Those damn Republicans! How low can they stoop? You’d think that lying us into war would at least provide the limit to their perfidy, but now they’ve outdone themselves and sunk even lower: they’ve had the temerity to take a leading Democrat, Rep. John Murtha, seriously and moved to provide a quick sense of the House vote on his proposal to bring the troops home now!
No wonder the Democrats are so furious, calling this a “political stunt,” “heinous,” “a pathetic, partisan, political ploy,” “a disgrace” said the Democratic leader in the House, “[t]he rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.
I suppose taking Democratic proposals seriously can be a political stunt, but was it one here? That is, did the Republicans really distort what Rep. Murtha proposed? Alas, if one tries to sort out this imbroglio — which features at one of its low points lawmakers hurling insults at each other on the floor of the House — by turning to what once was referred to as “the newspaper of record,” one finds a “record” that shifted during the day as Democratic rhetoric became more frenzied.
For example, here is the lede of the NYT article by Eric Schmitt that appeared, according to a Google News search, about 12:30 PM Friday afternoon:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 – The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration’s critics. [Emphasis added]
Here is the lede of the version of the Schmitt article that appeared about 7:30PM Friday night:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 – House Republicans are attempting to split the ranks of the Democrats tonight by offering a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately. The Republican-controlled House is expected to defeat the measure in a vote that the Republicans hope will leave the Democrats in disarray.
So, you may well ask, what’s the problem? The “newspaper of record” says, initially, that Rep. Murtha proposed “immediate withdrawal” and in a following version that the Republicans, albeit with the motive of splitting the ranks of the Democrats (how dare they!), offered a resolution “to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately.” But an evening of Democrats howling foul changed the tone of Schmitt’s next version, which according to Google news appeared about 10:30PM Friday night. Here is the description of the partisan conflict that appears there:
The battle on Friday came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha’s measure and left little time for meaningful debate. [Emphasis added]
So, after an evening of Democrats accusing Republicans of “a cheap political stunt and a personal attack,” the New York Times description of Murtha’s proposal shifted from “immediate withdrawal” to “swift withdrawal.”
Other news organizations did not seem to be so confused. According to CBS News, Murtha “stoked a surging political fire over President Bush’s Iraq policies by proposing that troops return home now.” Bloomberg on Friday described Murtha’s “impassioned call yesterday for immediate withdrawal.”
The resolution offered by the Republicans was quite straightforward and simple:
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
According to the Democrats, however, this was fraud, deceit, and personal attack. Typical was the response of Calif. Democrat Henry Waxman, who called the Republican resolution
the stunt that the Republicans are pulling here to force a vote on a resolution never considered by any committee…. The resolution before this body is a fake.
But did the resolution distort what Murtha proposed? Let’s look at the record (not the newspaper of record):
According to Murtha’s own web site, his proposal said the U.S. should “immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.”
In his press conference Murtha said:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy.
No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.
….
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
….
The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It’s time to bring the troops home.
….
Setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn’t work, because they always find an excuse not to get them out.
QUESTION: Mr. Murtha, you say that — your first point about bringing them home, consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters. What is your sense as to how long that would be?
MURTHA: I think that you get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it — you have to do it in a very consistent way, but I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.
…
We’ve done our job militarily. It’s time for us to get out.
….
QUESTION: So you’re effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible and that all these troops can be brought home within six months, or that’s your hope.
MURTHA: I say, they could be brought back — I’m saying, within — the safety of the troops. But I project it could be six months.
QUESTION: Six months to start it or six months to have them all back?
MURTHA: I think, in six months, you could have them all back.
It seems to me that Rep. Murtha, retired Marine colonel, pulled the pin on the grenade of the Democrats’ Iraq policy, but he forgot to throw it.
Perhaps ironically, or maybe not so ironically, the last, best word on this affair belongs to John Kerry, who intoned with his familiar patrician pomposity: “I won’t stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha.”
Indeed.
UPDATE [19 Nov.]
See the excellent (as usual) coverage of this issue on Powerline.
As the Powerliners say, the Democrats avoided the “trap” that Murtha inadvertently set for them by screaming to high heaven that he hadn’t proposed what he proposed. Certainly no one who took the trouble to read Murtha’s own resolution (“earliest practicable opportunity”) and his own repeated statements in his speech and press conference (“immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy,” “immediate redeployment,” “We’ve done our job militarily. It’s time for us to get out”) would think it unfair, as the Democrats and most of the mainstream press does, to describe his proposal as one favoring “immediate withdrawal.” After all, President Bush favors withdrawing the troops “at the earliest practicable opportunity,” and presumably Murtha’s proposal was not intended to support the Bush policy.
Murtha’s proposal, in fact, reminds me of the widely ridiculed assertion of Gen. McClellan (or was it Burnside? Don’t have time to check now) that he wasn’t “retreating” after receiving a shellacking from Lee’s army; he was merely “changing his base.” Sticking with the Civil War for a moment, imagine if Lincoln had said after the first or even second Bull Run, following the advice of the doughface Democrats (the Murthas of their day) that in order to allow the current and former slaves to earn and protect their own freedom he was immediately redeploying all of the Union troops out of the South, though “[a] quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region” (this wording taken from Murtha’s resolution, which Democrats today point to as evidence that he’s not retreating, presumably merely changing our base).
UPDATE II [19 Nov.]
Come to think of it, why is it too late? That is, why don’t the Republicans, magnanimously taking to heart the Democrats’ criticism that they “distorted” Murtha’s proposal, say O.K., let’s now vote on Murtha’s actual proposal? In the ensuing debate, the Dems would then have a chance to explain what they mean by “earliest practicable opportunity.”
UPDATE III [19 Nov.]
Now the Los Angeles Times joins the obfuscation sweepstakes. In a front-page article, Maura Reynolds writes that the Republican resolution
grew out of a proposal made Thursday by Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania
That party is just not a happy party, bitch when you don’t get what you want and bitch when you do.
After all this time, they still haven’t learned be careful what you ask for?
Of course it’s “Swift Boating” Jack Murtha. When the GOP doesn’t like the message, attack the messenger.
Except, this time, the GOP has far more messengers to attack.
Take Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:
>>>”US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld emphasised the need for progress toward political and economic stability as key to defeating the insurgency.
“The United States and the coalition forces, in my personal view, will not be the thing that will defeat the insurgency,” he said.
“So therefore winning or losing is not the issue, in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ in a war,” he said.
“The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis. And the Iraqis will do it not through military means solely, but by progress on the political side and giving the Iraqi people a sense that they have a stake in that country,” he said.”
Insurgency
This statement, made back in April of 2005 is consistant with what thrice decorated, Vietnam Combat Vet 37 year Marine Corps Ret. Colonel Rep. Jack Murtha (D) is saying:
>>>”I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won
” That is, did the Republicans really distort what Rep. Murtha proposed?”
The house GOP? Naah! Here’s murtha’s resolution:
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to “promote the emergence of a democratic government”;
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
What disgusted me the most was the childish behavior of the minority party when Rep. Schmidt repeated the phone call from a Marine that said cowards cut and run, Marines never do. I do not feel the Marine was calling Rep. Murtah a coward. Marines do not do that in public to other Marines. He was just reminding the Representative how the Corps operates. And to shout down the lady for reporting what a constituent said is just ignorant.
As for this being a political stunt, a political stunt is closing the doors to the Senate in order to throw a temper tantrum. As the Democrats were so strongly supporting this idiotic idea in the leftist media, this was the only was to see where their sentiments really lay. Plus it will give them something to answer to the populous while on the long winter break.
It is obvious that you will never see a House Democrat winning the World Series of Poker.
The problem is that while Murtha, in his press conference, repeatedly called for “immediate withdrawal” of the troops, his resolution used the vastly different phrase “at the earliest practicable date.”
Who *wouldn’t* support the latter? “Practicable” means you can do it feasibly, without causing disaster. I don’t know of any conservative who’s advocated keeping troops in Iraq after it’s become *practical* to pull ’em out.
If the House had gotten a chance to vote on Murtha’s “practicable” wording, the resolution would probably have passed. But of course in that case, the MSM would be writing headlines that “Congress votes for immediate pullout!”
Ah, the MSM. Hard to imagine a more thoroughly corrupt, deceitful, partisan group.
“What disgusted me the most was the childish behavior of the minority party when Rep. Schmidt repeated the phone call from a Marine that said cowards cut and run, Marines never do. I do not feel the Marine was calling Rep. Murtah a coward.”
Lefties feel. Right wingers think.
“Who *wouldn’t* support the latter? “Practicable” means you can do it feasibly, without causing disaster. I don’t know of any conservative who’s advocated keeping troops in Iraq after it’s become *practical* to pull ’em out.”
Then why didn’t they want to vote on Murtha’s resolution?
Johnnycab writes:
>>>”What disgusted me the most was the childish behavior of the minority party when Rep. Schmidt repeated the phone call from a Marine that said cowards cut and run, Marines never do. I do not feel the Marine was calling Rep. Murtah a coward. Marines do not do that in public to other Marines. He was just reminding the Representative how the Corps operates. And to shout down the lady for reporting what a constituent said is just ignorant.”
Maybe both Schmidt, Colonel Danny Bubp, and yourself need to review some history about Marines before agreeing upon that type of statement:
>>>”US-Mideast relations dipped sharply in 1984. President Reagan first sent, then withdrew, a US peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Israeli forces were directed by then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to destroy Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon. They drove both out, after US mediation. But nearly 250 US marines and some of the CIA’s best Mideast operatives were killed by truck bombs in Beirut. This terrorism was the work of Shi’ite Arab militants, controlled by the successful clerical Muslim revolutionaries in Iran, who had taken US hostages both there and in Lebanon.”
Lebanon
I guess by the current GOP strategy, Ronald Reagan should be exhumed, declared a coward, and get “swift-boated” by the Karl Rove Slime Machine since he had Marines “cut and run” from Lebanon.
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
–Cobra
I believe it is the policy of the Bush administration to “redeploy” U.S. troops from Iraq “at the earliest practicable date.” If that is all Murtha wants, then the Repubs probably made a mistake to treat his proposal as criticism of the current policy, or in fact as though it said anything at all.
But Murtha’s been criticising since 2002, IIRC.
Or at least mid-2004.
The funny thing is, I remember the 2006 drawdown date from at least very early this year, if not from late in 2004, so, what the dem’s beef?
And why did Murtha pull a switcharoo in his language?
–stable and improving economy in Iraq, —
Murtha doesn’t know this? I’ve read articles on this, why doesn’t he?
How can making Congress vote on a resolution be swiftboating Murtha?
Did John swiftboat Murtha by reprinting what’s he’s said on numerous occasions?
—
Via Dailypundit:
Murtha does seem a bit wing-batty. Per Taranto’s Best of Web:
An exchange with Margaret Warner on last night’s “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” though, suggests that Murtha has simply taken leave of reality:
*** QUOTE ***
Warner: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe–[the president] says–for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism — that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?
Murtha: Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That’s when terrorism started. It didn’t start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn’t want to listen to any ideas.
*** END QUOTE ***
So according to Murtha, “terrorism started” either in March 2003 (with the “invasion of Iraq”) or in May 2004 (when the Abu Ghraib miniscandal came to light). One wonders where he was in, say, September 2001. One wonders, too, how a political party can keep a straight face while putting him forward as a spokesman on national security….
Via a poster at Bros. Judd, and I’m sure Rantburg has more:
The whole idea on the Democrats’ side was for Murtha to go out there and make his statement, and use his war record and his 2002 vote in favor of the war to spin it as a major change of heart and a dagger to the heart of Bush’s Iraq war plan. But then it came out that Murtha had been doubtful on the Iraq war in 2002, and spoke out against it in 2004 in words similar to those on Thursday, albeit minus the call for withdrawal.
Once it was obvious this was more political posturing than an actual seizmic change in the House, the Republicans simply took Murtha’s claim to it logical excess and presented the amendment that the MoveOn.org and Cindy Sheehan types really would like to see Congress pass, but which Democrats know doesn’t have the support of the majority of Americans. Calling the bluff of the party’s far left is what caused Friday night’s meltdown.
—
And we’re not supposed to question war heros?
Please.
OT: John, found this at Daimnation:
White males need not apply
Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works
Tom Blackwell
National Post
A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.
Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday….
I am surprised that no one here has connected “at the earliest practicable date” with “with all deliberate speed.”
Really, the guy calls in person for “immediate withdrawal,” but hedges in the actual legislative language; whereas the Republicans take him to mean what he very clearly said. I don’t call that a “dirty trick.” It seems to me more like taking the fellow at his word. Is that unfair?
And the NYT online changes are fascinating, aren’t they?
“Really, the guy calls in person for “immediate withdrawal,” but hedges in the actual legislative language; whereas the Republicans take him to mean what he very clearly said.”
That’s a funny sort of clear, that contradicts what was in his proposal.
Well, Murtha seems to be a funny sort of guy. I saw him on Chris Matthews, where as best I could figure he called for immediate withdrawal but said he took it as a personal affront that the Republicans said he favored immediate withdrawal. Still, the Republicans blew it, in my opinion, by forcing a vote on the Murtha’s actual proposal, which would not have left all the Dems the escape hatch of saying he hadn’t said what he said.
Come to think of it, why don’t they just do that now?
“Come to think of it, why don’t they just do that now?”
Because they don’t want to vote for a proposal with all those whereas’s and they don’t want to vote against a proposal that our troops should come home as practically as possible.
Because they don’t want to vote for a proposal with all those whereas’s
Why not? Those whereas’es would be defeated along with the rest of it.
they don’t want to vote against a proposal that our troops should come home as practically as possible.
Sure they do. The Bush policy in fact is precisely to bring them home as soon as practicable (not practically). Murtha specifically said it not only could but should be done “within six months.” Do Democrats really agree with that? In fact, if put to a vote would even Murtha agree with that? I’d like to find out.
actus,
“[A] proposal that our troops should come home as practically as possible”? Really.
The “whereas” thing is standard legislative language, and not something to scare a Congressman off in the general run of things. And I still don’t see what is offensive about Republicans introducing legislation demanding what Murtha said he actually wanted, which is that our troops be withdrawn “immediately.” That he said one thing and drafted something that said something different reflects badly on Murtha, not on the Republicans. And that you don’t think even the drafted (as opposed to spoken) version would fly is interesting, too.
Look, when Rangel called for a draft, it was obviously a “trick” of the same kind, in that no one believed Rangel actually wanted a draft. It was a proposal introduced for the sole purpose of causing embarrassment, just as this was. I do not remember your objecting to it at the time.
From Merriam-Webster: practicable = 1 : capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished : FEASIBLE.
No where in Murtha’s resolution calling for troops to be “redeployed at the earliest practicable date” does he condition practicabilty on some objective other that accomplishing the “redeployment” outside Iraq
Hence, the plain meaning is withdrawl immediately or ASAP!
Sandy P,
re Canada’s Public Works Dept.: That’s incredible. I’m particularly impressed by the “visible minorities” bit. Evidently the “aboriginals” need not be “visible,” only documented. “Invisible” minorities do not come into this at all. A light-skinned Mexican immigrant might miss out due to his insufficient “visibility.” Unless, of course, his putting down “Ramirez” as his surname on an employment application counts as a “visual” cue.
“The “whereas” thing is standard legislative language, and not something to scare a Congressman off in the general run of things.”
Like I said, I don’t thikn they’d vote for it.
“And I still don’t see what is offensive about Republicans introducing legislation demanding what Murtha said he actually wanted, which is that our troops be withdrawn “immediately.””
Its a GOP cut and run proposal, introduced by a republican. If you find that ok, then its fine. But its not murtha’s proposal.
“And that you don’t think even the drafted (as opposed to spoken) version would fly is interesting, too.”
Ya. I don’t think the GOP would vote for that.
Murtha Plan: Withdrawral of American Troops at earliest practicable time, while remaining withing striking distance to lend assistance.
Bush Plan: Stay the course.
And what is the current course, you ask?
The plan of standing up Iraqi troops so US troops can stand down is apparently not working:
>>>”Three car bombs detonated nearly simultaneously just north of Baghdad, killing at least 60 people yesterday as an American commander told members of Congress in Washington that only one Iraqi battalion was able to operate independently of U.S. forces.
The report by Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, surprised the Senate Armed Services Committee, since Casey had told Congress in June that three battalions were combat ready.
Republican and Democratic senators alike questioned whether U.S. plans could succeed to draw down forces as Iraqi troops are trained.
“It is … discouraging to hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion that is fully capable,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “It doesn’t feel like progress.”
A battalion is composed of about 300 troops.”
Just ONE
Let’s do some math here…
300 soldiers is approximately 1/533rd of our total US deployment in Iraq as of now, and we’re now entering our 32nd month of this war. If this current rate of Iraqi “stand alone” troop development continues, theoretically there wouldn’t be anyone currently alive who would live to see HALF of our deployment replaced.
And to REITERATE on the strength of the insurgency these phantom Iraqi troops are supposed to be fighting?
>>>”
But on Sunday US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the first indication Sunday that some members of the Bush administration recognize that the insurgency may not be in its “last throes,” as Vice President Dick Cheney said recently. Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday: “Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.”
“Coalition forces, foreign forces, are not going to repress that insurgency. We’re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.”
Mr. Rumsfeld warned that violence could escalate ahead of new elections for a permanent government, due in December.
When asked to comment on Rumsfeld’s remarks, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari said it was impossible to predict how long it would take to defeat the insurgents. “Politics is not mathematics,” Reuters reports he told a conference in London.
The admission came two days after General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Persian Gulf, told a Congressional hearing that the insurgents in Iraq are just as strong today as they were six months ago, and that more foreign fighters are coming into the country than in past months. ”
Rumsfeld
Staying on the Bush Plan, based upon the results on the ground, and the words of our OWN civilian and military leaders will result in more deaths and casualties on top of the thousands our American servicemen have already suffered with no guarantee of “victory”, defined by Bush this morning as:
>>>”
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
The phrase “is hereby terminated” would force our troops to bivouac in their camps, execute no offensive campaigns, help no Iraqis, build no infrastructure, destroy no weapons caches, kill or capture no terrorist, allow the terrorist insurgents complete liberty throughout the Midlle East to kill, maim, rape, enslave, brutalize, and control those who were liberated at the cost of the lives of the finest men and women the world has ever known. To pull our service men and women back to a defensive position is to make them the object of a turkey shoot. When the emboldened terrorist overrun these camps, who will photograph the last Marine or Soldier leaping onto a helicopter to avoid capture, and in doing so complete the abandonement of thirty million people to the next “Huday” or Qusay”. Anyone advocating the abandonement of our allies either now or in Vietnam is a coward and a traitor.
Michelle Dulak Thomson, not immediately above, but farther up, nails it.
It is Murtha who changed the wording and tried to have it both ways. In public he made dramatic statements. His resolution was hedgier. Whether this was a planned bait-and-switch or whether he simply thought better of his earlier intemperance is irrelevant. The Republicans, recognizing that this was a grandstand play with no force of law but timed to make a purely political statement stated, in effect, “No, we think we’d rather vote on what you said for the media.”
Cobra, your examples are false equivalences. Granted that none of us can be expected to make detailed, subtle cases in a comment thread, I still think you are neglecting important differences in order to make a dramatic point.
Custer stayed the course cos he didn’t have good intel………………
You keep trying actus, we know what the intent of Murtha was.
Isn’t he Pelosi’s advisor?
Rantburg had an interesting post:
Put it in perspective.
Murtha is Pelosi’s CHIEF strategist on military matters.
The attempt to make him a saint failed when the Republicans pulled out more decorated saints and a POW to refute him.
The attempt to have him make all the speeches for phase 2 was a disaster for dems and him. I know they did this because in phase one it got so shrill a phyiscal fight was not far off. The dems couldn’t trust their own to remain calm for phase2 so they called on Murtha to do all the talking. If they had not done so today you would have really intertaining vidcaps of moonbats foaming at the mouth.
You can bet the rabid left will blame Murtha for the failure and further fracture the dems. Pelosi will have to get a new advisor as the rest of the dems will shun Murtha and blame him for the defeat. Victimization at its best!
Pelosi was among the worst screamers last night. I was expecting her to have a heart attack…. Truely showed herself as a full fledged moonbat.
In Section 1 of Murtha’s resolution he states “The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is HEREBY TERMINATED (emphasis mine)and the forces are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date”.
When Congress terminates a mission, the funding stops on the date it is terminated. As former military, Murtha knows it would take six months for our troops to pack up and get out of Iraq. That is what he said in his press conference. Immediate withdrawal is what he meant by “hereby terminated”.
And where in the Hell was he planning to base a quick reaction force? Saudi Arabia?
The man is senile, but I respect his service to our country.
Oh, and Kerry is a self-aggrandizing jerk. It’s all about him.
