The
Murtha Model: How
The Democratic Party
Misleads Antiwar Voters
By John A. Murphy
23 August,2006
Countercurrents.org
We all know how the antiwar movement
fell silent in 2004 so as not to jeopardize the bloodthirsty campaign
of John Kerry who promised to kill more Iraqis faster and cheaper than
George Bush. Last week some of us experienced a similar phenomenon in
Washington, DC and in other cities around the nation. When a demonstration
was held to protest Israel's vicious attack on Lebanon, the antiwar
movement, especially those associated with the Coalition for Peace and
Justice did not participate. In fact, locally they have offered no response
at all to the actions of Israel.
The hero du jour of the Democrats
is John Murtha -- shades of Wesley Clark. Murtha is the Democratic Party's
chief militarist who says verbally that we have to bring our troops
home from Iraq but whose actual proposal calls for their redeployment
to Kuwait so that they can be ready to invade Iraq or to stage an invasion
against Iran or Syria.
Here is the exact wording of Murtha's proposal:
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.
THE MURTHA DECEPTION
When you remove the rhetoric,
Murtha’s actual proposal says ‘redeploy’ instead of
‘withdraw’ the troops from Iraq. When Murtha says ‘redeploy’
-- instead of withdraw -- the troops from Iraq, he makes clear that
-- despite his rhetoric -- he doesn't want to really bring them home,
but to station them in the Middle East. Murtha told Anderson Cooper
of CNN: ‘We ... have united the Iraqis against us. And so I'm
convinced, once we redeploy to Kuwait or to the surrounding area, that
it will be much safer. They won't be able to unify against the United
States. And then, if we have to go back in, we can go back in’.
Murtha's resolution calls
for the U.S. to create ‘a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon
presence of U.S. Marines’ to be ‘deployed to the region’.
To make matters worse, John Murtha indicated in a press conference that
it would take six months even to redeploy our troops.
We are killing 100 Iraqis
each day. That's 3,000 innocent Iraqis dead each month. Why do these
Democrats want to kill 18,000 more Iraqis before they even redeploy
to Kuwait?
Congressional Republicans,
in a transparent ploy, offered a one sentence resolution stating that
the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq be terminated immediately. Murtha
called this 'a ridiculous resolution' that no Democrat would support.
In point of fact, the resolution was opposed by all of the pro-war Democrats
and most of the anti-war Democrats, who (as the Republicans hoped) didn't
want to be accused of 'cutting and running'. But actually the resolution
wasn't ridiculous at all understood in the sense I have just explained.
LOIS HERR: A CASE
STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY DECEPTION
How do the Democrats do it?
How do they convince well intended antiwar Americans to vote for pro
war Democratic candidates? The Democratic candidate in the 16th Congressional
District of Pennsylvania, Lois Herr provides an excellent illustration
of the duplicity of the Democratic Party.
Last week George Bush came
to Lancaster Pennsylvania. As I moved in and out of the group of protesters
handing out the literature for my Congressional campaign most of the
people were polite enough to take the literature, but many told me bluntly
that they were voting for the Democrat Lois Herr.
The Democrat, Herr, has done
precisely the same thing that John Murtha has done. On the one hand
while saying that it is time for our troops to come home, without skipping
a beat, she then completely contradicts herself by saying that she supports
the Murtha plan (and on her website places such conditions on the withdrawal
of our troops from Iraq that, in essence, she would have them there
forever). This Democrat has been supporting the war ever since it began.
Now, for the first time however, instead of just facing a pro war Republican,
she is facing me -- the antiwar independent candidate. Now she's doing
the John Murtha shuffle
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Okay, now watch this little
trick -- nothing up my sleeve. Here's exactly how the pro war Democrat
Lois Herr answered Project Vote Smart this month when asked about her
position on Iraq:
"It is time to bring
troops home! Congressman Murtha is right: American troops have become
a catalyst for violence in Iraq. We must demand a near date for withdrawal.
Our soldiers have won the war and deposed a brutal tyrant. American
Marines and GI's have stood guard while the Iraqis held their first
elections in living memory. We must now insist that civilian leadership
honor their service and sacrifice by ending the occupation, and by fulfilling
our mutual promises to veterans."
Although many of Lois Herr’s
answers to PVS are self contradictory – her answers to the questions
about the federal budget are a riot of contradictions -- I'm going to
limit my analysis just to her position on Iraq as a case in point demonstrating
exactly how the Democratic Party lies to well intended antiwar Democrats
and thereby seduces them into voting for its pro war candidates.
In the space of just one
paragraph Ms. Herr tells us it's time to bring our troops home and at
the same time she says we must set a date for a "near withdrawal"
and then goes on to tell us that she agrees with John Murtha who simply
wants to redeploy our troops to Kuwait and not bring them home at all!
You can’t make up stuff like this – and the desperate Democratic
voter buys this stuff like they've just been offered a super deal on
some Enron stock.
TWO PARTS TO THE
DEMOCRAT'S BIG LIE
There are two aspects to
Lois Herr’s reply to PVS that exemplify how the Democratic Party
plays the antiwar voter for suckers. The first has to do with Herr embracing
John Murtha's "solution" and the second has to do with her
statement, "Our soldiers have won the war and deposed a brutal
tyrant".
Let's start with her statement
about our soldiers having won the war and deposed a brutal tyrant. Of
course this is not true. This is pandering. Ms. Herr is trying to find
a way to declare victory and support our fine troops so as not to offend
patriotic voters who may confuse the sobering reality that their loved
ones along with other brave, self-sacrificing fighting Americans were
nothing more than the moving parts of a failed bipartisan war machine.
Ms. Herr cannot admit, God help us, that America has fought a war and
lost.
Our soldiers have not won
the war. They didn't just depose a tyrant, they destroyed an entire
nation. The "de-Bathification" policy dismantled an entire
state administrative system and its collective expertise that is still
years away from being replaced. Considering the chaos, it will probably
never be replaced; definitely not without the rise of a new tyrant to
forcibly pacify the streets. Because of that policy, the Iraqi infrastructure
is years away from functioning. Our government, through its military,
dismantled the entire state security system and introduced two new forms
of tyranny -- tribal militias and rampant deadly street crime -- that
have cost far more lives than even Saddam had ever taken, and are far
less predictable to the people of Iraq in terms of gauging how to act
in the hopes of protecting their own lives.
Under Saddam those who opposed
Saddam might be tortured or even killed. This was something an individual
Iraqi could choose to deal with. Now people in Iraq get tortured or
killed because of the street on which they live, who their parents are,
there religious heritage, or for no reason at all, and the death rate
far exceeds what it had been under the "brutal tyrant" Ms.
Herr says that we deposed.
Our inept effort at helping
the new civil administration to increase its security capacities has
placed more arms and trained personnel into the militias and black markets
than it has placed into the civil administration, so Lois Herr’s
claim that it is somehow "now time" for that civil administration
to start taking care of its own security is preposterous.
The truth is neither Lois
Herr nor John Murtha whose "plan" she has embraced has no
withdrawal plan -- they have not even acknowledged that Iraq is in a
US-invasion-generated combination of civil chaos and civil war which
would require the replacement of American troops with other, more culturally
sensitive and local security assistance. Neither Murtha nor Herr She
acknowledge that no withdrawal of American troops is a complete without
the withdrawal of the Blackwater and other mercenary corporations that
operate under contract and do not answer to American policy makers.
She doesn't acknowledge the necessity of returning all seized assets
to Iraqi ownership (like, say the oil fields, which are the sole source
of revenue), or terminating all US military base construction.
Murtha and Herr, we must
keep in mind, are not opposed to U.S. imperial designs or U.S. militarism.
They criticize the Bush administration because its Iraq policies have
led to cuts in the (non-Iraq) defense budget, threatening the U.S. ability
to maintain military dominance.
The only difference between
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is over tactics and not
over the strategic goal of U.S. domination over the Middle East and
its peoples.
FLUNKING MISS LOIS
Lois Herr’s replies
to the ‘Project Vote Smart’ questionnaire are survey-driven
and, pathetically, represent nothing more that finger-in-the-wind politics.
It is hard to believe they actually represent the responses of someone
intending to run for House of Representatives.
Maybe I spent too many years as a high school teacher and a university
professor before going into business. Maybe that's why the Democratic
Party and its candidates like Lois Herr are so frustrating to me. I
have been pointing out to Lois Herr for a year all of the mistakes she
made on her last test called ‘Project Vote Smart 2004’.
This time around she actually got a couple of answers right. She now
realizes what an atrocious idea it was for her to support the use of
military tribunals for civilians accused of terrorism. Well, at least
she corrected one mistake! But I'm afraid she still gets a failing grade.
Sometimes I think I'll just have to put a dunce cap on Lois and her
Democratic Party advisers and sit them in the corner like teachers did
a hundred years ago!
What is even more frustrating
is to find well intended members of the Democratic Party actually supporting
a candidate who has demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the
major issues facing our country. By embracing the position of John Murtha,
Lois Herr continues to maintain the same pro war position she has maintained
ever since the war and occupation began.
The position of Lois Herr
is not the position of the antiwar movement and it is certainly not
my position. It certainly explains why, when Lois Herr asked Michael
Berg for his endorsement, he refused. Not surprisingly, Michael Berg
has endorsed my campaign.
In good faith, antiwar Democrats
must not vote for any candidate who advocates U.S. military intervention
in the Middle East, whether over or under "the horizon". We
don't want U.S. troops remaining in the region and poised to go back
into Iraq. They don't belong there. I don't know why Lois her in the
Democratic Party can't get that through their thick skulls but since
they continue to fail, they must be left behind.
My campaign will relentlessly
continue its fight for the immediate, total, and unconditional withdrawal
of U.S. troops and their allies from Iraq and the whole region. The
central slogan of the antiwar movement’s, "Troops Out Now",
is more warranted each day and will keep gaining in urgency until victory
over the warmongers in both parties is achieved.
John Murphy
is independent candidate for House of Representatives in the 16th Congressional
District of Pennsylvania. He has been endorsed by Michael Berg, Peter
Camejo, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and Howard Zinn. He has been endorsed
by two county level Green Parties, two county level Libertarian Parties,
the Pennsylvania Reform Party, the New American Independent Party of
Pennsylvania and the GDI among others. He is also one of the founding
members of the Pennsylvanian Ballot Access Coalition, working to change
ballot access laws in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at: [email protected].