I Wonder

I did some thinking over the weekend about Murtha's initial statement on Haditha. Here's the statement that I've been pondering:

"It’s a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat," he said. "One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children."

If "these guys" were under such "tremendous pressure", why haven't we seen this type of violence on a more widespread basis? If Murtha's theory that these were Marines that cracked under extreme pressure is right, then shouldn't we be hearing about this type of event in more places than just Haditha?

It's obvious that Murtha's theory isn't right, though. The theory falls apart because we haven't heard of troops cracking under the extreme pressure. Murtha's only making that statement to distract from the fact that he's paying judge, jury and executioner. He doesn't want people thinking that he's just a politician who craves a seat of power.

Technorati: Murtha, Haditha, Marines

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Why Haditha Commander Didn't Investigate

Lt. Col. Jeff Chessani, the commander of the 3rd battalion, 1st Marines, didn't investigate the incident that killed 24 Haditha citizens saying "I thought it was very sad, very unfortunate, but at the time, I did not suspect any wrongdoing from my Marines," according to this Washington Post article. Here's more of Col. Chessani's statements:

"I did not have any reason to believe that this was anything other than combat action." "I just saw this as a large combat action that had been staged by the enemy," he told investigators.

Whether Marines are charged, much less convicted, John Murtha's reckless charge that innocent civilians were killed "in cold blood" seems premature at best. It also reeks of cheap partisan politics. If that's his idea of supporting the troops, I'm certain that they'd rather not be 'supported'.

What's most offensive to me is Murtha's certainty in stating that Marines were cold-blooded murderers. His tone alone said that he'd reached a conclusion on the incident. Keep in mind what Leo reported on August 3:

The head of the U.S. Marine Corps briefed Rep. John Murtha on the Haditha case after the vocal war critic publicly said Marines had killed innocent civilians in that Iraqi city, the Corps said on Thursday.
A group of Marines, while suspected in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians, has not been charged, and official results from the military's investigation remain outstanding. A U.S. defense official said on Wednesday, however that evidence indicates Marines deliberately shot to death unarmed civilians.
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17. On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (emphases mine)

Mr. Murtha would do well to remember that basic justice demands that you have full command of the facts before making declarations of guilt. That necessarily means waiting until the investigation is finished. Most importantly, you don't use Marines as political pawns in slanderously attacking the President's war policy.

Frankly, Mr. Murtha's apparent ambition to no longer be a back bencher who doesn't get a headline has caused him to cheapshot Marines without having received a detailed briefing on Haditha. What's worse is that he isn't reconsidering his statements:

MATTHEWS: Do you have any—do you want to modify any of the things you said on May 17th about the Haditha event where you talked about it‘s much worse than reported in "Time" magazine, those 24 Iraqis killed with a lot of American soldiers now being investigated for that situation there?
MURTHA: Here‘s the problem with an incident like this. When an incident like this happens, it not only hurts the military and their mission, it hurts this country. And that‘s the reason I spoke out about it. One, just a few people in the military hurt the rest of the military when they‘re involved in an incident like this.
MATTHEWS: So you stand by your statement?
MURTHA: I stand by my statement.

Let's recall Murtha's initial statement about Haditha:

"It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.
Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines’ alleged rampage. "It’s a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat," he said. "One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children."

What proof does Murtha have that these troops went on a murderous rampage? For that matter, what proof does Murtha have that the alleged murderous rampage was triggered by the "tremendous pressure that these guys are under"? It seems to me that Sgt. Wuterich, one of the men charged, doesn't show signs of having cracked under "the tremendous pressure."

Let's also remember what the military said:

"I do not know where Rep. Murtha is obtaining is information," said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Central Command in Tampa, Fla. "Thoroughness will drive the investigation."

Innocent until proven guilty is a hallmark of our judicial system. It's also obviously of no consequence to Mr. Murtha in his quest to gain political power and stardom. Shame on him for sacrificing these brave Marines in his quest.

Technorati: Haditha, Washington Post, Murtha, Marines, Due Process

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

Not All Journalists Are Carrying Water for Murtha and the Left

Like this editorial below from Investor's Daily yesterday which actually gives a well rounded and accurate description of the events surrounding Haditha and what is or isn't being reported about them in the Main Stream Media. These are facts readers of this website and other anti-Murtha/ pro-truth sites are well aware of, yet they deserve constant repetition in order to keep pace with all the falsehoods and bogus conclusions being offered by the left, led by their new fearless platoon leader, moonbat John Murtha.

The truth is something that is very hard to find in today's press as we all know, with the exception of only a few major publications and the usual cable news stations the names of which are also well known. But if one seeks the truth about this war it is easy to find with a little bit of effort, so again here's a refresher of the truthful facts .....

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news: "Jihad Journalism: The media continue to try the Haditha Marines in the press, this time with the New York Times alluding to a possible cover-up. War is hell, and so is the coverage of it.

If there's a world record for use of innuendo in a story, the Times holds it, particularly for a piece by David Cloud on the investigation into the charges that U.S. Marines ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha, murdering 24 Iraqis, as Rep. John Murtha has put it, in cold blood.

Relying on the usual unnamed sources, this time 'two Defense Department officials briefed on the case,' the piece describes the 'findings' in a report on the Nov. 19 matter as showing 'instances in which American Marines involved in the incident appear to have destroyed or withheld evidence.'

Saying 'this is the first time details about possible concealment or destruction of evidence have been disclosed,' the piece refers to a logbook that 'may have (been) tampered with,' one of 'several suspicious incidents' regarding the investigation.

One of the incidents is the alleged failure to immediately turn over to investigators a videotape of the aftermath taken by a drone aircraft. That video is said to have 'raised doubts' about and 'appears to contradict statements by Marines about what occurred."

We don't know what actually happened that day in Haditha, and neither does The New York Times. That's why there's an investigation. And if charges are ever actually filed, that's why there will be a trial where actual evidence can be introduced and statements can be made under oath, both subject to challenge, where the Marines involved can actually confront their accusers.

Tired of being tried in the press, Frank Wuterich, the Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha after a roadside bomb tore apart one of their group, sued Murtha this month. He claims the Pennsylvania Democrat and war critic defamed him by saying his unit "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."" full editorial

Technorati Tags Haditha, Murtha, Marines, Due Process

An Irey media event...

I'm sending you this as a heads-up that Kit and I will be interviewing Diana Irey on our live streaming internet radio show, "Seeing Red", tonight at 10 p.m. (CST) on W.A.R.

