Murtha tells City Club the war is lost

[Algorem]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1144485089256210.xml&coll=2

( webcast http://www.cityclub.org )

Pa. congressman outlines failures

Saturday, April 08, 2006
Donna J. Miller
Plain Dealer Reporter

U.S. Rep. John Murtha's booming Marine colonel's voice filled the tight spaces between Greater Clevelanders packed into the City Club Friday to hear him protest President Bush's war on Iraq...

Murtha took questions from several luncheon attendees who worried that Bush may be planning to invade Iran. The ranking and longtime member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee nearly shouted, "we will not" be entering Iran.

He also said that the subcommittee would not approve funding the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq. The audience broke into applause...

Asked to predict the next threat to America that might require military force, Murtha said he's concerned about China and its increasing need for oil...

[shenmue]

1. A very honest man

:applause:

[opihimoimoi]

2. This honest man can and should be President....if Bush can do it

Murtha can do it so much better.

[shenmue]

3. I was thinking the same thing

:patriot:

[Kailassa]

4. The opportunity to vote in a man like Murtha as president

could mean such an enormous voter turn-out that no amount of vote-rigging
could camoflage the results.

And having a genuine liberal instead of a watered down republican stand could give disenchanted republicans a real reason to change sides.

[saigon68]

31. No a scum bag like Biden the DINO will be our only choice

[Rose Siding]

5. Murtha could be Hersh's source

edit- one of his sources, I mean. We know the Queen of All Iraq will futz with the way a source is described -I doubt Hersh has the same, um, ethical standard.

snip>
In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

[rodeodance]

6. Didn't Gen. Casey also say that we can not win militarily? T believe he

did say this just recently.

[SoCalDem]

33. We can NEVER "win" wars on ideology

We did not win ANY war "ON"...

we did not defeat communism..it collapsed on its own
we did not defeat drug use
we did not defeat poverty


you can kill people militarily, but you cannot kill ideas or philosophies.

Killing the leaders of clannish or cultish societies only makes them stronger.. (see Jesus et al)

[rodeodance]

7. this is great news--that subcom. will not fund PERMANATE Iraqi bases!

He also said that the subcommittee would not approve funding the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq. The audience broke into applause...

[ldf]

22. hmmm.

i thought these were already being built, some almost complete.

you know, the "burger king franchise are now available - on our air bases in iraq" news items....?

[Trevelyan]

8. K&R now off to see what Murtha's response to the folks "worried that

bush may be planning to invade Iran." Well more detailed response.

It is great that Congressman Murtha nearly shouted"We Will Not" be entering Iran.

[Eurobabe]

9. Bush will find a way to declare martial law in USA (MSHOP)

(make SOMETHING happen on purpose) and then invade Iran, the voting public and citizenry be damned!

[cliss]

10. Murtha is speaking for the military.

I've read that he's in constant contact with the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have given him an honest assessment of what's going on - minus the See's Candy and flowers.

They are telling Murtha that it's over - it's a done deal. There is simply no way we can win in these 2 countries. The opposition is too strong.

It's Bush and Cheney who are having a hard time accepting this. They are trying desperately to figure out a way to win - ANY way, even if it means selling out to Al-Sistani, the insurgents, the Iranians, anybody.

Wanna buy a country?

[Trevelyan]

11. Some great articles on Rep. Murtha's House site

http://www.house.gov/murtha/s_security.shtml

===Yet that is exactly what would happen if Social Security was privatized. We'd be gambling away the economic security of the nation's senior citizens at the time of their lives when most of them can least afford it. We'd be taking the "security" out of Social Security.

=====
Jack Murtha's stance on the War in Iraq
Jack Murtha's Iraq Letter to Members of Congress
Jack Murtha Contrasts Presidents Reagan and Bush
Commentary on 3-year Anniversary of Iraq War
Veterans History Project

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/2005_12_14_dear_coll_iraq.html

===America Needs a National Strategy to Win the War against Terrorism

In setting a national security strategy, communicating that strategy to the public, and analyzing alternative proposals, America’s leaders must, first and foremost, view matters through the lens of the threat. What is the primary threat to America’s national security? How do we best protect ourselves from that threat? What resources should we allocate to which programs in order to counter the threat in the most cost-effective manner? This administration has become so deeply engrossed and invested in the politics of the Iraqi war that they have lost this bigger and more important perspective.

