Exposing Murtha...

A great video from CensureMurtha.com:



(h/t Westmoreland GOP blog)

Another reason to de-throne Murtha...

Representative John Dingell (D-MI) appeared on a Detroit television program Sunday alongside Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller. After Dingell said he would not take sides in the current Israeli - Hezbollah conflict, the host asked “so you’re not against Hezbollah?” Rep. Dingell replied with a resounding “no.” Here’s the audio:




If the Democrats take control of the house in November, Dingell will be the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He's one of the eight Dems that did not vote for a resolution supporting Israel. This potential committee chairman has despicably chosen a terrorist organization over a strong American ally. Murtha, Dingell, Pelosi, Durbin, McDermott and other traitorous scum need to be removed from power. America has enough enemies in the world, without needing to add its own elected representation to the list.

Murtha and his myth of (wish for?) a "broken army"

For reasons of what could only be described as political gain, Congressman John Murtha has been "cheerleading" for our enemy (i.e., we cannot win militarily!) and putting down our armed forces as "broken" and "living hand to mouth" Other equally-(if not more so) credentialled military experts politely say, "BUNK!" Yet Murtha presses on, while our enemies likely cheer on his efforts.

Our best and bravest have been fighting on the Iraqi and/or Afghani fronts for five years now, and have been performing admirably under adverse circumstances--something our fighting forces have done in every conflict since time immemoriam. But to listen to Jack Murtha, and if he would have his way, it would appear that our brave soldiers are ready to run with their tails between their legs:

LATROBE, Pa. (AP) — Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

Years of fighting takes a toll on the armed forces in every war. But in every war, every instance of adversity has always been (and continues to be) overcome through the bravery, ingenuity and sheer will of our fine soldiers and their leaders. But to listen to Murtha, it would appear that our soldiers are nothing but beaten up puppy dogs:

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and vocal critic of the president on Iraq, said front-line units remain combat-ready, but nondeployed brigades back in the States are suffering.

"It's these units that are critically short of equipment, personnel, causing the vast majority of them to be rated at the lowest readiness level," said Mr. Murtha, who has announced plans to seek a Democratic leadership post next year.

Mr. Murtha contends that Army units at Fort Hood, Texas, home to the 4th Infantry and 1st Cavalry divisions, lack sufficient equipment with which to prepare for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Bases have had to cut operations, such as shorter mess-hall hours, to save money. Army repair depots do not have enough money to fix broken weapons systems, and the congressman said the Marines are suffering a similar plight.

Not true, says Army General Keane (Ret.):

Retired Gen. John Keane, Army vice chief of staff in the early days of the Bush administration, has recently visited Fort Hood and Fort Bragg, N.C. He has viewed firsthand the shortfalls, but says that the Army overall is in good shape and can
recover when more money hits the pipeline.

"The readiness of their equipment is being degraded by the lack of a supplemental [appropriation] to return equipment as soon as possible, and it also affects the training money you have to do -- all the training they would like to do," Gen. Keane said in an interview. "They are not broken units, but their state of readiness is not as high as the commanders want them to be."

With a good portion of the Army's 10 active divisions and the Marine Corps' two divisions either deployed or preparing to go back overseas, it is increasingly important that other units stay ready to fight another war, such as a conflict with North Korea.

Mr. Murtha said it would "be impossible to sustain a second front, almost impossible to deploy to a second front." The congressman, a Marine Vietnam combat veteran, has said in the past that the Army is broken.

Gen. Keane, however, "totally and completely disagrees."

"The quality of troops is high. Morale is high. Retention is what it should be. You look these guys in the eyeballs. They are committed as anybody I've seen. The junior officers, sergeants, officers at the battalion and brigade levels are much better than when I was at their level of responsibility."

He pointed out that the retention rates of the two Army divisions now in Iraq are well over 100 percent of their goals. (emphasis added)

Quite a difference in opinion between two guys with military backgrounds.

I thank God that Murtha's not running the military.

Has Murtha Lost It?

I'm sure that some would think that's just a rhetorical question because they think it's a foregone conclusion that Murtha's lost it. I wouldn't argue that point with anyone, though there is a point to asking the question. Here's why it must be asked:

"Today Jack Murtha put out a press release touting Thomas Ricks' new book, 'Fiasco,' about the conduct of the war in Iraq. Here's the opening line of Jack Murtha's press release:
"I want to bring to your attention a book review that appeared in The New York Times on July 25 that described the book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas E. Ricks. The article affirms what I have been saying about Iraq."

If the "article affirms what Murtha's been saying about Iraq", then how does he explain this:

"Asked by Mr. Russert at the end of the interview, 'But you do not think American troops should withdraw immediately,' Mr. Ricks replied:
"I think it would be irresponsible, to go in there and to do what we've done and walk away from it. There's a lot of Iraqis out there who have committed their lives to helping the Americans do something there, and to abandon those people would be absolutely shameful ...

Something that needs to be pointed out, beyond Murtha's statement, is that Irey's campaign is crisp, precise & aggressive. Murtha's campaign, if it even exists, is sloppy, incoherent & disjointed. He's taking it for granted that he'll win in a cakewalk. That will contribute heavily to his defeat this November.

Murtha should also be asked if he thinks it's amoral to abandon yet another group of terrorized citizens. You'd think he would've learned that abandoning people leads to them not trusting you. He told Clinton to abandon the Somali people, who've paid the price for Murtha's advice in blood. He had served in Vietnam so I'm sure he saw the destruction that happened when we pulled out of Saigon in 1975.

If you thought that he would've learned, you'd be wrong. He hasn't learned because he's being given a total pass because he served in the military. Serving in the military is a laudable thing but it doesn't place one's credentials beyond scrutiny.

Here's how Ms. Irey responded to Murtha's statement:

"Jack Murtha is known for one thing on Iraq, his demand for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. armed forces. When Tim Russert asked what he did, he might as well have said, 'Do you agree with Jack Murtha that American troops should be withdrawn immediately?' For Thomas Ricks to reply as forcefully as he did, and say that an immediate withdrawal would be 'irresponsible' and 'absolutely shameful,' and then to have Jack Murtha put out a release touting Mr. Ricks, well…it just kind of makes you wonder if Jack Murtha is bothering to read his releases before they go out the door."

Mr. Ricks is one of the most respected writers in Washington on national security issues. He's earned a level of distinction because he thinks things through, then sticks with his beliefs, unlike Murtha. Murtha isn't universally respected because he's changed his opinions so dramatically and because he's seen as playing politics with national security.

That's why Murtha MUST go.

Technorati Tags: Diana Irey, John Murtha, Somalia, Clinton

Murtha v. Irey-- on illegal immigration.

Look here, and then here.

'nuff said.

Coming Clean

It's time that John Murtha came clean and showed us who he represents. In the past, people refered to Murtha as a "Democratic hawk", something that I didn't totally buy into. I certainly don't buy into it anymore.

Still, it's worth noting that Murtha got a -2 rating from Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel for 2003-2004. A -2 rating is roughly a D- or an F. Here's how VoteSmart worded it:

2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel's position, Representative Murtha received a rating of -2.

The 'parent' organization for Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel is United for Peace & Justice, which advocates, among other things, getting us out of Iraq. Immediately. Here's their official position on Iraq:

1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.

2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.

3. The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq's reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.

4. The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law.

5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country.

Let's fast forward to November 17, 2005. Let's remember John Murtha's press release from that day:

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.
The public is way ahead of Congress and is thirsting for a new direction. Over 70% of the responses I have received are in favor of my re-deployment plan. The public knows this war cannot be won with words. Most agree the insurgency cannot be won militarily. The Iraqis themselves must be the driving force. Yet we have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. America wants and DESERVES real answers: What is the clear definition of success? Is there a plan? How much longer and how many more lives? In short, what is the end game?
Aside from the fact that the original plan to win the peace was flawed, two and a half years later, the indices that would determine the ultimate success of a stable Iraq have not improved. Electricity and oil production are below pre-war levels, unemployment remains at 60% and insurgent incidents have increased from 150 to over 700 per week. Average monthly death rates of U.S. service members have grown since the Abu Ghraib prison incidents from 1 per day to almost 4. Despite the addition of MORE troops, MORE equipment and MORE money, Iraq and the region have become LESS stable over time. Global terrorism has risen. What is MORE of the same going to do for Iraq or the region?
Some claim the answer is to put even more troops on the ground, but many of our troops are already on their third deployment, our Army cannot recruit to its current target, even as they lower recruiting standards. We cannot do this without a draft.
My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people. General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." We have become a catalyst for violence. A recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqi public are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against Americans are justified.
The Iraqis are a smart and proud people. They must take control of their country. My plan motivates the Iraqis to take control, sooner rather than later.

Notice the breathtaking similarities between UFPJ's official position and Murtha's 'immediate redeployment' proposal.

UFPJ: 1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.
Murtha: I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

UFPJ: 2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.
Murtha: We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.

UFPJ: 3. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed.
From Murtha's Press Conference:

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from a United States occupation.

UFPJ: 5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Murtha: I said two year ago, "The key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize."

This isn't to say that Murtha's done anything illegal. He's entitled to his opinions. My point is that Murtha went from disagreeing with an anti-war organization all the time to agreeing with that anti-war group's parent organization like they were writing his press releases. This raises troubling questions like:

Why would Murtha accept as fact that the US is an occupier? Why would he think that "the international community" would help the Iraqi people when they haven't helped in the rebuilding thus far? Why does Murtha think that immediately pulling our troops from Iraq would make Iraq safer? Does he think that Saddam's thugs will stop their attempted 'hostile takeover' if we leave?

This information raises the question what other policy ramifications this might have if Murtha becomes the House Majority Leader. UFPJ's position on Iran is troubling at best:

United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action against Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions. We reject the doctrine of "preventive war." All diplomatic solutions must be pursued.

Does Murtha support their position on Iran? God help us if he does. Based on how totally he's accepted their position on Iraq, I can't rule it out that he'd oppose any action on Iran except endless 'negotiations' with Iran until they develop a nuclear weapon capability.

Here's UFPJ's view of the Israeli-Hezbollah war:

We condemn Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, and we condemn the Israeli assault in Gaza and Lebanon. We also see the vast differences in the scope and scale of these actions. As the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, described it, Hezbollah's seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel were "irresponsible acts"; Israel's bombing of the Beirut international airport was "a disproportionate act of war."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy is wrong: "Hezbollah's seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel" weren't "irresponsible acts". They were acts of war. Does Murtha agree with UFPJ on that, too?

George Bush is giving a green light to Israel's use of force, which is being conducted in part with U.S.-supplied weapons. The Bush administration's trampling of international law and national sovereignty in its war on Iraq has also emboldened Israel to disregard international condemnation of its behavior.

