Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Senility or Treason?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Senility or Treason?
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 18, 2006 11:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would suspect it's treason but the only thing that could get Murtha off the hook for his comments would be to have him declared "non compos mentos".

We can't win, we can't win, surrender now, surrender now.

Redeploy 5000 miles away and we can redeploy/react...instantly to trouble in Iraq

What fun to see what the democrat plan to fight terrorists and terrorism actually is.

Redeploy means surrender...and that from an ex Marine.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:50 p.m. EDT
Murtha Slams Rove for 'Fat Backside'

Commenting on Karl Rove's remarks in a speech in New Hampshire where he charged that Democrats are "wrong, profoundly wrong" in wanting to cut and run in Iraq, an increasingly rabid anti-war Congressman John Murtha resorted to a personal attack on Rove on Sunday.

"He's in New Hampshire, he's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big fat backside saying, 'Stay the course,'" said Murtha, D-Pa., in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Obviously rattled by criticism from Rove, Murtha said: "I disagree completely with what he's saying. We need to change direction. We can't win a war like this. This guy's sitting back ... getting paid by the public taxpayer and he's saying to us that we're winning this war ... we've got to change direction. You can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell the troops fighting in Iraq that we have to stay the course.

Despite recent gains in Iraq, Murtha insisted the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. When told by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert that Rove had told the New Hampshire audience that "if Murtha had his way, American troops would have been gone by the end of April" and American forces wouldn't have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Murtha downplayed the importance of killing the top terrorist in Iraq, saying dismissively: "They built Zarqawi up, they have a thousand foreign fighters" -- that the intelligence "came from the outside" and that all the U.S. did was bomb his hideout and kill him.

Turning to his own plan for cutting and running, Murtha became increasing irrational, suggesting that U.S. troops there be redeployed outside of Iraq yet close enough to be ready to go back in if the situation required it. When pressed by Russert to say where the troops could be deployed if neighboring countries refuse to accept their presence, as Rove had has said, he suggested they could be set to Okinawa, Japan, which is 5,000 miles from Baghdad.

"We don't have to be right there, Murtha said. "We can go to Okinawa. We could redeploy there instantly."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/18/200117.shtml?s=ic

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted June 19, 2006 01:17 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 19, 2006 09:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

John Murtha, always there to lend a helping hand

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 19, 2006 09:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
JIHAD JOHN MURTHA! - FORMAL ATTIRE

My poll numbers are simply EXPLODING in the 18-30 jihadist age group

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 19, 2006 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Party of Retreat and Defeat
By Peter Collier and David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2006

As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran; at the very moment Iraq’s democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents —at this critical moment for the future of Iraq and the Middle East, more than three quarters of the House Democrats have voted against a resolution to “complete the mission.”

For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning.

We have come to an historic juncture. It is not mere perversity or jockeying for position before the fall elections that makes the Democrats refuse to take yes for an answer on this war to liberate a Muslim people, break the hold of bloodlust and authoritarianism in the most benighted region of the world, and defeat terror on its central front. Nor is the Democrats’ choice of capitulation simply a reflex— like so many other positions they hold—of their pathological hatred of George Bush. In large part, in fact, their insensate hatred of Bush is hatred for what this war embodies: America taking up arms against a sea of troubles as turbulent as any it has faced before; America bringing freedom to the heartland of terror.

That George Bush believes America can act unapologetically, without the quaking guilt his critics are convinced stains its history, is why the Democrats hate Bush.

It is all the Democratic Party can do to keep from publicly embracing the assertion of the hard left as to why were are in Iraq: “Blood for Oil!” And the Democrats most certainly agree, with the malicious assertion of Michael Moore, although they are unwilling to repeat it in so many words, that the Iraqi insurgents are fighting an occupying power and are therefore the moral equivalent of America’s Minutemen.

Democrat leaders would have us believe that their present defeatism, which they labor cynically to present as statecraft, is a rueful acknowledgement of facts on the ground in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. to succeed, but because of Bush’s bellicose mendacity they were forced to reconsider their support. Yet Nancy Pelosi, the Woman Who Would be Speaker, attacked the war on April 13, 2003, the day Americxan troops pulled down the statue to Saddam Hussein. It was but two months before the entire Democratic leadership was attacking the President for “lying” about Saddam’s effort to buy fissionable uranium in Niger. The war against the war had begun even in the first flush of success. Within a few months, Ted Kennedy was claiming, “The president’s war is revealed as mindless, needless, senseless and reckless.”

Given such views as these—the Democrats’ version of bedrock principles—the difficulties the U.S. has experienced in Iraq have been for them a wish fulfilling fantasy. Their present position—America was foredoomed to fail—is just one short step away from Noam Chomsky’s position—America had it coming.

And the result of these attitudes can be seen in the way the Democrats and their media allies have conducted themselves throughout. For the Bush administration and the coalition troops in Iraq the battles have been for Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Basra, all engagements with the enemy in the field. For the Democrats and their media allies it has been Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha and Niger, all behind-the-lines battles against our troops and their commander-in-chief. For the Bush administration the chief prize has been Zarqawi, the beheader himself. For the Democrats it has been Scooter Libby. The Bush administration barely missed getting Osama bin Laden; the Democrats barely missed getting Karl Rove. The Bush administration’s strategy is to defeat the forces of terror. The Democrats are conducting psychological warfare aimed at American morale – the decisive factor in war.

It is hard not to conclude that the Democrats want America to be defeated in Iraq and that it is not only their electoral opportunism but their worldview that demands it. This shows how different the Democratic Party is from what it was a generation ago when its stalwarts assumed the moral leadership in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The current Democrats bear no kinship to the John F. Kennedys, Hubert Humphreys and Scoop Jacksons who saw this prior conflict in the same black and white terms as Bush does the present conflict, and whose disheartening moments were far bleaker than the setbacks the U.S. has experienced in Iraq. Such men would be read out of the Democratic Party today and reviled as yahoos for their patriotism.

The worldview of the current Democrats was created generation ago in the first war that America lost on the home front, and it hasn’t changed since. Notwithstanding the Democrats’ timorous, and reluctant -- and quickly retracted -- support for the war in Iraq, and notwithstanding the disingenuous insistence that “anti-war” activists also “support our troops,” the leaders of the Democratic Party left – Kennedy, Kerry, Carter, Gore, Pelosi, Murtha -- looked on the Iraq War from its onset as another Vietnam. Whenever there is the possibility of the use of American power against an enemy that can fight back, it is always for the Democrats a quarter past Tet.

From the beginning of this war they have waited impatiently – if not eagerly -- for U.S. troops to sink in a desert “quagmire.” For them a government elected by some eighty percent of the people is as corrupt and ineffectual as the Diems were in Saigon some forty years ago. An incident in Haditha for them is t another My Lai even before the investigation of what actually happened is complete. In their every act the Democrats echo the cry of the McGovern left from 1972: “Come home, America.” Come home to the defeat and impotence that should always constrain American power to make the world a better place. Come home to contemplate the sins of arrogance and empire that originate with the founding of the nation. Come home even though it means inviting those who hate you to disrespect you as well and follow with their suicide bombs and subway poisons and hijacked deathcraft crashing into your national monuments and homes.

Hanoi’s General Nguyen Giap, the Democrats’ Clausewtiz, famously said that his country could not win on the field of battle but would win in the streets of America. Divide politically and conquer militarily. That is what happened then; that is what the Democrats’ leaders are working to make happen now. In the 1960s the Democratic Party elders watched the anti-war troops in the streets of America from the sidelines with melancholy resignation; today’s Democrats have brought all the narcissistic passion and moral heedlessness of the antiwar movement into the center of their party and the chambers of government where they try to implement Giap’s strategy a second time. How different are the incantations of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and Kennedy from those of Osama bin Laden’s lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri: “Oh U.S. people, your government was defeated in Vietnam. … Your government is now leading you to a new losing war, where you will lose your sons and money.”?

The precise shorthand for the Democrats’ decline into retreat can be found in the descent to Teddy Kennedy from his brother John. No president during the generation long Cold War sounded the call to arms more eloquently than he did, warning the enemies of freedom that America would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” But that was before the anti-war movement launched by Amerian radicals had gotten under way, before Teddy and his colleagues had buffoonishly capitulated to its moral authority and acted out its agendas by terminating America’s aid to the anti-communist regimes in Cambodia and Vietnam.

What the Republicans “call cut and run” is right out of the playbook the Democrats adopted once they had left their Humphreys, Jacksons and Jack Kennedys behind: cut the commitment and run from the chaos this action causes. Then celebrate the disaster as a moral triumph.

The tide of radicalism swelled with the presidential candidacy of Democrat George McGovern in 1972 and his campaign slogan, “Bring America Home,” which if it had been successful would have emboldened the enemies of freedom across the globe. McGovern lost the election in the biggest landslide in American history, but in the ashes of defeat he and his allies were able to redraw the rules that governed the Democratic party and empower the radical forces that had moved inside it.

The distance traversed by the Democrats in the last generation is epitomized by someone who has become their alpha and omega, another J.F.K. who was first a soldier in the war in Vietnam and then an opponent, first a supporter of the war in Iraq and then an opponent. While strategically Democrats had moved far from the robust foreign policies of John F. Kennedy by 2004, they were mindful that a majority of the voting public had not moved with them. Therefore, they reached for a candidate who could project a “patriotic” and even military image. As a decorated veteran who had voted for the war in Iraq, but was sponsored by its most vociferous critic had begun to move away from it himself, John F. Kerry seemed to be the man for the job.

On being introduced at the Democratic Convention, the candidate saluted the faithful and declared, “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.” No convention in recent memory had been the scene of greater military fanfares. Kerry arrived with a “Band of Brothers,” fellow Swift Boat veterans who vouched for his heroism under fire in Vietnam, and Vietnam – a war fought thirty years before became the convention’s most emotional theme. But the Kerry campaign seemed not to appreciate that Vietnam had ended in America’s only lost war, and that the military career of Kerry had ended in promoting and celebrating that defeat.

Other Vietnam veterans did not share the views of Kerry’s retinue. Many despised a man whom they associated with Jane Fonda and other anti-war activists who had welcomed a Communist victory and America’s defeat. They remembered Kerry not for his military service, but for his widely televised claims that his comrades-in-arms were actually “war criminals” who deserved to be put on trial.

In a moment that displayed the anti-war Kerry in all his glory, C-Span re-ran the June 30, 1971 segment of the Dick Cavett Show, on which a young Kerry confronted another Swift Boat veteran named John O’Neill. The war was still raging in Vietnam as they spoke. In an exchange that resonated with current events in Iraq, Kerry and O’Neill faced off:

MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there'll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliché we used to hear a lot…

MR. O'NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that's precisely what would happen in that country. …

MR. KERRY: There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. … I realize that there would be certain political assassinations, and that might take place. And I think when you balance that against the fact that the United States has now accounted for some 18,600 people through its own Phoenix program, which is a program of assassination, and when you balance that off against the morality of the kind of bombing we've been doing in Laos and the kind of destruction wholesale of the country of Vietnam, which amounts to some 155,000 civilians a year killed, then I think to talk about four or five thousand people is lunacy in terms of the overall argument and what we're seeking in Southeast Asia.[i][xiv]

In other words -- in Kerry’s view -- when compared to the Vietnamese enemy, Americans were the greater assassins and terrorists to be feared, while the Communists were only resisting a foreign occupation of their country, and were not interested in massacring anyone. History has now shown how wrong Kerry was (and how right John O’Neill and the Americans who opposed him were). The Kerry Democrats in Congress voted to cut off military and economic aid to the South Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes. Within four months of the cut-off, both regimes fell. The victorious Communists in Vietnam and their protégés in Cambodia then proceeded to massacre more than two-and-half million Indo-Chinese peasants, just as Nixon and others had warned they would. A hundred thousand were summarily executed in Vietnam – twenty times what Kerry had assured Americans they would -- while a million fled, half of whom died attempting to escape.

But these lessons are not part of the Democrats’ current curriculum. This moral and human disaster they facilitated in Vietnam is remembered as a moral victory for “anti-war” sentiment instead. And so they intone “Come home, America” once again. They draw tight the strings they hope will connect the false lessons Vietnam with Iraq -- “in telling and very tragic ways [they] now are converging” John Kerry claimed to the Take Back America conference – a gathering of the very anti-war veterans who brought us Vietnam.

Yes they are converging, but not yet on the field of battle where America is winning and the Zarqawi terror front is failing. They are converging here at home, where an anti-movement is hoping to win a majority in Congress this fall and cut off support for the freedom forces in Iraq. Let’s hope the American people will not listen to them and make the same mistake twice.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22989

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 20, 2006 05:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Democrats' Withdrawal Conundrum
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, June 20, 2006

The only thing more pathetic than the Democrats' floundering disunity on the war is their timing. They have renewed their demands for a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq at a time when even they would be hard pressed to deny that the momentum has changed against the terrorists.

Don't get me wrong. I think we have been winning all along in Iraq, despite the wall-to-wall negative coverage. But recent developments must surely give the naysayers pause as well.

The death of Iraq terrorist chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a watershed event. That we were able to find this elusive leader in the Iraqi haystack was a remarkable achievement and one that signaled the fruits of a sustained intelligence effort. The event itself was monumental in that the primary leader of our enemy in Iraq was eliminated.

But perhaps the most significant aspect of the event is that it led to a bonanza of intelligence discoveries that both shed light on the enemy's mindset and provided information that allowed us to conduct further highly productive raids. Yet despite these developments, defeatist Democrats see only gloom and doom.

American bombs killed al-Zarqawi on June 7. As of a week later, American and Iraqi forces had conducted 452 raids, killing 104 insurgents, capturing 759 "anti-Iraqi elements" and discovering 28 "significant" arms caches. Iraqi forces carried out 143 of the raids and joined with American forces on 255 others.

Our forces found revealing documents in al-Zarqawi's hideout, including one that appeared to express al-Zarqawi's opinion that the insurgents were losing the war and steadily weakening.

The document was a validation of the president's war plan from the very beginning. Remember when he said we would fight the terrorists on multiple fronts, including diplomatic, financial, intelligence and military? Well, the document said the National Guard had succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting American forces and substantially reducing their losses. It said the insurgency was being damaged by our military's program to train Iraqi security forces, our massive arrests and seizures of weapons, our tightening of their financial outlets, and our creating of divisions among their ranks.

In desperation, Zarqawi confessed that the terrorists' only hope to regain the upper hand and reverse "this crisis" was "to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups."

Zarqawi thus acknowledged that his side is losing the war. Just think if during the Cold War we had discovered secret Soviet communiques revealing that Khrushchev was just kidding when he said to the United States, "We will bury you." But leave it to prominent Democrats like John Murtha and John Kerry to offer the beleaguered and now dead Zarqawi another out: withdrawal of American troops. It's as if they're saying to Zarqawi's ghost: "Don't worry, Abu Musab, we'll take care of this for you. There is another way. We can surrender."

On "Meet the Press," Murtha, after saying that Bill Clinton made a correct decision to "change direction" when he had actually cut and run in Somalia, said (referring to Iraq), "There comes a time when you have to say to yourself, 'OK, we've done everything we could do, we can't win this militarily.'" Zarqawi must be rolling over in his grave – with posthumous joy.

Last November, when cut-and-run Democrats were making similar noises, Republicans called their bluff and scheduled a surprise vote on Murtha's motion to withdraw our troops. Caught with their pants down, Democrats folded. So long as there was no way to hold them accountable for their irresponsible demands for withdrawal, they would carp to their heart's content. But when Republicans forced a vote, only three Democrats voted to withdraw, and the measure went down in flaming defeat, 403 to 3.

Fast-forward back to the present, and we see history repeating itself with Republican congressmen, once again, challenging Democrats to put their money where their mouths are. Senate Republicans forced a vote on Sen. Kerry's withdrawal resolution, which was defeated 93 to 6. Now we see why Kerry has been so afraid to come out of the closet as an unambiguous anti-war advocate. Heretofore he has been simultaneously an ambiguous anti-war advocate and an ambiguous supporter of the war, having refined fence-straddling into a sophisticated, nuanced art form.

House Democrats were a little bolder, which you might expect, given the ongoing disconnect between their policies and reality. One hundred and fifty out of 192 Democrats refused to approve a resolution affirming that it was (not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary withdrawal (or redeployment) date. The resolution was approved 256 to 153. Again, history had repeated itself because last December, 108 congressional Democrats voted "no" and 32 voted "present" on a similar resolution.

Please explain to me again that theory about Democrats regaining legislative control in November.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/19/222737.shtml

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 20, 2006 06:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Osama's Congressman
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 20, 2006

On “Meet the Press” Sunday, John Murtha endorsed al-Qaeda’s foreign policy.

The upwardly mobile, cut-and-run specialist (who, by the way, is a “war hero”) told Tim Russert he still supports the foreign policy that convinced Osama bin Laden to launch the 9/11 attacks:

Now, the other day we were doing a debate, and [the Republicans] said, “Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run.” We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, “We have to, we have to change direction…need to change direction. We can’t win a war like this.”

Murtha revealed we must take this step days after the death of al-Zarqawi, because we’re “losing”:

And if you’re not winning, if you’re losing, and that’s what’s happening…[A]t some point you got to reassess it like Reagan did in, in Beirut, like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.”

Murtha’s was an unfortunate choice of historical precedent. As the Washington Post has reported, “As examples of alleged American cowardice, bin Laden frequently cites the case of the withdrawal from Lebanon after the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the withdrawal from Somalia after the 1993 killings of U.S. servicemen in Mogadishu.”

The terrorist mastermind told the infamous Peter Arnett in 1997:

After a little resistance, the American troops left after achieving nothing…We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters…If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

In 1998, bin Laden boasted to ABC’s John Miller:

America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.

Miller, in turn, told Osama, “You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.” (But there’s no media bias. And please, don’t question his patriotism.)

Indeed, the Saudi jihadist cited both Beirut and Mogadishu in his original 1996 fatwa.

Both retreats emboldened Osama bin Laden to strike the Great Satan in the belief no serious consequences would follow. More than 5,500 American deaths later, Jack Murtha still thinks this was capital statesmanship.

Nor is he alone on the Left. Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the George Soros-funded/pro-Hillary Clinton think tank headed by former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, urged President Bush to emulate the “quick and decisive way Reagan dealt with the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.”

President Reagan told the press on October 24, 1983, that remaining in Beirut despite the bombing of the Marine barracks was “central to our credibility on a global scale,” but by the end of the following February, we had completely withdrawn our forces. Unlike Clinton’s disastrous surrender – and his malfeasance and nonfeasance following subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, and the USS Cole – Reagan acted against the backdrop of the Cold War, where he saw Lebanon as an unnecessarily emboldening sign of U.S. weakness…to the Soviets. (At that time, both parties evaluated the rising Islamic jihad in terms of how it affected the balance-of-power between Washington and Moscow.) The modern Cold War, which was thrust upon the West by Osama and his cohorts, is between Islamic fanatics and those committed to democracy, freedom of religion, and individual liberty. Reagan would not retreat in that context; then, as now, the Left would.

In counseling this approach, Murtha candidly acknowledges he is contradicting himself and advocating a “premature” withdrawal that would leave Iraq in “disarry”:

Russert: But in 2004, you had a view that was much different than you had now, and this is what you wrote in your book: “A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance.” Aren’t you now advocating that?

Murtha: Yeah, you’re absolutely right…there comes a time when you got to change direction.

His current prescription is less a contradiction than a pathology of deaftism from the ineducable Left. Murtha advocated our withdrawal from Somalia and Lebanon, too. He warned the Today show in September 1993, “Our welcome has been worn out.” A month later, he assured the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he could not “see any achievable goal or national security interest in this operation.” And Murtha boasted on “Meet the Press” Sunday, “When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, ‘Get out.’”

Murtha claims we need to withdraw now, because, “It’s worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially.” His evidence? Insufficient rubbish collection. “When I spoke out, the garbage wasn’t being collected, oil production below pre-war level—all those things indicated to me we weren’t winning this, and it’s the same today, if not worse. “

His sunny assessment of war-torn Iraq makes one question his grip on reality. For instance, did you know, “The first six months we went in there, not a shot was fired”? Better yet “when I first went to Iraq, you could drive any place.” This kind of thinking led to his assessment the Armed Forces should redeploy “to Okinawa…you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly.”

If the Democratic Party does as well as predicted in the November elections, he may have a new station from which to propound his wisdom. Murtha announced earlier this month that if the Democrats recapture the House, he will seek the position of Majority Leader. A few days later, a flummoxed Nancy Pelosi stated, “In the spirit of unity to achieve our goal of winning a Democratic majority in November, Congressman John Murtha has informed me that he will suspend his campaign for Majority Leader until after we win a Democratic majority of the House.” On Sunday, Murtha defended his announcement on the grounds that “in this business you have to make sure you get your foot in the door.”

Which is exactly what he did by being the front man for the Democrats’ withdrawal policy. As a “war hero,” he was, to use Ann Coulter’s term, “a human shield,” unassailable and invested with a Cindy Sheehan-like “absolute moral authority.” His decision to hide his intention to lead the Democratic Party – like Pelosi’s coerced pledge from John Conyers that in a Democratic House there would be “No Rush to Impeachment” – was intended to hide the Left’s stated legislative agenda…which is the only way Democrats have successfully sought higher office in the last 30 years. (See “Carter, Jimmy” and “Clinton, Bill.”) It is an agenda of full legal protections for terrorists and no quarter warfare for their political enemies. And they’ve proven 23 years of hindsight cannot cure the blindness their ideological mania has inflicted.

Next to Barbara Lee, John Murtha is Osama bin Laden’s most dependable voice in the House. He may soon be Majority Leader. Then he can make his nightmares our reality.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23021

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 20, 2006 11:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There seems to be only 2 kinds of democrats; the cut and run Murthaized kind and the cut and jog kind.

Both are music to terrorist ears and hopes in Iraq, Iran and Syria. Both give aid and comfort to terrorist enemies.

Both are politically motivated and both are treasonous.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:43 p.m. EDT
Kerry, Feingold Seek Iraq Troop Deadline

Two potential 2008 presidential candidates appealed Tuesday for the Senate to support their call to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq "by a hard and fast deadline," a position putting them at odds with most of their fellow Democrats.

"Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq," Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin wrote in an e-mail sent to 3 million people nationwide.

"It's time for every member of the Senate to send an important message that we must change course," the senators wrote, imploring recipients to "take a stand against the senseless 'stay the course' Bush policy" and tell their senators to vote with the two Democrats.

In what promises to be a highly partisan election-year showdown Wednesday, the GOP-controlled Senate plans to take up the proposal by Kerry and Feingold that would require the Bush administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. Redeployment would begin immediately, under the proposal.

At least six other Democrats have publicly or privately indicated support for that position in recent days. The Senate will vote on the proposal by week's end.

The Senate also will consider, and eventually vote on, a separate nonbinding resolution that has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and, his aides say, a majority of Democrats.

It would call for - but not require - the administration to begin "a phased redeployment of U.S. forces" this year, and would not set a firm deadline by which time all forces must be out of the war zone.

Seeking support, Democratic sponsors of both proposals pitched their positions during the party's weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday. However, neither proposal is expected to win enough votes to be attached as an amendment to an annual military measure pending in the Senate.

Both proposals, nonetheless, are drawing ridicule from Republicans, who lumped Democrats into two groups - what they called the "cut and run" crowd backing the Kerry-Feingold position and the "cut and jog" folks supporting the other proposal.

"We cannot retreat. We cannot surrender. We cannot go wobbly. The price is far too high," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, suggesting Democrats want to do just that.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, disputed the GOP characterization of the resolution that would call for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq this year.

"It's not a cut-and-run strategy. It does not set a fixed timetable or an arbitrary deadline for the redeployment of our troops," he said. "We believe it represents where a majority of our caucus is."

With midterm elections less than five months away, Republicans are working to highlight divisions in the Democratic Party on Iraq as they seek to hang onto control of the House and Senate when polls show the public favoring a power shift to Democrats.

A week ago, the GOP-controlled Senate and House engineered back-to-back votes on Iraq that forced lawmakers in both parties to go on record on the war that polls show most Americans no longer support amid a rising U.S. death toll and a soaring price tag. In the end, both chambers of Congress soundly rejected timetables for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq.

Across the Capitol on Tuesday, the House easily approved an additional $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a $427 billion measure funding the Pentagon budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The money comes on top of $66 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan approved just last week. The vote was 407-19.

Led by Levin, Senate Democrats have spent the past week writing a proposal on Iraq that could get wide support among their rank and file. At the same time, Kerry and Feingold announced they would press their own separate proposals calling for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

A somewhat curious pairing, the two joined forces - and offered one amendment - after failing in private meetings to convince fellow Democrats that the so-called "consensus" proposal should include what they call "a date certain" for all U.S. forces to have left Iraq.

Feingold was the first Democratic senator to call for a withdrawal timetable, but his position has been overshadowed by Kerry, who has a stronger national profile because of his status as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.

Both are posturing for possible presidential runs in 2008, and their positions on Iraq play well with the liberal wing of the party - the Democratic faithful who will vote for the next Democratic presidential nominee.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/224538.shtml?s=ic

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 27, 2006 06:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Had enough now?
Posted: June 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

Mychal Massie

There's a reason a pet will continue to use your finest oriental rug as a urinal – it's because you clean the rug instead of removing the pet. If the pet is cute, perhaps cuddly, wags its tail and slobbers – it enjoys an "avoid paying the consequences for its actions card." In brief, you're loyal to a carpet-wetting mutt that will wag its tail at anyone with a bone. Such is the case with liberal Democrats and Republicans alike. Blind ideology trumps the courage and conviction of voters to do what is right.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker were kidnapped, tortured and slaughtered while on patrol. Their mutilated bodies were found dumped on the roadside and wired with bombs.

Just so we're on the same page, by mutilated I mean: They had their eyes gouged out, their limbs had been hacked off, they were beheaded and some reports indicate their genitals had been removed and stuffed in the mouths of their severed heads. Their bodies had been savaged to the point of not being recognizable – DNA testing was needed to ensure proper identification.


Were there rushed resolutions put forth by Congress condemning this animalism? Of course not. What we saw was John Kerry, D-Mass., from the bowels of Congress (sarcasm intended), lecturing the newly formed Iraqi government on its need to engage in self-help – while lecturing America on its need to "cut and run." His timeline for "cutting and running" had gone from Dec. 31 at the beginning of the week to July 2007 three days later – showing even his diatribes are fraught with indecision.

Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Harry Reid, D-Nev., et al. expressed not one word of outrage at the swine who perpetrated these atrocities – not one – zip – nada. They were too busy assailing the president, the Iraqi government and the troops for war crimes. There was no condemnation from the "Hollywooders" either.

John Murtha, D-Pa., wasn't even willing to acknowledge a half-ton of ordnance was responsible for killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – waiting instead to see if there would be opportunity to further bastardize our troops as barbaric murderers raging out of control, slaughtering innocent civilians. I digress to say, if Murtha is so averse to our military, he should stop collecting his military pension and benefits. In that there is talk he has aligned himself with the group Code Pink, they can pay his pension. After all, if they can give $650,000, as has been alleged, to terrorists in Fallujah – Murtha's compensation wouldn't amount to a hill of beans (pun intended).

There has been no outcry from human-rights organizations or the International Red Cross – who are ever quick to condemn American treatment of terrorist prisoners as inhumane. Their cacophony of silence speaks volumes about where their true sympathies lie.

There is no such demonstrative silence when it comes to blaming American troops for even a hint of misdeed. With Murtha cast in the role of pied piper, Media Research Center reports that "ABC, CBS and NBC have poured on the coverage [of Haditha], with more than three and a half hours of coverage in just the past three weeks. In contrast, a review of nearly five years of coverage finds those same networks have allotted only 52 minutes of airtime to telling the stories of America's highly decorated heroes in the war on terror."

Liberal Democrats, such as Jack Reed, D-R.I., (Republican Lincoln Chaffee's Democrat mirror image), advocate "cut and run," complaining it's been three years. "The president has no plan," they whine, to which I respond: "What kind of plan is 'cut and run'?" Where is the strategic planning in running home to mama? What do they envision as the aftermath of such a liquescent act of courage? Do they believe the fledgling Iraqi government will be able to withstand the assault from within that is sure to follow?

The proponents of "cut and run" and those who portray isolated incidents as evidence of pandemic American wrongdoing are not leaders. They are not supporters of our troops or military. They are the equivalent of mutts repeatedly messing the floor. And they will continue to do so until you, the voters, take matters into your own hands. Just like the mutt that thinks wagging its tail and slobbering somehow impairs our olfactory senses pursuant to the soiled carpet – these people think that a smile, a few lies and "Bush is wrong" slogans, is all it takes to get re-elected or have you watch their networks, while they continue insulting our intelligence and patriotism.

In my mind – the fact that not one of the aforementioned has expressed outrage over American civilians being beheaded, the mutilations of American troops at Fallujah and now, of these two fine young men cinches it. They are unfit to represent voters or express opinion. Our troops have been accused of the worst offenses, by Kerry, Murtha, Howard Dean, Durbin, et al., only to have the allegations shown false.

Voters should be filled with righteous indignation that refuses to be sated until every one of them is driven out of office, no matter how long it takes.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50797

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 04, 2006 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Why won't Bush listen to me? I say, we must surrender before we have a victory on our hands...and democrats have egg all over our cut and run faces

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 12, 2006 12:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another story the leftist press doesn't want discussed...John Murtha, the story of an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM affair. After all, the leftist press, leftist democrats and leftist groups have labeled John Murtha an "untouchable", presumably because Murtha is a Vietnam vet.

But this Vietnam vet..who was never ever in the Command structure...decision making as to war strategy, advocates a surrender now policy towards terrorists and terrorism.

This story is about political corruption...as in ABSCAM from days gone by. ABSCAM, where under cover FBI agents offered bribes to Congressional members for political favors to bring about legislation favoring their principals...principals which didn't exist. The FBI recorded and taped Congressional members being offered and accepting bribes.

In the case of Murtha, the answer was "not now"...I want to get to know you better first.

This is the story of an "untouchable" the leftist press doesn't want to talk about. Murtha is a fellow traveler with the leftist press who want to surrender to terrorists and terrorism. So Murtha, the traitor Kerry, Russ Feingold, Pelosi, Reid, other leftists and the leftist press are aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist regimes by giving them aid and comfort.

Hold on terrorists, we're going to pull the plug on the war on terrorists and terrorism before the US and it coalition partners have a victory on their hands.

They made a miscalculation. George Bush isn't buying a word of their bullsh*t.

These are the kinds of "heroes" the leftist press, leftist democrats and leftist groups swoon over and attempt to protect by declaring them "untouchables".

Special Report
The Rest of Murtha's FBI Tape
By David Holman
Published 7/12/2006 12:09:33 AM

What is on the rest of Congressman Jack Murtha's now infamous FBI tape? Much more than the available video reveals.

Thanks to the diligent efforts of conservative media and blogs in January and February of this year, many readers now know or remember that Congressman Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the "Abscam" investigation of the late 1970s and 1980. (I wondered where the mainstream media's outrage was over Murtha's murky lobbyist relationships, besides the L.A. Times's lone, forgotten piece on the subject.)

In recent weeks, Murtha's Abscam past has enjoyed renewed attention in the higher echelons of conservative media, with even Rush Limbaugh and Bob Novak joining the chorus.

Still, only a brief, 13-second snippet of a tape of the FBI's undercover meeting with Murtha is widely available. The agent tells him, "I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know...." Murtha replies, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry. At this point [emphasis Murtha's]."

In his column, Novak hinted at the content of the tape. "The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence." We have seen him declining the cash and expressing interest, but not the bragging. What is on the rest of the tape?

An article from the August 6, 1980, Washington Post, inexplicably unavailable on LexisNexis, fills in some of the gaps***Note** It's not inexplicable to me, or anyone else with more than 2 firing neurons **. Written by Jack Anderson, the sometimes controversial yet Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative columnist, the article details Murtha's conversation with the investigators and sheds further light on his status as an unindicted co-conspirator. Anderson's reporter, Gary Cohn, apparently reviewed the tapes.

Anderson framed Murtha's performance as "perhaps the saddest scene on the secret Abscam videotapes.... He refused to take the money, but his reason was hardly noble." The column continued:


"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."

..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

The dialogue continued as follows:

Amoroso: Let me ask you now that we're together. I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard [middleman Howard Criden] what we were willing to pay, and [This is where the available videotape begins]I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know....

Murtha: I'm not interested.

Amoroso: OK.

Murtha: At this point, [This is where the available videotape ends] you know, we do business together for a while. Maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't.... Right now, I'm not interested in those other things. Now, I won't say that some day, you know, I, if you made an offer, it may be I would change my mind some day.

It is damning stuff. But the mainstream media has yet to question Murtha aggressively about that short snippet of tape, much less the full reel. After my February article questioned Murtha's ties to defense contractors while chairing the defense appropriations subcommittee, John McLaughlin interviewed Murtha on his obscure One on One program. Besides suggesting that my article originated with a "sinister genius at the White House," McLaughlin asked Murtha about the tape:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: ...Murtha was approached by an undercover FBI agent, and you're on tape telling the agent, quote, unquote, "I'm not interested." Is that true?

REP. MURTHA: Not only that, John; they pulled a drawer out and they had $50,000 there and I said, "I'm not interested." I said, "I'm interested in investment in my district, period."

Not interested, period? The only "period" that Anderson reported Murtha using in the conversation was, "I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transaction at all, period." No wonder Murtha has kept a generally low profile through most of his political career.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10077

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 18, 2006 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They're reprehensible
Posted: July 18, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com


Mychal Massie

Well spoke Mark Twain when he said: "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." The truth be told not, only are they idiots, but many of them are the worst examples of humanity – and none is a better portrait of same than Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., but I am getting ahead of myself.

I justly brand these carrion the worst kind of human beings because of their relentless attacks against our military men and women. Theirs is not simply over-the-top foolish comments, they are personal, ad-hominem attacks directed at men and women who do not deserve them – but serve under a commander in chief Boxer and those like her loathe.


Our military men and women have families, friends and children who are proud of their relatives, friends and parents who serve. Boxer and those like writer Terry J. Allen, who can be best described as the hanky that catches the spittle from Boxer's lips, have no sense of propriety when it comes to making a simple fact fit a theory – the proportions of which even Michael Stone's work pales in comparison to.

For Boxer and Allen to label our military as being in a drugged stupor is unforgivable. Do some military personnel use various medications to sustain them during times of unimaginable stress? Yes, they do. Does that make the entire Armed Forces the equivalent of yesteryear's rock bands – and many of today's elected officials? No, it doesn't.

How do these wild-eyed accusations and incriminations make the children of military personnel feel? What does the child think after attending a school where teachers sing praises to Michael Moore and attack the war effort, and then witnessing their recently returned parents taking medication for a legitimate ailment?

Boxer would be far better served lamenting the large number of congressmen who take prescription pills often enough to suffer "rebound." The dirty little secret that no one talks about is the number of prescription drug abusers and alcoholics that sit in positions of confidence and run our country while in a stupor – and it is certainly no secret pursuant to the addicts and abusers in the media.

Yet Boxer and Allen, rather than report the truth of their own, attack our military in a draconian attempt to embarrass the president.

Then there is the recycled rube that the military has been infiltrated by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. This bit of damnable heterodoxy from the vacant mind of David Holthouse claims, "Ten years after a scandal over neo-Nazis in the Armed Forces, extremists are once again worming their way into recruit-starved military." (Pentagon Reduced to Recruiting Neo-Nazis; David Holthouse; July 9; Intelligence Report.)

First of all, the military isn't recruit-starved. I recently spent a day with military personnel who were able to share exact numbers with me: Our military is not suffering from a shortage of recruits.

While there are exceptions to every rule – what isn't an exception is the number of Klansmen, racists and segregationists in government as recent as 40 years ago. What isn't an aberration is the number of black children that the progeny of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger murder every day. Why is that not decried? Also, let us not forget that the racist supremacist most recently responsible for killing his fellow military men was a black Muslim who threw a grenade into the tent where they slept.

If these disgusting pissoirs want to attack the president, they should have enough intestinal fortitude to do it openly and without using our military as pawns. To make a "fact" fit their fiction is a disgrace to our military and their families.

November is coming, and we should not forget the malevolent treachery of Boxer's kind. Not one of them should be spared our wrath.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51097

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a