The Murtha death blow

  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176

Main Question or Discussion Point

When they turned on Murtha they killed themselves.

I think that's it. Bush is dead and the Republicans are running for cover. It's time to clean house!!!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
356
3
what on earth are you talking about?
 
  • #3
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
THE WAR OF WORDS OVER IRAQ INTENSIFIES
An influential Democrat who served in Vietnam calls for a pullout, rankling the GOP

By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The congressional debate over the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq escalated Thursday when a House Democrat with a reputation as a hard-nosed defense hawk called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Murtha's appeal drew a sharp rebuke from top House Republicans, who accused him of embracing a cut-and-run strategy.

"They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Murtha, a 73-year-old decorated Marine veteran who served as an intelligence officer in Vietnam, is widely respected by his colleagues on military matters. His stance has the potential to influence others in Congress who are nervous about falling public support for the war. [continued]
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3469480

They really screwed up when they attacked Murtha. He is extremely tight with the top brass in the Pentagon.
 
  • #4
Skyhunter
Smurf said:
what on earth are you talking about?
John Murtha

Murtha has been known as a hawkish Democrat, who supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The Bush Administration sharply criticized Murtha's comments, Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that it is "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." Congressional Democrats took offensive on such comments being directed to a Vietnam vet. Murtha's comments forced a heated debate on the floor of the US House of Representatives on November 18, where Democrats and Republicans sparred on the issue of withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

For his stance on the war in Iraq some Republicans have called him a coward
 
  • #5
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
FredGarvin said:
I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.
Except that due to his impeccable history and tight bonds with the military, they only discredited themselves; and not just in principle but in fact.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Their gutter tactics and smear campaigns won't work this time.
 
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Smurf said:
what on earth are you talking about?
A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.

This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".
 
  • #9
Archon
Pengwuino said:
A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.
This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".
This depends on your definition of "surrendering." If by surrender you mean something along the lines of "I surrendered the book to Martha, and she thanked me profusely," then I would probably point to the vast increase in terrorist activity in Iraq since the invasion and say that Bush has already surrendered Iraq to the terrorists. Of course, Bush hasn't formally surrendered to the terrorists in the sense that Germany surrendered at the end of World War II. But nobody is calling for him to do that. In other words, I want you to define surrender. Then I want you to surrender to reality and stop trying to spin every bit of anti-Bush information that comes your way.

And murderers? Can you give me some numbers comparing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by American troops to the number of Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists since the beginning of the conflict? I would appreciate it. While you're at it, I would love to see that list of the other 57 times the democrats have said that. Good luck.
 
  • #10
Skyhunter
Pengwuino said:
A "hawkish" democrat senator denounced hte Bush administration for not surrendering to the terrorists and handing over Iraq to murderers.
This is case #58 where democrats have claimed "this will be the downfall of Bush!".
I thought Evo was trying to clean up this kind of tabloid posting.

Surrender to terrorists?

Hand over Iraq to murderers?

That is hyperbole that is off the scale.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Lets see

Current objective: establish a democracy and supress terrorists.

Democrat plan: leave, give Iraq to murderers (unless your definition of someone who sets off a bomb infront of a police station to kill policemen and civilians is something other then a murderer or terrorist)

That is like saying France didn't surrender when Germany took over its government. Oh and Archon, you might want to check the numbers yourself as you'll be unpleasently surprised at how many people have died at the hands of terrorist. Of course... the media rarely hypes such numbers up because it may just sound like terrorists are bad people if such numbers are talked about too much. 50 police dead here, 10 government officials dead there... oh who cares, we can get more subscriptions if we advertise the 2 dead US soldiers.
 
  • #12
Skyhunter
Ivan Seeking said:
Their gutter tactics and smear campaigns won't work this time.
As I stated in Are the tides changing

Using divisive tactics when the majority disagrees with you is political suicide.
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Skyhunter said:
Using divisive tactics when the majority disagrees with you is political suicide.
Thats why we could soon be seeing the end of hte Democratic party. They attempted to undermine the majorities vote by stopping Bush's judges which infuriated the public.
 
  • #14
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Pengwuino said:
Thats why we could soon be seeing the end of hte Democratic party. They attempted to undermine the majorities vote by stopping Bush's judges which infuriated the public.
I'm not sure what you mean -- a majority of Americans support Bush? Or are you talking about some time in past history? And if talking about past history, how will that infuriate Americans today?

Edit: By the way, that's not exactly a slam. It's a political reality. If you read the Constitution, the President doesn't actually have much power to impose his personal policies. His main power is his image as leader of the nation. Without the poll numbers, defying him has no consequences.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Ivan Seeking said:
When they turned on Murtha they killed themselves.
I think that's it. Bush is dead and the Republicans are running for cover. It's time to clean house!!!
I think saying an attack on Murtha kills Bush might be overstating the case a little.

All in all, Murtha's comments, the Republicans 'symbolic, non-binding' bill proposed solely to put Democrats on the spot, and the debate in the House today have been a good thing. Congress is actually talking about things important to the nation. The debate was pretty exciting - they stopped short of actual violence, but it was very rowdy with a few lows like Schmidt's comment that cowards cut and run - marines don't cut and run (Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel. Schmidt later apologized and asked that her comment be withdrawn), but a lot of highs from both sides, as well.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
FredGarvin said:
I don't think they had much of a choice. They lost one of their democratic hawks and they had to say something. It's obvious they're not going to win him back without the discovery of a huge stash of atomic weapons. Might as well attack him.
Btw, what would be wrong with, "we respectfully disagree", or, "we believe he is terribly wrong..."? Or, how about, "we are not worthy to lick the dirt on your shoes"...okay, they probably wouldn't say that... :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #17
58
0
John Murtha's stunning comments calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq made the front page of newspapers around the country this week. It was particularly astonishing because the veteran Pennsylvania congressman is anything but a publicity seeker or a media hog. You won't, for instance, find him on the House floor opining on every subject under the sun.

But his counsel is widely sought. A decorated Vietnam War veteran -- one who has spent more than three decades on Capitol Hill as a behind-the-scenes power broker -- his thoughts and pronouncements on military matters and defense policy are respected on both sides of the aisle.

During the 2004 vice presidential debate, when he was asked what he could do about the "deeply divided electorate," Dick Cheney acknowledged that it was a "disappointment," and went on to say that things used to be different. "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee."

No longer. Following Murtha's blistering attack Thursday on the Bush administration's war policy, he was asked about comments from the president and vice president calling it "irresponsible" for Democrats to criticize the war. This was Murtha's response: "I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

Similarly, in 2004, when Murtha first began to question the conduct of the war, Republicans in the House harshly criticized him. Then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay called Murtha's remarks a "calculated, craven political stunt." Unbowed, Murtha fired back at the former pest exterminator: "When I was in Vietnam, you were killing bugs."

Murtha's most recent comments have once again thrust him into the spotlight. But Murtha's initial election to Congress was national news as well. Following the death of a 24-year Republican incumbent in 1973, Murtha won a special election in February of the following year -- at a time when the Nixon administration was becoming overwhelmed with revelations about the ongoing Watergate investigation. Murtha won by only 122 votes (becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress), but it was a harbinger for Republican troubles in the 1974 midterm elections. He has won comfortably ever since.

Murtha has been a reliable pro-labor lawmaker during his time in the House. He voted in favor of going to war in Iraq in 2002 and also supported the first Gulf War in 1991. He backs drilling for oil in Alaska but has voted no on the Bush tax cuts. He also opposes abortion rights and supports the death penalty. And that fits the character of his aging, culturally conservative district, the 12th, situated in southwest Pennsylvania, and his hometown of Johnstown.

.......
The second bolded quote is a classic.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5018733
 
  • #18
kat
26
0
403 noes
3 ayes
on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
 
  • #19
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
kat said:
403 noes
3 ayes
on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
And let me guess. Hunter, the Republican that initiated the bill, also voted against it.

The vote was irrelevant, since the bill was a symbolic statement rather than a serious proposal. It's purpose was to pre-empt Murtha's proposal and to put Democrats on the spot. It was worded so that approval would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, but it's insertion in place of Murtha's proposal would look like a resounding defeat of Murtha's proposal to the general public.

It's kind of a lowball tactic, but that's okay. The heated passions on both sides about the Iraq war are a big improvement over last Spring's priorities.
 
  • #20
Skyhunter
BobG said:
And let me guess. Hunter, the Republican that initiated the bill, also voted against it.
The vote was irrelevant, since the bill was a symbolic statement rather than a serious proposal. It's purpose was to pre-empt Murtha's proposal and to put Democrats on the spot. It was worded so that approval would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do, but it's insertion in place of Murtha's proposal would look like a resounding defeat of Murtha's proposal to the general public.
It's kind of a lowball tactic, but that's okay. The heated passions on both sides about the Iraq war are a big improvement over last Spring's priorities.
You mean like emergency, middle of the night, this time only special legislation to distract us from Tom Delay's problems?

Oh wait, that wasn't the reason. It was so that Bill Frist could demonstrate his ability to diagnose a brain dead patient from a video tape.
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
19,661
5,935
A Republican clone of Murtha's proposal was brought to a vote and was voted-down nearly unanamously. So all that says to me is that Democrats talk, but aren't willing to stand-by their convictions: If Murtha is right, why didn't the Democrats vote for the proposal? The Republicans called their bluff and the Democrats didn't have the stones to stand by their beliefs.

Hypocrites and weaklings, the lot of them.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Skyhunter
russ_watters said:
Murtha's proposal was brought to a vote and was voted-down nearly unanamously. So all that says to me is that Democrats talk, but aren't willing to stand-by their convictions: If Murtha is right, why didn't the Democrats vote for his proposal? The Republicans called their bluff and the Democrats didn't have the stones to stand by their beliefs.
Hypocrites and weaklings, the lot of them.
It was not Murtha's proposal.

It was a strawman, and he voted against it as well.

It was nothing more than an underhandeed manuever so that they could make statements like yours with no real basis in reality.
 
  • #23
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Russ, you really can't tell the difference between a Republican stunt and an actual vote? Why would anyone vote to pull out with no plan.

No wonder you supported Bush.
 
  • #24
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,819
1,999
Lawmakers Reject Immediate Iraq Withdrawal

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated.

"To cut and run would invite terrorism into our backyards, and no one wants to see troops fighting terrorism on American soil," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Friday night after the House, as planned, rejected a GOP-written resolution for immediate withdrawal.

The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break.

Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure. That included Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.
Why does the Republican leadership make such idiotic statements as Hastert did? Bush's belliegerent policies have been an open invitation to terrorists to strike at the US. A stable government in Iraq will not change that. However, it is unlikely Iraq will be stable anytime in the forseeable future, thanks to Bush!

IMO, Iraq is certainly like Vietnam all over again.
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Astronuc said:
IMO, Iraq is certainly like Vietnam all over again.
Yep, that was hard to see coming, huh.

We were only in Nam for what...nearly twenty years? What irony that two men who dodged service to avoid going would start another Nam.
 

Related Threads on The Murtha death blow

  • Last Post
3
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
8
Replies
194
Views
28K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
Top