Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Congressman Murtha's Shameful Statements

The comments made Thursday by US Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, where he stated that the US Army was "broken", "worn out" and "living hand to mouth" are deplorable. Even if the congressman's assertions were true, which they clearly are not, he should have had the good judgment not to make such statements in public. We should not question his patriotism, but we as citizens concerned for the good of the country are obligated to question his judgment. For some excellent, in-depth analysis check out http://twistedsteel.blogspot.com.

Anyone with common sense, especially a decorated veteran, should know that statements like the ones made by Murtha are a gold mine for enemy propaganda and can only hurt our troops. Maybe, as theorized by Rush Limbaugh on his Friday show, the congressman enjoyed the adulation of the mainstream media after his previous call for an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq and wanted some more. Perhaps his 73 years of age has something to do with it.

Congressman Murtha has been rightly honored for his heroic military service. He was an excellent soldier, but his current views make him a very poor congressman who should be held accountable by his constituents and voted out of office if he runs again. Even though I'm sure it was not his intention, his public statements have done, and will continue to do, great harm to our soldiers.

10 Comments:

Blogger John said...

Thanks for the post, Hook. When are the Libbys ever gonna get it? Saying "Bring Our Troops Home!" obviously results in harm to our troops. Why can't they get that?

12/05/2005 8:08 AM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

I see why you're still in college at 26 as you obviously don't catch on to basic concepts quickly. Better hit the books early so you can take a study break and start some real education when Rush comes on at noon.

Congressman Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, et al have said more than "Bring our troops home." They're advocating a policy of retreat and defeat. If the US military is defeated in Iraq there will be dire consequences in this country.

No one on the conservative side wants the troops in Iraq any longer than they need to be, but if they leave before the terrorists are defeated there will be mass genocide in Iraq and eventually attacks on American soil that will be financed and supported by terrorists in Iraq. The troops would eventually need to go back into Iraq under much more difficult circumstances and suffer (and will be required to inflict) many more casualties fighting an enemy that controls the infrastructure of a country.

While our troops are over there they need to know that the country is behind them. The call to bring them home because they "can't win" or are "broken" is detrimental to their morale and only encourages the enemy to hold out and fight harder. The US military won every major battle in Vietnam, yet "lost" the war when the short-sighted liberals won the PR and media battle at home.

I wish it were possible to instantly exterminate the terrorists and bring the troops home now, but it doesn't work that way in the real world ( unless you advocate reducing Iraq, and probably eventually Syria and Iran, to rubble).

War is a terrible thing that no sane person wants, but once a nation is involved in one it must stay the course until the enemy is crushed. This is especially true in an asymmetric type of conflict like the global war on terror.

The United States did not ask for this war but has no choice but to win it. Until liberals come up with an alternate strategy to achieve this goal that will work in the real world they will remain politically marginalized. God help us all if by some fluke liberals regain control of the defense of this country.

12/05/2005 11:39 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

Liberalism is easy. It is very easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money. It is very easy to cry about the disparity between the rich and the poor – then advocate laws that punish the poor in the name of more equity. Improving equity by working harder to get richer is ... well … hard.

The same holds for the liberal’s so-called compassion for victims of dictators.

Liberals wanted to end genocide in Bosnia, so we authorized foreign generals to send in our troops. We fought to end atrocities in Kosovo at 60,000 feet. We invaded Haiti when it was easy, then left before it got hard.

Now, we are in Iraq. We have ended the tortures and murders of the Saddam regime. We now fight to prevent al Qaeda and their allies from taking over Iraq and invoking its own brand of terror. We are doing so with great success.

Thousands of bad guys have been killed and are no longer able to terrorize Iraqis – or the world. About 200,000 Iraqi troops are being trained to protect their own land. But, this isn’t easy.

The sad reality is that war has a price. So does peace. In Iraq, brave Americans have also paid the ultimate price.

Iraqis want our help. But, what do the liberals want to do? Cut and run – it’s easier.

Moreover, today’s liberals are short sighted and irrational. They want to blame President Bush for not doing enough to stop terrorists from attacking us at 9/11. But, they fall short of looking into the defense failures of the Clinton administration that made us more vulnerable.

Today, the terrorists that seek to attack us again are fighting for a base of operations in Iraq. Our best defense from a future 9/11 is to defeat them in Iraq. But this is hard. Liberals would rather cut and run, then blame Republicans when the next attack happens.

