Asinine Capitulation From Rep. Murtha
I have had it with the Left in Congress. Below is a story from the Washington Times.
"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."
Not in the best interests of the United States? What planet is Rep. Murtha from? There was enough evidence prior to the Iraq Phase of the GWOT to show that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists, including al-Qaeda. In 1996, al-Zarqawi was listed by Iraqi intelligence as an "asset." You do not label people as such unless they truly are. There is no point to do so otherwise.
Since the invasion, we have made a number of discoveries, including WMDs, that the Left and the MSM refuse to acknowledge. They refuse to recognize the fact that France, Germany, and Russia were supporting Saddam by selling him weapons that were forbidden under the 1991 cease-fire. They provided him components for WMDs--a charge that is levied by many on the Left when it came to Pres. Reagan's support of Iraq during their war with Iran. However, that has NEVER been proven. We did not supply him with any WMDs, components, schematics, or formulas. We provided him conventional weapons only.
House Republicans assailed Murtha's position as one of abandonment and surrender, and accused Democrats of playing politics with the war. "They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said.
Speaker Hastert is quite correct. This is nothing more than further grand-standing by the Left, and using sympathy for the troops as the shield they hide their fifth-column ways behind. They only care about the troops. They are sad to see so many die. These morons do not understand the first thing about the troops, nor why they are fighting over in Iraq. They are fighting to ensure that Iraq is never a threat again.
The Left loves to hype the lie that Pres. Bush said Iraq was an "imminent threat." He never uttered those words. The Left spoke them. Sen. Rockefeller--who is still receiving a beating from the blogosphere over his meeting with Assad--stated that on the floor of the Senate. Was Saddam a threat to the US? His ties to terrorist groups made him a threat, and the fact that al-Qaeda operatives were receiving training in the use of WMDs (chemical and biological) just outside of Baghdad more than proved Saddam was a threat to the security of the US.
Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. A Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters.
Gag me. Look, I do not disrespect those that fought for this nation (unless his name is John Kerry or Al Gore), but this display is nothing more than a prop; these were crocodile tears. Or, maybe they were tears because he knows there is not a representative worth their salt that will back this initiative. Sure, there will be a few, but this bill has no legs and will not be passed. (Call your reps TODAY and make sure it does not get close to passing!)
Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Rep. Murtha has obviously missed the fact that Iraq has had three successful elections, including the one approving their new constitution, and they will have another before the year is out. Almost 200,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and deployed throughout Iraq. They are taking the point on operations keeping the nation secure. Operation Steel Curtain--an operation to root out a terrorist stronghold in northern Iraq--is using over twenty thousand Iraqi troops. Iraq will be standing on it's own two feet in about a year or so, and I expect we will be pulling troops out by late 2006.
In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a "cut and run" strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.
Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
How can intelligence that is over seven years old--the same intelligence used by Pres. Clinton and by Pres. Bush--be manipulated. Very little intelligence that was new was used in the president's request to invade Iraq, and invoke regime change. I wonder if Rep. Murtha remembers that Congress approved the initiative for regime change around the time that Pres. Clinton decided to attack Iraq in 1998.
Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
Rep. Murtha may have been an intelligence officer for the Marines, but he is not showing much intelligence here. This is an ad hominem attack because he cannot answer the vice president's charges. VP Cheney is correct when he decided to drop the gloves and go after those that are trying to undermine the war effort while they lie about the intelligence used to make the decision to invade Iraq. That is the Left to a "T" and it is precisely what they have been doing for months. They impugn the administration, and in doing so, they indirectly call into question the honor and integrity of the troops.
The GOP did not like the move Pres. Clinton made in getting involved in Kosovo, Bosnia, or Somalia, but they did not take to the airwaves and directly attack the president. No one called for "an immediate withdrawal" of the troops. No one complained about a lack of armor on the vehicles. No one complained about the lack of troops. No one even raised a stink about the bombings in Kosovo which killed more civilians than what has been CONFIRMED in Iraq. (You on the Left shut up about the 100K/200K dead civilians in Iraq. You cannot prove that allegation.)
Referring to Bush, Murtha added: "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
He did not criticize the Democrats who were criticizing him. He went after the Democrats--like Biden, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc., for lying and attempting to "rewrite history." Rep. Murtha needs to pay closer attention to what the president said. He even stated that to criticize is part of America, but he was coming out against those that were lying about the facts.
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his work on military issues over three decades in Congress. He planned to introduce a resolution Thursday that, if passed by both the House and the Senate, would force the president to withdraw U.S. troops.
This will not pass. CALL your reps and tell them not to vote in favor of this. To have both Houses of Congress pass this, and if we begin to pull out of Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before this country falls to the animals that want a new base of operations. This retreat first attitude needs to go. This is why the Democrats have taken a pummeling at the ballot box in recent years. They cannot be trusted with national security, and right now we need to maintain our presence in Iraq. If we do not, if we abandon Iraq, then the civil war that ensues will be on our head. Actually, it will be on the Democrats' heads, and it will cost us a high price in the future. I would even go so far as to say that if we pulled out, and abandoned the fledgling government, Saddam would not face trial. He would be back in power in short order. And if we believed him to be a threat worth removing once before, he will most assuredly be a threat then.
Murtha could not say whether his caucus supports his position. And, although he is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., she was absent from his news conference.
Later Thursday, Pelosi said she supported his position that the president's policy is not working and must be changed but she stopped short of endorsing his call for immediate withdrawal. "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself very eloquently and the district he represents," Pelosi said.
That is political speak for "this bill does not have a chance in hell of passing." I would be surprised if Rep. Pelosi votes for the measure. I would almost be willing to wager than no House member who is coming up for reelection in 2006 will vote for the measure.
For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy. Some Senate Democrats have laid out plans for a phased withdrawal, and a number of House Democrats have been demanding that the troops be brought home. But few House members have the level of credibility on military issues that Murtha does.
What "credibility" does Rep. Murtha have? His past military experience? Big deal. John Kerry served in Vietnam. Al Gore served in Vietnam. Neither one of them have the credibility to speak on behalf of the troops. Rep. Murtha also needs to remember that our troops over there believe in this mission. This is not Vietnam, anymore. The Left needs to drop these Vietnam-era attacks against the administration, against the troops, against our gains in this war, and more importantly, against the nation, as a whole.
Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 but in recent months has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it.
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said Murtha's call for withdrawal was "reprehensible and irresponsible."
As advertised? What advertisement did the president give for the Iraq Phase. I do not seem to recall anything out of the ordinary. He promised that this war would not be over in eight years. He promised that much of this war would be waged "in the shadows," meaning clandestine, covert warfare. He promised that when Saddam was removed that the Iraqi people would be free. Has Rep. Murtha been pulling a Rip Van Winkle trip here? Has he been asleep? Or has he been enjoying his time in a Taliban cave? For the love of God, this man is looney.
"It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," Granger said.
First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform.
Not this time around he is not. My brother would like to have a few words with Rep. Murtha (and none of them are able to be printed here, or repeated in mixed company). The troops believe they are doing the right thing, at the right time, and are under the command of the right man. That man is not Rep. Murtha, or any of the fifth-column Leftists in the Senate. That would be the commander-in-chief of this nation, Pres. George W. Bush. I can assure that Rep. Murtha is not speaking on behalf of the majority (I would wager 80% and higher) of troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world rooting these animals out of their hidey-holes.
Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.
His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related several stories of visiting wounded troops, including one who was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries.
"I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two.
I would love to see confirmation of that. A Purple Heart is awarded to troops wounded in combat by enemy fire (unlike John Kerry's three Purple Band-Aids). He can give him a Purple Heart if he wants to, but I would be very angry if one was truly awarded to a soldier who was not injured by the enemy.
Rep. Murtha is typical of the Left right now. They do not want to be held responsible for their vote. They do not like the fact that this nation is defending itself. They despise Pres. Bush because he was not like Clinton; we were attacked, and he acted instead of negotiating. And despite their lies to the contrary, they really do not like, nor do they understand, the troops in the field being shot at. Rep. Murtha, and his fellow liberal cronies, would better serve this nation if they would just shut up. If not, maybe the nation needs to take steps to keep them shut up, like voting them out of office. People like this man make me sick.
The Bunny ;)
I have had it with the Left in Congress. Below is a story from the Washington Times.
"It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."
