Murtha: No More U.S. Troops for Afghanistan

http://washingtonindependent.com/58949/murtha-no-more-u-s-troops-for-afghanistan

Murtha: No More U.S. Troops for Afghanistan
By Spencer Ackerman 9/14/09 12:07 PM


Last week I urged people to watch Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.) and Jack Murtha (D-Pa) for barometric measurements of deflated Democratic congressional support for the Afghanistan war. Levin, of course, came out on Friday for deferring a second troop increase this year. Now Murtha is opposing it outright.

In an interview with Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee says:



Rogin correctly notes that Murtha’s 2005 opposition to the Iraq war, coming as it did from a consistent hawk, encouraged congressional Democrats to grow full-throated in their own criticism of the war. But now Murtha’s embroiled in massive ethical scandals. Congressional Democrats are balking at a second troop increase this year for their own reasons, and have leaders like Levin, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and others expressing discomfort. Murtha probably won’t have the galvanizing effect on the Afghanistan debate that he did on the Iraq one.

:o

Hoyer is House MAJORITY leader.

We'll see what happens when McChrystal asks for more. Fight it Dems!

Who among the folks now saying "no more troops for Afghanistan" were, during the presidential race (either general or primary) supporting Obama's emphasis that Afghanistan was where our military emphasis needed to be? I bet you don't find Kucinich or Obey there. But I'm not so sure about Reed, Murtha, or Hoyer.

Point being, Obama ran on a platform that he is trying to implement. Some who claimed to support that platform are now turning on him and it WILL hurt politically. Not just Obama - Democrats across the board.

(Whether we should get the job done in Afghanistan or accept defeat and leave is a separate question than the political consequences I'm addressing here.)

mean we move thousands more troops to Afghanistan. It meant to me that Afgh. needs more guidance than Iraq. We failed to get Bin Laden and the Taliban are returning. Help give that country the ability to protect themselves, easier said than done, I know, but still, that is what the people there want. They darn sure don't seems to want us blasting away in their country like we did in Iraq.

that does NOT mean I have to support the WARS.

Truth is, America was not given much of a chance to vote on the WARS.
We were given only two choices.

1) a Pro-WAR Democrat

OR

2) a Pro-WAR Republican

I strongly opposed BOTH Wars when Bush did it.
I STILL Oppose both Wars.

I have heard him speak and he is a smart guy. Last I heard him speak about this issue, his mantra was "no more troops" but then he went along to say, "we need a new strategy for those troops if we use them". So he says one thing and then another. He knows how to work a crowd with politico speak.

That said, his district loves him because he is a pork king and keeps that poor area of PA a bit better off for it.