Q&A With Congess: Democrats Can't Defend Murtha's Zarqawi Spin

Human Events Online ^ | 19 June 2006 | Amanda B. Carpenter

[Aussie Dasher]

The bottom line: Dems have no idea where they are, or where they're going!

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Rep. William Delahunt (D.-Mass.): I honestly don't know. I do know however that it has been reported that Zarqawi had been identified early on that the White House was informed by the military—

Was this months ago?

Delahunt: No, this was years ago. And they made the decision not to strike, because if they did that, it could have impaired and hurt the building of their coalition prior to the invasion of Iraq. This occurred before Iraq. They could have taken him out, they knew he was a terrorist.

This one knows where he is in the twilight zone

[coconutt2000]

Democrats are stuck in a Twilight Zone where they can't support the President, and they have to appear to be patriotic...

And the conflict is killing them as they try to find just the right tone and nuance to pull it off.

It would be so much simpler if the Democrats didn't choose to politicize the war, but then again - they didn't have a choice because their primary constituents, the Far Left Wing, and their donors politicized the war first and any Democrat who chose the Lieberman path would find themselves out in the cold.

[Nathan Zachary]

The bottom line is Democrat's lead by Murtha are traitors. They never fail to try turn success into disappointment.

It's disappointing to Democrats that we have success in Iraq. Lead on Murtha. You are doing a fantastic Job. Perhaps you and Howrds Dean should get together for coffee this week...

[driftdiver]

Not so sure, I believe he may be talking about something the Clinton administration did.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Dems have no idea where they are, or where they're going!

That should be their party slogan.

[browardchad]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.): Do I think what's plausible?

That we could have gotten Zarqawi and made these arrests without U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.

Feinstein: I think it's unlikely.

So, you support the fact that we have them [troops] there and got Zarqawi?

Feinstein: I support the fact we got Zarqawi.

ROFL! Feinstein wins in the Squirming Worm category. 

[backhoe]

http://www.instapundit.com/

this: "Murtha is channeling Grandpa Simpson more every day."

There seems to be a sudden surge of enthusiasm for Murtha challenger Diana Irey.

[DustyMoment]

I liked this one the best:

So, you support the fact that we have them [troops] there and got Zarqawi?

Feinstein: I support the fact we got Zarqawi.

The Dems can't run far enough away from Murtha fast enough. He is now the DNC poster boy for the loose cannon. When Diane Feinstein doesn't support a fellow leftist ignoramus, that ignoramus knows for a fact he is out in the cold.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving ignoramus.

[Beckwith]

Delahunt: No, this was years ago. And they made the decision not to strike, because if they did that, it could have impaired and hurt the building of their coalition prior to the invasion of Iraq. This occurred before Iraq. They could have taken him out, they knew he was a terrorist.

Well, there's at least one Democrat that admits al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion.

[ClaireSolt]

Drudge was commenting on and replayed Murtha's screed on MTP last night. It is all based on raw emotion. Women have always cried and wailed as met went off to war. Some act as if that is somehow being progressive. Emotionalism wioll take us all back to the dark ages, if we are not careful.

[armydawg1]

Murtha has become hypnotized by the bright lights and slavish compliments from the wackedout media. He lives for the time he can be on national television or quoted in the NY Times or Time Magazine.

He understands that the only way for that to happen is to dance to the tune they want to hear, to be their puppet, to work to destroy the Marine Corps, the military and the war effort. And he is perfectly willing to do that. His 30 pieces of silver are the 15 minutes of fame he is now getting.

One day the cameras will go away, the liberals will stop drooling on his shoes, and he will be a forgotten, broken old senile man who will have no friends, no one who would be seen with him in public. And he will have gotten to that point the old fashioned way.....by earning it.

[OldFriend]

Perhaps the dems would be more coherent if they took their heads out of their rear ends.

[MNJohnnie]

On May 17, 2006, Murtha announced at a news conference that a military investigation into the deaths of Iraqi civilians at Haditha had concluded that U.S. Marines had killed innocent civilians. Referring to the first report about Haditha that appeared in Time magazine [6], Murtha said: "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

Which is a proven lie right there from the start. There was a IED, a Marine died there that morning. So Murtha is proven a liar from the start. So it would seem he was NOT actually briefed as he claimed since his statement is fraudulent.

[9999lakes]

What a great point.
I bet someone in the dem party is reaming him out for his stupid admission, even as we speak.

[IamConservative]

Here is a rather provocative question that just occurred to me.

We took the fight to Afghanistan and by in large, only found Taliban and remnants of AQ training camps. Some AQ leadership was still around and for the most part killed or captured. AQ ground fighters didn't seem to flock into Afghanistan to take us on.

Then Iraq. Once Saddam fell, it seems AQ flocked in from every corner of the planet to fight in Iraq and are just now being weakened. Why? Is there something more in Iraq to defend? Did we strike much closer to the true home of AQ? Did AQ just switch primary battle fields when we move to Iraq?

[9999lakes]

Being John Murtha-vich -- Seeing the world thru his eyes -- A strange world indeed.

[bcsco]

"Delahunt: No, this was years ago. And they made the decision not to strike, because if they did that, it could have impaired and hurt the building of their coalition prior to the invasion of Iraq. This occurred before Iraq. They could have taken him out, they knew he was a terrorist."

Kinda goes against their widespread argument that it was our invasion of Iraz that brought Al Quaeda into that country. After all, if he wasn't in Iraq then taking him out would not have 'impaired and hurt the building of their coalition priot to itne invasion of Iraq'.

These DIMS lie themselves into a tight spot then wonder why noone believes them.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I think that Murtha, in addtion to being a moonbat, is senile. It is one thing to be on the wrong side of an issue, but Murtha makes no sense and rants like a madman.

[Richard Axtell]

Murtha should be able to quote the actual details, both good and bad, of what is happening in Iraq, but seems in a daze. He acts as if his only source of war news and policy information is some out-of-date left wing political tract. Perhaps that aptly describes the MSN? The man is a congressman, for crying out loud, with access to much more detailed and classified information than we are, supposedly. Anyway, no one else that purportedly has spoken to so many wounded servicemen at Walter Reed and in the field hospitals in Iraq itself has come away with anything like the idiocy Murtha seems to build his entire "plan" on. 42% of the soldiers "don't know why they are fighting"? Murtha either is addled to a very severe degree, or he is cynically determined to insult the intelligence of his own constituents. The facts prove this to me, and I can't see how anyone can come away with Murtha's opinions without either mental deficiency or extreme factual ignorance. As in many things, the truth may be a combination of all of the above.