Friday Funnies

One man's traitor

Scott Stantis | December 7, 2007

Comments

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 9:22AM|#

Wow, right on the money. I'm impressed.

|12.7.07 @ 9:33AM|#

I haven't noticed any Democrats calling Murtha a traitor or denouncing him in any way. Anybody got a linky?

Since Murtha said pretty much what every Democrat in the country is saying, and the same thing they've been saying for five years (the military has achieved impressive accomplishments, but they aren't bringing us any closer to an acceptable outcome), I'm not sure what Murtha is supposed to have betrayed.

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Joe,

I don't know where you get off saying "every Democrat" I heard Harry Reid say more than once that "it's clear the surge has failed." Of course he isn't saying much about the surge or the war now (and neither are many Democrats save, perhaps, Leiberman) since they have invested their party in failure in Iraq. Besides, I think the jack-ass behind Murtha is meant to represent the Daily Kos, Code Pink et al and not so much Dems in general. Oh and, let's not forget, Murtha called the Haditha Marines "cold blooded killers" talk about guilty before proven innocent. And from a former Marine no less.

|12.7.07 @ 10:09AM|#

Joe,

Yeah, what dbust1 said.

|12.7.07 @ 10:14AM|#

dust1,

The surge has failed, in the sense of accomplishing its objectives.

The military aspect has met with success, but that's not enough, because the military actions was supposed to lead to the political solution that everyone acknowledges is necessary for success.

Both Murtha and Reid are saying exactly the same thing. This is remarkably simple point that 2/3 of Americans admit to understanding, and1/3 strains very, very hard to appear not to understand.

Besides, I think the jack-ass behind Murtha is meant to represent the Daily Kos, Code Pink et al and not so much Dems in general.

1. It it labelled "Democrats."

2. The donkey is a symbol of the Democrats.

3. "Daily Kos, Code Pink et al" aren't denouncing Murtha, either. Longtime anti-war Dems are saying the same thing as John Murtha and Harry Reid - that, once again, the military has achieved impressive accomplishments, but their efforts and sacrifices aren't accomplishing the political objectives that were the purpose of the surge, and of the war as a whole.

|12.7.07 @ 10:17AM|#

Once again, can either of you two find a linky showing Democrats denouncing Murtha?

This reminds me of the stories and cartoons about how Democrats were denouncing the election of Sarkozy in France that were so popular for a few days in Right Blogostan - in that there weren't actually any Democrats saying or doing what they supposedly all doing.

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Joe,

When I wrote "right on the money" I was referring to Murtha being a traitor (guilty before proven innocent and all that other crap he's spewed) and not Dems calling him a traitor. I don't know if they have or not and I don't give a rat's ass.

As far as the surge failing politically, well there hasn't been enough time to asses that. The surge was never intended to be the military equivalent of a microwave where you pop in a politically shitty Iraq and, voila, 3 months later all is right with the world. That's exactly what many Dems have unreasonably expected out of the surge. I spent 14 months in Iraq and I have friends who are there again (in the same towns: Amariya, Abu Gurhaib, Taji, Fallujah) and there has been a complete turn around since the surge. When many of them returned to Iraq it was a far more dangerous place than when we left 2 years before. Now, however, many Iraqis are quite literally taking matters into their own hands. There has been very little news coverage since Sept/Oct so many people have no idea how successful the surge has truly been. It will take time to see if the grass roots improvements in Iraq lead to a sea change in the country at the national level. But the claim that the surge has failed to produce the necessary political results is as silly as planting a seed in the ground and lamenting a lack of fruit from a three month old sprout.

Kolohe|12.7.07 @ 10:51AM|#

fwiw, it looks like stannis is half right. Republican fan-bois definitely called him a traitor, their Democratic counterparts not so much.

|12.7.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Joe,

When I wrote "right on the money" I was referring to Murtha being a traitor

Hey, look, a right-winger spitting on a heroic veteran because he doesn't like his politics.

Gee, that hasn't happened for a good six seconds.

|12.7.07 @ 11:17AM|#

The surge was never intended to be the military equivalent of a microwave where you pop in a politically shitty Iraq and, voila, 3 months later all is right with the world. That's exactly what many Dems have unreasonably expected out of the surge.

When George Bush announced the surge, and when he spoke about it in the State of the Union Address, HE set the autumn of 2007 as the target date for the political solution to come about. Not the Democrats, the Republicans who designed and implemented the policy.

|12.7.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Now, however, many Iraqis are quite literally taking matters into their own hands.

Ummm, isn't that the point of this whole endeavor?

|12.7.07 @ 11:46AM|#

Hey, look, a right-winger spitting on a heroic veteran because he doesn't like his politics.

Gee, that hasn't happened for a good six seconds.

Calling marines "cold blooded killers" before due process conviction is not politics, but leave it to a left-winger to think it is.

|12.7.07 @ 11:51AM|#

Still waiting on those links.

Yup, any time now.

Here we go. Those Democrats sure are in disarray, huh? Turning on each other as the good news from Iraq destroys their credibility on the Iraq War. Mmm-hmm, boy am I going to look like an idiot when the hawks start filling up the comments with links to news stories about Democrats attacking each other.

Yep, any minute. Now. Any...hm, looks like my watch has stopped.

But I see we've moved on to "that guy who gainsays the Iraq War is a VERY BAD MAN so we should ignore him," so maybe they're a little distracted.

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Joe,

By asking me to provide you with a link you are asking me to support an assertion I never made (see my 10:38 posting). Furthermore, I am not now spitting, nor have I ever spat, upon Mr. Murtha for his views. My opinion of Mr. Murtha is based upon two shared traits:

1) We are both veterans
2) He was, and I am, a military officer

I therefore disparage Mr. Murtha because his comments and behavior have been unbecoming of an officer. I, and any officer worth his/her rank, will always support EVERY soldier regardless of the charge until such time as they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers. As hard as it may be for you to understand, politics doesn't enter into it. Every member of the military swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and so do, I believe, members of Congress. When Mr. Murtha declared those Marines guilty before they had received a fair trial he was in violation of his solemn and sworn Oath. That is the issue I have with Mr. Murtha. I wouldn't want him as my representative, I wouldn't go to war with him as a subordinate and I wouldn't trust him to lead my own dog to a bowl of food.

|12.7.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Well, the United States Marine Corps seems to disagree with your view of the man, because they considered him a respectable enough leader to make him a colonel and give him a silver star for his heroic leadership under fire.

But hey, you aren't letting politics color your views. Nosiree.

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 12:40PM|#

Joe,

You are a political extremist. Not only do your politics color your view of the world they also make it impossible for you to accept that there are people who can set politics aside at will.

Yes Mr. Murtha was good enough to be an officer and yes he EARNED (medals are never given or won) a Silver Star. And I will never attempt to say otherwise but, we have a saying in the military that goes "I don't care what you've done for me in the past; I only care what you've done for me lately." Mr. Murtha is resting on his laurels and his comments have been unbecoming of an officer.

VM|12.7.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Linky #1

linky 2

and linky 3

boo jah!

|12.7.07 @ 1:52PM|#

I know a lot of people who can set aside their political preferences when making judgements.

A guy who believes that "the Democrats have invested in a policy of failure in Iraq" - a word for word quote from RNC talking points - AND who trashed John Murtha in exactly the words found in other GOP talking points - has shown no evidence whatsoever of his ability to view events without political bias.

|12.7.07 @ 1:53PM|#

BTW, I'm such a political extremist that I agree with 2/3 of the American public about Iraq.

VM|12.7.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Hay, joe. You wanted links. I gave you links.

BIG. Shiny. LINKS.

BOB EVANS of the INTERNETS.

:)
[ducks. runs off.]

oh yeah, you and your 2/3 don't know the full info. Yeah. you Keynes-loving... um.... yeah. it's all ball bearings, nowadays.

[huh?]

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Joe,

I can't help it if the Reps are apparently listening into my innermost thoughts. Just because some of my comments match the political line of the Reps doesn't mean I'm mindlessly repeating a Party mantra nor does it mean that I color my view with politics. Your comment only proves my point. You are unable to understand that there are people that can set aside politics. Oh, you say you can, but your comments show otherwise.

Your comments also show that by "agree(ing) with 2/3 of the American public about Iraq" you are a sheep. I'm not sure where you get 2/3 from; it seems highly dubious, especially when a large portion of the population gets their information from the nightly news. But I guess sheep of the some flock graze in the same field.

VM|12.7.07 @ 2:38PM|#

September 2007

On September 10-12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, 33% approved of George Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq", while 65% disapproved of it. [1]

source.

nuther one.

there are polling numbers out there supporting his claim., FWIW, YMMV.

dbust1|12.7.07 @ 2:49PM|#

VM,

Ok, point taken, I concede it. It's always nice when someone can back up what they're saying (or even what someone else is saying). Still, though, the American public is informed by the American media and the American media has failed to inform the American public since mid autumn to the degree that it had informed them in previous months.

|12.7.07 @ 4:44PM|#

Good thing no one ever accused the American media of not reporting the good news from Iraq before September 2007.

Stephen R. Maloney|12.8.07 @ 12:33PM|#

As someone who thinks it's time for John Murtha to end his time haunting the halls of Congress, you should visit the web site of Murtha's opponent, Lt. Col. William T. Russell at: http://williamrussellforcongress.com. He needs your support in this effort to defeat Murtha.

I hope you'll also consider joining "Bloggers 4 Russell," a group that now totals 40-plus and which we hope will reach 500 by Election Day. To join, please either leave me a comment at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or send me an e-mail at: [e-mail]. Joining will give you the opportunity to communicate with others who are backing Lt. Col. Russell.

I'm writing all this month about why Murtha shouldn't be in Congress -- and Russell should. I discuss how Murtha has misrepesented himself consistently to the voters of the 12th District of PA. Please visit. Commnets are always welcome. Thanks for your assistance.

Steve Maloney
http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com