A Traitor's Tirade: Rep. John Murtha Soils The Corps

[thedrifter]

A Traitor's Tirade: Rep. John Murtha Soils The Corps
November 17, 2005
by Bob Newman

In a statement that has angered, embarrassed and humiliated Marines around the globe, one of our own -- a retired Marine Corps Reserve colonel -- has called for the legendary fighting force to retreat from Iraq and surrender to the terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Americans at home and abroad. He has even called for the United States to enter into negotiations with al Qaeda. This vermin's demand for retreat, surrender and negotiations with the enemy is so committed to assisting al Qaeda in their efforts in Iraq that he has posted his unspeakable demands on his website in the form of an official statement.

The traitor, Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, agrees 100% with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi that the Marine Corps, which is mangling the enemy on a daily basis in Iraq and suffering comparatively light casualties, should lay down its arms, call it quits, and abandon the people they are defending in the fledgling democracy of Iraq.

Furious Marines from wars as far back as World War II are spitting mad at the cowardly colonel and many want his head on a stake in the middle of the Marine Corps Commandant's lawn. Personally, I would not soil that good earth with so vile and despicable a piece of offal.

Encouraging retreat is viewed as aiding the enemy by the Marines and is a violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is punishable by death. Currently serving Marines, active duty or reserve, who encourage surrender are in violation of Article 100 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an offense also punishable by death. Because Murtha is retired, he is virtually assured of not being prosecuted.

However, he will be celebrated by al Qaeda and other terrorists around the world. At this very moment, al Qaeda communications specialists are likely prepping pieces of propaganda using Murtha's traitorous tirade as a tool to recruit fresh killers by showing them that even an American Marine (apologies to Puller) believes his allegedly beloved Corps is so inept in battle that retreat and surrender are the Marines' best option and perhaps should, in fact, be added for the first time to the Leathernecks' vast, quasi-mythical repertoire of operational art and battlefield strategy.

Murtha joins the likes of traitor Clayton Lonetree, the Marine security guard who gave top-secret intelligence to the Soviets, and traitor Robert Garwood, the Marine who went over to the enemy during the Vietnam War and was involved in holding and abusing US prisoners of war in North Vietnam while wearing the uniform of the enemy.

The Marine Corps is famous for its members standing their ground and winning fights against outrageous odds. Battles with names like the Peking Legation, Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh and Fallujah decorate the hallowed halls of Corps history. Especially repugnant is how Murtha is insisting upon surrender while the Marines are decimating the enemy en masse.

Marines should ask Murtha if Chesty Puller would order retreat and surrender before the enemy.

John "The Jellyfish" Murtha should be shunned by all Marines and, if possible, legal steps should be taken to prevent this betrayer from being buried in a national cemetery upon his demise.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Democratic Hawk and War Veteran Wants U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Now
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — When he came home from Vietnam, John P. Murtha had two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and — unlike many other vets — no desire to protest the war.

After he won a U.S. House seat in Pennsylvania in 1974, he became one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress, using his position on the House Appropriations Committee to help lavish the armed forces with money. And when President Bush decided to wage war on Saddam Hussein, perhaps no Democrat was a firmer ally.

So it sent a jolt through Congress on Thursday when Murtha stood before a bank of television cameras and announced tearfully that he had decided it was time to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. And not soon. Now.

"Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," he said. "It's time to bring the troops home."

As troop casualties have mounted, a small number of senators and House members of both parties have begun to urge their colleagues to demand an Iraq exit strategy from the administration. But of those, only Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) was willing to say the deployment should begin soon.

Murtha, 73, put himself firmly out in front of his colleagues by calling for the withdrawal to start now — a process he estimated could be completed in six months.

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy," Murtha said. "No schedule which can be changed. Nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis. This is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."

Congressional anxiety over the war has risen as public support for the war has plummeted in recent polls. This week, the Senate adopted a resolution urging that Iraqis take more control of their country during 2006 to hasten the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops. And Murtha's dramatic announcement was likely to intensify the debate.

