Osama’s Congressman: John Murtha
Ben Johnson has this in Front Page Magazine:
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, John Murtha endorsed al-Qaeda’s foreign policy.
The upwardly mobile, cut-and-run specialist (who, by the way, is a “war hero”) told Tim Russert he still supports the foreign policy that convinced Osama bin Laden to launch the 9/11 attacks:
Now, the other day we were doing a debate, and [the Republicans] said, “Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run.” We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, “We have to, we have to change direction:need to change direction. We can’t win a war like this.”
Murtha revealed we must take this step days after the death of al-Zarqawi, because we’re “losing“:
And if you’re not winning, if you’re losing, and that’s what’s happening:[A]t some point you got to reassess it like Reagan did in, in Beirut, like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.”
Murtha’s was an unfortunate choice of historical precedent. As the Washington Post has reported, “As examples of alleged American cowardice, bin Laden frequently cites the case of the withdrawal from Lebanon after the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the withdrawal from Somalia after the 1993 killings of U.S. servicemen in Mogadishu.”
The terrorist mastermind told the infamous Peter Arnett in 1997:
After a little resistance, the American troops left after achieving nothing:We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters:If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.
In 1998, bin Laden boasted to ABC’s John Miller:
America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.
Miller, in turn, told Osama, “You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.” (But there’s no media bias. And please, don’t question his patriotism.)
Indeed, the Saudi jihadist cited both Beirut and Mogadishu in his original 1996 fatwa.
Both retreats emboldened Osama bin Laden to strike the Great Satan in the belief no serious consequences would follow. More than 5,500 American deaths later, Jack Murtha still thinks this was capital statesmanship.
Nor is he alone on the Left. Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the George Soros-funded/pro-Hillary Clinton think tank headed by former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, urged President Bush to emulate the “quick and decisive way Reagan dealt with the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.”
President Reagan told the press on October 24, 1983, that remaining in Beirut despite the bombing of the Marine barracks was “central to our credibility on a global scale,” but by the end of the following February, we had completely withdrawn our forces. Unlike Clinton’s disastrous surrender – and his malfeasance and nonfeasance following subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, and the USS Cole – Reagan acted against the backdrop of the Cold War, where he saw Lebanon as an unnecessarily emboldening sign of U.S. weakness:to the Soviets. (At that time, both parties evaluated the rising Islamic jihad in terms of how it affected the balance-of-power between Washington and Moscow.) The modern Cold War, which was thrust upon the West by Osama and his cohorts, is between Islamic fanatics and those committed to democracy, freedom of religion, and individual liberty. Reagan would not retreat in that context; then, as now, the Left would.
In counseling this approach, Murtha candidly acknowledges he is contradicting himself and advocating a “premature” withdrawal that would leave Iraq in “disarry”:
Russert: But in 2004, you had a view that was much different than you had now, and this is what you wrote in your book: “A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance.” Aren’t you now advocating that?
Murtha: Yeah, you’re absolutely right:there comes a time when you got to change direction.
His current prescription is less a contradiction than a pathology of deaftism from the ineducable Left. Murtha advocated our withdrawal from Somalia and Lebanon, too. He warned the Today show in September 1993, “Our welcome has been worn out.” A month later, he assured the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he could not “see any achievable goal or national security interest in this operation.” And Murtha boasted on “Meet the Press” Sunday, “When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, ‘Get out.’”
Murtha claims we need to withdraw now, because, “It’s worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially.” His evidence? Insufficient rubbish collection. “When I spoke out, the garbage wasn’t being collected, oil production below pre-war level”all those things indicated to me we weren’t winning this, and it’s the same today, if not worse. ”
His sunny assessment of war-torn Iraq makes one question his grip on reality. For instance, did you know, “The first six months we went in there, not a shot was fired”? Better yet “when I first went to Iraq, you could drive any place.” This kind of thinking led to his assessment the Armed Forces should redeploy “to Okinawa:you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly.”
If the Democratic Party does as well as predicted in the November elections, he may have a new station from which to propound his wisdom. Murtha announced earlier this month that if the Democrats recapture the House, he will seek the position of Majority Leader. A few days later, a flummoxed Nancy Pelosi stated, “In the spirit of unity to achieve our goal of winning a Democratic majority in November, Congressman John Murtha has informed me that he will suspend his campaign for Majority Leader until after we win a Democratic majority of the House.” On Sunday, Murtha defended his announcement on the grounds that “in this business you have to make sure you get your foot in the door.”
Which is exactly what he did by being the front man for the Democrats’ withdrawal policy. As a “war hero,” he was, to use Ann Coulter’s term, “a human shield,” unassailable and invested with a Cindy Sheehan-like “absolute moral authority.” His decision to hide his intention to lead the Democratic Party – like Pelosi’s coerced pledge from John Conyers that in a Democratic House there would be “No Rush to Impeachment” – was intended to hide the Left’s stated legislative agenda:which is the only way Democrats have successfully sought higher office in the last 30 years. (See “Carter, Jimmy” and “Clinton, Bill.”) It is an agenda of full legal protections for terrorists and no quarter warfare for their political enemies. And they’ve proven 23 years of hindsight cannot cure the blindness their ideological mania has inflicted.
Next to Barbara Lee, John Murtha is Osama bin Laden’s most dependable voice in the House. He may soon be Majority Leader. Then he can make his nightmares our reality.
June 20, 2006 - 06:26 PM on June 20th, 2006
It’s now a contest among Democrite leaders to see who can be the most egregious traiytor, who can give more hope, more aid and comfort, more words with propaganda value to the enemy.
Who’s winning? Who’s the biggest f’ing traitor?
June 20, 2006 - 06:41 PM on June 20th, 2006
Lefties Make Headlines on
The torture and murder of two of our heroes this week were carried out by these same “resistance fighters” – and the Left dares to blame President Bush when their own words are used to embolden the terrorists.
June 20, 2006 - 06:54 PM on June 20th, 2006
Can you imagine having to go to him for a pep talk? I mean really:shock:
June 20, 2006 - 10:06 PM on June 20th, 2006
Redeploy Murtha to Okinawa
The world is much too dangerous a place to tolerate those who willfully damage the morale and undermine the mission of our troops.
June 20, 2006 - 10:29 PM on June 20th, 2006
It looks to me like Murtha is just digging himself into a deeper hole each day, every time he opens his stupid mouth. He accuses our guys of cold-blooded murder, when the investigation isn’t even complete. Then when the investigation has details he doesn’t like, he screams “cover up!”. He’s in so deep now he is past the point of no return. If the investigation does not result in murder charges, then it will be proven once and for all what a degenerate POS murtha is.
At that point he should be taken away in shackles, charged with treason, and thrown into prison.
June 21, 2006 - 01:35 AM on June 21st, 2006
hey guys we all know what side John Murtha is on, is he helping bin laden? with a bomb for some poor city? i think murtha would place it inside a day-care center
ops:
many on the inside of this non government hate our freedoms and can be called foreign tyrant’s the fact of evil doers is the act on our borders. and yes charge this low life with treason and keep him in prison for 99 years, or under the prison if you know what i mean:grin:
June 21, 2006 - 01:50 AM on June 21st, 2006
I’m sorry you couldn’t understand what Murtha was saying. When he said “when I first went to Iraq, you could drive any place.” that was a true statement. American civilians drove around unimpeded after the initial victories. This was widely known, and you can find videos of it if you try.
Now security in Iraq has declined to the point that no one travels without bodyguards and elaborate security precautions.
Do you really think not being able to walk outside the green zone without wearing a flak jacket is victory? Why?
