January 14, 2006
Dem Surrender Monkey Murtha To Appear On 60 Minutes
Representative John Murtha (D, FRANCE) is to appear on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday to do what he can to weaken the US war effort and get more troops killed. Murtha is the partisan Democrat who called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq (prior to the December vote) and was humiliated when Republicans called his bluff and put the proposal to a vote. It was overwhelmingly defeated.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From Breitbart:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken Democratic critic of the Iraq war, said in remarks to be aired on Sunday that voter pressure in the November congressional election could force President George W. Bush to pull U.S. forces from Iraq.The Bush administration has already announced plans to reduce troop levels throughout 2006. Murtha's interview is a transparent attempt to recharacterize any troop drawdowns for partisan purposes. Unfortunately, Murtha's party is invested in US defeat. More unfortunately, Murtha's partisan antics will most likely give false hope to our enemies, resulting in more soldiers being put at risk."I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year and I'm hopeful it will be sooner than that," Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, told the CBS "60 Minutes" show.
Past service does not excuse betraying your country later. Just ask Benedict Arnold.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:30 AM
| Comments (71)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yes, ex marine and pentagon insdier murtha is a "surrender monkey", unlike titan of virtue jean schmidt, house republican from ohio. Facts and realit vs. thick ideology and obedience to kings...all on display.
im no fan of murtha, but the guy is looking at reality and trying to save the republic from really bad ideas derived from really bad ideology.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 12:20 PM (X4Dyg)
2
The troops are coming home, and GEORGE BUSH should get the credit, not Murtha and his bunch, who advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and then didn't have the guts to vote for it when a vote came up.
Yep, surrender monkey just about describes him alright, but I would add senile, washed-up ex-Marine. Pathetic is what he is.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 12:45 PM (rUyw4)
3
Past service does not excuse betraying your country later. Just ask Benedict Arnold.
Or ask Timothy McVeigh.
Posted by: 4THGENERATIONBUCK at January 14, 2006 01:23 PM (ffDOr)
4
Blind obedience to authority is a betrayal to the country as well, especially when the authority claims to be autocratic while disguising really bad policy. The USA is not a kingdon, but a republic, and democracy is not practiced through the blind obedience to leaders.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 02:06 PM (X4Dyg)
5
All these triggerhappy, warmongering idiots who dont understand the limitations of the American forces who call Murtha a 'surrender monkey' probably are a bunch of draft skippers like Cheney,Bush Jr., Limbaugh etc. If youve ever read anything about G.S. Patton you know of his distaste for troops being used as police, as is being done in Iraq. Why dont you bunch of panty lovin draft skippers who call Murtha a surrendermonkey go commit suicide by Iraqii nationalist who just want the fkin Anglosaxon bastards out of their country. Go home you bunch of loser Yanks. Go drop bombs on kids somewhere else. I hope you get your ass blown off as long as youre around Iraq. Every person who dies over there had their shot at not fighting a stupid war.
If they passed up the chance to exit such a stupid war they deserve to get dead.
Posted by: gary perris at January 14, 2006 02:26 PM (htv3Q)
6
ernie, if Murtha had a spine, he'd stand up and proclaim LOUDLY that he believes it would be in America and Iraqs best interest to have Hussein returned to power. BTW, since we're not a democracy and were never intended to be a democracy, we don't practice mob rule when it comes to National Security. We tried that during Vietnam and it weakened us and made the attacks on September 11th possible.
Posted by: Sarah Van at January 14, 2006 02:28 PM (8U8DH)
7
gary and ernie show the true face of the Left. They loathe the military and hope that our soldiers die, but they're not above using a dotard like Murtha to further their partisan goals.
Even more disgusting is that gary, whose real name is probably Ahmed, is taking advantage of the US educational system at a well-known California university.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 02:46 PM (RHG+K)
8
Thank goodness Bluto relies on no particular partisan prism whatsover to guide his analyses and responses. Oh, my IP will show I am not part of a California University, but a member of a suburban neighborhood in northeast Wisconsin that prizes rationality above all.
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 03:40 PM (oxMjD)
9
Wisconsin gave us Proxmire. You have a lot to answer for, Drew.
