Democratic Coherency in Disarray... High Ground Lost
The Situation Room, with Wolfe Blitzer
June 14, 2006
Transcript:
Does she know anything? Are Democratic leaders even talking to each other? After this statement I think it's safe to say Ms. Pelosi has zero chance of becoming Speaker of the House, assuming Democrats retake the House, which is unlikely at this point.
From Meet The Press
June 11, 2006
Transcript:
Okay, let's compare:
Rove: Murtha:
Air conditioned office Air conditioned office
Bit, fat backside Big, fat backside
Paid by public taxpayer Paid by public taxpayer
"We're winning" "We're losing"
Impartial Determination:
Rove: Murtha:
Glass mostly full Glass mostly empty
Now let's talk consistency. Murtha has consistently, by his own admission advised presidents to run at the slightest provocation-- Beirut, and now Iraq. It's quite probably he advised the same about Somalia, but he didn't specifically say he advised president Clinton to run.
As for Reagan, it is all but impossible that Reagan felt "he couldn't win it." Not the President who stared down the Soviet Union, whose steadfast defiance of Communism brought down the Berlin wall, first, and the Evil Empire, second. I welcome any analysis that offers an alternative to Murtha's spurious claim.
As to Somalia, how many people out there, having seen the movie Black Hawk Down, and more importantly, paid attention to the news at the time, understands that the United States WON that battle? It was only when the body of one Marine was dragged through the streets that the President caved and decided the cost was not worth remaining in country.
And now, Murtha wants this President to do the same... Cut and Run. Just like we did in Vietnam, Just like we did in Somalia. John Murtha cannot see the superiority of America's fighting men and women. All he seems capable of seeing is blood, death, and American failure.
The fact is, we are winning. The left knows it, and it scares the dickens out of them-- How can they possibly win elections this fall if they have to campaign against American victory? They can't, and they know it. Hence, the burning need to paint America as the loser.
Final (Personal) Note--
Ann Coulter could have exercised a little more tact/diplomacy/restraint in her analysis of the Jersey Girls' political motives/fortunes/aspirations. But she isn't wrong in her larger point; namely, that Democrats and Liberals seem to delight in putting heroes and victims out in front, thinking that their actions and/or losses makes them invulnerable to counter-attack. This, of course is a false assumption. When the right strikes back, the Left expresses outrage, and it's all a sham-- feigned, deceitful outrage.
A war hero deserves every bit of respect his/er service, sacrifice, and medals have earned them, but the moment they enter the political arena and open their mouths to trash a political opponent, they open themselves to reciprocal attack. The same is true of widows, or bereaved mothers. Become a mouthpiece for any political party, Democrat or Republican, and you have lost the right to be respected solely for your loss.
If you swing a punch, it's reasonably assured one will be swung back at you. Only a fool expects to remain above the fray while swinging punches. The Left is really good at swinging punches, but they tend to cry like babies when the other guy lands a blow.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
June 14, 2006
Transcript:
BLITZER: Because that's what Murtha -- that's -- Murtha wants a redeployment over the next several months. John Kerry does.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't. But you're saying that Democrats and you are more in line with Murtha than with Senator Clinton.
PELOSI: Well, exactly. Yes, no, I don't think they're -- in the House, there isn't very much support. I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is. So, don't let me speak to that.
BLITZER: Well, she says it would be a mistake to have a timetable.
PELOSI: Yes.
Does she know anything? Are Democratic leaders even talking to each other? After this statement I think it's safe to say Ms. Pelosi has zero chance of becoming Speaker of the House, assuming Democrats retake the House, which is unlikely at this point.
From Meet The Press
June 11, 2006
Transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: [...] Karl Rove, the principal political adviser to the president, went to New Hampshire on Monday, and he talked about Democrats who voted for the war and who have now changed their opinion. Here’s what he had to say, and I’ll give you a chance to respond.
(Videotape, June 12, 2006):
MR. ROVE: Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles. They are wrong, and profoundly wrong, in their approach.
(End of videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Cutting and running.
