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 3 of 6)
31. Murtha served in the USMC 1952-1955. He has been a
Democratic politician (representative0 for 17 terms.
As a registered Democrat, I am pained that Pelosi and her stooge Murtha are again leaading our party down the CUT AND RUN path.
Francis Coleman at 6:59PM on Feb 26th 2007
32. Paul,
Join the rest of us in Reality:
Togetherness In Baghdad
A surreal facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between
when a fact becomes obvious and when
the fiasco's architects acknowledge it.
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Nov. 6, 2006 issue - Many months ago it became obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered that America is losing the war launched to deal with a chimeric problem (an arsenal of WMD) and to achieve a delusory goal (a democracy that would inspire emulation, transforming the region).
Steve J. at 7:31PM on Feb 26th 2007
33. The US is taking tax dollars from its citizens and sending them to pay damages to Iraqi citizens who pay no taxes. Bush has apparently apologized to the Iraqi citizens for bombing their country to pieces, and thanked them for killing our soldiers. I suppose this could go on for the next 20 years or so, maybe even 30, why not 40?
Carol at 7:20PM on Feb 26th 2007
34. THE CONGRESSMAN IS RIGHT, DOING THE RIGHT THING BRINGING ABOUT A SOLUTION TO THIS MISTAKE IN IRAQ,, ENOUGH WITH THIS BUSH SURGE BULL . BRING THEM HOME AS SAFE AND SOON AS WE CAN.
jim williams at 7:23PM on Feb 26th 2007
35. Here is a clue for all you BDS suffers:
The Swiftboater were all former Vietnam veterans with many more years of experience that the "great" John Kerry and unfortunately for your hero they were right.
Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 because of President Nixon, you fools! Nixon wasn't even president yet. God how stupid are these people.
LogicalSC at 8:12PM on Feb 26th 2007
36. REPUBLICANS and their need to always coverup/lie about EVERYTHING caused 9-11, Iraq Mess/illegal occupation, and alot alot alot of DEATHS! For a Lie and need to steal OIL and OIL and OIL!
Murtha, not the problem, REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES who goooooo BAHHHHHH BAHHHHHHHHH BAHHHHHHHHH, that's the problem!
GOP = sheep, liars MORONS and Very lazy people bahhhh
John Cameron Sweezy at 7:52PM on Feb 26th 2007
37. As far as I'm concerned, all Murtha has done is earn himself an appropriate nickname ... 'Okinawa Jack'. Call the Democratic strategy whatever you like --- it's cut and run cowardice.
Augie Bruno at 7:56PM on Feb 26th 2007
38. Reading the propaganda spouted on here by conservatives would be funny if it wasn't ruining this country. One case in point. Jack Masters states as a fact that Kerry is not Irish, but Jewish. Wow, what a fact !! If it were true. And what difference would it make anyway unless you are in the KKK? This is the kind of bs that the conservative propaganda machine spews and those without brains bother to independantly verify. The facts are that Kerry's paternal grandfather was Jewish until he was 28 and then converted to Catholicism. Both Kerry's father and Kerry were raised Catholic although Kerry's mother was a Protestant. So when you are told something, use your brain and actually look it up before you take Rush's word for it. It might just have come from his "fact bank", by which I mean his ass. And while you're at it, why don't all of you conservatives do a little research and look up the budget and trade deficits and see what they mean for this country long term. Don't buy the argument one conservative tried to pass on me that he had brainwashed with that "Deficits don't matter" Sure they don't as long as they are ignored. And finally, I know that some conservative and other hawks and most former military defend our country and our President right or wrong
in regards to this war and in general but how do you justify a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al Queda, and had no weapons and was thus not a threat to anyone but it's neighbors? Why are we creating terrorists instead of fighting them? Now that we know the war was started on false pretenses and for no good reason, what possible reason would anyone have to stay except that they can't accept defeat in any situation. An intelligent person knows when he has made an error and acts as soon as possible to correct it.
Bob C at 8:20PM on Feb 26th 2007
39. Regarding Bill's comments about Pres. Bush's state of mind. What kind of idiot is this Bill. Where did he get his information. He is insane. Put your liberal pals Clinton and Kerry on the couch and see what you come of too. Sometime you liberal idiots amaze me. You are a fool. Get over yourself. I cannot comment on you as I would like to do because other people are seeing this. You are a nut job.
Loretta at 8:29PM on Feb 26th 2007
40. Every one of you hawks quotes the administration's propaganda. It's either "cut and run" or "Okinawa Jack" or Ex-Marine Murtha. Answer me this-How bad would this administration have to screw up before you would actually admit that they are wrong? Reality check-most of you thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and still believe in Santa Claus too. My country right or wrong is a great idea, but it sucks when we are really really wrong and it is being practiced. That is why 2/3 of the American people support Murtha.
Bob C at 8:48PM on Feb 26th 2007
41. On 9/11, four planes were hijacked. Conditioned to go along and 'reason" with the hijackers, assuming they would land somewhere and ask for money, the occupants of three of those planes did not resist - at least not until it was too late to affect the outcome. The occupants of one plane realized that the terrorists that hijacked their plan could not be reasoned with, were not terrorists for any reason the planes occupants or crew were caused and would not be deterred from their twisted mission if the passengers acquiesed. We know the rest of the story. Today, metaphorically, we are in the fourth plane. If we abandon our struggle to keep the terrorists from fulfilling their evil plans, we will suffer many more deaths than we are experiencing in fighting them.
Whether or not al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, we know they are there now. Whether or not Saddam had WMD at the time we invaded, we know he had them before we invaded. He had used them. And he would not allow independent observers to freely determine their status.
But all this is somewhat irrelevant. We are in Iraq now. We are fighting an enemy that has sworn to kill us - if not there, here. We have heard their leadership call us the Great Satan for 25 years. We have sent our brave servicepeople to go and defeat them.
And some idiot who is motivated by political advantage and fueled by BDS, recommends that we abandon those troops by cutting off their supplies and reinforcements, and not covering their backs.
It boggles!
William at 9:22PM on Feb 26th 2007
42. "How can anyone with an ounce of patriotism not see Murtha's "slow bleed" scheme as a betrayal of America's fighting forces?"
Murtha only wants the Army and the Marines to abide by their own guidelines for deployment and training. "Slow bleed" is just another agit-prop term from the radical Right, similar to "Death Tax."
Steve J. at 9:34PM on Feb 26th 2007
43. "We are in Iraq now. We are fighting an enemy that has sworn to kill us - if not there, here."
Our own military admits that Al Qaeda accounts for at most 2-3% of the insurgency.
Steve J. at 9:37PM on Feb 26th 2007
44. Hey you marines, how are the injured 'marines' laying up there in that rat infested how Walter Reed Annex, doing? that is what you beloved Republicans think of YOU! As for Murtha, I doesn't make a crap if YOU like him or not, as long as the pentagon does. The Pentagon is YOUR boss and IF you are not aware of it, just keep running your mouths and see where it gets you. This BS of once a marine, always a marine, and there is no such thing as an exmarine just about explains why the marines are sent into battle first. They follow that damned stupid race horse right over the cliff while the army, navy and AF are smart enough to stop and listen/look around. I say NAVY ALL THE WAY. Oh, yes, how does it feel to have a 'Navy' man over you Jar Heads? ROFLOL
cherryl at 9:42PM on Feb 26th 2007
45. Unfortunately, to me, this blog doesn't pass the "straight face" test.
First, quoting the Washington Post as an authoritative neutral source has about as much validity as quoting Fox News. The actual Post article quotes two or three of the well over 200 Democrats in Congress, and hypothesizes that this has created a major divide and split in the Congressional Democratic Caucus. As Rep. Schultz said, the caucus is considering a variety of options, including Rep. Murtha's, and Representative Murtha happens to be chair of the committee that deals with the military budget.
As far as characterizing Murtha's plan as a "sneaky" Democratic ploy - I think its much more accurate to say its a valid attempt to for once listen to, and adhere to, the will of the majority of the American People. Last November, Americans elected EVERY member of the House, and gave the Democrats a firm majority. The vast majority of American voters gave Congress one clear mandate: "get us out of Iraq."
Unfortunately, many Senators were not up for re-election, or the Democrats would have an even wider majority in the Senate. Those Republican Senators lucky enough not to have been up for re-election give Senate Republicans the chance to destroy any "straight forward" legislation. In other words, they have the power to once again twart the will of the American majority. Congressional Democrats, on the contrary, will do everything they can to fulfill America's demand.
Rep. Murthas plan is pro-troop and pro-American. Every one of its conditions betters the job conditions and safety of our troops and works to remove them from harm's way in a war that cannot be "won." Whether the Democrats adopt his plan or another, they are committed to fulfilling America's wish to leave Iraq.
I'm surprised the blog even mentioned Rep. Murtha as being "ethically challenged"; because then, we must compare the ethics of George and Dick, our Commander in Chief and his Vice. George was so anxious to go to war that he didn't even have the patience to verify his intelligence allegedly justifying invasion. It turned out to be a war predicated on lies. Then there was the outing of a CIA agent - an event that points very close to Dick as the cause. And, of course, Dick didn't have anything to do with a Halliburton subsidiary (subject to multiple fraud allegations) getting an enormous no-bid supply and reconstruction contract. I could go on and on, be we all already know the sordid details of the White House.
But all the spin in the blog avoids what we should all really be thinking about. We are sending our troops into a war that cannot be won. The surge is a bandaid on a civil war that will inevitably break open, and our brave men and women will be caught in the middle - not dying to save democrary in the Mideast, not dying to fight terrorism (because for every Iraqi killed, you have a whole new family of potential terrorists) - instead, just dying, in a war that has never been in our national interest.
Phil at 10:31PM on Feb 26th 2007