I personall appplaud U.S. Rep. John Murtha For his courage

Democratic Congressman John Murtha gave a press conference today introducing his resolution for redeployment of American troops in Iraq. Below is a transcript of his remarks and the text of the resolution itself.

Statement:

"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.
"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For 2 ? years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

"My plan calls:


To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

Also I found some Q&A put to Murtha by the press:

......................................................
REP. MURTHA: Yes, ma'am?

Q Congressman, Republicans say that Democrats are calling for withdrawal, are advocating a cut-and-run strategy. What do you say to that criticism?

REP. MURTHA: It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do. The military's done everything they can do. This war has been so mishandled from the very start. Not only was the intelligence bad, the way they disbanded the troops, there's all kinds of mistakes that have been made. They don't deserve to continue to suffer. They're the targets. They have become the enemy! Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. The public wants us out of there.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Democrats have called for an exit strategy in the past, but Republicans have said that it's a non-starter. Is there anything -- do you think that the climate has changed in Congress that would give your legislation a chance?

REP. MURTHA: I don't know whether the climate's changed or not. But I know one thing: It's the right thing to do. And setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn't work because they always find an excuse not to get them out. There's times you just got to -- you got to change your mind about this thing, you got to change your direction.

There's times when you just got to say what's the right thing to do? The right thing to do -- our troops are the enemy, they're the targets. When I went to Anbar province, General Huck said to me, you know, the thing that's so discouraging, we got all this armor and everything, and the snipers are shooting right below the helmets. They're blowing the turrets off tanks, no matter how much armor that we put out there. We're the targets. We're uniting the enemy against us! And there's terrorism all over the world that there wasn't before we went into Iraq.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Murtha, you say -- your first point about bringing them home consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters; what is your sense as to how long that would be?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I think they can get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you know, you have to do it in a very consistent way. But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.

Q And could you tell us also --

REP. MURTHA: See, one of the -- let me add something else. Let's say you wanted to go the other way, you wanted to put 500,000 troops over there. Now, we can't even meet the goals of 512,000; we're going to be 10,000 short in recruitment right now. Unless you have a draft, there's no way that you can have more troops. And where are most of the attacks coming? On the roads, on the roads to logistics. General Huck said every convoy is attacked. I had a young Marine that -- I went to a young group that just came back, and he said he'd been hit five times. Now, he wasn't wounded five times, but his vehicle was hit five times, and people all around him were killed.

And -- but what was the question?

Q My other question. What do you mean exactly by a Quick Reaction Force in the region?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- you remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple of days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army. What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we could go back in. But not a civil war or something like that, I mean, you know, that's up to the Iraqis to settle that. So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple of days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them. They could go right down the road.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Mr. Murtha, what about the goal of having an oasis of democracy in the Middle East and the idea that leaving now would leave a breeding ground for terrorists right in the middle of the least stable parts of the --

REP. MURTHA: Let's talk about terrorism. What the State Department said; there's more terrorism now than there ever was, and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part. We have become the enemy there. We have united them against us. So when they say that they want democracy, what was the first goal? The first goal was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The second goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, they did that. And the third was to -- well, I guess the third was destroy the enemy and then get rid of Saddam Hussein. We've done our job militarily. It's time for us to get out.

Q You said that you had spoken with the caucus earlier today. What was their reaction, and are they willing to stand with you on this, specifically the leader?

REP. MURTHA: Well, you'll have to -- you'll have to talk to them about that. I got a standing ovation. But you'll have to talk to them. (Laughter.)

Q The president and the vice president are both saying it is now irresponsible for Democrats to criticize the war and to criticize the intelligence going into the war because everybody was looking at the same intelligence.

REP. MURTHA: I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need(s) to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.

This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion! The American public knows it. And lashing out at critics doesn't help a bit. You got to change the policy. That's what's going to help with the American people. We need to change direction. The troops -- what hurts the troops are the things that I listed before.

Yes, ma'am?

