Murtha's statement.

[Joe Sick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq

Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout

U.S. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.

"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."

Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.

Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."

He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.

House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.

U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."

Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.

Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."

Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."

[Larry]

I also think it's appropriate and par for the course that the NON Liberal media completely spins what Schmidt said into her calling him a coward.

She didnt do anything CLOSE to that. She read a letter from a soldier that said Marines dont cut tail and run like cowards.

Typically, when confronted by their own statements, the skilled, habitual liar will fall back on selectively-interpreted semantics.

Now, notice. I didn't just call you a liar. I simply made a generic philosophical statement. You are completely unjustified in being offended by my statement.

Right?

(Actually, I'm not even responding to you, personally in this post. I'm simply picking that particular statement, as a lead-in to a much more general observation.)

I caught a bit of Rush, today, talking about how amazing the grip that the liberal media has on America, as witnesed by the fact that "Bush Lied" is getting traction, despite the fact that no one can find a single quote that comes from Bush personally which states that "The reason for invading Iraq is bacause Iraq has WMDs which are an immediate threat to the survival of the United States" without any disclaimers in it whatsoever.

And (as is common when I'm listening to Rush) I'm talking back to the radio, pointing out that the reason "Bush Lied" is resonating in people's minds is, frankly, because Bush lied.

No, Bush never once stated that he wanted to invade Iraq for the single, sole, reason being the imminent threat of nuclear attack on american soil.

But his administration did engage in what certainly appears (and appeared at the time) in a deliberate media campaign to imply it, dozens or hundreds of times a week, for over a year.

"The Right" loves to lay smackdown challenges: "Find me one quote from Bush using the exact words "imminent threat". My response: Find me one time that any administration official was asked why we needed to attack Iraq, where the answer didn't mention WMDs. (In fact, find me one that didn't mention nuclear WMDs.)

When the interview is:

Press: Why do we need to attack Iraq right now?

Source: I don't think we should have to wait untill after a mushroom cloud.

Then the source hasn't used the words "imminent threat". But he's gone out of his way to imply it.

When it's:

Press: But so-and-so says that Iraq has no link to 9/11.

Source: Well, so-and-so hasn't seen all of the intelligence.

Then the source hasn't said "We have intellegence that proves a link". But he's gone out of his way to imply it.

These "hints" were far too consistant and constant for me to believe that they were anything other than cases of the entire administration following instructions to stay on-message. I don't think it's even remotly concievable for every single representative of an administration to unanimously adhere to the rule "Never say he's an imminent threat, but I want everybody to think you said it." unless that was, in fact, the rule.

In short, I find it impossible not to believe that the Bush administration engaged, in the course of "selling" his war to the voters, in a deliberate plan to imply that the administration posessed information that they couldn't reveal to us little people, but they knew, trust us, it's necessary. Right now.

And the reason "Bush Lied" is getting traction, is because their salesmanship worked.

[JimboDaMan]

Im fairly certain (though I admit to frequent episodes of forgettness) that Ive never posted anything about Dick Durbin and Hitler.

Can you point that out to me? If I did, I'll gladly own up to it.

The Marine didnt call him a coward either. The MArine said THEY would be cowards if they cut and run. At no point did EITHER call Murtha a coward.

Well, I thought you had, but if not I apologize. I'm not going to bother searching for it because a) I'm lazy, but more importantly it would show one of us up to be a witless boob with no memory. And that might even be me.

<edit> I just dug up her statement. In fact, its incorrect to state flatly that nobody called Murtha a coward.

"He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Not exactly cut and dried, is it? The "coward" in question could be either Murtha or the Marines.

[@DCGoldPants]

Legit as in written by a soldier on his own? With no prompting?

ZERO.

I wanted to bring this back, because I read something interesting this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

Which brings me to Jean Schmidt and John Murtha.

Schmidt, the recently elected Republican congresswoman from Ohio, has every right to take on Murtha over his let's-get-the-troops-out stance on Iraq. She has every right to attack the Pennsylvania Democrat if she so chooses. But when she attacks him by attributing the denunciation to some colonel, let's be clear: she's still attacking him. The device of attributing it to someone else is just that, a device used by professional politicians.

By the way, after both Cheney and McClellan ripped Murtha, Bush used a version of the same technique: "I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought." Somebody? So-and-so? Who could he be referring to? The administration has apparently made the calculation that attacking a decorated Vietnam veteran who spent 37 years in the Marines was not the wisest political strategy.

Anyway, Schmidt's defenders say she didn't realize Murtha had been a Marine. But her Ohio nickname will probably stick, thanks to this NYT profile:

"She grew up in the rough-and-tumble of a family auto racing business, went through concealed-weapons training, and bears a local nickname seldom applied to shrinking violets: 'Mean Jean.'"

And who was the Murtha-basher she was quoting? HuffPost contributor Max Blumenthal has done some digging:

"On Friday, freshman Republican Rep. 'Mean Jean' Schmidt mounted one of the fiercest, most personal assaults Congress has witnessed since Preston Brooks caned Charles Sumner to a bloody pulp in 1856. The target of Schmidt's attack was Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam vet who had just introduced a resolution calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq within 6 months (which included several measures designed to ensure regional stability upon pullout).

"'A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course,' Schmidt declared from her lectern. 'He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.'

"By employing Bubp, a Marine reservist, as her surrogate attack dog, Schmidt sought to give the impression that the military rank-and-file overwhelmingly deplored Murtha's resolution. Murtha may have been a Marine a long, long time ago, but he doesn't understand the harsh realities of the post-9/11 world. But that tough-talking paragon of the modern warrior, Colonel Danny Bubp, whoever he is, sure as hell does. Or so Schmidt would have us believe.

"A quick glance at Bubp's background reveals him to be a low-level right-wing operative who has spent more time in the past ten years engaged in symbolic Christian right crusades than he has battling terrorist evil-doers. And throughout his career, Bubp's destiny has been inextricably linked with Schmidt's. Bubp may be a Marine, but his view of Murtha as a 'coward' is colored by naked political ambition. He is nothing more than cheap camouflage cover for the GOP's latest Swift-Boat campaign.

"March 1999 marked the beginning of a brilliant career. It was then that Bubp became pro-bono legal counsel for Adams County for the Ten Commandments, an ad-hoc Ohio group formed to keep 10 Commandments monuments displayed in local public schools after the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding their removal. Bubp was assisted by a Who's Who of Christian right leaders, including James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Judge Roy Moore and Jay Sekulow."

Why do I have a feeling that whenever some Senator or Congressman stands up and says "I just got call from...." or "I just got an email from...." and they add a military title to it. Its not some random person calling. Its usually a friend, or somebody who's worked for them?

[chomerics]

You may certainly "think" that, but you'd be wrong. Murtha has been steadily moving left for some time now and is one of Pelosi's closest advisors in the Congress.

:doh: You probably had no idea who Murtha was before Friday, yet you feel compelled make outright ridiculous statements like this :doh:

[chomerics]

The media has all been reporting that Murtha wanted immediate withdrawel from the moment he made hsi statement. So if you want to blame soemone for POSSIBLY distorting his statement, blame the media for rushing to make Bush look bad and making up things to make thing sounds worse.

They made a big deal about how

one of the top Democrats (even though, I bet most people have never heard of him)

who was pro war (even though he supposedly called for withdrawing troops last year...not sure if that is true or not)

was now calling for immediate withdrawel (even though it seems he may not quite have been doing that at all).

So don't blame conservatives or Republicans for misrepresenting his statements, most are just going by what the media reported. (maybe not a smart approach)

You are correct, they did say he called for an immediate withdrawal, and they were wrong. It is but more shoddy reporting by today's journalists.

He is pro-Military, not pro-war and in fact, I think you will have a real hard time finding pro-Military people that are pro-war. It is usually the chicken-hawks who are pro-war because they haven't the slightest idea what it is like.

[Kilmer17]

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

I notice the key word in this sentence is- "IS". It IS time to bring them home.

Not it's almost time, or it's time to set a time, but it IS time.

That's pretty clear to me that he was saying NOW.

[@DCGoldPants]

lets stop beating around the bush here.

His haters say that he wants everybody to pack up and leave today

His supports say that he wants everybody to pack up and leave as soon as possible

Either way, he wants Americans to fall WAY back ASAP to let the Iraqi's do the home by home searches, and to paint schools.

[Kilmer17]

I dont hate him at all.

But that's what he said. He should stand by it, or issue a statement clarifying what he meant.

[NoCalMike]

The thing his, it doesn't what his statement was. What matters is the wording in his bill, and in the doctrine it said "at the earliest practical time" So if you voted for his bill, it wouldn't even be voting for immediate withdrawl.

[Art Monk Fan]

:doh: You probably had no idea who Murtha was before Friday, yet you feel compelled make outright ridiculous statements like this :doh:

I lived in PA from age 12 to 24, interned in the US Senate and worked as Finance Coordinator for a state-wide campaign right out of college -- I know PA politics and the US Congress and I knew who Murtha was prior to his statement.

Once again, Chom shows up with stereotypical accusations against me that prove to be totally unfounded. If you smoked less weed, maybe you could remember that you've done this to me at least 5 times now and I've asked you to stop each time. Address the content of my posts or remain silent, please.

[Kilmer17]

The thing his, it doesn't what his statement was. What matters is the wording in his bill, and in the doctrine it said "at the earliest practical time" So if you voted for his bill, it wouldn't even be voting for immediate withdrawl.

Then Im sure everyone would agree that it doesnt matter what Schmidts statement was either right? Only the way she voted on the bill.

Right?

[@DCGoldPants]

Schmidts statement was misleading and was cowardly itself.

If she wanted to call Murtha out. At least have the balls to do it yourself. Not hiding behind some misdirected statement.

[Kilmer17]

I agree. But no more cowardly then saying we should withdraw now, and then refuse to acknowledge you said it or support it.

Just about the only guy with any credibilty now is Kucinich. At least he's consistent.

[@DCGoldPants]

fair enough.

[Art Monk Fan]

Schmidts statement was misleading and was cowardly itself.

If she wanted to call Murtha out. At least have the balls to do it yourself. Not hiding behind some misdirected statement.

She wouldn't have even finished her statement before the catch-all "chicken hawk" came out of someone's mouth and you know it. Just part of the culture now, only a vet can apparently ever speak on military matters. So much for civilian control of the military. :doh: