John Murtha Tells it Straight

by Kieran Healy on November 17, 2005

John Murtha says “get out of Iraq now”:http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html. C&L has “the video”:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/17.html#a5913, which has a lot more powerful commentary in addition to the content of the statement. Personally, I’d like to see Dick Cheney tell Murtha (who spent 37 years of his career in the Marine Corps) to his face that he’s “losing his memory, or his backbone”:http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/cheney/.

{ 58 comments }

1

fifi 11.17.05 at 3:33 pm

This could get ugly.

2

KCinDC 11.17.05 at 3:37 pm

I’m sure the White House smear machine and the stenographers in the media will be working overtime to trash Murtha, but it won’t be to his face — just all over television, talk radio, newspapers, and magazines. Murtha’s statement certainly won’t give Cheney a second’s pause.

3

riffle 11.17.05 at 4:13 pm

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.

4

Pug 11.17.05 at 4:34 pm

Yeah, Dick “Five Deferments” Cheney has a lot of credibility, doesn’t he?

It’s not like he’s ever said anything that turned out not to be true.

5

Justin 11.17.05 at 4:51 pm

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

. . . oh wait, nevermind.

6

dipnut 11.17.05 at 4:53 pm

Murtha’s not quite in Mother Whatserface territory, here. He wants the troops out of harm’s way, but would maintain a strong American presence in the region: a “quick reaction force” and an “over-the-horizon presence of Marines”.

Of course, in order to be “quick reaction”, the proposed force would have to operate under military command, without requiring, say, an act of Congress in order to deploy. In effect, we would still be at war; only we’d probably use more bombs and fewer ground troops.

So, everyone comfortable with that?

7

Doctor Slack 11.17.05 at 4:54 pm

Let the Swift Boating begin.

8

Kieran Healy 11.17.05 at 4:56 pm

So, everyone comfortable with that?

No, but politics is the art of the possible. I’m sure Murtha has voted for stuff that I’d disagree with, but that doesn’t make him wrong in this case.

9

dipnut 11.17.05 at 5:01 pm

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.

10

Kieran Healy 11.17.05 at 5:09 pm

All I’m saying is, the political choice isn’t between what the Administration is doing and what I’d like to see happen; it’s between what the Administration is doing and whatever alternative Congressional pressure and public opinion can realistically bring to the table. Murtha’s on the right track.

11

abb1 11.17.05 at 5:12 pm

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.

12

Hektor Bim 11.17.05 at 5:16 pm

dipnut,

Murtha’s position is as far as I can tell identical to Juan Cole’s, at least in the short term.

13

dipnut 11.17.05 at 5:19 pm

… identical to Juan Cole’s…

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

14

Hektor Bim 11.17.05 at 5:28 pm

dipnut,

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know how you have developed mind control powers and read Murtha’s mind, but as ex-military, Murtha probably has a very good idea of at least some of the “consequences”.

15

dipnut 11.17.05 at 5:30 pm

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.

16

dipnut 11.17.05 at 5:33 pm

…read Murtha’s mind…

Excuse me? I read Murtha’s statement:

I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control…

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

I’m in some doubt as to Juan Cole’s mind on the matter, but I doubt he’d agree with this.

17

abb1 11.17.05 at 5:42 pm

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

18

dipnut 11.17.05 at 5:48 pm

‘realists’ and ‘neocons’ ripping each other up

I must confess some confusion as to what exactly is a realist or a neocon; there is disagreement among worthy authorities. However, by what seems to me to be the most common and commonsense usage, realists and neocons should be violently opposed. Indeed, part of the definition of neocon is “the opposite of a realist”.

19

Doctor Slack 11.17.05 at 6:30 pm

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.

20

P O'Neill 11.17.05 at 7:19 pm

The House Republicans held a news conference after Murtha’s statement to denounce it. It’s worth reading mostly only as an example of the way bromides and talking points have replaced any substantive argument. For instance, one member after another talks about “finishing the job” without ever defining what the job is, which of course is Murtha’s point. But then there are some specific bits of buffoonery:

Tom Tancredo (CO): And I am willing to take the risk, to stay the course, and to get this job done and to get every American back home.