The "prism" I look at these things through is what's best for the country. Right now, Dems, with one notable exception, don't care what happens so long as their party prospers.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 03:44 PM (RHG+K)
10
well i guess from Blutos logic then murtha is anti-military too, which is a claim i find amazing. the right wing in this counrty, given their exposure as criminals frauds and hypocritical "hyper-patriotis" has them grasping at straws, this is obvious...it must be rough thinking as you do these days.
now for sara van who openly and proudly asserts that "we dont live in a demcoracy" of course we dont honey, and you should be a truly proud soviet, or maybe a serf...in any event,,,,soccer mom from hell for sure...
so blinded by ideology you happily help destroy the USA...dumb...dumb...dumb...
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 03:54 PM (X4Dyg)
11
" cowards cut and run, marines never do" - republican representative jean schmidt. hyper patriot. Hair pulled back too tight, wearing the flag as a sweater....america has finally caught on to the hypocrite "hyper patriots"...see in america people are kinda on the fence, but nobody wants to look like the dumb guy, or girl, that cant see that their president is stupid and his policies suck. A new political trend has developed, it doesnt look good for republicans in 2006. Abramoff, Frist, Downing Street, NSA domestic spying, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Jean Schmidt, No WMDs, August 6 memo, etc etc etc.....get ready to lose some seats right wingers, your corruption has awoken the sleeping giant of voter apathy....and gay marriage will not save you this time...sorry karl rove.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 03:59 PM (X4Dyg)
12
Well, Sen. Robert Kennedy would I believe agree wholeheartedly with you on your choice, but that's for another day.
Your concern for America is laudible, and deserves to be taken on its face. It's just that I've noticed what's "best" for the country from the Bluto camp seems to often fall in with what's best for the furthest rightwing of Republican thought. Isn't that, well, partisanship by definition?
I think its somewhat disingenuous on your part to accuse one group of partisanship without holding the other group to the same or at least similar standards.
By the way, who's the Dem exception? God's sake don't say Lieberman....Regards
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 04:11 PM (oxMjD)
13
You liberal chickenshits never met an enemy of America whose boots you wouldn't lick. You should all be taken out and shot, so STFU.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 04:26 PM (0yYS2)
14
What's the "Bluto camp"? And yes, Lieberman is the only notable Dem who displays good sense and concern for the country.
What the Dems are doing now, many Republicans were guilty of during WWII, but, since Vietnam, investing in American defeat has been a phenomenon of the Left.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 04:27 PM (RHG+K)
15
"It doesn't look good for Republicans in 2006....blah..blah..blah. Ernie, you leftists said the same thing in 2000, 2002, 2004, ect. ad infinium. Here's the bottom line, dopehead, the American people won't trust Democratic SURRENDER MONKEYS to run this country.
You're either drunk, high, or just plain stupid if you can't see that, or perhaps you have taken enough dope to be completely delusional. And you shits won't do nothing. I looked at all the dumb asses over at DU calling for a revolution and I say, get it on, you cowardly bastards. You don't have the balls for it, and you know it. Bring it on, anytime!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 04:33 PM (rUyw4)
16
Bluto:
Well, Leiberman defied Bush on the secret prison investigations, so I'm with you there.
We probably have vastly different definitions of "good sense" and "concern" as politics go, but what is this "investment in American defeat since Vietnam?"
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)
17
Also, what is DU?
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:09 PM (oxMjD)
18
Uh, Drew, Democratic Underground. Where you will find the finest of the Left and liberal persuasion. Take a trip over there and see what your allies in the swamp are advocating. I just wish they would get on with their revolution.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:15 PM (rUyw4)
19
Thank you, I never heard of it. I don't waste my time with a whole lot of blogging, just this one every week or so and another one even less frequently. Where I'm from, DU is Ducks Unlimited--a hunting organization to which I gladly belong.
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:22 PM (oxMjD)
20
Yeah, where I come from DU means Ducks Unlimited, also, but when you blog DU means Democratic Underground when you are being civil. I call it other things most of the time.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:28 PM (rUyw4)
21
I was wondering why you guys held duck hunters in such low esteem...
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:31 PM (oxMjD)
22
Drew, if you want to know what "investment in defeat" means, you could google Nancy Soderberg + Carson Daily. That interview was priceless, and very telling.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 14, 2006 05:33 PM (RHG+K)
23
Nope, duck hunters are held in high esteem in my household. I am eating duck gumbo as I type. And it is great, expecially with Texas Champaign added.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:41 PM (rUyw4)
24
...Lone Star?
