Murtha needs to check his facts

It is being reported in the New York Times that Commanders say the push in Baghdad is short of the goal and that commanders are speaking out against the Commander in Chief. But the the New York Times is speaking out of turn, again. Talks between the generals and the President have not, as yet, leaked out into the public. Those in the know say, "Much of what has been written or said to this point is largely speculation by people who weren't in the discussions." (also see this)

“In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.” (Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander, First Cav., “Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal,” NYT, 4 June 2007)

How can we judge yet, when all the 'surge' troops have not yet arrived in Iraq? How can you count your chickens before the eggs have even been laid?

“Let’s, for example look, at the Iraqi battalions. None are at full-strength, only half are operational and even fewer actually do any soldiering. To put it mildly, to say otherwise, is a misrepresentation of fact.” (Albrecht Gero Muth, “The BSP at the 90-Day Marker, A Sadrist/ JAM Perspective,” (UNOFFICIAL) (9 May 2007)

John Murtha on ABC said, "I've lost a lot of confidence in many of the military leaders, because they say what the White House wants them to say ..."

When asked if Petraeus was included in his lack of confidence, Murtha added, "I'm waiting to see what he has to say. But I am absolutely convinced there has been this overly optimistic picture of what's going on in Iraq, while the figures show the opposite."

From those who know:

Clearly on the issue of policy and national level strategy, the military is not going to get out in front of the President. They will continue to render their advice to him in private. The President will decide and the military will execute. Knowing most of these men, it is hard for me to imagine them not being totally candid in their assessments and advice. They know the consequences for soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors; for the region; and for this Nation. (source withheld)

John Murtha also tried to link the John F. Kennedy airport terror plot to ... Iraq. (video here)

NewsBusters says, "In reality, Murtha was brought on to counter the “things are getting better” in Iraq after the surge viewpoint expressed by the previous guest, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. (video available here)"

GEORGE STEPHANOPLIS, HOST: ... You believe that these homegrown terrorist plots are being inspired by the U.S. work in Iraq right now?

JOHN MURTHA, CONGRESSMAN: Absolutely. George, they were inspired by them all over the world. Our presence in Iraq, our occupation in Iraq, gives these people the inspiration. Now, we didn’t have this problem before, they came from Afghanistan. But, now we even have it in the United States. So, I’m absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we did have 9/11 before we went into Iraq.

MURTHA: Yeah, we had 9/11, but that came from Afghanistan. There was no, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. We don’t even know how many al Qaeda are in Iraq right now. For instance, we think a couple of thousand. They’ll take care of al Qaeda. They’ll get rid of al Qaeda. Our presence is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. This is the problem we have.

Hot Air:

And never mind that the 9/11 plot which Murtha claims came “from Afghanistan” didn’t involve any actual people who were, you know, from Afghanistan.

Spanky’s got his story and he’s sticking to it. I’ll let Tony Blair answer via his piece in the Economist,

In "Recipe For Iraq: Slice, Dice, And Serve With Rice", R.J. Godlewski says, "Not a single member of the Democratic Party’s parade of presidential hopefuls even dares look at the prospects for victory."

If the surge fails to produce results, then it is because the Iraqi people haven’t stepped up to the plate. This means that our next step must be one in which we pull away from traditional counterinsurgency practice – that is, we abandon the “hearts and minds” approach and concentrate on the “raw application of power” that even the most stoical individual can relate to.

If the surge fails, I suggest that we pull our troops back to seal (like in hermetically) the country’s borders – primarily that with Iran and Syria – and forfeit any significant troop presence within the cities. Once we’ve basically isolated the nation from the rest of the world, we begin to slice wide swaths of “depopulated” zones horizontally through the country. By this, I mean, that we create areas that are devoid of anything and enforce this... [snip]

One, we isolate Iraq from its meddling neighbors and impose strict quarantine on what goes in and out of the country. Two, we take out everyone who is a threat to peace and security, even if it is only a political wannabe like Muqtada al-Sadr. Third, we rebuild Iraq into a beacon of all that’s good with free trade, free enterprise, and free from corruption. Iraq can exist as a free democracy working together to build a stable nation in the Middle East or it should become an example of what will happen if we lose our patience. The choice is definitely theirs to make.
(more)

I'm not sure what Murtha would say about that. He would probably go on the talk show circuit and be the toast of the anti-war crowd -- again.

Other news:
Fred’s In, Dems Debate Who Hates War The Most, Murtha Says We Asked For JFK Terror Attack, Right Voices
William “Icebox” Jefferson indicted….finally, Learning Straight Up