Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather for videos)

Keith Olbermann brings on VoteVet.org's Jon Soltz to discuss Rep. John Murtha's most recent statement that the "surge" is working, noting that most of the rest of the media has been eager to only focus on the first part of his statement, essentially ignoring the second half, where Murtha notes that while the military aspect has done what it needs to, the political aspect has not been successful. Based on this Wired report, I would question if military aspect can really be categorized as "successful," especially considering that no politicians are ever given a chance to see anything but highly managed events within the Green Zone, and while troop casualties may be down, Iraqi casualties don't get reported. However, for the purposes of this comparison, let's give Murtha the benefit of the doubt and simply appreciate the context that Olbermann and Soltz attempt to provide to Murtha's statement.

Now watch how Lou Dobbs handles the very same story:

Download | play Download | play

Notice anything???

 It's been two long years since John Murtha, that dirty f*&king hippie broke from the administration and made a plea to get out of Iraq.

Download | play Download | play

The Gavel has the stats...1786 soldiers have died since...

Democratic Congressman John Murtha gave a press conference today introducing his resolution for redeployment of American troops in Iraq.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region...full transcript here...

 On Sunday's "Face The Nation" Democratic Congressman, John Murtha talks to Bob Schieffer about the Iraq spending bill and the President's theatened veto.  Murtha points out that Congress has given the President billions of dollars more than he requested and that the American people have spoken and they want out of Iraq.  He then goes on to list ways to influence a President and one of those ways is impeachment.

Download | play Download | play

Murtha: "There are three ways - four ways to influence a President, and one is popular opinion, the elections, third is impeachment and fourth is-is uh, fourth is the uh-uh the purse."

Schieffer: "Are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of this President by Congress?"

Murtha: "What I'm saying is there are four ways to influence a President -"

Schieffer: "And that's one of them?

Murtha:  "One of them is impeachment -"

Schieffer: "That's an option that is on the table?"

Murtha: "I'm just saying that's one way to influence a President.  The other way is the purse and the purse is controlled by the Congress who is elected by the public and in the last election the public said we want the Democrats in control." 

Rep. John Murtha is not about to take Bush's bully pulpit sitting down.

Taylor Marsh has the video.

UPDATE (SilentPatriot): Jack Murtha took to the floor today and delivered one of the most impassioned speeches I've seen in a long long time. He ran through the important provisions in the bill and warned Republicans that a vote against it is a vote against desperately needed care for the troops. He ended on a personal story about his grandmother that almost brought him to tears.

Jack Murtha = Leadership. The right-wing character smears and swiftboating are as mean-spirited as they are disgraceful. The passion in his voice shows how much he truly cares about the troops. Unlike those that just them as pawns and exploit them for political purposes.

  On Late Edition this morning, Wolf asked Jack Murtha for his response to Dick Cheney's charge that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in chaos.

Download | play   Download | play

MURTHA: Why would I believe that? I mean, all the things that they have predicted have -- everything I predicted turned out to be true. Nothing they predicted turned out to be true. Why would I believe there's going to be chaos in the Middle East just because they say it? The Iraqis don't believe that. The countries on the periphery don't believe that and the public doesn't believe it. The public wants us out. They spoke in the last election.

Granted this seems like the obvious answer, but among America's political punditry elite, those who have consistently been wrong about everything (Cheney, Ledeen, etc.) are still regarded as experts, whereas those who were correct the entire time (Murtha, Dean, Gore, etc.) are considered unserious no-nothing hacks who should be ignored.

This reminds me of an exchange Tim Russert had with Lindsay Graham two weeks ago. To his credit, Timmeh hit the nail on the head:

MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans will say that those who supported the war are saying, “Trust us, see this through,” the same people who said, “There are weapons of mass destruction. General Shinseki’s wrong, we don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops. We will be greeted as liberators.”

SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: “The cost of the war,” according to Lawrence Lindsey, “won’t be more than $200 billion.” “There won’t be any sectarian violence.” All those judgments were wrong. Why should the American people continue to belive in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up and executing the war?

The answer, of course, is we shouldn't.

 John Murtha joined Timmeh this morning to talk about his plans for the Iraq war...

Download | play   Download | play (5 1/2 minutes)

Russert was pushing him to bash Cheney because of the VP's obsession to link him and the Democratic Party to al-Qaeda. He did say that Dick..."didn’t blame me for at least getting the British out"

From Logan Murphy: Meet The Press - Murtha Responds

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and the following quote from Dick Cheney while he was in Japan last month -

Continue reading »

Are we seeing a trend here?  The power that we collectively exercise really does have the traditional media scared, because they don't miss a chance to try to put us in our place.

