Call to exit Iraq escalates fierce war of words

A Democratic congressman who is a Vietnam veteran and friend to military commanders shook up the debate over the Iraq war Thursday by reversing course and emotionally denouncing the war as he called for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops. The tearful appeal by Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, who originally voted for the war, added to the sense that Congress is at war over the war as lawmakers traded angry words with one another and White House officials about the nation's policy toward Iraq.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said Murtha's announcement is "baffling" and compared his position to that of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and the "extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists," McClellan said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accused Murtha and the rest of the House Democrats of adopting a "cut and run" policy, and he said Murtha had delivered "the highest insult" to the men and women serving overseas. "They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans," Hastert said. "To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil."

Withdrawal is not retreat. We need to de-Americanize the occupation. An occupation seen as western lead attracts terrorism like bloated, wasteful military spending attracts Republicans. In essense, John Kerry was right. It doesn't fewer boots on the ground, just fewer American boots. That means that withdrawal of troops will need to be accompanied by withdrawal of political and economic control.

It is striking how the GOP-hers are more concerned about how words are "hurting" the troops than bullets and IEDs.

Call to exit Iraq escalates fierce war of words
Congressman says mission is harmful to U.S.
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
November 18, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman who is a Vietnam veteran and friend to military commanders shook up the debate over the Iraq war Thursday by reversing course and emotionally denouncing the war as he called for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops.

The tearful appeal by Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, who originally voted for the war, added to the sense that Congress is at war over the war as lawmakers traded angry words with one another and White House officials about the nation's policy toward Iraq.

"It is time for a change in direction," said Murtha, a decorated Marine who saw ground combat in Vietnam. "Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. . . . 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."

Members of Congress from both parties have begun challenging the administration's conduct of the war in recent weeks, and many Democrats are urging a "flexible timetable" for withdrawal. But Murtha is the most prominent congressional voice to call for an immediate pullout.

His status as a decorated Marine, a sober voice on military matters and the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee added to the stir his comments caused on Capitol Hill.

In Pusan, South Korea, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said Murtha's announcement is "baffling" and compared his position to that of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and the "extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists," McClellan said. "After seeing his statement, we remain baffled--nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

On Capitol Hill, Republicans wasted little time firing back. In a blistering response, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accused Murtha and the rest of the House Democrats of adopting a "cut and run" policy, and he said Murtha had delivered "the highest insult" to the men and women serving overseas.

"They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans," Hastert said. "To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil." President Bush is at a summit in Asia.

While Murtha's views on defense matters hold great sway with his colleagues, most Republicans said it would not change their stance on the war.

But the Pennsylvania Democrat's decision to repudiate the war came just two days after the Republican-controlled Senate starkly expressed its unease over Iraq policy. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to require the administration to report to Congress on military operations in Iraq every three months and said 2006 should be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Growing criticism

The growing criticism of the war, and of the administration's handling of prewar intelligence, prompted an angry Vice President Dick Cheney to lash out at the administration's critics with searing campaign-style rhetoric Wednesday night.

"The suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city," Cheney said.

Murtha, who won a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, responded by witheringly comparing his own military service with Cheney's lack of wartime experience.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

The unleashing of so much bitter rhetoric in such a short time coincides with a seismic shift in the polls. Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low, and polls show voters are deeply unhappy about how the war is being handled and skeptical of its prospects for success.

American deaths in Iraq recently topped the 2,000 mark, which focused renewed attention on the human cost.

Democrats had been hesitant to question the U.S. policy in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion for fear of seeming unpatriotic or of undermining the troops' morale. Until recently they had taken an indirect approach, urging the administration to provide greater resources to the military, such as body armor, but refraining from leveling broader warnings.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the first Senate Democrat to call for a timetable to bring home the troops, praised Murtha on Thursday for standing up to the administration.

"The administration's continued efforts to change the subject and attack those who question their `stay the course' mentality are simply irresponsible," Feingold said. "The administration must spend more time getting our Iraq and national security policies straight and less time attacking those who question the deeply flawed course we are on."

Murtha, who has represented southwestern Pennsylvania since 1974, voted for the original resolution to go to war with Iraq. But his worries began early in the effort, and last year he said the Pentagon had to provide more troops and more resources for the war or it would be "unwinnable."

For two and a half years, Murtha said, he has been concerned about the plan for Iraq. He said he discussed those concerns with administration officials, Pentagon officials and the public.

"The main reason for going to war has been discredited," said Murtha, meaning that Saddam Hussein apparently had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

He also said he had concluded that the presence of U.S. troops was actually impeding progress in Iraq. "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence."

Visits to wounded GIs

As he spoke to reporters, Murtha frequently choked back tears, describing his weekly visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center as a big part of why he was taking such a controversial stand.

He said he visited one young man who had lost his hands and was left blind by friendly fire.

"I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. `Anything I can do for you?' His mother said, `Get him a Purple Heart.' I said, `What do you mean, get him a Purple Heart?'" Murtha recounted.

Because he had been injured by friendly fire, the military had said he did not qualify for the honor.

"I met with the commandant. I said, `If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine,'" said Murtha. "And they gave him a Purple Heart."


jbzuckman@tribune.com
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511180186nov18,1,3292868.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed