If the stakes weren't so high, the efforts of Democrats to use combat veterans to push a defeatist foreign policy might be amusing. In 2004, the vehicle was John Kerry. Somehow, the Dems convinced themselves that his service in Vietnam would insulate him and the party from effective criticism on defense and security issues. Apparently they forgot that, upon returning from Vietnam, Kerry had viciously slandered the military. The Dems also overlooked several decades worth of Kerry's unstinting opposition to the exercise of American power. Indeed, except for his cynical vote in favor of giving the president authority to take on Saddam Hussein, Kerry's last act in favor of the projection of American power might well have been when he shot that Vietcong guy in the back in, what, 1969.
After the Kerry debacle, the Dems turned to Rep. John Murtha, whose credentials as a combat veteran and involvement in military affairs as a congressman were expected to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic positions. And, given the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war, the ethically-challenged Murtha had a fairly good run.
That run now may be over. As the Washington Post reports, Murtha's plan to "slow bleed" the U.S. out of Iraq has stumbled badly, and caused his party more than a little embarrassment. But as much as many Democrats try to distance themselves from Murtha, his oh-so-clever plan has "Democrat" written all over it. Instead of simply stating the Democratic position through a resolution, or straightforwardly imposing the Democratic position by cutting off funds, Murtha hoped to author a U.S. defeat by bleeding the war of troops and funds through the imposition of conditions on the conduct of the war -- conditions he assumed cannot be met. For many Democrats, Murtha's sin resides less in the cynical plan itself than in what the Post calls its launch, which included Murtha's candid (and, he thought, off-the-record) statement about what he really was up to.
There's not much point in having a combat veteran in charge of pushing for America's defeat if he's going to ending exposing himself as a sneakier than average pol. Especially, when those pesky America voters remain so perversely unenthusiastic about defeat.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 6)
1. I have been waiting a loooong time for the other shoe to drop. I recognize that "Once a Marine, Always a Marine"; but I am totally amazed that the Marine Corps League or some other representative group from the Marine Cadre have not come forward to disavow themselves and protect their integrety.
Ex Army,
Papasnake37
Loren A. Jacobs at 11:49PM on Feb 25th 2007
2. Papasnake,
Two points: 1) There are hundreds of thousands of former and current Marines, and dozens of Marine Corps support organizations, who would love to give Murtha a well deserved dressing down.
2) All of these same Marines and organizations understand that the Marine Corps is under serious periodic threat of being abolished, usually, brother warrior, instigated by current or former Army authorities. The Marine Corps learned long ago to stay out of the political arena entirely unless its survival is at stake.
But rest assured, no Marines are naming their bulldogs "Murtha", although some of their wives are so naming their poodles.
mikem at 12:32AM on Feb 26th 2007
3. There was a time, not all that long ago, that military service was the rule, not the exception, among those seeking office. The Civil War shaped the generation of political and business chiefs that led the country through the remainder of the 19th century. The World Wars formed a leadership cadre that lasted through the rest of the 20th century.
But the fact is that military service does not in itself imply heroism; while the agitation of wartime may help the cream rise to the top, for the most part service implies ordinary guys trying to survive extraordinary circumstances.
Further, while time in uniform can help shape character, it's in no way an irrevocable badge of honor. At the highest levels, the enormous force of will and shrewd understanding of others that Grant showed in his Civil War commands deserted him in his subsequent political efforts. Similarly, Nixon's wartime Navy service did not prevent him from making grievous errors of judgment as President.
Murtha's meritorious stint as a junior officer certainly forms one facet of the full image of the man, but it in no way confirms any sort of oracular status on him or his judgments on things military.
JEM at 1:25AM on Feb 26th 2007
4. I echo Loren Jacobs' surprise at the lack of response from former Marines. Jack Murtha's bio suggests he was active duty for about 5 years and reserve for nearly another 35 years! Surely, there are other former Marines who knew him then and what made him tick. Maybe former USMC officers look at the world differently and are willing to overlook Jack's little pecadillos.
Alan at 7:43AM on Feb 26th 2007
5. Murtha is that rarest of creatures - An ex marine
TCG at 8:17AM on Feb 26th 2007
6. We need to remember that this isn't the first verse of the song "Turn and Run," it's the second. It's not surprising that Democrats thought they could get away with being irresponsible yet again. We left Vietnam promising to continue to support the South Vietnamese in their war effort. No one will ever know if they could have won, because post-Watergate, a Democratic-controlled Congress radically cut off that funding, insuring that "Failure" could be stamped over the war. To complete the travasity, a traumitized Republican party never made them pay the price for that cruel irresponsibility.
Keep in mind that, with a few exceptions, most of the Democratic party has staked its reputation on this war being a failure. They will do everything they can to make their prophecy come true. Murtha is merely a bit more aggressive about this than the rest.
Personally, this debate has been a revelation to me of just how little our nation's liberals care about seeing others live in safety in freedom. They're aren't fighting in Iraq nor are many of their anti-military children in harm's way. All they need to do is report the war honestly in their portion of the media, displaying the good with the bad, and, in politics, to continue to support this attempt at democratic reform in the Arab world. All they'd have to be is big enough to stand aside and let Bush and the Republicans take a bit of credit for trying to do the right thing in the world, for not thinking that they have a monopoly on virtue.
After all, that is precisely what the Republicans did when wars were began under Democratic Presidents: World War I and II, Korea and Vietnam. Sometimes the best test of a person's character is the measure of their willingness to allow an opponent to succeed and look good by doing good. And that's a test almost all the current leadership of the Democratic party fails.
Mike Perry at 11:49AM on Feb 26th 2007
7. When I heard the "Redeploy to Okinawa" bit, I knew the poor man had entered his dotage and was going to be an ongoing embarrassment as long as a camera and open mic were to hand.
What was Voltaire's prayer again? Something like "Lord, make my enemies look foolish?"
Murtha. In spades.
Patrick Carroll at 9:19PM on Mar 5th 2007
8. I don't think the USMC is in any danger of being eliminated. In 1948, which was the last time this was a serious threat, it was written into law, The National Security Act, I believe. Truman despised the Marine Corps for some reason. The challenge was overcome and the Marine Corps survival was guaranteed by law.
I believe it was Truman who stated (paraphrase) "Those damn Marine have a better PR machine than Stalin...".
Long live the United States Marines.
Mike at 1:03PM on Feb 26th 2007
9. Nothing the democrats will do will look good. If they go along with Bush they're losers if they vote to pull out they're cut and runners. The point being missed in this debate is that except for the devious deceptions by the Bush administrstion we would not even be in Iraq. This invasion was illegal and immoral and it was a lost cause the minute we set foot in their country. To blame people like Murtha is to deviate from the real problem of arresting the culprits who criminally pushed us into this fiasco and should be charged with murder....hundreds of thousands of them.
Richard Quiggle at 12:22PM on Feb 26th 2007
10. Murtha's position is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including those of us who have sons, daughters and nephews and nieces serving, and including many of us who have served. You seem to think your position on Murtha is one shared by most Americans. Think again.
Evelyn McElroy at 2:12PM on Feb 26th 2007
11. It's not the Democrats that will lead us to defeat in Iraq, it's George Bush and his ill conceived adventure.
Bill at 1:26PM on Feb 26th 2007
12. Iraq is a disaster, probably America's greatest strategic mistake.It will be years, if not decades, until we see, let alone overcome, all of the consequences of George W. Bush's misbegotten war.
Most people – other than President Bush and his shrinking minority of supporters recognize that we should not have attacked Iraq.There remains wide disagreement over what to do now, however even some critics of the war believe America must stay.If not to win, then at least not to lose
In this view, leaving Iraq would suggest weakness.Thus, the U.S. must continue to fight.And U.S. soldiers, Marines, and civilians must continue to die.
It's an appalling argument.Even the most basic and obvious mistake can never be acknowledged, since doing so would exhibit weakness. As a result, patriotic young Americans must continue to die to disguise the folly of their political leaders.