June 21, 2006 - 07:28 AM on June 21st, 2006
Uh, we are only hearing one side of the story in Iraq. I have read blogs from soldiers over there and they can’t believe how Iraq is perceived in the news here in the states. They talk about all the accomplishments over there that we don’t hear about. I will believe our brave men and women over there over our lop-sided media reports here.
June 21, 2006 - 07:41 AM on June 21st, 2006
That was a stupid thing for Murtha to say. What the hell is he talking about? Did he vacation in Iraq as a guest of Saddam? Yes, it was at one time perfectly safe to drive around Iraq: unless you were a woman that caught the eye of Uday or Qusay, or you said or did something that went against (or someone thought was against) Saddam, or some one dropped a dime on you and you got picked up by Saddam’s goon squad. At that point you might find yourself being fed into a shredder. There are more than half a million people in mass graves who found Iraq a very dangerous before the U.S. invaded. Even children found it dangerous; recall the children as young as 5 found held in prisons when our troops got there?
Every time Murtha opens his stupid mouth fresh excrement comes out. He clearly is full of it. He is a utter disgrace and should immediately resign, begging forgiveness from America.
June 21, 2006 - 08:28 AM on June 21st, 2006
John Murtha a ventiliquists dummy is more intellegent then he is:razz:
June 21, 2006 - 09:27 AM on June 21st, 2006
Robert – no, not when Hussein when was in power. After the United States invaded Iraq, for a period of many months, it was substantially safer for civilians than it is now. U.S. reporters drove around unimpeded, perhaps accompanied only by a translater.
Sandy – you can choose to believe the media or not. You should believe the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, whose 12-page brief was leaked recently. You should belief the Pentagon when it releases casualty numbers. Where’s these good news hidden in this graph?
It is more dangerous to be in public in Iraq now, for everyone, soldiers and civilians alike. The counterinsurgency has not won, but they can inflict arbitrary amounts of damage to individuals and infrastructure, using IEDs, suicide bombers, and traditional military assaults. There’s no reason to think that that will change.
I don’t admire or like the insurgents, but facts are facts. After three years, the military situation is substantially worse. Iraq is essentially in a civil war. The civilian situation, with power only a few hours a day, long lines for gas, and death squads can only be described as intolerable. When was the last time you had to wait 12 hours for a tank of gas? These are the details from the U.S. ambassador’s briefing just last month.
Insulting Murtha doesn’t change facts, no matter how “intellegent” you think he is.
June 21, 2006 - 10:06 AM on June 21st, 2006
Travis,
Learn the real lesson of Vietnam. You cut and run Democrats condemned millions to die in Vietnam, now you want to do the same in Iraq/Afghanistan. Where do you stop cutting and running?
June 21, 2006 - 12:55 PM on June 21st, 2006
Osama looked at this nation as weak after we bailed in Mogadishu. He thinks Americans can’t stomach a tough battle. I guess he is right with some of us…huh, Travis? I am glad that no one listened to your side during WWII. You don’t think things were tough back then? The casualties were 20 times worse, but we stuck it out. Yes, the enemy we are fighting now fights unfairly, no concerns whatsoever about the Geneva Convention, but I’ll be damned if a bunch of pessimistic appeasers are going to make a Vietnam out of it. I am sure the Iraqi people will realize they owe this nation a mountain of gratitude when it is all over.
June 21, 2006 - 01:51 PM on June 21st, 2006
The only thing about the biraq war that is comparable to Vietnam is the behavior of the anti-war Left. They are truying to make their position a self-fulfilling prophecy.
June 21, 2006 - 02:17 PM on June 21st, 2006
“Robert – no, not when Hussein when was in power. After the United States invaded Iraq, for a period of many months, it was substantially safer for civilians than it is now. U.S. reporters drove around unimpeded, perhaps accompanied only by a translater.”
If this is the case, then what it says is that it took time for the foreign fighters, like Al Qaeda, to infiltrate substantial numbers of their people and eqpt into Iraq. Which then underscores the assertion that Iraq is the main front isn the war against terror, just like the Administration (and we) have been saying all along. It is war. War is war. We need to win. “Just win, baby”.
June 21, 2006 - 02:43 PM on June 21st, 2006
PCD – Vietnam is a distraction. We’re not winning in Iraq now. Instead, we’re stuck in an endless war against an insurgency deeply imbedded in a civilian population. That’s Murtha’s point. Things aren’t improving in Iraq, not by any measure you can name. They’re not improving militarily for the US, and civilian life for Iraqis is an utter hell.
However, if you still want to talk about Vietnam, then consider the parallels: that conflict, too, was a war against a highly-motivated guerilla force backed by external forces (China, USSR). Our allies in that war was the incompetent South Vietnamese army, which was only too happy to let US soldiers fight and die in every battle. (Many individual SVA soldiers fought bravely and well, but the leadership was a disaster). The comparison with Vietnam shows how much of a leaderless, misguided disaster Iraq is, and why it should have been avoided.
I have never thought we should leave Afghanistan, and I don’t think that now. We should have fully committed to making that into a success, instead of the failed nation-state that it is now. Because of the Iraqi disaster, Afghanistan may well turn out to be lost as well. So Bush will have lost two wars, one that had to be fought, and another that never should been started.
Sandy – You’re right, it’s very painful to consider that our eventual withdrawal will be hailed by Osama and allies as a victory. This is one more reason why the war should never have been started.
You want to compare Iraq to WWII. Well, go ahead and compare it. Pick any official timeline you like, and compare the two conflicts. The allies had conquered huge swaths of two continents in three years, and victory was clearly anticipated. While over the same time, Iraq still stands, ungovernable and deadly to our soldiers and its citizens, and victory is barely imaginable.
We won WWII because we made continuous advances. We prepared carefully for the war; we made national sacrifices; and when plans didn’t work out, we changed them. None of that is true in Iraq. The only group that stands out in this misbegotten mess are the soldiers actually fighting. They are making the sacrifices, and they are trying to get these suicidal plans changed.
As Murtha says, “Stay the course” is a political slogan. It’s not a plan. U.S. soldiers should not die for political advantage.
Finally, as far as the “Democrats” cutting and running, that’s nonsense. You should consider very carefully what Reagan did over his eight years in office. I won’t pretend that I was a fan of his, but he was capable of admitting error and of changing plans when they weren’t working. Iraq is not working. U.S. soldiers should not die so that you can feel superior to Democrats.
June 21, 2006 - 04:09 PM on June 21st, 2006
Travis, after reading your site, I have come to the conclusion that your opinion means shit,,, at least to me. Progressives=hatmongers, plain and simple.
June 21, 2006 - 04:30 PM on June 21st, 2006
John Galt – You think that, as a progressive, I sell hats? Well, that is incorrect, sir, but I take no offense.
If you think we’re winning in Iraq, or that we’re going to win, that’s great. Muster your facts, and see if they support your argument. Pick any single fact that Murtha stated, and prove its opposite.
Otherwise, it’s just hope that you’re offering, and as the U.S. Army has long and wisely said, hope is not a plan.
I was strongly opposed to the war beforehand. However, once we were in Iraq, I too hoped that we would prevail and leave it a better place than it was under Hussein. But we haven’t, and our name will be cursed by many Iraqis for the damage we have caused. This is the truth.
June 21, 2006 - 05:03 PM on June 21st, 2006
Travis- I have read your comments,and I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, we aren’t losing in Iraq..I suppose if a blind man went over, they may get that feeling, but the footage and news coming out of the country disprove your thoughts. There are certain areas that are still danger zones..but not the entire country…And the celebrations in the streets last week show a country wanting the terrorists out….
You say you supported and still do, the Afganistan operations..but you say we are failing there as well..How? And you supported that why? Afganistan didn’t attack us on 9/11 did they?
Murtha is a dick!