The $1.5 billion a week cost of the War in Iraq is astronomical. Funds appropriated for the war and related nation building are quickly approaching $300 billion. In constant dollars, that total is almost three quarters of the cost of the Korean War and one half of the cost of the Vietnam War.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/2005_12_14_iraq_bush_reagan.html Murtha Contrasts Presidents Reagan and Bush

[Rex]

12. It really isn't so much about war as occupation, control and pillage.

The war is a bi-product of the Military Industrial Complex. They roll out new products all the time. They have a new demo out - Nuclear War in Iran.

[tabasco]

13. Why does Colonel Murtha hate America?

All America-lovers support Lord God Bush and everything he does!

[theobscure]

14. And going to war with China over oil is better than going to war with

Iraq, how? I'm glad Murtha has climbed on board the opposition to the war on Iraq bandwagon, but draw no comfort from it. Clearly, the present lessons to be learned about wars of aggression will be ignored just like the ones in the past. The fact remains that the idea of empire through aggression and intervention is held by both branches of the political power duopoly.

[AndyTiedye]

16. We Can't Attack China! China Won't Fund an Attack On Itself!

Where do you think the money is coming from for all these wars?

[happyslug]

17. No Murtha is NOT advocating War with China

He is like a lot of people in the Military, concerned about POTENTIAL enemies. Right now China is the number 2 importer of Oil (Finally beating out Japan for that Position). Who is Number 1?? THE USA. Today the top three countries the US Import oil from are Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Prior to our Invasion of Iraq, Iraq was a Fourth Source of Oil (It is now Saudi Arabia). Canada and Mexico's oil production is now believed to have peaked and both are in decline. Venezuela's production is expected to peak in the next few years (But this may be delayed if Venezuela is able to get into production some of its heavy non-conventional oil). Chavez as President of Venezuela has tried to diversify who its supply oil to, including shipping oil to China.

Where is China getting most of its oil? From the Mid-East, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Unlike production in the rest of the World production of oil in these countries are expected to increase for the next 4-5 years. At that point it is believed production even in these countries will see a production decline (now this may be sooner or later depending on how much oil is in the ground in these country, the countries report on their own oil are highly suspect but that is different story and just means will the crunch come NOW, in 2010 or 2020?).

This is the problem Murtha is talking about when he discuss China. How will the US and China decide on how to split the world oil supplies? Japan and the EU will also have a say in this but the EU can fall back on Russia and the fact the EU is NOT as dependent on oil as is the US. This will be complicated in that the US to protect its ability to fight China will also have to make sure oil goes to Japan and Taiwan where Electronic Parts are made (and Some to China for its exports to the US). It will NOT be a simple, here is your oil and here is mine, don't bother me any more. Oil will be a continuing source of Conflict between China, the US, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the EU.

This conflict over oil is what has the Pentagon worried. Can the US keep open our Oil Supplies? Will China provide weapons to people in the Mid-East who oppose us, so that to cut off this supply of Weapons we will make a deal with China. AS oil supplies decline this will become worse and worse so that war becomes more and more likely. Thus Murtha's and the Pentagon's concern about China.

[theobscure]

20. but what he is doing is propagating the same premise that has..

made us a menace to the world and forestalled any kind of progressive approach to energy demand in this country. For too long, the United States has actively and destructively undermined and/or quashed economic and political progress around the world in order to preserve our supremacy and prevent any potential future threat to it.

We have bequeathed ourselves the right to luxury and irresponsible gluttony in this country at the expense of sustenance, or even mere subsistence, for billions across the globe. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Fundamentalist or Progressive, the immorality of such behavior and priorities should be clearly evident.

I understand the scenario you present and it's all to real likelihood. I realize that when it comes to out and out survival we'll have no real choice but to deal with China and everyone else militarily, and most likely in a nuclear way. But we should force ourselves to own up to the fact, that we alone will be responsible for bringing about such a world catastrophe.

[happyslug]

28. We have to address the Military option.

For if we do not, our potential enemies will. On the other hand the upcoming oil crisis is NOT solvable by Military action. Military action can provide temporary solutions but not a permanent solution. We have to maintain the ability to do a military solution, but also have to understand that sooner or later conservation will be our biggest weapon. Negotiations will solve the problem as we divide up the remaining supplies of oil, or destroy those supplies in the wars over those oil fields. Hopefully everyone will try to be reasonable, but that includes the American people accepting that they have to cut back oil usage 25-50%.

[Just Me]

35. Correction. We have exploited those who can be exploited,...

,...the weaker among humanity around the globe, while "playing" with those who can't be bullied.

I just thought that little fact would be an important facet to your assertion.

Meanwhile, carry on.

[theobscure]

38. I acknowledge your assertion...

I should have acknowledged we took some along for the ride. However, we must be careful to not overstate how and why our "playmates" have benefited from their association with us, or how many such "playmates" there really are.

For example, there is no doubt that the Saudi royal family is a most favored playmate. Admittedly, it is a very large family; but none of the millions of citizens of Saudi Arabia have reaped the rewards of their governments "playing" with the United States. In fact, the Saudi royal family has used the power gained from it's U.S. "playmate" status to oppress it's citizenry.

I also don't think it's entirely clear at all that the Saudi royal family could not be bullied. It is merely useful for us not to bully this particular group. We give a little, in order to gain alot.

[cliss]

21. I have a couple of comments -

1) If the Pentagon is worried about steady sources of petroleum supplies, then it's probably working itself into a frenzy. It seems that most places where you have oil refineries or oil facilities are becoming more vulnerable. Look at Nigeria. Saudi Arabia has been hit several times by its own insurgents. Venezuela is more stable, but Chavez still ranks as a "firebrand" and is liable to do anything.

2) I've been able to ferret out a difference in oil supplies. It seems that the US is going for the "good stuff"; the light sweet crude. They are obviously ignoring the heavy, sour crude which is plentiful in Venezuela and Alberta (tar sands, which resembles Play-Doh). It's the countries with the easily refined stuff that are being targeted by the US. Iraq is considered to have the world's #2 supply of light, sweet and I'm sure the US is perfectly OK to sit on it while the rest of the supply runs out.

3) Iran. Iran I believe has the world's #3 supply of light, sweet (estimated at ______barrels). But they also have the world's #1 supply of natural gas, making them Rich beyond Scheherazade's 'Tales of 1,000 Nights'.

4) China needs to slow down its growth. They've been growing at about 9% per year for the past ? 30 years??? They are obviously committed to maniacal growth, even if it means poisoning 1/2 their population due to pollution. They don't necessarily need more oil, because it's not going to help them much. They have other problems besides energy needs.

I do enjoy your posts; La Créme de la créme De la DU.

[happyslug]

24. You are Correct, and there is NO real military Solution to any of them.

The best solution will be the US reduce its oil usage, but that would require real leadership which we do NOT have at the present time. Murtha is like the rest of Washington, know the solution but can not address it for people do NOT want to hear the solution. Thus we have to wait for some severe oil shortage before Washington does what is needed. An old comment about Countries in bad situation applies to the US, "They will do want is needed, after all other options have failed".

How the US will handle the situation with oil AND sharing it with the rest of the World is the crisis I am taking about. Violence (i.e. the Military Option) will be part of the Crisis, Violence will NOT solve the Crisis but the Pentagon will have to address and deal with the Violence portion of the Crisis.

Diplomacy and an acceptance that we have to reduce our oil usage will be the big part of the solution to the Crisis, but the Military has to be prepared to address the Violent part of the Crisis.

[vickitulsa]

26. I worked in the energy business (latest name for it) for 30 years

and very close to the top as an executive secretary to CEOs and CFOs and VPs. I worked in Alaska during the construction of the TransAlaska pipeline. I'm impressed with the knowledge and understanding many here have of the global oil and gas industry! Many of the scenarios you guys present show a lot of vision.

But one thing I gathered from all my experience in the bizness and the "secrets" I was privy to when a lot of upper crust correspondence and other documents went through my typing fingers is that "they" know Americans will just not give up their energy gluttony willingly. If American citizens had demonstrated such a willingness, say, during the oil embargoes of 1973, then the industry would have shifted to meet whatever new needs, whatever new and improved priorities, Americans demanded be met!

I have a sinking feeling that because we didn't change our ways after 1973 and instead continued to demand that somehow the gluttony continue, we unwittingly allowed those in the biggest business there is grow so big and rich and strong that now we've lost all control.

Now THEY rule US... and Their needs drive our government, drive the governments of many nations. I'm sorry, but I just can't see how we -- and that's a global "we," ALL OF US on this planet -- are going to get out of this mess without catastrophic wars and some VERY tough times in the near future....

[happyslug]

27. I agree with you on this.

The problem is the situation has to get worse before the American people do what is needed. It has to get a lot worse. I mean people losing their homes worse. I mean people abandoning their home (As many a rural worker did in the late 1920s and while into the 1930s when they moved from the Country to the City in search of work without selling their homes, just abandoning them). I see the same things happening to the suburbs as gasoline goes through the roof. It will be slow, at first people will opt for smaller cars, than motorcycles, than mopeds and finally bicycles to get to work. Sooner or later they will find themselves in a house that is to far for them to commute to work from and also unable to sell their home. At this point you will see demands for reforms, but not before. As long as people THINK they can work around the problem they will work around it. Only when they can no longer deny the problem will it be addressed. Before that I agree with you about wars for war is another way for the present ruling class to look like they are looking out for their fellow Americans. When such wars fail to solve the problem and everything else is tired and found to fail then and only then will the American People accept they have to have radical changes in they style of living.

[symbolman]

30. You must have been the only guy who WORKED

on the Pipeline.. I was there during the construction (even spent two summers looking for uranium by chopper, sampled everything east,north and west of Fairbanks, crashed in the Beaver Quad other side of the Mountains, deep tundra), and all I ever saw were a bunch of pipeliners sitting around card tables playing peanuckle, then when a chopper showed up or flew over, they'd fold up the tables, act like they were welding, once the chopper was gone, back to the card tables :)

I was frankly surprised that sucker EVER got done!

Tell me this, all that oil flowing to Valdez (great fishing there btw), is that being sold to JAPAN? I'm fairly sure it's NOT coming anywhere NEAR the US.. so that makes the whole ANWR stuff a farce doesn't it? Maybe six months of oil and ten years to get it out?

One of the reasons I'm interested is that I'm writing a book about my experiences as a Chopper Sampler and the oil companies impact on the environment there then and now, especially the Caribou - My book is going to be called "The JESUS BOLT" ( as in Helicopter lingo, when the bolt at the top of the chopper falls out and all the blades fly off the next person you will be talking to is JESUS ).. and I'm going to try to evangelize and spiritualize environmentalism, as I see it as the HUGE elephant in the living room, and want to make people FEEL nature..

Just a few questions, had a LOT of fun partying with Pipeliners btw, ever been to "The Boatel" in Fairbanks?

[vickitulsa]

37. Well hi -- always love talking to anyone else who was there

during the construction. I left before 1977 when they opened the valves on the thing. And I'm a gal, not a guy. ;)

I was the executive secretary to the Area Manager of Section II -- for Bechtel before Alyeska sorta slid them out as CMC and took over for themselves.

You're right about a lot of loafing on the job in those days, but then again, we were technically "on duty" for 70 to as much as 90 or 100 hours per week, and realistically few people can work hard that many hours at a stretch. There was so much sheer waste of money on that project, which was at the time the biggest privately financed construction project yet attempted in the world. Final assessments had the waste at $1 billion of the $10 billion the project cost. I believe it.

I even had my own company pickup for almost a year, with free gas with just a signature at the local gas station! I worked in Delta Camp, 100 miles south of Fairbanks (far south of where you were, I gather) and just seven miles from a very small town, Delta Junction. There were three "saloons" in that tiny burg, however -- the Trophy Lodge (sourdoughs), the Bay Hotel bar (good food), and the Evergreen Lounge; so few workers from Delta camp bothered to drive into Fairbanks for "entertainment." I was in Fairbanks for only three weeks before going out to the field, so I didn't do much there.

As for the environmental damage, actually I was impressed with the serious steps that were taken to protect Alaska's delicate pristine beauty -- though all of that was forced upon the oil companies by the environmentalists (both in the Lower 48 and locals in AK). Those diligent folks delayed the start of construction, if you recall, for SEVEN YEARS, from 1967 to 1974, with their demands for an Environmental Impact Assessment prepared beforehand and strict measures to be put in place to clean up spills and protect wildlife and so on.

Of course, it was the oil embargoes of 1973 that caused most Americans to go along with their reps in DC signing off on AK pipeline construction, thinking that oil would be shipped down to the Lower 48 for OUR use when instead it does indeed (last I heard) go mostly to Japan. What I don't understand about the predictions of 10 years to get untapped reserves in ANWR flowing is why on earth it would take that long since it took only three years to complete the original pipeline? And it would be possible to shunt much crude from ANWR into the existing pipeline without building a whole new one, so why the ten year projection I've heard?

Don't know ... but nothing surprises me about what Big Oil does. I've often wondered if the entire 1973 oil embargo affair by OPEC was actually engineered by the major oil companies so that they could silence the environmentalists and begin construction on their AK pipeline!

I like the title idea for your book, btw. And I did know what the "Jesus Bolt" is, having taken every chopper ride I could (even dated pilots!) the whole time I was there. Haha. Nothing like seeing Alaska from the air, for sure! One grizzly we got a little close to once actually tried to reach up with his big paw and grab our skid to yank us down out of the sky! Man, nothin' scares them critters, seriously. And the caribou are just amazing....

Good luck with your writing effort -- I'm sure there was and no doubt continues to be a LOT of environmental damage to beautiful Alaska due to the energy industry well entrenched there by now. I loved AK so much I almost stayed ... even learned to build log cabins and almost bought a horse! :D (I agree with you about the environmental elephant in the living room, too.)

Ahhh, those were the days! Thanks for prompting me to recall and write more about them....

[cliss]

32. I agree - I think this is going

to go down a bad road, even though we had some good options along the way. I would like to give a European point of view; I grew up in Sweden. Ever since we were little kids, there was always a prevailing attitude of shorage; shortage of heating fuel, supplies, housing, etc. You just got used to it. I'm sure this was because of the world wars which caused massive shortages, in particular energy sources. So you just get used to it; we became very good at conserving, never wasting anything, always being careful with your resources.

Europe has traditionally had heavy taxes slapped on its gasoline. As a result, people have learned to conserve. When I travel to Europe, I see little tiny passengers cars; no more than 6 ft. long it seems! Little tiny trucks etc. They've learned to cope with less, and it hasn't hurt them. I've read that Europe in fact has more people than the U.S., and they use less than 1/2 as much oil. That's amazing.

I've read that the U.S. will need about 10 to 15 years to re-tool to these new oil dynamics. Europe, on the other hand, will do very well. They will probably become stronger because they have become efficient in their oil usage.

However, I feel it's unfair to paint the Americans as oil gluttons. If we had the same taxes as Europe here, we would have coped with it and still done OK. I believe there are MANY Americans would love the chance to cut back on gas usage, if society made it a little easier for them.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Just Me]

36. If one-hundredth of the investment in persuading us into war was invested,

,...in pursuing alternative energy,...I'd bet my life the American people would back it.

BUT "NO"!!!

American's have been encouraged towards gluttony A THOUSAND FOLD since the 70's by the very fuckers who profit off that consumerism.

I reject your fatalism based upon misplaced responsibility upon the less powerful when the most powerful have had a persistent hard-on for advantaging themselves of all the resources to create an environment of wanting.

Those with the most power and resources have the greatest responsibility to use it morally and wisely and to the advancement of something greater than themselves.

Therefore, I reject your assertion that the American people, rather than those who hold the most resources and power, have the burden of this fucked up environment. Had the fuckers at the top let go of their obsession with themselves and actually GIVEN some part of themselves towards empowering others, we would not be where we are, today.

[vickitulsa]

39. I really can't argue with that.

It's true we have been encouraged to continue wasteful usage of resources by those who have the $$$ and the power. No doubt!

I guess I just feel that we KNOW they are going to do whatever they can to line their own pockets as much as possible, and hasn't it always been true that even major corporate operations ultimately MUST provide what the people who buy their products or services DEMAND?

Like the way Detroit has painted itself into a corner by gearing all their advertising toward ever bigger vehicles instead of smaller ones like Cliss spoke of in Europe. GM, Ford, and the rest advertised SUVs, Hummers, and big pickup trucks, and Americans bought 'em by the millions -- even though we KNOW the world has a limited supply of fossil fuels. We also know the rest of the developing world has fuel needs, as well, and that we depend on foreign oil sources in an unstable part of the world to meet our usage needs.

I just don't think it would have been impossible for Americans to have moved toward smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles by BUYING that sort of product instead of going for whatever big, wasteful, unneeded vehicles Detroit advertized.

I happen to be a poor American, living well below the poverty line established by our government, so I have always driven the least wasteful autos I could get, and for years rode ONLY a motorcycle. I put less than 100 miles per month on my car now, but I'm retired, disabled now, and I know most people cannot do that.

Sorry, Just Me, I didn't mean to insult anyone by calling Americans gluttonous with regard to energy usage. I just think we've been spoiled for way too long, and that we passed up an excellent opportunity to DEMAND more sensible products back in 1973. Could it be that the automakers in Detroit have ultimate control over the market? Companies that are now going under because of their wrongheaded planning and building of so many huge vehicles that are now sitting unwanted in lots everywhere due to the latest consumer demands for hybrids and smaller cars? They can't save themselves now without a government bailout -- which would come from OUR tax dollars. And this situation resulted from the revised thinking and practices of consumers.

It's a complicated issue, for certain, and again I say it's hard to argue with your assertions that the powerful and wealthy have determined the direction in which we've gone.

[occuserpens]

15. Kerry on the exit plans

Revised: 2006-04-05 Kerry on the exit plans

[leftchick]

18. yeah well they have already taken the money for construction

the permanent military bases in Iraq are complete. At least four of them. How does Rep. Murtha not know that rummy is not above stealing the money anytime he likes for his pet projects. Think of the Afghanistan millions redirected in 2002 for an Iraq invasion.

These people are criminals!

[jean]

19. Aren't we missing about $8.8 Billion in Iraq? At least?

[leftchick]

23. 9 billion

I think that was cash straight to Iraqi pockets, though I can't be sure. I am sure rummy had some redirection of funds scheme in the works before Shock & Awe for those bases. He is a great mobster.

[jean]

25. The audit was done AFTER Bremer left and the CPA was disbanded

according to this comprehensive article - read it and growl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html
So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?
July 7, 2005

At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared. Ed Harriman on the extraordinary scandal of Iraq's missing billions


excerpt:

...

The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security".

Although Bremer was expected to manage Iraqi funds in a transparent manner, it was only in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam, that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) was established to provide independent, international financial oversight of CPA spending. (This board includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.)

...

Lack of accountability does not stop with the Americans. In January this year, the Sigir issued a report detailing evidence of fraud, corruption and waste by the Iraqi Interim Government when Bremer was in charge. They found that $8.8bn - the entire Iraqi Interim Government spending from October 2003 through June 2004 - was not properly accounted for. The Iraqi Office of Budget and Management at one point had only six staff, all of them inexperienced, and most of the ministries had no budget departments. Iraq's newly appointed ministers and their senior officials were free to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash as they pleased, while American "advisers" looked on.

"CPA personnel did not review and compare financial, budgetary and operational performance to planned or expected results," the auditors explained. One ministry gave out $430m in contracts without its CPA advisers seeing any of the paperwork. Another claimed to be paying 8,206 guards, but only 602 could be found. There is simply no way of knowing how much of the $8.8bn has gone to pay for private militias and into private pockets.

[HuffleClaw]

29. i suppose he's NEXT to be grabbed by the capitol police then?

you can be sure the usual pundits will do their best to demonize him.

[Algorem]

34. i assumed it could be watched on that website,but wrong again.only thing

i can find is it's supposed to be on radio/stream tonight at 11 eastern-

http://www.whkradio.com/

and someday City Club might put it on their podcast page-

http://www.cityclub.org/content/podcasts/index/Podcasts.aspx



For Immediate Release
April 7, 2006

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr060407.html

Murtha presents plan to strenghten military, nation

(Cleveland, OH)-
Congressman John Murtha focused on how his plan for Iraq will strengthen our military and our nation in a speech today before the City Club of Cleveland.

Murtha talks about “the three R’s” – to redeploy to the periphery of Iraq, to reallocate funding from the war to our unmet homeland security needs and to re-engage with other countries to put pressure on Afghanistan and fight a more effective war on true terrorism.

His prepared remarks follow:

Comments by Congressman John P. Murtha on his Redeployment Plan



We should embrace change, especially when it is in our national interest to do so!



As many of you know, I introduced a Resolution to the House of Representatives to redeploy our troops from Iraq.



Some critics have described my recommendation as “defeatist;” others have characterized it as “cut and run.”



They couldn’t be more wrong! Nothing could be further from the truth!



My recommendations are a clarion call for a victory against the international terrorist movement.



It is a three-step process.