Concern about America's reputation is legitimate.But it's a bit late to worry about how Washington looks to the world.The mistaken decision to launch an unnecessary war of choice, and the appalling decisions that led to a worsening sectarian war, already have wrecked Washington's image.
Indeed, the disaster in Iraq well demonstrates what should have been obvious before:the importance of not frivolously putting America's credibility on the line in a dubious cause. U.S. officials seem incapable of grasping this lesson.
Those who babble on about victory in Iraq rarely specify what they mean.Does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. is likely to create a liberal, pro-American democratic system no matter how many soldiers it deploys for how long?
Is victory defeating the insurgency, which prospers largely because so many Iraqis have come to hate America? Indeed, even now a majority of Iraqis say that attacks on U.S. forces are justified and want American troops to leave. More Americans mean more targets for IEDs, snipers, and car bombs.The insurgency will only be defeated by Iraqis.
Perhaps victory means the triumph of a U.S.-backed government, no matter how flawed.That's a more realistic goal, but not one obviously enhanced by a large and potentially even larger American troop presence.We like to view U.S. soldiers as liberators, but the Iraqis stopped doing so long ago.American military action often creates more enemies and thereby counterbalances any positive security impacts.
Presumably Washington should at least defeat the "terrorists," meaning al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters.Yet this group would most quickly be wiped out in a pure Iraqi civil war.Even many Sunni insurgents have criticized urban bombings directed at Shi'ites.The foreigners wouldn't last long once American forces disappeared.
In short, there is little chance that America can attain "victory" and little good that the U.S. can do by staying.Doing so would only postpone the inevitable withdrawal, making us look stupid today before appearing weak tomorrow.
It's time for the Beltway War Party to face reality:withdrawal is inevitable.At this stage, no one is likely to come up with a strategy that can stabilize Iraq, establish a pro-American government, and convince the Iraqi people to accept permanent U.S. bases.The likelihood that the Bush administration – which is responsible for today's catastrophic mess and has chosen the wrong strategy and tactic at virtually every point in the conflict – will come up with the answer is about the same as the likelihood that President Bush will receive the Nobel Prize in literature.The American troops will be coming home.
Since Washington will have to withdraw without achieving the "victory" that the president has been promising, the U.S. will appear weak.The only question is how weak.
Today, at least, Washington can plot a withdrawal under its own power while retaining a semblance of dignity and hoping that a reasonably friendly regime survives in Baghdad. If the U.S. waits, it risks being forced out in the midst of a humiliating collapse of its Iraqi allies, as in Saigon in 1975. The former would harm America's reputation, but the damage would fade over time.The latter would have a catastrophic impact.
Advocates of a troop "surge," of another stab at victory, intone that failure is not an option.The price of failure is simply too high, they say.
Actually, the president and his neocon retainers guaranteed failure by undertaking an unnecessary, unpromising war and blundering at every opportunity.Those who really recognized the high cost of failure were those who opposed the war from the start.It's easy for hawks to jump off the wreck of the Bush bandwagon today.Those with foresight recognized that the project was doomed from the start.
No one likes to admit having made a mistake, least of all President Bush.But wishing for "victory" won't make it so.There is nothing the U.S. can do in Iraq to avoid the perception of weakness.The Bush administration's unilateral warmongering has weakened rather than strengthened America.
The best Washington can do today is plan an orderly withdrawal in Iraq, despite all of the ugly consequences likely to follow.It is time for America to count its losses and say "never again."
Tim at 12:53PM on Feb 26th 2007
13. Murhta was also another made up wannabe. He stands as a marine, but refuses to release his military records. He is another phony out there portraying himself falsly, where the facts would show that he has manipulated his military record to show himself just like John Kerry, who by the way isn't Irish, but Jewish.
Jack Masters at 1:33PM on Feb 26th 2007
14. In the past, America has been a beacon of the moral high ground, setting the standard for other nations by practicing the golden rule of treating others like we would like to be treated. Through both of the World Wars, and the Cold War, America has never tortured it’s enemies, because we knew that if we did, our own soldiers would be tortured by our enemies. We faced Hitler, the suicide bombing Kamikaze pilots from Japan, and thousands of nuclear weapons were pointed at us from Russia during the cold war, but we still did not lower our standards.
On September the 11th 2001, 19 men used box cutters to commandeer 3 planes in order to fly them into buildings, and now our government is waging a “war on terror”. They say we must use torture to acquire information on the terrorists, before they can strike us again. The CIA, however, does not want to participate in this technique, because they know that torture does not work. It yields faulty information, because the tortured detainees will often give wrong information just to stop the pain.
Why, then, has the Bush administration adopted this policy of torture? Why has it pushed a bill (S.3930) through congress that shreds the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and gives the President the prerogative to say what the Geneva Convention defines as torture?
The New York Times said, “the definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.”
The bill also gives the President the power to detain and torture anyone he wants forever without legal recourse.
The Times says this is a "dangerously broad definition of 'illegal enemy combatant' in the bill (which) could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
Germany’s congress gave Hitler the same power with the Enabling Act. This legislation paved the way to fascism and the ultimate destruction of Nazi Germany. Is America going down the same road? Why are Bush and Cheney following in Hitler and Himmler’s footsteps, when they know that torture does not work?
Perhaps because they just get off seeing other people suffer.
What are the psychological reasons some people derive pleasure in seeing others suffer?
Harvard trained D.C. psychoanalyst and George Washington Medical Center Professor Justin A. Frank has a new book out called “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President” in which he discusses the President’s behavior of torturing others for torture’s sake. Last week he talked to Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio, Sept. 29th.
RHODES: The things we are about to ask you and hear the answers to are going to shock an appall some people who think that Bush is doing the right thing by suspending Habeas Corpus, by asking for permission to declare anyone, including a citizen of the United States, an enemy combatant, imprison them for life without justice, and torture them? What kind of person does that, in freest country in the world? What is his psychology about torture and doing away with free speech?
DR. FRANK: As a psychoanalyst, it’s very important to look at his entire life. It’s been full of examples of torture, from his childhood - where he used to torture small animals - blowing up frogs with firecrackers, from his youth – when he would brand people on the buttocks naked with a hot coat-hanger, and then say it is nothing more than a cigarette burn. This is a man with a long history of sadistic, cruel behavior. He gets pleasure from torturing people, and he always has. He has always enjoyed heroes who are soldiers, sailors, war veterans, but not just those kind, who are in the army, but people who are killers, cowboys – he talks about it on a regular basis. He has always worshipped the tough guy, and violence. He is very much like a 7-year-old boy, stuck at the age of 7, who lives for vengeance, power, beating up on the weaker people, and avoiding the stronger people, and now he is the President.
It’s a shocking story. He was the oldest of his siblings. He had a terrible tragedy when he was 7, when his sister died. He was the first born, and when he was 3 and a half, his sister was born. When he was the second grade, his sister contracted leukemia, and she died. There was no funeral. There was no talking about her being sick, and the day after she died, the parents, handling grief in their own way – played golf. George was not told about her death until a couple of days later. There was never any talk about it. One of the things that is very important in a child, when there’s a death like that is that they have sibling rivalry and murderous wishes towards their sibling, if they are the first born, and the next one comes along, and knocks them out of the “Garden of Eden.”
He was also close to Robin, because she was a playmate till she got sick. She was very vivacious, and I think that he really loved her. He couldn’t talk about that side of things. He couldn’t talk to his mother about what a great person she was, and how he’s missing her, so there was not way to talk about either his guilt about feeling murderous, or his sense of loss, because he felt he might hurt his mother and make her feel even more depressed.
(Ed. Note: His mother has also always been a very sick individual. After Katrina, when she visited the Superdome, she looked at all the black victims and said, “These people were poor anyway, so this is working out quite well for them.”)
There was no place for him, so he retreats into cruel behavior, and disconnection. It’s calling “splitting”, or schizoid behavior, where you disconnect yourself from the effects you have on other people. After that, he was “on the road,” he became cruel, sadistic, funny - a bully at the schoolyard - a verbal bully all the time. This was his way of managing things that were unmanageable, and I would say, he became as close to psychopathic as you can be.
RHODES: Wow. So now, he’s in charge of the entire apparatus of military justice. Does he understand the concept of justice?
DR. FRANK: No. He does not. The issue for him is being right, and certain, and never ever admitting a mistake, or defeat of any kind. In the Woodward book that came out today, State of Denial, one of the quotes was so interesting. It said, there were some Republicans at the White House, and he said to them, ‘I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.’ Now, a couple of things: he said during the campaign of 2004, he called her “Laura the lump”. So, he is “lumping” his wife and his dog as non-people who have to support him. He does not care about what anybody thinks. He is so hell-bent on being right that it does not matter. That kind of statement is not the statement of the President of the United States. It’s a statement of someone he does not care about the people of the United States.
RHODES: What’s interesting are the people he surrounds himself. They are also damaged. I started writing a book a long time ago, and I never finished it, because it made me sick. I looked at their background: Karl Rove – his father was not really his father. He didn’t meet his real father till he was forty. His mother committed suicide in a Reno hotel. Newt Gingrich – is not really Newt Gingrich, he is McPherson – his father beat him too - two alcoholic parents raised him. Cheney was also alcoholic – he had two DUIs. Bush, also DUI. Laura apparently killed her boyfriend in an accident in the middle of nowhere in Midland, TX, sold pot at SMU. What is with these people that they all found each other?
DR. FRANK: It’s hard to know how they all found each other, but it’s all probably a marriage made in… I don’t know where, but not in heaven. It’s really perfect for them. They really feed off of each other, and they have kind of a gang mentality, which is a way to stay safe, and Bush has surrounded himself, and brilliantly so, with people who agree with him – who support him. The thing that disturbs me… and I also was starting another book called Enabling Cain – and I got sick also, like you have been. It’s about how we always support killers, so often, and how come these three senators Warner, and Rockefeller, recently backed down immediately after two days of protest.
RHODES: And Spector, who put the Habeas amendment on the floor, votes against his own bill! It’s just stunning the bullying that must go on!
DR. FRANK: The bullying really works. I think that Rove is much more effective than J. Edgar Hoover was in the 50’s in terms of God knows what he has on these people to get them to shut-up.
RHODES: One of the most offensive things Bush said recently was that, “when the final history was written about Iraq, it will look like just a comma.”
You have a hundred people showing up dead and tortured every single day in a country that never say one single suicide bomber before we invaded and occupied them, and now people are asking him how horrible this is. If you want to talk punctuation, I want to say this man has his head up his colon, but I want to get your psychoanalysis on how he puts things.
DR. FRANK: Why didn’t Wolf Blitzer say something after that statement? There was no follow up. That is one of the issues that also concerned me. The complicity of the media, who may sometimes ask good questions, but does not follow them up. And the question then is, why doesn’t he follow it up? I think he doesn’t want to know what he would find out, and that is the main point I wanted to make - that President Bush is indifferent to the loss of life. He really does not care. He wants to invade Iraq. He wants… for whatever reason, I don’t know – I can’t read his mind, but I do know that he is indifferent, and the indifference has to do with a phenomenon called “splitting”, which has to do with disconnecting the effect of his actions and dehumanizing other people. This is a way of diminishing his destructiveness. He has always done that all of his life from when he was a child, and from when he was in college, when he was branding people - and when he was interviewed in the New York Times, he said, “It’s nothing worse than a cigarette burn.” Who goes burning people with cigarettes? But separately, it’s a way of dismissing his actions.
RHODES: It almost kind of feels like Osama bin Laden might be Bush’s imaginary friend. That would be wrong, right? That would be impossibly wrong for me to say or think wouldn’t it?
DR. FRANK: I don’t think it’s that impossible.
RHODES: O.K. All right… Oh! YOU DON’T???
DR. FRANK: I’m sorry to say that there is a central thing they have in common which is fundamentalism, and hatred of and disrespect for the life of others, and the willingness to kill in order to prove their point.
RHODES: That is creepy. Sometimes, when I listen to what Osama bin Laden says, and then the President quotes him, I can’t tell if he’s quoting him, or the President is saying this. It’s almost identical, you’re right, with the fundamentalism, and the love of death - the bring on the rapture thing, where Bush’s religion thinks that dying is a good thing, and that if you go up in the rapture, you will go up into paradise, and Osama bin Laden says the same thing. They are both equally in awe of death. They have this special place in their hearts and minds about death – they don’t want to live life. They just want to sort of kill time to get to the next place. It’s creepy. Here's another thing I would like you to comment on. Bush compares himself to two great American Democrats:
BUSH: The Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR, and the party of Harry Truman, has become the party of cut and run.
DR. FRANK: This is a man who is now demonizing anyone who disagrees with him. He has taken disagreement, and turned it into “cut and run”. Any kind of thought, or thoughtfulness, is an anathema to this man, because his world, for all his life has been split up into good and bad and Cowboys and Indians. There is no such thing as thought. There is no such thing as dialogue and interaction, because that is dangerous, and it makes him anxious. He has a long history of avoiding it, or of mocking people, or of saying, “I don’t do nuance”, or of putting people down as a way of thought. It makes him crazy. In the Goldwater movie, when he decides to run for President, and he talks to JFK about how he wants to go across the country with it, like the Lincoln/Douglass debate, and present it in front of the people – that could no more happen today, than anything, and that’s because we have a very divisive situation with a President who cannot tolerate any kind of debate or discussion. It’s very frightening.
RHODES: When I seen him do his Rose Garden press conferences, even though he knows the questions – they’ve all been screened – no one gets a follow up, he makes fun of every reporter by giving them some goofy name – he mocked a blind man for wearing sunglasses… Is that because he might be anxious that somebody might be smarter than him in the room, and mark him for being a phony? Why is he so nasty?
DR. FRANK: If you can scratch a bully hard enough, if you can get close to him, you will find that they are very frightened people, and if you ever stand up to a bully, they will cave. This is a man who is now 60, has honed to a fine-tuning, the ability to push people around, give nicknames, and make fun of people. It is because he’s anxious, but he covers it over very well with his own joking around, and dismissing (the comma is a dismissal). He is what I would call a “triumphalist”. He believes in triumph, and that’s the most important thing.
RHODES: And for him is not the means to be respected, it’s the end. It’s exactly the opposite of what we teach our kids. We say the end does not justify the means, you have to be fair, you have to be clean - we have to respect the law, we have to work within the rules…
DR. FRANK: Why do we teach our kids that? Because naturally, they are actually like Bush - they are untaught. That’s who they would be. This is a man who has been unsocialized, except for learning how to be polite sometimes and put on a suit. But basically he is like a 7 year old inside of a man’s body.
RHODES: Oh my God! And he’s got his finger on the nuclear football – and he controls our economy. He controls our foreign policy. He refuses to engage in diplomacy. When all the people who were here at the UN in New York and could solve the problems of the world were asking for a debate, and Bush was freaked out by it so he wouldn’t be in the building at the same time.
DR. FRANK: He can’t even look them in the eye. He has to run and hide. He had all kinds of contingency plans in case he ran into the President of Iran in the hallway… that they would have separate exits. That’s been written up in some of the papers I’ve read. It’s really disturbing that he had the entire secret service to make sure he didn’t run into anybody. When you are saying when you’re talking about Habeas Corpus, and what we are on to – this is a dangerous President – this is a serious problem, and when we are joking about his misspeaking and all of that stuff – we are missing the point. This is a very dangerous situation.
Scott Manley at 1:08PM on Feb 26th 2007
15. I am one of those former Marines who despise Murtha Unfortunately, as a citizen living in NH, Murtha's office would not accept any communications from me (even those I funneled through my own politicians' offices) since I am not one of his constituents
He is indeed an "ex Marine", a rarity for sure but a title he has elected to assume Nancy Pelosi didn't care, in the long run And I think that the majority of Americans (so far, "silent") will hardly remember his name by the 2008 elections
If our President asked, 20,000 U S Marines would volunteer for duty in Iraq and this would all be resolved in short order But two stipulations: no more embedded journalists, no interference by politicians
Semper Fi and God bless America
Bruce Cole at 1:26PM on Feb 26th 2007