If the transcript doesn't lie, Murtha has lowered his sights to his colleague's distinctly modest lowest common denominator position on Iraq legislation.
For one thing, his Proviso will be waiver-thin. Except that the waiver will be dressed up:
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to withhold the money unless those troops were--had readiness or were prepared, but now you've changed your view. You will allow those troops to go to Iraq in that situation or condition, as long as the president certifies that. Correct?REP. MURTHA: Well, he's got to certify that--at least this is what I'm recommending to the committee--he's got to certify that these troops are equipped, and they are trained, or it's in the national interest...
And this is the lefty sphere's Great White Hope?
It gets worse:
MR. RUSSERT: But if the president certifies that they are prepared, you will not withhold the money.REP. MURTHA: I don't think the president will certify that. I don't think the president will say that--I don't think he'll send troops back into combat that aren't trained and aren't ready. I, I am absolutely convinced he's not going to do that.
Does Murtha believe that? I don't think so for a minute!
What the certification idea gives him (as well as Pelosi) is a figleaf behind which to shelter their embarrassment: the undiluted Proviso was never going to pass the House; Murtha sprang the Proviso on the world to ballyhoo a head of steam of public opinion to force colleagues to get behind it; the tactic didn't work.
On the power of the purse, we get this:
MR. RUSSERT: But why not cut off funding for the war?REP. MURTHA: Well, you don't have the votes to do that in the first place. We don't have the votes to do it. You can't--you, you can't go forth. And the public doesn't want--they, they don't want that to happen. They want the troops to be entirely funded...
MR. RUSSERT: But you would prefer to cut off funding.REP. MURTHA: Well, what, what I prefer to do is to make sure that our troops are prepared, make sure they have what they need when they go into combat. That's what I say. And if they break their guidelines, then, then obviously it's a different story.
Update [2007-3-4 17:43:37 by skeptic06]:
A CQ piece (outside the pay-wall) from last Thursday had escaped me.
Murtha's defense apps subcommittee has apparently marked up the bill.
And
The House Appropriations panel is expected to consider the supplemental March 8, according to Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, D-Pa.`
Where is the text of the bill as marked up by the subcommittee?
Nowhere on the Apps Committee site - I'm sure copies are floating around the Capitol, newsrooms and dining rooms of the well-placed in the DC.
Not for the likes of lesser beings.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 0 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
