Michael Rubin, at the right-wing “think tank” American Enterprise Institute accuses Rep. John Murtha of killing American soldiers. I’m serious.
Even just talking about withdrawal emboldens the enemy, argues Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. “Murtha’s comments have gotten Americans killed,” he says, “They’ve convinced the terrorists they are on the right track.”
What is wrong with these people? They can make excuse after excuse for how Bush led us into war and royally screwed up the post-invasion – decisions that have directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis – but when a Democrat rocks the boat, he’s accused of murder. Deranged.
Rubin’s email is mrubin@aei.org.
MORE: David Horowitz calls Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Ted Kennedy traitors and apparently calls for their hanging.
Man oh man. After 10 years of listening to Democrats and liberals blame conservatives words for violence against others I find your outrage to a big huge joke.
You and so many others like you are always and I mean always trying to tie conservative talk show hosts, commentators, etc. to violence. Oklahoma City bombing? Conservative talk radio’s fault. Abortion clinic bombing? Pro-life movement’s fault. Gay person victim of a hate crime? Pat Robertson’s (or Jerry Falwell’s) fault. A judge is the victim of violence? The fault of conservatives and their anti-judiciary rhetoric.
The list can go on and on and on. The left is the WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION of blaming other people words for acts of violence. Now somebody on the right accuses a Democrat of the same, and you say they’re ‘deranged.’
Now go ahead and tell me how it’s ‘different.’
Nice Straw Man. Got proof?
Anyway, don’t change the subject. Oliver’s point is clear, I think. The reason U.S. soldiers are getting killed is because they were sent into an illegal, unnecessary war for which the executive branch totally failed to prepare them. Like Rummy said, they went into their elective war ‘with the Army they had.’ For someone in the right-wing echo chamber to try and pin the soldiers’ deaths on Rep. Murtha does seem a bit off-kilter.
Unlike OW, though, I don’t think the guy is deranged. He’s just selling a little bullshit for the cause. That’s what the AEI is there for.
“Now go ahead and tell me how it s different. ”
It’s totally different. If I say X is evil and we ought to do something about him and then someone out of the blue kills, maims or otherwise harms X, well, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if there’s some connection — however unintended — or to suggest that I incited that action deliberately.
What Murtha did is entirely different. Murtha said that US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq and sometime after that America soldiers were killed by insurgents. Well, American soldiers were being killed byinsurgents long before Murtha ever opened his mouth. So what’s the possible connection? On what grounds could Murtha be accussed of inciting the insurgents to do what they had already been doing on a daily basis?
Did what he say emboldened the terrorists? How? Did Murtha say “Bring it on”? Now that’s a direct challenge to the insurgents to kill Americans. BUt after Bush said it the right wing defended Bush as a ball-swinging cowboy monkey. Nice.
I now also note that Bush himself has endorsed a plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. Can we now accuse Bush of getting Americans killed with your support Jay C?
David Horowitz is the largest waste of oxygen in this country. Why don’t we lock him and Ann Coulter up in a dark, solitary cell indefinitely and let them annoy each other.
You mean the same David Horowitz who admitted to being guilty of violating the Espionage Act?
If I say X is evil and we ought to do something about him and then someone out of the blue kills, maims or otherwise harms X, well, it isn t unreasonable to wonder if there s some connection however unintended or to suggest that I incited that action deliberately.
The problem with your ‘difference’ is that you relegate it to an action taking place “out of the blue.” None of the examples I listed are anything new.
Well, American soldiers were being killed byinsurgents long before Murtha ever opened his mouth. So what s the possible connection? On what grounds could Murtha be accussed of inciting the insurgents to do what they had already been doing on a daily basis?
The connection is very simple so stop being deliberately obtuse. If the enemy hears US congressman calling for the immediate withdrawal of our troops because we’re losing, then what better way to accelerate that withdrawal and get more to get on board then by stepping up attacks?
Did what he say emboldened the terrorists? How?
He said we couldn’t win! How much more fucking plain does it have to be?
I now also note that Bush himself has endorsed a plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.
This is nothing new. The Bush administration has said all along that once the Iraqi army is ready to take over, then we could start to withdraw our troops. Iraq is saying they will be ready. Bush is not saying, “We need to get out because we’re losing!!” So there’s a big freaking difference.
It’s a sign of desperation. The neo-con ship is sinking, and the President, like all rats, is the first to depart. Tomorrow, apparently, he will announce a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq. Mission Accomplished! or some such thing.