June 21, 2006 - 08:26 PM on June 21st, 2006
Thanks for the smarmey lesson travis… Hatemonger! BTW, hows 500 WMD’s sound to ya. Hope you like crow, because it is being served now. Open up.
June 21, 2006 - 08:27 PM on June 21st, 2006
If only Travis waited about 5 hours to write 16… he could have saved himself looking like a FOOL.
June 22, 2006 - 12:07 AM on June 22nd, 2006
Peejz – primarily because the Taliban provided al-Qaeda a safe base of operations from which to attack. It was essential for the safety to the U.S. to completely smash any form of state-sponsored support for al-Qaeda. Also, as a distant second reason, Afghanistan had been a failed state since the Russians withdrew, and so it would be good to have a democracy there, instead of multiple warlords with fiefdoms. That second reason is insufficient to start a war, but it’s a damned good reason to stay and do the best job possible. It’s too bad that that didn’t happen.
Iraq had no important connections with al-Qaeda, even including the now-dead Zarqawi. I’m sorry we disagree about our losing in Iraq. I wish you were right.
John Galt – Insults are’t arguments. Wouldn’t it be better if you could persuade people to believe what you believe, rather than demonize them? Spoonful of sugar, and all that.
As far as the WMDs, I don’t understand your point. I always thought Hussein had WMDs before the war, and I still didn’t favor America starting a war with Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons now — do we invade them next? North Korea’s leader is actually bug-nutty insane, unlike the canny Hussein. Pakistan was selling plans for their nuclear weapons, and shielding Osama bin Ladin — do we invade them next? Iran has nuclear power now and they’re helping the Shia insurgency in Iraq — do we invade Iran next, before they can build a bomb? Those are real global problems, John, not a few crates of ten-year-old shells with mustard and sarin gas. Why not invade all these countries right now?
If this story about the WMDs is true, it doesn’t make the problem with the insurgency in Iraq any better. This news doesn’t protect the soldiers who will be killed by IEDs in the coming week. It doesn’t heal the minds and bodies of U.S. soldiers on their third and fourth rotation in Iraq, a brutal, killing schedule that was never imposed on our soldiers before.
You’re responding to a political announcement as if it were a military victory. That’s naive. Look at the framing of it. Santorum, a politician in a tough senatorial race, announced the news. He’s fighting for his job (latest poll has him nearly 20 points down). He was allowed to announce the good news with Hoekstra, even though he had nothing whatever to do with it.
Don’t fall for the dog and pony show. Bring our boys home.
June 24, 2006 - 11:14 PM on June 24th, 2006
Travis, you really should look at sites unrelated to the liberal left. You could also stand to take a few history classes. There is plenty of evidence that “redeploying outside of Iraq” will not stabilize it. We have the best VOLUNTEER Army on the planet. No soldier, sailor, airman or Marine is in the theater unless they VOLUNTEERED to join. They absolutely aren’t there for a third or fourth tour without volunteering to do it AGAIN. With the average enlistment being for 3 to 4 years, and each combat tour being for approximately 12 to 18 months, it simply isn’t possible for them to be there more than twice without reenlisting for another tour. Who do you think knows more about what’s going on there? YOU or the soldiers who have actually been there? John Murtha or Joe Lieberman who has actually been there multiple times? If it’s so damn bad there, why are the number of attacks less than 1/3 of what they were 2 years ago? If the Iraqi people don’t want us there, why are they calling in to the tip line thousands of times a month?
Murtha simply is trying to make political hay by running his mouth. The Democrats are trying to use his history as a Marine officer to claim his position is unassailable. His position is wrong, and to follow it would be disastrous.
December 19, 2006 - 07:32 PM on December 19th, 2006
Osama’s Congressman: John Murtha
Hillary Clinton is running for the presidency and she is out playing the field and trying to appear like everything to everybody. She has tried to appear moderate, and at times she has swung back to the left in order to placate her base. She is a mas…