Althouse: "I won't stand for the Swift-boating of Jack Murtha."

November 19, 2005

"I won't stand for the Swift-boating of Jack Murtha."

Senator Kerry employs a coinage that stirs up old feelings of pity.

17 comments:

XWL said...: First, why are you up?

Second, Rep. Murtha dropped a big stinking mound of stupidity on the carpet and the Republicans had the good sense to rub his (and most of the Democratic Party's) nose in it (and no, you shouldn't do that to dogs in real life).

His status as a veteran has nothing to do with his ability to process information and make decisions regarding the current conflict.

I hope that 30 years from now these chickenhawk accusations won't be flung about (Murtha attacked Vice-President Cheney for his 5 deferments this week).

Sen. Kerry just proves every time he opens his mouth how wise the voters of this nation truly are.; 11/19/05, 6:28 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Yes, It's rather frightening to be up and thinking about John Kerry before 5 a.m.; 11/19/05, 7:05 AM
ALH ipinions said...: Ann

I agree that Murtha debased his distinguished military record and his position on Iraq by citing deferments of those who disagree with him. (And, Kerry provided little cover for him in this political fox hole.)

But it was equally debasing when Republicans distorted Murtha’s amendment, which called for a phased withdrawal of troops, by drafting a “Murtha” resolution calling for “immediate” withdrawal (cut and run) and then making sanctimonious speeches against their own resolution.

After all, Iraq’s VP Chalibi himself has called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops (and other provisions) consistent with Murtha’s amendment.

Last night's debate amounted to a pox on both their houses...; 11/19/05, 7:46 AM
Ann Althouse said...: So then, Murtha said one thing to the American people in an effort to stir them up but wrote something more moderate in his resolution. Why was it wrong for the Republicans to respond to what he said in the political debate? That's where the real fight is. Congress can't really withdraw the troops by passing a resolution like this. The whole thing is just a way of speaking to the people. Why shouldn't his opponents latch on to the way he is actually speaking to the people?; 11/19/05, 8:53 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Kerry is so lame isn't he?

Re the Swift Boats, they simply banded together and said what they collectivey observed and felt ..that Kerry was a glory-hungry, lame poser.

And in the interest of full disclosure, that's the best $25 I ever spent to support the Swift Boat Vets.

Re the "debate" yesterday, I believe the country will be very eager to embrace a McCain presidency as we are sick of the regular sideshows in Congress.; 11/19/05, 10:05 AM
Finn Alexander Kristiansen said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 11/19/05, 10:58 AM
ALH ipinions said...: I suppose this all depends on how immediate is immediate.

But with all due respect, anyone who regards this debate as more than a partisan polemical exercise must infer that Murtha meant the six months timeframe wildaboutharrie cited (backed-up by redployment "on the horizons" - whatever that means).

Indeed, the 403-3 vote is dispositive that only 3 members of Congress supports the immediate (ie. Now!; not over some reasonable time) withdrawal of U.S. troops.; 11/19/05, 11:00 AM
Finn Alexander Kristiansen said...: Rep. Murtha and the Democrats are engaged in a rather cynical game.

They know good and well that the administration will likely draw down troops next year. While violence remains, Iraqi troops are rapidly absorbing more of the "hits" from terrorist/insurgent/Baathist groups.

What the Democrats are trying to do is manipulate the public into believing they will be responsible for the troops coming home. You do this in two ways:

First you insist that President Bush has no plan to bring troops back (despite the fact that we are clearly lining up events to do just that, one political step at a time, and as more Iraqis are trained to take on various tasks).

Second, you get out front now and vocally demand those troops home (in effect taking credit for an inevitable event). It's akin to demanding that the sun rise the next morning.

They are trying to recast any possible troop homecoming into defeat for Bush, rather than as a sign that certain stages in our Iraq situation have been completed.

Hence, the troops will be coming home due to failure of Bush policy, not success, and the Democrats will line up to say "We brought our boys home."

Further, if the situation deteriorates in an unexpected way (and frankly, nearly everything that has happened shouldn't be remotely suprising in terms of trying to hold and rebuild a huge country divided on religious lines), the Democrats, around 2007 or 2008 will be saying to the American people, "See how we saved the lives of our boys?"

