Even This Guy Is Now Against the War??
The L.A. Times has an article today about Democrat threats to cut off funding for additional military operations in Iraq. The article says that, by the time of Bush’s speech Wednesday night, “congressional Democrats across the ideological spectrum were rallying to oppose the president.” Check out the description of one of those Democrats:
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter, said Friday that he would use his position as chairman of the House appropriations panel’s defense subcommittee to try to block funding for any troop increase in Iraq.
Murtha said he also wanted to force the closure of the controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put limits on how long military service members could be deployed.
Friends, if even decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter John Murtha has now turned against this war, all is lost.
“Democrats feel free to defy Bush on Iraq”
Yup. That’s the latimes headline with Teddy
pictured with the lede graph and first mentioned.
Ted Kennedy has been quite covert in his opposition to the war, hasn’t he?
Pat, the Times ain’t what she used to be.
We get it.
Semanticleo (e8f396) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:06 amLike you, Patterico, Murtha originally supported the war. Like you, he saw the light.
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:13 amHere’s one plan the Democrats could adopt from their own party’s previous positions.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:15 amYou’re projecting again Loser Appeaser.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:17 am“Like you, Patterico, Murtha originally supported the war.”
Based upon good faith and the presumptive due diligence of the Executive Branch, which our beloved Prez sqandered somewhat like an inexhaustible family fortune.
Semanticleo (e8f396) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:22 amLike you, Patterico, Murtha originally supported the war. Like you, he saw the light.
Unlike Murtha, I don’t believe in closing down GTMO or blocking funding for military increases without an alternate plan.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:23 amHeh! Next thing you know they will report that Cindy Sheehan feels free to publicly criticize George Bush.
nk (2ab789) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:24 amAt one point Charles Lindbergh was considered a “national hero.”
Decorations don’t convey inviolable moral authority.
Grandpa SimpsonJohn Murtha first lost me on his “retreat to Okinawa” bit, then went beyond the pale with his ranting on how the most dangerous country in the world is the US.Small wonder the LATimes engages in tongue-bathing Murtha.
Darleen (543cb7) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:49 amAlmost got worried about you P, couldn’t find the /sarc tag after your post on Okinawa Murtha.
Lord Nazh (3465cc) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:51 amMurtha sucks. He is a useless pimp and mindless gasbag.
Mark (206a30) — 1/14/2007 @ 10:14 amIs Murtha’s “decoration(s)” like Kerry’s?
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 1/14/2007 @ 11:10 amThere should be a special font for old news. God knows the Times has extra fonts to use.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/14/2007 @ 11:43 amYes, Fed Dog, there are questions about the circumstances behind Mad Jack’s medals. Who knows? Maybe one of the versions he’s told about that happened might even be true.
Bill Faith (3cc7e8) — 1/14/2007 @ 11:44 amSorta like his “I was negotiating in good faith” defense of his ABSCAM involvement.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/14/2007 @ 11:58 amI read your post twice, gulped, began reading the comments — and still didn’t get the sarcasm until I saw your comment, P!
Murtha is hardly a beacon of strategic military astuteness. He needs to step back from the mic, find a rocking chair and declare himself a charter member of the New-Age-Weren’t-The-60’s-Great! Coalition.
Gull (71415b) — 1/14/2007 @ 12:24 pmI wonder how Cong. Murtha would have felt, years ago when he was in the service, if he heard a prominent Congressman promising to withhold military funding while the President deployed more troops.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/14/2007 @ 1:11 pmdecorated Vietnam veteran
Which Vietnam battles did Murtha win that gives him such insight into the current situation in Iraq?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/14/2007 @ 2:25 pmPS: Since Murtha was involved in the last war the media managed to get the government to pull out of, he constitutes and expert in this field đ
o/t: Tired of speaking to computers?
Lord Nazh (3465cc) — 1/14/2007 @ 3:19 pmI think the lesson is more about how we didn’t win there, and can learn.
actus (10527e) — 1/14/2007 @ 3:47 pmLet me get this right, a crooked politician (I know, it’s redundent) who was so moronic to suggest that we move our Iraq operations to Okinowa is against the war and I’m supposed to care? If Murtha was really for the war, it was because someone bribed him to do so.
The fact that liberal avenger uses murtha as some kind of measuring stick tells me all I need to about him and his motives.
Jack Burton (40fb78) — 1/14/2007 @ 4:17 pmJack Bauer is back! There’s still hope! 8)
Dubya (c16726) — 1/14/2007 @ 7:04 pmMurtha has been viciously anti military for as long as I can remember. He even proclaimed the Marines at Haditha guilty before the trial.
Capitalist Infidel (fffac6) — 1/14/2007 @ 8:01 pmLets’ not take it too far. Murtha enlisted in the Marines as a private in 1952, rose up through the ranks, and retired as a colonel in the Marine Reserves in 1990. I don’t believe that he’s a “Captain Stranski” like Kerry was. He is going to be 75 years’ old in June and maybe that’s the whole problem. Old people get weird ideas.
nk (5a2f98) — 1/14/2007 @ 8:26 pmThere is no chance that the Demos are going to get in Bush’s way. Israel has begun a full court press, upon Congress, to support Bush and the expansion of the war to Iran and Syria.
We entered this war, against Iraq, to put us into position to attack Iran and Syria, and that is what we will do. The die is cast, and the American soldier can bleed, or die, or be lucky.
RJN (e12f22) — 1/14/2007 @ 9:02 pm…and senile dementia..
Dubya (c16726) — 1/15/2007 @ 5:45 amLet’s hope so!
Capitalist Infidel (fffac6) — 1/15/2007 @ 5:57 amJust like these trecherius demacrats to prepose such maybe its time for some donkeys to get whipped till they bray then we whip them even more
krazy kagu (e7029d) — 1/15/2007 @ 8:10 amThe following is from Powerline, Jan 11, 2007
“Jay Nordlinger writes in his NRO Impromptus column this morning:
I have a friend who, in a phone conversation last weekend, said the unsayable. Come to think of it, this friend makes a specialty of saying the unsayable. That is one reason he is invaluable.
He said, âThe Democrats have to win in 2008 â I mean, the whole enchilada: House, Senate, and presidency.â You ought to know that my friend is a staunch conservative Republican. âWhy?â I said. âWhy do they have to win?â He answered, âBecause thatâs the only way they will be fully onboard the War on Terror. They wonât fully support it otherwise, because they will always be trying to trip up the Republicans. If you want the Democrats onboard the War on Terror, they have to be in charge. Period.â
A dark, dark proclamation. And redolent of olâ Joe, the one from Wisconsin. I am not entirely convinced of its wrongness, however.
By contrast with Jay, I think both John Hinderaker and I are almost entirely convinced of its rightness.”
So, there you are. Powerline is always Israel first, and now they dump the Repubs.
RJN (e12f22) — 1/15/2007 @ 9:47 amDemocrats have always been more supportive of Israel than Republicans. Never mind what Baker said, although that sucked too, Bush 41 brought all the pressure he could bring on Israel in the First Gulf War not to retaliate when Saddam Hussein was dropping SCUDs in Tel Aviv in order not offend our “Arab allies”.
nk (4cd0c2) — 1/15/2007 @ 10:24 amnk: It seems that you don’t think that the American President has any right to make any request of Israel. By your standard it should be all the other way; we do what Israel wants, we do what Israel says, and we shut up when there is doubt what instruction is coming next from Israel
RJN (e12f22) — 1/15/2007 @ 11:53 amI think my example kind of exceeded the “any request” parameter, RJN. “Just let Saddam drop SCUDs on your capital while I kick him out of Kuwait and then leave him in power until my son takes him out ten years later.”
nk (47858f) — 1/15/2007 @ 1:38 pmnk: Mickey Mouse. I can’t find any reports of damage in Israel. Besides, we had given Israel everything for 42 years. Don’t you think they could summon up a little class and take .01 for the Gipper.
RJN (e12f22) — 1/15/2007 @ 2:24 pmSo confused…
One problem with computer communication is one doesn’t see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, etc., which we are told is a huge part of communicating.
All of that is to say it can be troublesome to know sarcasm.
The following is not sarcasm…
Yes, Mr. Murtha long ago declared a bunch of Marines guilty of war crimes before their trial. Not good, I think, even if they are guilty. I am not sure why he should be considered credible after that.
Yes, we should learn mistakes from Vietnam, such as:
1. Limiting your battle to one country in a defensive posture while your enemy takes advantage of surrounding national boundaries is a bad idea, whether letting supplies come in from Cambodia or Iran.
2. American will to fight is more important than our military might in the long run.
3. Media coverage that is slanted can influence public opinion- probably better than old Pravda could do- at least everybody in and out of Russia knew you couldn’t trust Pravda to be objective. Even I thought Walter Cronkite was simply “reporting” all those years ago.
Yes, Jack is back…almost as important as reading Patterico. (That WAS sarcasm, reading PP is clearly more important).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/15/2007 @ 3:16 pmHey Doc:
Check this out.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/15/2007 @ 3:30 pmBarak Obama on Bush’s plan for Iraq: “…Democrats need to develop a detailed plan on how to constrict the President…”
Barak Obama wants to be President, so why would he want to do anything to restrict the President’s power when, if (BIG IF there) elected, he would likely still need to deal with Iraq and certainly need to deal with the Islamist threat?
What a dumbass!
Dubya (c16726) — 1/15/2007 @ 3:58 pmnk:
Anything to back that up? at all?
Being a repub and israel supporter, I find it very hard to believe
Lord Nazh (3465cc) — 1/15/2007 @ 5:37 pmMilord,
The Republican base (those Evangelicals we hear so much about) are very supportive of Israel. I was going by Presidents. Under Ike, we supported Egypt (maybe to please the French?) and the Sovier Union supported Israel. Reagan, as best as I can remember, was lukewarm. Bush 41 had James Baker who advised him, “Screw them, they don’t vote for us anyway” and what I said earlier — that making nicey-nice with the Arabs was more important. I don’t know whether Pat “Israel is a strategic albatross around America’s neck” Buchanan is as relevant but I believe that he got 38% of the vote in the primary against Bush 41.
I won’t insist that these guys are the heart and soul of the Republican Party (with the exception of Reagan of course) but an argument can be made that they are its face and, more important, that they do not consider it much of a political liability not to be out and in front pro-Israel. I also don’t deny that I am very pro-Israel and could be prejudiced along the lines of “If you are not with us as much as I want you to be, you are against us”.
And since we have derailed Patterico’s thread this much, one reason we did not face a nuclear-armed Iraq in the first Gulf War is because Israel bombed Saddam’s reactor. And I think that if they had more faith in our support, they would have already done the same thing to Iran’s reactors.
nk (77d95e) — 1/15/2007 @ 6:22 pm“Almost got worried about you P, couldnât find the /sarc tag after your post on Okinawa Murtha.”
-Lord Nazh
“All of that is to say it can be troublesome to know sarcasm.”
-MD in Philly
Gimme a break. Like Patterico is so objective that you need to see anything more than the words “John Murtha” to know the gist of the post?
Like the emphasis of a democrat’s accomplishments wasn’t a dead giveaway of sarcasm?
You guys are smarter than that… I hope.
Leviticus (511f05) — 1/15/2007 @ 6:50 pm#37 nk, I pretty much agree with your post with a minor exception. Israel has always had its own domestic arms industry that has provided some of its needs. The USSR via its then satellite Czechoslovakia provided arms to Israel in 1948 and for a brief period thereafter. From 1956-67 France sold arms to Israel. After 1967 we helped Israel with advanced aircraft.
Stu707 (5b299c) — 1/15/2007 @ 10:25 pmThank you Stu707. I am duly corrected. (In my defense, you need a scorecard to keep track of France’s double-dealing.)
nk (d5dd10) — 1/16/2007 @ 4:50 amThey’re very supportive of israel’s apocalyptic role.
actus (10527e) — 1/16/2007 @ 5:03 am…but ONLY one reason. Reactor or none, just like our new buddy Qdaffy, he could have bought what he needed from Pakistan with the kickbacks from the OFF program he was getting from France, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.
Then there’s Jimmah Carter, terrorist apologist who think the terrorists need to keep bombing civilians in Israel until the Israeli gov’t gives them what they want.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/16/2007 @ 5:04 am“Theyâre very supportive of israelâs apocalyptic role.”
Hey, actus, I’m supportive of you because I think you’re a decent human being who by abiding by the law, working hard, paying his taxes and generally trying to preserve a decent world to live in for himself will, coincidentally, preserve a decent world for my daughter to live in.
Que sera, sera. đ
nk (f58916) — 1/16/2007 @ 11:44 amSorry. Not “coincidentally” or even “incidentally” but “at the same time”. I always screw up when I try to go for more than two-syllable good old Anglo-Saxon.
nk (f58916) — 1/16/2007 @ 11:50 amMy goodness,
I try to take part in a discussion thread and I am subjected to a graduate level class in linguistics on Wikipedia đ and being harassed and ridiculed while someone takes a sideswipe of our host. đ
Seriously, Dubya, that was very interesting. I saw there was even a symbol for “Kilroy was here”. I will accept it as vindication and verification of my point (as well as being verification that had I been more savvy of internet reality I wouldn’t have raised the point). I did not, however, take the time to look for an emoticon of sticking out one’s tongue or thumbing one’s nose, which is what I really would have preferred to inserting a simple frown.
Having not learned my lesson, I will again attempt to contribute to the discussion:
nk- you make your case very plainly. I would have disagreed with you on the basis of Clinton’s embrace of Arafat and Carter’s ongoing criticism of Israel, but you add substantial facts to your case.
Many evangelicals support Israel on the basis of the simple Old Testament promise, “Those who curse you I will curse, those who bless you I will bless.” While there is the issue of apocalyptic passages in Scripture, popular fiction aside, there is little to suggest that human activity has much to do with bringing it about or to an end, but rather a call to “be faithful” in the midst of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/16/2007 @ 7:25 pmThank you, MD in Philly. For my part, I support that little island of civilization in a sea of barbarity … well … because it is a little island of civilization in a sea of barbarity. (On the religious question, there are many preachers in the world and I have no calling to add myself to their number.)
nk (77d95e) — 1/16/2007 @ 7:40 pmDon’t worry about leviticus, doc. He’s too young to know any better.
“If you’re not liberal in your 20s you have no heart, but if you’re not conservative in your 40s you have no brain.” (or something to that effect)
– Winston Churchill
Dubya (c16726) — 1/16/2007 @ 7:55 pmIf you are not a socialist when you are twenty you have a hard heart. If you are a socialist when you are thirty you have a soft head.
Jack London
RJN (e12f22) — 1/16/2007 @ 8:27 pmChurchill must’ve read London, eh? đ
Dubya (c16726) — 1/16/2007 @ 9:47 pm#19 Which Vietnam battles did Murtha win that gives him such insight into the current situation in Iraq?
I think the lesson is more about how we didnât win there, and can learn.
actus, I think the lesson is more about how we didn’t manage to lose a single major battle in Viet Nam and managed, with the help of the press, the democrats in congress and Henry Kissinger, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We didn’t learn much there, did we?
Do we have to watch this movie again, or is there an alternate ending this time?
Interesting that Kennedy is again suggesting we defund the war. At least last time we waited until the troops were all home before we betrayed our Vietnamese allies.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/16/2007 @ 9:53 pm#45 Many evangelicals support Israel on the basis of the simple Old Testament promise, âThose who curse you I will curse, those who bless you I will bless.â While there is the issue of apocalyptic passages in Scripture, popular fiction aside, there is little to suggest that human activity has much to do with bringing it about or to an end, but rather a call to âbe faithfulâ in the midst of it.
Exactly.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/16/2007 @ 9:55 pmMD in Philly:
#45 Perfect. I agree with Harry Arthur. However, it is not easy, in practice, to stay away form remarking upon the folly of Iraq, and the outrages perpetrated even by the just.
RJN (e12f22) — 1/17/2007 @ 3:26 pmOh no, JACK LONDON thinks socialism is for stoopid peepel.
White Fang=Macho Bullshit
The Call of the Wild=Macho Bullshit
Jack London=Danielle Steele/Tom Clancy/various other literary hacks
Leviticus (68eff1) — 1/17/2007 @ 4:24 pm