Based on this quote from UFPJ's website, it's obvious that they think that George Bush is a war criminal and that Israel's ignoring of the international community's condemnation for its behavior is unacceptable. Israel has every right to ignore the international community's condemnation, especially if they abandon Israel when Israel is attacked by international terrorists.

Technorati Tags: John Murtha, Iraq War, anti-war activists, Hezbollah

On bringing home the defense pork...

Ike Skelton's a Democrat. Democrats don't "get" defense. If they did, there never would have been a “Peace Dividend”

See articles here and here.

Additionally, American military forces are in the process of reconfiguring not only their force strength, but their whole philosophical approach to warfare in accordance with DoD strategy http://www.fas.org/man/doctrine.htm for fighting future wars. Smaller, smarter, faster. (See also this article) The shortfalls he speaks of are about those "cutbacks." Defense money is moving to other venues and high tech industries. The change in DoD philosophy is also causing most defense manufacturers to re-tool and to cut back on manpower. The first is expensive and the unions don't like the latter. Defense is going high-tech these days. You probably wouldn't believe me if I told ya.

The next few years will see the greatest changes since the Scythians invented the laminated recurve bow and cavalry tactics nearly five thousand years ago. (I know, I know. Anthropologists don't call them Scythians in that time period, but that's what they were.)

Next, Ike Skelton gets a lot of money from the defense industry. In order to keep the money comin', he has to show that he done his best to help them out.

He's also the ranking member on the House Armed Services committee.

People like Skelton and Murtha are why the DoD gets money and programs they don't want or need. The defense industry has bought their loyalty and their votes. In turn such men use pork to buy the voter's loyalty. Every time a bill goes through the House and Senate, pork gets added to it. Most of their arguments over bills involve who gets to add what kind of pork...which is normally unrelated to the bill in question.

The upshot is that Skelton and others want to be able to keep the pork coming in...but as the DoD moves to a small, fast lethal force philosophy of warfare, the money they need to operate becomes smaller; but the pork for politicians like Skeleton and Murtha becomes smaller as well. ...and then it's so much for buying the loyalty of their voter base...

This fall, just before the elections, watch the House and Senate and see how much pork goes where...and then listen to which politician is bragging about bringing home the bacon during his campaign for re-election.

(written by Bones)

The Fable of John Murtha

Murtha, who has handily won re-election in his district since time immemoriam, has become comfortable in his digs. Perhaps a little too comfortable. For Murtha, rather than focusing on the needs of and campaigning in his own congressional district this election year, will instead be focusing on the districts of 41 other democrats:

To raise profile, Murtha will stump for 41 Dems

By Alexander Bolton

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has suspended his race to become majority leader in the event that the Democrats capture the House, plans to campaign in 41 races around the country where he said party leaders believe he can be helpful.

This is a dramatic increase in activity for Murtha, who did not campaign for House candidates in 2004, according to his spokeswoman.

Now this is interesting. Why would Murtha, who has kept quite to himself lo these many latter congressional terms, suddenly want a high profile? Are his intentions pure as the wind driven snow, and are they in line with the interests of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District?

Helping Democratic candidates could pay dividends in a race for majority leader against Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Murtha says he thinks such a race is likely and told The Hill that if the election were held now Democrats would be catapulted into the majority.

“If it was today, we’d win 50 seats,” he said, adding that Democratic strategists have assessed the field of competitive races in which they think he can help.

“In 41 seats they think I can help,” he said. “They’ve got it narrowed.”

Murtha said he plans to campaign in all of them. He also said, “I’m going to where Nancy sends me,” referring to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

And what about "conservative" John Murtha's new role as "lap dog" for Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most liberal leaders in the House of Representatives? (HINT)

And what of the timing of Murtha's "come to jesus" moment about becoming judge, jury and executioner of Marines without due process having to "speak out" regarding the Haditha affair?

...after seeing the Da Vinci Code this weekend, my mind was unwilling to let Murtha off the hook so easily.

There was a conspiracy somewhere—but where?

Then it struck me. Nancy Pelosi, inventor and architect of the Culture of Corruption, has been under a great deal of pressure lately because of William J. Jefferson.

Remember, Jefferson is one of the few politicians in history to be caught on video receiving $100,000 in bribes and then staunchly defended by the Speaker of the House and President of the United States.

The fact that Jefferson is a Democrat, whereas his two powerful allies are Republicans, added to the intrigue.

Today’s news brought further enlightenment: Pelosi, jabbing hard at Jefferson to resign from the House Ethics Committee, had been backed into a corner by the Black Caucus.

Seems that esteemed body, in retaliation for Pelosi’s attack on one of the brothers, threatened to campaign vigorously against Pelosi this Fall.

Such a move could render all that ‘Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House’ stationery nearly as obsolete as her last three face-lift surgeries.

Cunning political animal she is, Pelosi cleverly agreed to back off Jefferson after receiving assurances the Black Caucus would not campaign against her.

What does John Murtha have to with all this?

Think about it: How much coverage did the Pelosi-Black Caucus deal get in the MSM?

How about zero? Nada?

And that is because John Murtha timed his public assault on the Marines perfectly. Perfect, that is, to keep Pelosi’s backroom wheeling and dealing off the front pages.

How did I figure all that out? Its called Symbology, a sophisticated new-age science featured in Da Vinci Code.

Here is how it works: Backwards, the names Murtha and Pelosi spell Ahtrum Isolep.

According my calculations, Ahtrum Isolep means ‘Bait and Switch.’

And that says it all!

