Mar 01 2007

Mad Murtha Strikes Again

Published by at 11:20 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Mad Jack Murtha is out again demonstrating the idiocy that is Liberal Democrat Policy. Since taking a drubbing for being the Chief Surrender Monkey in the House who tried to deplete replacements for our troops in Iraq trying to turn things around he has been ostricized by his party for being what he is, a bungling PR fool. Now he comes out to ‘defend’ himself by concocting some lunacy about how everything is – in the true essence of Bush Derangement Syndrome – Bush’s fault. Bush is the one ‘harming’ the troops. Check out thius insulting title:

Our muddled military
The administration, not Congress, has mistreated the troops

“Muddled”? Not “brave”, “selfless”, “heroic”, “treasured”, “innovative”, “determined”, “resourceful” – “muddled”. These people really should learn to shut up while they are only so far behind. So what is the answer to Iraq? Nothing – it is all about trying to shift blame!

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified on Tuesday to the Senate Appropriations Committee that my plan to restore military readiness in order to meet current and future threats and to require the Pentagon to uphold its own guidelines, standards and policies would somehow be damaging on the battlefield.


Gen. Pace also indicated that if he were forced to adhere to established Defense Department readiness standards, one-third of units currently programmed for Iraq could not be deployed. This statement is alarming. Is Gen. Pace saying that he is willing to accept that in the near future one-third of the total military force in Iraq will not be fully manned, fully trained or fully equipped?

We see now why Murtha never made it to the rank of General. All Pace (and others with their brain stems still attached to their lips) are saying is battle cannot wait on perfect conditions. Having 100 bullets verses 98 is not going to make the effort swing one way or the other, and that is the essence of Murtha’s nonsense. And sometimes speed is more important than anything else. Patton’s rapid deployment to meet the German Bulge at the end of WW II was necessary avoid extending the fighting (and dying) in Europe by years. If Patton had waited until he had all his material, all personnel, and all vehicles in pristine condition the Nazis would still be in power (and a nuclear power at that).

Gen. Pace is trying to shift the blame, when in fact it is this administration’s polices that are hurting our military.

Actually, Pace is just being realistic and Murtha is being petty and angry he took so many hits for his transparent little game. Murtha’s petulance is not going to fix the Democrat’s problem. No one elected them to surrender to al Qaeda. The sooner they get over it the sooner they will stop looking like fools.

14 responses so far

14 Responses to “Mad Murtha Strikes Again”

  1. roonent1 says:

    Mad Murtha is truly a disgrace and the people that voted for his re-election should be ashamed. Murtha and the rest of the party of jackasses (donks), are going to look foolish and inept when Iraq succeeds because of the surge. The dems are forever cementing themselves as the party that can not be trusted with national security. It is well deserved.

    AJ, check out this Reuters story – Iraq says police kill dozens of al Qaeda in Anbar – found here:

  2. Carol_Herman says:

    In this UNcivil war, you meet the enemy every day.

    So it pays to take a closer look. You mind murtha? I call him mirtha.

    And, I see the left in trouble. NOT GAINING TROOPS. Not in the sense that mainstream Americans are attracted to this. While each day the good stuff is still on the agenda. Bush doesn’t have to do much, either.

    Since in Iraq, we’ve forced the HOUSE OF SAUD to spend money. They didn’t think they’d have sunnis to support, who ran from Iraq. And, are living in 3 countries that are now choking on this crap. Iran. Syria. And, jordan.

    It’s one of the reasons Condi was sent to talk to “syria and iran.” Because they need money to feed the crap they got, that flew out of Iraq.

    As to re-establishing these sunnis back into Iraq? That’s hardly possible. Whose gonna do it? Who would you point your guns at, so these creeps can “return home?”

    Ditto, by the way, for syria, from the crap they got from lebanon. Just lots of stinking fishes. Rolled up on the shores of life. And, life goes on, too.

    While as far as I’m concerned, the current track the donks picked isn’t gonna mainstream them back into the white house in 2008. If anything? Their road so far has been down hill.

    You’re worried about the postal workers? And, how they vote? I couldn’t care less.

    What Bush has going for him is the reality that we’re winning. And, we’re causing the saud’s to spend money. Which helps us, too.

    As to the media, why think they have leverage? What can they actually “sell?”

    Subscriptions are off. Even at NBC the top news guy got fired. Do you know why? Charlie Gibson gained on Brian Williams. And, all I had to do to find this out was check with Drudge this morning.

    A lot of times people get sad because they think they’ve lost something important. Like? Well, how about Marlon Brando marrying another dame? You think the wemmen he bedded were lucky? Why is that?

    You think there isn’t a good recovery plan when what had worked in the past, fails in the present?

    Sometimes kids get scared by cock and bull stories. But you’re supposed to grow up. And, know that if you’re not “getting what you want,” you’re still better off than the bozos on the left. Who are supposedly getting what they want. Now that Howie Dean isn’t their president. And, he’s not coming back, soon, either.

    Maybe, the left’s without worries because they’re following their Bush Derangement Syndrome, over the hill?

    Nixon, would have been thrilled if he found himself in this boat; and not the one that sailed called Water Gate. At least his grand kids can see vindication.

    The only differences between New Orleans and DC, is that New Orleans suffered from a natural occurence.

    While affirmative action will take some time to die. But one thing I learned from the way Bush played the Harriet Miers card. He knocked senseless the idea that there would be two wemen on the Supreme’s. He faked with Miers. And, got Alito. And, he also got John Roberts confirmed as Rehnquist’s replacement. How bad is that?

    You think you need a score card?

  3. Soothsayer says:

    Bush is the one ‘harming’ the troops.

    He’s gotten 3,100+ of them killed and another 20,000 injured on a fools errand in the desert. He’s the CinC who sent them into combat without proper armor, and without a plan for occupation. He’s the one who ignored Gen. Shinseki and sent only 1/2 as many troops as were needed to secure the borders and the cities.

    Murtha’s damn right it’s Bush’s fault. It was an elective war, and the decision to invade was made by the Decider.

    As Harry S Truman said:

    If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Well, Bush is the chef on this one.

  4. Terrye says:


    The Congress voted for the war too. And the former president made the removal of Saddam from power our national policy. Why is it you are not capable of grasping those simple facts?

    Now people like you can sit back and wish Saddam were in power killing people if you want but when the people who helped make this war happen can not assume responsibility for their own votes then you do not need to be lecturing the rest of us.

    The Democrats could have resolved the situation with Saddam years ago, they could have fired Tenet.

    Then just think, Saddam could have finished exterminating the Kurds. The Shia could still be dying in the hundreds of thousands. Saddam would have proven to every tin pot dictator in the world that the UN is a joke and not only can you ignore the sanctions, you can exploit them and starve your own people and no will do a damn thing about it.

    He could have started an arms race with Iran. He could have finished destroying the ecosystem in Iraq. He oculd have gone on abusing and torturing and starving his own people.

    God only knows how many people would have suffered and died and then the next time he got caught trying to kill a president and supporting terrorists or even hiding people like Yasin who was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center….he could laugh at us while he did whatever he wanted you could sit back, look at the death and the carnage and say to yourself…damn that makes me proud.

    Back when Clinton was President very nearly as men in uniform died in peace time because he made cuts in the military to balance the budget. But that was alright. He is a Democrat and as usual they can do whatever they want and no one is supposed to hold them to account.

    If Saddam had finally managed to kill a president or invade another neighbor or rebuild his arsenal and it had been necessary to confront him we would have been in the same place.

    But the Democrats want to be the big bad hawks when it works for them and then shill for th enemy when it does not. If they want to make policy then they need to win the White House. That way they can actually run the military instead of just trying to sabotage it.

    And you know what? If you make this all about Bush then that means if someday Iraq turns into a decent country with a representative government and freedom of speech and press you can say that it was not in your name. You can say that if you had your way Saddam and his psycho offspring would still be running the place, shooting at our planes and plotting to attack American interests where ever and when ever they thought they could get away with it.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    The terrorists killed our 3000 on 9/11/2001. Where is your concern about those 3000?

    Where’s your concern about FDR killing our own American troops in WWII? We had far more casualties in WWII and WWI. A very pale comparison.

    Why do you hate Bush so much for the wrong reasons and based on insufficient information and knowledge, sooth-copperhead?

    Wasn’t it Truman that approved the dropping of two atom bombs in Japan?

    No, it is not Bush’s fault. It’s the terrorists’ fault for declaring “war” (Jihad / Fatwa) against us. It is our response to the terrorists. Yes, Saddam was a terrorist.

    Shineski’s number of US troops is unrealistic, btw.

    Clinton killed 4100 of our US troops, btw. You have absolutely no qualms about Clinton killing more US troops?

    Congress voted with Bush to invade Iraq. So, it wasn’t Bush alone that invaded Iraq.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    Oh, this is hilarious.

    What Will the Bushitler Cheneyhalliburton Crowd Do Now?, by Clarice Feldman

    So, sooth-copperhead, what you gonna do?

    And what will our democrats do when they start having committee meetings to review the Halliburton contracts for Iraq?

  7. Soothsayer says:

    The Congress voted for the war too


    The Congress voted to authorize the use of force IF diplomatic efforts and inspections failed. Bush made the call to invade; Bush made the call to invade with too few troops.

    And the Congress voted after having been hand-fed false data on WMD’s and an imminent threat to the US. The war is Bush’s baby; it’s not going away; and the surge is not going to make things better.

    It’s not that I WANT it to be this way, but I am not going to drink the Kool-Ade and ignore reality. Bush is a disaster. Get over it.

  8. lurker9876 says:

    All diplomatic efforts and inspections failed. Regardless of what Hans Blix said. Charles Duelfer contradicted Hans Blix’s efforts.

    Saddam failed to show us his WMDs or inventory of his WMDs, diplomatic efforts were exhausted, all inspections exhausted. Bush, with Congress’ support, made the RIGHT call. We had the right number of troops to invade war against Iraq to topple Saddam.

    Read Victor Davis Hanson’s “Its Not Unusual” and, just maybe, you will begin to understand.

    Congress was NEVER hand-fed false data on WMDs and imminent threat to the US. The war is not Bush’s alone. It’s yours and mine and all Americans.

    The surge is getting better with just one brigade in Baghdad.

    Bush is NOT a disaster. YOU GET OVER IT yourself and go blog a left site. Stop spewing your illogical comments here.

  9. lurker9876 says:

    Proof that the surge is working:

    Imposing Law enters week III

  10. Soothsayer says:

    Wanna bet?

  11. lurker9876 says:

    No need to bet.

  12. Dc says:

    The only hand feeding the congress had was their own. The congress is a seperate branch of gov. If they failed to do their job..they failed to do their job. Period. That’s not something you can blame on the president.

    The president made the understandable case that post 9/11… the long standing isssues with SAddam in Iraq…that he had wmd..that he hid wmd..that he continued to seek WMD..etc..that he was known supporter of international terroism, etc. (all things that were undeniably part of the historical record at that point)..was a grave concern that needed to be confronted and dealt with one way or another. AT the I recall it..there were “plenty” of people in congress who believed that. It wasn’t hard post 9/11..considering that had been their position for a decade or more. (and used on several occasions to launch combat operations within IRaq….WITHOUT UNSC approval in some cases (Clinton) I might ad).

    It is an undeniable fact..that our intel divisions…and well as most of our allies intelligence…supported those assesments. I won’t even mention the UN’s own documentation and asssements over the years. You’ve heard about the NIE. Have you ever heard about the military planners assesments about Assulting Baghdad all out? They predicted a LOT of casulties to take Bagdhad. And yet..congress authorized use of force. Under those conditions? That all relevant provisions of 1441 related to WMD and disarmament would not be upheld..and that no further diplomacy at the UNSC were available to change that. What does that say to you? That they expected the UNSC to uphold the resolution and the president to break it? Or that they expected that the UNSC might NOT uphold the resolution in which case the president shoudl act on his own? Even a “simple” reading of all it takes.

    Most certainly, Bush’s admin are responsible for the decisions they made in the prosecution of their duty. But, I submit to is not the president that has shirked his duty in that sense…but the congress……seeing how difficult what they authorized was…and mistakes that were made by the admin in prosecuting it..etc…backtracked and have tried to disown and re-invent their OWN decisions. Is that not true???

    It would well be convenient for some people to just blame everything here on Bush….but…then…there is still the rest of it to be dealt with. Bush was authorized to use force against Iraq under 2 conditions..1) that his opinon was that the UNSC was “not” going to uphold all relevant provisions of 1441 as written relating to WMD and inspection. and 2) that there was no futher diplomatic recourse available that would change that. Both of those things suggest that the congress well understood that the UNSC might fail to do that.

    And BOTH of those conditions were met. Saddam had not complied with all 1441 provisions as written related to WMD/inspection and the UNSC was more than happy to let it go off track and force it forward without his compliance (as they always had..and as they had promised J Kerry they would not do). From there…intense diplomatic efforts to get it back on track were met by a French veto threat of anything that would be further tabled on the matter…and that was it. (both conditions were met). Had the UNSC upheld the resolution as written, not accepted Saddam’s knowingly false declaration..etc…who knows HOW things might have turned out different? Mabey not. But maybe so. That’s not something we can know..because it DIDN”T happen that way. The only gains in understanding about Saddams WMD programs, etc..had historically always happened via threat ..or use…of force. Even Blix acknowledged that he felt the only reason that Saddam had complied as much as he had…was because we had ships full of combat gear and troops bobbing up and down off his shore.

    Legally…every provision of the auth for force was met. Even then..many dems still stood by their votes..saying that they understood it. It was only as time went on… many of these same people began jocking to change postition. The DEMS, like most in congress …assumed Saddam would likely fail this reslolution put before him..and force would probably be used. They also talked bout how they understood the dangers facing us post 9/11, and the presidents reasoining behind addressing this…that we cannot wait to find out what they have..or don’t have. fact..was not a “new” issue..but a long standing one.

    That’s all, undeniabely, part of the factual record here. I’d be glad to post Kerry and other senators speeches here. And it wasn’t like there wans’ t debate over it. Senator Byrd…threw his copy of the constitution of the floor and proclaimed that that’s what they were doing by “pre”authorizing a war. That it was an ABUSE of power of the congress….(NOT the exec). There were those who aruged against it. It was debated on the floor (and those speeches and motions exist today). That cannot be denied by those who wish they had held different positions then…but did not.

    This is NOT nor has it ever been just about “Bush”. There is what Saddam did. There is the role the UNSC played in this. There is the role Congress played in this. There is the role the CIA and intelligence played in this. There is the role that previous admins played in this. It’s not a one person play..and it never had been.

  13. lurker9876 says:

    Well said, DC. It would behoove sooth-copperhead to read it five times and comprehend it very well before making another illogical comment on this site.