Friday, January 13, 2006

Jack Murtha is being SwiftBoated!

A so-called worthless piece of $#it "news service" is attempting to attack the good name of Congressman Jack Murtha, Marine war hero. These chickenhawks have the gall to attack someone who has faced enemy fire in defense of our freedoms.

These people have the morals of hyenas; however, BUZZFLASH goes into more background on who and what's behind this unwarranted attack. Thanks to Jeannette Warren for letting me know about this!


mike said...

Unwarranted? You must be kidding.

Besides, he served in Vietnam, man. That was a bad war and we all know the soldiers there shot babies, burned villages, dumped napalm on innocents, made the local women prostitutes, etc. so how "heroic" can anyone from then be?

Jeez, Stephen, war is bad and the people who make it are bad. OK?

mike said...

Oh, yeah, what freedom was he defending in Vietnam? The freedom of America to interfere in the internal politics of another, sovereign, nation in our unjust fight against the communist revolution? Isn't that the same wrong we're committing in Iraq today, trading "faith tradition" for "communism?"

He's making the same wrong today we made then: upending a nation then, when the going turns tough, bugging out and leaving them to deal with it. In Vietnam that led to tens of thousands of deaths and misery for all except the elite; in Cambodia it led to Pol Pot. You remember him, right? Two or three million countrymen dead. You suggesting we should be doing that today in Iraq?

LeftWingCracker said...

I'm going to go you one better, Mike, I freely admit it was LBJ who got us into that quagmire, and it damn near destroyed the country and the Democratic Party.

I don't blame the soldiers, though, Mike, I blame the leaders who sent them there unnecessarily.

In Vietnam, it was Johnson; in Iraq, it was Bush. In the end, there wasn't any difference....

mike said...

"In the end, there wasn't any difference...." Your bipartisanship is refreshing to hear. It is true that both sides basically act the same, but under different banners.

BTW, it was Kennedy who got us into Vietnam; Johnson just made it much, much worse.

Richmond said...

Technically speaking, Truman initiated the policies that culminated both globally and individually in the Vietnam War. Whatever the case, Murtha served with distinction while both the current occupant and Bill Clinton found ways to avoid doing so. If I had been of age then, I honestly don't know what I would have done. I would have not served for any sense of keeping the Communist domino from falling toward San Francisco, although very, very few folks in the sixties understood Communism as anything other than monolithic. Conversely, the North Vietnamese played for keeps and were going to fight until they won, which made most of our fighting folks cannon fodder. I just don't know what I would have done.
That also being said, for anyone to criticize Jack Murtha or anyone else who fought in Vietnam (like two of my cousins) is to reveal more about themselves than it is those in uniform. My Lai was certainly our doing. The North Vietnamese were known to torture as well (ask John McCain). No one's hands were clean in that or any other war. Vietnam's greatest legacy for America, however, I think can be summed up in the words of Richard Reeves, given in a speech regarding the Kennedy Presidency: Vietnam took away our moral authority in the world. What we had re-gained in the years since, sadly, has been lost again in spades by the actions of the current administration and their complete idiocy in Iraq.

Mr. Mack said...

The real story here is that fake "news service". It is run by Marc Morano, a suck up wanna be Rush, and who worked on his staff for years. The contributing "reporter" actually works for, under the name Monisha Bansal. This type of bogus new sites are popping up everywhere, and many times are propped up by groups purporting to advance a "Christian" agenda. This is a problem, because often these front groups pay for access to huge databases of Christian email addresses, and the sheep think they are getting the real stories. I have no idea how to combat this...yet.

BraveCordovaDem said...

What is lost in much of this debate is the real reason for being in Iraq. Most wars are fought for economic reasons and Iraq is no different. The obvious reason is OIL. Now to determine whether you are for our country being in Iraq or not is the question, "Is it worth the cost to possibly secure a new and apparently rich source of oil with Saudi Arabia going down the tubes along with a hostile regime in Venezuela?" If you are against all wars, then obviously not. If you are not interested or lackluster in finding new sources of energy, like the Bush Administration, probably yes.

My own opinion is that we should be working aggressively to find other sources of energy rather than wasting money and our security resources on a gamble for Iraqi oil, as well as the human cost and our reputation in the world. I am not a pacifist but, like in everyday life, we should pick our battles carefully. Oh yes, isn't that fella Bin-Laden and his little organization still roaming free?

thurbis said...

". . . .for anyone to criticize Jack Murtha or anyone else who fought in Vietnam (like two of my cousins) is to reveal more about themselves than it is those in uniform." an update in respose to Jack Murtha is being SwiftBoated!

I can understand this sentiment but it's important to bear in mind that one of the people who has questioned Rep.Murtha was a Democrat, and the other was a decorated Vietnam War veterin himself. What we need is a lot more fairness and a lot less selective outrage.

What did it say about John Kerry when he came back from Vietnam and, in front of Congress, while troops were still on the battlefield, said that American soldiers had ". . .personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

The swiftboat vets were veterans too, but that doesn't stop people from using the name of their group in a derogatory manner.

While I'll give Representative Murtha the beneift of the doubt on this and go on the basis that John Murtha is a fine gentleman, sincere in his beliefs and patriotic as all get out, I do question his judgement.

Representative Murtha also advocated pulling out of Somalia back in September of 1993 after 4 military policemen were killed.

In september 1993 on the Today Show, Rep. Murtha stated "Our welcome has been worn out". . . .he also went on to say that President Clinton was "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

About two weeks later, in october 1993, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Rep. Murtha visited troops in somalia, came back and said the following:

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces. .. Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle.. . ."There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

Rep. Murtha's "There's no military solution" from 1993 sounds an awful lot like his recent statements that, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

I believe that Rep. Murtha is sincere....i also believe that he is sincerely wrong.

Years later Osama Bin Laden pointed to this very event as one that encouraged and emoldened his terrorist network.

In one of his tedious fatwa's, Bin Laden made the following comments:

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."

blah blah blah.

You can read the whole thing at -

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama Bin Laden, made the same observation yet again, stating:

"Our people realize(d) more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run(s) in defeat after a few blows....America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

This is how Al Qaeda views pulling troops out of Iraq based on political rather than tactical reasons:

Al Qaeda No. 2: Bush must admit defeat in Iraq

Per the above article: "Even though I send my condolences to my Islamic nation for the tragedy of the earthquake in Pakistan, today I congratulate everyone for the victory in Iraq. You remember, my dear Muslim brethren, what I told you more than a year ago, that the U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq. It was only a matter of time. "Here they are now and in the blessing of God begging to pull out, seeking negotiations with the mujahedeen. And here is Bush who was forced to announce at the end of last November that he will be pulling his troops out of Iraq."

Now, they're going to say whatever they're going to say but it's a big difference if troops are pulled out as Iraqi's are able to handle more and more of their security problems as opposed to troop withdrawel based on an artificial, politically expediant time table, which is what Murtha was saying this past week to Mike Wallace when he said:

"I think the political people who give him advice will say to him, 'You don’t want a Democratic congress. You want to keep the Republican majority. And the only way you’re gonna keep it, is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,'" John Murtha / 1/15/2005

See - Murtha Details His Exit Strategy

Dealing with terrorists seems to be like dealing with the schoolyard bully; you don't want to encourage them or show weakness.

I can only wonder what would have resulted had we shown a united front on Iraq; would it have resulted in undermining the determination of the fanatics we're dealing with? How many fewer casulauties - on all sides - would have been the result of a united front, and had the key members of the United Nations not been on the take in the oil for food scandal?

I always marvel at how little outrage we see over those who were complicit with the Hussein regime in the Oil for Food Scandal.

Hundreds of people were involved (about the only 3 names you don't see on the Oil for Food list of corruption seem to be Bush, Cheney and Halliburton which, by the way, was getting "no-bid" contracts from the Clinton adminisration as well). The publisher of the Memphis Flyer once wrote something to the effect of "enough of this oil for food scandal!"; many act as if it had nothing to do with the fact that America had to practically drag the UN into enforcing UN sanctions, when to understanding the Oil for Food Scandal is essential to understanding the war in Iraq.

Had the United Nations stood firm, had there not been an oil for food scandal, perhaps Saddam Hussein would have taken the UN seriously and we wouldn't be where we're at today. I wonder how the tenor of many of the anti-war protets would have changed had Ramsey Clark - a man on Saddam Husseins defense team - not been associated with them or had many of them not been essentially spearheaded by Ramsey Clark (again, he's on Saddam Husseins defense team) and the International Action Committee.

On september 20, 2001 president bush made a speech in which he stated the following:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . .Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." President George W. Bush / September 20, 2001

John Murtha recently stated, "Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is." Of course terrorists seem to have no problem seeing it that way.

Rep. Mustha continued, stating that when President Bush, ". . .says we’re fighting terrorism over there, we’re inciting terrorism over there. We’re encouraging terror. We’re destabilizing the area by being over there ‘cause we’re the targets. He said before there’s weapons of mass destruction. He said there’s an al Qaeda connection. There’s many things he said turned out not to be true. So why would I believe him when he says the things he just – made that statement." So the President is a liar to John Murtha.

I seem to recall a speech on December 16, 1998 from President Bill Clinton in which the stakes seemed clear to the leader of the Democratic Party at that time.

Per President Clinton: ". . . .Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. . . .Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . .The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq."

And yet John Murtha can say that President Bush, ". . .said before there’s weapons of mass destruction. . . .There’s many things he said turned out not to be true." Yeah, and in his 1940 campiagn FDR promised not to send any American boys to fight any foriegn battles. . .is he a liar too? Back then it was isolationists and Republicans who wanted to do nothing while England fought the Battle of Britain pretty much on her own. It took Pearl Harbor to wake Americans up to the danger we were in.

President Clinton went on to state, ". . . .The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. . .I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. . . In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. . . .Iraq has abused its final chance."

Yes, back in 1998, President Clinton said that "Iraq has abused its final chance" and yet, the next administration elected into the White House was still having to deal with Saddam Hussein violating UN sanctions relative to not only WMD but to terrorist connections as well. How many "final chances" should Iraq get? Why should it take any UN resolutions seriously when it can prevaricate and weasle out of anything remotely close to "serious consequences"?

President Clinton / December 16, 1998: "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."

And yet, years after Iraq had abused it's "final chance" we were still having to deal with Saddam Hussein violating nearly a decade of UN Sanctions. President Bush inherited a mess.

Now one can disagree with the policy but regime change in iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism.

Back in 1998 then President Clinton said that: ". . . so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."

John Murtha can point out that President Bush ". . .said before there’s weapons of mass destruction. He said there’s an al Qaeda connection. There’s many things he said turned out not to be true" and yet Iraq somehow managed to wind up - throughout the 1990's - on the State Departments list of State Sponsors of Terrorism again and again and again.

For example:

as noted in the above report: "Iran is one of seven countries on the State Department list of nations that engage in state-sponsored terrorism. The others are: Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria."

gee, I see three of those "axis of evil" countries listed way back in the day!

Rep. Murtha may be a veteran but so were a lot of people whose judgement we can't entirely trust.

William Calley of the My Lai massacre comes to mind. Make no mistake, I am not saying that the two are in any way remotely alike; what I'm saying is that military service alone does not automatcally mean that your judgement is above being questioned.

Saddam Hussein has only Saddam Hussein to blame for Saddam Husseins problems.

While no WMD were found, WMD was but on of many reasons given to justify removing saddam hussein from power.

Like former President Bill Clinton himself said, "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

Now, at this point, it should be pointed out that President Clinton was criticized by some nattering nabobs of negativity for his December 16, 1998 speech; prior to a catastrophic event like 9/11, he would not have had the support of bozo's in Congress like Trent Lott, who - after President Clintons speech on 12/16/98, said:

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. . . Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." Tent Lott

Then you have Dick Armey (which is a name a porno star would be proud of!) said, "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment. . .After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." (get ready for the money shot!)

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats who supported military action in Iraq back in 1998 had this to say:

The GOP was "...."as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible." That was from Toricelli. Whatever happened to The Torch? I guess that "culture of corruption" is pretty bi-partisan!

Then we had Tom Daschle saying, "This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."

I would say that the same thing could be said about today.

Then we had Dick Gephardt defending the timing of the air strikes on Iraq, saying, ". . .any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts."

Of course, that was as true then as it is now.

For the better part of a decade, Saddam Hussein played cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors.

Even though UN weapons inspectors were in iraq after the first gulf war, it wasn't until saddam husseins son in law defected that we got a better understanding of their wmd programs. how do we know? Again, we can go back to President Clinton.

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

"In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." President Bill Clinton / February 18, 1998 / address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff.

In november 2002 UN Resolution 1441 found Iraq to be in material breach of practically every un resolution and gave iraq 30 days to cooperate or face serious consequences.

Iraq didn't cooperate in 30 days, or even in 60 days.

Four years after Iraq had abused it's "final chance" to co-operate with UN sanctions, it still was not co-operating.

In january 2003 hans blix gave the following report -


If you read thru it you find that iraq still couldn't or wouldn't account for 1,000 TONS of VX nerve gas. and then there's this statement from mr. blix on anthrax: "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

Well, okay, so iraq wasn't accounting for nerve gas and anthrax...and that's just two of the noncooperative issues hans blix (I love a name that sounds like one of Santa's reindeers) noted.

The February 2003 report from Hans Blix wasn't much better, with his last statement in his report being:

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 (1991) – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Yeah, it'd be easy..IF IRAQ WOULD COOPERATE but, years after they had abused their "final chance" to co-operate, Iraq still wasn't fully cooperating. In baseball you have "three strikes and your out". . .whats the rule with Iraq? 3,000 strikes and you're out?

If President Bush were the only one out there making claims about Iraq, WMD and terrorist connections, I could understand the criticisms of the current administration from people like Rep, Murtha.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in
sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. (so much for the "Bush Lied" claim) That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know.So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the UN and for the UN to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Per President Clinton: "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton

In the 9/11 report it notes that the terrorist attackes were due to a "failure of imagination".
President Bush imagined a scenario in which Iraq could potentially give WMD to terrorists, and concluded that President Clintons belief, stated in his December 16, 1998 speech that, ". . . .so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.", was correct. . .and VIOLA! regime change in iraq became the next logical step in the war on terrorism.

Like President Bush said on September 20, 2001: "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

In the days right after 9/11, few seemed to have a problem with this approach in the War on Terrorism.

"In September 2003, the senator (Ted Kennedy) was claiming that the Iraq was was "a fraud made up in Texas to give Republicans a political boost". This is pretty serious stuff - charging that the president of the united states went to war in order to win a re-election. And exactly how would that work? Lets see, President Bush takes the nation to war, an enormously risky political proposition, says that the reason we're going to war is that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, even though the president know that the weapons don't really exist, and that sooner or later, certainly before the election, everyone will know that they don't exist. . .and he does this to give Republicans a political boost? Am I missing something?" Bernard Goldberg

The War on Terrorism was not solely limited to Al Qaeda, in spite of what Rep. Murtha may believe.

"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . . we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." President George W. Bush / September 20, 2001

And because of President Bush taking the war on terrorism seriously, and for him doing everything he can to prevent another 9/11, my guess is that many who read this blog would have him impeached.

From todays news:

Gore calls for special counsel on eavesdropping
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Vice President Al Gore called on Monday for an independent counsel to investigate whether President George W. Bush broke the law in authorizing domestic eavesdropping without court approval.

Well, lets hold that in conjunction with an investigation into this:

Gore's Secret Agreement with Russia
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | November 3, 2000
*(The agreement allowed Russia to fulfill existing contracts with Iran, including submarines, torpedoes, anti-ship mines and tanks. News of a secret agreement signed by Vice President Al Gore and then-Russian Prime Minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin was met by a deafening silence, helping to shield Gore from being identified with a major new scandal. The Senate planned hearings on this agreement to enable Russia to ship conventional weapons and nuclear technology to a nation high on the State Department list of those engaged in state sponsored terrorism. In addition, the letter specifically stated that its contents would not be conveyed to the U.S. Congress. This story should have strongly impacted the presidential race between Gore and Governor Bush. It broke on Friday, the 13th, when the New York Times ran a front page story that Gore had signed this agreement in 1995 without telling Congress, in violation of several laws, including the underlying Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, known, ironically as the Gore-McCain act, after its chief sponsors."

To President Bush, Iran - the nation with the President who has stated that Israel should be "eliminated" - is part of an "axis of evil"; to Al Gore, Iran is a State Sponsor of Terrorism who the Russians should be sending weapons to. Does that make any sense?

You have to wonder what Vice President Gore was thinking!


P.S. For BUZZFLASH to accuse any other organization of being "propagandistic" is pretty funny.

I question the objectivity and fairness of a web site that would run the following headline on one of it's links: "Bush demands quick vote so Alito can sail through, trash Constitution".


Some on the left would disagree with this obnoxious and childish hysteria.

The Sam Alito I know
"I am a liberal Democrat with papers to prove it, a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. . . as a lawyer I advocate for the First Amendment to boot. I am very comfortable and secure in the thought that we are entrusting our legal system, and indeed our precious Constitution, in the good hands of Judge Sam Alito."

While BUZZFLASH may accuse Sam Alito of being a threat to the Constitutioo, and while Howard Dean may be out their saying "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is", the last time I checked, the horrible eminent domain decision was passed by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy; this indicates to me that BUZZFLASH and Howard Dean have a might unusual view of whats in the Constitution!

The eminent domain decision being blamed on the "right wing" by Howard Dean is especially galling in view of at least one case I know of where a the Democratic Mayor of Riviera Beach Florida is using it to evict minority homeowners.

Florida city considers eminent domain "Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex. "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown."

Now not all those who support eminent domain seizures are Democrats, but the more liberal members of the Supreme Court are responsible for this decision and it's enough to make me question the sanity and/or fairness of someone like Howard Dean when they claim that the "right wing" was responsible for that decision, or the objectivity of those at BUZZFLASH to say that Sam Alito is going to "trash the constitution" while expressing no outrage over, say, the way Ruth "buzzy" Ginzberg voted to essentially eliminate the concept of private property. Now, a mans castle is only his home until someone with more money comes along. . .and this is for the "little guy"?

puh-leeze! Don't be silly, silly!

The Alito/CAP accusations made by some have proven to be as bogus and as unfair as claiming that all Democrats hold the same beliefs as ex-klansman Robert Byrd, the man who led the filibuster by Southern Democrats to stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Democratic Senator Byrd once wrote that he would never fight ". . . .with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

To hold Sam Alito accountable for an article that appeared in a journal he had nothing to do with is just about as fair as holding all Demcorats responsible for being the party of Robert "sheets" Byrd.

Back to the issue of "swiftboating John Murtha, it's not a Republican who made the claims about John Murtha in the article this reponse is in response to. Per the article:

"A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts."

A fellow Democrat and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran are making these claims. I read the article and, quite honestly, don't know what to believe but that's irrelevant in terms of the specific issue at hand or the fact that Osama bin Laden has cited the Murtha endorsed Clinton amdinistrations decision to abruptly leave Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident as being something that encouraged terrorists whom we need to be discouraging.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln

Mr. Mack said...

When opposing counsel has something to hide in the discovery process, he usually buries it under mountains of information not asked for....just sayin.

thurbis said...

You are correct in that brevity is the sould of wit, and that I should have edited it for the sake of brevity. . .I would like to add that, while I may disagree with some of what those those left of center believe, I'm not an ideologue in the sense that I know leftwingcracker, and I know that, not only is he extremely intelligent, he is also a very gracious, and generous gentleman.

Many of the authors I grew up reading are from left of center. You could hardly call Harlan Ellison, Frederick Pohl or Isaac Asimov "right wingers" but I respect and admire their work nonetheless. Ultimately F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman made more sense on some issues, but if we all thought alike, it'd be a really boring world!

Thank you for your input -

LeftWingCracker said...

Everyone should go read EJ Dionne in the Washington Post today, he drills it.