The administration and GOP congressional leaders quickly denounced his proposal.

A statement issued by the White House as Bush was traveling in Asia described Murtha as "a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America." It continued: "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he was saddened by Murtha's about-face.

"Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run," Hastert said in a statement, using a phrase other Republicans — including Bush — have adopted in characterizing calls for withdrawal.

Hastert added: "To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil."

Democratic leaders praised Murtha's courage in taking an unpopular position but stopped short of endorsing it.

"Two-and-a-half years after the president said 'mission accomplished,' we still don't know what the mission is," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). "So the focus really shouldn't be on Mr. Murtha. It should be on the president of the United States and his failed policy there."

Murtha appeared unfazed by the furor he caused. A former carwash owner from a region of western Pennsylvania once dotted with coal mines and steel factories, Murtha is famously iconoclastic, charting his own course with little regard for what others think.

He tends to give reporters the brushoff. He has trouble keeping his eyes focused on a TV camera lens. To his colleagues and constituents, the power he wields over the defense budget as ranking Democrat of the defense appropriations subcommittee — and the defense projects he sends home to his district as a result — more than make up for any lack of polish.

It wasn't polls that convinced the former Marine drill instructor that it was time to change course in Iraq, he explained in an interview. It was his weekly visits to wounded troops in Washington-area hospitals.

"Let me tell you something: We're charged, Congress is charged, with sending our sons and daughters into battle. And it's our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them," Murtha said. "That's why I'm speaking out."

In a 30-minute news conference, Murtha repeatedly told stories about wounded troops. He spoke of a Seabee, paralyzed from the neck down, surrounded by his wife, mother and three children, all crying because he would be immobile for life; of the father of a wounded Marine, himself a veteran, who sought the congressman's help to bring a second son home from the war; of a soldier who lost both hands because he was hit by shrapnel from a bomblet dropped by U.S. troops.

That soldier's mother complained that her son was ineligible for a Purple Heart because the attack was "friendly."

Murtha, choking up, recounted that he met with military officials. "I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart."

Murtha has traveled frequently to Iraq, and he was especially disturbed by what he observed during a recent stop there. He said he looked at the U.S. military's criteria for withdrawal and decided no progress was being made. In his view, living conditions were worse for Iraqis than before the war. And instead of seeing U.S. troops as liberators, Iraqis consider Americans the enemy, he said.

U.S. troops "don't deserve to continue to suffer," Murtha said. "They're the targets. They have become the enemy."

Murtha responded angrily when asked about Republican senators who asserted that during their stops in Iraq, no troops had called for withdrawal.

"The soldiers aren't going to tell you that," Murtha sputtered. "They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends. We are here. We have an obligation to speak for them."

Asked about Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's recent attacks on Democrats who have questioned whether the administration misused intelligence in making the case for invading Iraq, Murtha sarcastically noted that neither man had been in combat.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," he said. "I like that."

Referring specifically to Cheney, he said: "I like guys who got five deferments [during the Vietnam War era] and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Murtha, who is well over 6 feet tall, walks with a shambling gait that doesn't mask a Marine's bearing. He enlisted in 1952, during the Korean War; joined the Marine Reserves after his discharge from active duty; and reenlisted during Vietnam. He was in the Reserves until 1990, retiring as a colonel.

In 2004, he was honored by the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation for a lifetime of service to the corps. His military credentials and longtime focus on defense matters give him an authority that few Democrats in Congress enjoy on issues of war and peace.

"John is one of the most respected members of the body and certainly the most respected member of the Democratic Party on national security matters, so judgments of his should never be taken lightly," said Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa).

Murtha supported President Reagan's incursions into Central America in the 1980s. During the first Persian Gulf War, which most Democrats and many Republicans opposed, Murtha was a fervent supporter of then-President George H.W. Bush. He recalled the former President Bush nostalgically in comparison with the current administration.

"This outfit doesn't want to hear any suggestions. It's frustrating," Murtha said. "And the troops are paying the price for it."

