’)“Stupid on purpose” is an affliction unique to the American right, in which they pretend to be bewildered or confused about the most basic things in order to score some sort of political point or to smear an idealogical opponent. One of the chief practiticioners is Glenn Reynolds (tangent: I once thought the legal world was intellectually over my head, but John Hinderaker and Glenn Reynolds have me seriously reconsidering that) and he doesn’t disappoint here. See, Glenny is confused as to why Rep. Murtha’s statement today is of note because he has previously made statements that have pointed out the horrible way in which this war has been prosecuted (facts beyond reproach, I’ll note). But what Murtha said today was important because he said we need to leave Iraq and introduced a resolution noting the same.
Does Glenn Reynolds not know this? Is it possible that he just missed this? Absolutely not. Reynolds knows, but he’s playing a game. He has his script, and he must follow it to get the job going. He’s stupid on purpose, and proudly so.
>> Pentagon starts trying to swift boat Cong. Murtha
>> Crazy Jean Schmidt
>> Ken Mehlman digs deep into his black tar pit of a soul and finds… Joe McCarthy
News Flash: Murtha Turns Anti-War (Back in 2004)
By Mark Noonan at 02:19 AM
There must be some really grand plan the Democrats have cooked up – it seems to revolve around accusing Republicans of being criminals while at the same time making it appear that support for the liberation of Iraq has collapsed and now its time to come home. Part of this plan was Congressman Murtha’s “shocking” statement yesterday that he wants us out of Iraq right away. The media has been breathless in its reporting…you’d think that it was Rumsfeld or Rice who was calling for an immediate withdrawal rather than an obscure Pennsylvania Congressman…of course, Murtha’s obscurity did help a bit. It made it highly unlikely that anyone would note this bit until at least a full news cycle had passed:
Murtha: Iraq Unwinnable
By Erin P. Billings and Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
May 6, 2004
Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is unwinnable. (emphasis added)
By my calculations, Murtha took the anti-war line at least 18 months ago. How is his statement news? I’ll tell ya how – because the MSM is working hand and glove with the Democrats to stymie President Bush and the GOP. There can’t be any other explanation for news flashes about a man re-stating a position he’s had for a year and a half. This is the most egregious example of the partisan bias I’ve ever seen in the MSM…they can’t possibly have expected people to not find out about this, and they must have known themselves…so it is just utter contempt for the American people and the truth which made the Murtha story a major news event. The MSM doesn’t care about truth anymore…they just want the Democrats to win and will assist their political drumbeat any way they can.
It is a very strange world we live in – a world in which the truth is turned upside down and America is betrayed just so Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can have a shot at leadership positions in the House and Senate. What this proves is that we of the GOP must remain united and must be determined to win…we cannot afford to allow any Democrat anywhere near the levers of power. They and their MSM allies are just too far gone.
His full statement was that the war was unwinnable given the way the Bush administration was then conducting it. That’s not “anti-war.” That’s being realistic. Next time, why don’t you actually look at what Murtha said before embarking on your flights of hateful fancy. Stupid on purpose, indeed.
And you’re lying about his position from 2004. Period.
But now he wants out. Period.
Even some Democrats don’t agree:
But the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, was silent on Mr. Murtha’s speech. Mr. Hoyer was among the staunchest supporters of the war when it began, and even though he released a statement on other business before the House, his spokeswoman said he had no comment on Mr. Murtha’s call for withdrawal.
Few high-profile Democrats agreed with Mr. Murtha’s plan for withdraw within six months, but many of them said it should start soon.
This new Republican talking point on Murtha is simply to lie about him. Here’s a statement from Murtha’s May 6 talk that isn’t blatantly misleading.
“We either have to mobilize or we have to get out,” Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.”
Anti-war, my ass. Like Bush, you’re either a liar or you’re imcompetent, Frank.
I think Murtha’s been quite consistent, Zambo. He was for the war. Then he saw how the administration was running it, and warned “either step it up, or call it off, because we will lose.” The administration did not step it up, so he’s been forced into the position of ending the war, since the administration won’t play to win. At no time was he “anti-war.” It’s quite simple, Zambo.
Speaking of “Stupid on Purpose”…
2 Days ago, Oliver intimates that the lackluster performance in the stock market should be laid at Bush’s feet. 48 hours later, the NASDAQ and S&P hit 4 1/2 year Highs.
Any bets as to whether Oliver will give Bush credit for this new development?
You really wanna compare the NASDAQ under Bush to it under Clinton?
Glenn Reynolds is definitely aware of what he’s doing. He’s careful never to actually quote Murtha; just like Frank, he quotes a commentator talking *about* Murtha, and at best, selective quote. Witness Drudge quoting Murtha as saying in 2004 “‘We cannot prevail in this war’. The full quote is “We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today.” And “We either have to mobilize or we have to get out.” But that would undercut the “Murtha was always anti-war” LIE that they have been commanded to spread.
The people are with Murtha:
52% of Americans want troops out of Iraq within the next 12 months (more than the 48% of Americans who wanted us out of Vietnam in 1970);
54% of Americans think the war was a mistake;
60% think the war is not worth it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-15-iraq-poll.htm
The likes of Instapundit can go ahead and call 60% of the country “the fringe,” but no one is listening. Scott McClellan can call 60% of the country the Michael Moore extreme left wing, but no one cares. The Administration and its apologists can continue to stomp their feet and stick their fingers in their collective ears, but no one gives a shit. Americans want our people the fuck out of there, and they can’t keep ignoring us.
By the way, anyone else see where 82% of Iraqis oppose foreign troops, 65% feel less secure, and 45% support attacks on our troops. Simply put, we don’t want to be there, they don’t want us there; just who the fuck are we there for anyway?
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051023-103741-3787r
None of those quotes from Murtha’s past help Reynolds. Murtha had severe doubts about the war, but thought we needed more troops. He thought we might have turned a corner after Fallujah, but was disapponted when we had not. Murtha basically said in late 2003 and early 2004: “Win the war, or get out.” A year and a half later he has concluded that we are not winning the war. Therefore we should get out.
So thanks to Glenn, and zambo, for giving us a complete picture of Murtha. His remarks are even more sensible given his prior warnings and misgivings. True, his objection to Bush’s handling of the war didn’t come out of nowhere. But to miss the signficance of yesterday’s statement is to engage in deliberate obtuseness, or stubborn blame-the-MSM foolishness.
Wrong, Zambo. Here’s the difference: before yesterday, Murtha’s overriding suggestion was to SEND MORE TROOPS. Since Bush won’t do that, his new position is to BRING THE TROOPS HOME. See the difference?
Cherry picking? What TomY and Elrod said plus, here’s Reynolds tag line:
“WHY IS MURTHA’S STATEMENT ON THE WAR NEWS when he said basically the same thing a year and a half ago?”
Um, Murtha wasn’t saying the same thing a year and a half ago, as per Tom and El. But there is nothing else to pick from in the Reynolds post. That’s all there is, except for the first paragraph to a longer sotry no longer available at the site Reynolds links to. Quote the section that OW left out that makes any difference what so ever.
Oh and Frank, too classic. You quote the exact paragraph that Reynbolds quotes and make the exact same point — with the addition of liberal media conspiracy theories — and present it all without reference to Reynolds as if you thunk it all up yourself. Brilliant.
You’re accusing Oliver of cherry picking? Reynolds won’t even quote Murtha. The one word of Murtha’s that he quotes is “unwinnable,” and he deploys it in a totally misleading way. That’s the definition of dishonest cherrypicking, Zambo, and that’s how the Republicans and their parrots operate these days. Wake up.
Haw.
The starboarders really crack me up. They can’t charge Murtha with “flip-flopping” on the war. (Gosh seems like only yesterday they were reminding us how many Dems who oppose the Bush war plan voted for the war resolution. Hey!! It was yesterday!!) So they whine “he’s been against the war all along.”
Face it, boys. A 37-year U.S. Marine vet, a genuine soldier, says W and his gang are putting our troops in an impossible situation. Now go ahead and let us know what Jonah Goldberg has to say about it.
Wait. Let me catch up to that.
If a non-military type says the war is a bad idea (somebody like me, f’rinstance) why we’re hippie peaceniks who hate the military. If a military guy like Murtha says the war is a bad idea, then his military experience is of no consequence.
Hm.
I guess you’re right. We should rely on guys like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.
Zambo, you are proving OW’s point by being deliberately stupid. Quote the rest of the speech:
“My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy 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.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That s why I am speaking out.”
That plan was first revealed yesterday, not a year ago, not two and half years ago.
“Face it, boys. A 37-year U.S. Marine vet, a genuine soldier, says W and his gang are putting our troops in an impossible situation. ”
But if an 18 year old high school drop out peacenik said the war was a good idea, his opinion would be be no less inherentlky worthy than Murthas. It is only the left that thinks an otherwise unwise (IMO) war position is made magically wise because somebody with military experience on his resume, takes the same position. I don’t care if Murtha was out there tossing grenades with Charlie Beckwith or turkey calling with Alvin York, his position is foolhardy. It would be equally as foolhardy if Dennis Kucinich had it or Ollie North. Bad logic does not become good logic due to the pedigree of the talker. Custer and MacArthur both had brilliant military resumes.
Dugger
SF: Here’s the link to the frontpage post on Atrios’ site (link)
Hey SaveFerris: Now you’re famous for being “stupid on purpose.”
Kudos!
It’s cherrypicking because they are selectively quoting him in order to mislead their readers about what he actually said. What else would cherrypicking mean? And Murtha’s draft vote is completely consistent with his view at the time that we needed more soldiers in Iraq.
Oliver! You are in Le Monde today!
“C’EST LA GUERRE”
Ce débat dépasse les clivages politiques. A gauche, le blogueur Oliver Willis partage le même avis. Il ne soutient pas “le type de torture qui est prôné par la Maison Blanche”, nous dit-il. “Mais je crois que nous devrions pouvoir utiliser la force pour extraire des informations”, ajoute-t-il.
…
The debate straddles the political divide. On the Left, blogger Oliver Willis shares the opinion. He does not support “the type of torture applauded by the White House”, he tells us. “But I believe that we must use force to extract information,” he adds …
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-711632@51-642470,0.html
Um, does this mean you support toothpulling but not waterboarding? Is there a supermarket shelf labelled Torture somewhere, where you can choose among the “lite” products?
I’ll post it again, Zambo, since you can’t read.
We either have to mobilize or we have to get out, Murtha said, adding that he supported INCREASING (emphasis mine) U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.
You’re truly a fucking idiot, Zambo.
What’s more, Dugger:
It’s the White House Press Secretary who seems to think that all you have to do is trot out and try to link a conservative Democratic congressman with Michael Moore and magically his position becomes unwise.
Zambo, try to observe the difference:
A.) “We should either do the job right or get out”
B.) “We should get out”
There is a difference between A and B, therefore If someones point of view goes from A to B, it has in fact changed.
You seem to be pushing the idea that any questioning of the war is the same therefore his opinion remains the same. If thats what you meant then youre stupid.
I think it’s important that this comment from The Corner’s Rod Dreher makes the rounds once again, before it’s lost forever in the memory hole:
Hearts and minds, folks. Hearts and minds.
Outer_Space:
That is tortured logic if I have ever seen it… A and B are the same position… lets use a simple example that you can confirm with friends and family to illustrate my point. Which of these two scenarios makes more sense:
Scenario A:
Child has messy room…
Father: Clean up your room or you cannot go out to play
Child: Ignores…
Father: Clean up your room or you cannot go out to play
Chile: Ignores….
(Repeat above several more times… )
Wife: Well honey, I am glad that you are a consistent parent, as its unfair as a parent to change your position on whether Jr. should be allowed to go out and play…
Scenario B:
Child has messy room…
Father: Clean up your room or you cannot go out to play
Child: Ignores…
Father: Go to your room…
Wife: Honey, I cannot believe that you are so unfair to Jr. as to change your opinion on whether he should or shouldn’t be allowed to go out and play…
According to your butchered logic, scenario A is “consistent” and scenario “B” is a change of position.. Now find me 10 parents that agree with your position that the Father in these examples has “changed his opinion” in Scenario B…
Of course if you want to be intellectually dishonest and you want to present this single position as change of opinion then present them as thus:
Scenario A:
Child has messy room…
Father: I think you should go out to play, but you cannot until you clean up your room…
Child: Ignores…
Father: …Go to your Room
Child: But you said I should go out and play… not fair you changed your opinion…
Of course you never know.. that kid just might clean up his room some day (yeah right…) , and then of course the Father will have been unfair by changing his opinion so arbitrarily…
zambo,
You do know the Oreo story turned out to be another Republican lie, right?