Who the hell are we? Kit and I (Heidi) blog at Euphoric Reality, voted one of the Top Ten military blogs in 2005. Kit is former Air Force, and I am a former Army officer (Airborne!). Together we blog about war, illegal immigration, and terrorism - anything that threatens our national security and sovereignty! Specifically, we covered Ilario Pantano's case and helped favorably influence his Article 32 hearing; we published the ten part investigative series Brother Against Brother about Vietnam LRPs falsely accused of war crimes, and we have ongoing coverage of the Haditha and Hamandiya Marines falsely accused of war crimes in Iraq.

The article below is about our interview tonight with Diana. Let your readers know they can tune in and call in (888-407-1776) after the interview. Feel free to email us any questions you'd like us to ask Ms. Irey on air. We'll be happy to cover your question on the air, and mention your website. If you can't listen that late at night, check back this weekend, because we will make the podcast publicly available for listening and downloading. You can then share it with your own readership.

Help us spread the word...

Doing our part to Boot Murtha!

~Heidi
Euphoric Reality

Tonight On "Seeing Red…"

We have another amazing radio show lined up for tonight, folks. Be sure to tune in!

First up, we will be interviewing Diana Irey, the contender for Jack Murtha's Congressional seat. This is your chance to hear first-hand exactly how Diana Irey will put an end to Murtha's perpetual incumbency in Pennsylvania. This woman will mop the floor with that cut 'n run ex-Marine! You cannot miss this!

Also, in the second hour, we will have a repeat guest, Steve Schippert of Threatswatch.org, who will help us analyze the looming August 22nd date in light of Iran's latest posturing and escalating military maneuvers. This is our last chance to assess Iran's intentions before Iran "gives its answer" to the global community.

Tune into W.A.R tonight to listen to "Seeing Red…with Kit and Heidi" from 10 p.m. - midnight.

Another Murtha Puff Piece...

But if you look at the McClatchy article closely, it will be more telling about Murtha's blind political ambition than his prowess in military strategy:

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. - What a difference nine months makes.

Last November Rep. John P. "Jack" Murtha, D-Pa., thundered onto the national scene insisting that the U.S. military could accomplish nothing more in Iraq, could only make things worse. He called for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

At the time, many of his Democratic colleagues considered his stance suicidal for their party when they're trying to regain control of Congress despite having long been seen as weak on national security.

Now, Murtha is one of the most popular Democrats around. In recent weeks he's raised money for Democrats campaigning in New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and California. In Tennessee, he was former Vice President Al Gore's guest at a fundraiser for local Democrats. After Labor Day, Murtha will head back out on the road, helping up to four dozen of his party's candidates.

And in this last paragraph, you have Congressman Jack Murtha's entire raison d'etre (pardon my French). Long a congressional wallflower, and much akin to "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha is loving his new-found notoriety and hobb-nobbery with the loony left.

Damn the cost of his self-indulgence.

Damn the fact that Murtha's rhetoric is damaging our troops' morale.

Damn the fact that Murtha's rhetoric is giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war.

Damn the fact that Murtha's "cut and run" rhetoric is making it more difficult for freedom-longing Iraqis to trust and cooperate with our troops, fearing that they will not stick around long enough to see the mission through, and that swift and sure retaliation will come if our troops leave. No, that is all secondary to the attention in which Murtha is basking from the loony, anti-American left.

Murtha is getting his. As far as Murtha goes, to hell with the rest of the world.

And in turn, Jack Murtha is giving aid and comfort to our enemies not seen since Jane Fonda sat in a Viet Kong gun turret; not even since the likes of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally took to the airwaves in WWII:

"Everything I said has turned out to be true," Murtha said Wednesday, taking a break at his campaign headquarters in Johnstown. "You can't win militarily. Military leaders are now saying it publicly where they said it only privately before. I get standing ovations every place I go. The public is looking for a solution to this open-ended policy, which is killing kids."

Open ended? Since when is completing the mission we started, to help Iraqis be self-sufficient in maintaining their democracy, an "open-ended plan?" And standing ovations from whom, Jack Murtha? And for what? A premature cut-and-run stance that will certainly spell doom for Iraqis who are now trying to make democracy work? A premature cut and run stance that will serve to embolden our Islamofascist enemies and will cement their ideas regarding American resolve? A cut and run policy that will only embolden our enemies to try "bigger and better" ventures in their quest to defeat the United States?

And we're supposed to listen to you and follow your lead with regard to military strategy? And on top of that, we're actually supposed to feel safe about it?

Says Murtha:

"I'm on a mission here, and the mission is to help change the direction of the country," he said.

You certainly are on a mission, congressman John P. Murtha. You are on a mission to elevate your own damn political stature, and you're more than willing to throw our troops--hell--even our entire national security--under the bus in order to accomplish your ends.

So, tell me, Mr. Murtha... what does it feel like to sell your very soul?

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Iraq War, Irey, Elections

Irey on Hardball

Here's the link to Diana Irey's first appearance on Hardball. Matthews seemed like a bully at first, telling Ms. Irey that he "didn't need to be reminded that my brother" is running as a Republican. She stood her ground admirably there and eventually started winning Matthews over by the interview's end.

One thing that stood out for me was in the final minute of the interview when Matthews said "You'll probably give Jack a pretty good run..." I hadn't expected that at all. I'd sorta agree with Matthews except that I'm a bit more optimistic than Matthews. I think she'll beat Mr. Murtha.

Technorati: Chris Matthews, Diana Irey, Murtha

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

***Leo adds (click to enlarge)***

L.A. Times lies runs cover for Murtha?

Patterico's Pontifications has this:

I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha. The bottom line: Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilians in cold blood. Gen. Hagee’s office confirmed to me that the General’s first briefing to Murtha took place a week after Murtha had already made his public accusations.

The background is here. Briefly, Murtha made public statements on May 17 in which he accused Marines of killing civilians at Haditha “in cold blood.” On May 26, the L.A. Times reported that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha before his May 17 statements:

Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

I have bolded the word “later” to emphasize what The Times claimed: first, Hagee briefed Murtha, and then “later,” Murtha made the “in cold blood” accusation.

Based on news reports, I suspected this was wrong. Murtha’s “in cold blood” statement was made on May 17, and I believed that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha well after that. Later news reports — in particular this one from Reuters — appeared to confirm my suspicions.

But when I wrote the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative, she insisted that The Times’s report had been accurate, despite my having provided her with evidence to the contrary, including the Reuters story. Some suggested that Reuters might have gotten the story wrong, or overlooked an angle. So I contacted Gen. Hagee’s office directly.

I heard back yesterday from the Public Affairs Officer for the Commandant. She directly contradicted the L.A. Times’s version of the facts — but declined to criticize the article specifically. Here is her statement:

While it would not be appropriate to comment on any particular press article, I can confirm that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, provided a progress update on the Haditha investigations to Congressional leaders, to include Rep. Murtha, on May 24, 2006.

