Story from today's Taranto: Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy.
Is this the usual dog bites man story, or have these guys escalated one notch in their bid to undermine the US?
[I thought an image of Murtha keeping the pressure up would help. --JJ]
Posts
13 comments:
the us has already undermined itself with 3 years of inept leadership and no strategy to speak of for the future. someone is finally saying the party is over - time to cut losses.
Pinko Pavlovian reflex. Do lefties ever take even a microsecond to think, before regurgitating the Party Line?
ai - this war is over: the only question is whether this administration will deal with the consequences of its failure or whether the buck will be passed to the next at the expense of more loss of US life. But whatever the case will be, your compatriots already overwhelmingly do not have the stomach to continue. And, from wmds to last throes, can you blame them ? How long & how badly are you willing to let your dream team fuck up before you pull the rug under their feet?
The war that's over is the one in Europe, unfortunately. I hope our Democrat Quiclings don't sell the US down the same goddamned river.
The war that's over is the one in Europe, unfortunately
did it ever start ?
Here's more comforting news. It's all dirty paper anyways.
The siren song of defeatism. Where did we hear that before?
At any rate, getting back to my question: above the usual background noise of lefty defeatism, I still think the pronouncements by Murtha are an escalation. For a congressman in position of authority to explictly call for the undermining of our war-fighting capability (in time of war!) is quite astounding to me. Have we all become so inured to not feel a shiver down the spine when something like this happens? It's one thing for "Anonymous" to call for surrender to the enemy (a dog bites man story coming from that quarter), it's another thing to hear that from someone in power.
Murtha is a scandal. There should be some public repudiation by some Marines out in the blogosphere.
Semper fidelis, my arse. This guy is a Lynndie England 20 years after.
Lyndie England made the mistake of being true to her nature while she was still a minion. Murtha had the wit to save his shit for when he could be the one's pissing on minions.
There are many many excellent people in the Marines. There are also careerit assholes. There are also opportunists who wish to let membership in that group serve as a shield to protect them as they pursue their own agendas.
Scott Ritter was one of those opportunistic morally bankrupt tpes . And the shield provided cover for his taking money from Saddam and facing responsibility for chasing underage girls.
Murtha is also proving himself to be an opportunistic pig. His agenda is more ideological, and less directly self-serving, than was Scott's. Don't change the fact that they guy on the one hand wants to be honored and shielded from criticism because he once was a marine, while at the same time using his protected position to endanger and degrade those who fight in this war, including all those current marines.
Murtha is Mclellan 1864 on steroids
1) Who was Scott Ritter? 2) MacClellan was just an ineffective military leader that made such a pretty Army he didn't want to have to use it in a dirty war. Murtha is stabbing his former mates in the back. It is sickening no matter what side you're on. I htink Taranto said that today and I agree.
Scott Ritter was the ex-Marine who served as a UN inspector in Iraq during the 90's. Earning a reputation as one who had a bulldog mentality and tough on Saddam. Then, all of a sudden, in '98 I believe, he resigned from the inspection force, and went incommunicado for a while. Only to appear in public, around 2001, as an advocate for stopping inspections and a removal of the pressure on Saddam. He had a book being published in which he now claimed Saddam was unfairly maligned and was a victim of the Americans. Thus through 911 and the build up to Iraq, he was a frequent figure in the media, as he was one who had 'seen the light". It came out, after the fall of Baghdad, that his book had been sponsored in its publication by the Iraqui government, and that Scott had received payments for his scholarly efforts starting from......1998. All this coincided with his being questioned by the police in NY for seeking out a 15 year old girl for dating, which led to a case that was dimissed a year later after somehow Scott had found the means to hire a very well connected Washington lawyer. By which time, we now know, his "book project" was in full swing.
As for Mclellan, yes, while in the Army he was a priggish by the book look-ma-at-my-parade Wes Clark type. By 1864, though, he was a mixture of Kerry and Murtha. The Democrats [ever true to their principals] had made it clear that their aim was to stop the war and enter into negotiations with the Confederacy. That is, admit defeat and talk about the aftermath. McLellan, as their candidate, seems to have played this role with full enthusiasm. He criticized "Lincoln's War", sure. But he also criticized the conduct of the war and the men who fought it, from its generals to its ground soldiers. His tone, and his antipathy, to the men now in uniform, if you but read his speeches, is hard to distinguish from what we now hear from kerry, and murtha, [and in a more muted form from Wes Clark]
I had forgotten about MClellan's political career. right you are.
Unfortunately, Scott Ritter was a marine
cherchez la fille?
Post a Comment