Posted on 11/18/2005 11:26:15 PM PST by rvoitier
Can you imagine the great ads this kind of stuff is going to produce in '06?
You got that right.
The article clearly states, "Our troops have become the enemy," was said by Murtha.
bttt
Sounds like it's time for Rep. Murtha to step down.
Either that or he should be tried for treason.
And the GOPers had better use these words from stinking cowards and traitors!
With any luck, this is the last time we hear from this Vietnam "hero". His fifteen-minutes have come to an end.
"Our Democrat politicians have become the enemy" says the majority of the American people.
VERY TRUE MY FRIEND ..These b*stards are selling the whole country down the river over politics and personal gain..That's it in a nutshell.Disgusting is not strong enough . They would put us ALL in harms way just to get back at Bush for winning the last election .There is NOTHING they wouldn't do to spite the man.even put us all in danger and tear this country up with lies. I've had it , I really have..
>> "A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.
Wow.
The way I look at it, If OUR troops were the friends of the enemy......THAT would be a problem.
I think there are two answers to your question:
1) Our troops have become the enemy of the terrorists. Yes, I see what you're saying, now. But this is a given fact; they were always the enemy to the terrorists so I don't even consider it as being what he meant to say.
2) Our troops have become the enemy of the American people makes more sense since he says our troops, have become the enemy, inferring there was a morph from being our (for lack of a better word) allies. It's as if the dems are willing to intermingle/substitute Bush with the troops in their arguments to turn the American people against Bush. This answer is more plausible given the dem's history (see: Sen. Dick Durbin).
One thing is for sure; there is a bitter fight of ideologies taking place in this country between those who want to construct a United States from pot-filled dreams of yesteryear and those who remember and know how America got great in the first place.
I am far from being a veteran, and a Marine Vet at that, but I agree.
Then that needs to be on every single GOP ad, bulletin board, commercial, whatever, next fall.
There are so many people whose lives have been touched by this war. I went home to Chicago to visit my dad last spring, and there was a funeral for a young man, who'd served in Iraq, from my high school--if I'd been 20 years younger I would have known him.
The troops are "the enemy"? I don't think that's going to play well in towns and cities all across the country.
The MSM will now procede to give Murtha the same "big kiss" treatment that Jim Jeffords got when he changed his party in 2001.
Dateline NBC, Sixty Minutes, Barbara Walters and Larry King are going to battle to " Get the Guest".
We will two weeks of this shameless pontificating of this man
Correction: We will have two weeks of shameless pontificating of this man.
This is not news. Murtha flaked out on the liberation of Iraq even before Congress approved it. In September 2002, a month before the congressional authorization, an outfit called Veterans for Common Sense reported that Murtha was "questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose":
"All of us want to get rid of Saddam," Murtha says. But he believes that [President] Bush "went about it the wrong way." . . .Murtha says a key reason for questioning a second Iraq war is strategic. He's worried that it would cost the United States not only money and lives, but also important allies. By moving without international support, Bush could alienate Arab allies, and "we could lose access to the intelligence we need to fight the war on terrorism." . . .
Nothing he has seen in intelligence reports has convinced him that Bush needs to rush through a resolution, Murtha says. Even so, he has not decided how he will vote.
Murtha ended up voting in favor of the liberation. Then, in May 2004, as the Associated Press reported, he called for more troops:
"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained."We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.
Murtha had rather eccentric views about where the increased troop strength should come from. As we noted in October 2004, he was one of only two members of Congress to vote for a bill that would have reinstated the draft--a bill opposed even by its sponsor, grandstanding Charlie Rangel.
An exchange with Margaret Warner on last night's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," though, suggests that Murtha has simply taken leave of reality:
Warner: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe--[the president] says--for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?Murtha: Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.
So according to Murtha, "terrorism started" either in March 2003 (with the "invasion of Iraq") or in May 2004 (when the Abu Ghraib miniscandal came to light). One wonders where he was in, say, September 2001. One wonders, too, how a political party can keep a straight face while putting him forward as a spokesman on national security.
Sounds like he's suffering from the onset of early Alzheimer's.
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.