The debate is over. Neo-cons lost. They took two thousand of our troops and a couple ten thousand Iraqis with them, but it’s over. Hopefully, we can now start trying to really defend ourselves against terrorists.
Right.
He’s saying, “We need to stay because we’re losing.”
Huge freaking difference.
Y’know Caruso, you’re right; instead of blaming conservative violence on conservative talk show hosts, we should blame conservative violence on the conservative perpetrators. Because’ y’know, conservatives don’t need talk show hosts to commit violence.
Did I mention that the perpetrators in all of your examples are conservative, pally?
Violent conservatives. Who’da thunk it?
This one wouldn’t be nearly as much fun to read if JayC wasn’t so clueless. Thanks JayC for digging deeper. Bring it on.
He s saying, We need to stay because we re losing.
No, that’s not what he’s saying at all, but nice try.
Did I mention that the perpetrators in all of your examples are conservative, pally?
Did I mention you’re a moron? I can only come to that conclusion because only a moron would put an ideological label on a person who would murder innocent people.
This one wouldn t be nearly as much fun to read if JayC wasn t so clueless. Thanks JayC for digging deeper. Bring it on.
Typical of Buma’s usual responses. You sit there like one of those little wind up monkeys with the little cymbals in his hands.
Did I mention you re a moron? I can only come to that conclusion because only a moron would put an ideological label on a person who would murder innocent people.
Your examples killed because they were conservative, Bubbles. McVeigh? Conservative. Hated gummint. Collateral damage didn’t matter. Eric Rudolph? Conservative. Didn’t much like abortion. Killed to stop it. The jagoffs that killed Matthew Shepard? Conservative. Skeered of teh ghey.
And since you conservatives go to the moral equivalence card so readily, I’m sure you’ll find someone who murdered innocent people in order to stand up for moderate to liberal principles.
Go on, Bubbles. I’d like to see it.
Did I mention you re a moron? I can only come to that conclusion because only a moron would put an ideological label on a person who would murder innocent people.
I’m keeping this paragraph handy for the next time Dugger decides to mention that “leftists” were responsible for the greatest number of murders in human history, or whatever the phrasing may be.
how come jay doesn’t reference republicans like delay who were calling for an exit from kosovo? was he just as outraged about that?
Essentially, Jay, before anyone can accuse Murtha of actually causing American deaths you have to leave the realm of right wing fantasy/theory in which talk of timetables automatically mean more American deaths and enter the land of reality. Since the insurents have been attacking US troops for two years now, can you show that the attacks of the last weekand a half are any different in kind or quantity than the week or month before Murtha said anything? Can you prove that?
“What better way to accelerate that withdrawal and get more to get on board then by stepping up attacks?”
Um, I’m sorry have the terrorists stepped up their attacks? And if theyhave, why are you automatically assigning responsibility for this to Murtha? We havebeen told by this administration that the terrorists always step up their attacks just before a major turning point, like say, the Dec 15 elections. The administration says that attacks increase when we’re winning. So why do you say the attacks are now being caused by Murtha’s announcement thatwe should withdraw? Can you even prove that the attacks have increased since Murtha spoke? Sounds to me like you have to prove that now tomake your point. Can you? Then can you show that its connected to Murtha and not the Dec. 15 elections?
INterstingly, the explanation you give for the connection between Murtha’scomments and emboldened terrorists conflicts with your initial analogy: “The problem with your difference is that you relegate it to an action taking place out of the blue. None of the examples I listed are anything new.”
After Ruby Ridge and Waco the right wing radio nuts went into overdrive against the ATF, Liddy went so far as to say that people should feel free to shoot ATF agents in the head (because they wear body armor). Soon thereafter Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City because of the ATF offices there. It’s reasonable to question whether McVeigh was emboldened by the rhetoric or if he was even thinking about taking such actions before the right wing started its smear and threat campaign against the ATF.
As for your abortion clinic question, how many people were thinking about bombing abortion clinics before nutjobs on the right started comparing abortion to slavery and holding out John Brown as an American hero?
The terrorists were already clearly attacking US troops before Murtha opened his mouth. That’s the difference. If you can’t prove that the attacks have increased (and that the increase is not related to the Dec. 15 elections, which is as reasonable anexplanation as we can get from this administration) how can you compare what Murtha said to what Libby said about ATF agents psot Ruby Ridge and McVeigh’s own statements that he was getting revenge for Ruby Ridge? There is not comparison whatsoever.
And BTW Jay. Murtha said that we need to pull out because there is no longer anyway to win militarily, there is no military solution that will solve the insurgency problem. That was true the minute the insurgency started and is still true today. It only took two fucking years for the White House and others to recognize this. The only solution was always political, a solution complicated by our military presence. Big difference.
I’ll respond to your incisive argument in kind: Is too! Is too!
And furthermore …
If the plan all along was to withdraw when Iraqi forces were ready to fight the insurgency themselves was there ever a plan to defeat the insurency? If there was never a plan to defeat the insurgency, what impact could Murtha’s comments possibly have? If Murtha says there’s no military solution to defeating the insurgency, how does that suddenly mean he’s jeopardizing our mission when the mission was never to defeat the insurgents but rather to stand up Iraqi troops?
>> know Caruso, you re right; instead of blaming conservative violence on conservative talk show hosts, we should blame conservative violence on the conservative perpetrators. Because y know, conservatives don t need talk show hosts to commit violence.
Oh my….that’s pretty good. Can I use that from time to time with your permission?
Note to Jay: For all of the screaming from the right that conservative talk show hosts don’t represent the views of good, decent, hard-working people like yourself…..or Frank….how come you guys never speak out against them, and join us when they say stupid things?
They do say some extraordinarily dumb things. So why not join us in lambasting them, and holding them accountable?
JK
You ask too many questions, frame. Just remember this: Bush good. Democrats traitors.
All else is irrelevant.
Insisting that we are losing despite evidence to the contrary … Stating that we cannot win … Accusing our solider’s without basis, of war crimes … Suggesting that President Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand … War for Oil … blah, blah, blah ..
I would suggest that the aforementioned should be in the category of crazy talk, or the lunatic fringe, as well.
These discussions always boil down to “Well you don’t condemn your crazies so why should we have to condemn ours?”
There should a few accepted ground rules about what’s out of bounds acceptable speech (not permissable btw because everyone has the right to say any lunatic thing they want, although there are even limits there: Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater). Seriously suggesting that anyone be killed or injured sounds to me like defacto crazy talk no matter who says it.
But talking about troop withdrawal doesn’t come close to falling into that category. Sugesting that Murtha got people killed does, however, verge on the lunatic fringe.
I cannot speak for the other people on here, JK, but I suspect that they do not join in your condemnation of extraordinarily dumb statements because it does not seem that the left enters into this in good faith. If people like Ted Rall were universally condemned by the left, it would be one thing. But, you call on conservatives to denounce firebrands, while at the same time, either cheering, or remaining silent, when your own does it. Each side is guilty of this, and the whole process seems to feed off of itself.
I guess the idea of rational debate just flew out the window. If you are still pushing the WP is a chemical weapon meme, then I do not see much point in bothing to try to discuss things here. Damn close to war crimes, and we should just keep on investigating – nice little addendum thrown in there so you can act like you are not accusing them of war crimes, while doing so.
WP is a chemical weapon meme
Not a meme; it’s fact. When WP is used as something other than an illumination or smoke agent–it’s a chemical weapon.
As a matter of fact, this illegitimate administration declared Saddam Hussein a war criminal for using WP as a weapon against the Kurds.
Any accusation without evidence is pointless especially when it involves accusations of serious crimes. With regards to war crimes I would argue that what happened at Abu Ghraib and Fallujah with new accusations of white phosphorous use come damn close to war crimes and warrant further investigation. Stating that we cannot defeat an insurgency militarily is based on historical precedent. You have to search far and wide to find a situation in which a major power won the fight against a domestic insurgency.
Other the hand, insisting that we are winning without ever telling anyone what winning means is a little nutty isn’t it?
frameone : Though you may profess to wish to get to the truth, the uber-left like jadegold have already tried and convicted those soldiers, as jadegold has already determined it to be a fact. This all gets back to the seriousness of the allegation demands an investigation style of politics.
Do you really believe that US servicemen and women are armed with known chemical weapons, and indiscriminately use them on civilians?
Um, don’t we investigate people for murder without accusing them of murder? Why can’t we investigate allegations of war crimes without having everyone scream that were accusing the troops of war crimes? Using a chemical agent as an offensive weapon sounds to me enought like a war crime to warrant further investigation. I wasn’t saying we should start accusing people of war crimes.
I will however accuse JD of engaging in just the kind of tactic that this whole “If you say this you are extreme” debate represents: It’s an attempt to stifle legitimate questions. Bush knew about 9-11? Nuts. We should investigate evidence that US troops used chemical agents as an offensive weapon? Perfectly legitimate.
