Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths. Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill.
So Democrat "leadership" in the House of Representatives wanted Murtha to call for withdrawal while they kept their distance and they cooked this traitorous little stunt up with the Democrat party in private partly because Nancy Pelosi was anxious to open up another attack on the war.
Anxious? More like desperate. The Democrats have invested themselves in this nations's defeat in Iraq because it pleases their constituents and because they have invested an enormous amount of time and rhetoric saying as Murtha has that "we can not win militarily in Iraq". For us to succeed in our objectives (a democratic Iraq that can protect itself), it would make all their nay saying soo much undeniable garbage. THAT is what drove the Democrats to the Murtha Stunt. They picked a decorated vet (because you can't critisize them unless they critisize a Democrat and then they are fair game) and from the onset referred to him as a "hawk". This was intended to shield the traitor from critisism and to pre-emptively bolster credentials. Murtha is anything but a hawk. He was, by his own admission, instrumental in President Clinton's decision to pull our soldiers out of Somalia after terrorists attacked them at Mogadishu. This defeat embolden al Qaeda and encouraged Osama to plan new attacks as the terrorist told ABC News. Yet again, Murtha is pushing for immediate withdrawal of US forces from the field of battle with al Qaeda. A bill was proposed matching Murtha's rhetoric in the House and was defeated 400 to 3. Their stunt had backfired. Republicans called their bluff.
Democrats have been complaining about....well...everything we've done in Iraq since we set foot on Iraqi soil for operation Iraqi freedom, so it's good idea to familiarize one's self with what we've actually accomplished thus far by reviewing the plan for establishing a free Iraq:
April 2003 - Liberation (Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad deposed)
July 2003 - Governing Council established
September 2003 - First Cabinet formed
November 2003 - Deadlines Announced for Sovereignty and Transitional Administrative Law
March 2004 - Transitional Administrative Law
June 1, 2004 - Interim Government Announced
June 30, 2004 - Sovereignty (Interim Government Assumes Power)
July 2004 - National Conference Convened National Council Established
January 2005 - Democratic Elections (Transitional Government Elected)
These elections (which were held on schedule) saw 8 million vote, Sunni Arabs (formerly comprising Saddam's Ba'ath party) boycotted the elections only to express regret afterwards, a little under 100 attacks occurred nation-wide.
October 2005 - The Constitution Ratified
These elections (which were also held on schedule) saw 10 million vote. Some Sunni Arabs (formerly comprimising Saddam's Ba'ath party) defy foriegn terrorists' call for Sunni Arabs to boycott this election as well creating a rift between the two camps of Iraq's insurgency. This time there were only 19 attacks on polling places. The Constitution was ratified by 80 percent of voters. You may not have heard about this, because at the time the American press was fully dedicated to Democrat complaints about the 2000 soldier lost in the war effort. News of Iraq's successful constitutional referendum does not fit with the view that Iraq is a complete failure, so it was ignored.
There is a logical trend to follow here. The Sunni Arabs start out determined to oppose Iraqs new Government (perhaps because they thought that a Ba'athist controlled Iraq could re-emerge with the help of al Qaeda and leftists the world over), but as the majority of Iraqis eagerly take part in the democratic process, these home grown Iraqi insurgents end up marginalizing themselves in the political process and waring with their fellow citizens. Now they have a choice. They can continue down this dark path or they can seek a truce with their fellow citizens and particpate in a system of self determination. This is the situation we have created in Iraq. The Democrats know this. They know that we will triumph and that a free Iraq will unite to fight terrorism.
And all along, we've been training Iraqi Security forces, partnering them with Coalition forces and conducting security operations. There are now over 200,000 Iraqi Security forces and they expect 75,000 more by this time next year. And over 70% of security operations are now done by Iraqi forces.
Now to the future and why the Murtha Stunt was an attempt by Democrats to save face:
In December 2005 Iraq will hold Constitutionally-based Elections and a Constitutional Government will be elected. At this point, Iraq is officially a free and democratically elected constitutional government. Iraqi Sunni Arabs know that if they boycott these elections, they will reduce their proportion of representation in Iraq's new government. Al Qaeda has no such reservations. Rather they will attempt to prevent Iraqis from accomplishing this goal and seek to punish those that partake in the democratic process. But Iraq's government knows that the terrorist insurgency will not prevail. They also know that Iraqi security will continue to grow in scope and competency as it has all along. Our military leaders in charge of operations in Iraq know this as well. In fact, in July of 2005 the top US commander in Iraq said he believed a "fairly substantial" pullout could begin next spring and summer (2006) That was the opinion of our military leaders and the Iraqi government. This was NOT John Murtha's tail-between-our-legs withdrawal in defeat. This is was the decision of people that saw Victory in the future of Iraq. The news was a shot through the heart of the Democrats who espoused a "quagmire" defeat in Iraq. Their behavior since then has been utterly desperate culminating in the Murtha Stunt. They are failures and they know it. We will not leave Iraq in defeat. Expect the Democrats to continue to deny our success while keeping maticulous track of the number of soldiers we've lost and espouse the language of defeat as we reduce the number of troops stationed in Iraq over the next year. It's the only hope they have of saving face. But like al Qaeda, who also has a vested interest in our defeate in Iraq, Democrats will be disappointed and dejected.