Why Murtha is Right - We're Now Making Things Worse: WHY THINGS WILL IMPROVE IN IRAQ AND AT THE GAS PUMP IF WE’LL LEAVE IN SIX MONTHS A LA MURTHA

Sam Johnson's Mis-Analysis of Vietnam and Mis-Application to Iraq Dissected Line by Line

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes we are going to send a message to our troops. And for our last speaker, we have a gentleman who knows a lot about freedom. He knows a lot about a lack of freedom. He knows a lot about American resolve and sometimes the lack of American resolve. He has been awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star with valor, two Purple Hearts, four air medals and three outstanding unit awards. He is one of our real heroes, SAM JOHNSON of Texas.

I’d be the first guy to want to give him a standing ovation for that. It’s some of the things he SAYS afterwards that make not much sense.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. HUNTER. You are a great man yourself./p>

So WAS Duke Cunningham before he got caught with his hand in the till, and frankly, if a vet later ignores lessons he should have learned, there’s no more advantage to having a vet as to having a randomly selected guy. The advantage of having Sam Johnson in Congress until Bush was that he OPPOSED getting into Kosova and Bosnia, but now he SUPPORTS war simply because Bush supports it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American men and women in uniform and their families. I did spend 29 years in the Air Force, and I served in Korea and Vietnam and spent 7 years as a POW in Vietnam and more than half of that in solitary confinement. I know what it is like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life, hearing that America doesn’t care about you as happened in Vietnam.

By the way, ARE there any POWs that ‘the other side’ uses as actual poker chips (instead of just beheading them)? Not really. So how analogous are the two situations?

Your Congress does not care about you. Your Congress just cut off all the funding for your war.

Now let’s get something STRAIGHT. HE’S talking about the period NOT when we had any serious ground troops left (before he was released in Feb. 1973) but AFTER Jan. 1975 when the so-called ‘Class of 1974’ cut funding for the South Vietnamese in complete abrogation of the Paris Peace Accords where we had agreed to replace ARVN materiel BULLET FOR BULLET since the USSR and Chinese Communists were funding North Vietnam. There’s a BIG difference between having withdrawn our troops from Vietnam – which had ABSOLUTELY no impact, South Vietnam continued for over two years after that fact – and having stopped the funding, the result of which was that South Vietnam fell to the Reds within months since they didn’t even have gasoline. Well, since I DO believe the Iraqis with all their oil money can fund a war not even against some outside force analogous to the North Vietnamese being funded by the USSR and Red China but against an Iraqi version of the Vietcong, I DO believe that Sam’s cut and run comparison on money is pretty invalid. Also, since what’s being discussed here in any even is cut and run on TROOPS, and what Nixon did in ‘cutting and running’ (or, actually, a phased withdrawal) actually WORKED, then what in God’s name IS Sam talking about?

They are packing up, going home, and leaving you here. When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever. I know what it does to morale, I know what it does to the mission, and so help me God, I will never, ever let our Nation make that mistake again.

Once again, he’s either confusing in his own mind cutting and running on TROOPS (which no one was suggesting anyway, Duncan Hunter’s bill was a straw man, it was Murtha’s six month proposal that even generated Hunter’s baloney proposal, and Nixon’s phased withdrawal WORKED and is the only reason Sam Johnson is here today) with cutting and running on money (which the Iraqis needn’t worry about with all their oil money anyway), or he’s DELIBERATELY confusing things for his audience (both Congress and hapless viewers on CSPAN).

Our men and women in uniform need our full support. They need to know that when they are in Iraq driving from Camp Blue Diamond to Camp Victory that the Congress is behind them, to give them the best armored trucks they can drive, the best weapons they can fire, and the best ammunition they can use.

Yet it was George Bush’s underfunding of his own war that caused the ‘hillbilly armor’ debate in the first place. Given that even Sam is showing reservations about Dubya’s equipping of our troops, how likely WERE our troops to survive an actual chemical or biological attack, assuming there HAD been WMD? The bottom line is that all of us (except perhaps Dubya and Cheney) support our troops, we just don’t support the politicians who put them in Iraq.

They need to have full faith that a few nay-sayers in Washington will not cut and run and leave them high and dry.

Once again, we’re not talking about leaving POWs behind of any sort, they just sort of behead them. Moreover, we’re not even talking about cutting funding – the only thing that caused South Vietnam to fall to the Reds, and irrelevant here both because Iraq has oil money and because there IS no North Vietnam, much less a USSR or Red China funding them, but sort of a pathetic insurgent analog to the Vietcong. No, we’re talking about cutting TROOPS, and not even immediately, as in Hunter’s fake proposal, but in six months as in Murtha’s sensible one.

They need to know these things because that is mandatory for mission success and troop morale.

According to Bush, our mission was accomplished May 1, 2003. Granted, he was tipping his hand there that the original mission was NOT WMD, or he’d not have been able to say what he said May 1, 2003, but toppling Saddam Hussein. Moreover, by the time of Sam Johnson’s speech, they’d had the Constitution approved for over a month, and by December 15th ended up with successful elections based on that constitution being ratified. It’s now almost two months after that, so if the mission was having a stable democracy, and if (as is true) the body count is VERY low (relative at least to Vietnam) and stable (848 bodies in 2004 versus 845 in 2005), then it looks like we’ve already WON. So why is Sam complaining?

America, and the Congress, must stand behind our men and women in uniform because they stand up for us every minute of every day.

The ones in Afghanistan certainly were defending OUR freedom (as well as securing it for the Afghanis) by retaliating against the Taliban for allowing Al Qaeda to operate there. It would have been even better if we’d cleaned out that swamp in advance, admittedly. The ones in Iraq, through no fault of their own but due to incompetent civilian leaders urging Iraq to be invaded in the first place, are NOT defending OUR freedom since Iraq was not threatening our freedom. They may be helping Iraqi freedom (if you think voting for a Shia theocracy rather like the Ayatollahs in Iran is a better example of freedom than Saddam’s brutal regime which nevertheless gave arguably more rights to women than will be given now) but are actually WEAKENING our own, not only due to the higher taxes and energy prices, but due to the upcoming threat of terrorism on our own shores as evidenced with Madrid (March 11, 2004) and London (July 7, 2005) with NYC probably on the schedule by November of 2006.

Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field. That is dangerous.

Actually, even an IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops might be better for Iraq’s government in two ways: 1) the Shia-led government has said that we’re holding them back in their fight to stop the insurgents, and that if we’d stop interfering, they could ruthlessly crush the collection of Al Qaeda types that just want us out of there and Baathist loyalist types that really do want to overthrow the government, on their own. 2) since most of the insurgents simply want us out of there and don’t want to overthrow the government, we are inadvertently the best recruiting tool for Al Qaeda simply by REMAINING there. Thus, by withdrawing, many of the insurgents would simply go back to their neighborhoods in Baghdad, making the Shia-led government’s job of crushing the remaining ones (mentioned in point 1) even easier.

If you do not believe me, check out al Jazeera. The withdrawal story is on the front page. We cannot do that to our fellow Americans over there. Mr. Speaker, we are making great progress in Iraq.

Militarily, we’d already won (in the sense of controlling 100% of the land and people) back in April of 2003. In terms of setting up a government, we’d already had a Constitution by a month before Sam’s speech, with the first election off of that Constitution taking place a month later. Thus, we’ve ALREADY MADE the progress, it’s not a matter of “we’re winning and we’re making progress, why quit now?” it’s a matter of “we won AGES ago, we’ve ALREADY made as much progress as we can make for them in setting up democracy, and frankly, they’d do a better job of crushing the insurgents if we’d LEAVE!”

Remember in January how we saw pictures from Iraq of that first election. For weeks, the media predicted gloom and doom. Remember that? What did we see? We watched people as they waited in line for hours, defying death threats just to cast their vote for democracy. Remember the picture of the woman in the black hair cover/p>

it’s called a hijjab

flashing her purple finger in the ‘‘V’’ after voting in the first Iraqi elections? It was a breakthrough for democracy, and it was just the beginning. Remember the recent vote on the referendum when people came out in droves to make their voices heard? You would not have known about it because there was so little mention of it in our press, but the people got out there and they voted and they showed their support for democracy, a new government, hope, and a future. These people are thirsting for something more. They are risking their lives in the name of a new government,

Admittedly, they wouldn’t have democracy had we not invaded – but if the democracy is leading to a Shia-led theocracy which will be similar to Iran and in which you’ll basically have better-fed families but where the Muslim men will now frequently be beating their wives and killing each other’s daughters through honor killings, then was it worth 2200 American lives, 16,000 wounded, 30,000 dead Iraqis, probably closer to 250,000 wounded Iraqis, not to mention a minimum cost to us in taxes of $300 billion, possibly $1 trillion to $2 trillion according to Nobelist Stiglitz, and insane energy prices? I think not.

and we must stay the course if we want to foster a stable Iraq and create hope for millions in the Middle East. Our work is paying off, not just at the ballot box.

Murtha’s point is that the work has ALREADY paid off (for good perhaps if you’re an Iraqi man, for worse if you’re an Iraqi woman), but the point is that there’s NOTHING MUCH ELSE WE CAN DO!