Despite the respect for Murtha expressed by many GOP lawmakers, his words appeared unlikely to cause many to reconsider their support of the administration's Iraq policies.

"I still think on balance most Republicans are going to continue to support the president," said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.). "I don't think you can just simply pull out of Iraq."

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) said: "I respect John personally, but I disagree totally with his position."

Murtha won plaudits, however, from Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), one of the few congressional Republicans who has publicly challenged the administration over Iraq. "When you have a man of the stature of John Murtha calling for immediate withdrawal, that's a pretty heavy hit," Jones said.

In Murtha's home district, initial reaction to his withdrawal proposal appeared cautious.

Chip Minemyer, editor of the Tribune-Democrat newspaper in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown, Pa., said: "I think everyone is being kind of guarded in how they react. They don't want to come off sounding like they don't agree with the congressman, but they also don't want to throw up their hands with Iraq like they're quitting."

At least one of Murtha's Republican constituents, state Sen. Don White, said Murtha's comments gave him pause about the situation in Iraq.

Calling Murtha "probably the only political hero I've ever had," White said: "Chief of staffs, secretaries of Defense, presidents all come and go, but that guy's been looking after the troops for 30 years. And when he makes a statement like this, I'm very concerned."

Times staff writers Mark Mazzetti and Emma Vaughn contributed to this report.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Whatever happened to Semper Fi?
Daily News Editorials

Congressman John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is a retired Marine colonel, decorated Vietnam veteran, ranking member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, longtime supporter of the military and a noted hawk who was an early advocate of the U.S. incursion into Iraq - a man, in short, none would call faint of heart. When such a figure declares that the time has come for America to turn tail and bug out, his views carry more weight than do the similar assessments of the Dennis Kuciniches and Barbara Boxers and Cindy Sheehans of the world.

But, sadly, he is as wrongheaded as they are, and Murtha might as well be sending up the white flag for all the terrorist gangs to see. Doubtless there is much rejoicing in Al Qaeda's rat holes this day over still another encouraging cut-and-run signal from U.S. shores that maybe someday soon, with U.S. troops pulled out, the rodents will have Iraq - and beyond - all to themselves.

Murtha's mouthings arrive hard on the heels of ex-President Bill Clinton, whose utterly disgraceful shame-on-America remarks in Dubai the other day could only have made it sufficiently plain to many millions of Middle Easterners, both those who are with us and those who are not, that the United States cannot be counted on to stand behind the historic mission that toppled the butcher Saddam Hussein, helped persuade crazed Libya to give up its nuclear intentions, was instrumental in driving Syria out of Lebanon and is daily leaning hard on the malevolent mullahs of Iran.

Defeatism, it's called. Willingness to give it all up. In Washington, it isn't so much the war effort is going badly as it is the poll numbers are going badly. Congress has a nervous eye on America's popular distemper, and many on Capitol Hill want some idea of a withdrawal deadline. But a commander would be mad to even consider setting such a deadline, inviting an implacable foe to sit tight and wait it out.

There's still a job to be done - a miserable slog, no doubt, and one, it is true, that could and should have been undertaken more efficiently from the beginning. But the job cannot be left unfinished. Yes, defeatism is in the American wind, there's no question about that. It must not prevail. For what is already in the wind far across the sea is the gleeful, hideous laughter of a triumphant enemy.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

The nadir of the war?
November 18th, 2005
Rick Moran

Forgive me my pessimism today. I made the mistake of reading reaction in the mainstream media to Representative John Murtha’s (D-PA) tearful tirade against the Iraq War on the floor of the House yesterday. The fact that he said the war was “unwinnable” last year apparently isn’t newsworthy. Was it the dramatic image of the old war hero tearing up when talking about his admirable visits to see wounded veterans? If so, why weren’t the images of Iraqis weeping for joy after voting in the first free elections in their lives also considered fodder for the front pages and cable talk shows that now breathlessly report on the latest “turning point” in the American people’s support for the war?

We’ve had so many “turning points” in this war that we’ve damn near gone around in a circle. Why should the lamentations of one Congressman, albeit a respected voice on military matters, cause such a stink? Of course, Murtha’s diatribe has not occurred in a vacuum. It follows closely on the heels of an effort by Republicans in the Senate to try and outdo their Democratic colleagues in proving that election to high office does not necessarily mean one is blessed with common sense and wisdom. In fact, the “Cut And Run But Not As Quickly As Michael Moore Would Have It” version of a “Sense of the Senate” resolution on Iraq supported by Republicans only proves that, quite simply, the words “sense” and “Senate” used in the same sentence when referring to that august body is a misnomer.

And don’t forget those poll numbers that show 57% of the American people believe that President Bush misled the country about intelligence in the lead up to the war with a similar majority believing the war was a mistake. Funny, but it never seems to make it into the same paragraph in stories reporting those grim statistics that 2/3 of the country is in favor of staying in Iraq “until the job is done.” That would seem to cut the chocks from underneath the cut and run crowd except their allies in the mainstream press have better things to do than reporting anything that would upset the delicate imbalance they try to maintain when reporting war news.

Murtha may be forgiven his apostasy. The man has served his country in war and peace with a dedication and selflessness rarely seen these days. But so did Marshall Petain. (HT: Ed Morrisey). The French hero of Verdun and head of the collaborationist Vichy government believed that Nazism was the wave of the future and in order for France to survive, cooperation with Hitler seemed to be the most logical course. The fact that he was tragically wrong both about Nazism and the cost to France that such cooperation engendered has made history’s judgment of his actions an object lesson for the Murthas of this world. For like the Nazis, the implacable Islamists currently blowing up our boys in Iraq will attack us wherever and whenever they choose. It doesn’t matter if we are in Iraq, not in Iraq, setting a timetable to pull out, or simply wringing our hands over the whole mess. Their goal is death. Their agenda, mayhem.

It may be that this moment is indeed a turning point of sorts. The inconstancy of the Republican Senate about the war is reflective of something deeper abroad in the land. Call it a crisis of spirit or a loss of confidence on the part of the nation’s political leadership but the sad truth is that the closer we get to outright victory in Iraq with our troops coming home in triumph the more we hear that the effort has been a failure and that only by leaving the field of battle to our enemies can we make the situation right.

The Iraqi government is facing enormous problems. Internal security, civil rights, factionalism, foreign interventionism, sectarianism, infrastructure; the list goes on and on. But forgotten in all of the naysaying and dire warnings of catastrophe is the fact that progress is being made – fitfully and not as quickly as we would like but progress nonetheless – on all of those problems.

In just a few weeks, the people of Iraq will hold an election under their newly minted constitution that, on paper, is a marvel of compromise and idealism. What kind of government emerges from these elections may not be very satisfying to the United States. But that is not the point. It will be the kind of government that the Iraqi people want. And that is what more than 2,000 American boys and girls have died trying to establish; a democratically elected government set in the heart of jihad territory. The Iraqis are about ready to spit in the eye of Osama bin Laden and all our weak kneed, faint of heart “nervous nellies” can spout about is how much of a failure the war has been and how we should leave these courageous people to the tender mercies of al Zarqawi and his Merry Band of Beheaders.

Only recently has the President begun to refocus the country’s attention on what is at stake in Iraq, something he should have been doing religiously these past two years but a task in which he has failed miserably. The belief by the White House that the American people wouldn’t believe the lies and distortions about the justifications for the war by his political enemies has proven to be as bad a blunder as the Administration has ever made. Their concurrent strategy of relying on surrogates to define and restate our war aims has also been inadequate. For when it comes right down to it, the American people don’t give a damn what Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman or even a respected Senator like John McCain says about the war. They need to hear it from the President himself.

