Redstate

The moment a pol comes out against the administrations current policies in Iraq, the mud starts to be flung.

Last year, Murtha called on the administration to send more troops, or pull out...and not a peep was said against his character.

Now you attack him for being "a pork barrell" pol, and the white house compares him to Michael Moore.

Theres just something disengenuous about the whole thing.

P.J. O'Rourke once called Murtha the definition of an old-fashioned salt-of-the-earth blue collar politician.  He's hardly unique in having a road named after himself.  And last year he called for more troops.

He's wrong in this case, but he's no wacko lefty.

I second that. He obviously was a supporter of the war originally. This is a man who started as a private and finished as colonel. I doubt anyone has any reason to doubt his truthfulness.

has not been a major news item before (the May 2004 thing got past me, anyway). Honestly, had you asked me about him before this, I would have said pork-barrelling, which he had a name for as early as the early '90s. (I wonder how he compares with the now-retired Bud Shuster...)

not.

He obviously was a supporter of the war originally.=== He voted for the war and the funding on it several time.

You might be right, but I'm placing the burden of proof on you, since you made the claim.  The link in your post is simply Murtha's own site -- which, of course, every Congressman has.

As of one minute ago, a Google search for "Jack Murtha" turned up no results from any mainstream (that is, corporate) media outlet.  (Actually, no media outlet; the only media link at all was to a PBS piece -- from 2003 -- and before you call PBS "liberal," I'll note that William Safire was the guest.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong; just asking for the links.

Also, just for the record, Murtha left college to join the Marines during the Korean War, just as John Kerry did during the Vietnam War (Murtha fought for a year in Vietnam, also).  So if I were you I might reconsider labeling him as someone "calling for America's defeat."

So some Democrat back-bencher finally says what the media wants said, and all of a sudden he's Audie Murphy, Sergeant York, and Scoop Jackson all rolled into one. You think people can't see through an obvious propaganda stunt? Who's next, "leading Republican Peter King?"

It doesn't take one too long to see why the left, Democrats, and the MSM has made such a big deal of John Murtha calling for a troop withdrawal.  It is because they relate his military service to the country as giving him that golden standard granted to John Kerry and most recently Cindy Sheehan:  Absolute Moral Authority.

They are feeling the recent full court press by Bush and Cheney, and decided they needed someone to repeat the "Bush Lied" mantra that perhaps would not be openly attacked because of his veteran status.

Check the news right now and you will see Murtha's statement on troop withdrawals preceded by AP supplied, "A former Marine who served in Vietnam, Murtha rarely makes such public moves".  They are making him sound like the distinguished war veteran that rarely speaks, and then only with the absolute truth.

Rarely makes such public moves?  This is the same guy who was leaking info to John Kerry about "secret troop deployments" during the 2004 elections.  

(USA Today, 9/18/2004) But Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and a former Marine who served in Vietnam, said he had learned through conversations with Pentagon officials that beginning in November, "the Bush administration plans to call up large numbers of the military Guard and Reserves, to include plans that they previously had put off to call up the Individual Ready Reserve."

Sounds like he speaks a little too much in secret perhaps.  

What really bothers me about the way this story is progressing and being reported is that he has promised to lay out his withdrawal plans right before the Iraqi elections.  The timing seems to be extremely suspicious to me.   He also attacked Cheney's lack of military service as if this somehow makes Cheney less intelligent.  If I had been classified as an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the 80's Abscam, I think I would be a little more careful before I started in with the personal attacks.  But of course as a Democrat and a veteran, he knows the MSM will not do any background checks on him.

I spoke with my old first sergeant, a Vietnam veteran himself, to get his thoughts about Murtha's comments.  He said that it sounds like Murtha has forgotten about being a soldier and has turned pure politician (definitely not a compliment).  He spoke sarcastically of the political catchphrase "Peace with honor" and said that every veteran he knows says the same thing, "we would have won the war if the politicians would have let us".  Maybe Murtha should remember what he used to be and let the military win this one.

The fact is mUrtha comes out throwing mud, as he did in May, 2004, and lefties jsut call responding to him throwing mud.

As usual, lefty hacks demand the right to dish out whatever slander and sedition fancies their minds, but run away shining ' ad hom! mud slinging!' if they are not agreed with.

Murtha is an old hack who does as much credit to this country as another famous veteran did, Lee Harvey Oswald.

If they can't derail the election coming up, they know all may be lost.

They ahve to pull out all stops to help the enemy between now and the next election to make it less than successful. But if it is successful, they must make it seem to be a loss for American policy, even if it turns out exactly as American policy set out to do.

That is a tall order of lying and misleading, but the MSM and the DNC are proudly stepping up tot he task.

Seldom in history has a group worked so hard so openly to help an enemy and to defeat its self as the DNC/MSM is diong now.