Q How did you come to this decision now? Obviously it's something you've been thinking a lot about, but could you just talk us through a little bit --

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

Q -- how you got here?

REP. MURTHA: I'll tell you, I supported -- I led the fight to go to war in '91. I was one of the few people that believed that Bush -- Bush One was absolutely right about not going into Iraq. You know why he didn't go into Iraq? He said I don't want to rebuild it, and I don't want to occupy it. That's why he didn't go to Iraq -- into Iraq after the '91 war.

I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing.

This was a decision that came because the troops and the target -- they become the target, and the lack of progress that I see. When I go over there I see commanders that are discouraged; even though they say what they're supposed to say, you can tell the difference.

And when I come back here and look at what's called the criteria for success -- and the incidents have increased, even though we've increased the number of troops -- when the unemployment is 60 percent, and we're the target, and our kids are being killed because of that, it's time to redeploy them from Iraq.

Q Mr. Murtha, based on your meeting this morning, I assume you have Ms. Pelosi's endorsement of this --

REP. MURTHA: You have to talk to her. You know, I was very careful not to say this was a caucus position. I -- a lot of people suggested it should be, but I was very careful about this. This is my own position, my own conclusion that I've reached.

My long years in the Marine Corps, my long years in defense, in reading -- I'm frustrated because in the first war President Bush -- we made some suggestions to him. What did he do? He collected $60 billion -- and I was chairman of the committee at the time -- $60 billion from all the world in order to fight the war. We paid about $60 billion. There were coalition troops, a legitimate coalition.

And I remember calling General Scowcroft, saying, "Get these things moving! Get this war over with! There's 250,000 troops out there." He said, "We will not move until we got whatever Schwarzkopf wants."

And that's what they did. And they followed the U.N. resolution to a T. He didn't want a resolution, you remember. This was a very controversial thing, the '91 thing. People forget how controversial it was. And it only passed the Senate by two votes. And -- but he listened to us. He had a meeting every week and listened to what we had to say. And sometimes he took the advice. Sometimes he didn't.

This outfit doesn't want to hear any suggestions. It's frustrating, and the troops are paying the price for it. Yes, ma'am?

Q Sir, so you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible, and that all these troops can be brought home within six months. So that's your hope.

REP. MURTHA: It's what -- I say they could be brought back. I'm saying within the safety of the troops -- but I project it could be six months.

Q Six months to start or six months to have them all back?

REP. MURTHA: I think in six months you could have them all back.

Q Also, on a related subject, what's your plan for the Defense conference coming and the anti-torture and --

REP. MURTHA: Well, we thought it was going to be today, but it doesn't look like it.

Q But do you intend to fight to keep the anti-torture language that the Senate passed in the bill?

REP. MURTHA: Absolutely.

Q (Off mike) --

REP. MURTHA: I think you'll see a big vote. Republicans -- many Republicans come to me -- nobody's for torture, you know. And for us to send the signal to the world that we're for torture -- I mean, this is what caused a major part of the change in minds in Iraq and the United States, is Abu Ghraib. And some of those are my constituents that were at Abu Ghraib.

One young fellow, who was the ringleader, at least they said he was a ringleader, this guy was under a court order not to be allowed to see his family because he abused his family. He couldn't carry a gun in the United States, yet they put him in charge of this group that got out of hand. He told them, and they still -- they were so short-handed. No supervision. No training.

You need strict -- Captain Fishback came to see me five, six months ago. He said, "We don't know what to do. We don't know what the guidelines are. I'd ask a lawyer and he'd say one thing; I'd ask the commanding officer, he'd say something else. Were you guys complicit in this? Were you guys in Congress part of this? Did you wink and say, Yeah, go ahead and torture these people.`?" He said, "They're not following the Geneva Convention."

We need to clarify exactly what the standards are. We need to make sure that the world knows we do not treat prisoners inhumanely or detainees inhumanely. We can't -- Fishback said, I'd rather die than lower the moral standards of the United States. He said that in the letter to John McCain. And I believe that. I believe this is the thing that we have going for us in this country.

Q Do you believe that any House Republicans support your position on the torture amendment?

REP. MURTHA: I do.

Q (Off mike) -- keep it in?

REP. MURTHA: I do. He's not going to veto that bill over torture, I'll tell you that, not a defense bill, when we got troops in the war.

Q Mr. Murtha, could you respond directly to what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld say, that saying that we're going to get out in six months is giving the insurgents exactly what they want in Iraq; they just can outlast us?

REP. MURTHA: I can only tell you this: Incidents have increased, and there's no economic progress. And we have become the enemy. And 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Saying it -- you know, the president said it's tough to win a war. You know, it's tough to wage a war. That's where the fallacy's been. To WAGE this war is where the problem's been.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Do you have any co-sponsors or congressmen --

REP. MURTHA: I didn't ask for any. I'm not sure that -- I think I'll just sponsor it myself. I feel very strongly about this thing, and I'm not sure whether I'll ask for co-sponsors.

Yes, ma'am?

Q What's your political strategy, though, going forward? Because you would have to convince some Republicans to get on your side, and there doesn't seem to be any that are wiling to go out on a limb on this and buck the leadership. Do you have private conversations with any Republicans who have conveyed to you quietly, "I'm behind this"?

REP. MURTHA: I have not yet, because obviously, anything I said before this time would have leaked out.

You folks are so hard-working, so dedicated, so -- have such an ability to get words out of people that I knew better than to say anything.

Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this? REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, folks, one more question.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone in the administration prior to coming out with this, the idea that you were coming all the way around to having troops come back immediately? Have you had any discussions prior to coming out --

REP. MURTHA: My experience goes back to the letter I sent to them as the former chairman, as the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Five months later, I get a letter from the assistant secretary. So I didn't have much chance to speak to the administration about it. And I don't -- I don't know -- I know it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, what they're saying is rhetoric. It's easy to sit in these air-conditioned offices and talk about what the troops are doing, send the troops to war.

Let me tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam. You never know when it's going to happen.

One young commanding officer -- I just met with him the other day, went out to the hospital to see him; he's from Johnstown. He actually was a commanding officer unit in Johnstown. Three days before he's supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up and blew him apart. Luckily, he had the glasses on that we have provided for them and it didn't blind him, or he'd have been blinded.

And I remember one young fellow -- and this is the last story I'll tell -- is -- he had pock marks all over his face, shrapnel all in his face, all over his body, arms, everyplace. But he wasn't blinded. And I was so pleased because he had glasses on that we had made sure he'd got, and I patted him on the hand and the vibration was so severe, he almost screamed. And he turned his arm over and it was split the whole way up and his nerves were showing.

It's -- it's -- we've got to address -- and these are long-term problems. This is not something you just put them out of the hospital. You've got long-term problems with these guys and the intensity that they have been through.

Thank you very -- Q Senators Warner and Stevens just talked with reporters on the other side of the Capitol, and they said that they had yet to meet a single soldier in Iraq or at the hospitals here who thought it was time to pull out of Iraq --

REP. MURTHA: Is that right?

Q -- and that --

REP. MURTHA: What do you think they're going to tell you? We're here to talk for them. We're here to measure the success. The soldiers aren't going to tell you that. I told you what the soldiers say. They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends. We are here -- we have an obligation to speak for them.

Thank you very much.

.... END

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

You cannot go into an already destructive country, destroy it even more, then say "Sorry! Our leader f'ed up so we'll be leaving now" It is the responsibility of the United States to bring peace to the region now.

LOL I dont mean to laugh but bring peace?????? Like we really can do that. We have brought all kinds of trouble to the region look at what happened in Jordan. Do you think that would have happened had we not been in that region? Bush has made a total mess out of that region and endangered millions of people.
I would really like for someone to show me what makes the USA the world peace makers. We had NO right to go in there to begin with, and we are NOT the world police one day americans will get that I hope

Remember stay the curse

Exactly. WE brought the trouble and mess and WE have to clean it up. It's called responsibility.

Agreed.

The president of the United States proposed the invasion of Iraq and the majority of the representatives that we have elected to represent us, gave him the authority to do so- even the democrat that is demanding the withdrawl of the troops now. Heck even the majority of the population supported the war in the beginning phases. No one said that we needed to be the peace makers of the world, but only the countries that we have invaded.

Agreed but we did go in and it is our responsibility to clean up the mess that we have made.

I am not saying I support Murtha. Yes we made a mess over there and its our responsibility to fix it(first thing Bush would take responsibilty for IMHO although hes not staying there to take responsibility hes staying there because the guy cant say he was wrong NEVER has he said he was wrong). Its just maddening to know it was something some of us never supported from day one and its a total disaster now and we are paying for it. Not only with the billions of $$ we are spending over there but with the lives of our military, not to mention all the innocents dying daily.
Yes many of our reps voted for the war but in truth the intelligence was faulty and thats been proven. I dont hold my reps responsible, I hold Bush and his cabinet responsible. I believe 100% Bush and his higher up cabinet members manipulated intellegence info.
Bush keeps saying that Congress saw the same intelligence info he had. Thats BS because not everyone (of course for security reasons) has/had access to the very same info he has/had. Plus even our own CIA had said some of the intelligence Bush and his admin were relying on was faulty and fabricated. It didnt matter to Bush he had his mind made up by that point and it didnt matter.
I really cant even imagine how much worse this is going to get. We have 2 plus years of Bush left

My husband is just getting ready to return from Iraq and I agree we should have never gone there in the first place.
I also agree that a lot of ppl in the US backed the war at first but Sept 11 was still fresh in our minds (even tho it had nothing to do with Iraq) and we were lied to by many ppl to gain that support.
I never supported this war and never will but I will support my soldier and am so happy he is returning home to me finally after 1 1/2 long years. But I am sad that so many others will not have their loved ones returning home to them.
I myself would like to see nothing better than impeachment.

Tonya

sheve I am glad your husband is coming home safe will he be home for the holidays?
As I have said before just because I do not support this war in any way, doesnt mean I dont support the troops. They are only doing a job and were sent there. I hold Bush and Co responsible.

WOOHOO Tonya! I am SO excited your husband is coming home soon! I remember those days and I remember that day and it is truly the BEST feeling ever to know your soldier is back in the United States. I still bawl like a baby when I see troops coming home and I feel terrible when I know another soldier has been deployed.

As for not being there and leaving immediatly...well I agree that we shouldn't be there BUT since we are there, why not at least do something productive? My husband's battalion (Navy Seabee's--they rebuild) were building airways that were destroyed, trying to do something with sewage and water which is just awful, some of the Seabee's (and many other branches) were teaching them a trade. It is VERY nerve wracking to do that because you don't know who is good and who is bad.

I agree you can't go into a country, destroy it and leave it---when there is no reason to be there. BUT I didn't see them here rebuilding the WTC or cleaning it up, or telling family members their spouses, children and friends had died.

Then again the media only focuses on the "bad" things the military does. You rarely hear them say they did anything positive. Which hey if they're going to be there--lets hear the correct truth. EVERY soldier there can tell you something different and it doesn't make it not true. My husband doesn't talk about the bad--you don't hear him say his humvee almost got hit by a RPG but that the man in front of him did get hit and is severly burned. You hear him focus on the good--like he has to tell himself he was there for a reason because he didn't have a choice in the matter.

I don't think we should be there but since evidently Bush has no plans to send them home soon so I guess all they can do is rebuild while they are there. BUT I would rather them rebuild it once and if the insurrgents destroy it, then leave it.

(sorry long winded I know as normal...LOL)

Thank you for your kind words. I am crying right now I want my soldier in my arms NOW!!! He has been shot in the ribs (thankfully hit in the flak vest and only broke 2 ribs) and ran over a roadside bomb and destoyed this humvee and only got cuts and bruises. I want my man home so badly and I know their are thousands of others just like me sitting at their computers typing in a rambling fashion crying agonizing and LONELY!!

Tonya

This one is so very hard. No we should not have went, we have made a huge mess, and there is no ethical way we can leave it as it is.
On the other hand.. the people in charge of fixing the mess are the ones who made it, and I really doubt they have the skills to do so. (and no i dont mean our soldiers)

The Iraqi leaders are even asking for a withdrawal time table. Bush and Co really need to listen what the american people are saying and the Iraqi leaders/people
Also if you read this article you will see that there is discontent among the different ethinic peoples in Iraq. This of course is nothing new but if these people cant even get along amongst themselves I highly doubt there can be an unification for the country as a whole. USA officials should have seen this as a problem before they went in and destroyed the country. The Iraqi people arent ready for what the USA had proposed and I am not sure if and when they will. The US presence there is only making it worse IMHO. The USA has to make the best of the situation(I really doubt the country will be left in an ideal condition) and just leave. Otherwise our military could be there for heaven knows how long.

Iraqi leaders call on U.S. to set withdrawal schedule
Statement says Iraq must first add more security forces

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraq President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.

"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam Hussein regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.

I havn't read all the posts, but id like to through in my 2 cents


We need to get out of iraq. you can't really fight a war when you don't know who your enemies are. I am compleatly sick of seeing our soldiers die over there, when the people we are fighting believe it is an honor to die if you can kill a few of them with ya. It's an unending uphill battle


btw, OMG, i acutally agree with DGE, lol. i think this is like a first that a conservative and a libral agree.

Well I "think" that maybe Bush oughta sit down and read the Bible(whether you believe its true or not ) and attend history classes again. I'm not trying to insult his intelligence(really) but obviously the fighting has been going on for ages. It is great to think it can be changed and want to help I don't believe there is a way to fix it. I think we should fix what we destroyed from a construction stand point and then move on out. We can't fix it--there isn't a way too

Really I'm not trying to insult President Bush because there will be times I agree with him and times I won't, just like ANY president. I just think that after 2 years or more of this that he should realize it can't be fixed. Don't leave it for the next guy(or lady) to dig us out.

I wasn't for the Iraq war, but now, I don't think the US should leave right this second.

God knows what will happen without a properly sustainable government there.
Its either

A) go in and get the job done right
not go in at all

Unfortunately, the US took option A.

In Iraq, the justice system must be at a primitive level, meaning that laws need to be enforced and peace needs to be kept by FORCE.

Until Iraqis have sufficient equipment, training and personnel to properly defend themselves, pulling out could cause a chaos, IRAQ would be worse than it started and the soldiers' deaths would be meaningless.

So, I'm all for leaving Iraq, but not right this second. I just don't feel that Iraq's government is sustainable without some help right now.

This comment makes no sense, and barely deserves a response, but I will try.

IRAQ did not attack the world trade centre. No one country attacked the WTC, and trying to compare this with the war in IRAQ is idiotic. A group of terrorists (Who have yet to be caught, and probably won't be for a long time) attacked the WTC, and the fact that the US is, and has to take responsibility for re-building IRAQ is what seperates them from the terrorists.

IMO the US can't pull out now. If they do, they will look even worse. They murdered all these people for nothing.

If they pull out now, and leave the country in shambles, and chaos breaks out, you don't think there is going to be any backlash? The US made their bed, and now they have to lay in it.

I feel for all the soldiers who have lost their lives serving their country, along with all their families, but you can't just leave now. Think of all the innocent people that the us killed over there as well. The US owes them this. Pulling out now, and leaving them worse off than they were before is a slap in the face for those families.

I meant in general (as in terrorists and trust me I'm well aware that a small percentage of Iraqi's are--they just want us out and who can blame them) so there is no need to say it doesn't need a response. I could say the same about yours, but I'm adult enough to realize EVERYONE has their own opinion. I may not agree with DGE a lot but I also know she is a VERY intelligent person and her posts are well thought out. Trust me, I follow the media a little too much. One tends to do that when one's spouse becomes deployed and may go back a second time (and his battalion was told it would be every 2 years they would go.)

If you would have read my first post I SAID that we can't leave right this minute. For one, we have to rebuild what was destroyed. AND the country is in upheavel because of us. I don't know if the new government will stay in power in Iraq when we leave(if we ever do). I have my doubts that it will stay for long, simply because as many people that do want it, there are that many that don't want it.

I have heard first hand accounts from my husband and my husband's unit(they weren't at the same place--some convoyed all around like my husband, some were spread between 2 and 3 bases). I have hours and hours of pictures, videos of the humanitarian efforts the military is doing, I've seen housing and how terrible some of it is. I've seen the Iraqi youth playing with the soldiers and I've seen a few pics of ticked off Iraqi's. There is a picture of an Iraqi married woman waving to the camera which a few years ago she probably would NOT have done. But as many steps that are taken forward they fall back just as many if not more.

What our country doesn't understand is that we CANNOT make this country like the United States. They are too different from us--not in a bad way. Their culture is just different. I've heard people say let's just take them all out. Take WHO out? The Iraqi's or the terrorists? They aren't the same and frankly its time people realize that.

But I'm done with this debate because for some reason I always tend to end up wrong because of my opinion(which I never knew an opinion was wrong)

First i wasn't attacking your opinion. I was stating that your comment made no sense, not your opinion.

The rest of the post wasn't directed at you. If you read my post, it is closly aligned with yours.

I understand what both of you are saying. I think this topic is a very good one to discuss. Its a topic (or really should be) on most americans minds. I know people like me that never agreed with the war to begin with, but who believe it would be morally wrong to just leave now. I also know people who were totally 100% for the war (believing the BS the Bush admin was saying about the ties between TWC and Iraq) that have changed their minds on the war in a 360 degree fashion.

The reason I started this thread is because I think John Murtha should be appauled because of his bravery. Bravery you say? Yes bravery because it took alot of guts as a politician to come out and say what he did.
Funny how the White House attacked Murtha almost immediately (foolish move on their part) but when alot people thought Bush and Cheney have NO room to bash a TRUE veteran of the Vietnam war and who served his country 37 years. I mean if you look closely at Bush and Cheney both had multiple deferments to avoid going to Vietnam. The american people didnt take too kindly to the fact they bashed Murtha. SOOOO in true politician fashion Cheney changed his tune pretty quickly, I believe like a day or two later he called Murtha a good man and a patriot

I think alot of americans are just sick and tired of the war and our first reaction is to just say yeah lets get the heck outta Dodge. But that cant happen even though I would really like to see those soldiers come home.

The bottom line is
Bush and CO has flushed our reputation down the toilet world wide
They have put us in a debt we will be lucky we can crawl out of in many years to come
Still hasnt caught the TRUE mastermind and backers of the WTC attacks

Even his fellow republicans are distancing themselves from him. The ship is sinking. Too bad he is taking all americans down with him.

I think impeachment hearings are in order. If they can spend millions on investigating Clintons lie about a BJ than certainly they can investigate a president that lied about getting us into war. Maybe Bush needs to cheat and get a BJ from some intern to get impeached....rather sad that americans and their preoccupation with sex thinks lying about sex by the president is more of a security risk and a reason to impeach

Mark Fiore always has funny animations. Here is his latest entitled "Stay The Course Man"

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/stay.html

There are lots of other animations if you go to the home page

It will also be sad to bring the troops back now and all of them who sacrificed so much and all who lost their lives have nothing to show for their work.

What about all the Iraqi soldiers who have taken the risk to have their whole family slaughtered just to get the country on it's feet? Their sacrifice should mean something.