The White House can perhaps be forgiven for not holding regular press conferences given the temperament and political leanings of the White House press corp. But that doesn’t preclude the President from barnstorming the country, treating the war like a political campaign, hammering his opponents who are calling him a liar while urging, even begging the people for their support. Such a campaign probably wouldn’t have much affect on his opposition – except perhaps to drive them into even more comical fits of apoplexy – but it would almost surely put some backbone into his wavering supporters in the Congress.

Whatever the President does, he must do it now and it must be a sustained effort. One reason for his low poll numbers despite a humming economy, falling gas prices, and real progress in Iraq is the sense among a majority of people that the country “is on the wrong track.” By not getting up on his hind legs and fighting, thus leaving the field to his political enemies, the President has allowed the opposition to not only define the issues but also supply a skewed narrative to go with those issues.

The President, who has in the past demonstrated a reluctance for the attack, must now fight back as only a President can: by dominating the news day after day from the bully pulpit, shaming his enemies and encouraging his supporters. Otherwise, the tepid support demonstrated by Republicans of all stripes recently will continue with the very real danger that an anti-incumbent backlash in 2006 will cost the Republicans the Senate.

If this is the nadir of the war it is because the President has failed to keep Iraq in the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. The fact that we are in a war for our survival and that Iraq is currently the major front in that conflict makes the President’s reluctance to engage his political enemies all the more troubling.

However, it is still not to late to retrieve the situation. The President must demonstrate in a sustained and coherent manner the passion and leadership that he exhibited at the start of the Iraq campaign. His recent speeches would seem to indicate that he understands this which is heartening. But unless his focus remains firmly fixed on a defense of his decisions that took us to war as well as a patient approach to explaining why we must see the task through to victory, he stands to lose even more support in the Congress. In short, he must regain control of the debate over the war.

Following a disastrous defeat for the Union army at Fredericksburg, President Lincoln, for the only time in his Presidency, gave in to a feeling of hopelessness. He covered his face with his hands and said “What will the country think?” The fact is, the country by that time had been conditioned to understand that the Civil War was going to be a long conflict and that setbacks were inevitable. The reason they were conditioned was because of Lincoln’s steadfast belief in victory and his inspiring defense of his policies.

President Bush has the most powerful bully pulpit on the planet with a megaphone much larger than anything Mr. Lincoln could ever have imagined. The question foremost on the minds of his supporters should be, when is he going to start using them?

Rick Moran is a frequent contributor and is proprietor of the blog Right Wing Nut House

Ellie

[thedrifter]

An open letter to John Murtha



Dear Representative Murtha,

I am still in shock over your pronouncement to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. At least you had the personal courage to stand up and unequivocally define the end game of your political party. Many of your less courageous colleagues have adopted the modus operandi of impugning the character of our President, criticizing him while on foreign shores and telling out right lies in order to gain political advantage.

As a twice wounded, personally decorated Marine Vietnam combat veteran, I would have thought that the images of Marine helicopters desparately snatching the last remnants of loyal Vietnamese from the rooftop of our embassy in Saigon as well as the disbelief etched on the faces of the young Rangers who were told they were not allowed back into Mogadishu to avenge the loss of 18 of their brothers would have cured you from thinking that the cut and run approach has ever served our country very well.Someone much smarter than I once said that those who fail to learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Iraq and all the issues that swirl around it provide enormous stores of grist from which self serving, narrowly focused politicians can achieve their few fleeting moments of fame. But hopefully, one would have thought that some would resist this temptation and put the national interests of our great nation first. Let me be specific.

Bernard Lewis in his book entitled The Crisis of Islam spoke at some length about how Islamic fundamentalists view the world today. Mr. Lewis describes this view as follows.

“In their perception, it was they, not America that had won the Cold War In their eyes, the Soviet Union was not the benign helper in the common struggle against Jews and the western imperialism but rather the fountainhead of atheism and unbelief, the oppressor of many millions of Muslim subjects, and the invader of Afghanistan. As they saw it, not implausibly, it was their struggle in Afghanistan that had defeated the mighty Red Army and driven the Soviets to defeat and collapse. Having disposed of the more ferocious and more dangerous of the two infidel superpowers, their next task was to deal with the other, the United States, and in this war the compromisers were tools and agents of the infidel enemy. For a variety of reasons, the Islamic fundamentalists believed that fighting America would be a simpler and easier task. In their view, the United States had become morally corrupt, socially degenerate, and in consequence politically and militarily enfeebled.”

Iraq has been a costly undertaking for our country though not as costly as others in which we have been engaged.. If one were to catalog all our accomplishments, many of which are unknown because of inadequate and biased reporting, and divide them by the number of days we have been there, I am certain that few other military operations would be able to show such startling results on a day by day basis. Those results have been achieved and made possible by the blood and sacrifices of the members of the finest military in the world. Make no mistake, the Islamo fascists we face over there fear and respect our military. They know that if it were up to our military alone, their efforts to defeat us would fail.

I cannot help but believe, with all my heart, that comments like yours and the agenda of many on the left give them hope that they can win this thing in the long run.

Finally, I leave you with this question. After we pull our folks out as you suggest…then what?

Semper Fidelis,

Dave St. JohnCapt, USMCR 1964-70 RVN Vet

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe the Corps should call the senator back to active duty. Then lets see what he has to say when he is stationed in Iraq. He seems to forget that retirees and officers can be called back to active duty Without their consent.

[carroll1972]

GOD HELP US.......
If this fool's wishes......come true......what do we tell the men and women that their love ones died for over there.....
You know...I think that now that the enemy has these politicians on their side.....THEY WILL WIN.....and we will lose......it gives our enemies hope.......all they have to do ....is wait for the politicians....and the boneless libirals .......and we will tuck our asses and run with our tails between our legs, like a beaten puppy....

The people of Pa....should recall this son-of-bit_h.......(excuse the King's English) and put his ass on the front lines...in Iraq......no time table ....NOW....
Don't give this FOOL.....time to get his shi_ together.....pack your trash ....put him on the next flight to Iraq......NOW.....not tomorrow either....NOW.....YOU NO GOOD SCUM.......

[thedrifter]

Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor?
November 20th, 2005
J. Peter Mulhern

The prize for the most dramatic oratory in the United States Congress in the new millennium goes to fledgling Representative Jean Schmidt. In the midst of debate over whether the House of Representatives should vote on a resolution endorsing immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq she conveyed a message she had received from an active duty Marine colonel, to Representative Jack Murtha. Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, inspired the debate earlier this week by calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

Representative Smith’s message quoting the colonel was simple: “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

Democrats are up in arms. They believe Smith slandered Murtha. No less a conservative voice than Jonah Goldberg seems to think they have a point. In the Corner at NRO he argues that Schmidt didn’t mean to call Murtha a coward and that it was a mistake to say anything that was bound to be interpreted that way. He writes:

“Murtha’s an honest, brave and patriotic guy. He’s also wrong. But therein lies the debate.”

Charging someone with cowardice, or worse yet disloyalty, isn’t something anyone should do lightly. Jonah Goldberg’s generosity and temperance do him credit. But he’s as wrong as he could be here. When people engage in debate within the boundaries of legitimate disagreement they should be respectful. But we need to maintain those boundaries.

Jack Murtha’s call for immediate disengagement took him far outside the boundaries of legitimate disagreement. He has never been able to articulate any plausible basis for his position on Iraq. There is a simple reason for that. There isn’t one.

Reasonable people cannot differ about whether or not the United States should press forward with our war against the terror masters. For the time being Iraq is inevitably the principal front in that war. A congressman who tries to duck his share of the responsibility for prosecuting that war is displaying moral cowardice. Any American who recommends retreat is injuring his own country and calling his own patriotism into question.

Almost all the Democrats in the House understand this, which is why only three of them would vote on the record for retreat.

We mark the boundaries of legitimate disagreement by the way we characterize arguments that lie outside them. What Jack Murtha did last week wasn’t just wrong. It was cowardly and disloyal. That’s the truth and Jack Murtha deserves to hear it.

Thirty-five years ago he demonstrated that he had physical courage. This week he demonstrated that he lacks moral courage. There is no inconsistency here. Thirty-five years is a long time and physical courage is not the same thing as moral courage.

Jack Murtha served the nation honorably and should be honored for it. But his service doesn’t establish that he is loyal now. Nobody ever did the Republic of Rome greater service than Julius Caesar who capped off his military career by fighting a civil war and destroying the republic.

Jean Schmidt didn’t slander Jack Murtha and neither did any other House Republican. On the contrary, he and his views have been getting way too much respect from all sides.

J. Peter Mulhern is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Reconstructing Murtha
November 21st, 2005
Noel Sheppard

Almost since the moment Congressman John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) took the stage last Thursday to call for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the left and the media that supports them have gone out of their way to construct a picture of this Vietnam veteran that is somewhat inconsistent with the truth.

In the past four days, we’ve heard Rep. Murtha referred to as a hawk, a conservative Democrat, and, maybe most important, a strong supporter of the current Iraq war. However, this is not a completely accurate reflection of the facts, as Murtha was largely opposed to the original Iraq war resolution until some major revisions were made to it, and the Congressman has publicly criticized the war two times before this most recent revelation on Thursday, including just six months after American troops first set foot in Iraq.

The Iraq war resolution passed in Congress on October 11, 2002. Yet, as demonstrated by the following press accounts, Murtha was quite a staunch opponent of the war until October 3, or a little more than a week before that historic vote:

• “Some Democrats questioned the White House’s urgency to oust Saddam.

“‘I don’t like to say this is a political issue, that he’s trying to distract the public from what’s going on (domestically), because it’s so serious that I hope it isn’t,’ said Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense.” 9/12/02, AP

• “Gephardt must balance his presidential aspirations with his desire to have Democrats win control of the House in November. Some Democrats, among them Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who recently flew to the Middle East to talk to military personnel, are telling him there is opposition to Bush’s approach within the military and within the party.” 9/14/02, Washington Post

• “Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he doesn’t understand why Bush is moving so quickly. ‘I read every intelligence report once a week. I have seen no information that’s different from a year ago,’ he said.” 9/20/02, USA Today

• “In 1991, John Murtha helped lead the charge on Capitol Hill for war with Iraq. This year, the Pennsylvania congressman is among the doubters.”

“Eleven years ago, Murtha was one of the first President Bush’s chief Democratic supporters in the effort to win congressional approval for plans to take on Saddam Hussein. He was a member of the president’s inner council, advising Bush and his aides on congressional strategy. It was a role that put Murtha at odds with the leaders of his own party.

“Today, the powerful backroom dealmaker finds himself in an even more politically lonely position: questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose.” 9/24/02, USA Today

• CHRIS MATTHEWS: How about some of the conservative Democrats like Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania? They don’t like this war, either.

JULIET EILPERIN (Washington Post): They don’t. They’re skeptical. A lot of them, interestingly enough, people like Jack Murtha, someone like Carl Levin-a Democrat in the Senate-they say they’re hearing from generals, they’re hearing from military people who think it’s not a good idea, and this also gives them an opportunity to raise their questions. 9/28/02, NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show”

• MARK SHIELDS: Just one, just one quick question. You disagree, then, with Jack Murtha, the Democrat from Pennsylvania, says there is absolutely no evidence of an imminent threat to the United States. 9/28/02, CNN’s “The Capital Gang”

• “Opposition to an Iraqi invasion includes Democratic Reps. John. P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Silvestre Reyes of Texas and Mike Thompson of California. Mr. Thompson was in Iraq last weekend along with Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and David E. Bonior of Michigan.” 10/2/02, Washington Times

As these press accounts demonstrate, today’s Democrats and most media representatives are conveniently ignoring the fact that Murtha’s support for the Iraq war resolution came only about a week before the final vote when House Democrats got the president to agree to some important revisions not in the original draft. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on October 3, 2002:

“These Democrats pointed to language in the revised resolution that supports efforts to end the crisis diplomatically, defines the scope of the authorization of use of military force and requires the president to report to Congress on diplomatic efforts, the war on terrorism, any military operations in Iraq and plans for reconstruction and peacekeeping.

“Much of the revised language attempted to address criticism of the original resolution by senior Democrats, including Reps. Ike Skelton of Missouri, John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina and John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania—leaders on defense matters whose support would be crucial.”

Yet, that’s not the entire story, for within months of the invasion, Murtha began questioning what was occuring in Iraq. In fact, Rep. Murtha first voiced his displeasure with events there on September 16, 2003, when he called for the immediate firing of Bush administration members. The New York Times reported on September 17, 2003 (link courtesy of Common Dreams.org):

“One of the strongest Democratic supporters of the invasion of Iraq joined the growing offensive against the administration’s postwar planning today, demanding that President Bush fire his defense leadership team.

“The Democrat, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Vietnam veteran, said that he had been misled into voting for the war by incorrect information from top administration officials and that the president had also been misled.

“’You can’t fire the president unless you’re in California,’ Mr. Murtha said. ‘But somebody recommended this policy to him, and he took the recommendation. Somebody has to be held responsible, and he’s got to make the decision who it was.’”

The following day, Rep. Murtha went on MSNBC’s “Hardball” to discuss his views on this subject with Chris Matthews. In this interview, not only did Rep. Murtha state that he would not have voted for the war resolution knowing what he knew now, but also, contrary to assertions made by many members of Congress of late—as well as much of the mainstream media—he admitted that he saw “all” of the intelligence reports.

“I mean, I’m not blaming anybody else because I saw all the intelligence reports. All of them indicated we had imminent danger.”

Then, in May 2004, Murtha had a press conference with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to once again voice his displeasure for how things were going in Iraq. At this well-choreographed event, Murtha declared the war was “unwinnable,” and stated:

“We cannot prevail in this war with the policy we have today. We need to mobilize or get out.”

Add it all up, and Congressman Murtha’s statements last Thursday – contrary to the way they’ve been depicted by his party members and a disturbingly fawning press – are not only nothing new, but, instead, largely representative of the views Murtha has been expressing on this subject for more than three years.

This raises an important question: Why are the media almost universally ignoring all of this history?

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and contributing writer to the Free Market Project. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. Noel welcomes feedback at slep@danvillebc.com.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout
By DAN LOVERING, Associated Press

U.S. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.

"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."

Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.

Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."

He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.

House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.

U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."

Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.

Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."

Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."

Ellie

[junker316]

Has any-one taken into account that there may be somehting he is trying to hide, that the Terrorists or some-one else found out about it, that may have been the final push for him to change his mind. There has been more than one person of power, or so called influence, that was blackmailed into recanting a prior statement no matter how they felt about it.

[horselady]

f½? ?pDunker316]Has any-one taken into account that there may be somehting he is trying to hide, that the Terrorists or some-one else found out about it, that may have been the final push for him to change his mind. There has been more than one person of power, or so called influence, that was blackmailed into recanting a prior statement no matter how they felt about it.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, now that's an interesting theory.
Or maybe someone made him an offer (monetary?) he couldn't refuse.

[junker316]

horselady,

Thats one I didn't think of. I figured that since he was a Marine that he would have known better than to take money but then again his statements don't match Marine values either.

[rb1651]

That's the problem with so many of our Representatives, no values other than what serves their own interests.

Ron

[kentmitchell]

I don't care what he said, he's one of us. Hell, I even have to remind myself that James Carvell is a former Marine. We all have opinions but they aren't always the same.
I'll choose to disagree with Col. Murtha and still respect him as a Marine brother. He's not the first Marine to go against the grain. Two-time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler alienated himself, too, with his speech, "War is a Racket." http://www.anti-sheep.com/articles/smedley_butler.php
So, I can't go to the extreme of calling Col. Murtha a traitor, but I would tell him--if I saw him face to face--that he REALLY ****ed me off.