After his near "brush with death" in the Abscam affair and his subsequent re-elections to the House, like the Hare in the fable, John Murtha began to feel ever-so invincible, no--immortal. But the bad thing about delusions regarding invincibility and immortality is thus: The holder of those delusions inevitably engages in miscalculations and poor judgment, ultimately leading to the demise of the one so deluded.

John Murtha has calculated that by selling out his fellow Marines and giving aid and comfort to our enemies, the former nondescript congressman will gain notoreity and favor with the leftist powerbrokers in the democrat party. At the same time, he calculated that his past military service and "conservative credentials" would give him cover for his seditious misdeeds and still curry him favor and leave him with sufficient "markers" that would placate his largely conservative, military constituency. Not only that, but so comfortable is John Murtha in his perceived invincibility to carry his district with little or no direct campaigning, that he calculated that it would be safe for him to stump for 41 other democrats in other districts to gain himself extra leverage in his quest to become majority leader, should the fabled "democrat takeover" of Congresss actually become a reality. And even if that reality didn't occur, Murtha couldn't lose in his home district, so he'd still have a job, right?

But like the "hare" of the "Tortoise and the Hare" fame, Murtha's delusions of invincibility and political immortality have led him to making errant, politically deadly calculations.

And like the Hare, Murtha will more than likely be surprised when he approaches the "finish line" come November and finds Diana Irey the next congressman from Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.

Just whose interests does John Murtha represent?

The Council on American-Islamic relations seems to think he does a bang-up job in representing their interests!

2005 Representative Murtha supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

..The question is, are the interests of CAIR in line with the interests of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District??

The conviction of a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) state operative is but the latest apparent link between that Islamist organization and Islamist terrorism. On April 13, 2005, Ghassan Elashi, founder of the group's Texas chapter (CAIR-Texas) – as well as longtime associate of CAIR's top leadership and beneficiary of CAIR fundraising and support – was convicted of laundering money for Islamic terrorist organizations from November 1995 through April 2001.

Dating back to the early 1990s, Elashi had close ties to CAIR's leaders Bassam Khafagi, Imam Siraj Wahaj, and Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, former civil rights coordinator and communications specialist for the "Muslim civil rights group."

And there's more. Read the whole thing here. Not to mention that Jack Murtha is the darling of Code Pink, who just happened to send over $600,000 worth of aid and comfort to our enemies
in Fallujah--the same folks who just happened to be shooting at soldiers, many, I would guess, who hailed from Murtha's district.

CAIR? Code Pink? Do the interests of these organizations really represent the interests of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, or even of the United States itself?

So I ask again, just whose interests is Congressman John P. Murtha really serving?

More on puff pieces...

Time for another fisking, this time of this article From The Financial Times, via MSNBC:

Democrats and the war: Murtha

rises on back of Iraqi Freedom

SoldiersIraq crusade

By Holly Yeager in Washington

John Murtha's journey from backroom Washington operator to leader of the anti-war movement was neither happy nor expected.

But the 74-year-old – who has become a hero to some Democrats and a favourite target for many Republicans – says he has spoken out against the war in Iraq for several reasons.

Man... this is getting old.

"I see kids blown apart," Mr Murtha said last week, describing his weekly visits to military hospitals. "I see the morale changing. I see the attitude changing…I heard [US soldiers] say they had gotten to hate the Iraqis, because they didn't know who the enemy was."

They know damn well who the enemy is, Murtha. The same idiots that you keep on giving aid and comfort to--the same idiots that are blowing those kids apart--who are being emboldened and given another reason to face a new day every time you open your piehole!

He recognised, from his long experience as the top Democrat on the defence appropriations committee in the House of Representatives, that the high cost of operations in Iraq were eating away at the military's ability to fight other battles, now and in the future. "The army is struggling every day to meet their bills."

Well, Mr. Murtha... that wouldn't have anything to do with wasting taxpayer and defense money on projects that aren't even needed, would it?

Mr Murtha also studied the situation in Iraq, and said progress in key areas such as employment, oil production, and security was lagging too far behind. "We cannot win this militarily. I decided this over a year ago, but I hesitated to say anything. I waited probably too long."

No, you waited just long enough to make political hay out of something that would distract attention away from scandals during an election year. Not to mention to bolster your chances of finally attaining your political ambitions after a lackluster-at-best political career.

A former marine and decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr Murtha has close ties to young enlisted men and senior officers and his call for the speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq – first made publicly in November – was especially powerful because it was widely thought to reflect the private beliefs of top generals.

"Widely thought" by whom? John Kerry's secret world leaders?

He argues that they should be redeployed to other countries in the region, available to return to Iraq if the situation warrants.

Yeahh... Last time I checked, I believe that Okinawa was in the region...NOT.

Mr Murtha also helped bring to light allegations that US marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, a result, he said, of the terrible strain troops were under.

NO!!!! MURTHA PLAYED JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER AND PRONOUNCED GUILT UPON MARINES WITHOUT BENEFIT OF DUE PROCESS!

But despite his outspokenness, Democrats remain divided on Iraq. Many are torn between a desire to bring troops home and worries that calls for a prompt withdrawal will subject them to Republican charges that they favour a "cut and run" policy and draw fresh accusations that the party is weak on national security.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Mr Murtha recently began circulating a memo about the costs of the war – "$8bn a month…$11m an hour" – and the many other ways that money could be spent. One example: doubling the community police grants programme for $1.4bn (€1.1bn, £750m) a year, the same the US spends in Iraq in five days.

ibid.

