Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs
Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 25, 2007; A05
The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.
But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.
Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.
"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.
The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.
Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha's once promising strategy was in tatters.
...
Democrats back away from Iraq plan
2/26/2007, 10:24 p.m. ET
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.
Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
"Iraq is going to be there it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."
Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure as Murtha has proposed Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.
The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.
Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who while weakened still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.
The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off at least for the week.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."
But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.
House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.
Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.
"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.
...
it really is disingenuous to portray a cut in funding as resulting in anything like troops on the ground not having enough ammunition to defend themselves...or not enough food to eat...or putting them in a situation where they needed to write and have their moms send them bus fare to get back home.
"leaving the troops without funds or equipment" is really a red herring
no...it always has been.... suggesting that any move by congress would leave our troops without funding or equipment is nothing but a large lie told for political purposes.
It would make it impossible for them to carry out their mission, which was the point.
no..the attempt was clearly made to give the impression that the vote to cut off funding would leave our troops in the battle space with no equipment. That is really rather despicable if you ask me. I listened to a woman at a McCain rally in South Carolina suggesting that democrats wanted to not PAY our troops or even feed them... and McCain did nothing to disabuse her of that bizarre and ignorant notion. no class. I am embarrassed we share the same alma mater.
and folks in that audience were applauding her comments.... if you think that someone would have to be an idiot to believe that, then you would agree with me that republicans who gathered in south carolina recently to listen to John McCain were idiots.
Well in my opinion, anyone who gathers to listen to McCain is by definition an idiot.
As you would be the first to point out, some people in one place, especially partisan, pro-war people, do not necessarily reflect the views of all.
clearly, they do not reflect the views of all... a majority of voters clearly wanted republicans out from behind the wheel. I know that.
I also know that this was an ignorant and inaccurate and profoundly confrontational view of the opposition's position, and one of YOUR party's leading candidates encouraged it by his silence.
He's not my 'leading candidate', I don't even like any of them that much. I'd be ripe for a 3rd party, if one would show up.
I have understood for some time now that you are much more intelligent and thoughtful and reasonable than any republican party hack ever could be.
you should run for office. I would be your campaign manager.
I know a little bit about Illinois politics, you'll recall - it's in my blood.
LOL! Believe it or not, that's been suggested. Unlikely though, even local elections cost plenty. I'm not good at hitting friends up for money. I get myself involved when I find someone I can support. My guess I'll probably go for Guillian, as he's the best so far.