REP. MURTHA: He's, he's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, "Stay the course." That's not a plan. I mean, this guy-I don't know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he's saying.
Now, let's, let's-give me, give you an example. When we went to Beirut, I, I said to President Reagan, "Get out." Now, the other day we were doing a debate, and they said, "Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run." We didn't cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn't win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, We have to, we have to change direction. Even with tax cuts. When we had a tax cut under Reagan, we then had a tax increase because he had to change direction. We need to change direction. We can't win a war like this.
This guy's sitting back there criticizing-political criticism, getting paid by the public taxpayer, and he's saying to us, "We're, we're winning this war, and they’re running." We got to change direction, that's what we have to do. You can't, you can't sit there in the air conditioned office and tell these troops they're carrying 70 pounds on their back inside these armored vessels and hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says "stay the course." Yeah, it's easy to say that from Washington, D.C.
Okay, let's compare:
Rove: Murtha:
Air conditioned office Air conditioned office
Bit, fat backside Big, fat backside
Paid by public taxpayer Paid by public taxpayer
"We're winning" "We're losing"
Impartial Determination:
Rove: Murtha:
Glass mostly full Glass mostly empty
Now let's talk consistency. Murtha has consistently, by his own admission advised presidents to run at the slightest provocation-- Beirut, and now Iraq. It's quite probably he advised the same about Somalia, but he didn't specifically say he advised president Clinton to run.
As for Reagan, it is all but impossible that Reagan felt "he couldn't win it." Not the President who stared down the Soviet Union, whose steadfast defiance of Communism brought down the Berlin wall, first, and the Evil Empire, second. I welcome any analysis that offers an alternative to Murtha's spurious claim.
As to Somalia, how many people out there, having seen the movie Black Hawk Down, and more importantly, paid attention to the news at the time, understands that the United States WON that battle? It was only when the body of one Marine was dragged through the streets that the President caved and decided the cost was not worth remaining in country.
And now, Murtha wants this President to do the same... Cut and Run. Just like we did in Vietnam, Just like we did in Somalia. John Murtha cannot see the superiority of America's fighting men and women. All he seems capable of seeing is blood, death, and American failure.
The fact is, we are winning. The left knows it, and it scares the dickens out of them-- How can they possibly win elections this fall if they have to campaign against American victory? They can't, and they know it. Hence, the burning need to paint America as the loser.
Final (Personal) Note--
Ann Coulter could have exercised a little more tact/diplomacy/restraint in her analysis of the Jersey Girls' political motives/fortunes/aspirations. But she isn't wrong in her larger point; namely, that Democrats and Liberals seem to delight in putting heroes and victims out in front, thinking that their actions and/or losses makes them invulnerable to counter-attack. This, of course is a false assumption. When the right strikes back, the Left expresses outrage, and it's all a sham-- feigned, deceitful outrage.
A war hero deserves every bit of respect his/er service, sacrifice, and medals have earned them, but the moment they enter the political arena and open their mouths to trash a political opponent, they open themselves to reciprocal attack. The same is true of widows, or bereaved mothers. Become a mouthpiece for any political party, Democrat or Republican, and you have lost the right to be respected solely for your loss.
If you swing a punch, it's reasonably assured one will be swung back at you. Only a fool expects to remain above the fray while swinging punches. The Left is really good at swinging punches, but they tend to cry like babies when the other guy lands a blow.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
from the mind of... Eric | 1:51 PM
8 Comments:
If Lt. Gen. George A. Custer had "cut and run," when he saw that, despite the fact that his guys were killing some Indians there was no to accomplish the mission, he would have lived to fight another day.
I'm just saying.
"Cut and run," as a sound bite, probably will turn around and bite the Repubs. It's a chickens--t thing to say, and the great unwashed middle in this country will eventually see it as such. The Right's political opponents in debate over this war of choice are fellow Americans. That is a fact. Of course, I refer to the war in Iraq, as distinguished from the legit war in Afghanistan and the imaginary "war" against terrorism (it's the misue of the word "war" there I'm talking about, not the very real fact that we have sworn enemies).
As for Murtha, he might be wrong. But he earned the right to speak, and to oppose, and to legislate, in Vietnam. Didn't he?
As for Rove, he is a wannabe historian -- and an incredibly effective politicker. That's all.
As a former Marine he's earned the right to speak. But as a politician with an opinion, his opinion is neither sacrosanct, nor unassailable.
If he chooses to swing punches, he is no longer above the fray. I think that's called "Fair Game"
Oh, I never considered Murtha above the fray. I think his opinion carries more weight than you do because it's informed by experience from the the boots up, not from the headbone down.
BTW, I think I got Custer's rank wrong. He was brevet general during the War Between the States. At Little Big Horn, I think he was a lieutenant colonel, not a light gen.
Murtha is no longer a spokesperson for the military. He's given up that right by putting our GIs in mortal danger with his politically motivated, irresponsible criticism .
I have a feeling he may not be back to congrees after this fall's election.
That's okay, ER, I doubt Custer cared much.
"If you swing a punch, it's reasonably assured one will be swung back at you. Only a fool expects to remain above the fray while swinging punches. The Left is really good at swinging punches, but they tend to cry like babies when the other guy lands a blow."--EL
Either cry like babies or call your mother a disgusting name!
Sorry, EL. I had trouble getting the link right.
You're actually comparing Marine Col(ret) John Murtha with a pasty-faced draft-dodger like Karl Rove? You need to approach reality there, son.
Let's compare. Murtha: Bronze Star (with Valor), two Purple Hearts, and Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. 37-year military career, 32-year Congressional career.
Rove: Umm... well... he's been a political advisor and a lying backstabber for most of his life. That about covers it.
(Oh, yeah, by the way, D.Daddio: 32 years in Congress. Maybe they're pretty happy with him in Pennsylvania. Whaddya think?)
As for Karl Rove, I've got no time for him. The man needs to reevaluate his life before he starts insulting people with more courage than he's ever shown.
The Nameless Cynic makes the gross assumption that valor gained (35 years in the past) is immutable and unchanging, and like gold, it never tarnishes... It never weakens or becomes brittle.
Murtha deserves respect for his less than 10 years of active duty, wherein he took part in both Korea and Vietnam, but the remainder of his career was spent in the Reserves. And there's nothing wrong with that... except for the fact that Bush served in the reserves as well, and he's villified almost universally by The Left. And, curiously, Clinton dodged the war altogether and is held up as a Paragon of Virtue-- Again, by The Left.
Having said all that, Murtha has changed. He has become weak. He has also flip-flopped on the Iraq War for no good, or sensible reason. He has lost the capacity for rational thought in regard to Iraq.
1) Pull our troops back to a staging area outside Iraq, on standby, in case they need to be swiftly re-inserted. To where? Murtha seems to like Okinawa. 5,000 miles away, and in a place where the marines are already clashing with the locals, and in the process of reducing their presense.
2) Pulling out of Iraq will make Iraq safer? I don't even need to counter this one, it's ridiculously, mind-numbingly idiotic.
3) Judging America's finest before ever seeing the final report, and denying these men their due process rights, all but convicting them in the media. Semper Fi, congressman. How did you ever manage to get elected, with such a poor grasp of individual rights as outlined in our founding document, the Constitution?
4) Declaring the greatest army the world has ever known incapable of winning a war in Iraq.
5) Balking at 2,500 U.S. Deaths but declaring his own honor in two wars wherein somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 U.S. men and women died.
Murtha may have served with honor 30 odd years ago, but his record has been quite tarnished by his own inexplicable, indefensible, and utterly dangerous rhetoric.
As for Karl Rove. He never claimed to serve. He doesn't trot out his non-existent medals like relics of forgotten honor. If anything, he's good at winning elections for Republicans, and THAT is the point of The Left's hatred of Rove. Not because he didn't serve, but because he's good at what he does, and also because The Left can't pin the Plame Affair on him.
What a bunch of sorry losers, The Left.
Apologies to one and all for that last statement; it was uncalled for, and quite un-Christian of me.
Post a Comment
<< Home