Remember when we were waking up that Sunday morning in shock as we caught Saddam Hussein cowering in a rathole? He is gone. And you know what? At least 46 of Hussein’s 55 most-wanted regime members are either dead or incarcerated. Nationwide, thousands and thousands of police officers have been hired, and nearly 200,000 Iraqi soldiers are trained and serving their country. It is going to take time,

It only takes 8 months to train a Dallas Police officer to do that job. There IS no invading force to reckon with, the training needed is for Iraqi soldiers to POLICE their own nation to stop insurgents. So what is wrong with a six or perhaps eight month deadline to train the Iraqis to POLICE their own nation? And, frankly, if we’ve conquered Baghdad as of April of 2003, why haven’t we ALREADY successfully trained THEIR guys to do the job?

but our guys on the ground are working with other nations to make inroads to create leadership and inspire democracy in a country that has only known hate, fear, and death from a ruler. However, sadly, some here want to embolden the enemy by saying we just cut and run.

Once again, even cutting and running on TROOPS might have two ADVANTAGES to Iraq’s government that I mentioned earlier. But Murtha wasn’t talking about withdrawing immediately, he talked about six months. Moreover, if most of their insurgents just want us out, our withdrawal won’t “embolden the enemy” but quite the opposite, they’ll be able to say, the infidels are gone and we can go back to our neighborhoods in Baghdad.

That is just irresponsible and unconscionable. I have to ask, what would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out, allowing dangerous people like the head of al Qaeda, Zarqawi, to run the country? What would that mean for the region, the world? Al Qaeda rules with death, fear, terror, and blood. Al Qaeda takes innocent people hostage, and then beheads them, and then brags about it on the Internet. Al Qaeda has no respect for human life. They prey on innocent people to do their dirty work, because they know we do not target schools and hospitals and mosques; yet those are the exact places they run for cover. Al Qaeda will kidnap loved ones, especially very young children, of people trying to build democracy, to scare them out of helping the country. They are taking kids hostage because parents want a new life and a better life for their children.

Let’s not forget, Al Qaeda HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ AT ALL until we got rid of Saddam. But, given the situation there now, it’s also still the case that getting out, either immediately or on a six month schedule, would provide the two benefits to CRUSHING Al Qaeda and just plain old Baathist insurgents which I mentioned earlier.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. TERRY). The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) be allowed to have 3 more minutes.

In actuality, while not reported by the Congressional Record, some jerk then yelled “NO!” and then the Speaker pro tempore asked more or less “Will anyone RISE to object by name to the request for Sam Johnson to have more time?” and the guy wouldn’t rise THEN he said,

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. JOHNSON) is recognized for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask, What part of al Qaeda do you want operating here in America?

Well, thanks to the invasion of Iraq, that’s a relevant question. Since Iraq HAD no Al Qaeda cells until we invaded, we’ve made things worse for ourselves this way. The way to make sure Al Qaeda DOESN’T do to us what they did to Madrid and London is to go with Murtha’s proposal. We saw what it did to the price of gasoline about a week later, it dropped it sixty cents. Only when Bush’s “plan” came out with no deadlines did prices rise again. The price decrease anticipated LESS violence in the MidEast if we pulled out, not more. If Sam were right, the price should have gone UP when Murtha made his speech because the insurgency would double in size, etc. (“hey, the US is going to leave! NOW we can REALLY overthrow the government!”) but instead, prices went DOWN sixty cents, drastically refuting that fear.

Al Qaeda is a worldwide organization and a worldwide threat. I do not want any part of this. Americans do not want, need, or deserve al Qaeda. Our troops are over in Iraq fighting not just for our freedom and protection, but the freedom of the world.

No, as you’ve just hinted at with the Al Qaeda remarks, our invading Iraq has actually CAUSED Al Qaeda to enter Iraq, making OUR problems WORSE, not due to any failure of our military but due to the incompetent lack of foresight of our civilian leaders, including my opponent.

We must fight the bad guys over there, not over here.

If we had not invaded Iraq, there would have not been any bad guys to fight ‘over there.’ We fought the bad guys in Afghanistan and should have done so, but we’ve CREATED MORE bad guys in Iraq and elsewhere by the invasion of Iraq.

We must support our troops to the hilt so they do not go to bed at night covered in talcum-powder-thin white sand wondering, Does America really support me? In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress, and America, started saying bad things about what was going on in Vietnam, and it did a terrible thing to troop morale.

Uh, no, there is NO analogy to Vietnam, and morale isn’t why South Vietnam fell to the Reds, inadequate funding WAS, NOT a lack of American TROOP support, and thus since it was NOT a lack of troop support, we can leave, and since the Iraqis have oil money to stop not even an invading army (as with the North Vietnamese being funded by the USSR and Red China) we’ve no problem there either.

I just pray that our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that we will all fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need for as long as they need it to win the global war on terrorism. Withdrawal is not an option.

It’s the ONLY option if we DON’T want Al Qaeda doing to us what they did to Madrid and London, and if we DON’T want to make the Iraq government’s problems WORSE!

To our men and women in uniform, I simply say, God bless you. I salute you. All of America salutes our troops.

I salute our troops, but not the politicians who put them in Iraq. We need a Congressman who WON’T salute a chicken hawk like George Bush and will instead show independence of thought.