Murtha's New Plan for Ensuring Failure

Murtha's at it again. Looking on how he can get his hands on that Commander-in-Chief power that he's been drooling over. His method is essentially to set benchmarks for our military that will ensure that the President won't be able to redeploy troops, irrespective of the need.

Interesting that he postures it all as doing the right thing to ensure the troops are ready for combat. He also openly states it's to block the surge. He's riding it in on an appropriations bill.

“If we do not see the supplemental funding by April we will have to go to the same problems that will slow down the system,” Gen. Peter Schoomaker said in what well may be his last hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schoomaker said that the Army was forced to take extraordinary measures to “slam the brakes” on expenditures when the supplemental funding did not come through when expected.

Schoomaker’s appeal comes as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, is looking to stop the new troop buildup in Iraq by placing several conditions on the $93.4 billion supplemental funding the war through Sept. 30, 2007.

Murtha’s plan could delay the approval of the supplemental. His proposal may attract controversy in the House, and, even if it passes there, could face strong resistance in the Senate.

In an interview with MoveOn.org, Murtha said he wants the Pentagon to certify that troops leaving for Iraq are “fully combat-ready,” with sufficient training and equipment.

Murtha’s proposal would require that troops spend at least one year at home between deployments. Murtha also seeks to end the stop-loss program, which forces military personnel to extend their enlistments. He said he believes the military cannot meet those standards, which means the “surge” in Iraq would be thwarted.

Schoomaker indicated that the Army likely will not tolerate any delays. The 2006 supplemental was meant to pay for war costs accrued between October 2005 and September 2006. The supplemental request was submitted to Congress in February 2006.

To manage the shortfall of cash last year, the Army slowed production at depots, laid people off and instituted a hiring freeze, tightly controlled travel expenses and delayed IT purchases, Schoomaker, who is passing the baton to Gen. George Casey reminded lawmakers.

The funding is important since past funding was delayed which caused additional issues that the article goes into. So Murtha is going to try and ride this as a means to micro-mismanage the military.

The WashingtonTimes had this in an editorial on Murtha's plan for defeat.

When the House votes today on the resolution denouncing Mr. Bush's plans for additional troops to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq, members should be under no illusions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are trying to do: to make it impossible for American troops to properly do their job in Iraq. In an interview yesterday with MoveCongress.org, a Web site for a coalition of anti-war groups, Mr. Murtha, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, explained that by placing conditions on $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would make be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said.

"We will set benchmarks for readiness," a top Democratic leadership aide told the nonpartisan Politico.com Web site, which summarized the Democrats' strategy this way: "If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops in Iraq."

But they're supporting the troops. Remember that. It is important to understand that troops in the field are being supported by the Democrats who want to ensure that those in harms way can't get reinforcements when they are needed, and can't recover from battle attrition. This has nothing at all to do with supporting the troops. Murtha quite obviously is a liar.

The WaTimes article also discusses that the restrictions that the Dems are attempting may actually be unconstitutional. I'm doubting it will get to that point, since this still would have to make it through the Senate, where it is very likely to be filibustered.