November 19, 2005
Surrender, Hell: Neo-Copperhead's Embarrass A Hero
The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening.
Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn as quickly as possible.
Lets try to have a little bit of honestly, shall we?
Of course the call for a vote was politically calculated—so was Murtha's "surprise" call for a headlong retreat. Despite willful media amnesia, Murtha has been trying to back out, no in, no out of Iraq since 2002, well before the invasion. I'm thankful for Murtha's service to this nation's military, but to call him a pro-war "hawk" is like labeling a Pomeranian an attack dog. When it comes to position on Iraq, Murtha has more flip-flops than an Imelda Marcos/John Kerry timeshare.
The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat's last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.
But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.
Congressman Murtha's three decades of military service to his nation was whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party. It is sad, sad sight to see.
Update Fixed some grammar issues pointed out by those turkeys at Bright and Early that weren't quite as obvious when it was Tired and Late.
Update 2: Discriminations uses the deplorable tactic of actually looking at what Democrats said. Scum. Also, excellent points brought up by Real Clear Politics about the three that did vote for an immediate withdrawal: Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.
Update 3: History will look back at the Democrats as political opportunists using Rep. Murtha to make one last desperate bid to lose the Iraq War and retain some minor relevance . Unfortunately for them, the war plan is working and teh United States will start withdrawing troops in 2006 because we have won.
...whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party
They eat their own. Cheap political theatre is the only thing they know how to do (aside from rampant vote fraud of course)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2005 01:26 AMSo who were the three that voted FOR the pull out? I'm too lazy and tired to go look it up. I can take a wild guess, though.
Posted by: Alabama Improper at November 19, 2005 04:36 AMOne of the "traitorous 3" was my rep - Robert Wexler.
Wexler a scary "weapons grade crazy" moonbat. McKinney was another one
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2005 07:27 PMThe Republicans grew a spine, and embarrased the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery...
Oh, yes! I'm so glad to see Republicans grow a spine after the Harriet Miers mess. The only way the Republicans can win is by fighting back - not compromising or giving in.
Posted by: Rebekah at November 19, 2005 08:54 PMWhat is perfectly clear from this pos(t) is that you neither listened to Murtha nor read what he said. It was not a call for a "headlong retreat" which I'm guessing is your editorial position. He called for a redeployment based on weekly visits to Walter Reed Hospital and what he felt needed to be said. His resolution was his and his alone and he thought that, given its controversial call, he would not seek co-sponsors.Your echo chamber response can be read on any number of better, more thoughtful blogs. I really don't see the need for a puerile, pedestrian but that's never stopped anybody else;why not you. Enjoy your blogging, it'll keep you off the street,anyway.
Posted by: koolhand at November 20, 2005 05:46 PMIt was not a call for a "headlong retreat" which I'm guessing is your editorial position.koolhand, neither was Vietnam, at first. When the forces in-theatre had been shipped out to were we were considered weak enough, Charlie tore up the treaty and sacked South Vietnam. Without any actual government being recognized as run by those the late Steven Vincente referred to as "paramilitary death squads", there is not even that obstacle.
We could truly have "Peace with Honor", again.
Posted by: Jhn1 at November 20, 2005 10:38 PMKoolhand, you’ve been hitting the Kool-Aid, haven’t you?
Murtha has spent too many years in the Democratic caucus of the House. He has forgotten his military training. You do not defeat an enemy by withdrawing. You defeat an enemy by denying him the ability to mount offensive operations. If we withdraw, we permit al-Qaeda to establish logistics lines and accomplish unfettered replenishment of munitions. That makes absolutely no tactical sense whatsoever. Withdrawing now, even just across the border into Kuwait, would spell the necessity for many more American soldiers to die retaking what we have now. I’m not prepared to needlessly sacrifice more brave American heroes to these outdated dinosaurs’ party-correct rhetoric.
Murtha may be your Democratic Vietnam war hero poster child for the moment, but that does not make his comments and party line ideas infallible. I’m a Vietnam veteran with more than 30 years active service in the U.S. Army and I call BS on Murtha’s BS. The Democratic Party does something to emasculate their military heroes. Cases in point: John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wesley Clark and now John Murtha. Heroes all in their service to this nation, but when these guys spew the party line and it goes against national security (not to mention common sense) they render themselves inconsequential.
