Posted by Josh Drobnyk at 9:04 a.m CST
Rep. Patrick Murphy returned to Iraq last week for the first time since his days as a paratrooper in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He said Tuesday that the trip reaffirmed his calls for a phased, 12-month redeployment from the country.
''Being over there confirmed everything and reinforced everything that I believe in my heart is the best thing for our national interest and the interest of that region,'' the 8th District Democrat said from his Capitol Hill office.
Murphy returned Monday from a multi-nation fact-finding mission with five other House members, including fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Carney, a freshman from the 10th District. The weeklong trip also took the group to Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kuwait.
But it was a two-day stint in and around Baghdad to meet troops and government officials that reunited the former Army captain with old friends and brought back grim reminders of his time there.
It was there that he ran into Army Sgt. Juan Santiago, who had served under Murphy as a private three years ago. ''He said, 'Sir, I'm so proud,''' Murphy recalled Santiago saying. ''He said, 'I couldn't be happier for you. Keep doing what you are doing.'''
The morning after his arrival, Murphy was walking to breakfast with Carney when a car bomb went off a quarter-mile away, just outside of the Green Zone, Murphy said. ''I didn't flinch,'' he recalled.
The trip came three years after Murphy finished a seven-month tour there. He said he sensed that troops are more frustrated now than they were during his tour ''because the Iraqis aren't stepping up to the plate. Many of them are feeling like it is Groundhog Day for four years now.''
Murphy's return to Washington comes as Democrats prepare for the next phase of their debate over the Iraq war and President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to the country. Nearly two weeks ago, the House approved a nonbinding measure denouncing the plan, while Republicans blocked the measure from coming to the floor in the Senate.
Rep. Jack Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 12th District, has pushed a proposal that aims to prevent Bush's ''surge'' plan through an emergency spending bill that is expected to come up in March, although that idea has drawn fire from Republicans and some Democrats.
An alternate plan proposed by Senate Democrats would require lawmakers to reauthorize the 2002 bill that gave Bush the go-ahead to use force in Iraq.
Murphy is steering clear of that debate for now. ''I don't want to comment on other people's legislation I haven't seen,'' he said when asked about the proposals.
Murphy said he felt an urgency among Army commanders in Afghanistan to deploy more troops to that country, a call that Murphy said would be answered in part by a bill he has co-sponsored that forces a phased redeployment from Iraq beginning no later than May 1.
That measure calls for a complete withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, unless a series of benchmarks are met. Critics say a timeline for redeployment will embolden insurgents in Iraq and withdrawing now would lead to further chaos in the region.
Party leaders have put Murphy, the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, in the spotlight to talk about the war. Immediately after the House vote on the nonbinding measure on Feb. 16, Murphy stood among a handful of party leaders at a news conference celebrating the resolution's approval.
It was one of many moments in which Murphy has stood before the national media and spoken out against the war in the eight weeks since his swearing-in. He spent hours Tuesday in continuous meetings with reporters to discuss the trip to Iraq.
All of which can be somewhat overwhelming for a 33-year-old lawmaker. ''Sometimes I feel that the weight of the Army is on me,'' he said. ''They are counting on me just to keep going.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Yet another Defeatocrat whose only goal is to aid and embolden the terrrristss. If he'd only go to Iraq and behold the wonders we've bestowed, he see that victory is the only possible outcome...
what's that? Never mind.
Posted by: a blinkin | February 28, 2007 10:15 AM
OK John D, Paulo, and Bruce:
Let's see you call Rep. Patrick Murphy a "cut and run" Democrat.
Considering he has more combat experience than most Republicans, including your President, Vice President, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the neo-con cheerleaders, I would say what he said carries a little more weight than those so-called "patriots".
Posted by: BobinATL | February 28, 2007 10:26 AM
More Trib/Swamp free publicity for some garden variety Democrats. No surprise in their views. No surprise that the Trib/Swamp headlines those views.
Fact is, the overwhelming majority of the serving military back the war. Bush got a large majority of the soldier vote in 2004. See, for example, the article from the left-wing magazine Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6284431/site/newsweek/
These Americans, who have the real credibility to speak on the war, back the war--which is perhaps why the Josh Drobnyks of the media refuse to interview them. And why "A blinkin", "Bob in ATL" and their ilk refuse to be guided by soldier's views of the war.
Posted by: Bruce | February 28, 2007 11:55 AM
I think it's hilarious that the Republicans claim to be the party that "backs the troops" yet during the last election you could barely find any Iraq war vets running as Repubs..........they were all running as Democrat's,because that's where America's heart is now days.
The NeoCons are on an island of failure that's only going to lead to a loss in the 08 Presidential election and more lost Congressional seats....and sadly,more dead American GI's.
Posted by: John E. | February 28, 2007 12:22 PM
Bruce you make it Sooo easy sometimes.
From your own link:
"When asked if the war in Iraq had reduced the risk of terrorism in the United States, 47 per cent said yes while 42 per cent said the risk of terrorism had increased. Added to the 9 per cent who said the war had made no difference, more than half of the active soldiers and their families believe the war in Iraq has failed to live up to Bush’s mission—to kill terrorists in Iraq before they kill Americans at home. That wasn’t the only disturbing news from the survey. By a narrow margin of 48 to 47 per cent, a plurality of military folks believe Bush has no clear plan to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion."
The soldiers don't think Bush knows what he's doing. The soldiers don't by the "Fighting them there to protect us here" propaganda. Perhaps you should listen to them Bruce.
Posted by: tony | February 28, 2007 12:27 PM
"Fact is, the overwhelming majority of the serving military back the war. Bush got a large majority of the soldier vote in 2004."
Perhaps you should try posting some more current information instead of using article that is over two years old to support your claim.
There are more and more troops that do not support this war.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3456
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Posted by: Richard S. | February 28, 2007 12:37 PM
Oh, and here's what happens to soldiers that do speak out:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/
The soldiers at Walter Reed have been banned from speaking to the press after the stories uncovering the appalling conditions there.
Posted by: Tony | February 28, 2007 12:53 PM
"Richard S." and "tony" attempt to deny that serving soldiers back the war. Their claims are to accuracy what the Chicago Cubs are to pennant-winning.
In his futile attempt to disprove the obvious "Richard S." links to a 2006 article in the newspaper "Military Times". Not good enough, Richard. What "Military Times" did was survey the opinions ONLY of its subscribers--who may or may not be military members. This purported "poll" was nothing of the sort, with no random sample and no adherence to the standards of actual polling. As such it is intellectually worthless. I'd grade Richard's posting as a D+, only because I'm an easy grader.
The response of "tony" is equally feeble. What he says doesn't address, let alone refute, the fact that the soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Bush. And his "excerpt" omits the fact that by a 72%-18% margin, the troops had no confidence in Kerry's having a "clear plan". I'd grade "tony"'s posting as a D-.
Posted by: bruce | February 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Hey Paulo:
Since you have so much free time to post here in The Swamp, now that you're not trading at the CME anymore, I just KNOW that you have the time to do the research that will back up your allegations, right?
Swamp thread: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/rapid_fire.html
[quote]
This is just the start of the "slow bleed" on B.Hussein Obama....and the Clinton's are behind it,just like they were on the Muslim Madrassa story.
Stay tuned...more to come.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 19, 2007 10:44:03 PM
[/quote]
CAN YOU PROVE THIS PAULO? THAT THE CLINTONS ARE BEHIND THIS STORY? PLEASE POST YOUR PROOF HERE IN THE SWAMP ASAP!
Posted by: BC | Feb 20, 2007 10:59:39 AM
It's only been a week - how much time do you need?
Posted by: BC | February 28, 2007 1:32 PM
Bruce-
But the poll sure didn't show that troops support the way back the way the war is being fought like you do does it? Why aren't you guided by a soldiers view of the war, Bruce?
Here's a bonus survey for you Bruce, of soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
But since it disagrees with your preconceived notions, I'm sure you will try and discredit it.
Oh, and by the way, your link didn't actually show that Bush won the soldier vote. It was about a pre-election poll.
Posted by: Tony | February 28, 2007 1:40 PM
From Michellemalkin.com, an 2006 analysis debunking the leftist spin on the "Military Times" pseudo-poll:
"A new Military Times poll is being gleefully spun by the moonbats as proof that President Bush has lost the support of our troops. (The Military Times cautions that its mail-in poll, of 1,215 active-duty servicemen who subscribe to the Military Times and its family of newsweeklies, "is not necessarily representative of the military as a whole.")
Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004, according to the survey. But despite the relentless anti-war drumbeat of the MSM and the Dems, our troops still support President Bush--and his handling of the war in Iraq--by large margins. Read the poll results for yourself. Some highlights:
Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?
Yes 56%
No 26%
No opinion/no answer 7%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%
Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?
Very likely to succeed 31%
Somewhat likely to succeed 42%
Not very likely to succeed 17%
Not at all likely to succeed 3%
No opinion/no answer 6%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve 54%
Disapprove 25%
No opinion 9%
Decline to answer 12%
President George W. Bush has my best interests at heart.
Strongly agree 19%
Agree 39%
Disagree 18%
Strongly disagree 11%
No opinion/no answer 12%
Our troops' view of Congress, on the other hand, is another matter:
Congress has my best interests at heart.
Strongly agree 2%
Agree 29%
Disagree 40%
Strongly disagree 17%
No opinion/no answer 11%"
Enough said.
Posted by: bruce | February 28, 2007 11:45 PM
Since "tony" asks for post-election results on the military vote, I did the 10 second internet lookup he won't or can't and came up with the CNN 2004 post-election exit poll, which shows that military veterans voted 57% Bush, 41% Kerry. Pretty landslidish, I'd say.
Amazing isn't it how the Swamp never can manage to interview someone from the 57% majority?
Posted by: bruce | February 28, 2007 11:57 PM
Bruce-
1. You know Military veterans are a different group that the active military that we've been talking about right?
2. Mr. Silva was kind enough to answer you questions about the interviewing of soldiers during his trip. Respond to it directly, or give it a rest.
3. You keep on ignoring that there are now 2 polls, the poll you linked to, and the zogby poll, that show that the active military does not think Bush's strategy will work.
Why do you refuse to be guided by the soldier's view of the war Bruce?
Posted by: Tony | March 1, 2007 6:24 AM
Michelle Malkin is a reputable source for statistics? 'SCUZE me??? And you get upset over CNN?
Why don't you just quote Ann Coulter direct? This morning she decided to call Adolf Hitler a liberal (and, to her, I'm sure he was). I'm sure she could have found a way to "analyze" 180% of the troops who wanted to turn their guns on Democrats.
Posted by: John | March 1, 2007 1:32 PM