How many posts can you possibly use “Kool Aid” in? Can you think of something more original?
“Hey, let me pour you another glass of Kool Aid…”
Hahahaha…
“i m pushing the idea (the same one that Reynolds is pushing ) that Murtha s stance against the War isnt anything new”
But I’ve posted how Murtha was for the war, just not as the Bush administration has prosecuted it. He’s explicitly called for more troops in the same speeches which you’ve cited to show he’s “anti war.” We’ve shown that his position evolved. All you’ve done is deny it, with no evidence and no logic to support your claim. I can only conclude that you are a) dishonest, or b) stupid. Until you actually come back with logic or evidence, the claim that Murtha’s position has been consistently pro-war up until yesterday stands.
well i dont want to get to Articulate …
Oh, don’t worry. I don’t think that’ll happen any time soon.
So Zambo’s assessment is that Murtha was saying the war could not be won while at the same time wanting to send more troops. This is the “Stupid on purpose” assessment of Murtha’s position, because it relies on selectively snipping phrases and words out of his complete statements in order to distort his actual position on the war. The only reason that you are doing this, Zambo, is because you are a dishonest whore who can’t truthfully express Murtha’s position without altering it to suit your need to attack Democrats.
In fact, Murtha was saying that BECAUSE the war could not be won militarily GIVEN BUSH’S STRATEGY, we had to send MORE troops. This was clearly not an anti-war, bring the troops home position, no matter how many times you assert it to be so. So your assessment of Murtha’s position is, as Oliver stated above, “STUPID ON PURPOSE.” Stop lying, please.
I thought we learned during the 2004 election that being in the Reserves is exactly the same as being in combat.
Nah. Even a Republican wouldn’t try to argue that.
“Do it right or don’t do it” is still not an anti-war position, regardless of whether you like that position or not. The man was calling for more troops, for Christ’s sake. Characterizing his stance as “anti-war” is a lie, plain and simple.
At very turn, Republicans use the war and 9/11 not as a way to promote good policies that makes us safer, but to consolidate their own power. This vote is no different. I hope every Democrat abstains from participating in this idiotic stunt.
Republicans have set a vote on a pullout from Iraq tonight at 7 p.m.
Now Democrats will have to go on the record opposing or supporting a cut and run strategy..
http://www.blogsforbush.com/
Quaker,
I must not have written my piece very well. I don’t buy the supposed fact that anybody’s military credentials makes them, per se, more credible on the grand questions of war: should we, shouldn’t we, etc. So when you say:
“If a non-military type says the war is a bad idea (somebody like me, f rinstance) why we re hippie peaceniks who hate the military.”
It doesn’t relate to my message. You might be a hippie peacenik and be right or be wrong on the war. But in any case, you would be neither right nor wrong based on your identity, political persuasion, etc.
And I’m not the White House. And I think Murtha’s position is extremely unwise, but I had better be able to argue that position on its own merits, because my own, old career doesn’t mean jack cr*p as regards this question. Same with Murtha.
The reality is we are in the middle of the post major combat phase of Iraq and while we can argue all day about whether we should be where we are, we are, in fact, there and that reality must be dealt with today.
Dugger
I didn’t quote or excerpt from Glenn Reynolds. I quoted directly from “Blogs for Bush”.
The story is bylined “Mark Noonan” indicating that it was written by him, not by me.
His quote is from Roll Call. the link for which was not picked up, when I “cut and pasted”
http://tinyurl.com/ctvc5
So, when I did I pretend the idea was all mine?
Finally, I’m not really interested in what a Congressman from Pennsylvania* has to say about how to run the war. If he can make a statement in March of 2004 which sums essentially as, “Change the strategy to my liking, or I’m against the whole thing,” and then 18 months later say, “You haven’t done it my way, so it’s time to pull out, irrespective of any geopolitical considerations,” then, in my book, he’s been anti – war since ‘04.
Hey, “Anti -war since ‘04!” There’s a campaign slogan for you.
Anybody have MoveOn’s telephone number?
I saw a few minutes of his speech (two excerpts, repeated several times), and I saw no tears, choked back or otherwise.
* He spent 16 years in the Marine Corps Reserves, while he was a Congressman, by the way
“More of the same” is what the resolution boils down to. Since that policy’s obviously not polling well among the majority of Americans, I think this resolution’s going to look a lot less daring next week. I think this has more to do with the Republican House caucus fracturing over yesterday’s spending bill than with Iraq or Murtha, per se.
Oliver stop bringing up that chart — it is biased and distorted. Look at the scale.
I welcome your disavowal of the tactics of the Right.
See the thread (still current, I think) in which OW, Jay C, and others discuss Glenn Reynolds’ assault on all who oppose the war as “objectively pro-Saddam,” members of the anti-war movement with the same people and the same slogans.
In some quarters, there can be no legitimate spokesperson against the war. Traditional anti-war types (like me) are derided as a bunch of old hippies. (It’s true!) Mothers of soldiers killed in action are called crazy or selfish. U.S. Navy swift boat pilots are called liars and cheaters.
So now the Democrats finally have a spokesman who lives up to the ideals of military service.
Tell me. Is his counsel being received any more respectfully?
And 7 pm on a Friday?
If this was football, I’d be looking for the fake punt.
I have never hidden the fact that when someone says what I believe, and they say it better than I, then I will quote them.
Some say I should think on my own, but I believe in something a little different: If these are my thoughts, and they are stated more eloquently by someone else, then why not quote them?
With that in mind, I present you with this, from The Anchoress { you should read the whole thing }
Final paragraphs:
The point Dugger is desperately trying to obscure is the fact that Murtha is not just a decorated Marine vet but he has–over his political career–been very hawkish. In fact, his record shows that on issues concerning the military and national security he has been more hawkish than most of his Repug counterparts.
One might expect that the White House would point out the “deadly ramifications” of his proposals. However, they choose to try to associate the congressman with Michael Moore.
I guess big media hasn’t covered that either.
Dugger’s various and inane bloatations:
>>It is only the left that thinks an otherwise unwise (IMO) war position is made magically wise because somebody with military experience on his resume, takes the same position.
>>I don t buy the supposed fact that anybody s military credentials makes them, per se, more credible on the grand questions of war: should we, shouldn t we, etc.
I guess that the next time that John McCain speaks up about the treatment of prisoners, we should remember that his views on the issue are no more worthy of consideration than an 18 year old fresh out of the drunk tank.
I wonder where Dugger was when General Colin Powell was making his pre-war statement to the U.N?
Any chance we can rewind the tape, O.W.?
JK
And yes, I do seem to be taking on the world today, instead of addressing individual comments and positions. Not just here, but in other threads as well.
I don’t know what that’s about.
>>Pretending that a bad situation can be fixed by running away from it is what adolescents do. Making the best of a bad situation is clear-thinking and adult behavior. America has a choice, right now, and it is a choice only America can make. It can stand firm and deliver this child of freedom struggling to be born, or it can abandon Iraq for a stillbirth. And whichever choice America makes for Iraq, it will share in its aftermath.
It can choose life or death. It is that fundamental
Given the above quote from one of Frank’s guru’s….I wonder if Oliver might take words “on purpose” out of the title of this thread, and just leave the stupid part.
I don’t know where to start.
Conservatives always like to reduce things to very simple, easily digestible bites, because that is traditionally what their base responds to very well. However, this may be a new low in the manipulation of Red State America. We all know that it don’t take much.
Why yes….childbirth! That’s it. That’s something Joe-Six pack can underststand. It’ll go over like gangbusters in Jesusland! They like childbirth! Democrats are against childbirth! They HATE it when children are born!
And “stillbirth.” Oh, that’s just genius. The anti-abortion wingnuts will go ape doo-doo over that one.
Let’s bring the whole family into this. Let’s bring in the adolescent boy across the street who thinks we should save face and leave Iraq.
That adololescent liberal Democrat…..oh, he’s been very, very naughty (says in best Chris Farley voice). Naughty Democrat.
