Jack Murtha: The Britney Spears of Congress

[stephanie]

Oh my...There's a picture of Murtha at their site.......View at your own risk....:D

February 20, 2007
Vox Populi, Current Events, War, Politics
By Warner Todd Huston

The worst thing about pop culture celebrities is their ever downwardly spiraling behavior. To get noticed they feel they must indulge in ever more outrageous behavior until they end up dead like Anna Nichol Smith or a drunken, debauched mess like the empty-headed Britney Spears. Sadly, the media and the gossip rags eat it up.

This pathology to attention mongering isn’t, though, exclusive to these so-called celebrities. In fact, such “notice” can sing a siren song for politicians, too. Especially those who imagine themselves populists.

It isn’t enough to have a principle and fight for it. That “principle” must be expanded ever more and the targets that the principle is applied against must be ever more extreme. Jack Murtha fits this political definition to a tee.

Jack Murtha is the Britney Spears of Congress. And his anti-war stance is the avenue to his pathological need to be noticed. And he isn’t alone.

This weekend, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding denouncement of president Bush’s “surge” plans in Iraq. Showing how simple minded the House leadership is, Speaker Pelosi was proud to say that they had created a “new direction” in Iraq in a resolution that had “fewer than 100 words” contained in it.

Still, it is Murtha who seems to be spiraling ever more extreme on the issue.

With his oversight panel on military spending Murtha plans to put so many requirements on the budget that it will be impossible to implement properly. And it is obvious he couldn’t care less how it will affect the troops. It is being called the “slow bleed” plan.

“They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind”, Murtha is quoted as having said.

But that is nothing compared to the news that he was going to appear at a Moveon.org function, the radical and far left organization funded by illegal drug activist George Sorros.

Caught by a new website called The Victory Caucus, the Moveon.org advertisement read as follows:

Coming Tomorrow!!

CHAIRMAN JACK MURTHA TO OUTLINE COMMITTEE STRATEGY ON BUSH’S IRAQ FUNDING REQUEST THURSDAY MORNING AT 11:00 AM EST ON MOVECONGRESS.ORG

Join Us!

Join us tomorrow at 11:00 AM EST when Congressman Jack Murtha will outline new details of a strategy to use his Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to oppose the Bush war in Iraq. Congressman Jim Moran, another Committee member, predicts the Committee action will be the “bite” that follows this week’s Congressional “bark” – the three-day debate on a non-binding Congressional resolution.

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president’s $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its “power-of-the-purse” over the Iraq war.

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. Chairman Murtha discusses these steps in a videotaped conversation with former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), the National Director of the Win Without War coalition, sponsor of MoveCongress.org.

Join us here tomorrow for this exclusive interview.

Naturally, once the conservative website highlighted this outrageous message, Moveon.org cleaned up their verbiage later that day and the bit I emphasized above mysteriously disappeared.

Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman, had it perfectly right when he brought Murtha’s “slow-bleed” plan, his next step in extremism, to the fore.

We’ve known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they’ve been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

Murtha has steadily increased his extreme anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric since the day a fawning MSM brought this long unknown pol to national prominence.

He obviously craves the spotlight, but the only way he can stay in the news is to become ever more wild-eyed with his rants and ever more hateful in his actions and policy discussions.

Murtha is truly the Britney Spears of Congress. He is just as empty headed and just as self-destructive. Unfortunately, his personal debauchery doesn’t merely harm himself and bemuse the paparazzi. It affects US policy and harms our troops who are already doing dangerous enough work.

As Duncan reminds us, “Our armed forces are the best in the world. They are serving with tremendous honor and bravery in Iraq. We cannot gradually abandon them. We cannot allow the Murtha-Pelosi ’slow-bleed’ plan to happen.”

We must stop Moveon.org and Jack Murtha from further hurting our troops, our policies, and our safety.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/20/jack-murtha-the-britney-spears-of-congress/

[Gaffer]

This is why I say murtha is a traitor.

Would love the opportunity to say that to his face. I think that man is even lower than kerry. He's getting a name for himself alright. Scum Sucking Bastard.

[stephanie]

This is why I say murtha is a traitor.

Would love the opportunity to say that to his face. I think that man is even lower than kerry. He's getting a name for himself alright. Scum Sucking Bastard.


I feel the same about both, Murtha and Kerry........Tratiors:mad:

[GW in Ohio]

I dunno there, guys...

From what I can see, Jack Murtha is a stand-up guy.

Didn't he do a couple of tours in 'Nam with his Marine unit?

Are you calling him a traitor because he dared to question administration policy in Iraq?

Isn't that why his constituents elected him?

[jillian]

I dunno there, guys...

From what I can see, Jack Murtha is a stand-up guy.

Didn't he do a couple of tours in 'Nam with his Marine unit?

Are you calling him a traitor because he dared to question administration policy in Iraq?

Isn't that why his constituents elected him?

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Not to mention the fact that before he turned against the war, he was the neo-cons' pet dem (well, him and Lieberman). Thing is, I'm told the reason he started publicly opposing the way the war was being handled was because of his contacts in the Pentagon (and he had and has A LOT) practically begging him to take on Rumsfeld.

[Dilloduck]

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Not to mention the fact that before he turned against the war, he was the neo-cons' pet dem (well, him and Lieberman). Thing is, I'm told the reason he started publicly opposing the way the war was being handled was because of his contacts in the Pentagon (and he had and has A LOT) practically begging him to take on Rumsfeld.

Why did they want him to "take on" Rummy?

[avatar4321]

I dunno there, guys...

From what I can see, Jack Murtha is a stand-up guy.

Didn't he do a couple of tours in 'Nam with his Marine unit?

Are you calling him a traitor because he dared to question administration policy in Iraq?

Isn't that why his constituents elected him?

No I think we are calling him a traitor because he is trying to secretly defund the troops so more of them are killed to the point where the American people demand the President pull out of Iraq. If that isnt treason. I dont know what is.

[GW in Ohio]

No one is going to cut off funding for our troops to the point where they are in danger. It takes some gutsy people like Murtha to stand up to this administration and tell them they're wrong.

If anyone is responsible for the 3,000 deaths and thousands more wounded among our troops in Iraq, it is George Bush, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney and the rest of that arrogant, stupid neocon gang that thought they would knock off Hussein and then everything would be cool in Iraq.

I do not expect Bush & co. to answer in this life for those deaths and war injuries, but I expect they'll answer in the next life.

[CSM]

No one is going to cut off funding for our troops to the point where they are in danger. It takes some gutsy people like Murtha to stand up to this administration and tell them they're wrong.

Not so sure just how gutsy Murtha is and I sure as hell don't trust ANY politician not to cut funding to the point troops are in danger. The history of this country shows time and again just how badly our military funding can be cut to the detriment of the troops.

If anyone is responsible for the 3,000 deaths and thousands more wounded among our troops in Iraq, it is George Bush, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney and the rest of that arrogant, stupid neocon gang that thought they would knock off Hussein and then everything would be cool in Iraq.

Naw, I think it the lowlife bastards who are making the bombs and blowing things up are responsible for the dead and wounded.

I do not expect Bush & co. to answer in this life for those deaths and war injuries, but I expect they'll answer in the next life.

And I expect the same for those who REALLY did the killing and wounded. I suspect God does not base his judgements on ones political affiliation.


Funding has been cut to those levels you mention many many times in this country. As for the rest of your rhetoric, obviously I disagree.

[GW in Ohio]

CSM: It's a given that there are murderous assholes in the Middle East who think that blowing up women and children will earn them favor with Allah.

For an American president to put our people among those murderous assholes for no good reason is a very, very bad thing.

Bush and Rummy and Cheney and the rest will pay for every one of our American casualties, not (as I said earlier) in this life, but in the next.

The wheel of karma grinds slowly, but inexorably.

[stephanie]

No one is going to cut off funding for our troops to the point where they are in danger. It takes some gutsy people like Murtha to stand up to this administration and tell them they're wrong.

If anyone is responsible for the 3,000 deaths and thousands more wounded among our troops in Iraq, it is George Bush, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney and the rest of that arrogant, stupid neocon gang that thought they would knock off Hussein and then everything would be cool in Iraq.

I do not expect Bush & co. to answer in this life for those deaths and war injuries, but I expect they'll answer in the next life.

Yep......It's as simple as that......

Let's all those men from the civil war, Koren war, ww1, ww2, gulf war 1,

Now lets let all those men and women from the Iraq war.......

Let all them accuse their President of putting our soldiers in harms way, for a misguided war........

Because to you all.......All their lives were wasted.....



You all make me sick....

[CSM]

CSM: It's a given that there are murderous assholes in the Middle East who think that blowing up women and children will earn them favor with Allah.

For an American president to put our people among those murderous assholes for no good reason is a very, very bad thing.

Well, ignoring them worked reall well, didn't it!

Bush and Rummy and Cheney and the rest will pay for every one of our American casualties, not (as I said earlier) in this life, but in the next.

Hey, while your busy handing out supreme justice, I have a list that I need taken care off. Trust me, these folks all need to burn in hell.

The wheel of karma grinds slowly, but inexorably.

Yes it does!


Again, we obviously disagree.

[GW in Ohio]

CSM: I believe that most of the people in the Middle East are basically crazy. I don't know if it's their religion that makes them crazy, or the climate of the region, of if they're just irredeemable stupid assholes.

In any case, these people have a lot of issues to work out with one another....Sunnis vs. Shiites.....Arabs vs. non-Arabs......moderates vs. radicals, etc.......

I would like to see us to follow a foreign policy that disengages us from the region. Let them sort out their own shit. They'll kill one another if we're not around.

But as a corollary to this foreign policy, I'd make it clear to the whole world that any attack on American soil will bring instant retaliation and the motherfuckers and their families who killed Americans will wish they were never born.

That's the foreign policy I support.

[CSM]

CSM: I believe that most of the people in the Middle East are basically crazy. I don't know if it's their religion that makes them crazy, or the climate of the region, of if they're just irredeemable stupid assholes.

In any case, these people have a lot of issues to work out with one another....Sunnis vs. Shiites.....Arabs vs. non-Arabs......moderates vs. radicals, etc.......

I would like to see us to follow a foreign policy that disengages us from the region. Let them sort out their own shit. They'll kill one another if we're not around.

But as a corollary to this foreign policy, I'd make it clear to the whole world that any attack on American soil will bring instant retaliation and the motherfuckers and their families who killed Americans will wish they were never born.

That's the foreign policy I support.

I can wholeheartedly support that position. Your corollary is especially intriguing in that is exactly how I view the ongoing operations in Iraq. Debates about Hussien/Al Quaeda notwithstanding, I believe the war on terrorism is truly a war against Islamic extremists and not just Al Quaeda or Hussein or the Taliban. Iraq provides a very strategically sound venue for doing that.

[avatar4321]

No one is going to cut off funding for our troops to the point where they are in danger. It takes some gutsy people like Murtha to stand up to this administration and tell them they're wrong.



Um hello!? That is EXACTLY what Murtha is doing. He has SAID that's what he is doing. To deny act as though He didn't say it when we have audio tape of him saying it is either Naive or just an example of putting ones head in the sand.

[GW in Ohio]

avatar: So who's responsible for putting American troops in jeopardy? Murtha or Bush? Who's the one who deployed our troops to that shithole?

CSM: Yes, we've got to wage a war on terror, but we've got to do it in the right way.

I say (and here's where I prob'ly radically depart from a lot of people here) the war should be a PR war, for the hearts and minds of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. If we get into a shooting war, we've already lost, because the propaganda benefits for groups like al Queda from our heavy-handed invasion of Iraq are incalculable. al Qaeda is going around the region telling people, "See? It's just like we told you. The Americans want to take over the whole Middle East and make you convert to Christianity. It's the Crusades all over again. We need to rise up and defend our homelands."

George Bush is the best fucking thing that ever happened to al Qaeda.

[CSM]

avatar: So who's responsible for putting American troops in jeopardy? Murtha or Bush? Who's the one who deployed our troops to that shithole?

CSM: Yes, we've got to wage a war on terror, but we've got to do it in the right way.

I say (and here's where I prob'ly radically depart from a lot of people here) the war should be a PR war, for the hearts and minds of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. If we get into a shooting war, we've already lost, because the propaganda benefits for groups like al Queda from our heavy-handed invasion of Iraq are incalculable. al Qaeda is going around the region telling people, "See? It's just like we told you. The Americans want to take over the whole Middle East and make you convert to Christianity. It's the Crusades all over again. We need to rise up and defend our homelands."

George Bush is the best fucking thing that ever happened to al Qaeda.

Waging war requires a total committment. You cannot fight any conflict on one front alone and expect to win. In other words, PR alone wont do it, neither will bullets alone or diplomacy alone.

The fact is, the terrorists were targeting the US long before we invaded Iraq. The difference between then and now is they are no longer able to operate freely as their funding is harder to get, logistics and communications are far tougher for them and they MUST focus on Iraq. Iraq is a front of OUR choosing and they cannot afford to lose there. I and many others prefer that to having a a similar front here in the US where WE could not afford to lose.

Another thing about Iraq is that from a strategic perspective, it gives a base of operations in the Middle East that is not tied to Israel. It gives us the option and opportunity for disconnecting issues regarding Israel from the war on terror. I know some have tried to make the connection as part of the propaganda, but they are really stretching when they do.

[GW in Ohio]

CSM: Face the facts, my friend......

There is no good outcome possible in Iraq. Whether we disengage next week or in 5 years the outcome will be the same. Events in Iraq will run their natural course no matter what we do.

It's quite possible that in the end, Iran and Iraq will be joined in some way, because they're the only two predominantly Shiite states in the region.

[CSM]

CSM: Face the facts, my friend......

There is no good outcome possible in Iraq. Whether we disengage next week or in 5 years the outcome will be the same. Events in Iraq will run their natural course no matter what we do.

I disagree. I am not a fatalist. There has been many an instance where there were those who started out by saying "resistance is futile..." and in the case of the Islamic extremists, I refuse to believe that or succumb to the allure of surrendering.

It's quite possible that in the end, Iran and Iraq will be joined in some way, because they're the only two predominantly Shiite states in the region.

Possible. But they do not necessarily have to be united as a terrorist state.


I truly fail to understand those who think we should not attempt this or that because it is doomed to failure, the cost is too high or it is too hard. I truly believe that mankind is far better than that!

[darin]

What is striking to me:

Liberals CHEER and PRAISE everybody and ANYBODY who supports MORE terrorism, indirectly, by calling for reduced troop capability/protections.

Conservatives Cheer and Priase everybody and ANYBODY who supports our troops not just with hollow words, but with their ACTIONS.

[GW in Ohio]

CSM: The American public has turned against the war. So have the politicians.

Without public support, there is no way to carry on this war. Even members of Bush's own party are jumping off the bandwagon.

Face it, it's over. The boy-king fucked up....big time.

[CSM]

CSM: The American public has turned against the war. So have the politicians.

Without public support, there is no way to carry on this war. Even members of Bush's own party are jumping off the bandwagon.

Face it, it's over. The boy-king fucked up....big time.

The American public has surrendered to the propaganda war of the terrorists and the MSM for their own personal political comfort. Americans truly are soft. They will deserve what they get if they dont see this through. The politicians are more interested in their personal gain than they are in doing whats right for this country and that means ALL the politicians.

It won't be over until the last soldier leaves Iraq.

[darin]

The American public has surrendered to the propaganda war of the terrorists and the MSM for their own personal political comfort. Americans truly are soft. They will deserve what they get if they dont see this through. The politicians are more interested in their personal gain than they are in doing whats right for this country and that means ALL the politicians.

It won't be over until the last soldier leaves Iraq.

Booya - exactly.

[GW in Ohio]

dmp and csm: I respect your soldierly attitude, guys.

I also understand that when you're in the middle of a shooting war, doubt and hesitation are bad because it could get you killed. I know that you have to grit your teeth and block out extraneous stuff and concentrate on the job at hand.

I'm trying to get you to step back for a minute and look at this Iraq thing with a more detached eye.

The mission was fucked from the start. The generals told Bush and Rummy we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had to do what they wanted to do. Bush and Rummy ignored that.

The mission was carried out based on flawed intel. There was enough doubt about that WMD stuff that this operation should never have gone forward.

Finally those idiots had no clue....no frickin' clue....what would happen once they deposed Saddam Hussein. But they should have known that the Shiite and Sunni elements would start going after one another once Saddam was deposed.

And now, you guys want to try and rescue this operation. But there's no way to save it. We need to cut our losses and get out. Bush is persisting with this effort because he wants to rescue his legacy (good luck on that one!).

Why the hell are you guys persisting? "Because we've already lost good people" is not a reason to continue with this mess.

[CSM]

dmp and csm: I respect your soldierly attitude, guys.

I also understand that when you're in the middle of a shooting war, doubt and hesitation are bad because it could get you killed. I know that you have to grit your teeth and block out extraneous stuff and concentrate on the job at hand.

I'm trying to get you to step back for a minute and look at this Iraq thing with a more detached eye.

What makes you think I haven't? Because we disagree does not mean I haven't examined the issue.

The mission was fucked from the start. The generals told Bush and Rummy we'd need at least twice as many troops as we had to do what they wanted to do. Bush and Rummy ignored that.

Truthfully, I agreed with Schinseki about troop strength.


The mission was carried out based on flawed intel. There was enough doubt about that WMD stuff that this operation should never have gone forward.

Strategically the intel may have been flawed but that wasn't determined until AFTER we comitted. Hindsight is always 20/20. "woulda, shoulda, coulda" after the fact is pointless. Tactically, the execution was pretty darned good. It didn't start getting chooched up until we as a people decided to fight a politically correct wart. Believe me the ROE today are very different from the ROE at the beginning.


Finally those idiots had no clue....no frickin' clue....what would happen once they deposed Saddam Hussein. But they should have known that the Shiite and Sunni elements would start going after one another once Saddam was deposed.

I disagree. I am not saying they didn't plan poorly, but I know for a fact (because I did have a small part in the planning) that such factors were taken into consideration. Again, hindsight is pointless.

And now, you guys want to try and rescue this operation. But there's no way to save it. We need to cut our losses and get out. Bush is persisting with this effort because he wants to rescue his legacy (good luck on that one!).

Totally disagree!!! By that logic, we should have pulled out of WWII right after we got our asses kicked at Kaserine Pass, or Anzio, or the Battle of the Bulge. If we listen to your logic, we should quit whenever the going gets tough and NEVER engage in any endeavor unless assured of success before we start.

Why the hell are you guys persisting? "Because we've already lost good people" is not a reason to continue with this mess.


Obviously, you are oversimplifying. There are some of us who do not believe the situation is hopeless; we do not believe that because something is difficult, we should no only quit, but never start in the first place. We do not believe that appeasement and surrender will make things better for the US.


There is a fundamental difference in psyche at work here.

[manu1959]

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Not to mention the fact that before he turned against the war, he was the neo-cons' pet dem (well, him and Lieberman). Thing is, I'm told the reason he started publicly opposing the way the war was being handled was because of his contacts in the Pentagon (and he had and has A LOT) practically begging him to take on Rumsfeld.


the pentagon didn't like rumsfeld because he wanted a special forces quick response army and the generals wanted a big army with toys .....

which army would you want?

[CSM]

the pentagon didn't like rumsfeld because he wanted a special forces quick response army and the generals wanted a big army with toys .....

which army would you want?

Asking a lib/Dem what kind of Army they want is like asking a person which form of leprosy do they want. Their answer, way down deep inside, is "None".

[manu1959]

Asking a lib/Dem what kind of Army they want is like asking a person which form of leprosy do they want. Their answer, way down deep inside, is "None".

fair enough, you are military, which type would you want?

[CSM]

fair enough, you are military, which type would you want?

Hard to say. Personally I think we need both. I have no doubt that what we used in taking Bahgdad's airport would not be sufficient to face the Chinese. On the other hand, I think nuking terrorist training camps is a bit of overkill.

What we really need is some of both on hand, an industrial/commercial base agile enough to produce both rather quickly and a civilian population willing and able to utilize and execute either. Unfortunately, we have none of the above.

[manu1959]

Hard to say. Personally I think we need both. I have no doubt that what we used in taking Bahgdad's airport would not be sufficient to face the Chinese. On the other hand, I think nuking terrorist training camps is a bit of overkill.

What we really need is some of both on hand, an industrial/commercial base agile enough to produce both rather quickly and a civilian population willing and able to utilize and execute either. Unfortunately, we have none of the above.

so was rumsfeld pushing the military in the right or wrong direction? as i understand it he was trying to create a more special forces military rather than the big lumbering WWII military and the old guard was pissed?

[The ClayTaurus]

the pentagon didn't like rumsfeld because he wanted a special forces quick response army and the generals wanted a big army with toys .....

which army would you want?Point is, we got neither.

[manu1959]

Point is, we got neither.

really....we don't don't have special forces or a conventional military?

then what do we have?....and tell me, why don't we have what you claim we don't have?

[CSM]

so was rumsfeld pushing the military in the right or wrong direction? as i understand it he was trying to create a more special forces military rather than the big lumbering WWII military and the old guard was pissed?

On the surface that is true, but Rumsfeld (and others) are pushing for more than that. The individual Services spend a lot of bucks duplicating efforts, developing the same capabilities and so forth. One of the things that is being attempted is to get dollars spent to the benefit of ALL the services where it is appropriate. Of course, once you do that, you are getting into individual "rice bowls" and some folks don't like that.

Another obvious thrust is to build a more agile military as a whole, lighter, more responsive but with enough punch to keep things from escalating beyond a certain point. Unfortunately, what that point is and what happens when you reach it is TBD.

Also, such a revamp in focus and thinking steps on a lot of toes. Besides fostering much debate, it creates a lot of animosity...always does when that much money is involved. That's why I take a lot of what the retired generals say with a grain of salt. Many of them have an axe togrind because their "pet rock" got dinged in the whole process.

[manu1959]

On the surface that is true, but Rumsfeld (and others) are pushing for more than that. The individual Services spend a lot of bucks duplicating efforts, developing the same capabilities and so forth. One of the things that is being attempted is to get dollars spent to the benefit of ALL the services where it is appropriate. Of course, once you do that, you are getting into individual "rice bowls" and some folks don't like that.

Another obvious thrust is to build a more agile military as a whole, lighter, more responsive but with enough punch to keep things from escalating beyond a certain point. Unfortunately, what that point is and what happens when you reach it is TBD.

Also, such a revamp in focus and thinking steps on a lot of toes. Besides fostering much debate, it creates a lot of animosity...always does when that much money is involved. That's why I take a lot of what the retired generals say with a grain of salt. Many of them have an axe togrind because their "pet rock" got dinged in the whole process.

csm,

thank you for your thoughts....our views of this matter are similar.

59

[The ClayTaurus]

really....we don't don't have special forces or a conventional military?

then what do we have?....and tell me, why don't we have what you claim we don't have?No no, I think we, as a country, have both. As far as assets in Iraq, however, there is some combination of the two.

[GW in Ohio]

Based on the responses in this thread, my conclusion is that some of you guys are kinda crazy.

But I like you just the same. I like your forthrightness and I respect the fact that you're veterans.

So I think I'll stick around this forum.

[CSM]

Based on the responses in this thread, my conclusion is that some of you guys are kinda crazy.

But I like you just the same. I like your forthrightness and I respect the fact that you're veterans.

So I think I'll stick around this forum.

S'ok....contrary to popular belief, we don't eat babies...they are way too mushy and the best you can do is make stew out of em.

Truly, we are mostly reasonable folk but some of us have small tolerance for obvious trolling ... heck I even LIKE some of the more liberal posters!