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:43 PM (oxMjD)
25
D.L. Jardine's cayenne pepper sauce!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 05:44 PM (rUyw4)
26
Aghhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Posted by: Drew at January 14, 2006 05:45 PM (oxMjD)
27
Thats funny, ive never heard of DU either, i guess Jesusland joe made it up. I promote you guys blogging, it is great "ya'll need to be shot" hahaha.
But again, reality matters, all that corruption matters. By the time November comes around there will be many indictments and court cases gaining speed, hopefully the weenie democrats can use republican tactics.
and again, im not a democrat, but good god, reason keeps me from being as stupid and hateful as you all sound.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:03 PM (X4Dyg)
28
ernie, you're a liar.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:08 PM (rUyw4)
29
jesusland joe of dumbfuckistan, i know in your totalitarian littel world of tv ideology my above post sounds impossible, but neverhteless, it is true, i am not a democrat nor have i heard of the "DU". Im an american citizen who stands for liberty and freedom...especially from irrational fear. have fun being limited and hateful.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:12 PM (X4Dyg)
30
and folks, this is obvious...patriotism...murtha or jean schmidt...come on!
Kerrys scratches vs Bush AWOL
Cleelands missing legs vs. cheneys deferments.
NSA spying, downing street memo, yello cake from niger, PNAC, vs....lewinsky....
time for an impeachment
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:16 PM (X4Dyg)
31
Whose being hateful? I've seen enough of your comments to know what you are. Don't try to play a role you're useless at. You're a hateful little shit, yourself, so don't judge me, you little lying bastard. Oh, now that was hateful.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)
32
but see. the difference is i hate hate, while you just hate. ive read enough of your responses to know that youre not to be taken seriously, hiding in your house full of weapons and such, but nevertheless it is quite fun to make fun of you.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:19 PM (X4Dyg)
33
The Democratic surrender monkeys trying to impeach Bush. Now that is funny. Ernie is now a comedian....ha..ha..albeit a dumb one. That's a good one, ernie. The dope you've been smoking must be bad. Why don't you go hang out at the corner and see if someone will give you a ride? Obvious what a loser you are!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:22 PM (rUyw4)
34
nice response, i almost feel bad for you except for the fact that i despise you who are hell bent on destroying the chidlren's future for your emotional problems and personal "short" comings...
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 14, 2006 06:24 PM (X4Dyg)
35
ernie, you are a sick little kid. Why don't you go seek the company of the little band of losers you run with? They will give you a little more dope on credit. You can paint your eyes black, get high, and change the world with your bullshit delusions.
When you are a little older, or when you get a job and become a productive citizen, and get off the welfare roles, then come back and talk to us men. Now, begone, you little troll!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 06:31 PM (rUyw4)
36
Hey ernie, ever seen anything skinned before? Look in the mirror and raise your chin; that point at the very bottom is where I start when I want the whole pelt.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 09:40 PM (0yYS2)
37
IM, ernie is nothing more than a little troll. He is basically harmless, as he and his ilk don't have the balls to do anything drastic. They wouldn't want to have to spend the night in the real dark, like it is outside my farmhouse. I heard coyotes when I went outside to take a whiz. This would scare the shit out of those city boys like ernie.
More worrisome to me are these jihadist bastards who now get on websites and post their drivel, and are a possible security risk here in the US. We need to know who these people are. Most are attending US colleges and universities, and they should have their activities monitered. And I'm not talking about US citizens here, but others who do not have nor deserve the rights of Americans, as they are trying to kill us.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 14, 2006 11:05 PM (rUyw4)
38
I wouldn't worry too much about them either JJ, because if they ever become enough of a threat, they'll simply find it impossible to go out in public without getting beaten to death. I look forward to the day when they feel brave enough to rise up in America, because then I show them the meaning of terror.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximusi at January 15, 2006 01:49 AM (0yYS2)
39
Isn't this the guy who coined the phrase "Cut 'n' Run"?
