Jimmy Higgins at Fire on the Mountain has the story of the wave of occupations of congressional office sweeping the country. The corporate media have not seen fit to take notice of this democratic surge.
Typical of this movement is Sacramento for Democracy's month-long daily nine-to-five occupation of Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui's office. Matsui "has stepped up her anti-war rhetoric in response," Higgins says, "but that’s all so far."
Even more important, however, is Higgins's reporting of the Murtha Plan, now being floated in the House as a way to end the Iraqi occupation. He provides a video link to Murtha's explanation of the plan, while noting that "There is, unfortunately, another concealed agenda item in his plan—providing cover for Democrats who are under massive pressure to vote No on the upcoming $93 billion emergency appropriation Bush needs to continue the war."
In other words, this plan would not end the occupation, but would only change its rules.
Those without a high-speed connection capable of supporting video can get the details from these two opposed posts at DKos. Mcjoan, who takes a positive view of the plan accurately reports that "His legislation would dictate how long troops can stay, the equipment they use and whether any money could be spent to expand military operations into Iran. Murtha says few units could meet the high standards he envisions, meaning Bush's plan to keep some 160,000 troops in Iraq for months on end would be thwarted.
"Under his plan, he says, Democrats would be helping and not hurting troops by making sure they have what they need before being thrown into combat."
The more skeptical dov12348 maintains, also accurately, that "Pelosi and Murtha are deciding to continue to support the war by continuing to support funding for the war. They impose 'conditions' but no specifics or timetables.
"Anyway, in an emergency, not only are these options excruciatingly slow, Bush will be just happy to dance around any such legislation that's enacted," dov concludes.
Thanks to Stan Goff for calling these matters to our attention.
1 comment:
Hey, Dave, thanks for the link.
The contradiction posed by Murtha's plan is a serious one. First I think we should be clear: Murtha wants a complete withdrawal from Iraq, as does a substantial chunk of the US high command whose voice he serves as in this matter. They fear that keeping on will "break" the US military for a long time to come.
In his video, which I linked to, Murtha talks about how his plan will limit the misuse of troops and thus make "The Surge" impossible. This is disingenuous. In fact, his program would, over time, make withdrawing at least the bulk of the troops inevitable. The Pentagone simply does not have the cannon fodder to keep on.
The problems with this approach is fourfold. First it would take a long damn time to finally take full effect. Second, it has an inherent rationale for continuing in Iraq. Third, it provides cover for Dems who wnat to denounce the war without actually doing anything about it. And fourth, it erodes the movement's morale and our righteous centering around the demand "Bring Them Home Now!"
Post a Comment