Here’s the link to the Pentagon’s admission:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111600374.html
I might add that whatever Jade has himself determined to be true has no bearing on the validity and seriousness of the allegations. You are connecting them to argue that the allegations are unfounded but the allegations didn’t originate with Jade and neither did the original reporting. Jade is only commenting on the allegations after the fact, his comments don’t have any impact on the facts, as we know them now, of the matter.
JD –
The Pentagon has already admitted that white phosphorous was used an offensive weapon in Fallujah against insurgents. That’s enough to warrant some kind of investigation right there, or are we, as a nation, cool with using chemical agents in warfare now? Whether or not civilians were involved is something that needs to be looked into. I do not believe US troops would ever deliberately target civilians for attack but that doesn’t mean the decision to use chemical agents in a civilian area – like a major urban city — should not be investigated. And again, you are using speech that you consider extreme as an excuse to stifle discussion of a serious matter. Afterall we got ourselves into Iraq based on information given to us by a guy that the Germans codenamed Curveball and knew to be emotionally and mentally unstable. Some nutjob (and I’mnot saying Jade is a nutjob BTW) said Husein has chemical weapons so we invaded his country. The Pentagon says that it used chemical agents against insurgents and you want to ignore it?
Nothing in that article indicates that the Pentagon admitted the use of illegal weapons. It is not against any treaty. People are trying to lump this in with chemical/biological weapons, when it is in fact, not.
Okay JD for your sake we’ll play the semantics game. The Pentagon admitted to using a chemical as a weapon on insurgents. Surely this statement is justified based on this paragraph:
“Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.”
So the Pentagon used a chemical as a weapon but it didn’t use a chemical weapon. Sure that makes sense. That sounds like we’re being completely honest with ourselves. That sounds like the perfect kind of example we want to set for the world.
Venable goes on to say that white phosphorous is “not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.” But that’s not entirely true. The US is a signatory to Chemical Weapons Convention which does not ban the use of white phosphorous as “a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy.” But “like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for “Military purposes… not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare”.’
So just because it isn’t banned for illumination does not mean that it is okay for use as a weapons. The Pentagon admitted that it used it as a weapon. So once again I have to ask you, this is okay with you? This is what America now represents, splitting hairs and playing semantic games so that we can use chemicals as weapons? Who isn’t engaging in an honest debate now?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642832,00.html
They did not even admit to using a chemical as a weapon. They admitted to using WP as a weapon, and its incendiary properties are a result of a chemical reaction. That is far far far far far far far from what would be classified as a chemical weapon. If we were to utilize your rationale, hand grenades, and bullets would be chemical weapons. So no, your statement that they used a chemical as a chemical weapon is not at all applicable.
They did not go around firing WP at people. It is not like a bullet that you can aim at a target with precision. If some people got burnt by the WP, that is unfortunate, but one might consider the fact that when hanging out in a declared war zone, one might encounter things like WP, hand grenades, bullets, etc …
I am engaging in an honest debate. It is you who is attempting to distort the definition of a chemical weapon to portray the US and the US soldiers as actors outside of the law.
“They did not even admit to using a chemical as a weapon. They admitted to using WP as a weapon, and its incendiary properties are a result of a chemical reaction.”
I mean seriously. This is some of the worst hair splitting bullshit I’ve ever read. They admitted to using white phosphorous as a weapon, and white phosphorous is not a chemical? That’s fucking brilliant. Not only is it not a chemical, it didn’t do any damage in and of itself. The Army just shot it into the air and then a natural chemical reaction take over. The army can’t be responsible for that now can it? Of course not. I can see the explanation’s now:
“White phosphorous didn’t burn through your skin, sir, the heat produced by its reaction with moisture did. So you can’t really blame the white phosphorous. I mean if you blamed the white phosphorous you may as well blame the mositure, as well. And as we all know, moisture is water and water isn’t a chemical weapon is it? Of course not. You’re just emphasizing the wrong side of the chemical reaction. In reality, the US army was using water on you. The media is blowing this all out of proportion by saying the Army was using white phosphorous as a weapon. It was really using water to produce to a chemical reaction it had no control over. Why it’s all natural. See it’s so simply once you have the facts.”
Oh that’s such a load of shit. Here’s a nice neat description of white phosphorous:
“White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: “The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen… If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.” As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke “releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces… Contact… can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.”
They weren’t just using white phosphorous to start fucking fires, JD. They were firing clouds of it into buildings where they knew the insurgents were to scare the living shit out of anyone who watched the guy next to them melt:
“We have learned that some of the information we were provided … is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to… Field Artillery magazine, ‘as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes…’ The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.”
The shells produce a chemical smoke that starts to burn on contact with moisture. The chemicals in a grenade or a bullet don’t do the damage. They trigger the explosion that send metal flying through the air at high velocity. It’s the metal that kills people. In this case it’s the other way around: a shell is used to deliver a chemical, a chemical cloud that pretty much sets the fucking air on fire as it burns. It’s the chemical that does the damage, not the shell that fired it.
According to the treaty we’ve signed on to it is illegal to use the toxic properties of any chemcial “as a method of warfare.” If firing clouds of incendiary smoke into a building where insurgents are located for purposes of “psychological” warfare doesn’t sound like a violation of that little clause to you, then I don’t know what to say.
Is there anything, anything beyond justification in your mind?
Just what I expected. Complete irrational bullshit. Psychological weapon. Hooah.
frameone – have you ever served? ever seen WP used? If it is some huge toxic cloud, how do you explain how our service men and women were not injured or killed by this poisonous smog? Simple, it is not as you say.
Unable to evacuate? Trapped? They were warned for days on end that they had to be out by a time certain. If they were not, that was their choice and their determination.
By the way … I took a look at those pictures of the burned baby the left likes to trot out showing how we used WP to burn babies. Interesting that the pictures show decomposed skin, and remarkably, the WP was able to “melt” the skin while at the same time, causing no discernable damage to the clothing. Neat trick.
Your position clearly shows that you do not want to investigate this to see if there were war crimes committed. You are laying out your case for why war crimes were committed. You have already reached your verdict. Why not just admit that?
“It is not like a bullet that you can aim at a target with precision.”
No it’s just a huge fucking cloud that you have no control over fired above a a city where hundreds of civilians were trapped, unable to evacuate.
JD –
Classic response JD. Classic. Have I ever served. Nice. People were warned to evacuate. Nice. Then we get a sample of your armchair forensics. Hilarious. Let me ask you something: Are you over the age of 12?
As Dr. Squid points out none of what you have to say means shit anymore since you arre apparently standing by this statement: “They did not even admit to using a chemical as a weapon. They admitted to using WP as a weapon …”
White phosphorous is a chemical. They admitted to using it as a weapon. You start this conversation by saying that “it does not seem that the left enters into this in good faith” then you turn around and argue that white phosphorous is not a chemical. Oh no, it’s just a mystery substance that burns shit through a chemical reaction but it isn’t a chemical.
And as for this: “If it is some huge toxic cloud, how do you explain how our service men and women were not injured or killed by this poisonous smog?”
Okay brain boy, if it’s so precise why did you say that it wasn’t? (”It is not like a bullet that you can aim at a target with precision”) First, I’d say it was because they aimed it away from themselves. I bet their trained to do that.
Second, it sounds like they’re probably damn lucky that the wind didn’t change on them — always a problem with the application of chemicals in warfare. Finally, how do you know that some of them weren’t injured? The Pentagon wasn’t exactly forthicoming with the information that they were even using it as a weapon. Why would they tell us if a soldier was injured or killed by it?
So JD is claiming that white phosphorus is not a chemical?
And conservatives wonder why their science standards get laughed at.
“You are laying out your case for why war crimes were committed. You have already reached your verdict. Why not just admit that?”
Jesus, this is too fucking funny. Apparently the first thing anyone has to do is to prove to you that white phosphorous is a chemical. I’m not sure who we can do that since it’s so fucking obvious. But I started this conversation just trying to convince you that an investigation was warranted. Over the course of that discussion you went into lunacy overdrive to argue that white phosphorous is not a chemical.
And what verdict have I reached? It’s clear from the evidence that I’ve seen that the Pentagon used white phosphorous as a weapon — they said as much — and that this may be a violation of the Convention we signed on to. Right now all you have is the Pentagon saying we did use WP as a weapon (after they denied it directly) and that no it isn’t illegal. Okay. How often do let suspects in a case determine the legality of their own actions? The Pentagon has been accussed and confessed to using WP as a weapon. Can we please have an impartial investigation into the matter now? Can we please get to the bottom of the how and why it was used? We do you automatically assume that in investigation is a bad thing? Why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that just calling for an investigation is evidence of pre-judgement or malicious intent?
Who knows JD maybe the Pentagon will come to your for your brilliant forensic knowledge. Maybe they’ll make use of your dazzling white phosphorous is not a chemical, it’s only a chemical agent defense.
I left off weapon, when I intended to use chemical weapon. Typo.
The first thing somebody has to do in this is prove that the use of WP was the use of a chemical weapon, and an illegal chemical weapon.