Coward.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 01:51 AM (8e/V4)
40
>>>but see. the difference is i hate hate
But you're still a retard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 01:53 AM (8e/V4)
41
wow. you guys are really pathetic...seriously, read what you just wrote and imagine that this info is open to the entire world. maximus wants bloody slaughter, while jesus only wants total monitoring of peoples activities. you are supposed to be the patriots of the freedom and liberty of these United States? I think you are both mentally ill, and i bet would hope the appropriaet authorities are wathcing you...(they are now..) Maximus, you cant just threaten people over the net like that, its a crime. we will see you soon. maximus, what violent crimes are you currently or recnetly involved in? you are insane. we will see you soon. remember, some of us "liberals" have power, and you have openly threatened someone on the net with death, personally.
maximus, i feel sorry for you, enjoy prison.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:48 AM (X4Dyg)
42
and carlos, youre next. how many illegal weapons you have?
dont fuck with the FBI boys.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:51 AM (X4Dyg)
43
and yes, this is the last time you hear from me, but i am turning you in for open threats to my life...enjoy your fbi visit. you are the terrorists. eat shit .
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:53 AM (X4Dyg)
44
maximus, just copied and sent your threats to the appropriate authorities...enjoy.
remember, death threats, even on the net are illegal, and we will lock your asses up.
good bye all. see you soon.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at January 15, 2006 03:57 AM (X4Dyg)
45
Somewhere a village is missing an idiot.
Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)
46
ernie, you keep threatening to leave. Do it, will ya? You were still posting even after this last "goodbye".
Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 07:19 AM (YudAC)
47
the one who posted this article, did u attend any military services? and which war did u attended?
Posted by: cris at January 15, 2006 09:12 AM (OIlpU)
48
Heh, now ernie's with the FBI! Agent Walter Mitty, reporting for service!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2006 09:34 AM (0yYS2)
49
aahh ywes and on the infamous 60 minutes they same place where DAN RATHER went on and it cost him his job and no wonder i dont watch the news anymore
Posted by: sandpiper at January 15, 2006 10:03 AM (6rkkO)
50
>>>and carlos, youre next. how many illegal weapons you have?
None. Pray tell, why do you ask?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 10:33 AM (8e/V4)
51
>>>and yes, this is the last time you hear from me,
We should be so lucky.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 15, 2006 10:34 AM (8e/V4)
52
cris: the one who posted this article didn't attended any wars. the one who posted this article did, however, enter Federal service following 9/11, and risked his life on several occasions while earning a substantially lower salary than he enjoyed in the private sector. the one who posted this article is currently recovering from a serious injury suffered while in Federal service. the one who wrote this article asks, "What sacrifices have you, cris, made for your country?", while reminding cris, that, even if he hasn't made any such sacrifices, the Constitution still gives him the right have an opinion, and to express it. the one who posted this article wishes to inform cris that he is not merely laughing at cris' demonstrated lack of English skills by imitating them. the one who posted this article is mocking cris. While laughing at him.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 10:40 AM (RHG+K)
53
Bluto, by the way you took Cris to task, I take it you're not overly fond of the way he called into question not only your sincerity, but your credibility -- especiallyin light of the services you've already given. Can't say I blame you.
Posted by: Drew at January 15, 2006 11:37 AM (oxMjD)
54
I guess ernie's caught us guys, we might as well give up, we've been bested by an internet genius!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 15, 2006 01:16 PM (0yYS2)
55
I'm shaking in my boots, boys! I can see it now. Lil' ernie and his posse of surrender monkey democrats riding down the road in one of those low riders with the spinning hubs. Oh, my!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 01:41 PM (rUyw4)
56
Bluto,
I've seen the e-mail address for cris somewhere on this site before. He might be one of the jihadist bastards who comment here infrequently. I do not believe him to be an American. And thank you for your service.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 01:58 PM (rUyw4)
57
"Surrender Monkey"... what is it with you people and the thoughtless, uninventive namecalling? Clearly someone who reads and appreciates and quotes Thomas Mann (who is widely understood as someone who struggled with deep conflicts over his feelings for young boys) would be able to grasp the complexity of the situation in Iraq without having to call people "surrender monkey."
Murtha is not asking to surrender. He is looking at the objectives, costs, and the likelihood of success. He is drawing upon years of experience and strong support for the military and considering the lives of thousands of troops and families that he has visited in VA hospitals.
You might not like what he says. You might disagree with him. But a man like Murtha deserves a little more respect than someone like you or me. He has earned it. And it is really tragic to hear someone who fancies himself to be moral and politically aware spout off stupid slogans when his position is supposed to be better than Murtha's.
Conservativism is really going down the drain... in the eighties you all had a reputation for good ideas.
Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 04:28 PM (1WdUw)
58
Murtha loses all claim to respect when he tries to get his former comrades killed for the advantage of his political party.