In a follow-up phone call, she confirmed that May 24 was the first progress update Gen. Hagee gave Murtha and others. I specifically asked her whether May 24 was the first time Gen. Hagee spoke to Congressman Murtha about Haditha, and she said “yes.” So Hagee first briefed Murtha on Haditha on May 24 — a solid week after May 17, when Murtha first accused Marines of killing civilians “in cold blood.” Yet the L.A. Times specifically said that Hagee had briefed Murtha first, and Murtha “later” made his “in cold blood” accusation.

If Hagee’s office is right, then the L.A. Times May 26 article was wrong. (read the whole thing)

Of course, this only confirms what we reported here on August 3rd, and here back on August 4th.

Someone here is lying, Congressman Murtha. And the L.A. Times' lame attempt to cover you isn't cutting it; unless, of course, they are going by what you told them.

(h/t Sara the Squiggler)

****UPDATE****

Read more at the Jawa Report, The Squiggler, and at News Busters.

John Murtha is the enemy...

John Murtha is the enemy
by Warren Bonesteel

Now, just In case you didn't already know it, we are not presently involved in a War on Terror or even a War against Islamofascists. We are involved in a war for our very survival. Islam plans to kill as many of us as it can and enslave the rest of us. If you do not know this by now, you are one ignorant SOB and I feel sorry for you, for you will not survive this war, nor will you remain free if you do. Unless someone else - such as certain United States Marines - do your fighting for you, unhindered by liberal hand-wringing, moral equivalence, moral turpitude, and "civilized" sensibilities, you will die, or be enslaved by an Early Iron Age culture of theocracy. That culture has involved us in a fight for our very lives. A fight where the only rule is survival.


While we know of the bias of some media outlets in the 12th District, others within in the district are reporting more honestly- or at least, objectively - about the Murtha - Irey campaign.

The latter two articles are among the indicators that offer me some small reason to hope for America's survival. A few people are objectively looking at the facts and are reaching their own conclusions and are ignoring any input from the MSM and Democrat Party talking points.

As most of us know, the Irey - Murtha race has attracted national attention. As with other races around the nation, many pundits are not as certain of the outcome as they were a mere two months ago. The Irey - Murtha race has been reported in no small number of local and national TV, radio stations, magazines and news papers throughout the world. It is also discussed weekly - if not daily - on numerous blogs and website forums. An objective analysis reveals that Irey is gaining ground fast, even with her comparative lack of funding. She now has eight hundred volunteers working for her in the district and she has the support of hundreds of thousands of Veterans nation-wide. You may not find it mentioned in the media, but she is also gaining a lot of support from local voters in both parties. The Reagan/Miller/Scoop Jackson Democrats in the twelveth district are not happy with Mr. John Murtha.

One such place discussing this race is to be found at Ariana Huffington's website. For some reason, Yahoo still publishes her "news" items even though Yahoo has recently become notorious in some quarters for it's restrictions on hate speech. (Apparently, Yahoo News and Google News think that when a conservative is telling the truth that it is automatically hate speech.) She recently posted a release from the Murtha campaign, which was picked up by Yahoo News.

In an excerpt from Ms. Huffington's latest Yahoo News item, can be found this little gem from John Murtha, the House Representative for Pennsylvania's 12th District.:

"The lead taken by the United States to end the violence and to stop the loss of innocent lives has been applauded. The Bush Administration is moving with speed and deliberation to end the one war, but not the other. Those who speak of ending the war in Lebanon, to stop the loss of more lives, are seen as skillful diplomats. Yet those who dare speak about ending the war in Iraq are labeled by Bush's henchmen as unpatriotic defeatists."

In a short few paragraphs Mr. Murtha attacks Mr. Bush on Iraq and once again misuses a poll to illustrate his point. All right, he purposely lied about the poll numbers...again. Same poll as last time. Yes, eighty per cent of Iraqis wanted us out of Iraq as soon as possible, but most of those questioned- in that now irrelevant poll - also wanted us to finish the job before we leave. Mr. Murtha is still using that poll in speeches around the nation. In spite of having been previously proven to be a liar, he continues to use the same lie over and over again. The scary part is that many Americans are lapping it up like manna from heaven. Of course, the Jews asked questions of both God and Moses about manna. (The word, "manna" means "What is it?") while The Democrats, on the other hand, question nothing that their fearless Democrat Party leaders tell them. (Can you say Marx and Lenin?)

Did you see it? Did you hear what John Murtha said? It was right in front of your face. It's hard to miss really. Ok, ok, I'll give you a hint. In two sentences Mr. Murtha openly declares his support for militant dictatorships who want to kill everyone on earth - and turn the survivors into second-class citizens with fewer rights than slaves living in the 1850's American South! It's pretty clever, really. The number of things that he communicates in just a few sentences is amazing. Properly Fisking it all would take several pages. So I'll just concentrate on those few statements for the moment.

The Lebanese, who totally and completely ignored UN resolution after UN resolution, and then allowed members of their own government - without provocation, to attack a sovereign nation - are the victims in Mr. Murtha's eyes. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? For the moment, and forthe purposes of this essay, we'll leave Iran and Syria out of it. In other words, Mr. Murtha has declared himself to be a closet antisemite, who would prefer to see Hezzbollah's goals accomplished. What are Hezbollah's goals? To wipe Israel off of the map and to destroy America. It is not out of any 'reason' that America has ever given them. It is not for anything that we or anyone else has ever done to them. Their publicly declared desire to destroy or enslave us all is based upon the mere fact that we exist. In the eyes of Islam, we
are to be destroyed. In two sentences, John Murtha has declared that he wants to see America destroyed by our enemies. He wants to see Israel destroyed. His own statements over the last few months can only lead an objective observer to those conclusions. His statements in Huffington's Yahho News item only lead to that result.

Another conclusion that can be drawn is that John Murtha hates Jews, hates America, and hates Americans. Personally, were I living in Pennsylvania's twelveth district, I would be led to believe that Murtha hates me as an individual. Anyone who is helping those who have declared that they want me dead or enslaved is working for my enemy and has become my enemy. John Murtha is such an enemy when he publicly declares supports Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda, Iran and Syria by his public statements and off-handed remarks about redeploying to the Pacific, about our nation's Armies, and about our ability to defeat those who have declared war against America and against Americans.

Another derivation of the evidence as provided by John Murtha's words and deeds is that it would mean that John Murtha is planning on submitting to Islam, becoming a Muslim, and turning the rest of us into dhimmi slaves. he's certainly not standing up for America and personal freedom by saying and doing what he does.

Oh. That's right. he already thinks of the people of the twelveth district as dhimmi slaves. Otherwise, he wouldn't think that pork from other people's taxes would buy your silence and assent to his words and deeds. Nor would you let him spew his hatred and spite towards you and your fellow Americans without accountability.

From all appearances, Mr. Murtha doesn't have a clue that his seat is not assured. Such presumption is a malaise that, over the next few years, will become apparent with incumbents around the nation. Sadly, many of their opponents will also think that the incumbent cannot be defeated and will not take full advantage of the opportunity that will be offered to them by a dissatisfied electorate. Mrs. Irey suffers from no such presumption. Murtha is the toast for her breakfast.

Oh. By the way. If you think that the Hezbollah-Lebanese war with Israel is over, you really need to think about taking the short bus from now on.

Where'd That Number Come From?

The Murtha campaign is in disarray once again, proof that it isn't taking Diana Irey's campaign seriously. Here's the latest proof that Murtha's campaign staff is incompetent:

Murtha communications director Megan Grote says of the previously reported number of 41 candidates or districts, "We don't know where that number came from." Per Grote, Murtha is planning to campaign for Democratic candidates, but the office doesn't yet know for whom or when. It could be around 40, she says, or it could be less. She notes that "plans have been changing," that "nothing is set in stone," and that it's all being done "last minute." Either way, Murtha won't be campaigning anytime soon; Grote says he has nothing planned for the next two weeks. The Democratic House campaign committee says they have no knowledge of Murtha's campaign/travel schedule. Murtha communications director Megan Grote says, "We don't know where that number came from."

The Irey Campaign was all over that:

Huh.
Wow.
Interesting.
Perhaps Ms. Grote should check to see if her office's subscription to The Hill newspaper has lapsed. Here's an excerpt from an article entitled "To raise profile, Murtha will stump for 41 Dems," published in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, on July 26, 2006:
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.
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-CA).
So the source of the number 41? None other than Jack Murtha himself.
Note, too, please, that Ms. Grote is going to have a hard time getting away from this one, because in the original article in The Hill, we read "This is a dramatic increase in activity for Murtha, who did not campaign for House candidates in 2004, ACCORDING TO HIS SPOKESWOMAN."

Is Murtha's staff that forgetful that they can't even remember telling reporters this less than a month ago?

So, to review:
Jack Murtha tells The Hill that he's going to campaign in 41 races. His spokeswoman confirms that this is a dramatic increase over 2004, when he campaigned in precisely zero districts for other Democrats, despite having NO Republican opponent. He even tells The Hill "I'm going to where Nancy sends me," referring to liberal San Francisco Democrat/House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Diana Irey begins to whack him for abandoning his constituents in southwestern Pennsylvania in his attempt to curry favor with the liberal Democrats whose votes he'll need to become Majority Leader, IF he wins reelection, and IF Democrats take control of the House. And then his spokeswoman tells NBC News about the 41-campaign "Cut and Run" Tour, "We have no idea where that number came from."

Their 'forgetfulness' makes perfect sense if they're making these numbers up, which seems pretty apparent. The proof that they're all bluster comes when Murtha said "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."

I believe that "they've got it narrowed." I'd take that as proof that there aren't that many competitive seats. Remember the lesson of 2004, when KEdwards04 kept cancelling ad buys in more and more states.

Alot can be learned by how extensive party leaders' travels are and by where they're going. If you see Democratic Party leadership travelling to an ever-shrinking group of House districts, then you'll know that Democrats' chances of winning back the House are nil. If you see Republicans campaigning in traditionally Democratic districts, then you'll know that there's a chance at a GOP net gain in the House.

The bigger point to the Murtha Campaign's cluelessness is that they aren't paying attention or that they're that incompetent or a combination of both.

Don't be surprised if the people of PA-12 fire Murtha this November.

Technorati: Election 2006, Murtha, Irey, Pelosi

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

What's that sound? The sound of Murtha's wind being taken out of his sails?

Poor John Murtha--his daily "chicken little" rants that we are losing the war in Iraq are getting more and more silly by the day, to the point where he is looking like a senile old man. From the good folks at Centcom:

Iraq’s 4th Brigade assumes security responsibility in Baghdad neighborhood

Tuesday, 15 August 2006

Soldiers from the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division capture insurgents during a demonstration of military ability that took place at Forward Operating Base Mahmudiah South Monday. Story and photos by Sgt. Trevor Snyder 124th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment BAGHDAD — Iraqi forces took control of another area of Baghdad on Monday after the latest in a series of transfer of authority ceremonies near the capital. Army Col. Claude Ebel, commander of the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division said responsibility for Forward Operating Base Mahmudiyah South, a base of operations for security forces south of the capital, was transferred to the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, dubbed the Desert Lion Brigade. The Iraqi unit will have full responsibility for the Baghdad areas of Mahmudiyah and Rutifiyah, Ebel said. The ceremony, which included a demonstration of Iraqi military capability and martial prowess, comes as joint Coalition and Iraqi operations continue to rid the capital of death squads and insurgent violence. “They’re a superb unit. They’re the most developed unit since we first arrived,” Ebel said of the Iraqi brigade. “What really makes (the brigade) special is their soldiers. These are the sons of average Iraqi citizens who choose to fight for all of Iraq.” Ebel said the brigade has taken initiative by bringing supplies to schools and clinics without Coalition prodding. He also said the brigade has been recognized for their good behavior and humane treatment of detainees. “That’s a difficult task when you recognize that many of these individuals (detainees) actually tried to kill them,” the colonel said. Army Lt. Col. Eric Conrad, the military transition team chief advising the Iraqi brigade, said Coalition troops and members of the brigade have been conducting operations together for some time. Soldiers of the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, aka the Desert Lion Brigade, march in a pass in review ceremony at Forward Operating Base Mahmudiyah South Monday. The unit is now in control of battlespace in south Baghdad. “We’ve learned their culture and become brothers in arms. Once they get the resources and the confidence, they can do anything. Back in the United States we take a year to establish a new brigade. These guys are doing the same thing under combat conditions. It’s truly remarkable what they have been able to accomplish,” Conrad said. Conrad gives a lion’s share of credit for the Iraqi unit’s success to Iraqi Army Col. Ali Jassim Mohammed Hassen Al-Ferajee, commander of the Desert Lion Brigade. “These guys aren’t just sitting on (traffic control points). They’re also going out and doing offensive combat operations,” Conrad said. Conrad said the Iraqi soldiers are brave men who are willing to shed blood for their country. The Iraqi brigade was established in early 2005 by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. It was the final brigade to be established in the 6th Iraqi Army Division. Monday’s transfer of authority is the latest in a series of handovers as Iraqi security forces continue to assume more responsibility for their own national and local security. The mixed Sunni and Shia’ area of Baghdad around Mahmudiyah has been the source of much insurgent activity and sectarian violence plaguing the capital in recent weeks and is located in the area often called "The Triangle of Death" or "The Sunni Triangle."

Klein does the right thing...

On August 6th, I wrote this letter to Representative John Kline (MN-2nd CD)

Congressman John Kline
101 W. Burnsville Parkway #201
Burnsville, MN 55337
August 6, 2006

Dear Congressman Kline:

I am a Republican delegate, and have been a supporter of yours throughout your campaigns, but I feel compelled to call your attention to what I believe is an egregious error in judgment.

As you may or may not know, like you, I am a parent of a deployed Iraqi Freedom soldier. I took grave exception with Representative Jack Murtha's (PA-12) wholly premature remarks regarding the incident at Haditha, in effect pronouncing them guilty of "cold blooded" murder before facts were brought forth, before investigations were completed, and even before official briefings on the matter. To this date, charges against these Marines have yet to materialize, and there is evidence to suggest that the video tape from which Time Magazine took their "evidence" for their story that brought Haditha to light may have been spurious in origin. Additionally damning to the prosecution of this case is the refusal for the residents to allow the exhuming of the dead so as to allow autopsies of the bodies to corroborate accounts.

These egregiously premature pronouncements of guilt fly in the face of the Haditha Marines' Constitutional rights to presumption of innocence and entitlement to due process, and poison the waters of impartiality pending the outcome of facts and investigation.

As a result of Murtha's pronouncement of guilt, I started a blog two days after his 17th May, 2006 statement, entitled, "Murtha Must Go!" (http://murthamustgo.blogspot.com) to call to light not only Murtha's brazen disregard for the wellbeing and Constitutional rights of soldiers, but also to the fact that his rush to judgment may have unjustly given more fodder for our enemies to recruit other terrorists.

In a way, I expected such harsh, cavalier treatment of our soldiers’ rights from a democrat. Machiavellian politics come as easily for them as can a killer whale attack a baby seal.

But I was totally disheartened to learn that you, too, appeared to rush to judgment in the Haditha incident. Comments such as,

"I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501732.html)
smack of presumption of guilt almost as egregiously as do Murtha's pronouncements.

Why the need to rush to judgment? Why didn't you at least put qualifiers in your statement, such as "If the facts bear out that this actually happened, it would indeed be tragic."

Mr. Kline, I have always thought of you as a man of honor, and I still think that you are. However, you will be even more so in my eyes if you take steps to retract what can only be described as an unwarranted premature implication of guilt on our Marines. Even if they are eventually charged and found guilty, such premature assumptions are a travesty to the rights that Marines and soldiers everywhere strive to protect.

With greatest sincerity,

Leo J. Pusateri, Jr.
Founder/Editor
Murtha Must Go!! (http://murthamustgo.blogspot.com)

Now today, I read this:

A Republican congressman apologized yesterday to the Marines under investigation in the killings of two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, last November, saying that statements he made about the case were taken out of context and that he did not mean to imply the Marines were guilty of wrongdoing.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) issued the apology as part of an agreement with lawyers for Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who alleged that Kline had damaged Wuterich's reputation.

Wuterich had threatened to sue Kline as well. But Zaid said yesterday that Kline responded to a settlement request within an hour of its arrival Aug. 4. Kline wrote that news outlets used incomplete statements that gave the false impression that he had concluded the Marines broke the law.

"I am, of course, very concerned regarding any allegations surrounding misconduct by U.S. troops in Iraq," Kline wrote in his statement. "Such allegations must be taken seriously, but we should never rush to judgment before all the facts are known and the military criminal justice process is completed."

Kline, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was briefed on Haditha by Marine Brig. Gen. John F. Kelly, the legislative assistant to the Marine commandant. At the time of the briefings, the official investigations were not complete, and Kline emphasized that "conclusions have not been reached."

"As a retired Colonel in the U.S. Marines, I am especially proud of the sacrifices our men and women make day in and day out, especially in combat situations," Kline wrote. "And as a Marine officer, I would never want to publicly insinuate, implicitly or explicitly, that I have prejudged what took place that day on the battlefield or afterwards."

(***UPDATE***)More on what Klein said here:

"Some news outlets have promoted incomplete statements attributed to me that gave the false impression that I have concluded those involved committed unlawful acts," Kline said in the statement provided by his office.

Now, what about Congressman Jack Murtha, who found it necessary to proclaim that our Marines killed in cold blood, without reading reports, or without even receiving any official briefings.

Wuterich, through his lawyers, has denied any wrongdoing in the Haditha case. None of the Marines involved has been charged.

Wuterich took the unusual step earlier this month of filing a federal lawsuit against Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), alleging that statements Murtha made about the Haditha deaths were libelous. Murtha said after the lawsuit was filed that he did not mean to prejudge Wuterich, but the representative has not responded to a settlement offer that seeks a similar public apology, according to Wuterich's attorneys, Mark S. Zaid and Neal A. Puckett. The lawyers set last Friday as a deadline for Murtha's response.(emphasis added)

Since the "deadline" has been passed, it indeed appears that Jack Murtha, in his arrogance, will not take Congressman Kline's lead and apologize for his comments in which he prematurely judged Marines guilty of "cold blooded murder" at Haditha.

Color me unsurprised.

Veteran Navy Seal takes on Murtha...

From the Marine Corps Times:

Once together in uniform, still countrymen, but now on opposite sides of the fence: a Marine Corps veteran and 32-year veteran of Congress, and the retired Navy SEAL who wants to see him “redeployed” from Washington, D.C., in this fall’s election.

All because of seven words in May, the ex-SEAL says.

The former Marine is Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who in 2005 called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He served 37 years in the Corps, including tours in Korea and Vietnam, and retired as a colonel from the Reserve in 1990.

The former SEAL is Larry Bailey, a captain who retired in 1990 after spending 27 years as a SEAL officer, serving in Panama, Bolivia, Scotland, Colombia, Vietnam and the Philippines and now lives in North Carolina, according to his online biography. He once commanded the Naval Special Warfare Center at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, Calif.

The issue: Murtha’s May 17 press conference in Washington, D.C., when he commented on a Time magazine report on the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians allegedly killed by Marines on Nov. 19, 2005 in Hadithah, Iraq, and used language that suggested the Marines were guilty — although no charges had been filed.

“It’s much worse than reported in Time magazine,” Murtha said. “There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that’s what the report is going to tell.” He also released some details he said he’d gleaned from military sources.

“They killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” Bailey says, was prejudicial.

“I despised Murtha so much for saying what he said,” Bailey said.

The next day, Murtha issued a clarification, saying in a press release posted on his official government Web site, “These are allegations.” That didn’t satisfy Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the squad leader of the Hadithah unit, who on Aug. 2 filed a federal lawsuit against Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy.

