Posted on 11/19/2005 12:30:00 PM PST by new yorker 77
REP. JACK MURTHA has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq.
But that would be just the beginning. If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the Iraqi people were not able to defeat the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, what would happen? What if Zarqawi and his al Qaeda allies were able to make common cause with the Baathists to turn Iraq into a terrorist state or to provide a haven for terrorists, complete with an oil supply to finance their global activities? And what of Iraq's neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? They would likely decide that they could not afford to let a vacuum develop in Iraq or allow their adversaries to establish a base there. All these nations would contemplate military intervention in Iraq, directly or indirectly through the arming of allies. The possibility of a regional conflict erupting among any or all of these powers could not be excluded. Is this is a tolerable outcome for the United States?
In fact, Murtha does seem to be aware of the disasters that are almost certain to follow the immediate withdrawal he demands. He calls for the creation of "a quick reaction force in the region." He calls for "an over-the-horizon presence of Marines." And he calls for the United States "to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." We have too much respect for Murtha to believe that he seriously imagines we would be able through diplomacy alone to bring "security and stability" to Iraq. But the question is, when the inevitable disaster unfolded as a result of his proposed withdrawal, what would be his plan for the "quick reaction force" and "over-the-horizon presence" of the Marines? It seems he would have us withdraw our forces, hand a monumental moral, political, and military victory to the terrorists in Iraq and all over the world--only to take us back into war when the inevitable disaster began to unfold.
Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that "our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence." This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of "incidents" against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed--almost all of them supporting the coalition's goals and harming the insurgents.
We do not pretend that all is well in Iraq, although things are starting to look a bit better. We agree with Murtha, and have written repeatedly, that the military is stretched thin and needs to be increased. The congressman, however, is in a position to do something about that. We, for one, would support any legislation he offered to increase the size of the Army and the military budget in this time of war.
In 1946, George Orwell remarked that "the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."Victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like, but not so long a war as to be intolerable. What would be intolerable would be to lose to the terrorists in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a prescription for catastrophe. Far from extricating ourselves from a crisis, we would have driven ourselves into an even deeper crisis. It is no favor to the members of the armed forces who have served or are serving in Iraq to declare now that all their efforts and sacrifices are in vain. The way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.
--Robert Kagan and William Kristol
Even at the height of the Clinton revelations... I never spoke badly of our participation in Bosnia or Kosovo. I wasn't for them, but once we were there, I was for complete success.
These 'people' should never be trusted with the safety of this nation again.
"In my opinion, it's not that he doesn't understand. It's that he doesn't care, so long as it makes the Bush admin look bad. Their only goal is to bring him down, and as far as they're concerned, anything goes--even if it means total destruction of this country."
This isn't just your opinion, its the absolute truth....and its very disgusting. This is not about bad judgement, this is about a sickening desire for return to power....its the loweest of lows....and its hard to believe...even for democrats.
DEMORATS SAY IT'S OK TO LOSE WAR ON TERRORISM
The Demorats say it's acceptable to cut and run from the battle against the terrorists in Iraq. They think it's acceptable to lose the war against terrorism.
The Demorats have formed an alliance with the terrorists and the MSM - which includes of course Aljazeera - to defeat the United States.
So how much cash will the terrorists donate to their friends, the Demorats?
Murtha reminds me of the old guy who`s stayed to long at the saloon, trying to dominate every conversation by being a bully. You want to respect his age, but if he says one more stupid thing....
LOVE THE PICTURE
Senile old Murtha was used, that much was apparent. Nancy Lafloozie did everything but orgasm on the House floor. Old Murtha must have been in a dither at her gushing platitudes.
I thought that Kerrey was the only imbecile who has denied things that have been recorded.
I did notice also that last night Murtha read what he claims was his words of the previous day, but what he read was something entirely different or heavily edited.
One final thing. Being a "war hero", in my universe, does not entitle him to a free pass. Decorated war heroes can be just as clueless, bad, mean and idiots as the general population.
Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a decorated war hero? As well as a few mass murderers in the 20th century? Wasn't Benedict Arnold a decorated war hero also?
Give me a break!
I don't care what's in his resume...if he's corrupt, he's corrupt...I'd say a typical democrat. The only thing congressman Murtha cares about is the dynasty he has set up in Pennsylvania but forcing the DoD to contract with certain companies in the Johnstown area. Our Admirals and Generals have to play ball with him or they don't get the equipment they need to do their mission. Congressman Murtha is so powerful, they have already named the airport in honor of him (fair tribute to a living democratic icon)...here's an excerpt from an article of an interview from WTAE-TV in Pittsburg,
"In Johnstown, you can fly into the John Murtha Airport, drive on the Murtha Highway, go to school at Pitt's Murtha Center and go to work at the Murtha Technology Center -- all signs of a local congressman who's not shy about using his clout to deliver projects to his district.
Murtha: "I don't say it's political power. I say it's influence. It's influence because I've worked with these people for years."
Murtha's influence as ranking Democrat on the committee that approves Pentagon spending has helped dozens of companies get billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts -- some of them in his district.
Van Osdol: "Somebody wants a big defense-related project, they have to go through you, right?"
Murtha: "That's exactly right. And of course, they understand that."
The link to the entire interview is at:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/team4/1588983/detail.html
"Abashed the devil stood, and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton
"We, for one, would support any legislation he offered to increase the size of the Army and the military budget in this time of war."
Hello? I don't understand why we are crippling ourselves with a too-small Army presence. Let's beef it up and get the job done, for heavensake. Also, I think there is an argument to be made for a temporary draft.
Recently Leahy was bragging about being the final vote to cut off funding for Viet Nam.
We cannot and must not let that happen again.
Exactly my position at the time. How an any American worthy of the name not full support the mission of our brave miltary wherever they are sent? Durng the Vietnam war I did not support the no-win strategy of attrition (shame on McNamara and LBJ!)but I always supported our troops and hoped for their survival once it was clear they would not be allowed to win. I only hope our troops are allowed to win in Iraq.
"REP. JACK MURTHA has had a distinguished congressional career."
Not really.
ABSCAM.
His current scandal involving steering MILLIONS into his brother's (and former top aides) lobbyist group.
And he is second only to Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd in pork.
Murtha is a grifter and a traitor.
This guy Murtha is pathetic....and he is an outright traitor, just like the entire Democrat Party. This poor excuse for a human being, John Murtha is now responsible for the deaths and woundings of American servicemen. He should be publicly shamed for the butthead he is!!!
"Does Rep. Murtha understand the consequences of immediate withdrawal from Iraq?"
He absolutely does. The United States steps down and "the enemy of his enemy" wins. Case closed.
You are very fast, sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.