the future were "combat ready." In addition, Murtha says that he is "considering" adding provisions to close Guantanamo and "bulldoze" Abu Ghraib. If his measures are enacted, he says, "they won't be able to continue, they won't be able to do the deployment." Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee is the first stop in Congress for the president's $100 billion request for the remainder of this fiscal year. He says that it will be reported out of committee on March 15 and taken up by the House shortly thereafter.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Dan, sorry you missed the point. Abe Lincoln was, of course, one of the greatest men to walk this earth. Saddam was the opposite. The only thing they had in common was to be the leader of a sovereign nation. Three of my ancestors served in the Union Army. I'm proud of them. My son served a year in Iraq. I'm proud of him. Every day I pray he won't be sent back.

Mel, Illinois (Sent Monday, February 19, 2007 7:45 PM)

Hate comments by those that disagree! If we as American's can't get beyond this type of thinking then how do we expect the rest of the world to change. Hate goes deeper for every comment made and this keeps spreading until the world only knows nothing but hate. We tell our children just the opposite of this. But then it's just fine for those individuals to make hate remarks and this is suppose to be funny to all that don't agree. Freedom of speak is wonderful but to know where to draw the line should tell some how far to go. What happened to common sense! Rep.Murtha ideas of stopping war funding will increase the changes of less funding for our troops in Iraq as equipment is wearing out and our troops will be in further danger for lack of. The idea of servicemen or women taking off a year before going back sounds like a 9 to 5 job. This is war time! And to bring this war to a close the time off doesn't bring us any closer to this happening. If you read anything about WWII or Vietnam time away never happened. Troop surge with better equipment with funding and Air Force power could bring this to a close faster. To put on a true thinking cap by over seeing that this war come through for the sake of our troops not remaining in Iraq for a longer time then what might be...then supply the Military in what is needed to do the job to benefit them.. and not for some back here. We have a strong Military with Home Equipment that could get the job done instead of the plan that is in place. These terrorist have been given all types of weapons to kill with so why are we holding back? We walk away now without doing the job that should be done only says we will be faced with this again some where ...and the place ...United States! Deaf ears and blind eyes won't understand this!

Marie, Mn. (Sent Monday, February 19, 2007 9:48 PM)

Bob,Scranton PA--I did not ask for your solution.I said that you offer no solution, Now you say your solution is to win it. Gee no one would ever have thought of that solution. Now did you read my post correctly? I said if PROVEN that BUSH/CHENEY or ANYONE else in investigations/hearings/commissions(and I should have included courts) lied to take us to war,then those people should be hanged.I'm sure you have enough intelligence to have an opinion as to what the punishment should be for people that lied to get us into a war that was unnecessary and has resaulted in 3100 plus dead Americans and 20,000 plus wounded and untold thousands of dead Iraqui. Now go back and re-read my post. I said ANYONE including BUSH/CHENEY not just BUSH/CHENEY,and I also said PROVEN.I thought by putting these words in capital letters you would be able to understand what I meant but I used capital letters in my post 02/17/2007 @4:03pm and that went right over your head.

Seattle Sue (Sent Monday, February 19, 2007 10:38 PM)

Seattle Sue - I did read your idiotic post and if you read the initial blog, it has to do with Murtha's plan for backdoor defunding of the war effort. That's leaving without an exit strategy and turning the country over to radical terrorists. You said I didn't offer a solutin but I'm not advocating for a complete withdrawal from Iraq based on a calendar date as opposed to achieving strategic objectives. Your premise is that Bush/Cheney, et al deliberately lied to get us into war - an extremist point since the same intelligence they had was cited by the previous administration and was reviewed by Congress before they VOTED TO AUTHORIZE military action. You obviously haven't read all of my posts on this issue. You're stuck on this notion that Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be tried on charges of treason and hung if found guilty. You can't be serious. If that's the case, let the Congress begin impeachment proceedings and vote up-or-down to defund the war. Do I have to capitalize that for you?

Bob Scranton, PA (Sent Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:16 PM)

How will more equipment and air power help our troops fight an invisable enemy? The vets I've talked to said every time an IED went off there were civilians standing around, none of whom looked surprised. They could have mowed down everybody in sight in hopes they'd get the one who pushed the button. But our troops aren't supposed to do that. They could question the bystanders til the cows come home and wouldn't get any info. The Iraqis are more afraid of the militias, criminal gangs and insurgents who have threatened to kill them if they cooperate with our troops than they are of our troops who refrain from firing on civilians.

Mel, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:18 PM)

Amen, Bob, its time for the screaming left, and their House stooges, to put up or shut up. C'mon, Seattle Sue, afraid of real democracy in action????????

jtb (Sent Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:52 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=57473