Take for example this WaPo article on the Dems seeking to repeal the 2002 AUMF.  Not content with doing the same stenography with Harry Reid that they do for the White House, they now claim that this is "dooming" Murtha's resolution, despite the fact that these are two different chambers, and the House and the Senate can work on concurrent legislation:

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). 

But wait, there's more:

After nearly four years of combat, most military units would not be able to meet (the) standards (of being fully fully rested, trained and equipped, as outlined in the Murtha proposal). Although the war would be fully funded, the policy would prevent some of the 21,500 additional combat troops from being deployed, and some troops already in Iraq would have to be sent home.

But that approach may be all but dead, according to several Democratic lawmakers. Murtha doomed his own plan in part by unveiling it on a left-wing Web site, inflaming party moderates.

That's right, WaPo would have you believe that after the 2006 election with its overwhelmingly clear anti-war sentiments and recovery of the majority, Dem moderates would rather have our troops go to Iraq for Bush's escalation than let Murtha (no lefty himself, mind you) talk to a anti-war website.  And this is all based on unnamed "lawmakers".

Anyone want to bet where this whole narrative came from?

Conservative pundit lesson #1: When your opponent makes an unassailable point, like an increase in troops should include provisions for adequate training and equipment, change the subject. (h/t ThePatriotsMaxim )

 Brit Hume couldn't control himself this morning on FOX and was frothing at the mouth in his attacks on Murtha over Iraq. It was not much different than what you might read on a Freeper website. Murtha has endured a barrage of personal attacks since he spoke out against the war, (which seems like a decade ago.) but Hume really made a jackass out of himself by questioned his state of mind.

Download | play Download | play

HUME: That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it’s time a few things be said about him. Even the “Washington Post” noted he didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cache among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there. (h/t TP for the transcript)

Does he mean THE Washington Post that's trying to get Libby off?

DKos:

The GOP is trying to frame Murtha's plan of requiring improved troop readiness as the exact opposite.

According the GOP: Murtha's plan

• is to "cut funding",
• is a "strategy to pull the rug out from under our troops", and
• is a "slow bleed" approach.

RESPONSE
If we don't make sure to hammer the point that Murtha's plan calls for the very opposite soon and often, the GOP lies will prevail.

Murtha's plan calls for

• Sufficient soldier training,
• Sufficient equipment, and
• Reasonable deployment and leave time.

Murtha's plan protects the troops. It pulls the rug out from under Bush by protecting the troops from his abuse of their readiness to serve.

Read on...

Yahoo: (h/t willyjsimmons)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in
Iraq.

[..]"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

[..]Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.

Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.

Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.

 On Countdown tonight, Keith compared the stark differences between what the administration was saying publicly and privately about Iraq in the lead up to the midterm elections. After Rumsfelds November 6 internal memo was made public by the New York Times last weekend, David Gregory pressed Tony Snow on the hypocrisy of the "cut and run" rhetoric when, at the same time, Secretary Rumsfeld was contemplating the very same options.

Video WMP  |  Video MOV 

Q Isn't it striking that this administration was accusing the likes of John Murtha and other Democrats who suggested course correction, including phased withdrawal, of cutting and running --

MR. SNOW: No, let me --

Q -- at the same time that the Defense Secretary was suggesting just the same option?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q You don't see hypocrisy there?

MR. SNOW: No, because you're talking about apples and oranges.

 Murtha went on Hardball to talk about his bid for Majority leader and explain his positions and what has been reported about him.

Video-WMP Video-QT

Here's the Youtube. I cut off the beginning segment where he says:

MATTHEWS:     Are you going to win?

MURTHA:          We're going to win, we've got the votes.

MATTHEWS:     You've got them?

MURTHA:          We've got the votes.

MATTHEWS:     Eyeball to eyeball, you've got them?

MURTHA:          Eyeball to eyeball.

(transcript via MSNBC, where they have the full video posted.)

Continue reading »

 As you all know, I think Jack Murtha changed the narrative about the war in Iraq. When he spoke out, it shocked the nation and the Bush administration in his clarity and sincerity almost a year ago. He stepped up and articulated a clear vision of what we needed to do and admitted that he made a mistake with his vote. He went through the terrible swiftboating from the right for months and yet came out of it still breathing fire on the terrible situation in Iraq.

I know that he's from a very conservative district when it comes to social values, but I was able to talk to him for a few minutes Tuesday and he made it clear that his focus is on Iraq and he'll leave the rest up to Nancy Pelosi. I take him at his word. Jerome is reporting that Murtha has the lead in the voting at this point after Hoyer's crew went on a media blitz the last few days, but we'll know soon.

I do feel this election was a referendum on the Iraq war and the people deserve the face that speaks to their votes. Matt Stoller is on the same page.

Continue reading »