Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Washington Post has an interesting oped out about Murtha and his fellow Democrats:

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

Via Captains Quarters

The question I have is why are just now hearing about how ignorant Murtha is? He was not one bit smarter or competent before the midterms than he is now.


MeaninglessHotAir said...

Yes, the Democrats are the party of McGovern. No question about it. The difference is that, with the increasing wealth of the country, there are a lot more McGovern voters now than there were 35 years ago. The pro-American generation has almost died off.

I tend to think that Murtha, Pelosi et al. represent about 40% of the population. That's a substantial fraction that can't be ignored, yet is being completely ignored by the Republicans. But, they do not represent the majority they claim to represent. So, although they won the election by the usual political tricks of pointing out the Republican's ethical lapses and ignoring their own, they didn't really get the mandate they are pretending they did.

The problem for the Republicans is that you have roughly 40% of the population anti-war and anti-American, vs. a very fractious 60% who are very unwilling to unite, as their opposition is based on a wide variety of completely disconnected criteria, such as anti-abortion, libertarianism, close-the-borders isolationists, etc. It is pretty easy for the Democratic demagogues such as Hillary to shatter this coalition by adroit blows to, for example, Bush's border plan, or the New York ports issue. Then, riding on their 40% base they are home free.

terrye said...

I wonder sometimes who the pro American ones really are. I spend a lot of time with older people and they tend to be among the most anti war. They can not help but think how those resources could be used to help sick old Americans. I also think people become more isolationist the older they get. I am not sure, but I would bet polls bear this out.

I think some of the most proAmerican people I know are young people. The baby boomers are too busy trying to stand up de man {completely oblivious to the fact that they are de man} and the old just want some peace and quiet. The young tend to be more idealistic and more aware of how small the world has become and how easy it is for evil to travel.

I think the editorial is just one more example of the dawning realization of some of what could happen if these morons get their way.

chuck said...

I spend a lot of time with older people and they tend to be among the most anti war.

That's certainly true of my parents, but I don't think it is because they want more from the government, I think it is because they come from a time when the Democrats dominated politics and were the wave of the future. They are from the Age of Roosevelt.

Lately, I have noticed some slight changes in my dad. He is still a Bush hater, but he is also a Jewish convert I think he is starting to notice the anti-semitic strain on the left. And his wife is involved in education, no one can miss the decline in education or mistake it for a Republican production. So the result is that my dad is becoming unhappy all around and pessimistic about the future of the country. I don't think that is just because he is almost 88 and looking to retire in the next year or two.

David Thomson said...

"Yes, the Democrats are the party of McGovern."

Oh gosh, you beat me to the punch. The Democrats have embraced the McGovern era of the early 1970s---which lead to Richard Nixon destroying him in the general election by something like a 61%-48% margin.
The Republicans need Rudy Giuliani in 2008. He may be the only way able to united the "fractious 60%."

terrye said...


I don't think itis just about wanting free stuff, it is about getting to the end of your life and thinking people have forgotten you. They do not feel valued or important anymore. Not all by any means, there are exceptions, but when you face death every day just because you are old...when a great many of your friends and loved ones are already gone war seems like such a waste.

I can udnerstand that feeling, but sometimes you have to fight.

Was it Tolstoy who said, you may not be interested in war..but war is interested in you.

chuck said...

Was it Tolstoy...

Trotsky. Who had an article published in Life back in 1939*. Sometimes we forget just how prominant the left was back before the cold war. I don't think the present time is that anomalous.

*I get a kick out of the way Life promotes the article, "Joseph Stalin - Hitler's new friend is sized up by old foe Leon Trotsky." It's so American, so rah rah. Sounds like the run up to a football game.

Rick Ballard said...

A year later Stalin resolved his differences with his 'old foe' and lived happily ever after.

Trotsky was so overcome by the shock of receiving the gift of an ice ax from his 'old foe' (he immediately got the point) that he passed away the next day.

And that, children, is how progressives make peace.

Skookumchuk said...

Like I have said, it is going to be a long century.

terrye said...

Well I had the right country and the name started with the correct consonant anyway.

I think that old saying applies to more than just progressives. I think it is true. War is interested in you whether you like it or not.