Mr Murtha voted for the use of force in Iraq in 2002. But he says it is now clear that the US cannot impose stability on Iraq. "To me, the alternative is, let them handle it themselves."

I direct you to this post.

His conservative, rural Pennsylvania roots, military experience and imposing frame have leant credibility to a movement whose previous leader was Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who set up camp outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch last summer.

IMO, Murtha lends about as much credibility to the debate as Sheehan. Does his stance on Lebanon and Somalia ring a bell?

[SNIP]He was the star attraction at a New Hampshire fundraiser for local Democrats at the weekend, and, after he made his pitch, the three candidates vying for the party's nomination for a congressional seat said they all agreed.

His new stature also encouraged him to announce that he would run for Democrat majority leader (and then you wonder about his motivations?--ed), the number two spot in the House leadership, if Democrats take control after the November elections. "I think I can help, because I'm more conservative," Mr Murtha said. "There is an idea that [Democratic] leadership is very liberal and I think I bring some balance."

Errr... not a chance. With your latest seditious antics, Murtha, you've run your "conservative credentials" into the ground, moonbat.

His critics would find that hard to swallow. When the Center for National Policy, a Washington think-tank, honoured him last week, a handful of protesters stood outside, holding signs that read, "John-Cut and Run-Murtha" and "Honor their Sacrifice: Complete the Mission".

Amen!

At a campaign stop in Iowa last week, Dick Cheney, vice-president, sharply criticised Mr Murtha's call for the withdrawal of troops. "That's a bad idea," he said. "Americans and our Iraqi allies need to know that decisions about troop levels will be driven by conditions on the ground and by the judgments of our military commanders, not artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington."

But Mr Murtha is not likely to quieten down. "This is a tough job for me," he said, trying to balance his concerns about the mission with his respect for the troops who are struggling to doing their jobs. "I think so much of them. And I see the hurt in their eyes."

The "hurt in their eyes," Mr. Murtha, most likely comes from the knowledge that one of their own Marines is throwing themselves, their comrades, and their mission under the bus for cheap political gain.

Murtha and national security...

Molly McCarroll from Family Security Matters opines:

One of the many races which will determine the future of American security is occurring in Pennsylvania, where longtime Democratic Congressman John Murtha faces a challenge from Republican County Commissioner Diana Irey. After 32 years in the House of Representatives, Murtha should be the most confident of incumbents. However, his high-profile comments about the war on terror in recent months have moved him out of the comfortable shadows of obscure incumbency and made him one of the most controversial figures in Congress. As he has become better known and more divisive, he has also apparently grown more influential and ambitious, even suggesting that he would seek a leadership position should the Democrats win control of the House in November.

Murtha has dedicated much of his life to the service of his country, both in the military and in Congress. But his actions over the course of that service have not been spotless and his record during his most recent term in office is particularly troubling. Reasonable people may disagree with the tactics through which President Bush is prosecuting the war on terror. There is room for debate over the legitimacy of American counterterrorism programs and on the strategy employed in Iraq. Walking the fine line between appeasement and antagonism, defense and needless defiance, can be difficult. But Murtha has strayed far past the bounds of reasonable behavior on numerous occasions. Seizing upon only the vaguest of unsubstantiated accusations and always willing to believe the worst about his own country, government, and armed services, he has not merely impeded the progress of policies that he believed were counterproductive, but has presented a delightful procession of pleasing propaganda to those who would see the United States defeated.

Debate and dissent do not weaken America, but in a world where half-truths quickly become accepted wisdom in the public consciousness, all citizens and particularly lawmakers have a responsibility to speak and act with responsibility and a determined adherence to the truth. Murtha has abdicated this responsibility and alienated many of those moderate Democrats who have supported him for so long. His ascent from relative obscurity to darling of the anti-war left has rendered him a frustrating figure for not only many of his constituents, but also for Americans throughout the country. In a world where identity is often the only qualification necessary to create “authoritative” status, Murtha’s pronouncements on the war and foreign policy bewilder those who seek to refute him.

Regarding Diana Irey, McCarroll states:

...Diana Irey is clearly an audacious politician, for merely having the courage to challenge an institution such as John Murtha. Many Pennsylvanians, and a growing number of other Americans, have taken note of her forthright approach and refusal to give an inch. But it is still far from clear whether an ounce of audacity can outweigh the pound of pork that 32 years in Congress can make possible and there is always the possibility that Murtha’s constituents will feel more comfortable with a representative with long experience and the political skills that only years in Washington can bring. But the rest of the country and the rest of the country’s politicians should watch closely. The days are long past when unfounded belligerence and outrageous comments will go unnoticed, even when from the most secure of incumbents and particularly when they undermine the security of the entire nation.

Yes, PA 12th CD is being watched...

There's an excellent, balanced article appearing in today's Valley Independent:

We're being watched

By Jeff Oliver

The rest of the country is beginning to realize what the people in the 12th Congressional District have known for quite sometime.

And that's that the war in Iraq is a hot issue in the race between U.S. Rep. John Murtha and his opponent, Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey.

Murtha (D-Johnstown) has been an open critic of the war effort, saying for months it is time to pull out U.S. troops from the wear-torn country.

Irey (R-Monongahela), meanwhile, is a staunch supporter of the war effort and is using it as her top point in trying to unseat the powerful Murtha.

The differing views of the two political rivals made front pagenews in today's issue of USA Today in a feature story about military towns and how they are responding to critics of the war.

Murtha has represented the district for 12 years and routinely has defeated his opponents by a 2-to-1 margin or more.

The 12th District comprises covers Greene County and parts of Allegheny, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, Armstrong, Cambria, Indiana and Somerset counties.

Murtha is a former Marine colonel. He is so strongly entrenched in his district that the Republican Party did not even field an opponent for him in 2004.

He retired from the military reserves in 1990 and has been widely respected for his knowledge in military matters.

He met with Vice President Dick Cheney several months ago and told him he felt that the country's military presence in Iraq was a mistake.

"I'm doing this for the troops because I think they've done everything they can and I'm doing this for the future of the military," Murtha said recently. (wink-wink, nod nod--ed)

"It's a civil war and our troops are caught in between," he said.

Murtha argued that the conflict in Iraq is draining military resources and leaving America unprepared if action is needed elsewhere, like in Iran or North Korea.

"They have to settle their own civil war," he said of the Iraqis. "This can only be done diplomatically. There are some wars that can't be won militarily."

However, Irey is banking on support of the war in her effort to unseat Murtha in November. And she has worked hard to raise enough money to battle against the popular congressman.

Irey has said that she feels people are outraged that Murtha is demanding the pullout of troops from Iraq.

Irey hopes that many communities in the district, who wear their patriotism in their storefronts and front lawns in the way of signs and ribbons for servicemen, will back her in November.

Irey said that while Murtha's stance on the war is an important issue, it is not the only one in her campaign.

"Obviously, Mr. Murtha's comments not just about the war, but what he said about our marines innocently killing people in Iraq is an issue," she said. "He came out declaring guilt and that's a huge issue.

"That statement, along with other statements he has made, have people outraged," she said.

"Mr. Murtha and I disagree on many other views. Because people are finally willing to take a look at different opinions, there is an opportunity to have a new voice in Washington, D.C.

"He is really out of touch with the views of the people of the 12th District ad that is why I will unseat him."

Murtha is in Washington, D.C., and was not available for comment this morning.

Jeff Oliver can be reached at joliver@tribweb.com or (724)684-2666.

This is probably the most well-balanced piece that I've seen coming out of the local PA media.

The human toll... of Murtha's madness...

My son Doug took this picture in Iraq the other day:

According to Doug, he says, "Nice little girl, I spoil her!"

I keep on thinking, how our soldiers have fought and continue to fight to give little girls like this a future, to the point of giving their very blood to the cause. Then I think of how this little girl will never have the chance to grow up in a free society if tunnel-visioned opportunistic dupes like Murtha get their way.

Our soldiers are the last, greatest hope for a free society in Iraq and for Iraq to be a shining beacon of freedom in an otherwise oppressive middle east.

That's what my son is fighting for.

And that's why John P. Murtha must go!

On "smearing" Murtha...

From Media Matters:

Summary: On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, guest co-host Rich Lowry asserted that Rep. John P. Murtha was "again sounding like the grim reaper when it comes to the war on terror." Lowry also asked whether Murtha has "already decided to undermine another American war effort." Former CIA operative Wayne Simmons attacked Murtha for "running a psy-op [psychological operation] against his own people and against his own military," adding that Murtha "has come out and talked poorly about the military."

On the July 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, former CIA operative and frequent Fox News guest Wayne Simmons joined guest co-host Rich Lowry in smearing Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA). Lowry, who is also the editor of National Review, asserted that Murtha was "again sounding like the grim reaper when it comes to the war on terror," addressing Murtha's claim that the war in Iraq is "depleting our resources" for handling other problems around the world. Lowry also asked whether Murtha has "already decided to undermine another American war effort." Simmons attacked Murtha for "running a psy-op [psychological operation] against his own people and against his own military," adding that Murtha "has come out and talked poorly about the military."

Word to B.J.L: It isn't "smearing" if it's telling the truth.

Surrender Monkey Murtha continues his campaign for defeat

Jihad Jack continues on his tirades...to the detriment of our troops, and to the comfort of our enemies:

Hampton Falls – Speaking before a receptive audience of Rockingham County Democrats, U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania said he is more confident than ever in his belief that America needs to withdraw its troops from Iraq as soon as possible.

Several hundred Democrats, including three congressional hopefuls vying for Jeb Bradley’s seat, turned out to hear Murtha, a 15-term Democrat and former Marine (emphasis mine). Speaking at a news conference and then a speech, Murtha hammered at President Bush for refusing to consider pulling troops out of Iraq in the near future. Murtha has suggested withdrawing troops as soon as possible and redeploying them around the region, ready to return to Iraq if it is needed.

“(The Iraqis will) settle it themselves,” Murtha said. “What makes you think it’s going to get any better if we stay. Only they can fix it.”

Ohhhh... I don't know, Mr. Murtha. Why don't you tell that to Zarqawi?

Murtha said America has become an occupying force, and the American presence only serves to make the situation worse. The American presence helps the insurgency find recruits, he said, adding he believes all indicators show that the situation is worse than when America first invaded Iraq in 2003.

(yeah, I know I use this image a lot, but it says it all--ed.)

While Murtha was adamant in his belief that the deployment of American troops in Iraq is only intensifying the conflict, he said he resented being personally attacked, and said he is a tireless supporter of the troops. (So was Tokyo Rose, in her mind--ed. And by the way, just whose troops are you supporting with your rhetoric, Mr. Murtha??) Murtha told the crowd that he visits injured soldiers in military hospitals every week, and he is “inspired” by many of them for their courage and commitment to country.

If your so damned "inspired" by them, Mr. Murtha, why don't you honor their mission for which they sacrificed?? Why do you keep on giving aid and comfort to their enemies?