Nobody called Murtha a coward. Maybe Schmidt was not as eloquent as she could have been, but what she was relaying was that another Marine took offense at a cut and run strategy, which is exactly what Murtha was advocating.
This started as a clumsy Democratic attempt at a trap, hidden in those weasel words, “as soon as practicably possible.” Standard legislative singing-and-dancing. It means nothing unless “practicably possible” is defined. To Bush, it apparently means “after the democratization process in Iraq is a stable success” – which would be synonymous with “after political victory is achieved.” Murtha’s press conference made it clear that his definition of “practicably possible” is different. His definition is “right now” – which would be synonymous with “after military victory, but before political victory.” Or, less charitably, he prefers to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
So the Republicans substituted what Murtha meant for what Murtha said, and the Congress rightly sent it to the rubbish heap of history.
cobra,
Maybe your girl, McKinney, can introduce a resolution calling for the restoration of the Baathist regime in Iraq. That is exactly what will happen is we do what Murtha wants
You see, here is where I give John Rosenberg far more credit than many of the neo-con parroting Republican talking point folks posting right now. John is capable of using facts and reason in making determinations, even if it doesn’t neccessarily allign with his world outlook, or conservative philosophy.
John is willing to accept fact above agenda, and I commend him for it.
I say this, because there are posters on this blog thread seem to be in such a zealous frenzy to “swift boat” Jack Murtha, that they fail to note this little relevant fact:
>>>” The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades — usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each — begin pulling out of Iraq early next year…
…”Rumsfeld has yet to sign Casey’s withdrawal plan but, the senior defense official said, implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls.
The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.
Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country’s political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.”
Caseys Withdrawal Plan
Hello? A plan that is to begin within the next four weeks is pretty darn near “immediate”–there was no “victory” clause mentioned in the article. That “milestones” and conditions had to be met before implementing the withdrawal plan means that the plan has to be PRACTICABLE.
You right wingers are HILARIOUS.
I’m eagerly awaiting the swift-boating of General George Casey by those who seek to trash Murtha for a variation of the same type of plan.
Assistant Village Idiot writes:
>>>”Cobra, your examples are false equivalences. Granted that none of us can be expected to make detailed, subtle cases in a comment thread, I still think you are neglecting important differences in order to make a dramatic point”
No, my examples are from documented historical facts, and direct quotes from the Defense Secretary and top commanders of the United States Military here and in Iraq. And I’d beg to differ on you about post expectations here at “Discriminations.” John Rosenberg runs a MAJOR LEAGUE blog here, where learned professionals in varied fields often post cogent, sourced dissertation level posits on the topics presented. Not only does John do his homework, and presents well-thought out examinations, but posters like Actus, Michelle, Laura, Chetly, Nels and a host of others present a high-level of intellectual discourse that’s not only informative, but thoroughly enjoyable, if not addictive.
You don’t have to agree with anything I post here, but on this table I ante up with documentation due to the level of competition.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”Maybe your girl, McKinney, can introduce a resolution calling for the restoration of the Baathist regime in Iraq. That is exactly what will happen is we do what Murtha wants”
When the Baathists were in charge, how many of OUR American servicemen and women were being killed or wounded every day?
GI Geriatric
Over 2000
–Cobra
“Nobody called Murtha a coward.”
Of course not. That’s why she withdrew her words.
Cobra: I just want to take this opportunity to extend my most grateful thanks.
Without proud antiwar liberal democrats like yourself in highly visible positions, us Republicans might not have won the Presidency PLUS seats in the House PLUS an increase in our majority in the Senate iin the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Keep it up!
Brilliant as always! Stay the course until the the mission is accomplished!
Hell, we ain’t done swifting Kerry yet. Murtha can get in line.
Surrender, Hell: Neo-Copperhead’s Embarrass A Hero
The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening. Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who…
“When the Baathists were in charge, how many of OUR American servicemen and women were being killed or wounded every day?”
Great point. It was just them Iraqi furriners being killed and wounded. Who in their right minds would care about that?
The Dems are just not used to the Reps using their games against them. The rules normally call for the Reps to sit by in silence no matter how ridiculous or out of line the Dems are. Look what happens when the Reps start giving back as good as they’re getting. Dems can dish it out but they sure can’t take it.
The “Swift-boating” of John Murtha
Discriminations takes a fascinating look at how the media’s description of the Murtha resolution story changed throughout the day, closely mirroring what the Democrats were…
Your mention of Lincoln’s dilemma reminded of something he said in 1862, early in the Civil War:
“If I had been allowed my way this war would have ended before this, but we find it still continues…”
Sometimes there is sad and dirty work too do, but it has to be done.
I used the quote in a post awhile back.
The whole incident is really a sad example of Congress at play. The critics of the war range from mild and sensible to nearly mad.
For one reason or another the Democrats decided to offer a resolution which would pressure Bush and make great headlines. The Republicans trumped them.
Indeed it was politics. From both sides.
Unless the Senate also adopted the resolution it would have been only an indication of the Representatives views. The money would not have stopped, the troops would not end operations.
cobra – thanks for your kind words; now let us assume our assigned positions so that I can say your long reference to Gen. Casey’s “plan” (or possible scenario or option) actually undermines rather than supports you and Murtha. I assume you mention Casey to suggest that Murtha’s proposal was not so far out, but it actually suggests the opposite: Casey’s suggestion (or whatever) is to remove some troops starting in several months; Murtha’s was to remove them all within six months. Casey would have us remain in Iraq until our mission is achieved; Murtha says we’ve already done all we can do and should bring home all the troops now.
Murtha, a decorated veteran, has demonstrated courage in combat. His Democratic colleagues in the House, have not demonstrated that they have the courage to stand up in public and support what he has proposed. Yesterday, he didn’t, either.
“Great point. It was just them Iraqi furriners being killed and wounded. Who in their right minds would care about that?”
We do. With our big big hearts.
Yesterday was Murtha’s John Kerry moment: he was for immediate withdrawal before he voted against it.
The Dems tactis is obvious: obfuscate, lie, deceive, and maybe you can get enough people to hear what they want to hear.
Thanks, Hamid. That’s a quote from an adult.
And what’s wrong with questioning people despite their military service? Despite the obvious pro hominem, evidence of why this sudden reverence for military folks is bumpkin abounds:
Mclellan was a general. Not a colonel or a lieutenant. He opposed Lincoln both as a professional soldier and politically. Lincoln, who used to joke about his own 90-day military service during the 1832 Black Hawk War (“we raided the turnips” said the CHICKENHAWK) was right on both counts, I think it’s safe to say.
And don’t forget General Arnold. Repeatedly decorated and greatly admired, Arnold was a model of the American soldier. Until he ran afoul in the political department and decided to pursue his own personal interests before those of his country. Now we just call him Benedict.
“…they’ve (Republican Representatives) had the temerity to take a leading Democrat, Rep. John Murtha, seriously and moved to provide a quick sense of the House vote on his proposal to bring the troops home now!
“I suppose taking Democratic proposals seriously can be a political stunt, but was it one here?”
These are quotes from the lead posting above. I assume the author would have us believe that the troop withdrawl proposal offered by the House Republicans was legitimate? If so, who were the Republican Representatives who authored the resolution? Why didn’t they have the courage of their convictions (if indeed this was no stunt) and support their measure? Can we expect them to be vilified by their cohorts in congress and the media (as has Rep. Murtha)?
Murtha: He was for immediate
Murtha: He was for immediate withdrawl from Iraq before he was against it
Cobra, give up on the attempt to turn “swift boat” into a verb, especially in this context.
The “swift boat” thing would involve former combat colleagues of the person in question attacking the person as claiming a more glorious war record than he had. I have yet to see the first former Marine who served with Murtha attacking his military service or awards.
Sorry to pop your bubble, but calling the reaction to Murtha’s call to cut and run “swift boating” is hysterical — in both the “hilarious” and the “off your rocker” meanings of the word.
>” The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
> Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades — usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each — begin pulling out of Iraq early next year…
> …”Rumsfeld has yet to sign Casey’s withdrawal plan but, the senior defense official said, implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls.
> The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.
> Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country’s political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.”
> Caseys Withdrawal Plan
> Hello? A plan that is to begin within the next four weeks is pretty darn near “immediate”–there was no “victory” clause mentioned in the article. That “milestones” and conditions had to be met before implementing the withdrawal plan means that the plan has to be PRACTICABLE.
> You right wingers are HILARIOUS.
> I’m eagerly awaiting the swift-boating of General George Casey by those who seek to trash Murtha for a variation of the same type of plan.
Nice try. Of course there are plans being drawn up to leave Iraq. No one wants to stay there forever. This particular plan just shows how close we are coming.
Now try with a straight face to pretend that Murtha’s resolution that the Iraq mission “is hereby terminated” is almost exactly the same thing as a plan like Casey’s that was full of conditions, depended on certain milestones being accomplished along the way, and refuses to actually leave until the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own.
Okay, so that is exactly what you are trying to pretend. But I doubt many will buy it.
BTW, given that Reagan was almost single-handedly facing down the Soviet Union while most of the West, particularly the elites, were saying he was “dangerous”, “misinformed”, “living in a fantasy world”, “reliving his old movies”, “an amiable dunce”, “a puppet in the hands of his handlers”, etc, I think I’ll give him a pass on what seems to be one of the very few times in his presidency he didn’t take bold action. Especially since he later bombed Libya for their own terrorism, until they learned to behave.
But I have a feeling you wouldn’t give him credit for any of that…
Or because she was rushed by a bunch of loony congresscritters. She was intimidated.
Again, how can Murtha be “swiftboated” by using his own words from his press conference in context?
Dems Retreat From Call For Retreat
Friday was a bit like when the Indians beat the Yankees 22-0. A rout, but satisfying.
This is how:
The Swift Boating Begins…
I think that many are missing the larger point on this issue. I think that the most important aspect of this vote was not to send a message to Rep. Murtha or even to the Copperheads in the Democratic party but was, rather, to send a message to the Iraqis. Whatever the intent of Murtha and the Dems, the world heard his proposal as cut-and-run. The Republicans got an overwhelming statement that immediate retreat has no support within the government of the US. That’s what the Iraqis and world will remember and thats a good thing.
Tob
Tob,
I think you are the one missing the most important aspect of whats going on here:
The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades — usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each — begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.
“The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was, it was a political war . . . We had politicians making military decisions. And it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective.” – President Bush, Feb. 8th, 2004
“I think you are the one missing the most important aspect of whats going on here”
How so Fred?
Tob
Is it the existence of a drawdown plan that you believe to be the big thing? I assumed that the military has been making them all along. As well as escalation plans if needed. Haven’t we already drawn down? Didn’t we have 165,000+ in theatre as well as several carrier battle groups at one time.
I thought that we already had a goal, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” or something like that.
Tob
“Is it the existence of a drawdown plan that you believe to be the big thing? I assumed that the military has been making them all along. As well as escalation plans if needed.”
They’ve also been leaking them. I remember shortly after the invasion being told that there would be a drawdown that winter, etc…
Hey Actus, good to see you.
So you think that Fred’s point was the leaking? I didn’t get that. I still think that the biggest thing was the absolute destruction of the idea of cut-and-run. Its dead and buried with a stake through its heart and garlic around its neck. The politics of the vote are mixed and I don’t much care. Whether some politicos, in their hearts, do want to bolt is now irrelevent. The policy of US government to stay until Iraq is stable is convincingly affirmed. The policy is fixed, everything else is metrics and tactics.
Tob
“I still think that the biggest thing was the absolute destruction of the idea of cut-and-run. ”
Ya. Only cowards believe in cutting and running. How about the jerk that proposed that resolution?
“The policy of US government to stay until Iraq is stable is convincingly affirmed. The policy is fixed, everything else is metrics and tactics.”
Fixed to what is what i’d like to know. Are we expecting to be there in 2 years? 10?
actus:
“Are we expecting to be there in 2 years? 10?”
Depends. What do you mean by ‘be there’? Do you mean 150,000 troops or do you mean a few thousand?
150,000 in 2 years, doubtful. A few thousand in 2 years, almost guaranteed.
150,000 in 10 years, doubtful. A few thousand in 10 years, maybe.
Of course, anyone who says they can say *precisely* how many troops will anywhere years in advance is a fool or a liar. For that matter, anyone who asks to know *precisely* how many troops will be where years in advance is a fool or a liar also.
“150,000 in 2 years, doubtful. A few thousand in 2 years, almost guaranteed.”
Great! this is the kind of thing I like to hear. Something by which we can understand whether the war is going well or not.
A few thousand in 2 years would indeed be good news.
Unless you think the multiple thousands of troops we have in Germany 60 years(!) after the war means we lost WWII?
As has been stated by this Administration ad nauseum, this war will take many years. I think most people recognize that.
The Casey proposed withdrawal is of the extra troops introduced several months ago to help secure the country for the elections. To get back to 130,000 troops from the temporary 160,000 it’s recently been at.
That’s nothing like Ol Cut and Run’s proposal.
”
Unless you think the multiple thousands of troops we have in Germany 60 years(!) after the war means we lost WWII?”
They weren’t there to fight WWII you know. But to fight WWIII.
“Fixed to what is what i’d like to know. Are we expecting to be there in 2 years? 10? ”
Fixed to whatever it takes. Victory or death, whatever you want to call it.
And whats this?
“How about the jerk that proposed that resolution?”
Jerk? Do you know the guy? Did he take your parking spot or what?
The resolution needed to be worded exactly that way because that is how the world was reading Murtha’s resolution, whatever he REALLY meant. Now its settled; both parties agree that there will be no retreat from standing Iraq up as a ‘representative’ government, however long it takes. That my read of the message sent anyway.
I don’t like that its come to this but there it is. I’ve lived my whole life under a state of war, cold wars, hot wars, twilight wars. If it takes 20 years and another trillion dollars to win the GWOT, so be it.
Tob
actus,
They weren’t there to fight WWII you know. But to fight WWIII.
Except that WWIII (or what passed for it) has been over for more than 15 years, and they’re still there. I personally think that they’re still there largely because every time someone proposes taking them out, you get the same sort of loud squawk from the Germans that you do from a Congressman when someone proposes shutting down a base in his district.
[I was going to say something egregiously snarky here, about Germany and armies, but just deleted it.]
John,
One elderly amateur female sleuth might look very like another, but in your Eleanor Clift “update” you don’t mean Miss Marple; you mean Jessica Fletcher of “Murder! She Wrote.”
Rolls eyes, takes deep breath
Wow. The Chickenhawk ad hominem comes out. How original.
Very persuasive, Fred. Very mature.
It’s actually a good sign to have it used against you; it means the other side has given up intelligent argument and conceded defeat.
“They weren’t there to fight WWII you know. But to fight WWIII.”
But they had to fight all the way through WWII and the reconstruction to get there.
If we have troops in Iraq in 2 or 10 years, it won’t be to fight Operation Iraqi Freedom; that will be long over. They’ll be there to fight the next phase of the GWOT.
“Except that WWIII (or what passed for it) has been over for more than 15 years, and they’re still there.”
Thats because the bases are there. And they are moving out of there and into eastern european countries.
Do you really think that the fact that we don’t leave the bases we’ve had for decades — because we can’t think of a mission — is in any way analogous to staying in a country where we’re fighting and dying and occupying?
“If we have troops in Iraq in 2 or 10 years, it won’t be to fight Operation Iraqi Freedom; that will be long over. ”
So iraqi freedom will be ‘long over’ in 2 years? great!
“. Now its settled; both parties agree that there will be no retreat from standing Iraq up as a ‘representative’ government, however long it takes.”
That’s not what the resolution was either.
Is anyone under any illusions that the Republicans are as anxious to find a way out of Iraq as anyone. This is killing them and they know the country has come to the conclusion the whole Iraq fiasco is futile. The trick is to create a smokescreen they can do it behind so that they and Bush sustain the least damage. Hence the kabuki theater in the Senate last week, it’s a little tougher in the house because generally the intelligence and sophistication on both sides is lower. Obviously our military position is untenable as anyone with the slightest understanding of military affairs recognises and I suspect Jack Murtha has been picking up these vibes from his friends in the Pentagon who think as highly of Rumsfeld as the CIA does of Cheney. We have about 160,000 men in Iraq living in redoubts and essentially guarding themselves, the American administration and the Iraqi government we are propping up. The idea that the Iraqi army can take over is laughable, just explain how this rag tag bunch is going to defeat an insurgency which 160,000 men from the world’s most powerful army haven’t been able to. We are leaving, it’s just a matter of time and then there will almost certainly be a civil war which will further destabilize the region. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Bush, Cheney, the neo cons and their promoters have taken what was a serious but manageable regional problem and turned it into an international debacle for the USA at just about every level you can think of from the deaths of over 2000 of our own to the long term harm to our prestige and reputation. No doubt this dose of realism will enrage all the members of the 101st Keyboard Division (the Fighting Fingers) but perhaps they need to stop and think for a moment if their knee jerk, gung ho, bar room patriotism is the best solution to what is an enormously complex and long term problem that is not going to be solved by wars and occupations.
Swiftboating is an appropriate term. The truth hurts!!
http://www.swiftvets.com
You can’t deny when John Kerry’s own unit comes forward. They have been saying the same thing since he first stabbed his country in the back in the ’70’s.
Now, poor Murtha, loses 400 – 3.
In my neighborhood, that is an a$$kicking. Sorry Murtha, your own friends are not going to go down with you on this one.
“I think we both know who the coward is here, shoot me an e-mail and I
“I think we both know who the coward is here, shoot me an e-mail and I
“Don’t sign me up. I have other priorities.”
Cute. ;-) Have you qasi-retired from your own blog? Scarcely any updates and the few are really lightweight.
Tob
“Cute. ;-) Have you qasi-retired from your own blog? Scarcely any updates and the few are really lightweight.”
I blog emeritus.
“I blog emeritus.”
excellent! I shot some coffee out my nose! I’ve been trying for years to be a programmer emeritus (with suitable stipend) but alas, no joy yet.
Tob
I don’t understand the position of Toby and others who favor “staying the course” in the Iraq War. Attacking Jack Murtha will not deter any of the SEVEN HUNDRED weekly attacks by insurgents. Attacking Jack Murtha won’t change the fact that polls show that the vast majority of the Iraqi population want us the hell out of there. Attacking Jack Murtha doesn’t change what OUR OWN MILITARY COMMANDERS our telling us…that the insurgency CANNOT BE DEFEATED MILITARILY. Attacking Jack Murtha doesn’t change the fact that our own military commanders tell us only SEVEN HUNDRED IRAQI SOLDIERS can fight on their own, (up from 300 in September).
Now, I have sourced these FACTS upthread. Look them up if you like. I just want to know what the source of YOUR information is. I want to know why you feel it’s a FORGONE CONCLUSION that the US will be successful in Iraq? What facts on the ground indicate this?
Please tell me that you, and the hawks on this blog, so eager to keep our forces in harm’s way for years have something to BASE this upon historically, or some set of fact about this quagmire that our own GENERALS aren’t aware of that would lead you all to make such FANTASTIC statements about this conflict.
And they better be some good ones.
–Cobra
The resolution before this body is a fake. First, the mainstream media branch of the Democratic Establishment (specifically “60 Minutes” at CBS) came up with the concept “fake but accurate” memos. Now, the political branch of the Democratic Establishment (specifically, Rep. Waxman in the House) comes up with the concept of a “fake” “resolution”. Fascinating.
It can’t be defeated militarily because the ultimate goal is a democratic republic, meaning having the Sunni’s on board. It outlines the objectives, not that they are impossible and we should therefore give up and run away.
They’ve also been talking about lowering troops numbers for years. The key point you seem to be missing is that is dependent on the situation on the ground. Murtha’s proposal would set a deadline, no matter the state of the theatre, and is completely idiotic. You don’t make war policy 6 months in advance, and you most certainly do not advertise it to the enemy.
Okay, I’ll bite. Its all about buying time for the Iraqi society to reform about the principles of a) only some semblence of representative government is acceptable for a free people b) a recognition by the people and especially the Sunni faction that Saddam and the Bath party are not returning c) the two preceding facts are the best hope for prosperity in the country.
Unfortunately, the history of Iraq gives the people little experience with the former and the history of our bugout at the end of GWI leaves many with the fear that the latter is not to be trusted. Thus, time and committment, and yes, blood, are required.
I refuse to believe that any people would choose to live in tyranny indefinitely or that such a slavery should be tolerated by the civilized world. (historical examples like the Helots notwithstanding)
As I have written elsewhere, nation building would not have been my choice in pursuing the GWOT but I understand the argument that a free and prosperous Iraq would be a beacon to the oppressed of the ME and could lead to the emelioration of the oppressive conditions that breed the type of religous fanatism that we are seeing. Its a bold and liberal move, worthy of our country. Whether it succeeds is up to G_d but I am willing to give it a chance. Just the attempt is already shaking up and liberalizing those states most closely aligned with the West (Egypt Kuwait Jordon and the Emirates). It is frightening the dictatorships in Syria and Iran such they are exerting their maximum efforts to disrupt Iraq and hence are the root of many of our current problems. They may know something you don’t.
Anyway, as I said, this effort may be fruitless in the end but I fear that any other course may well mean civilizational warfare, to the knife, lasting generations and costing casualties of WWII proportions. All paths and choices are perilous but I would rather stand for the chance of freedom rather than the craven hope that appeasment will induce the alligator to eat me and mine last.
Here ends my jingoist sermon.
Tob
Not only is Rep Murtha an anethma to the marines with his cut and run plan, he is also accused of funneling federal dollars to his brothers company and to one of pelosi relatives.
A wimp and corrupt at that. Time to let a real marine and an honest person in to do the job.
Just so you know, there is no limit to our perfidy. At least, not since Chase introduced the Perfidy PLUS account.
“Not only is Rep Murtha an anethma to the marines with his cut and run plan, he is also accused of funneling federal dollars to his brothers company and to one of pelosi relatives”
I can’t believe this escaped the eyes of the strong ethics panel in congress before.
Update #6, via Dailypundit:
The Astute Blogger reports:
A commenter on this blog – “Noble” – suggested that perhaps (1) Murtha’s sudden BIG LOUD TEAR-FILLED call for “immediate withdrawal from Iraq,” (an OLD position for him, but one that he had NEVER tried to BROADCAST AS LOUDLY OR AS WIDELY BEFORE), AND (2) the sudden “play” it got from the House Democrats – led by Nancy Pelosi the Minority Leader – was a smokescreen intended to BOTH misdirect attention from impending ethics investigations over them both using influence to steer DOD business to their relatives and business friends.
Specifically it seems that Murtha steered business to HIS BROTHER’S LOBBYING FIRM – KSA – and helped Pelosi get a big project for her district which DIRECTLY BENEFITTED A RELATIVE OF HERS.
KJ Lopez of NRO’s THE CORNER linked to a JUNE 13, 2005 LA TIMES article about just such an impending investigation: LATIMES (this link is to an anti-Bush blog which excerpted the article; the actual article has”mysteriously” disappeared from the LATIMEs own website) –
LATIMES: “When Congress passed the $417-billion Pentagon spending bill last ear, Rep. John P. Murtha, the top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, boasted about the money he secured to create jobs in his Pennsylvania district.
But the bill Murtha helped write also benefited at least 10 companies represented by a lobbying firm where his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha, is a senior partner, according to disclosure records, interviews and an analysis of the bill by The Times.”….
Wow, the polls show the Iraqis want US out of their country.
I wonder if the CHermans and Sorks want Us out, too?
After all, it’s been 50-60 years. Longer than I’ve been alive.
Again, nobody has bothered (or dared) to answer the question I posited, which is,
“I want to know why you feel it’s a FORGONE CONCLUSION that the US will be successful in Iraq? What facts on the ground indicate this?”
Second, I’d like to know why you feel that a “democracy” will prevent terrorism (which is what Iraq is allegedly the front line in the war against) when the United States, the gold standard of Jeffersonian democracy has produced terrorists by the thousands throughout its history?
American Terror
The Project for the New American Century has certainly done its propaganda well to hoodwink millions in its scheme for world domination, hasn’t it?
–Cobra
Cobra — the article you link to includes John Brown, an abolitionist, as an American terrorist. The article is reaching to make a point.
One thing everyone can agree on is that democracy is better than tyranny. Even those who live under a tyranny would agree. The Iraqis, thanks to coalition forces, are on the edge of a new era in the Middle East, a democracy, an era that will lead them to change the region and much of the world. They will have their share of troubles, like all democracies, but no one can doubt that it will be far, far better than their immediate past.
Frankly, I think you should be ashamed of siding with fascists in this conflict.
Dom
“Swifting” somebody isn’t such a bad thing to do.
The Swift Boat Vets told the truth about John Kerry.
Kerry is a liar. He villified U.S. troops for his own partisan advantage. The Swifties are the good guys.
“I want to know why you feel it’s a FORGONE CONCLUSION that the US will be successful in Iraq? What facts on the ground indicate this?”
I don’t know that anyone thinks success is ‘a FORGONE CONCLUSION’. I just don’t think that defeat and surrender are options to be entertained until, you know, YOU’RE DEFEATED.
Our losses, while undeniably catastrophic for the families involved, are minimal and sustainable. I truthfully expected to lose way more troops in the first month of the war than we have lost to date. ( to WMD and house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, I thank the Allmighty that Saddam was apparently a liar and that the Iraqi conscript army wasn’t ‘all that’).
Tob
“Even those who live under a tyranny would agree. The Iraqis, thanks to coalition forces, are on the edge of a new era in the Middle East, a democracy, an era that will lead them to change the region and much of the world”
I think they’re on the edge of being at best an Egypt. At worse, a syria. Actually, probably 3 of them, one kurd, one shia, one sunni.
But there will be elections.
“I think they’re on the edge of being at best an Egypt. At worse, a syria. Actually, probably 3 of them, one kurd, one shia, one sunni.”
Good observations. I think a bit better than Egypt as they will have more than one REAL party. (as to your second point, that was actually more in line with my wishes than the current strategy of a unitary Iraq)
Tob
actus, you write that like it’s a bug, not a feature.
Iraq is an artificial construct, they might be better off. Look at the former USSR.
Even Europe can’t get past tribes.
OK Cobra. You don’t want Pax Americana?
Niall Ferguson, political prof at Harvard, wrote an article in the WSJ in 2004 stating there are 4 options:
US
Chicoms
Islamofascism
Armed Camps.
So, why do you prefer communism — fascism — or the way the world used to be for thousands of years??????
Do you pray at the alter of Stability????
—
actus
And how many troops have been drawn down from Germany since 1993? How many are still there?
60 years, actus. Aren’t we finally moving the troops off of Okinawa to Guam?
“actus, you write that like it’s a bug, not a feature.”
Oh. I thought the plan all along was to have 1 iraq. I thikn its easier to have 3. Don’t know if its better geopolitically though.
“And how many troops have been drawn down from Germany since 1993? How many are still there?”
I think they’re there because of inertia — because we can’t think of why they should leave. Not because we think they should stay.
The best-laid plans of mice and men….
Besides, I thought there was no post-war plan.
Never underestimate the power of inertia. I battle it every day. Rarely do you get in trouble for proposing more of the same.
Tob
“I want to know why you feel it’s a FORGONE CONCLUSION that the US will be successful in Iraq? ”
I sure don’t feel it’s a forgone conclusion. I have great fear that we will not be successful. I don’t think the foreign terrorists or foreign armies will defeat us. Our guys are too good and too tough. The only thing that can defeat us is the usual Vietnam Nostalgia Club, aka the Blame-America-first-Left. You guys are the only ones who can defeat America. Will you be successful? I doubt it, but anything is possible.
Discriminations.com Has Murtha Tick-Tock
Go here for the complete Discriminations Murtha tick-tock. You might even email the link to it to your favorite newspaper editor with a suggestion that Rosenberg’s is an excellent model to emulate.
Anyone with Children should be appalled by the response as long as it takes. What if it takes 25 years, 50 years, 100 years to create stability in Iraq while things continue to deteriorate in America. Would you still subscribe to the montra “for as long as it takes”? I hope 20 years from now I’m not preparing my son to go to Iraq to free the Iraqis people from the icy grip of foreign thugs and terrorists. What would be the point?
I can vouch for the Air Force pre-planning their redeployments. In the first Gulf War, I worked next door to our logistics section. Long before the first bombs were dropped, they had already planned for how to redeploy our base back out of the theater. They knew how many aircraft and what and who was going out on each load, months before actual hostilities.
Made me feel really good that someone was looking ahead for us.
B, I have children, now grown, and while I wish for them a world of bliss and joy, the lion eating straw etc, that is not this world. I lived my entire life in a war that took ‘as long as it takes’. This is nothing new and is the price of freedom. It was called the ‘Cold War’ or I prefer, ‘War against Godless Comunism’ ;-). Google it.
I too hope that our fighting presence is not required in Iraq in twenty years, indeed, anywhere in the ME. But what is more likely to avoid that commitment? Effort now, or letting the evil fester for twenty more years, emboldened by the defeat of their ‘Rome’? Isn’t that what we did for the last 50? The British could have shaped the ME toward freedom but chose instead, stability. We also worshipped stability during the aforementioned struggle. It turned out to be a short sighted goal. It may have made sense to stay out of a hornet’s nest when the world was larger and slower, but today, people that sincerely want you dead, enslaved, or converted, live only a days travel away. Weapons much more deadly than a scymitar can be concealed and transported in a container and delivered to your city by FedEx. I believe that there is no going back to the days when the oppression of the folk of the ME could be ignored. Their pain is our danger. Give them a shot.
Peace should never be the objective for a free people, just the byproduct of strong liberty. The perfect peace of the grave is available any day, both for man and for civilizations.
Tob
–Anyone with Children should be appalled by the response as long as it takes. What if it takes 25 years, 50 years, 100 years to create stability in Iraq while things continue to deteriorate in America.–
I don’t know, why don’t you ask me, a tail-end boomer who for 29 years of her life lived w/tuck you head between your knees and kiss your ass good-bye?
Or how about my parents who as children until their 50s lived w/the Cold War longer than my generation?
Europe is in no way stable, it’s atrophying and all we don’t know is
are they going out w/a boom or bust?
–I hope 20 years from now I’m not preparing my son to go to Iraq to free the Iraqis people from the icy grip of foreign thugs and terrorists. What would be the point? —
Again, same thing w/Europe.
This thread has gotten more gloomy than I feel is warranted. While I’m prepared for the worst, I think that things are going well. I think a new dawn is coming for the world. But if He, who hold the world in the palm of his hand, wills otherwise, much joy can yet be found in the twilight by those who will seek it, ere the darkness falls at last.
Tob out
And even then, we’ll creep from our holes by night to slit their sleeping throats.
Tob really out.
Well, well, well, via Dailypundit:
OK, I accepted that Rep Murtha was a hawk with a different vision. Then I found out that he had the anti-Iraq vision for quite some time and he really wasn’t a hawk. Now JunkYardBlog has this.
Hawkish Murtha Urged Cut & Run from Somalia, Too
Rep. John Murtha was for cutting and running before he was for cutting and running:
After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.
Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal – a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.
Our welcome has been worn out, Rep Murtha told NBC’s Today show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers.
The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been listening to our suggestions. And I think you’ll see him move those troops out very quickly.
In a 1998 interview with ABC’s John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America’s withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.
Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows, the terror chief recalled. America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.
I hereby revoke Rep. Murtha’s right to be called a “hawk.”
You guys still haven’t provided any facts or statistics to answer my question. Your answers are more along the lines of wishful thinking, sloganeering and jingoistic rhetoric, with the exception of some who clearly admit that there is a huge risk for failure.
I realize that Team Sport politics are played here. I would almost guarantee that if this quagmire was occuring under Clinton’s Administration, (as the PNAC begged)
toby:
” I believe that there is no going back to the days when the oppression of the folk of the ME could be ignored. Their pain is our danger. Give them a shot.
Peace should never be the objective for a free people, just the byproduct of strong liberty. The perfect peace of the grave is available any day, both for man and for civilizations.”
Best summation of what we are trying to do in Iraq and the ME.
We’re in a race between helping the ME mature into some sort of modern governance where people are not oppressed on the one hand, and some medieval lunatic inventing a new germ, or buying a nuke or some other civilization-altering device and unleashing it on the West.
Some of us recognize that, some don’t. Meanwhile, with the advances of technology, we don’t have much time left.
“TherAs a matter of fact, African Americans like myself didn
Stephen,
You know I have nothing but luv for ya’! But what is your position in this discussion, especially in light of Iraq requesting a withdrawal time table today?
>>>”Leaders of Iraq
Sandy P:
Maybe you should look before you leap:
One of our American Black Hawk helicopter men had a handcuff on one wrist. Nobody puts handcuffs on a dead body. They were tortured to death. Now, get 5,000 men in there and get these Americans back and then get out.
–GOP congressman Robert “B-1 Bob” Dornan, speech in the House of Representatives, 10/6/93
…Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee, stat[ed] bluntly, “Clinton’s got to bring them home.”
–New York Times, 10/5/93
During the Meet the Press program aired Sept. 26, 1993, Sen. Bob Dole was asked if he thought the United Nations would take exception to an immediate U.S. military withdrawal. He said “Bhutros Bhutros Ghali hasn’t been elected to any office in the United States, as far as I know.”
–op-ed piece by Idaho Republican Robert Vasquez, 10/3/93
Republicans calling for the withdrawal from Somalia, don’t forget them when your playing your little blame games.
Well, Cobra, I don’t have a foreign policy, although I am in favor of my country winning.
We are the good guys. That’s why slavery is just a distant memory for you, and why the coffin ships are just a distant memory for me.
You might, however, want to consider the two-faced nature of the liberal (and primarily white) left to which you are allied. One of the most cherished goals of this left is the sissification of men. At the moment, black men are exempted and allowed to parade their machismo, but this is only an interim solution for the purposes of delivering a kick in the shins to white men.
You are on the wrong side. The doors are wide open to you. You can use the quota system to succeed, and you don’t even have to work very hard. The machismo of your presentation and your personal style really makes you a future enemy of the left. The destruction of men… real men… is the most important agenda item of the left to which you belong.
“One of the most cherished goals of this left is the sissification of men.”
Only pussies whine about this though.
Well, I am female…………..
I wasn’t aware the pubbies were advising the former panty-snapper-in-chief.
What was Churchill’s comment again about democracy?
Why the perfection standard?
And with everything, aren’t you still better off being here than in Africa?
Now if gun ownership rights weren’t taken away after The Civil War, things might have been different.
*The More You Know*
–Trying to establish a
Sandy writes:
“Why limit yourself to Iraq?”
Who are you fantasizing about invading next?
–Cobra