John Murtha Tells it Straight

This could get ugly.

Murtha has already slammed Cheney and Bush for their recent disgusting remarks:

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.”

Referring to Bush, Murtha added: “I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.”

Go get’em, Rep. Murtha.

Yeah, because the White House can be shamed into not attacking a Vietnam Veteran who lost three limbs into being . . .

. . . oh wait, nevermind.

Let the Swift Boating begin.

but that doesn’t make him wrong in this case

Okay, then how about this?

I believe [redeployment] will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

Yeah, me too: what does this “over-the-horizon presence of Marines” mean and ‘quick reaction’ to what, and what kind of reaction? Same imperial crap, different strategy.

… identical to Juan Cole’s…

I suspect Juan Cole has a more realistic idea of the consequences.

Murtha’s on the right track.

He wants to cut American losses and strengthen the military. Can’t argue with that.

Here’s what I really want to say: several commenters on this thread predict a smear campaign against Murtha, directed by the White House. I do not believe it will materialize.

Of course, to some people, any disagreement constitutes an effort at personal destruction.

Nice to see, though, ‘realists’ and ‘neocons’ ripping each other up.

dipnut: several commenters on this thread predict a smear campaign against Murtha, directed by the White House. I do not believe it will materialize

That would be pleasantly surprising. But let’s face it, it’s not like smear campaigns from this White House (conducted either directly or at arm’s length) are in any way unprecedented… particularly when they’re on the defensive.

Such a moving, powerful speech. By someone who understands war its costs, intellectually and emotionally, and is willing to take it seriously in a way the chickenhawks are not.

Debate about the details in his speech (he’s not a general or the secretary of defense) is less important than his basic understanding that we have to pull out and end the occupation.

This is far less important than the actual withdrawal, but has anyone come up with a cogent and coherent policy statement to accompany that withdrawal?
Representing the attitude behind it?
“Whoops”?
“Sorry”?
Or just that strong silent “don’t mess with me, I’m leaving” thing that tough guys front with when they’re wrong and scared to admit it but realize they do need to back down?
Because it is backing down we’re really talking about right?
Not from any real or imagined enemies but from the untenable position we were misled into assuming and trying to maintain.
In that sad theater of the possible there isn’t a role for the honest admission of mistakes of that magnitude though is there?
So some kind of p.r. backspin has to get generated, whereby the troops come home and everybody pretends it was just time for them to come home.
Not that thousands of people lost their lives and limbs and loved ones for a grotesque misprision of moral responsibility.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, in a statement issued with Bush in Pusan, South Korea, said Murtha is a respected veteran and politician “so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.” Moore is a liberal movie producer and sharp Bush critic whose documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” criticized the Iraq war.

“The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer,” McClellan said.

Source

“Seems like the Repubs are losing it”

The angrier the 65%+ of us are, the more loyal and active the base. The base took a hit with Miers, and Bush will try to build it back up to 40 with provocation. Then all they need is varying 5-10% more, roughly 10% of non-loyalists, for a working majority on particular issues.

Who cares what you, I, or apparently John Murtha think.

They don’t like us because we’re black, we’re white, we’re Christian, we’re Jew, we’re educated, we’re free, we’re not Islamic. We can never be Islamic because we were not born Islamic.

Wow. This is some serious wingnuttery. She’s trolled the house of people’s representatives. You go, girl!

And, not to be overly catty, but a CV that includes the words “Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam” doesn’t exactly say “man of high moral character with a great regard for telling the truth” to me.

They don’t like us because we’re black, we’re white, we’re Christian, we’re Jew, we’re educated, we’re free, we’re not Islamic. We can never be Islamic because we were not born Islamic.

That really sounds like someone who once heard a speach by somone who knew what they were talking about, was impressed by it, but didn’t quite take it in.

bin Laden, of course, would be very keen on the idea of western converts to his sub-branch of Islamism.

soru

>In that sad theater of the possible there isn’t a role for the honest admission of mistakes of that magnitude though is there?

In the age of sound-bite democracy, Sadly, No.

Hey, isn’t Jean Schmidt the one who barely defeated Paul Hackett in a super-red district? She maybe should keep a low profile, huh?

Ohio is red, but I live next door and I can tell you they don’t think like white people in The Old Confederacy do.. they’ll react to this, in a lesser magnitude I admit, the way Philly suburbanites are to the New Republican Party. A collective WTF?, basically.

(Or, to be fair, as it seems that WPITOC think, I’m quite possibly misled by Pundit Bloviating on that according to a lot of Liberal Southern bloggers.)

House Republicans are talking about an ethics probe of Murtha.

I think this crosses the line from disagreement to an effort at personal destruction. (I don’t have a Roll Call subscription, so I know nothing about the possible merits of the possible case, but it seems obvious that this is pushback–if not, why is it coming up only now?)

if not, why is it coming up only now?

Well, if I was a politicians who knew I was facing an ethics investigation, I’d make a big speech attacking Bush the week before news broke…

Probably not the case of course, just an outside possibility to consider.

soru

“who spent 37 years of his career in the Marine Corps”

This is actually kinda overemphasized a smidge.

He retired from the Marines in 1990, but he’s been in Congress since 1974. He was in the Reserves from 1967 to 1990.

When one reads “spent 37 years of his career in the Marine Corps”, one naturally thinks that means 37 years active duty, not 15 years active and 23 years of reserve duty in parallel with civilian careers.

I don’t want to seem like I’m dismissing his service, I pretty much agree with him, given that this administration can do nothing but fail in Iraq.

What the Democrats really should be doing is trying to get the GOP to commit to a long-term stay, with money attached up front.

The GOP is all talk about staying as long as it takes, but they won’t commit. They also want to play it like the troops could be home any day now.

The Dems ought to put forward a bill saying we’d be there until 2015, or until some goals are achieved, whichever comes first, with $1 trillion or so to pay for it.

Then, you’d see the GOP afraid to vote yes, even though their rhetoric would require that they approve of a ten year stay.

abb1 writes: “Yeah, me too: what does this “over-the-horizon presence of Marines” mean and ‘quick reaction’ to what, and what kind of reaction? Same imperial crap, different strategy.”

I figured those would be kept around in case things really went into the crapper after we left.

Would also be handy if Zarqawi and Al Qaeda established a power base.

Too bad we didn’t set up an over-the-horizon force in 2002 to take out Zarqawi’s base in the northern no-fly zone.

Frankly I’m appalled at the insinuation that any member of the US Congress could possibly be compromised by involvement with lobbyists and vested interests.

Americans do like to travel and convert. But Americans seeking out the jihadi community is not the same as the leader of that community making an effort to convert the West. And, frankly, if Osama were to make that effort, given the natural pockets of disaffection in a big country like the U.S., I’m pretty sure he could do better than 2. Hell, the San Diego UFOLOGY guy was able to find 25 people to commit suicide in order to return to the Alpha Centauri solar system. I’d say Osama offers a more mainstream product than that. But he isn’t making an effort, as I say, to convert the West. Even Aum Shinrikyo, renamed Aleph has made more of an effort, and supposedly has a thousand converts in Canada.

All you have to do it to remove US military (and proxies) from the ME altogether a then you don’t have to worry about Zarqawi, Al Qaeda and their power bases.

You left out ‘Kurds’, ‘Shi’a’ and ‘Jews’ from the list of things it would be necessary to remove from the middle east to appease Zarqawi.

soru

They are not your children.

Quite.

Take that as a premise, and think it through, see where it takes you.

soru

Where is dipnut’s retraction or correction?

Sorry, I was busy this weekend.

So, we have some dismaying rhetoric from the White House, and an investigation of Mr. Murtha’s ethics. Whether that amounts to a smear campaign is debatable, but I’ll grant the point.

Sigh.