Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Mort Kondracke Claims New Murtha Plan "Anti-Troop"

Reported by Janie - February 16, 2007 -

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has announced he is attaching an amendment to the President's Supplemental Spending bill which he feels could stop the troop surge. At the same time, the amendment makes sure our troops are properly equipped, have the proper training necessary for battle, and makes sure they are not over extended. According to Special Report panelist Mort Kondracke, this measure is "anti-troop."

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the amendment:

"In addition to training and equipment standards, Mr. Murtha's proposal calls for units to get at least one year at home between tours overseas, no deployments lasting more than a year and an end to the 'stop-loss' program that lets the military recall troops who have completed their enlistment commitments."

This topic was brought up during Special Report's "All Star Panel" last night (2/15), and regular panelist Mort Kondracke had this to say about the plan:

"That would deny funds for any troops that go to Iraq unless they meet certain benchmarks of training, of equipment, of, they have to be back in the states a year, you can't send them over there if they haven't had their years rest, you can't extend troops beyond a certain time length of service in Iraq, you can't extend their service, the stop-loss he referred to is a method of extending people who beyond their time, or their term-of service, it's kind of a forced draft – that's what the critics say."

Comment: Perfect! This is what our troops should have been provided with from the beginning. Yet, somehow, Kondracke believes making sure these benchmarks are met is actually "anti-troop."

He continued, "Look, it's pretty clever on two different levels. 1, it pretends to be for the troops. To make sure that they're trained adequately, and rested adequately, and all this, and it also appears to be for the troops in that if you vote against the supplemental with this in it, you'll be against funding the troops while they're in combat.

Except that it is truly anti-troop. Because you've got – the surge will be well under way and what Murtha is trying to do is deny reinforcements for these troops. Help will not be on the way if this passes, leaving them more vulnerable than they were."

Yes, according to Fox panelists, providing our troops with the necessary equipment, assuring they are adequately rested, and guaranteeing they have the proper training is considered anti-troops, because it defys the White House's official stance.