Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:49:45
Moore on Rep. Michael Mooretha
When the Joint Chiefs say it...odds are it's a lot closer to the truth than a guy who last saw a uniform in 1967.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon news conference to comment on remarks by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Marine Corps veteran who has become a leading voice in Congress advocating an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Pace was asked specifically about an ABC News interview this week in which Murtha, 73, said if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join.
"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."
Anyone who is still holding Murtha up as a person concerned for, or holding the best interests of the U.S. Military is either delusional or a deliberate liar. Murtha doesn't care about these men and women: he cares about face time on TV. This is his first real shot at the limelight. He became a Congressman in 1974. Ever hear a peep out of him before now?
Didn't think so. More, including some lovely videos, after the jump.
If you need further proof of Murtha's moonbattery, try this on for size, a lovely little news story for which I am hat-tipping Ace.
Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."
I'm sorry...whuzzat? You're afraid it will be perceived as a victory?
On what frigging planet would that be a bad thing? Oh...the Democrats' planet. The "reality-based" planet. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick do these lowlifes have no shame? No sense of honor and decency? No truth in them? Has being Democrats drained the last vestiges of patriotism from their bones? Why would a victorious perception be a bad thing under any circumstances?
Because it would be Bush's victory, and that can never happen. These filthy beasts that call themselves men would rather the whole world see us as losing Iraq than have the mission be successfully concluded and Bush be perceived as having won the day.
If you want to see some decent men saying the right things...Michelle Malkin has Windows Media video of Mark Seavey dropping the hammer on Murtha. I grabbed it and converted it so you don't need to download anything, you just need Flash installed in your browser.
Enjoy.
And here is the video of General Wagner leveling Moran. If this was a fight the ref would have stopped it.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the WMV versions of those videos.
Posted by JimK at 12:49 PM on January 07, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, War, U.S. Military
Tags:
Technorati: Murtha Seavey video
Comments:
#2 Posted by padders 
on 01/09 at 07:12 AM -
Are you saying politicians should never say anything that is damaging to recruitment or perhaps to morale of people fighting?
Can a politician ever disagree with a war that has started, or once a war has started is the President king?
#3 Posted by JimK 
on 01/09 at 01:22 PM -
Murtha and Moran are LYING about troop morale and giving aid and inspiration to the enemy when they do it. There’s a difference between saying “this war was unneccessary, but we’re in it so let’s support the troops and get it done so they can come home” and “Our troops are demoralized and bitter and dejected, pull them out immediately!” You ought to know that. Not to mention that Murtha was a Marine, and he’s violating an awful lot of honor with his behavior.
Intellectually dishonest as always, padders.
#4 Posted by Drumwaster on 01/09 at 10:46 PM -
Can a politician ever disagree with a war that has started, or once a war has started is the President king?
Oh, absolutely. But once their views have been discussed in debate, their objections heard, and a vote taken, it is their duty to not give support to the enemy by giving him hope that if the next President is a Dem, they might beat us after all, just like what happened in Vietnam (where we weren’t EVER beaten militarily, but we just gave up and walked away - much like Murtha wants us to do.
But wasn’t the result in Vietnam considered a “loss” for the United States? So doesn’t that mean that Murtha, et alia, are pushing for (another) defeat?
Something I’ve never heard one of you anti-American morons explain is the actual difference between “cutting and running” and “immediately terminating all military operations and redeploying the troops over the horizon”?
You’ve been given multiple chances to do so, and I’ve invited you specifically on at least two different blogs.
What say you, coward?
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
#1 Posted by Drumwaster
on 01/07 at 07:05 PM -
I’ve heard of Murtha before. He and Pete Stark (D-CA13th) were the only ones who voted in favor of Charlie Rangel’s “Reinstate the Draft” bill. (The bill had 402 ‘Nay’ votes.)