For liberals, talking and shouting about peace is easy. But, fighting for it – not so much.

12/06/2005 9:03 AM  
Blogger TJ Willms said...

Hey Thanks, for the nod and the link right hook!

Doing the "right thing" is almost without exception more difficult than "doing the wrong thing." It is far more difficult to endure a childs petulant pleas for candy before dinner-time than to give the child what he/she wants just to stop the whining.

It's far more difficult to stop and actually help someone stranded on the roadside than to drive on by complaining that something should be done about the cars blocking the road.

The soldiers in Iraq no more want to be there than I want want to have my wisdom teeth removed. Again! they are couragous men and women who are doing what is right and it is difficult. Far more difficult than standing before some cameras and defaming everything they are doing right while making their exertions even more difficult as congressman Murtha and his cohorts are doing.

It's not than Liberals can't "get it", they don't want too. They also hate anyone who does and has the requisite spinal rigidity to call them on the carpet in public.

12/06/2005 6:15 PM  
Blogger John said...

Keep on fighting for peace G-man, whatever the hell that means. I don't understand concepts like that because, unlike you, I evolved from a primate. Who probably couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted to be a hunter or a gatherer; because I've been struggling with the same decision (as right hook so eloquently pointed out)for several years now.
I don't pretend to know what the best policy is concerning Iraq (unlike plenty of people). I do believe we were led in on false pretenses, but that's a rather moot point now. We've made our bed, and now we have to lie in it. It's quite possible that pulling out now would leave things worse than when we came in (personally, I hate pulling out). Unfortunately, because the current administration was never up-front about the commitment to nation-building that this whole snafu is dependent on, I think the half-truths have come back to bite them in the ass. A growing number of American people are beginning to feel misled, as they should. And their knee-jerk reaction is to pull out. Does this make them bad people? People worthy of disdain? It does not. G-man says liberalism is easy. Well, I'm not a liberal (er, I'm socially liberal, but a fiscal conservative, for the most part) but I'll tell you what I think is easy; taking everything spoon-fed to me by blowhards like Limbaugh and his ilk who paint everything in bold colors so you can't miss them. What's easy is already having your mind made up about something before you've ever really thought about it. What's easy is staying a false course rather than admitting an error in judgement. What's easy is spinning an impenetrable web of BS like this website.
And I thought you guys had decided to ignore me.

12/07/2005 11:10 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

John, what’s easy is being spoon fed by the mainstream media. What is easy is pretending that everything is a shade of grey – then attacking those who use bold colors to bring clarity to a debate.

It gets tiring repeating this to those who attack Rush without investing the time to listen to him, but Rush is a favorite among conservatives because he agrees with US. Rush is the public voice for opinions we share that do not get airtime on the MSM. Moreover, Rush gives airtime to facts that are inconvenient for libs on the network news.

Here is a good example. Everyone who heard the network news or watched the Today show knows who John Murtha is and what he said on the floor of Congress. How many know who Sam Johnson is? If you listened to Rush, you know who both are and what each contributed to the debate. If you had to Google “Sam Johnson”, then you didn’t listen to Rush. If you had to Google “Sam Johnson”, but did know who Murtha was, then its time to look at who is holding the spoon from which you feed.

It is not Rush that spoon feeds, it is the MSM. They have become an echo chamber for radical left at the DNC. They have actively fed the nonsense that President Bush misled the nation to get us into war – and many listeners have swallowed this whole.

Prove me wrong. Itemize where the President misled, where he used half-truths, or where he said that which he knew was wrong. But, do this honestly. Use the evidence and facts available before the war. Also, explore ALL the reasons that the President used for going to war – not just WMD. Find the President’s quotes and the facts to support your charges.

I’m willing to prove these charges to be nonsense. I’ve done so on this website. But, it takes time and effort. It is easy to make charges that the President misled then run away without giving evidence. It takes time to offer evidence. It takes more time correct hollow, outrageous charges.

Another spoon fed Democrat talking point is the charge of “nation building”. President Bush opposed nation building under the context of the 1990’s -- that is, to invade (or otherwise infiltrate) countries that imposed no threat to the US, for the purpose of influencing changes in their government.

Afghanistan and Iraq do not fit the mold of nation building. These were countries whose governing bodies posed threats to us as well as neighboring nations. It would be irresponsible, immoral, and ineffective to topple these governing dictatorships then leave the citizenry to defenseless. Doing so would have invited terrorist groups – like al Qaeda – to fill the voids of the Taliban and Saddam. Not only would this leave the citizens vulnerable, it would also likely lead to another dictatorship just like the ones we toppled – and just as hazardous to US security.

We could have indiscriminately bombed each nation, reducing the threat to rubble – and many citizens with it. But, we went to great lengths NOT to target citizens and to avoid collateral damage. Our purpose to stay in Afghanistan and in Iraq is to help the citizens defend themselves and rebuild their own nation.

Primates are known for repeating what they see. Show me that your evolutionary process has extended beyond this stage. Support your charges with sourced facts, logic, and reason. Listen to the President’s own words through his speeches, or read the transcripts on www.WhiteHouse.gov.

Look at your trusted sources and read what they said. If these sources are Democrats, be sure to read what they said when Clinton was President, what they said during the campaign season of 2002, and what they say today. You will need to understand their willingness to change their story with the winds of the political climate to determine whether they can be trusted.

Before making blind charges against the President, do the homework to feed yourself.

(Let me give you a clue. To learned observers, it is easy to spot those who cannot debate a given issue with facts, logic, and reason for they often resort to attacking Rush or FOX News. Here’s another clue. “Everybody knows” is not evidence or a sourced fact.)

12/08/2005 5:39 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

More.

I’m boggled why so many seem so surprised that we need to stay in Iraq “this long”. First, we are still in Bosnia. Clearly, the effort to topple the governing body in Iraq has been significantly larger than Bosnia. Granted, Bosnia is not the target of terrorist “insurgents” that Iraq is – which is why our presence in Iraq is so vital. But, we are still in Bosnia after nearly ten years. Why would one think Iraq would be so easy to leave??

Next, consider history. In World War II, we had to topple the governments of Germany and Japan for each posed a threat to the U.S. After we succeeded, we stayed for decades. If memory serves, each country was under U.S. “occupation” for about ten years, but we then maintained military bases for decades thereafter. Our initial concern was to ensure that their new governments were not new national threats.

Iraq is very similar. The one difference is the advent of organized terrorist nomads who fight without benefit of a national flag. This clearly makes the job of “winning the peace” more challenging for they seem eager to establish a national base of operations in Iraq.

Compared to Japan and Germany, our success in Iraq is phenomenal (as I have previously posted). It is illogical to refer to Iraq as a snafu – unless one’s vision of success is scripted after Hollywood fantasies.

The President did NOT say this would be easy. If you dispute this, show me the evidence.

12/08/2005 6:24 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

The charge of Saddam possessing WMDs can hardly be classified as a claim exclusive to President Bush. President Clinton repeatedly (and correctly) referred to it and warned of the dangers these weapons were. He even used it to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (which I, incidentally, supported--Clinton did the right thing but with bad timing in the middle of the Lewinski mess and didn't follow through with more strikes against more serious targets). Senator Kerry, Madeline Albright, the UN (through numerous resolutions), and many others within and outside of the US also made the assertion that Saddam possesed WMDs and/or had programs that actively sought these weapons. Just because WMDs have not yet been found doesn't prove that Saddam didn't have them. Actually quite a bit of evidence has been found that Saddam did indeed have WMDs.

As far as nation building goes, what is happening in Iraq is a far cry from using the military as an international "meals on wheels" program as was done multiple times by the Clinton Administration. I am generally against nation building, but as a practical matter unless Iraq were nuked into a lifeless wasteland the militant Islamists would seize the opportunity to foster blame for the mess the country is in on the West in general and the US in particular and the whole point of the war (draining the militant Islamic swamp) would be undone. Personally I would like to see more terrorist ass-kicking completed first, but at least some of what could be classified as "nation building" will be unavoidable.

Also, in all seriousness, congrats on completing college. I worked my butt off to get my degree because it was the right thing to do to get into the career I wanted, but I hated every minute of it and it was a major relief to get it out of the way. The corporate world sometimes sucks royally, but I think that once you get established in your field you'll find that it beats the hell out of going to school on most days. I apologize for the rather cheap shot in my previous comment, but it sounded good at the time as a response to the sarcasm in your rhetorical questions. I mentioned Rush because I know he drives liberals nuts, but he is almost always right 98.5% of the time ;) .

12/12/2005 12:32 AM  
Anonymous john said...

[John originally posted this comment on 12/11/2005 at 10:02 PM -- Before Right-Hook's comment above. John's comment is reposted here and edited by G-Man for language. John, we run a family-friendly blog. Your input is welcomed, but please keep it clean. G-Man]

Jesus Christ, G-dog. You know, primates are also known for flinging ****.

As I only basically asserted four things in my last comment, I'm going to address those here, as you are flinging **** faster than I can duck it. Here they are:

1) The American people were led into this war on false pretenses.
2) Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard.
3) This blog is full of BS.
4) This campaign depends on nation-building.

OK, since statements 2 and 3 cannot be evaluated objectively, (which is to say, they can only ultimately be judged on a subjective basis) labeling something one of these names is by nature a statement of opinion. To put it differently, if I were to call you a dick; it would not be a "hollow, outrageous charge" as you say, but merely an opinion. An opinion, by the way, is a belief resulting from one's perceptions. Now, you could possibly argue the sources of the perceptions that led me to that conclusion, if I shared them all with you. Otherwise, your only rational options are to state your own opinion, ignore me, or call me a name in return. As such, my opinions stated in points 2 and 3 have been unchanged by your lengthy diatribe, though you did make a gallant effort, I must say.

As to point 1, you want to argue it, but in the same breath you instruct me to "explore ALL the reasons that the President used for going to war – not just WMD". Well, I can't meet the conditions for your argument Homey-G, because it is my belief that the American people, Congress, Tony Blair, and plenty of others were swayed by the WMD argument. Bush used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" quite often in the speeches there after 9/11. Colin went to Congress and showed diagrams of them and pictures of the bunkers they were stored in. And eventually, the sheep-like mainstream media (not liberally biased, as you assert) eventually picked up on this. And within a month, a phrase none of us had ever uttered before suddenly is being talked about by everybody. Sure, Duh-bya gave plenty of reasons, but WMDs were the smoking gun. Hell, Rumsfeld even told us where they were at; he said something kind of like, "We know where they're at, they're around the village of Tekrit (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong)." So, without focusing almost exclusively on "the mysterious case of the disappearing WMDs", I have little else to say regarding the circumstances surrounding our decision to invade Iraq.

As to point 4, your reply was to say that we aren't actually nation building, we're helping Iraqis re-build their nation. But, really, what's the difference? I mean, if I'm a supervisor of a construction crew, I may not be driving the bull-dozer, but I'm still one of the people building the house. So, I haven't exactly been swayed by that one either. Oh, and by the way, occupying Germany and Japan was different from what we're doing in Iraq, for several reasons. I'll go into them later if you want to keep getting embarassed, but I'm starting to get lazy. It was a nice try equating the occupation of those with our SNAFU in Iraq. All wars are SNAFUs, in my opinion. Killing on a grand scale has always struck me as pretty **** **, but that's just me. Even if it's done for a just cause.

Again, nice try though. Hopefully, it made you feel better to get some of that off your chest. I got the feeling that you needed to vent.

12/12/2005 5:33 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

John, congratulations, you are finally engaging in discourse rather then drive-by attacks. But you have resorted to name-calling, which is another tactic often used when a reasoned argument is unavailable.

President Bush publicly asserted several, distinct reasons to support military action. The liberally-biased MSM only focused on WMD’s. All of these reasons must be considered together. But, since the media has successfully twisted the WMD issue, for many it is the smoking gun.

For the sake of argument, let’s focus on WMD’s. My challenge to you is to define exactly what the President said regarding WMD’s and prove that this was known to be a lie when he said it. Indirectly, this is also your opportunity to demonstrate that the MSM is not liberally biased.

Seriously, do you really think that MSM is not biased to the left? Explain how an unknown congressman who demands immediate withdrawal gets far more press than a Senator who supports our actions in Iraq – who was also a former vice-Presidential nominee, a former Presidential candidate, and is openly opposing the majority view of his own party. Anytime a Republican Senator speaks out against other Republicans, he becomes the darling of the media.

Regarding nation-building, it’s a cheap charge. Nation-building was NOT the objective of the mission. But, helping Afghanistan and Iraq rebuild their respective governments is necessary after toppling their former governments. The alternative is to leave their respective citizenry helpless against a Taliban-like, al Qaeda-friendly dictatorship.

I’m curious about your “all wars are SNAFUs” comment. Are you suggesting that all wars are unnecessary? More specifically, are you suggesting that “war is not the answer” or that U.S. participation in recent wars was avoidable? If so, which wars? [And please keep the comments clean.]

12/12/2005 6:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger