Let me start this post by saying that Diana Irey and her staff deserve a huge round of applause for how they've kept the spotlight on John Murtha, specifically in making him the irrational left's face of defeatism. All Republicans owe the Irey campaign a debt of gratitude for their efforts in that 'theater' of the GWOT. Let's take a look at the latest official Irey statement on Murtha's disgusting rhetoric:
When you read publication titles like "The Army Times, The Navy Times and The Marine Corps Times", it gets people's attention. Unfortunately, the hoped-for positive attention is short-lived because the Irey campaign shoots it down as another outlet for Gannett. It sounds so official but it's quickly discredited because it's all headlines and no substance. Like so much of liberalism, voters are left crying out "Where's the beef"? So the liberal editorial board of the The Army Times, The Navy Times and The Marine Corps Times is calling for Runsfeld's resignation the day before the election. What of it?
Do these political idiots think that people get their marching orders from another liberal newspaper? Such is the folly of the left.
Saddam's verdict tells the American people that (a) invading Iraq rid the world of a violent thug; (b) showed the world that the Iraqis have a legitimate judicial system and (c) that that verdict represents progress that John Murtha denies is happening.
Something else that's worth noticing here is that all three publications are running the same editorial in the same edition that's sent out the day before the election. Isn't that coincidental? I think it's anything but coincidental. It reeks of foul play. It reeks of someone with an agenda attempting to cause trouble via a headline because he can't win his arguments on their merits.
Technorati: Election 2006, Murtha, Diana Irey
Cross-posted at California Conservative
"Right up to the very end, Jack Murtha is playing politics with national security. Yesterday, in the wake of an Iraqi court's decision to sentence Saddam Hussein to death by hanging for mass murder, Jack Murtha was quoted as follows by the New York Times:John Murtha is again relying on the fossilized media to 'prove' him right. It's a predictable tactic considering Murtha's reliance on an obsolete paradigm. The Fossilized Media is what Democrats rely on. It's something they've done for almost thirty years.
Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has become the face of his party's opposition to the war in Iraq, said the verdict was the right one but predicted it would not make a difference in this campaign. What would matter more, Mr. Murtha said, were editorials in military papers being published Monday calling for the resignation of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"When The Army Times, The Navy Times, The Marine Corps Times, they have all said that we're not supporting the troops, that they're losing confidence with the administration, that's what's important," Mr. Murtha said, campaigning in Croydon, Pa., outside Philadelphia, for Patrick Murphy, a Democrat seeking to unseat Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick.
"Again, Jack Murtha is trying to get us to believe something that just isn't so -- in this case, that editorials in The Army Times, The Navy Times, and The Marine Corps Times reflect either public opinion or, more importantly, the opinions of our active duty, reserve, or retired military.
"For the record, these publications are owned by a subsidiary of Gannett Newspapers (which, not coincidentally, makes them sister publications to USA Today), and are in no way affiliated with the professional military. They are headquartered in Springfield, Virginia, just outside the Washington Beltway.
"Surely, Jack Murtha, with his vaunted and loudly-touted connections to the Pentagon, knows this. Yet he touts these editorials as 'proof' that our armed forces are losing confidence in the Administration. What utter balderdash!
When you read publication titles like "The Army Times, The Navy Times and The Marine Corps Times", it gets people's attention. Unfortunately, the hoped-for positive attention is short-lived because the Irey campaign shoots it down as another outlet for Gannett. It sounds so official but it's quickly discredited because it's all headlines and no substance. Like so much of liberalism, voters are left crying out "Where's the beef"? So the liberal editorial board of the The Army Times, The Navy Times and The Marine Corps Times is calling for Runsfeld's resignation the day before the election. What of it?
Do these political idiots think that people get their marching orders from another liberal newspaper? Such is the folly of the left.
Saddam's verdict tells the American people that (a) invading Iraq rid the world of a violent thug; (b) showed the world that the Iraqis have a legitimate judicial system and (c) that that verdict represents progress that John Murtha denies is happening.
"When The Army Times, The Navy Times, The Marine Corps Times, they have all said that we're not supporting the troops, that they're losing confidence with the administration, that's what's important," Mr. Murtha said, campaigning in Croydon, Pa., outside Philadelphia, for Patrick Murphy, a Democrat seeking to unseat Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick.Mr. Murtha, since when is it important that a liberal publication says that it's losing confidence in the Bush administration's handling of the military? That's as newsworthy as another article telling us that you're anti-war. Forgive me if I don't think that Gannett's Election Eve editorial is as important as Saddam's verdict.
Something else that's worth noticing here is that all three publications are running the same editorial in the same edition that's sent out the day before the election. Isn't that coincidental? I think it's anything but coincidental. It reeks of foul play. It reeks of someone with an agenda attempting to cause trouble via a headline because he can't win his arguments on their merits.
Technorati: Election 2006, Murtha, Diana Irey
Cross-posted at California Conservative