And, the cherry on top of the cake. The patronizing and paternalistic “Making the best of a bad situation is clear-thinking and adult behavior.”
Here’s some more adult thinking. My mom used to tell me this: “Clean up your mess.”
Frank bought into it hook, line and sinker…so it’s not hard to imagine that that kind of thinking is going over like gangbusters with the remaining 38% of America who still think that George W. Bush is doing a bang-up job.
JK
I disavow the wrong tactics of the right as I hope you do the wrong tactics of the left.
“In some quarters, there can be no legitimate spokesperson against the war. Traditional anti-war types (like me) are derided as a bunch of old hippies. (It s true!) Mothers of soldiers killed in action are called crazy or selfish. U.S. Navy swift boat pilots are called liars and cheaters”
Theres some hyperbole there (yes, we routinely call war widows selfish and crazy – bTW regardless of what happened I think Cindy Sheehan is crazy and selfish), some truth. But the key is in “some quarters”. Well yes. In ’some quarters’ Bush dynamited the dikes. That goes both ways. How easily does racism get charged?
And you don’t seem to get it. Murtha is all over big media – tons of publicity – none I’ve heard condemnatory. None I’ve heard rationally discussing the deadly (IMO) ramifications of his ideas.
Dugger
Looks like some folks are finally playing hardball -
“Ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee…”
“According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well.”
“KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.”
“In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time. ”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11329-1.html
In fairness to Farris, it should be pointed out that Jay C. voiced a similar opinion by asserting that since some stockholders made money, the fact the Dow has been flat for 5 years is irrelevant.
“I don t know what that s about. ”
I do. We all do it at times.
Dugger
Save Farris! You’re famous now — albeit for your moronic observations on the stock market. But go ahead and bask in all your notoriety. Before long, most people will forget how lame that post was and you can move on to your next one.
JK: You are so far from the meaning of the paragraphs, you might as well be describing the Cinicinatti Yellow Pages.
The paragraphs are the ending paragraphs of a longish and eloquent post about why it would be foolish and dangerous to pull out of Iraq — for the sake of the Iraqis.
All your parody has accomplished nothing. Pretending that someone has said something they never said, or intended to say, and then mocking it, is also something adolescents do.
I’m not sure if the link is working, so here it is again
http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/18/pull-out-the-deaths-will-be-on-your-head/
Frank,
If you’re trying to downplay the quote you posted, then why did you post it in the first place. It must have made an impression on you? Right?
Anyway…it’s Friday night. I’m going to put politics aside and wish you a nice weekend.
JK
JK,
And I would try to pretend that the impression that the post made on me had something to do with childbirth and stillbirth, but I’m not on drugs…
Have a good weekend.
By Monday, we’ll both have discovered that “Sgt. Fury” Murtha is just another hack politician, and the war in Iraq is not ending at the whim of the Democrats.
From Murtha’s Web Site:
I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won militarily. I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a free Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy 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.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That s why I am speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
Market mover
Atrios writes:OW has a post about the deliberate pose of stupidity many on the Right take. To prove his point, one of his
Is his counsel being received any more respectfully?
Ka-ching. If Jesus Christ came back and served 30 years in the Marines, he’d still be condemned for speaking out. The dwindling wingnut fringe is heading at high speed towards ‘denunciation’ territory. The more isolated it becomes, the more Stalinist its tactics.
There are active duty Marines writing home every day about how important it is that they stay the course; they re – enlist more than once, and no liberals are relying on them for support of the idea that we should stay in Iraq.
Why should I, as a conservative who believes, and has believed that the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of Hussein, and the attempt to bring democracy to that country were good ideas, suddenly change my mind because a Congressman from Pennsylvania has changed his?
The fact that he’s a veteran means something to liberals, only because in their one – dimensional view of the world, veterans are “supposed” to be ‘pro -war’, and a veteran’s point of view only becomes significant to them when it fits their agenda.
General Decries Call For Timetable in Iraq
Senate Call a ‘Disaster,’ Commander Says
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A26
BAGHDAD, Nov. 16 — A top American commander in Iraq on Wednesday denounced calls by some U.S. senators and others to set a deadline for a troop withdrawal, calling it “a recipe for disaster” for the 2 1/2 -year-old war.
“Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I’ve lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain,” said Army Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq’s capital. Making up the bulk of Task Force Baghdad, the 3rd Infantry patrols some of the most dangerous turf in Iraq, encountering massive bombs and suicide assaults in attacks that Webster said average 35 a day in the city.
It seems that, to liberals, the only time one should change his / her mind is when they change their mind from whatever they were thinking to the liberal agenda. Then intransigence is laudable, as in, for example, “He’s been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning” — good. “He still thinks the war in Iraq is a good idea” — bad.
There will continue to be those who insist they were right in advocating the diversion into Iraq. The intransigent are always with us. Unfortunately, many of these are fixed idealogues who have a greater than average aversion to admitting they were wrong. This is not sufficent reason for sacrificing more lives.
Hey Frank,
“The fact that he s a veteran means something to liberals, only because in their one – dimensional view of the world, veterans are supposed to be pro -war , and a veteran s point of view only becomes significant to them when it fits their agenda.’
Well put.
Dugger
Dugger, it’s not just Cindy Sheehan, and it occurs frequently enough that I think it’s fair to call it “routine.”
Here’s a nice example: (scroll all the way to the bottom)
Translation: If you gave up your kid for this war and start to think maybe Bush was wrong, you might be cra…er, “destabilized.”
Frank, Dugger:
Bah.
We’re reminded repeatedly that lefty opposition to the war is merely cover for our “anti-military” agenda. It’s all because we hate the military.
That’s why Rep. Murtha’s remarks are especially significant to us. Rep. Murtha has been a reliable voice in Congress as an advocate for the military. When he says its not in our soldiers’ best interests to remain in Iraq, it’s definitely not because he “hates the military.”
Quaker,
I’m not sure why Gohmert’s remarks are so bad (haven’t read context – except as you presented them). I think its probably exactly correct. One or two parents become a little unhinged and go off the deep end. Probably has always been that way. Is it possible you are extrapolating that into a blanket condemnation of the anti-war movement or of anti-war veterans/parents? I believe that describes Ms Sheehan fairly well (and thats more generous than the cynical alternative – which is that she would be exploiting her sons death for her own partisan political/ideological purposes). Its quite possible for any one to believe Bush is wrong, the war is wrong and not go off the deep end. Some, however, do go off the deep end.
As for point two. Still think you are wrong. I attribute no extra logic, faith or credibility to Murtha because of his record. I have known plenty of left and right wing soldiers. And I’m not sympathetic to someone saying: “See! Murtha says it so we must be right!” And if your point is “See! Murtha says it so we aren’t long haired, dope smoking leftist hippies who hate soldiers.” I still don’t agree. You are or aren’t dope smoking, etc regardless of what Murtha says thinks or does. Your and my arguments are right or wrong because of the arguments themselves – not the pedigree of other peole agreeing with us. We could cite a thousand veterans disagreeing with Murtha. Proves nothing. Likewise Murtha disagreeing with us proves zilch. It has however confirmed that his postion is distinctly out of the mainstream.
Dugger, I’m a Veteran so I must be Right. Right?
You’re hitting all around the issue.
Anti-war types say: “The war was a mistake. It’s time to bring our people home.”
Response: “You don’t really care anything about the troops. You’re just saying that because you hate Bush and hate the military.”
Allright. So along comes Rep. Murtha. He isn’t a Michael Moore-type Bush-hater. He definitely does not hate the military. Whether Murtha is right or wrong, the response above no longer applies. However, instead of engaging the issue, GOP spokesmen last week decided to question Murtha’s integrity.
This week, they’re backing off.
No, actually, the new news is that the Democrats had to twist Murtha’s arm to get him to vote for the initial war resolution. He has always been opposed to the invasion. This was no change of position at all.
Secondly, the 403 – 3 vote against withdrawal made a stunning anti – Murtha statement. Even Murtha voted in the 403.
Please don’t insult our intelligence.
The resolution advanced by the GOP was NOT the Murtha resolution.
From the AP:
lmirpnuzv zegdxyf jbvexwmp hfptyo cafmhzn fbhike zhwumyjc