Bailey had already launched his group, “Vets for the Truth,” and www.bootmurtha.com, a Web site devoted to bringing down Murtha. The group is registered as a federal political action committee of “Iowa Presidential Watch’s 527 PAC” and has raised $14,000, half of which has been spent, Bailey said.

Bailey hopes to raise additional money to pay for an anti-Murtha ad in a Pittsburgh newspaper and continues to pay modest salaries to two volunteers in Murtha’s district who run his “Operation Street Corner,” a combination of on-the-street displays of anti-Murtha material and one-on-one electioneering.

The Web site, which practically shouts at viewers with its bold-face type and “Stop the Lies!” exclamations, is notable for another reason: It clearly tries to tie Murtha to Sen. John Kerry. “Absolutely,” Bailey agreed.

Kerry’s war record was attacked in 2004 by a group of Navy veterans, Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, an effort Kerry was late to respond to and one many credited with contributing to Democrat Kerry’s loss to President Bush in that year’s presidential election.

“I totally approved of what the Swift Boat guys did in 2004 and would love to have been a part of that,” said Bailey, who said he’s a registered Republican but considers himself a libertarian. “But I was not a Swift Boat guy. I was a SEAL.” Bailey said his group, then known as Vietnam Vets for the Truth, was anti-Kerry but had “absolutely” no link to the SBVT.

But he’s clearly borrowed from its playbook. The Web site’s lead image is an artist’s rendering of Murtha, with Kerry, long-haired and wearing his combat fatigues in full post-Vietnam protest mode, drawn right behind him. Down the page, there’s a definition of “swiftboating” — “exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds.”

But Bailey denied that he’s questioning Murtha’s combat awards, which include a Bronze Star with combat “V” and two Purple Hearts — or not-so-subtly trying to smear him through innuendo.

“We’re not,” Bailey said, noting that he’s also the recipient of a Bronze Star with combat “V.” “But having said that, if I found something that indicated without any question that there was something that was not authentic about it, we would go after him with great gusto.” (Read the entire story)

For our mission in Iraq, trust is key...

According to CENTCOM,

BAGHDAD — The Coalition commander responsible for operations in the Iraqi capital is optimistic about what he has seen since operations to quell sectarian violence here started.

Army Maj. Gen. James Thurman, commander of Multi-National Division - Baghdad, said forces have been concentrating on four major hot spots.

Essentially, the concept calls on Coalition and Iraqi forces to cordon off an area and search each street, house by house, Thurman said.

Al-Doura, a mixed Shiia and Sunni area, is one of the hotspots. The area had 20 sectarian murders one night before the operation started. The plan zeroes in on reducing the number of murders, kidnappings, assassinations and car bombs, Thurman said.

Al-Doura has about 135,000 people living in more than 16,000 homes. Iraqi forces carry most of the water in the operation. They search the mahalas – neighborhoods – that are causing the problems. “We’ve dropped the violence down to near nothing,” Thurman said.

[SNIP]

The civil work is key to getting the Iraqis to stop the cycle of tit-for-tat sectarian murders. Iraqi officials in al-Doura are clearing the garbage from the streets, dismantling illegal roadblocks and engaging with district and neighborhood advisory councils. The people in the mahalas have confidence that life will improve for them, and that the government is the way forward, Thurman said.

Once the Iraqi security forces clear the neighborhood, Iraqi police hold the area and Iraqi officials work to ensure the essential services – electricity, water and sewage – are working in those areas. Other local officials work to ensure economic opportunity in the area.

“The Battle of Baghdad is about perception and building trust and confidence in the average citizen of Iraq,” Thurman said.

Pray tell, Mr. Murtha, who claims to "support the troops more than anyone else," how can we expect to gain the trust of the "average citizen of Iraq," when you keep on telling them that you want us out of there?

How can the "average citizen of Iraq" possibly trust our soldiers enough to help them with their mission, when folks like Congressman Murtha call for their premature "re-deployment", thus leaving the "average citizen of Iraq" to the devices of those who no are no doubt presently taking notes as to which families are currently helping our soldiers?

So is Mr. Murtha hurting our troops and their mission, and placing our troops in even greater danger via his call for a premature pullout?

You're damned right he is!

Even RINO Christopher Shays agrees:

Mr. Shays has little patience with those, like Rep. John Murtha, who insist that America's presence is only causing harm: "John Murtha knows that we left them with no army, no police, no border patrol. Now we've got about 40% of the country able to handle itself with new police, new border patrol, new army. . . . The [Iraqi] army is hungry to go into Baghdad and clean it up." Mr. Shays puts the case against immediate withdrawal in stark terms: "What is the message about America's resolve? If you kill 2,000 to 3,000 of our troops, we're out of there. That's a target that any terrorist can reach.

All the more reason why Congressman Jack Murtha is downright dangerous. Dangerous to Iraqis who desire freedom. Dangerous to our troops' mission. And dangerous to the troops themselves.

He deserves nothing less than to lose this November, if not tried for outright sedition.

Murtha vs. Irey on Human Events..

Human Events has a great piece here:

When Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) had his now-celebrated exchange with Republican colleague Jean Schmidt of Ohio last November over whether the U.S. should pull out of Iraq, one of his constituents sat down with her husband and three children.

“I was very upset by what he was saying because I felt very strongly we are at war, we’re there in Iraq, and we need to win in order to complete the mission,” recalled Washington County (Pa.) Commissioner Diana Irey, “So I asked my family whether they felt I should run against him or not. They all agreed that I should.”

By May, West Virginia Business College graduate and three-term Commissioner Ivey had wrapped up the nomination against an incumbent who had not faced a serious GOP challenge since he first won his seat in a special election in 1974. She raised more than $300,000 from all 50 states —much of it coming from Irey’s fellow conservatives angry at Murtha for his new role as cheerleader for an “exit strategy.”

When Murtha brought attention to himself when he decided to take the pro-terrorist, pro-U.S. defeat stance on the Iraq war, it also garnered the spotlight on other areas unrelated to Iraq:

Murtha, for example, has long styled himself “pro-life.” But, as Irey pointed out, “I got a warm reception when I addressed a pro-life breakfast in Johnstown. They didn’t think his vote for federal funding of stem-cell research was pro-life.” Similarly, as the conservative hopeful blitzes the district (which includes parts of nine different counties), she draws wild cheers for spelling out how “my opponent is against tough border security and I favor a tall fence with a wide gate—let immigrants come in legally.” She also vividly contrasts her support of “cutting taxes with this President to my opponent’s voting for record tax increases with the last President.”

Inevitably, Diana Irey is asked whether the burden of taking on such an established Democratic politician is worth the long hours, the constant-fund-raising, and the skepticism about her chances from the so-called “experts.” “Yes, it is,” she replied, “and whenever I hear negativism, I just think back to our family conference and what my daughter Alexandra said when I told her I would be away from her more if I ran: ‘Mommy, our country needs you more than I do.’”

A click on the "Irey" link on our sidebar, if you are so-inclined, will go a long way toward Murtha's being re-deployed from Congress come November.

In his never ending quest to "support our troops.."

...Murtha never stops bashing them, nor their mission; and in doing so supplys a level of aid and comfort not known by our enemies since Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally hit the airwaves in WWII, or even since Hanoi Jane parked her ass behind a Viet-Kong gun turret.

At a fundraiser for Mr. "Earth- in- the- lurch- we- only- have- ten- more- years- til- environmental-
armageddon!" Algore (who, by the way, failed to carry his own state in 2000), Murtha continues with his diatribe:

"I said a year ago we couldn't win this militarily, and they (Republicans) attacked me," said the Pennsylvania Democrat, a decorated Vietnam veteran and military hawk,

Again, military "hawks" don't advocate for a cut and run policy, the results of which serve to embolden our enemies! From OBL's very mouth:

Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia:
"After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger."

Surely Murtha knows this. Yet he continues to "support our troops" by advocating that they surrender in Iraq? Murtha has yet to answer to or even be confronted with this reality..

The article continues...

(Murtha) has become the face of the Democrats' anti-war movement (read: surrender movement--ed) since he called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops last fall.
[snip]

Said Murtha:

"We want somebody to stop this president, to change the direction of this country," he said. "When we went to war, (the administration) said there would be weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There are no weapons of mass destruction, even though some people in Washington still believe it."

Murtha, being the useful idiot that he is, continues to perpetuate one of the greatest myths ever to come down the pike. But lets not let the truth get in the way of your damaging our troops' morale and emboldening their enemies, eh Jack?

This comment by Tennessee's Republican Party says it all:

"Murtha is just another liberal Democrat who's repeatedly voted against tax relief, strongly advocates surrender in Iraq and has continually voted against laws that help keep our nation more secure," Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Bob Davis said Saturday in a released statement. (Read the entire article)

Citizens of PA-12: John Murtha, during a time of war; a time of unbelievable perils facing us by enemies who very literally want us dead, does a man who continually undermines our efforts to remain safe, and continually emboldens our enemies with his rhetoric, really deserve your vote?

Fisking Murtha: As Easy As It Gets

Lean back in your easy chair and just enjoy my latest fisking another puff piece on John Murtha, this time from the LA Times. Check out the title of their article:

"Swift Boat" Veterans Set Sights on Rep. Murtha

Omigod. Those evil Swift Boat vets setting their sights on another patriotic war hero who.....shot his mouth off and 'convicted' a platoon of Marines without any proof. How dastardly can it be?

In a fight that organizers say will feature rallies, TV ads and an aggressive Internet campaign, these activists are promising to make Murtha pay for his criticism of the Iraq war.

WRONGO!!! As I've said dozens of times, we're taking Murtha to task because he ignored the Marines' constitutional rights to a fair trial and to various due process rights. We're taking Murtha to task because it isn't even certain that they'll be charged.

His proposing the "immediate redeployment" 'plan' was something I spoke out about but it wasn't something that I dwelt on because I knew it wouldn't and shouldn't have been taken seriously.

Few believe that Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has represented his district since 1974, is in much danger of being driven from office.

Count me as one of the few and the proud proclaimers that he'll lose. Just because the Agenda Media doesn't see the freight train picking up steam doesn't mean that it isn't coming Murtha's direction.

But in the wake of Sen. Joe Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary last week, Murtha's showdown with an increasingly vocal group of opponents provides more evidence of the prominent role the Iraq war is playing in this year's midterm campaign.

That's just a peripheral issue. Speaking for the MMG writers group, I can confidently say that the central issue for us is Murtha's ignoring the Constitution while berating brave men in harm's way. That Murtha would chastise these heroic young men while they're facing death daily without him so much as getting a detailed briefing following a thorough investigation is disgusting. For that alone, Murtha deserves to get chastized. Couple that with his throwing out the Constitution in violation of his oath in office and I've got plenty of motivation to defeat him this November.

Murtha has brushed aside the attacks. "It's ludicrous," he said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last week. "What they are trying to do is distract from the [Iraq] issue…There is no one who supports the military more than me."

Keep believing that that's all it is, Mr. Murtha. Keep believing that right through this November and I'll be writing about your retirement party this Thanksgiving.

As for Murtha's statement that "There is no one who supports the military more than me", I don't doubt that he genuinely feels that way. That isn't the point. More people aren't believing that. Here's a bit of proof that not everyone shares Murtha's opinion:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you...(applause).
"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.
"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Forgive me if I don't take that as a testimony of Murtha's great affection for the military. Sgt. Seavey isn't alone in that sentiment, either. In fact, Seavey's opinion of Rep. Murtha is far more widespread than the Agenda Media realizes. Here's more proof of that:

In tiny Charleroi, Pa., Nikki A.C. Sheppick, a 54-year-old housewife who served as an Army personnel officer in 1972-73, has made a series of dining-table-sized panels with cartoons, text and photos attacking Murtha for his comments about the alleged civilian massacre in Iraq. "You just don't talk about the troops that way," said Sheppick, who recalled how hurtful criticism of soldiers was during the Vietnam era. She is helping organize an effort called "Operation Street Corner," in which volunteers are to take the cartoon panels to fairs, shopping centers and other public places.

Don't think that MMG won't be hyping the daylights out of Ms. Sheppick's efforts. Don't think that MMG won't be echoing Ms. Sheppick's sentiments, too.

Meanwhile, Murtha's Republican challenger, county commissioner Diana Irey, is making Murtha's comments on the war a focal point of her campaign. "That's the issue that people come up to me and talk about," she said in a recent interview.

At Point Stadium in Johnstown, where thousands converge every summer for the All American Amateur Baseball Association championships, Jeff Katarski said the issue bothers him. "I think [Murtha's] talking out of both sides of his mouth," said Katarski, who served in the Navy for five years in the late 1970s and early '80s. "To me, he should know better than to criticize the administration and the troops during war, at least openly…It hurts morale."

Ms. Irey's campaign has been smart in hammering Murtha's ongoing anti-war diatribe on a daily basis. There's no convincing me that PA-12's vets aren't listening to Ms. Irey's message of support for the troops and their mission.

Murtha may reflect the feelings of a large portion of his constituents, said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the polling institute at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, which polls extensively across the Northeast. Opposition to the war "emerged earlier [in the region] than it did in other parts of the country," Richards said.

Mr. Richards is mistaken in his opinion. People have disagreed with how President Bush has prosecuted the war, which shows up in the right track/wrong track ratings on the war but it doesn't mean that people favor pulling out.

The reality is that Iran would essentially open a 'branch country' in Iraq via Moqtada al-Sadr's militia if we left. Of course, we won't hear that from the Agenda Media but that's where the Right Blogosphere will flourish. We'll point these important things out so people can factor that into their voting decisions.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Irey, Elections 2006, Iraq

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Why?

The Irey campaign is asking a simple question of Jack Murtha. "Why did John Murtha vote against extending the Patriot Act?"

"As I said yesterday, the arrests in the United Kingdom, and last week's and yesterday's arrests in Pakistan, represent a significant victory in the ongoing war on terror. They couldn't have happened without the combined work of the British, American, and Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement services.
"These arrests demonstrate that enhanced intelligence collection and analysis, and enhanced international cooperation, are essential tools in the global war on terror. Giving our intelligence and law enforcement agencies greater tools, such as those contained in the provisions of the Patriot Act, the terrorist surveillance program, and sophisticated financial tracking are indispensable in our ongoing efforts to defeat those who seek our destruction.

It's indisputable that these programs played a significant role in detecting this threat. It's indisputable fact that these programs helped British intelligence thwart this threat. And make no mistake about it: This would've been a 9/11-sized attack with immense repercussions.

"Curiously, for some reason, Jack Murtha has yet to make a public comment on the foiling of this terrorist plot. Could that be because he's trying to figure out how to defend his vote against extending the provisions of the Patriot Act?
"Jack Murtha was one of a number of Democrats who voted against extending the life of the Patriot Act. On December 14, 2005, he cast a vote that would have stripped U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the expanded powers they'd been using to prevent terrorist attacks against us for the last several years, the kind of powers that have led to the disruption of more than 150 terrorist threats and cells around the world, and which have been used to aid in investigations which led to more than 400 individuals being charged right here in America, and led to more than 200 individuals being convicted or pleading guilty in terrorism-related cases.

I'd doubt that he's hiding because he doesn't know how to defend his vote on the Patriot Act because he knows he'll be sheltered by the Pittsburgh newspapers from serious questioning. I suspect that he isn't speaking out on this event because he knows that the TSP and the Patriot Act are popular whereas he knows that the Iraq war has significantly less support.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Diana Irey, Patriot Act, NSA

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Irey: Terrorists Continue to Plot

U.S. Congressional candidate Diana Irey issued this statement about the thwarting of the terrorists' hijacking plot:

"Today's arrests in the United Kingdom represent a significant victory in the ongoing war on terror. I congratulate the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the UK. The arrest of these 21 alleged terrorist plotters in the United Kingdom is a dramatic reminder that transnational terrorism is not confined merely to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Those determined to seek our destruction continue to plot against us, and we must remain ever vigilant.
"The arrests should also serve as a reminder that our intelligence and law enforcement authorities need more weapons in the war on terror, not fewer. Tools such as the terrorist surveillance program and sophisticated financial tracking are indispensable in our ongoing efforts.
"Perhaps most importantly, these arrests remind us that the best defense is a good offense, that, rather than wait until after the bombs have gone off and thousands, or tens of thousands, of innocent lives been lost, we must continue to support efforts to strike pre-emptively, BEFORE the bombs go off."

Ms. Irey makes a great contrasting point when she opines "The arrest of these 21 alleged terrorist plotters in the United Kingdom is a dramatic reminder that transnational terrorism is not confined merely to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East." In Murtha's world vision, he doesn't acknowledge that there's a global war on terrorism. Unfortunately, too many of Murtha's colleagues share that worldview. John Kerry isn't alone in asking where bin Laden is.

It's just an opinion but it makes too much sense not to be right: People aren't as worried about what hasn't been accomplished because the Bush administration has thwarted terrorist plots. They know that the Bush administration has put alot of valuable tools into law enforcement's hands, which they've used to keep us safe.

At the end of the day, that's what they're most concerned with.

Technorati Tags: Diana Irey, George W. Bush, John Murtha, John Kerry

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Translating 'Murthaspeak'

Showing that she's got a sense of humor, Diana Irey issued a press release on Murtha's post at the Huffington Post. I'll simply let the letter speak for itself because I doubt I could do better.

Washington County Commissioner and Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey, responding to today's post by Jack Murtha on the left-wing Hollywood blog "Huffington Post", today released the following statement:
"Today, Jack Murtha further confirmed that he has turned his back on his constituents in southwestern Pennsylvania, in favor of his liberal Democratic allies in San Francisco and Hollywood. His post on the Hollywood blog 'Huffington Post' sounds so reasonable, unless, that is, you understand how to translate 'Murthaspeak' into 'English.' Allow me to demonstrate:
"When Jack Murtha says, 'The war in Iraq is the No. 1 issue in the country today. Americans are no longer willing to accept the human suffering or the financial toll of a war that has lasted for 3 ½ years with no end in sight,' what he means is 'Defending ourselves from terrorists is the number one issue in the country today, but I can't say that out loud, because, given my outrageous comments and my demand for immediate withdrawal/surrender, my constituents might just redeploy me out of the Congress. So instead, I'll use the phrase 'war in Iraq,' because after a time, EVERY war becomes somewhat unpopular.
"When Jack Murtha says, 'The numbers speak for themselves,' what he means is, 'But letting numbers speak for themselves doesn't serve my political agenda, so let me recount them for you again, but I'll make sure to include only the numbers that will depress you: body counts and casualties. I won't say a word about the 25 million Iraqis who now enjoy freedom they never knew before, and I won't say a word about the millions of children who are now going to school in Iraq, and I won't say a word about the millions of Iraqis who are working hard every day to establish a vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East.'
"When Jack Murtha says, 'Yet the administration refuses to budge from its open-ended, stay-the-course policy,' what he means is, 'Darn it, I wish I had the President's intestinal fortitude, when this guy makes up his mind to accomplish something important, he won't let anything stand in his way, totally unlike me. I mean, I pushed Ronald Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops from Beirut the moment the going got tough, and I pushed Bill Clinton to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia the moment the going got tough. And I know all we got in return for our withdrawal was a "Why, thank you, stupid Americans, now we'll go kill some more of your soldiers" from al-Qaeda, but, darn it, how was I to know?'
"And when Jack Murtha says, 'I know it and the American people know it: We need to redeploy our troops to the periphery and refocus on the real war against terrorism. It's long past the time for us to change direction,' what he really means is, 'I hope to goodness no one remembers how I stuck my foot in my mouth on "Meet the Press" when I said we could redeploy to Okinawa. Maybe if I keep saying "real war on terrorism" loud enough and long enough, they'll overlook the fact that I'm really calling for America to raise the white flag.'"

Technorati Tags: Diana Irey, John Murtha, Cut and Run

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog