I came across this brief article from WJACTV.com…Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, one of the primary architects of the Leftist defeatism rhetoric will be offering his take on General David Petraeus’ Iraqi report.
“JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Rep. John Murtha will talk to the national press this week on his take on the Iraq report card.
Talking to Channel Six, Murtha is still holding firm in his belief that we cannot win this war in Iraq. Again, Murtha is calling for troop redeployment. He said he will use facts to combat what the administration is saying. Murtha will also continue to push for Iraq to make a move. He said they need to take responsibility for themselves.
Murtha will address the media on Monday.”
Does it really take a soothsayer to anticipate what Murtha will say?
Let’s review the good Congressman’s rhetoric from the past few years (notably within the confines of the Iraq War). I thought it would be interesting to discuss Murtha’s rhetoric and, like his Democratic brethren, his flip-flopping on the war.
First, Murtha voted for the October 10th, 2002 resolution that authorized the use of war against Iraq. Now, when one affirms this indisputable point, the Democrats always, without fail, retort that they were hoodwinked into voting for the war (i.e. the evidence was faulty). Yet, the Democrats were 1.) looking at the same evidence as the president; and 2.) President Clinton and Vice President Gore, as well as several intelligence agencies (foreign and domestic), believed Saddam to be developing a clandestine WMD program. THAT is the inconvenient truth to which the Democrats cannot answer.
Second, Murtha in 2005 argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated.
How do you change your view from 2005 to 2007 on the ramifications of removing our troops from the Iraqi theater? Regardless, the dangers of a withdrawal, precipitous or gradual, would be catastrophic. The Twin Cities Conservative has reviewed the consequences of an early exit ad nauseum.
Third, on November 17, 2005, Murtha stirred controversy when he implored the redeployment of our troops in Iraq. "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.” Later, Murtha stated that he would opt for redeployment rather than withdrawal.
Simply put, this sort of thinking is disingenuous at best, dangerous at worst. For example, in a Meet the Press interview, Murtha stated that it would be feasible to withdraw our forces to Okinawa: “We can go to Okinawa. We can redeploy there almost instantly.”
Supposedly, the Right took his comments out of context. Yet, if you read his next quote, Murtha knew exactly what he was saying. “We currently have a Marine division headquartered in Okinawa, thus logistics and existing facilities are already in place. Additionally, during the course of this war, Marines at the battalion level or lower have already been deployed from Okinawa to Iraq.”
Murtha, like so many on the Left believes Iraq is NOT part of the global war on terror. “I think they’re trying to get this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because we have united the Iraqis against us. We’re spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we’re involved in a civil war in Iraq.”
When will Democrats learn? The “jihadists” waging war against our forces in Iraq, like their Taliban brethren in Afghanistan, Jamel Islam in Indonesia/Malaysia, and sleeper cells in Hamburg and Madrid are fighting the West under the al Qaeda banner. When a Democratic presidential candidate for example, lectures the President for diverting attention from the war on terror, that is simply incorrect.
crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative