Murtha called it, the GOP howled, the Dems cowered

[tgnyc]

Given today's Zogby poll showing 72% of the troops want the US out of Iraq this year, it seems that Representative Murtha was, as had been surmised, speaking for the troops last year when he called for withdrawal to the surrounding area in six months.

The GOP made a fuss, because they knew in their hearts that he was right, but to admit so would have been to admit that they and their beloved leader were flat out wrong to have launched the war.

Half of the Democrats were muzzled for similarly having helped launch this fiasco. But the other half? Why did they leave Murtha just hanging out there like that? Pelosi finally stepped up to back him, but where was everybody else? When did they think would be the right time to leave? When everything in Iraq calmed down? When in the world did they expect that to happen? Last week's eruption in Iraq was manifest destiny. And because almost everybody in Congress ignored the fact that Murtha knew better than any of them how the troops felt, we are now forced to leave them in there in some morale-sapping and undefined face-saving role while the country collapses around them.

[EarlG]

1. Perhaps Rep. Jean Schmidt should go to Iraq

and tell those 72% of the troops that "cowards cut and run." I'd like to see that.

[blm]

6. She never will, but you can always make a "what if" cartoon of it anyway.

.

[blm]

7. hey, EarlG - Looks like Kerry read your post yesterday.

Fighting Democrats
by John Kerry
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:31:50 AM PDT

I'm glad to see what you've all done here to promote the "Fighting Dems" - veterans running for Congress. Over the last couple days, I've been reminded - just reading the news - why it matters that we change not just partisan control of Congress, but that we elect veterans to serve there. This Administration has a habit of treating veterans and members of the military as terrific backdrops for their speeches, but they don't listen to them about what they're seeing on the ground as they serve (witness the body armor ordeal,) they ignore the lessons military men and women learned in uniform (just ask General Shinseki,) and, judging by Bush policies they certainly don't pay any attention to their needs when they come home (they tolerate billion dollar shortfalls in veterans funding.)


I think electing Iraq war veterans in 2006 is the single most important thing we can do to change that. Here's why. Stars and Stripes reported that "Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year." Imagine that. No matter what you think the right course is in Iraq, what does it tell you that many American troops see that a long term, massive military presence in Iraq with no end in sight isn't the answer? In that article - which I hope everyone will read - the man who organized the survey makes an important point: "there are those in the U.S. who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying." That's what counts here. To hear the Administration and their Republican allies talk, anyone who has a different view than George Bush is lacking in patriotism and doesn't support the troops. Remember freshman GOP Congresswoman Jean Schmidt who invoked our troops in smearing Jack Murtha? I wonder what Jean Schmidt would have to say confronted by the informed and expert opinions of soldiers home from Iraq -- whatever they believe. The Republicans might just be forced to debate the merits of the issue! Talk about throwing a wrench into the partisan smear machine these Republicans rely on to stifle debate. That's why I want people like Jean Schmidt to have to stand face to face on the floor of Congress and be forced to debate a veteran who's been there. It will elevate the dialogue in our country, it will change the voices in the conversation.

That's what this is all about. Imagine if the voices of today's veterans weren't just reflected on the front page of Stars and Stripes, but in votes and voices on the floor of Congress. That's what I'm committed to getting done.

................

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/113150/0512

[Vincardog]

2. The other half were afraid of being labeled "Soft on TERRA" BSBSBSBSBSBSBS

That is such a load of BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS. Where the Suck is the opposition? Not to the "LEADERSHIP" Stand up and lead. People are dieing. The vast majority of the population does not believe in boy georges fantasy of Imperial AmeriKKKa.

[blm]

3. Not just Murtha - Feingold stated a timeline was needed last summer, then

Kerry went to Iraq in Sept. then crafted and submitted a withdrawal plan by the end of 2006, starting with significant drawdowns the day after the elections last Dec.

Murtha then came up in Nov. with a redeploy plan to outside borders of the region that he felt could be accomplished in an optimistic 6months.

The media ignored Kerry's plan completely and used the WH spin to define Murtha's plan as "cut and run"....the lies never stop.

[underpants]

4. 72% of the TROOPS???

:rofl:

[fooj]

5. Isn't that absolutely wild?

:smoke: