Tuesday, June 27, 2006

New York Times and John Murtha--bed buddies?

Virginia Buckingham writes in the Boston Herald:
Prosecute The New York Times and censure Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)? I have a better idea: Sit back and watch them self-destruct.
Murtha and The New York Times have done more to aid the fight for Republicans to retain their House and Senate majorities in the last couple of days than Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman could possibly do all year.
But no one, not even the guys who are so devoted to the GOP that they wear elephants on their ties, should be cheering.

What has been lost by Murtha’s rantings and the Times’ irresponsibility can never be regained by electoral victory in the fall. But nor will they regain what they have lost by their own words and actions - the moral high ground.
Let’s start with the Times.
We are less safe today from terrorist attack than we were before the Times disclosed the existence of the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program.
We are more in danger today because The New York Times and other outlets disclosed that American intelligence has access to foreign banking transactions.
Combined, these two programs gave American officials tools they did not have before Sept. 11 to track and disrupt terrorist plots before thousands die.
By the Times’ own admission, the “penetration” into international banking networks helped track down the Bali bombers.
How many more innocent young lives were saved, as a result, from a similar fate in other discos in other terrorist strongholds or, as possible, in a nightclub in New York?
Before the Times revealed the two security programs, literally in black and white, al-Qaeda and its allies did not know, could no know for sure, how best to avoid detection.
They know now.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), no Bush administration-toadie he, said it best: “Nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people. The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we’re at war and they can’t be just on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release.”
And now, the Murtha factor:
And Murtha?
The damage done by this self-proclaimed and much acclaimed moral authority on the Iraq war is far less quantifiable.
Did Murtha bring a smile to al-Qaeda leaders’ faces when they read his remarks over the weekend that America has “become the enemy” in Iraq?
What must Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think of America’s seriousness when a Democratic leader says with a straight face that our nation “is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran?”

I’ve no doubt most Americans respect Murtha’s valor in Vietnam.
Surely many respect yet disagree with his position on immediate troop withdrawal.
But Americans are united on this: We’re not infallible, but we are not part of the axis of evil. America is the greatest country on Earth.
A political party and its advocates in the media who forget that will be reminded this November. (Read the entire article here)
Not to mention this little gem:
Speaking in Florida recently, the anti-war Democrat from western Pennsylvania announced at a political gathering that the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran."

Furthermore, he told the crowd of about 200, "We want as many Americans out of (Iraq) as possible" because "we have become the enemy."
Murtha and the New York Times are indeed in bed together. While they may sport different linens and bedclothes; both are blinded by an agenda that puts American security and war efforts at a distant third behind sheer avarice and attainment of self-serving political objectives.

****UPDATE & BUMP*****

Commenter Infozone says:

The Infozone is reporting on the alleged comments by Murtha on the weekend.

What it is starting to look like is the comments by Murtha may have been taken out of context.

Read the story and tell me I am wrong.


After reading said piece, I came across Murtha's response to his comments that the U.S. presence in Iraq was more dangerous than the leadership in North Korea or Afghanistan:
Rep. John Murtha D-PA in a statement issued today says, "I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace."
Completely missing in Murtha's comments, and his explanation, was a refutation of that concept. Nowhere in his statement does he challenge the wrong-headedness of those who espouse such views. Nowhere in his statement does he come to the defense of those who are putting their lives on the line to better the lives of Iraqis, the middle east, and consequently, the physical and economic security of the entire world.

Murtha merely parrots this mentality to meet his ends, and treats the idea as if it was legitimate.

Sorry, Mr. Murtha. That dog won't hunt.