(1) Redeploy. It is time that our military “footprint” in the region is converted

from a pervasive presence inside Iraq to a powerful quick-reaction force

outside of Iraq. Over three years after we implemented a policy to “liberate”

Iraq and bring democracy with the claim we would be welcomed with rose

petals, almost one out of two Iraqis believe it’s OK to kill Americans. Our

presence in Iraq is generating more recruits to the radical movement. Our

departure would put tremendous pressures on the major factions within Iraq

to have some semblance of a political settlement. I believe that upon our

departure, Iraqi nationalism would force many Iraqis to turn on the foreign

fighters.



(2) Reallocate. I believe we should reallocate much of the funds saved by

redeploying.



(3) Re-engage. In the wake of 9/11, America had overwhelming support around

the world in the fight against terrorism. There was global support for our

war in Afghanistan. Sadly, the diversion to the war in Iraq has frittered

away much of that support and we must re-engage with countries around the

world to conduct a more-effective war on terrorism. I believe our

redeploying troops from Iraq will help considerably in that goal.





The President is using fear to keep our troops in Iraq – fear of what might happen if we leave Iraq. He is saying we should have an open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq, yet he has NO plan. His plan is to cross his fingers and hope that the Iraqis will form a unity government. But hope is not a plan. And for as long as he continues down this vague, open-ended path, more American lives will be lost, and billions of more dollars will be spent.



It is time to change direction. We should fear only our failure to change. Iraq today is not stable and is not safe. The Iraqis must decide that stability and safety are worth fighting for. An all-out effort must be made by the Iraqis to solve the problems and challenges that are facing them.



Today our military is unsurpassed in terms of strength, training and technology. We thought our military could do anything, but we found something we could not do. They are not a world police force. They are trained to destroy an enemy, which they do very well. But they are not trained to be policemen, or nation builders, or diplomats, and yet that is what they are being asked to do every day.



Let’s talk more about my plan:



First, my plan will strengthen, not weaken, the military. My plan will strengthen and not weaken our nation.



What do I mean by redeployment to the periphery? Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Turkey and/or Qatar.



How many? One division.



In addition, we must replace the people responsible for the failed plan. We will not be able to get international help without it. It must be seen as a change in direction.



I do not believe things will be completely peaceful when we redeploy, but a democracy and a seated government does not guarantee complete peace either. There may be additional sectarian strife, but our troops will not be caught in the middle of it. We will have a quick reactionary force available to deploy if necessary.



In the meantime, we can be rebuilding and strengthening our military and our nation, and can begin taking care of the problems our warfighters will be facing when they return home.



Here is what we can buy with money we are currently spending on the war:



At the administration’s current average rate of spending, it will take 47 years to implement the security requirements needed to secure our ports. Yet we can accomplish this with just one month of war spending.



Our local police, fire and emergency responders are dangerously underfunded. About $19.6 billion is needed over the next five years to meet these needs. We can accomplish this with about 3 ½ months of war spending.



As of fiscal year 2006, despite terrorist attacks on transit systems in Japan and Spain, less than $550 million had been provided to improve rail and transit security since Sept. 11. The transit industry estimates that about $6 billion is needed to make the necessary security enhancements. One month of war funding can pay for this.



The president’s budget for FY 2007 increases health care premiums for 3.1 million on our nation’s military retirees under 65. Premiums will double and triple, and drug co-payments will increase, costing our military retirees $2.4 billion over 5 years. We can roll back the president’s budget recommendations with less than a half a month of war spending.



The administration says they are in Iraq for the long haul. The president says we will stay. But meanwhile, he stops reconstruction projects and funding with no plan to re-start the projects. He cuts the budgets for State Department programs that promote democracy, even those with proven track records. Is this the picture of an administration that plans on staying in Iraq? No, this is the picture of an administration that knows they are getting out. They agree with me, but just won’t admit it. This is the picture of an administration that just won’t admit it was wrong.



Here’s where we differ. I will not tolerate even one additional death. To me, 30 deaths a month is not an improvement. It is a tragedy to the family who lost a son or daughter, a mother or father. Not to mention the casualties. They gave their healthy sons and daughters to us, and we return to them a child without arms, legs or with severe brain injuries. If we can avoid these casualties we should.



Secretary Rumsfeld’s legacy was that we can do anything with a smaller, lighter and more lethal force. Well, he was wrong when it came to Iraq. He just won’t admit it.



And the president’s major foreign policy initiative was to create an area in the Mideast friendly to the West. Spreading democracy was supposed to be the cure for instability. The president was wrong, and he just won’t admit it.



It’s time for a change in direction.