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 4 of 6)
46. I respect mr murthas opinion as someone who has faced the barrel of a gun in honor of the usa. The question becomes motive....this one sounds to me like political gain vs substance. He gets a lifetime pass from me for his personal sacrifice, but his motive appears, this time, for all the wrong reasons.........i am disappointed, but my admiration is unconditional for his service to usa
bingo at 12:39AM on Feb 27th 2007
47. I think there is a prevailing opinion that if we just pull out now, everything will 'work out' in the end. Vietnam shows us it does not. While I am not a warmonger, I do support using our troups for what is right, and just. I think many of them think that the job will be left undone if they are yanked out before they can complete their mission. Democrats are wooing the voters for 2008, and will say anything anti-war at this point. As brutal as it is to realize, losing 3,100+ troops, while having people on the ground, is actually a conservative number of losses. Don't get me wrong - one person lost is too many when it is your loved one, or someone you know. It's easy to turn back the clock and in retrospect point fingers at who was wrong in there approach. I, myself, think we totally underestimated the enemies resolve. All we had to do was look at the Afghan - Russian conflict to learn that lesson. Now that we are there, and chaos rules, we need to make certain that there is some semblance of order in the country before we pull out. If we leave, we leave a vacuum that can be filled by al Quada, or Sunni's coming in from Syria, or Shiites coming in from Iran. That discord will spread and start to involve other countries. We have GOT to support the troops, give them what they need - improve their gear to protect them, and not pull back before there are security assurances in place for the people. The real people of Iraq want us to stay and help them - the insurgency, al-Queda, and Sadr-Shiites want us to leave so they can fight it out, and have even more Iraqi's killed. Who's fault will it be then? Well, it will be Bush's, of course, since he got us into this in the first place. The democrats certainly won't take responsibility for any stupid moves. That is why I respect Bush trying to work through this.
Oh, and BTW - if I were young enough to join a branch of the military and be deployed, I most certainly would. I have family who fought in WWI, WWII, and even back to the Civil War, War of 1812, Revolutionary War, the French-Indian Wars. You name it, they were there. And they all would turn in their graves if we pull out like a bunch of cowards.
J-Man at 12:44AM on Feb 27th 2007
48. Aptly and honorably put, "J-Man".. I heartily concur, and do, as well, with a number of the other supportive posts.. I don't see the majority of my fellow Republicans as blind-sheep, whatsoever.. nor are they merely espousing a "party line". I suppose there can be as many "quotes", supportive of any number of the doctrines espoused, for "either side", as there are people hoping to find the quotes, to bolster their belief systems.. but if terrorism, and terrorists are not crushed and defeated, where they live.. there, we will surely be, where WE live..HERE... There is no negotiating, nor reasoning with these crazed zealots.. they kill to be killing.
Al B. at 9:19PM on Mar 3rd 2007
49. J-Man says: "Now that we are there, and chaos rules, we need to make certain that there is some semblance of order in the country before we pull out. If we leave, we leave a vacuum that can be filled by al Quada, or Sunni's coming in from Syria, or Shiites coming in from Iran. That discord will spread and start to involve other countries." I'm not discounting those who happen to have that opinion, and its one that anti-war members of Congress I am sure have also considered. However, I do not think this argument for staying in Iraq has merit.
Saddam kept things in line by being a butcher - plain and simple - and slaughtering the Shiites or Kurds, or for that matter any Sunnis who had the nerve to oppose him. Unfortunately, more Iraqis have died since we overthew the butcher, than when the butcher was building palaces and throwing opponents in meat grinders. There is ALREADY chaos in Iraq to an extent never seen in Iraq's recent history. There are ALREADY Al Queda fighters and Sunni terrorists coming in from Syria, that were not there before we invaded. In fact, our government's own intelligence services say the longer we stay, the more terrorists there will be. There is ALREADY a huge armed Shiite militia which has fully infiltrated the Iraqi army and government. Iran ALREADY suppplies arms to Shiite terrorists. There are ALREADY Iranian fighters in Iraq. In sum, there is nothing we can do to stop 60 million plus Iraqis from sorting this dispute out among themselves with help from countries who support either Sunnis or Shiites.
We not only misunderstood the strength of the resistance we would face, we also misunderstood that by overthrowing the butcher, we also irrevocably upset the apple cart and opened up the gaping 14 century old deadly rift between the Shiites and Sunnis. The violence will never stop in Iraq unless the country is divided by sectarian groups, like India and Pakistan, with an oil-sharing agreement. No matter how long we stay, the Shiites will always now be intent on revenge and majority rule; the Sunnis (who have been kicked out of both mixed neighborhoods and the government) will always be intent to regain power; and the Kurds will always be intent to fight for autonomy.
As far as the average Iraqi wanting us to stay - that is totally unsupported by the most recent polling of the Iraqi people, and I would rather trust a poll than a soundbyte (Bush doesn't even have a guess as to the Iraqi body count). According to the polling, seventy percent of Iraqis (enough of a majority to cross sectarian lines) want us to leave; and sixty percent believe it is good and just to kill an American soldier. When you have those kind of percentages in a country of more than 60 million, we don't stand a chance of forcing peace on an entire nation intent on fighting. Our troops, caught in the middle, will always be looked upon as invaders and hunting targets by Iraq's citizens. The longer we stay, the more we increase danger of terrorism here because we will look like what Bush intended us to be all along, 21st century colonizers doing an oil grab.
Al B states his opinion that terrorism will follow us here, and I agree that we need to ensure our security to the fullest extent possible at all costs. However, we were not in Iraq when 9-11 happened. Our presence in Iraq did not stop massively deadly attacks in Spain and Britain. It only takes a handful of terrorists to wreck havoc here - and now that we have alienated the entire Arab world, believe me, millions and millions of Arabs who now hate us can commit terrorist acts here whether or not we are in Iraq. Rather than focusing on continuing to throw away lives in an unwinnable war and bankrupting the nation, we need to focus on security here.
The argument that our leaving will increase our danger defies common sense and also prevents the possibility of the most possibly effective security measures here at home. This war on borrowed money has already financially prevented us from securing our borders - for years Bush cut funds to the border patrol and more people have snuck into this country during his watch than ever before. Our ports have never been adequately secured, and only recent Democratic legislation has proposed a valid plan to as thoroughly as possible inspect all cargo coming into the ports.
Moreover, because both the tax cut and the war were funded by borrowed money, many people are ignoring the very REAL and PRESENT danger of unsympathetic governments driving us into a full blast depression. If you do the math, only the top 1% of American households benefited from the tax cut, because they are the only ones who get tax breaks that are larger than their share of our new huge debt. Communist China is our main creditor, and it, as well as many other countries are beginning to question the validity of buying treasury notes based on the dollar's 20 year low. When they diversify their investments, as they have stated they intend to do, the dollar will further devaluate and the results of that are predictable.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more vulnerable our nations economy will be, and starvation and lack of medical care kill just as effectively as terrorists.
Republicans typically now characterize anti-war statements as pandering for votes. Wrong. The vast majority of Americans, the ones who pay the bill for this war with their childrens' lives and/or their tax dollars and share of our huge deficit, want out of Iraq. What is happening now is that a minority group of Republicans in both the White House and Congress are continuing to not listen to the American people - yet their job is to represent the American people. Americans stated their majority opinion last November, and any candidate in '08 who wishes to continue to ignore that opinion will rightfully not be re-elected.
Another new technique popular with Republicans is that "partisanship" or following a "party line" is despicable. I agree - we've seen the ultimate example of it for six years with a Republican White House and Congress. For Republicans to now call their own practices of six years despicable is hypocritical at best.
I certainly respect the opinions of those who disagree with me and support the minority opinion. Democrats and Republicans are united on one thing - no one wants terrorist attacks in the US. However, facts and common sense show that we will be safer if we leave Iraq, and our departure from Iraq may actually speed up resolution of the country's sectarian strife.
Phil at 5:44AM on Feb 27th 2007
50. My, My. Isn't it amazing how non-veterans show up in droves to protect their buddies when criticized. Careful, now. It will be your kids and grandkids who will have to fight a much more lethal war in the future if cats like Murtha are wrong. That should sober you off - if possible.
Alan at 7:00AM on Feb 27th 2007
51. This war on terror in my view, cannot be fought with a land army. The enemy in this case have no uniforms and do not occupy land. The enemy is an idea, a religous based extremism, and their violence is planned in local community safe houses around the globe. We should expand our efforts to build a network of informers among the moderate Muslim communities worldwide. We must engage in espionage, tracking money flows and other secret efforts. It requires cooperaton with foreign countries not confrontation. Nearly all plots since 9/11 have been uncovered through these efforts. The Iraq War has only recruited extremists from the moderate Muslim majority that war has been counterproductive. Our administration panicked after 9/11 and engaged in this blunder. We must correct this mistake and get back on track.
Jay at 7:49AM on Feb 27th 2007
52. It sickens me that in this day and age Americans refuse to believe that wea are at war with an ideaology. This same ideaology proclaims that America is " The Great Satan ". This ideology believes that America, along with the rest of the western world, should be wiped off the face of the earth.This ideology suggests that women are property, and that there is only one religion.
This " war on terror " is not " Bush's War ", as suggested by so many liberals, but is " our war ". This war was thrust upon us much as WWII was thrust upon us. This war is a war that our grandchildren will be fighting, especially if we don't stand together now. It is just a silly, and stupid idea that this is all the President's fault. I mean.... get real. Left up to the extreme left wing liberals we would, and will all end up either dead, or facing Mecca five times per day.
Having studied Middle East Politics and History I can tell you that this threat from the extremists is real and viable, and when it comes down to it, they don't care what your political affiliation is, or your ethnic background, as an American you're a target. To believe otherwise is folly and ignorant.