You might not like my stating the obvious, you might disagree with the obvious, but if you and your ilk don't pull your heads out of the sand, they will be pulled out of it for you.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 04:42 PM (RHG+K)
59
What is the obvious?
The only thing that is obvious to me is that we cannot afford to occupy Iraq forever. Someday we have to bring the troops home. Why not start talking about it now?
Bush is talking about "reducing troop levels," anyways. Condi seems to be, too. The only thing "wrong" with what Murtha is doing is that he is a Democrat talking about reducing troop levels. And if you got Murtha talking about it... and then the White House does it... they look like flipfloppers. But if you trash Murtha first... and then use his plan and call it something else... you look like a shrewd leader.
Murtha's idea is good enough that the Republicans are copying it. Attacking him is a pretty transparent attempt to salvage some votes for the next election.
Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 04:53 PM (1WdUw)
60
"Surely someone who reads and quotes Thomas Mann...would be able to grasp the complexity of the situation in Iraq."
And Murtha's call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is a well thought out strategy that takes the complex situation in Iraq into account. I don't think so, Big Tobacco, so maybe you had better explain to me how that particular strategy would be beneficial to all concerned.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 04:56 PM (rUyw4)
61
Uh, Big Tobacco, now you and the Dems are trying to spin Murtha's big idea into something it wasn't. He called for an IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL from Iraq. His big idea was brought up for a vote in the House and Murtha and his allies blinked. Where do you get the idea that someone is copying Murtha?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:05 PM (rUyw4)
62
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007586
Read what the WSJ says about it. There is a lot of bad information out there... especially if you listen to pundits. But this ought to clarify things a little.
Murtha suggested withdrawing troops and putting in place quick response units. He is also someone who is willing to discuss options, change his mind if a better argument is made. He is no John Kerry and it is disingenuous to try and paint him as one.
He came as someone willing to discuss changes. Duncan Hunter, to score some political points, introduced a caricatured resolution calling for immediate withdrawal which Murtha had not been calling for in the first place.
Murtha wants to have a discussion about this. The man even helped Dick Cheney by throwing his credibility behind him way back when.
Seriously, you can think what you want. And I know what people have been saying about his medals and all that other nonsense. But when you spend as much time visiting troops in the VA. When you take them seriously. When you are well-connected and widely respected in the Pentagon. And when you volunteered like Murtha did and served like he did. It's just not right to call him names and try to make him into some straw man that you can knock down.
And, honestly, I don't think that you would trash a good man like Murtha if you knew the truth about him... you're probably just basing your argument on bad information (which is something we all do from time to time).
Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 05:19 PM (1WdUw)
63
Well, if the information is bad, it came out of his own mouth. I saw him on CNN. That is what he said. What else is there?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:29 PM (rUyw4)
64
George Bush said on TV that this war was about WMDs. And everybody wants to hold him to that single little soundbite. It's more complicated than that. There were many other factors... not just one. To try and hold up WMDs as proof that the War in Iraq was foolish isn't fair to Bush. There's more to it. He was only speaking to a particular part of it. If you want to criticize Bush, you should at least consider his side carefully before saying he's wrong.
You should give Murtha the same respect. It's just the decent thing to do... to treat people as we would have them treat us. Maybe Murtha did say something to this effect on CNN... but there is a larger context to it that is worth thinking about. Kant supports this idea. Jesus supports this idea. It's just fair. If you don't want to do that, that's your business. But you should understand that people will regard you as an unethical person.
Posted by: BigTobacco at January 15, 2006 05:41 PM (1WdUw)
65
Frankly, the least of my concern is whether someone who doesn't know me regards me as unethical. Couldn't care less. My point is that you and others are trying to spin Murtha's statements into Bush's policy of reducing troops in Iraq. Troops are coming home because the overall situation in Iraq is improving. Is it perfect? Hardly.
But my point has always been that Murtha and many on the Left have encouraged the terrorists and insurgents with these statements they make. The facts are that these kinds of ill-advised statements have cost soldiers their lives, and that is the point I want to make.
Why couldn't Murtha just say that we want the troops to come home as soon as the situation is stabilized? Whether you agree with the war or not, everyone's concern should be with protecting the troops in Iraq and getting this thing over ASAP. Prolonging the war by encouraging the enemy is just plain wrong, I don't care how you cut it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 15, 2006 05:54 PM (rUyw4)
66
Wrong, BT. Murtha advocates withdrawing ALL troops within six months and stationing a "quick reaction force" of 20,000 somewhere nearby, probably in Kuwait.
Of course this is diametrically opposed to his position last year, when he wanted to prevent a civil war in Iraq.
Now he says that the Iraqis must fight for their own democracy, by themselves. His 'policy', to dignify it with a term it doesn't deserve, is to cut and run, abandoning everything we've accomplished to the Islamist terrorists.
Ask yourself why Hillary, Biden, and Kerry won't endorse Murtha's plan. It's because, as an old donkey with no higher aspirations, he has nothing to lose politically by helping to create the illusion that they are somehow 'moderate'. By staking out a ridiculous ultra-radical position, Murtha seeks to legitimize the merely radical position of the other Dems. Murtha's defeatist proposal was a coldy calculated black political op from start to finish.
That is why I call Murtha a political hack. He's willing to harm his country to further the interests of his party.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 15, 2006 06:43 PM (RHG+K)
67
Bluto: I believe what Murtha is calling for is removal of American troops from what is becoming an untenable situation.
Here's a direct quote from President Bush's speech at the Naval Academy on December 1--two weeks after Murtha called for a withdrawal plan from the White House.
"As Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change. We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide, to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys."
The essence of Bush's drawndown strategy is, as Iraqi forces take over responsibility for fighting the insurgency and become the primary means for ensuring law and order, the American forces can limit their mission to countering the terrorists in Iraq. That doesn't require 150,000 troops -- or even 80-100,000. It's something that can be done with far fewer troops.
That's exactly what Murtha proposed when he argued for redeploying US forces. As part of this redeployment, Murtha proposed the deployment of an "over-the-horizon" contingent of Marines, probably as you say in Kuwait. Bush likely wants to maintain them in Iraq. It seems to me more of a tactical difference than a strategic one.
So what's the problem with Bush's approach? He assumes that Iraqi security forces can deal with the insurgency and keep law and order. Murtha does not. And for all the rosy statistics Bush cited to back up this assumption, he's likely wrong. Not only do Iraqi security forces lack the skills and training to get the job done -- as James Fallows has documented -- but there can be no such thing as an Iraqi security force until there is such a thing as Iraq.
Instead of a single Iraq, there is still a deeply divided country, December elections not withstanding. And until the Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni political leaders find a way to truly create a legitimate and unified Iraq -- not just one on paper-- no amount of training is going to create an effective set of security forces.
Posted by: Drew at January 15, 2006 11:43 PM (oxMjD)
68
Drew, tonight, on 60 Minutes, Murtha proposed exactly what I posted - all US troops out of Iraq within six months, and a quick reaction force of 20,000 nearby. He noted that this would lead to civil war in Iraq.
Your post, therefore, is simply incorrect on the facts.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 16, 2006 12:17 AM (RHG+K)
69
And the "broken military" and "hand-to-mouth" quotes? The partisan attacks and vivid portrayals of abject failure? Quoting unscientific polls? If Murtha wants credibility, I'd say he shot himself in the foot coming off the block. Murtha was playing to a crowd. Nothing more. His comments were beyond prudence and reason.
Posted by: Oyster at January 16, 2006 07:57 AM (YudAC)
70
This is why we have a military-- to USE it. It isn't a social service program just so kids can get some college money and a new pair of shoes.
Murtha doesn't have any more confidence in the Iraqi military than Bush does. He just doesn't care if it all falls apart. In fact, like most Dems, he WANTS it to fall apart. They figure they can squeeze and election or two out of that, and it's a small price to pay.
And don't tell me it's because you "care" about our troops. Your behaviour over the Abu Graib incident dispelled any doubts I might have had about how much you really "care".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 16, 2006 09:08 AM (8e/V4)
71
Oh NOOOOOOO!!! We've been busted by BIG TOBACCO!!! He's discovered our secrets!!! This war isn't about oil, it's about tobacco company profits!!! Foiled again!!! You sir, are a genius!!!
Dammit, these libtards are so stupid that they don't even surprise me anymore. Oh well, at least he didn't go on about the JOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZ.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 16, 2006 09:49 AM (0yYS2)
56kb generated in CPU 0.1817, elapsed 0.2529 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2322 seconds, 307 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.2322 seconds, 307 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
