Murtha Insists: Redeploy Out of Iraq Now!
<body><div id="article"><tr><td height="23" valign="middle" width="184"></td><td valign="middle" width="185"></td></tr><h1>Murtha Insists: Redeploy Out of Iraq Now!</h1><p>June 3, 2007 (LPAC)--"There's a bloodbath now that is going on in Iraq and the only solution is for the U.S. to redeploy out of the country," declared Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), who has one of the most accomplished military records in the U.S. Congress. Murtha also demonstrated today on the ABC News show, "This Week," that he is one of very few elected officials with a competent and full intelligence picture on Iraq.</p><p>Murtha said that the Iraqis have to "change their Constitution" that excludes the mostly Sunni former members of the Ba'ath Party, in order to stop the civil war. He said that every important indicator shows failure: the high number of Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers killed this month, the fact that there is <i>less</i> education, less oil production and other necessities than before the war. These have to be taken up by the Iraqis themselves. This situation is not being adequately reported, said Murtha, adding, "I've lost a lot of confidence in a lot of military leaders, because they say what the White House wants them to say."</p><p>Murtha rejected any permanent U.S. presence in Iraq a la the "Korea option," now being mooted by Administration officials. "The Korea model is not realistic," Murtha said. "How are you going to re-supply these troops?" He reiterated his call for a redeployment of the troops in Iraq to isolated posts away from the center of action. When queried about the incremental "drawdown" of troops being floated by Iraqi commanders Petraeus and Odierno, Murtha said that the numbers that have been proposed are just not sufficient, and would leave the rest of the troops as easy targets in a bloody civil war.</p><p>When the need for new appropriations comes up again in September, there will again be efforts to place a time-table on the spending. Murtha indicated that there would be a greater number of people willing to support such a measure the next time around, perhaps even a veto-proof majority.</p></div></body>