Not in the best interests of the United States? What planet is Rep. Murtha from? There was enough evidence prior to the Iraq Phase of the GWOT to show that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists, including al-Qaeda. In 1996, al-Zarqawi was listed by Iraqi intelligence as an "asset." You do not label people as such unless they truly are. There is no point to do so otherwise.
Since the invasion, we have made a number of discoveries, including WMDs, that the Left and the MSM refuse to acknowledge. They refuse to recognize the fact that France, Germany, and Russia were supporting Saddam by selling him weapons that were forbidden under the 1991 cease-fire. They provided him components for WMDs--a charge that is levied by many on the Left when it came to Pres. Reagan's support of Iraq during their war with Iran. However, that has NEVER been proven. We did not supply him with any WMDs, components, schematics, or formulas. We provided him conventional weapons only.
House Republicans assailed Murtha's position as one of abandonment and surrender, and accused Democrats of playing politics with the war. "They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said.
Speaker Hastert is quite correct. This is nothing more than further grand-standing by the Left, and using sympathy for the troops as the shield they hide their fifth-column ways behind. They only care about the troops. They are sad to see so many die. These morons do not understand the first thing about the troops, nor why they are fighting over in Iraq. They are fighting to ensure that Iraq is never a threat again.
The Left loves to hype the lie that Pres. Bush said Iraq was an "imminent threat." He never uttered those words. The Left spoke them. Sen. Rockefeller--who is still receiving a beating from the blogosphere over his meeting with Assad--stated that on the floor of the Senate. Was Saddam a threat to the US? His ties to terrorist groups made him a threat, and the fact that al-Qaeda operatives were receiving training in the use of WMDs (chemical and biological) just outside of Baghdad more than proved Saddam was a threat to the security of the US.
Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. A Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters.
Gag me. Look, I do not disrespect those that fought for this nation (unless his name is John Kerry or Al Gore), but this display is nothing more than a prop; these were crocodile tears. Or, maybe they were tears because he knows there is not a representative worth their salt that will back this initiative. Sure, there will be a few, but this bill has no legs and will not be passed. (Call your reps TODAY and make sure it does not get close to passing!)
Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Rep. Murtha has obviously missed the fact that Iraq has had three successful elections, including the one approving their new constitution, and they will have another before the year is out. Almost 200,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and deployed throughout Iraq. They are taking the point on operations keeping the nation secure. Operation Steel Curtain--an operation to root out a terrorist stronghold in northern Iraq--is using over twenty thousand Iraqi troops. Iraq will be standing on it's own two feet in about a year or so, and I expect we will be pulling troops out by late 2006.
In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a "cut and run" strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.
Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
How can intelligence that is over seven years old--the same intelligence used by Pres. Clinton and by Pres. Bush--be manipulated. Very little intelligence that was new was used in the president's request to invade Iraq, and invoke regime change. I wonder if Rep. Murtha remembers that Congress approved the initiative for regime change around the time that Pres. Clinton decided to attack Iraq in 1998.
Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
Rep. Murtha may have been an intelligence officer for the Marines, but he is not showing much intelligence here. This is an ad hominem attack because he cannot answer the vice president's charges. VP Cheney is correct when he decided to drop the gloves and go after those that are trying to undermine the war effort while they lie about the intelligence used to make the decision to invade Iraq. That is the Left to a "T" and it is precisely what they have been doing for months. They impugn the administration, and in doing so, they indirectly call into question the honor and integrity of the troops.
The GOP did not like the move Pres. Clinton made in getting involved in Kosovo, Bosnia, or Somalia, but they did not take to the airwaves and directly attack the president. No one called for "an immediate withdrawal" of the troops. No one complained about a lack of armor on the vehicles. No one complained about the lack of troops. No one even raised a stink about the bombings in Kosovo which killed more civilians than what has been CONFIRMED in Iraq. (You on the Left shut up about the 100K/200K dead civilians in Iraq. You cannot prove that allegation.)
Referring to Bush, Murtha added: "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
He did not criticize the Democrats who were criticizing him. He went after the Democrats--like Biden, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc., for lying and attempting to "rewrite history." Rep. Murtha needs to pay closer attention to what the president said. He even stated that to criticize is part of America, but he was coming out against those that were lying about the facts.
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his work on military issues over three decades in Congress. He planned to introduce a resolution Thursday that, if passed by both the House and the Senate, would force the president to withdraw U.S. troops.
This will not pass. CALL your reps and tell them not to vote in favor of this. To have both Houses of Congress pass this, and if we begin to pull out of Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before this country falls to the animals that want a new base of operations. This retreat first attitude needs to go. This is why the Democrats have taken a pummeling at the ballot box in recent years. They cannot be trusted with national security, and right now we need to maintain our presence in Iraq. If we do not, if we abandon Iraq, then the civil war that ensues will be on our head. Actually, it will be on the Democrats' heads, and it will cost us a high price in the future. I would even go so far as to say that if we pulled out, and abandoned the fledgling government, Saddam would not face trial. He would be back in power in short order. And if we believed him to be a threat worth removing once before, he will most assuredly be a threat then.
Murtha could not say whether his caucus supports his position. And, although he is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., she was absent from his news conference.
Later Thursday, Pelosi said she supported his position that the president's policy is not working and must be changed but she stopped short of endorsing his call for immediate withdrawal. "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself very eloquently and the district he represents," Pelosi said.
That is political speak for "this bill does not have a chance in hell of passing." I would be surprised if Rep. Pelosi votes for the measure. I would almost be willing to wager than no House member who is coming up for reelection in 2006 will vote for the measure.
For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy. Some Senate Democrats have laid out plans for a phased withdrawal, and a number of House Democrats have been demanding that the troops be brought home. But few House members have the level of credibility on military issues that Murtha does.
What "credibility" does Rep. Murtha have? His past military experience? Big deal. John Kerry served in Vietnam. Al Gore served in Vietnam. Neither one of them have the credibility to speak on behalf of the troops. Rep. Murtha also needs to remember that our troops over there believe in this mission. This is not Vietnam, anymore. The Left needs to drop these Vietnam-era attacks against the administration, against the troops, against our gains in this war, and more importantly, against the nation, as a whole.
Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 but in recent months has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it.
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said Murtha's call for withdrawal was "reprehensible and irresponsible."
As advertised? What advertisement did the president give for the Iraq Phase. I do not seem to recall anything out of the ordinary. He promised that this war would not be over in eight years. He promised that much of this war would be waged "in the shadows," meaning clandestine, covert warfare. He promised that when Saddam was removed that the Iraqi people would be free. Has Rep. Murtha been pulling a Rip Van Winkle trip here? Has he been asleep? Or has he been enjoying his time in a Taliban cave? For the love of God, this man is looney.
"It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," Granger said.
First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform.
Not this time around he is not. My brother would like to have a few words with Rep. Murtha (and none of them are able to be printed here, or repeated in mixed company). The troops believe they are doing the right thing, at the right time, and are under the command of the right man. That man is not Rep. Murtha, or any of the fifth-column Leftists in the Senate. That would be the commander-in-chief of this nation, Pres. George W. Bush. I can assure that Rep. Murtha is not speaking on behalf of the majority (I would wager 80% and higher) of troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world rooting these animals out of their hidey-holes.
Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.
His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related several stories of visiting wounded troops, including one who was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries.
"I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two.
I would love to see confirmation of that. A Purple Heart is awarded to troops wounded in combat by enemy fire (unlike John Kerry's three Purple Band-Aids). He can give him a Purple Heart if he wants to, but I would be very angry if one was truly awarded to a soldier who was not injured by the enemy.
Rep. Murtha is typical of the Left right now. They do not want to be held responsible for their vote. They do not like the fact that this nation is defending itself. They despise Pres. Bush because he was not like Clinton; we were attacked, and he acted instead of negotiating. And despite their lies to the contrary, they really do not like, nor do they understand, the troops in the field being shot at. Rep. Murtha, and his fellow liberal cronies, would better serve this nation if they would just shut up. If not, maybe the nation needs to take steps to keep them shut up, like voting them out of office. People like this man make me sick.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:07 PM
1 Comments:
Rep. Murtha (D), being a veteran, should know what giving aid and comfort to the enemy means. With his "tears" and words he does just that. The enemy loves him as they kill and wound our troops. He's a disgrace. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home