Jean Schmidt (OH): The big picture is that these Islamic insurgents want to destroy us. They don’t like us. 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. Now, this isn’t the Islamic citizens. These are the insurgents.

She catches itself at the end when she realizes how deep she was in Crusader rhetoric.

21

MQ 11.17.05 at 7:29 pm

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.

22

roger 11.17.05 at 7:35 pm

Murtha is in the age group that always moves first against a war — the over 65s did that about Korea, and they were the first against Vietnam, too.

23

rollo 11.17.05 at 7:43 pm

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.

24

fyreflye 11.17.05 at 8:05 pm

The point is not the quality of Murtha’s particular proposal but the fact that someone who can not possibly be attacked as unpatriotic has called for withdrawl. Murtha has already pre-empted any strike Cheney might attempt against him. We shouldn’t be nitpicking the details of his proposal at this point when the important thing is that someone whose military background makes him immune to the Administration’s attacks has spoken out.

25

Uncle Kvetch 11.17.05 at 8:45 pm

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

26

luci phyrr 11.17.05 at 9:54 pm

From Uncle Kvetch’s source:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said Murtha and other critics “want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world … We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.”

My dad, a Republican, fought in Korea, supported this war, but now believes we should leave. I, on the other hand, vehemently protested this war, but I’m not sure we should leave right now (though we should be giving assurances of eventual withdrawal, promising no US bases left behind).

I admit I don’t know what’s best at this time.

27

Kieran Healy 11.17.05 at 10:08 pm

I admit I don’t know what’s best at this time.

Nothing wrong with that. I imagine, though, that you don’t think that people who believe it’s a good idea to pull out are “waving the white flag of surrender to the terrorists” or “cowering like European nations”.

28

luci phyrr 11.17.05 at 11:11 pm

I imagine, though, that you don’t think that people who believe it’s a good idea to pull out are “waving the white flag of surrender to the terrorists” or “cowering like European nations”.

Totally. I can’t believe that they’re using language like that – it’s one thing for Limbaugh to do it, but Scott McClellan? Straight outta the official White House’s mouth, likening a crusty old vet like Murtha to Michael Moore?…

Murtha’s gonna explode… Seems like the Repubs are losing it…IMO, some of them deserve SO much worse.

29

bob mcmanus 11.17.05 at 11:24 pm

“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.

30

KCinDC 11.17.05 at 11:33 pm

someone who can not possibly be attacked as unpatriotic […] someone whose military background makes him immune to the Administration’s attacks

It would be nice to think so, but have you been paying attention for the last five years?

31

abb1 11.18.05 at 3:34 am

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!

32

ajay 11.18.05 at 4:58 am

Of course, in order to be “quick reaction”, the proposed force would have to operate under military command, without requiring, say, an act of Congress in order to deploy.

Yes, good point, because god knows every other deployment of US troops in history has only happened after an act of Congress. (Offer not valid in south-east Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, South America, north-east Asia, Russia or China.) [deep cynical sigh]

33

ajay 11.18.05 at 5:00 am

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.

34

Hektor Bim 11.18.05 at 9:27 am

Dipnut,

I was merely pointing out that Juan Cole also supports maintaining a few bases with air support for the Iraqi army. He thinks this will increase the chances for Sunni participation in the political process and increase the chances for a more inclusive and hence more “free” Iraq. I think he is right on this issue.

We want to increase Sunni participation in the political process. Withdrawal of American troops would definitely help in this. I still don’t understand exactly what your problem is with any of this.

Do you favor a complete withdrawal, where we retain no military forces in Iraq or the region at all? Is that your position?

35

soru 11.18.05 at 10:05 am

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

36

roger 11.18.05 at 11:58 am

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

I doubt it. Bin Laden is not the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So far, he’s simply been keenon western money to support his terrorism, and he got plenty of that in the eighties from the Reaganoids. But as for missions to convert people to Islam — he seems rather keener on blowing them up.

37

a different chris 11.18.05 at 12:05 pm

>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.)

38

dipnut 11.18.05 at 1:07 pm

Do you favor a complete withdrawal, where we retain no military forces in Iraq or the region at all? Is that your position?

Um, no. I’m more of a “stay the course” kind of guy.

39

Matt Weiner 11.18.05 at 9:04 pm

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?)

40

Andrew 11.19.05 at 4:24 am

Well that vote when down 9million to one or whatever. Screw those republicans!

41

soru 11.19.05 at 9:31 am

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

42

Cambridgemac 11.19.05 at 5:15 pm

smear campaign against Murtha…[…]I do not believe it will materialize – dipnut

Well, the smear campaign has been underway and well publicized for 36 hours. Where is dipnut’s retraction or correction?

43

Jon H 11.19.05 at 10:15 pm

“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.

44

Jon H 11.19.05 at 10:19 pm

“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…”

The “ethics” thing is old news, dredged up by the GOP now solely for the purpose of flinging mud. Slime and defend, it’s all the GOP knows how to do. They certainly don’t know how to succeed in Iraq.

And really, even as an ethics charge it’s questionable. He’s a Democrat, in a GOP-controlled body. What are the chances of a Democrat being able to help out a buddy to the tune of $20 million when the GOP controls the purse strings?

And really, does the GOP want to look at that kind of corruption, when they just gave Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski (R) $400-some million to increase the value of his wife’s property on an island?

Right there, you have Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski lobbying for hundred of millions of dollars to enrich her mom.

45

Jon H 11.19.05 at 10:24 pm

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.

46

Jon H 11.19.05 at 10:27 pm

roger writes: “But as for missions to convert people to Islam—he seems rather keener on blowing them up.”

So why do we have some America-born “jihadis” locked up, one without trial, one white, one hispanic?

47

Jon H 11.19.05 at 10:28 pm

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.

48

Grant H 11.19.05 at 10:29 pm

It is sick that my fellow Republicans have let these crazy othe Republicans attack Murtha. Unlike Bush et. al. he served with valor. How dare he be attacked. If this country is supposed to allow freedom of thought then why does the White House being so fascist? Are they afraid that it is becoming more and more clear they have run this war so poorly?

49

Nabakov 11.19.05 at 10:54 pm

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.

50

Jon H 11.19.05 at 11:59 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the GOP saves their major venom for the veterans?

Even the veterans in the GOP.

51

roger 11.20.05 at 12:07 am

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.

52

abb1 11.20.05 at 6:17 am

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

This is an illogical proposition. The only reason Zarqawi and Al Qaeda oppose and attack the US is presence of Marines (over-the-horizon or immediate), quick reaction forces and so on. You can’t end a conflict by prolonging it. 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.

53

soru 11.20.05 at 8:30 am

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

54

abb1 11.20.05 at 9:01 am

‘Kurds’, ‘Shi’a’ and ‘Jews’ are perfectly able to care of themselves. They are not your children.

55

soru 11.20.05 at 2:33 pm

They are not your children.

Quite.

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

soru

56

abb1 11.20.05 at 3:29 pm

To the mind-boggling conclusion that Mr. Murtha isn’t the world’s policeman?

57

dipnut 11.21.05 at 2:25 pm

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.

58

dipnut 11.21.05 at 2:31 pm

Gah! No sooner do I concede my little argument, than I find this:

“I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. But he’s a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion,” Cheney said.

President Bush similarly praised Murtha on Sunday while on his trip to Asia.

This is the obvious line to take, which I expected the Administration would take. Nevertheless, I lose the point, because it’s not the FIRST line they took, the stupid bastards.

Sigh.

Comments on this entry are closed.