Murtha Plan More Popular Than Bush Plan

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:01:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Opposing the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq: two out of three Americans.

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent of Americans favored setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. ...
Growing numbers of Americans also favored withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order in Iraq has not been restored. The poll found that 42 percent favored keeping troops there until order is reestablished, while 56 percent said the troops should be redeployed to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if the sectarian violence is continuing.

Rep. Murtha's congressional colleagues (and critics) may find it easier to support his proposal after reading this:

There was clear support, however, for the kinds of conditions proposed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who wants to establish requirements for the training and resting of military units that would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available to send to Iraq.
Murtha's plan has drawn fire in the House, including from some of his Democratic colleagues, after it was announced on a liberal Web site. The Post-ABC News poll, which did not associate the plan with Murtha, found that 58 percent of Americans said they support such new rules. Even some Americans, 21 percent, who supported the president's troop surge said they would favor rules for training and resting troops.

Ariana's take on the critics.

< Young Feminist Questions Support for Hilary | Ney-Abramoff Connection Yields Another Conviction >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Murtha Plan More Popular Than Bush Plan | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

governing by the poll numbers (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:42:31 PM EST

I suspect that 90% of the Iraqi people were thrilled by the overthrow of the Stalinist dictator Saddam Hussein on the day the "American Invaders" took Baghdad, so I guess that that was a good idea too if you believe that polls legitimate policy.

I guess that's why the Iraqi peoples (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by Electa on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:53:26 AM EST

are now saying Americans go home...and that life was better under Saddam than the current state they're living in...like having fresh, clean water, electricity and functioning sewer systems.

It's soon 5 yrs now since "Bush's" war began and thousands of American/Iraqi lives have been x-stinguished, snuffed out as if they were toys that can be replaced at WalMart. You use the worn out Stalin/Hitler/Fascist, comparison to Saddam because you have no other justification for the evils committed by this administration. Actually, there's no need for polling, the American people clearly demonstrated their wishes on Nov. 7, 2006 when they openly rejected the lies of this administration and the crooks who stole America blind while the people slept.

Now the Dems must garner the courage to do what the people elected them to do...come what may, cut the damn funding and deal with the resulting consequences. Let the cards fall where they may, but cut the purse strings, tie them around Bush's neck and then release the trap door of the gallows from under this mad man's feet.


Do you have a calender??? (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:33:30 AM EST

It's soon 5 yrs now since "Bush's" war began

The invasion of Iraq is not quite 4 years old, and the invasion of Afghanistan will be 5 years in November....

Either one doesn't meet the definition of "soon."

As for the conditions in Iraq they are the way they are because the radical Moslems have decided that they can run us out because the actions of our anti-war Left have convinced them they can win a political battle.

So the terrorists have been busy killing a lot of Iraqis based on their religious membership, and a few US military, when they can.

If the various groups weren't doing that, Iraq would be as peaceful as a starlit night under the desert full moon.


: Missing Things? (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:29:48 AM EST

Do you have a calender???
Do you have a dictionary???

I guess so, too (none / 0) (#2)
by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:04:24 AM EST

What I'd really like to see is the poll numbers on our policy of handing the country over to American corporations and looking the other way as long as the Iraqis only kill each other.


How could anyone oppose Murtha's Proposal (none / 0) (#4)
by john horse on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:06:08 AM EST

I fail to understand how anyone could oppose Murtha's proposal. Per the Washington Post (via crooks and liars) here is Murtha's proposal.

"To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's 'stop-loss' policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training."

I'd like someone to tell me which part of this proposal they are against. The Bush administration can only carry out this war by bending if not breaking the rules as far as their treatment of those in uniform. Murtha would put an end to this mistreatment. You can't say you support the troops and also oppose Murtha.

Let's examine what that means.... (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:25:14 AM EST

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent...favored setting a deadline ....Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. ...

And it doesn't mean what you first think it does..

24% of 54% is actually 12.9% of the total.

Same for the 21% which is aroiund 11%.

Can anyone tell me why the writer didn't use the actual numbers rather than nest them so that a casual reader would say, "Wow 24% of Americans want us out in 6 months!"

Goes to creditability your honor.

: For those of us who read for comprehension (none / 0) (#9)
by nolo on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:42:39 AM EST

It's a perfectly clear statementI mean, what's hard to understand about "Among those who favored a deadline"? And besides, the writer did use the actual numbers.

Murtha's plan is more popualr (none / 0) (#8)
by Sailor on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:37:23 AM EST

because it is a plan, not more stay and die in the middle of a civil war.

Anyone else remember when bush said iraq was a soverign country and we'd leave when they wanted us to?

Well they want us to and all we are instead sending more troops. Bush lied again.

I was going to apologize for being (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:21:33 PM EST

petty... I mean what's a few months when you're trying to make a dramatic point...and then you go and write...:

Noble men like Murtha

Huh?? Please. You are making me laugh so hard my sides hurt.

many readers now know or remember that Congressman Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the "Abscam" investigation of the late 1970s and 1980.

Noble???? Please tell me you were unaware of this fact.

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."
..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...
But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.
"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...
"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.
"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"
"Well, you tell me."
"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

Noble?? That is truly funny. Maybe even the most outrageou statements of the year.

Noble? If such men are your heros, God help you.

smear king ppj (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:26:27 PM EST

Your hero's are Rove and Cheney. Eliot Abrams, Poindexter, Ollie North and Nixon

Hahhahaha


So, you have no answer beyond making things up (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:07:05 PM EST

Well, you did say:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

BTW - I keep asking. Are you a male or female??


: No Answer??? (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:43:26 PM EST

You smear John Murtha with your ppj infamous false syllogisms as usual.
Let's see....by your logic:
ppj has been an unidicted gambler and lies on a regular basis therefore he knows nothing about the south.

dictators (none / 0) (#13)
by diogenes on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:05:27 PM EST

When people say that Bush opened the can of worms do they mean that the only way to keep peace in Iraq was for the leader of a subgroup clan of the minority sunnis to put the Shiites under the boot (forget about the Kurds, who needed a no fly zone and military protection) and to let the dictator of the clan do what dictators do?
Bush's best argument for the way wasn't WMD but the fact that Saddam was evil. Saddam invaded Kuwait to annex it, forcing the US to put troops in "Holy Ground" in Saudi Arabia to protect it, which was Osama Bin Laden's original chief complaint and precipitated the 9/11 attack.

: Nope (none / 0) (#16)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:18:24 AM EST

Nope, when people say that Bush opened a can of worms, they mean that it was upto the Iraqis and not the US to decide how they wanted to live.
First by going in we are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Now you may claim that Iraqis would have been killed otherwise, but the point is that had we not gone in the Iraqis would not have died on my taxpayer dollars, and the deaths of those Iraqis would not be due to us.
Secondly by going in we are now caught in the middle of the Shia-Sunni conflict, which we would not be had we not gone in. Read some of the latest from Seymour Hersch where he is reporting that now the Bush administration is aiding the Sunni groups to counter the Shia in Iran/Iraq.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration's perspective, the most profound--and unintended--strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.