Murtha is wrong on Iraq.  Ding him for that, and leave the character attacks out of it.  Because, frankly, character attacks don't work when 60+% of the electorate (wrongly) believe that you're a lying liar who lies and lies.

And now they dig up Stansfield Turner.

Turner was a Carter appointee who hasn't been at CIA in over 24 years.

The press is reporting him as making "devestating accusations." They quote him as saying "We have crossed the line into dangerous territory." They state "The former spymaster claims President Bush is not telling the truth when he says that torture is not a method used by the US." They say he says that Cheney "condones terror."

And what is the basis for all of these "devestating accusations" by someone who has not been in the CIA for two and one hald decades? According to Turner himself, "I do not believe him."

That's it - I don't believe him. Being interpreted, "I am a democrat who has been out of power for a quarter century and I want to help the democrat cause and possibly reignite another 15 minutes of fame."

If a former Ford appointee had made "devestating accusations" about the Clinton administration based on "I don't beleive him," it wouldn't have even made the press.

The democrats have no ideas and their only agenda seems to be bash Bush. They are going to be losing elections for many years to come.

would constitute mud?

who deserves to be commended for that.

But as a Viet Nam era Dem, he has learned his military lessons well- cut and run.

I dont care that he is a money grabbing pol, what other kind is there?  But to give this man any extraordianry credibility (his last years of active duty were 35 years ago, his Colonel days came in the Reserves.  I guess under those standards you have to agree that GWB's time in the TANG has to count also.) on military matters is stretching it.

I noticed he was all over Cheney.  Lets see, we should compare the strategic knowledge of the former Secy of Defense to a retired USMC Reserve Colonel.  Only in the world of Dem lunacy can they equate.  

With all you've said, I'm surprised you don't regard Lee Harvey Oswald as an American hero.

You know better.

lies, we can start with his lying premise that the war was started over 'lies'.

Then his slander of the VP.

Then his false claim that we are not winning.

This old demohack has been out against the war since at least May of 2004 but in today's world of MSM working feverishly to salvage an American defeat, this old defeatist is considered news.

He is just a seditious old man who disgraces the service he did in his youth.

with analytical skills you demonstrate, I am surprised you can read.

he graduated.  And then he enlisted in the Reserves, not the Navy, just like George Bush National Guard.  Keer had the "good" fortune of being called up, Bush didn't.  And I use those quotation marks loosely; playing the what if game, where would Kerry's political career be if he didnt go to Nam so he could come back and report on Genghis Khan's Army?

Sounds like someone finally got the memo... another lamo attempt at character assination... the only problem is its quite difficult when those who attempt to assinate have no credibility left. Point in case Cheney's recent ramblings which went off like a wet firecracker...

Also... Isn't the point of the media to always be "out of control"... isn't that what freedom of the press is all about... boo hoo if they are now feeding someone else's talking points...

The big lie campaign the lefties have waged is ripening nicely and may bear fruit.

The ultimate trick will be for the lefties to at once claim credit when the GWOT policy succeeds and blame Bush for doing it.

Seriously, I have to wonder how it feels to have to pretend that every response to lefty slander and lies is just dismissed as character assisantion, ad hom, etc.?

I mean that line leaves such vast amounts of brain power unused, unless for lefties it takes as much as they have to be as thoughtless as they are?

would inevitably be called out by the party leadership.  He is the poor man's Scoop Jackson and to solidify his credentials he was designated "Hawk", to the point where some might be forgiven if they thought that was his given name.  As "Hawk" his pearls of wisdom are meant to be portentous,the voice of Zeus thundering from the clouds, but a Zeus turned dove, a wise and maturing dove, not a silly billy republican.

Even accepting that a double standard applies to me, however, the ratio of hunter's outrageous smears to my own surely exceeds 100:1.

I think the meme that "Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran, too" is an insult to a lot more people than Rep. Murtha.  You can disagree with the man 110%, but we honor our veterans in this country for a reason.

MURTHA HAS BEEN MAKING  ANTI IRAQ COMMENTS SINCE 2003. THE LEFT WING MEDIA JUST NEEDED ANOTHER CINDY SHEEHAN . THIS IS REALLY THE MEDIA-CRATS WAR AGAINST GW BUSH PRESIDENCY SINCE HE WON IN 2000. THE WH NEEDS A SCROUTHED EARTH PR  ATTACK WHICH MEANS SCOTT MCCLENAN SHOULD GO !

He's wrong in this case, but he's no wacko lefty.

You're right. He is not. And that's not the issue. The issue is that the man has not said one newsworthy thing in his life, but he suddenly parrots MSM conventional wisdom in one instance, and he becomes a cause celebre.

Murtha has every right to speak, and his service is certainly worthy of respect. But his views on policy carry about as much weight as Don Young. No one has ever looked to this guy for policy leadership, and he's suddenly the conscience of the House? Give me a break.

AND LEARN HOW TO TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY!

to be complaing about mud.  If you really care you could have started a couple of years back.  For that matter you could go back to the Johnson-Goldwater campaign,for that matter--you get the idea.  The sensitivity you show is indicative of an expectation that one side can say what it wants, however foul, and still demand and receive courtesy and respect.  I expect that kind of reaction from a particular age group, a group that gets on the school bus every morning, from adults it's another thing.

Rather than attack Murtha's character or motives, we would probably be better off criticizing Murtha's actual words. I don't have a verbatim transcript here (somebody on this site might) but I heard a sound bite yesterday where Murtha said something about moving American troops "outside the borders" of Iraq and using them as a "quick strike force".

Hmmm. Outside Iraq's borders. Where, pray tell? Kuwait? Israel? You couldn't very practically invade Syria or Iran to station them there! Turkey didn't let us launch the original attack from there in 2003. A ship in the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean? We'd need some aircraft carriers and lots of fast helicopters!

If they were outside Iraq, how fast could they strike from there, if called back in to respond to a car bomb or sniper attack or uprising from a few dozen Al Qaida thugs? About all they could do is come in a few hours later and write up a casualty/damage report, while the bad guys have either been shot by Iraqis or disappeared into the woodwork.

Murtha's "strategy" makes no military sense whatsoever. A former Marine should know better, and his critics should point this out!

Yesterday Yahoo led with a headline along the lines of "Influential Democrat call for Iraq pullout".  I clicked on the link to see who this "influential Democrat" was and scratched my head.  Who the heck is Jack Murtha and is he influential anywhere outside of his little district?

I too doubt that he's a "wacko lefty". Being his age and from western Pa. and all, that seems a mischaracterization.

However, what's the story about his role in Abscam - unindicted, uninvolved, targeted but not bribeable, wholly innocent? He seems more like a machine pol (with all the good and bad that connotes) than anything else.

The most disurbing things about his comments don't seem to be the gist - get out now! - but the slam on Cheney (what does that matter and how) and the impression that he's a respected member on military affairs? That seems a stretch if it's based on nothing more than his service record.

that our purpose would not be to "respond to car bombs," nor is that a very good summary of our purpose now.  Is that what our troops are really doing in Iraq right now?  Writing up police reports?

If the Iraqi security forces can't even respond to a lone sniper, that's fine, but then we have a LONG way to go.  That's not my understanding of your views.

The overriding goal is that the new Iraqi government needs to be supported.  "Lone wolf" terrorist attacks will happen if we leave and they are happening now.  Without minimizing the importance of the lives lost, isolated incidents of this type are not a threat to the sovereignty of the Iraqi government.

Let me pose the question rhetorically.  What do you envision happening if US troops were to suddenly withdraw tomorrow?  Something akin to the fall of Saigon?  In that case, the purpose for leaving a military presence in the region is to retain quick-strike capability against any large-scale military massing that might be sufficient to capture Saigon.

I pose the question in all seriousness, though, because I'm not sure exactly what scenario people think would play out in the absence of US troops.

believes that Cheney lied about the intelligence, and he can back that with whatever proof he likes.  He is not slandering anyone.

It's a sad day when policy disagreements are seen as throwing mud, and responses about "the radical left-wing michael moore party" are just valid rebuttal's

If they were, my apologies for missing them. If not, it's the civility rule in play here.

Democrats are lying scumbags.

Just my opinion.

it slander or treason and there's no problem.  Because those words have actual meanings and specific criteria for use.

When the DNC is the party of sedition and too cowardly to admit it.

Having served in the military or Vietnam in no way makes one an expert on the subject(s) or necessarily even an authoritative figure.  Hey, I've been to Wyoming, but that by no means makes me an instant expert on the State.  Moreover, just having served does not give one a free pass for the rest of their life, but that's what we've seen time and again for so many who spout the defeatist, nihilistic, lefty maxims(e.g. John Kerry, Max Cleland et al.) about how war never accomplishes anything, everything is a quagmire, etc. They are given a free pass by a worshipful uncritical/unquestioning press.  All this tells me about Murtha is he didn't learn a darn thing about why we failed in Vietnam nor pull the right lessons from his service, and that rather than a respectable aging warrior, he has simply turned into a frightened, hystrionic old woman, happily serving as Pelosi's lap dog.  I've served myself and I'm a proud member of the VFW, but I don't think that gives me any more right or standing, nor expect a free pass for the rest of my life, but that's what we see time and again from any such "expert" who spouts the defeatist shriek of retreat.  I can only imagine how this discourages those presently in harms way and those Iraqis who are moving forward for a better country.  They deserve better than having to worry about such defeatist fifth columns.    

meaning.  I know this is a tough concept, but when you make a statement like that, you should be able to explain exactly why that is so, or risk people ignoring everything that comes out of your mouth.

In times like this, just remember what Harry Truman said,  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

This morning on KABC radio in Los Angeles, Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth made a great point.  He wants Murtha's surrender strategy brought to an immediate vote in Congress.  

It would put the administration snipers on the Left in the uncomfortable position of actually having to take an on-the-reocrd stand.  Enough with the teary-eyed posturing.  Enough with the weak-kneed "should we stay or should we go?"  

Let's have the vote and see exactly who is willing to support Murtha's strategy to win the war on terror by surrendering.  

calling for a cowardly, unprincipaled, self serving defeat is merely poltroonery.

I am happy to correct myself:

The DNC is now the party of poltroons.

However, if the English teacher who suggested American soldiers should shoot their commanding officers becomes more popular, perhaps the DNc can descend even farther.

is the equivalent of shouting.

Please be considerate of those who are not shouting.

Let's see an up or down vote!

So we can keep score and hold these politicians accountable

...my friends on the right side of the political spectrum throw this around quite often (or soemthing similar): "But as a Viet Nam era Dem, he has learned his military lessons well- cut and run."

I've never fully understood that as a charge that could be leveled solely at Democrats since it was Nixon who committed to ending the Vietnam War in 1968, and "cut-and-run" in 1973.  In contrast, it was under Kennedy and LBJ that the we got more and more involved in Vietnam.  Indeed, the Democratic party had some of the most anti-communist hawks in government, such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who is seen as one of the fathers of the modern Neoconservative movement (and had on his staff Richard Perle and Doug Feith, to name a couple of guys).

He has quietly made his way up in the Democrat power structure, specializing in defense matters, to where he is now ranking member of Defense Appropriations in the House. He gets elected by stressing his tenure in Washington and his ability to bring home the pork.

We have the John Murtha Highway (US 219), John Murtha Airport, cancer center named for his wife, etc. Nice things, done with tax payer money.

He is typical of the local population, a pro-life hawk who supports the labor unions. Despite a 2-1 Democratic edge in registration, our county went for Bush in 2004 after her narrowly lost is in 2000.

He was interviewed last night on local TV, and didn't mention the state of the war itself, but only the death and casualties of the troops, highlighted with pictures from Walter Reed of troops with missing limbs.

I believe Murtha was chosen for three reasons.

1. Because he is largely unknow outside his district, he is not linked by the public with the "Loony Left"
   
   
2. As a Vietnam veteran and ranking member of a defense related subcomittee, he has "Moral Authority"
   
   
3. Locally, Johnstown is very heavy with Reserve and Guard units. (My son in in headquarters company of a Combat Engineers batallion). The same news last night reported on the return of our National Guard Armored Battalion after a year. This plays to the locals who are weary of having their loved ones in the Guard and Reserve away, "Bush's Back Door Draft"

He's a Congressman. I agree with all your arguments in regards to the media coverage of people like Sheehan, but a congressman coming out and outright saying we need to leave Iraq now is news and it should be covered by the media. Cindy Sheehan's opinion is not relevant to the debate over Iraq. A congressman's opinion is very relevant.

My point here was not to say that the ONLY purpose of our troops in Iraq was to respond to guerrilla or terrorist attacks. Our troops are also training the Iraqi army and police to defend themselves, and stabilize their own country for the future. The Iraqi trooops are getting on-the-job training in real combat.

But since there are attacks by diehard Saddam fans and Al Qaida terrorists, it is much easier to respond to them QUICKLY by working side-by-side with Iraqi forces, who know where the attackers came from, and our troops can respond within minutes, before the attackers have a chance to hide. Any attacker that is killed will never attack again, whereas an attacker who hides may attack again.

If American troops were stationed outside of Iraq's borders, it would take many hours to respond to any guerrilla attacks, and the guerrillas would have ample time to hide and live to attack again.

Murtha's "strategy" is lousy, and would only delay the final victory by failing to kill the enemy. If, according to Murtha, our "strategy" is to train Iraqi troops in complete safety, why not airlift Iraqi troops to West Point and train them there? Except that the enemies will have a field day against civilians while they're gone!

We need to tell the truth about Murtha's plan. It might reduce American casualties, but it would lead to either defeat or a much longer war, since the enemies would be killed more slowly.

By the way, Murtha's timing is extremely suspect--he waited until the President is in South Korea to publicly embarrass him before one of our allies, which is facing a dangerous enemy to their north. Has Murtha thought about what both Koreas (North and South) think of this, and how this impacts the national security of not only the United States, but South Korea? Is Murtha too cowardly to face Bush when he is down the street at the White House?

Murtha himself said yesterday, "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.    Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates." And President Bush himself said, "Mission accomplished." So if what both are saying is true, then where's the debate? What's all the "cut-and-run" talk about? If Murtha here agrees with Bush, then isn't the only problem when to pack up and go home? But if the mission isn't accomplished, then somewhere along the line, the administration redefined it, making Bush's words obsolete, no?

I support the Bush Administration and think that Murtha is wrong but unless you've sworn the oath of enlistment (or indeed even if you have) you have not earned the right to assail his character and certainly not his service.  People like you are the reason that others throw around the 'chickenhawk' label so casually.  

in 1973 the Democrats in Congress ordered the pull out of US troops. In 1974, the Democrats in Congress halted all funding for the South Vietnamese armed forces and forbade US operations in Vietnam.

Sure it had Scoop Jackson, but N=1. It had Frank Church, Mike Mansfield, Alan Cranston, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, etc etc

There is an ongoing insurgency that is aided and/or supported by foreign jihadists.  Thus, the war is not yet over.  The Mission, in a matter of speaking, is not yet accomplished.

BTW, trafficing in the "Mission Accomplished" Talking Point™ is frowned-upon in these parts because if you're referring to this speech, you'll find that the words "Mission Accomplished" never appear.

But since I see that you've done it again already in the time it's taken me to write this comment, I suspect you're tenure here is going to be a short one in any case.

Ta-ta.

Kerry wasn't "called up".  He enlisted in the USNR on active duty.

Just like probably 65% of all active Naval officers did.

You don't really know much about how the Navy works I guess.

for about four months, during which he got three Purple Hearts, two of which for self-inflicted wounds, according to the Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. (check out the book "Unfit to Command" or the website www.swiftvets.com)

Then he came back in 1971 and told the Senate a boatload of lies about alleged "atrocities" committed by American soldiers, none of which he ever observed.

If Kerry had been elected President, our troops would have already been withdrawn, and Iraq would become another Vietnam, in the midst of civil war. Thank God for 118,000 votes in Ohio, and we were spared this!

as a first-time user. I had read the rules before signing on but didn't know that "Mission accomplished" was touchy. The "rules" page didn't say so. Besides, I thought that since Murtha was conceding WITH the Administration that major accomplishments were made, that they had at least some common ground there.

I have just been dismayed at the lack of consistency about a definition of the goals in Iraq. It is helpful that you and others have been establishing criteria. Has President Bush done so, item by item, in any address over the past two years? If not, that'd be a great place to start, no?

how those National Guard and Reserve units in Johnstown feel about Murtha's recent statements.

Anything in your local media about that?

-TS

"Forgive my ignorance"

... that this post hasn't received a response from those who are attacking Murtha personally.

why don't you read the speech to which I linked.  It kinda-sorta spells out that we're in for a long slog, that things are going to be tougher than we think, yadda yadda yadda.

It also pretty-much spells out The Plan™ - which has been followed more-or-less as advertised.

Finally, "Mission Accomplished" is not in and of itself a touchy point for us.  Attributing words to the President that he never said however, is.

As for the dirt-poor performance of the White House PR machine vis-a-vis Iraq since, well, right after the USS Abraham Lincoln speech, all I suggest is that you look through a couple of diaries on this site (you might want to start with mine) for evidence as to how some of us here feel about that.

BTW, welcome to RedState.

"chickenhawk" is thrown around so much is because so many people are sorely lacking in class and breeding.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

when he was apparently on a super-secret mission in Laos or something like that.

Sorry to make you expend the typing energy, this was just a sarcastic quip highlighting the fact that he seemed to mention it 15 times a day.

I think it is also why Murtha has popped out of obscurity. I think the democrats believe that if they just trot out someone with a military background: Kerry, Wesley Clark, John McCain (just kidding), and now Murtha, republicans should not question them.

BTW I did hear Kerry's Congressional testimonies after Vietnam and thought them to be disgusting. I am actually wondering why HE has not been brought up on charges of war crimes since he himself admits to them ;-)

or maybe that wasnt true....

They are going to be losing elections for many years to come.

Not with the passive aid they are getting from Republicans.

Murtha is a senile old man who has hung around the lilly livered, no moral convictions, Kerry Koward Krowd so long he thinks that they are right in that it is the most recent thing he's heard and that is as far back as he can remember. See Stansfield Turner and Jimmy Carter.

Remember, Nixon started the drawdown of troops himself in June 1969 as part of his "Vietnamization" effort (sounds familiar).  The next month, Nixon sent a secret letter to Ho Chi Minh in which he suggested he settle the conflict (and threatening to bomb him).  Also, in July '69, the "Nixon Doctrine" was formally announced, which called for "Vietnamization" and U.S. military and economic assistance to nations around the world struggling against Communism, but without Vietnam-style ground wars involving American troops. It emphasised local military self-sufficiency, with the assistance of U.S. air power and technical help with security.

  Plus, it was Kissinger who met in secret with North Vietnam's Foreign Minister, Le Duc Tho, and discussed ways to end the conflict beginning in 1970 (for which they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973).

Yes, the Democrats effectively ended the war in 1973, and it is fair for people to criticize them if they think we should never have pulled out of Vietnam.  But, its unfair to claim one party is the "cut-and-run" party, since both had a hand in what happened in Vietnam.

What would be most helpful is if both parties would calm down, sit down, and discuss rationally this war, so we don't repeat past mistakes.

Zain at CNN just slapped ex CIA man Turner around

we need to post the transcript she said we are at a time of war should you really be calling the Vice President the Vice President of torture is that not what the enemy wants and the was a lot more I thought she was a lefty

you are saying. Let's cut to the chase:

Yes, the Democrats effectively ended the war in 1973, and it is fair for people to criticize them if they think we should never have pulled out of Vietnam. Period.

Vietnamization was predicated on a gradual drawdown of US forces while retain air, artillery, and naval gunfire support as the ARVN built confidence and competence.

That ended in 1973. So at that point the war was over for the US. The most important loss here was that of the military advisors who were training the ARVN. The ARVN was left to sink or swim. The act was even more craven considering that the NVA had launched a huge offensive at Easter 1972.

In 1974 funding was cut for operations in SE Asia. At that point we could not even provide air support. The result was the pell mell rush from the roof of the US embassy and NVA troops moving by the Freedom Hill PX at Da Nang.

Right now one party is trying desperately to prevent past mistakes and that party isn't the Democrats.

but I still diagree with the all-too-common perception of the "cut-and-run" Dems.  Like I said, the guy who got us most involved in the conflict was LBJ.  The guy who ended up getting us out was Nixon.

Recent evidence has suggested knew as early as 1972 (during the bombing and "Vietnamization," and before the '73 vote) that the war in Vietnam was all but over.  For example, the August 3, 1972 taped conversation between Nixon and Kissinger, in which Nixon said "South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway."  He also said "We also have to realize, Henry, that winning an election is terribly important. It's terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam? That's the real question."

To which the ever-practical Kissinger ends up responding, "So we've got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74 no one will give a damn."

Regardless of whether Nixon let the election influence his decision making in '72, it was clear that (a) before '72 he was looking for a way out ("Vietnamization," his letter to Ho, and Kissinger's meetings with Lo); and (b) by '72 (if not before) he realized that the endeavor was pretty much hopeless.

As for "correcting past mistakes," I think Nixon did do that, by ending Vietnam, and in his formulation of the "Nixon Doctrine."

Nixon ran in 1972 on ending the war. But I don't see how a plan for ending the war (regardless of Kissinger's machinations) can be equated with abandoning an ally, especially in 1975 when American airpower would have crushed Giap because the ARVNs fought suprisingly well.

So on this note I end my willful participation in a threadjack.

But it was still a good, clean debate!  :)))

"leading Republican Peter King?"

So he's not the same guy who writes for SI?

I admit I didn't read all these comments, but here goes.

In the link to Murtha's page above, there was this quote:

"And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically."

Am I to understand that the "insurgent incidents" have increased from 150 per week to 13.46 per week in the past year?

The big lie is that the Congress saw the same intelligence as the WH. Name-calling (ad hominem) attacks on Murtha won't change the fact that many believe the WOT in Iraq has no discernable direction or plan to bring the troops home. If the hawks want to win they have to articulate a clear vision for ending our involvement in Iraq. So far, nothing has been proposed.

The big lie is that the Congress saw the same intelligence as the WH.

Actually no.  The "big lie", as it were, is that Congress did not have access to the same data.  They, in fact, did and do.  Congress, and in particular the SSCI by law, has access to the same exact intel data, directly from the source and independent of the Administration, at their leisure.

Based on what they saw, they independently came to the same conclusions as the administration.

Sadly, many of those same Congressweenies now want to re-write history and your spouting of the ludicrous Talking Points™ upon which you've chosen to start your RedState posting career enables them in said attempt.

... many believe the WOT in Iraq has no discernable direction or plan to bring the troops home...

Then "many" are not paying attention.

what intelligence did the WH see that Congress did not?  I have not yet heard a news story that articulates what Bush saw that was not shown to others. If you have the link, I would appreciate it.

Let me just say, my own feelings on the Iraq war are conflicted. It looks like the administration went in there with no comprehension of the difficulties we would face in invading and occupying an Arab country, borded by other hostile Arab countries.  However, I am not blind to the progress being made in Iraq. If in 30 years, there are thriving democracies in the Middle East, then I say put GW on Mt. Rushmore.

However, I am not thrilled with the behavior of most Democrats in Congress, either. Its one thing to say "I was wrong to vote to authorize the war". However this whining and crying about being "misled" makes them sound like a bunch of 5 year olds. Like they really need to sound MORE weak and ineffective!

It's quite clear that Murtha means 700 per week.

a) As minority leader of Defense Appropriations, de facto Democrats do look to him as a leader on defense issues.

Murtha might be a backbencher in many ways, but Defense is his speciality, and he's someone who many House Democrats listen to in Defense matters. I dislike the intimation on most of this thread that because someone is not an all-around well-known player, they can't be a leader in a specialized field.

b) Part of the reason the media gave the story so much airplay was because Murtha is no publicity hog. He doesn't hog the spotlight. So for him to make an emotional, stirring, and direct demand like that was all the more out of the blue, and subsequently newsworthy.

I suppose it's safe to say that you cannot see what you chose not to read.

Some highlights:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who is leading a spurious Democratic campaign that alleges President Bush misled the country into war, admitted last week that he did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet prepared in 2002 at the request of Senate Democrats specifically so Congress would have up-to-date intelligence as it debated whether to authorize the Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered to Congress at the beginning of October 2002, and Reid voted on Oct. 11, 2002, in favor of authorizing the war.

The NIE concluded that Saddam Hussein’s regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and possessed chemical and biological weapons...

Seems pretty unambiguous, doesn't it?  Kinda-sorta a "Slam Dunk!", eh?

It's important to remember that members of Congress (members of the SSCI) had access to all the data used to generate these conclusions.

Pressing on...

At a November 15 press conference, I asked Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.): “The Washington Post reported that six senators read that NIE in 2002 before the vote to authorize the war. Did both of you read it?” Reid at first said: “As indicated last week, Sen. [Carl] Levin [D.-Mich.] has worked very hard to make that public. Now, everyone has read it. Everyone has read it.”

But following up, I asked: “But before you voted for the war—“

Reid said: “We’re talking about six senators. The answer is, if you ask me, I didn’t read it. But I don’t know who did. But there’s a hundred senators, not six. And some members of the Intelligence Committee may have read it. I don’t know. But the fact of the matter is—you can’t escape this—the administration manipulated the evidence and the people who opposed them, like Amb. [Joseph] Wilson were taken to the woodshed.”

So Reid, the Minority Leader of the Senate, arguably the most powerful elected Democrat in the Nation, did not read a report, requested by his caucus (then the Senate majority, remember) prior to a vote on war, and he has the stones to make unsubstantiated accusations (even resorting to citing Known Facts™) about the Administration, and even bring certified liar Joe Wilson into the mix?

That kinda-sorta takes audacity and irresponsibility to a whole new level, don't you think?

Oh and this was at a press conference, right?  Meaning that this reporter from HEO was probably not the only person there, right?  I wonder when we'll hear about this in the MSM...

<crickets chirp>

</crickets chirp&gt

...we'll get that vote.  Should be interesting to see how quickly anyone voting "yes" for immediate troop withdrawal can be frog-walked out of Congress.  

If this vote is anything other than overwhelmingly "No" it will send a profoundly dangerous message to our enemies - and I don't mean the blue states.

So Reid, the Minority Leader of the Senate, arguably the most powerful elected Democrat in the Nation, did not read a report, requested by his caucus (then the Senate majority, remember) prior to a vote on war...

Reid was, of course, neither the Minority Leader nor the Majority Leader in October 2002.

I share some measure of disgust that anyone could vote yea or nay (how many Republicans read the report, I wonder?) on something as important as a war without familiarizing themselves with every piece of information they could.  On the other hand, when the NIE is dumped on you only days before the decision, everyone knows how the vote is going to go anyway, and there is certainly no time to go to the intelligence agencies and request the raw data that underlies the NIE, I have some measure of sympathy.

I tend to think scheduling the vote right before an election, and giving everyone only a few days to review the supporting intelligence, is not exactly the type of situation that lends itself to a rational, considered decision.  There's nothing illegal about it but I do remember quite a bit of sentiment at the time wondering why there was such a big rush.

I believe the rush to vote was precipitated by Tom Daschle.  There's an excellent article at vodkapundit.com on just this matter...

"Daschle spent most of the summer of 2002 demanding a Congressional vote on the use of force in Iraq. This was simple pandering to the pacifistic core of the Liberal base, and politically idiotic during a national election year, but Dionne can hardly blame Bush for Daschle's incompetence (well, he can, but the complaint doesn't make any sense). When Bush agreed early in the fall that yes, Congress should vote on going to war and Daschle finally realized the political consequences of getting what he'd been asking for for months, he nearly had a stroke. The vote, on October 11, 2002 was 77-23, and Daschle was among those voting in favor, saying:

'[T]he threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.'"

If he meant 700 per week, which is so clear to you, why didn't he say such.  Has anyone tried to find the statistics to verify the numbers?

"from about 150 per week to over 700 in the past year"

That means from 150/week to 700/week over the past year. He could have moved "in the past year" to an earlier past of his statement for total clarity, but I think it's pretty clear what he meant.

But Daschle was for the war, right?  So why would he go pandering to the Michael Moore wing?

for money and votes

Do you really have nothing better to do than engage in character assassination of a decent man? If he were speaking out to stay the course, would you instead be singing his praises?

Now I'm just waiting for someone to produce the equivalent of a crew of Swift Boat Veterans to announce that this guy they know who mowed the lawn of someone who worked for his dentist says all his medals are based on fraud. And that he's second cousin to Michael Moore and third to Ho Chi Minh.

The politics of personal destruction in this country has grown very, very tiresome. No wonder so many decent people don't want to run. Aside from not having the cash, they don't want to face personal destruction by the loonies on either end of the political fringe.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11329-1.html

house ethics committee may open an investigation against him.

This will never end. And its getting sad on both sides.

Look Steve, your caucus - the majority caucus in the Senate at the time, remember - requests an intel dump from the CIA.  The get it.  They don't read it.  They vote - a vote the schedule of which they have total power to control because they are the MAJORITY, remember.  Things don't pan-out precisely the way the intel said.

Now this same caucus wants to push the BUSH LIED meme?

At some point this has to look, even to partisans,  moronic.  I think we've passed that point some time ago.

Point by point...

Reid was, of course, neither the Minority Leader nor the Majority Leader in October 2002.

So?

how many Republicans read the report, I wonder?

I have no idea.  How many Republicans are pushing the BUSH LIED! meme?

when the NIE is dumped on you only days before the decision

Life in the Big City and you control the schedule - deal.

everyone knows how the vote is going to go anyway

Gee, I wonder why that could be the case?

and there is certainly no time to go to the intelligence agencies and request the raw data that underlies the NIE

There is "certainly" nothing of the sort.  See the parts about your side controlling the schedule.

I have some measure of sympathy

If the "measure" is anything beyond nano-scale, you're just being silly.

I tend to think scheduling the vote right before an election...

Again, Life in the Big City - your side controlls the schedule - deal with it.

And, go whine to someone else.

If he were speaking out to stay the course, would you instead be singing his praises?

If he had said anything in support of the war, the MSM would never have printed a word.  He might as well have whispered it in the Capitol Basement.

As it is, he assaulted the war effort, so of course it made the front page.

but are just not put on tv

we sing their praises at elections since we dont get to see them on tv

I too am tired of the bushlied character assasination

that murtha echoed

"Murtha is a Viet Nam era vet who deserves to be commended for that."

I missed the part where his service was assailed.  But his character no more depends on his former service than Bill Clinton's depends on his lack of it--the character comes first.  And in politics, character is fair game.

For me, I don't accuse Murtha of being anything but a (what is it) 9-term Representative?  Make what you want of that.  I believe he was sincere in his comments; that is, he didn't make them for political cover, or to make political hay.

I simply believe his ideas are wrong, and the slightest bit of analytical thinking can show anybody that they are wrong.  This diary does an excellent job of picking them apart.

Incidentally, I have the Viet Nam Service Ribbon, the Viet Nam Campaign Ribbon, and the Air Medal with about six clusters, plus other assorted ribbons and medals.  None of them make me any better or worse than you or than Murtha.  None of his makes his opinion about this war worth any more than mine.  He just happens to be in Congress, where he can do more damage.

This is the diary I meant to refer to:

http://charles-bird.redstate.org/story/2005/11/18/152647/67

When that's what you want to beleive.

Kerry was a child of privilege (as was GW Bush). He certainly could have found a way out of serving, as so many did back then. But he did serve. In combat. As a volunteer. He EARNED THE RIGHT to protest the war (not that one even needs to earn that right other than by being an American). He didn't get a deferment or join the Air National Guard. As for the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" and the self-inflicted wounds, no one has produced any proof for that. It was simply hearsay from people with an anti-Democratic (Party, not political system) agenda. I understand that some might disagree with his politics, but it is shameful to question his patriotism or service. This was always a red-herring issue to keep people from focusing on the real issues facing our country. I wasn't a huge fan of Kerry, but I still find it astonishing that we re-elected Bush. Even many of my conservative friends are increasingly embarassed by him.