Murtha said his motivation for wanting a withdrawal of troops from Iraq is that he is concerned the armed forces are being weakened by their extended deployments.

That's your motivation, Mr. Murtha??

Or is your "motivation" arising from your desire to focus issues away from other unpleasant circumstances?

Too many Americans are being injured or killed, and many will face severe post-traumatic stress disorders when they return, he said. The debate should not be made political, Murtha said.

Which has happened in every conflict since time in memoriam, Jack. It is you who have chosen to make it political through your not-so-veiled ambitions.

”I go by Arlington National Cemetery every day on my way home, and the gravestones don’t say Republican or Democrat,” he said. “They say American.”

Tim Ashwell, of Durham, said he had seen Murtha speak many times on television and was impressed with seeing him for the first time in person.

“(Withdrawal and redeployment) is a broadly agreed-to policy by Democrats and most Republicans,” Ashwell, who is the chairman of the Durham Democratic Committee, said. “What is there to argue with?” (emphases added)

What the hell has he been smoking?

At least 200 Rockingham County Democrats turned out for the event, which was sponsored by the Hampton Democratic Committee. Attendees paid $10 to $15 to attend, and local candidates benefited from the fundraiser.

Carol Shea-Porter, Gary Dodds and Jim Craig, all Democratic candidates for Rep. Jeb Bradley’s seat in the First Congressional District, made appearances. All endorsed Murtha’s message in short stump speeches.

Porter mocked Bradley as being out of touch with his constituents over the Iraq issue.

”Jeb Bradley is apparently the only person left in New Hampshire who thinks the war is going well,” she said, voicing support for Murtha’s idea of redeployment (to Okinawa--ed). “We are ahead of the politicians on this (idea) and we will prevail.”

I see that the Al Qaeda fan club has turned out in force in New Hampshire... But don't you just love it (sarc) when Murtha and the pro-terrorist left hitch their political wagons to the prospect of U.S. defeat during wartime? You want these bozos in charge of national security?

Dodds said he has supported Murtha’s position since 2005 and told the crowd he saw no other option but to pull troops.

Craig also echoed a belief that there is widespread support for a plan like Murtha’s.

“We all know we have to get out of Iraq who doesn’t know that?” he asked.

So said the lemmings...but ain't it a caution how a liberal democrat politician's opinion can mysteriously change, given the audience, and given barely a week's time...

Few Dems embrace Murtha's

position on Iraq

July 17, 2006

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Carol Shea-Porter calls anti-war congressman John Murtha "a profile in courage," but she stands all but alone among Democratic congressional hopefuls in the state.

But I digress:

Gary and Lenore Patten, of Hampton, who volunteered for the congressman in his home district in Pennsylvania during his first run for office in 1973, invited Murtha to the Granite State. David and Elaine Ahern, of Hampton Falls, hosted the gathering, which included a picnic lunch under a tent. (question is, did anyone manage to keep it down?--ed.)

Murtha is not running for President (gawwwd!!!--ed.), Gary Patten said yesterday. The visit was to rally supporters behind local candidates and raise money, he said.

Murtha has announced his plans to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the job of majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, if Democrats win control of the chamber this November.

And therein, IMO, lies Murtha's "motivation"--in a nutshell--pun intended.

****UPDATE****

The Portsmouth Herald Local News also heralds Murtha's seditious rhetoric:

Rep. calls U.S. Iraqi occupier 'We've become occupiers"™

Chris Outcalt
coutcalt@seacoastonline.com

HAMPTON FALLS -- Congressman John P. Murtha's message was clear: Iraq's security situation cannot be solved by the U.S. military.

"The Iraqis must take control of their own future," said Murtha, D-Pa., during a press conference Sunday. "The situation is getting worse and the president has no plan to make it better. We've become occupiers." (emphasis added)

****UPDATE****

The lunatic left are wondering why more dems aren't taking Murtha's lead...

Could it be that they don't want to be (rightly) labeled as seditious during a time of war?

Breakfast With "Jihad Jack" Murtha

In my opinion nothing could make a true American lose their appetite more than having a breakfast companion like Big John Murtha. That is of course unless the breakfast meeting with Jack is taking place in one of our enemies tents at a jihadder training camp. They no doubt would enjoy his presence at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

In any event, Jack did have breakfast with the folks at the Christian Science Monitor last Friday and you'll never believe what he had to say:

He has fully retracted all his previous statements disrespecting our troops fighting the war on terror and he is sorry for disgracing Congress, the Marines and the Soldiers as well as anyone else he may have offended. He also promised he will make an effort to be more American in the future?

No, Im afraid he just had more of the same jihad friendly rhetoric to offer as you can read below for yourself.

John Murtha | csmonitor.com: "US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Committee and an Iraq war critic, was the guest at last Friday's Monitor breakfast.

Murtha left college at the end of the Korean War to join the Marine Corps, becoming a Marine drill instructor and later an officer. After leaving the Marines and graduating from college, he volunteered for service in Vietnam where he won the Bronze Star and two purple hearts.


In 1974 Murtha became the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Long an influential behind-the-scenes player in Congress, his November 2005 call for the withdrawl of American troops in Iraq triggered a ferocious response - pro and con. As recently as last Monday, Vice President Cheney singled out Rep. Murtha for criticism in a speech in Iowa.

Here are excerpts from Murtha's remarks:"

On his view of US policy in Iraq:

"We have become occupiers. We cannot win this militarily. I decided this over a year ago. But I hesitated to say anything. I waited probably too long............

On US ability to cope with threats from Iran and North Korea:

"We have no strategic reserve. Our forces in the United States, 70 percent of them, are below deployable level overseas.... The army is struggling every day to meet their bills. They reprogram, they try to find places where they can come up with money. It is a disaster."

On how much the Army will need to rebuild after the war in Iraq:

"It is going to take $60 billion to get the Army back in shape. And let me tell you, the money is not going to be there. The minute this [war] is over, the money will dry up just like that..............

On what would change if the Democrats retook control of the House:

"Accountability is going to be the key. Corruption, talk about corruption ... there [are] billions of dollars that disappeared and we don't know where it is. We have all kinds of stories which haven't been followed up..............

On why he is running for House majority leader:

"I think I can help because I am more conservative.... There is an idea that [the Democrats'] leadership is very liberal and I think I bring some balance to that leadership." (where's the punchline?)

On whether the press has been an active enough watchdog during the war in Iraq:

"I blame some of you guys, too. You guys knew this wasn't going well. You didn't say a damn word, either. You just sat back and were afraid to speak out..................

Click here to read the full comments @ CSM

Diana Irey Says to Pennsylvania Voters: We Don't Know Jack

Here is the latest press release from Diana Irey for congress and it has some interesting facts regarding some of Murtha's recent positions & votes pertaining to some hotbed issues not only in Pennsylvania but countrywide for that matter. Jihad Jack seems to be lurching more leftward by the minute which should concern his homestate constituency.

DIANA IREY ◊ U.S. CONGRESS :: News: "(MONONGAHELA, July 19) – Washington County Commissioner and Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey – anticipating this afternoon’s vote on H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2006 – today released the following statement:

“Does Jack Murtha remember that he’s representing southwestern Pennsylvania – not San Francisco?

“Yesterday Jack Murtha broke faith with the residents of Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District – again! – when he voted against a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Today he has an opportunity to begin to make up for that broken faith, by voting in support of the Pledge Protection Act of 2006, legislation that would amend Federal law to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to rule on cases involving questions about the Pledge of Allegiance or its constitutionality.

“I urge Jack Murtha to vote ‘YES’ in support of the Pledge Protection Act.

“But I am troubled – because I see that Jack Murtha has already voted against even CONSIDERING this legislation on the floor of the House.[1]

“What in the world is he thinking? Is he really SO determined to become Majority Leader that he’s willing to ignore the will of his own constituents – just to curry favor with the liberal politicians who can help him achieve his own personal political agenda, even at the expense of his constituents?

“If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times already in this campaign – Jack Murtha has been gone too long, and he’s out of touch. He no longer represents the values and ideals of the people of the 12th district and this vote against traditional marriage is just the latest example. He is far more concerned with ingratiating himself with the only voters he now cares about – the House Democratic caucus – than he is with us.

“There are 111 days left in this campaign. The good news is, that’s plenty of time to make sure the voters of the 12th District know just who Jack Murtha really is.”"

Disclaimer: Although this website is not affilliated with the Diana Irey campaign in any way, we are in full support of John Murtha's removal from his congressional post this November by the voters of Pennsylvania, that's for sure. And Diana Irey will be the candidate that will have to unseat his fat @##.

Tribune-Review Readers Oppose Murtha

At the start of this week, I posted a commentary on a puff piece about John Murtha that appeared in Sunday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Some Trib readers were as outraged by that article as we here at MMG, judging by the letters to the editor in this morning's paper.

From a gentleman in Ford City, PA:

In your Sunday Focus magazine that heaped upon U.S. Rep. John Murtha unwarranted praise ("Murtha's moment," July 16 and PghTrib.com), there was omitted Murtha's other achievements that, in my opinion, produce much misery for America's military men and women in harm's way.

Remember, Murtha took credit for persuading President Clinton to retreat from Somalia in 1993. Those emboldened by America's apparent meekness have killed thousands of Americans and injured thousands more, military and civilian alike.

Possessed Islamic fanatics, sensing weakness, detonated bombs in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan and Iraq. Our citizens and soldiers have been murdered and mutilated. The USS Cole, our embassies, consulates, civilian aircraft and other government and private property have all been targets.

Now Murtha demands a retreat of our military from Iraq, even in the face of pending victory. Murtha's answer is for America to run away to Okinawa, Japan, 4,900 miles away.

The hate-America crowd wails "No blood for oil." I say "No blood for pork." The unwarranted and dangerous lust for pork must take a back seat to national security. Responsible voters must put the lives of our military men ahead of what little benefit they derive from Murtha's handouts and boot Murtha in November.

Another reader, from Oakmont, PA, had this to say:

Congressman John Murtha served our country with honor during an unpopular war and during peace.

But something has fundamentally changed in the congressman. Murtha's recent conduct does not strive for honor, nor is it honorable. I have read and pondered his various statements of dissent regarding our current operations in Iraq. His arguments are specious and based upon partisan politics rather than on any comprehensive military strategy or a sensible wartime foreign policy.

I believe Murtha's position is rooted in an odious disregard of President Bush and a desire for his own 15 minutes of fame rather than on something more thoughtful and defendable. It is unfortunate that our soldiers have had to listen to his disheartening, opportunistic drivel while they risk their lives for an honorable cause, just as he himself did once upon a time.

Excellent. These gentlemen have it right. I hope to see more letters like this whenever the Trib runs another clandestine endorsement of Murtha's re-election bid.