All rather ugly.

(This is a correction on previous post,largely for spelling corrections); 11/19/05, 11:10 AM
Buck said...: ...stirs up old feelings of pity.

Pity? For Kerry? SELF-pity on Kerry's part, perhaps, but there's certainly no pity here. Kerry got what he deserved.; 11/19/05, 11:38 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Buck: I think he's pitiful.; 11/19/05, 12:33 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Mark: You should credit Kos for that.; 11/19/05, 1:16 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Mark: I know they encourage reuse, but I think you should give credit.; 11/19/05, 2:07 PM
DaveG said...: Murtha said:

"I like guys who got five deferments and [have] never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," referring to Vice President Cheney.

The chickenhawk argument is ludicrous. Is he saying all Senators and Congressman that haven't served should recuse themselves from any vote concerning the war? That remark was beneath the dignity of a Marine officer.

The Whitehouse responded:

Scott McClellan made a parallel between Murtha and anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore.

"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party," McClellan said.

Democrats Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island on Friday blasted McClellan's comparison.

Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called it "totally inappropriate" for the White House to "try to smear Jack Murtha" and went on to say that every veteran and family member of veterans should "resent that comment ... there's no excuse for attacking Jack Murtha like that."

So the White House is accused of "smearing" Murtha by saying Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America? How dare they!!

Or was Levin referring to the White House accusing Murtha of "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party?" Is there a problem with that, Senator Levin? I mean, isn't he? Aren't you??

And by the way, when exactly did Micheal Moore become persona non grata with Levin's party? They seemed so close in 2004, but now being accused of "endorsing" his policies is a smear.

Note: quotes from FoxNews.com.; 11/19/05, 4:11 PM
XWL said...: All you Dems under the age of 32 better hurry up and join the military if you ever hope to have a political career.

If you are already too old and haven't served then start working on your excuses now.

Guess they all read Starship Troopers and thought military service as a requirement for enfranchisement is a good idea.

If they raise the enlistment age to 42 like they are currently studying then many more of you can look forward to calling your Republican colleagues chickenhawks in the future.

Kerry's involvement with Winter Soldiers spreading outright lies about the military lasted longer and had far more impact than his service to our country.

In my opinion (and it would seem, the opinion of many voters) that fully negates the positive regard he might have accrued by serving.

My comment to Mark must suffice with, what he lacks in thought he makes up for in volume.

As far as those 'wag the dog' comments from '98. That's what happens when a president doesn't share his intelligence or follows through with his plans. Lobbing a few cruise missles to topple a dictator or catch a ruthless terrorist was a pitiable and laughable strategy that was looked at with dismay by many within the intelligence community (if Anonymous is to be believed).

Not only that, Osama himself stated clearly that those actions were examples of American weakness and lack of fighting spirit.

He had declared open warfare on us, and all we had for him were a few bombs. The 1st WTC bombing deserved more than a court case. The embassy bombings deserved a real response. By the time the U.S.S. Cole happen you can easily see why Osama laughed at us.

The giddiness of victory and the end of cold war along with the false prosperity of an economic bubble (has anyone studied how much of the wealth generated during Clinton's administration was bubble related?) left everyone blind to the coming of the next war.

Not enough congress-critters demanded we declare all out war in '98. They were too afraid to lose their jobs (had 9/11 never happened they would have sounded nuts). Not enough intelligence was being collected. Not enough pressure was being put on countries that harbored terrorist.

Hindsight is so much better than normal vision that maybe more people should try and use their rectums as their instrument of collecting visual datum.

Okay one more comment on Mark, just cause I enjoy sharing the love. Mark's rectum is so amazingly versatile that he both sees through his, and talks through it as well, to bad that makes it possible for him to use it as designed cause he would seem to have a large volume of waste product backing up and infecting his thought process.; 11/19/05, 5:26 PM
Buck said...: DNR Mom sez: Regardless, it's just plain embarrassing to have Dub-ya's minute intellect trying to lead us and the free world. No wonder Congress gets confused.

I think it was night before last during Leno's monolog that JL said (paraphrased): "Democrats are always going on about how dumb Bush is. Now they're all screaming about how he fooled them! What does that say for their intelligence?"

Busted.

And yeah, Ann, you're right. Kerry is pitiful.; 11/19/05, 6:21 PM
XWL said...: First, this gives me an opportunity to fix the end of my screed cause somehow my eyes failed me and I didn't catch my own typo.

that last overly intricate and overlong sentence should read (changes bolded):

Mark's rectum is so amazingly versatile that he both sees through it, and talks through it as well, too bad that makes it impossible for him to use it as designed cause he would seem to have a large volume of waste product backing up and infecting his thought process.

With that out of the way let me respond to Geoduck2.

Mark is spamming this thread with the waste product of Kos threads, that's not thoughtful debate, and it's not even typing, it's [control]c followed by [control]v. He has spammed other threads in this manner whenever the topic of the war on terror has come up. He's not swaying anybody, he's just wearing out people's fingers as they have to abuse their scroll wheel to get past his cutting and pasting. Had he stucked to his first 4 comments and laid off the recycled Kos-ism than I wouldn't have been inspired to suggest that he uses his ass in ways that aren't for fun or in its design.

It is my opinion that he is using hindsight to justify his opposition which is unfair. And he is full of waste product up to his eyeballs, as is anyone else who engages in that type of sophistry.

You dislike what I say and how I said it only cause you disagree with me. I suspect if I was slamming the President with similar invective you would have cheered me on.

I feel no shame in using humor, or colorful language to make a political point. It's a tradition that stretches back to Ancient Greece and shouldn't be suspended now.; 11/19/05, 7:28 PM
XWL said...: Geoduck2: since you pretend to care, here you go.

There has never been a more successful military exercise than the invasion of Iraq. It was an amazingly well coordinated attack across hostile territory during a once in a century sandstorm.

The subsequent occupation and building of an Iraqi democracy has also happened at a lightning pace compared to all previous attempts at such an enterprise.

Germany and Japan were still complete basket cases up through the mid 50s and both were in danger of having communist agitators take over their governments during the first ten years after WWII.

When should we leave Iraq, ask the same question about Germany and Japan.

Iraq will be our friend in SW Asia while the current worldwide conflagration continues to burn. The Sunni will either fall in line or be marginalized, the Shia and the Kurds are on our side and they both value their autonomy within a unified Iraq. The bombs haven't shaken their resolve and it shouldn't shake ours. Iraq will be a useful ally and base of operation for decades to come, get used to it.

We are in the midst of a conflict much like the cold war which will have some shooting conflicts, but mostly will be a matter of pressure and diplomacy against the forces of Islamo-fascism. It's a conflict that won't be definitively won or lost for another 30-50 years, and victory isn't a forgone conclusion, just as it wasn't during the Cold War, no Reagan, no victory.

President Bush is currently reviled by many just as President Reagan was. History will show that he was right, though, just as those who still aren't blinded by their past hatred give Reagan a tremendous amount of credit for the final collapse of the Soviet Empire.

President Bush has created the framework from which Islamo-fascism can be defeated. It can not be defeated through disengagement, or containment. It can only be defeated by draining the swamps. The dictators that cause the conditions that make nihilistic self-negation an attractive political movement must be thrown into the dustbin of history.

Saddam was the first, he won't be the last.

The administration and their agents can't say what I said cause it would freak people out. But I believe the underpinnings of the efforts they are engaged in are based in thoughts much like mine.

Now go ahead and tell me that I'm crazy and full of crap. I don't care. It doesn't hurt.

If you'll notice my very first comment set a tone that was somewhat scatalogical. Rep. Murtha has behaved idiotically this week and the Media that pretended that his statements were fresh were being disingenuous.

I can't help but feel that the anti-Iraq occupation crowd are really just anti-any use of the U.S. military in any capacity crowd, cause they often resort to the rhetoric of the America hating Chomskys and Moores and Ward Churchhills of the world.

Before you tell me how wrong I am take a good long look at who agrees with you and who the loudest voices are in opposition to President Bush.

(and if I haven't already tried your patience enough go here for more of my thoughts about all this); 11/20/05, 1:41 AM