I sit and listen to the news, and read daily, as I am a historian. I hear people making comments, and many of these are very prominent people, about the war, and the foreign policies of this administration. I am amazed at how much these people are ill-informed, or put together bits and pieces of news to form an idea, or opiniont that is not even remotely close to the real truth. I have been teaching for many years and have always tried to help my students understand that they need to make informed decisions, not blindly follow the lead cow, or sheep to slaughter. The only thing I see today is a hate filled democratic party. A party whose only objective is to control Congress and the White House, not to protect America. It is fashionable today, no thanks to Hollywood, to hate. To democrats today if you are not believing their way, then you must be wrong, or a republican, maybe both.
This same way of thinking almost cost us dearly more than sixty years ago. I doubt that many in Hollywood would stand up, like the stars of WWII. I doubt very seriously if Robin Williams, or even Tim Robins, oh yes, let us not forget Alec Baldwin, would ever be able to shed that streak of yellow and stand by our troops and fight. They would probably do a one minute mile at the first sign of trouble. I doubt that many of them have backbone. This same feeling that is pervasive today cost millions of Jews their lives, because they refused to believe what was happening, as did the world. This same pervasive feeling cost the lives of millions of people, young and old, simply because of something called isolationism.
Stephen Skelton at 9:07AM on Feb 27th 2007
53. The Murtha "talking points" folks have been busy, I see. Most, of course, ignor Murtha's duplicitous actions to concentrate their attacks elsewhere. The vitriol might actually be humorous if the stakes for the nation were not so great.
Isabell at 9:22AM on Feb 27th 2007
54. It matters not to me what Baghdad John Murtha may have or not have done while in uniform. What matters to me is that today he's a traitor. It's very disturbing to me to think that these traitors are tolerated in our government. Makes me wonder how far the corruption goes in Washington DC.
Brian at 10:28AM on Feb 27th 2007
55. Stephen Skelton writes: "The only thing I see today is a hate filled democratic party. A party whose only objective is to control Congress and the White House, not to protect America. It is fashionable today, no thanks to Hollywood, to hate. To democrats today if you are not believing their way, then you must be wrong, or a republican, maybe both."
The Republicans' grovelling to the Fundmentalist Right and their hatred of gays, or in fact anyone who doesn't believe as they do, makes this seem like the iron kettle calling the iron pot black. Maybe my memory is confused. Wasn't it Tom Delay who was called the "hammer" because he pressured Republican Congressmen to toe the party line or else? Isn't it Tom Delay who is now under Federal indictment the former majority leader that was never questioned by his own party, and was the loudest critic of Clinton in regard to morals. Wasn't it the Republicans who knew about Foley and did nothing so they could keep a seat in Congress? Wasn't it Ted Haggard, who promoted social discrimination against gays, when he wasn't with his male prostitute snorting meth, who had a direct line to the White House for years. Wasn't it Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush who advocated the idea that if you disagreed with the war you were unpatriotic and therefore should not exercise your First Amendment rights.
To me, anyone who loves America is a patriot, and we all have different ideas on how America should conduct its domestic and foreign policy. Someone may have a different opinion than I do, but that difference does not cause me to immediately call them unpatriotic and filled with hate.
Rather than be mad at the Democrats, those who dislike them should remember it was the American people who voted us into control of Congress. In 2008, the American people will once again vote in whoever most closely matches their views at the time.
Finally, you don't have to be a veteran to be a patriot. George and Dick sure made sure they didn't have to serve in Vietnam. If you don't believe me, just ask - I've noticed that Barbara Jr. and Jenna Bush, as well as a majority of the children of Republicans in power have not rushed to sign up for Iraq. FDR's children fought in WW II.
Phil at 10:27AM on Feb 27th 2007
56. These swift boat types are cowards. Murtha continues to be the first on the beach as his opposition to this illegal and impeachable lies to war was before most had the courage or will to oppose. I salute John Murtha...a hero in my eyes and a patriot. Bush and Cheney were ans are cowards.
James W at 11:18AM on Feb 27th 2007
57. Bush and Cheney are the cowards and traitors who have sacrificed American lives for nothing. Those miserable Iraqis, who have 4000 years of cowardice in their history, are not owrth one GI. These desert scum were better offf under Sadaam. Let the cockroaches kill themselves. It's none of our damn business. What a waste of lives and national treasure. Haliburton and the other carpetbagging scum contractors...their CEO's should be hung.
James W at 11:22AM on Feb 27th 2007
58. Murtha is an embaressment to All Vietnam Veterans and to all Those brave Marines who served are are still serving.
niles50
Vietnam 1969
Niles at 11:26AM on Feb 27th 2007
59. War is war. No doubt about it. Killing your fellow man may seem absurd on the surface, but it serves a higher purpose: The economy.
Bill Olmsted at 12:01PM on Feb 27th 2007
60. Whoever Tim is deserves a Gold Star for a masterful, wonderfully written assessment of the stark, no-win corner in which Bush has painted America and our troops.
There is nothing shameful in withdrawing to marshal our strength for the next round in the war against terror.
It's not as good as total triumph, but we did achieve some worthwhile objectives: the demise of Saddam and the negation of WMD.
Jim Roberts at 12:39PM on Feb 27th 2007