AMEN! He is a worthless excuse of a human being.

Murtha specifically misrepresented the comments of Gen Peter Pace to say that Pace, Chairman of JCS, does not believe that we can win militarily in Iraq. Very specifically, what Pace actually said was that we alone cannot win but that it is a cooperative effort among the US, our coillition allies and the Iraqis.

Murtha is, and I do not use this lightly, a liar and deceiver of the most vile sort. He has crossed from holding a contrary opinion to advocating defeat of the US at the hands of the enemy during time of war. Shameful, vile, disgusting.

I really can't add anything other than to say it is very sad to see a former uniformed partiot turn on his ideals merely for political aspirations. I pitty John Murtha more than I loathe him. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame, because it is at the expense of once honored service.

My Marine friends are referring to Mustha as an ex-Marine. The meaning behind that label is this: one of the Corps mottos is, "Once a Marine, always a Marine." That applies to retirees and those who separated honorably. To be termed an ex-Marine is indeed an insult.

Old Soldier:

I really can't add anything other than to say it is very sad to see a former uniformed partiot turn on his ideals merely for political aspirations. I pitty John Murtha more than I loathe him. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame, because it is at the expense of once honored service.

That is about it in a nutshell, isn't it?

I find this to be a very sad moment in John Murtha's life. Apparent senility has clouded his mind and vision, and it has clouded the service of a once great patriot and hero.

It's time to fade away, John......

You should read today's story at PowerLine about the Marine who stood up to Moran and Murtha at yesterday's Town Hall Meeting. They had no idea how to answer him.

It is interesting, too, that a retired general officer stood up at that mutual masturbation celebration of Murtha, Moran and a croud of lefties and ripped Murtha and that idiot, Moran, new ones.

It's highlighted at Michelle Malkin's BLOG, and there is a downloadable vieo file available at General Wagner. It is a definite Must View and Listen.

"John Murtha worries that it looks like the United States might be victorious in Iraq, and that is an outcome that he does not desire."

No, that's not what he said. He said:

"I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment..."

The difference is obvious to me. He wishes to avoid the appearance of victory because that would be a false victory. What he would prefer is re-deployment of a force large enough to ensure victory. This is a disagreement over methods not ends.

Murtha was referring to redeployment of troops now in Iraq to points over the horizon, Brenda. One of the spots he cited, for example, was Okinawa!

How in the hell can any military force and all the combat gear and the logistical nightmare that would result be redeployed back into Iraq efficiently if needed? Have you ever been involved in such an undertaking?

Murtha said nothing whatsoever about a much larger force to ensure victory. Do you have some tea leaves that are not available to the rest of us?

Victory for the U.S. and coalition forces is to create an Iraqi fighting force and police force sufficient to enable Iraq to defend itself against what remains of the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even al Qaeda's number 2 man can see what a foolish old man Murtha has become, and he is capitalizing on that weakness in the American Congress and in the American resolve to finish the job we set out to accomplish. He just thumbed his nose at us again recently, trying to make some believe that al Qaeda has the upper hand. They will if we listen to the defeatist Donks.

Are you sure you're not Fat Bastard in disguise?

Consider this video clip of retired General Wagner at Ms. Malkin's site...

She's not, although I'm pleased that you would confuse rationality from someone else with my own, humble self.

Now, please, carry on with your de-regueur sliming of anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader...

Au contraire, Monsieur ....

It was precisely Brenda's lack of rationality and strategic insights in her support of Murtha's military wisdom and force management tactics that led me to conclude that she was really Fat Bastard in drag ... :-) :-)

I believe you meant de rigueur sliming, but that is of little consequence. Maybe you are not aware that there is a difference between sliming an individual and sliming a person's policies and professional acumen.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

BNI?

No I'm not someone else. I've never been here before. I was just taking the the quotes as presented and noting the logical inconsistancy. It didn't seem like a fair comparison when he appears to be saying something other than what the article claims he is. That's all.

"Victory for the U.S. and coalition forces is to create an Iraqi fighting force and police force..."

That isn't going to happen. The factions in Iraq have absoulutly no interest in forming a *national* military force. They *are* interested in protecting their own respective interests and territory though.

My understanding of Murtha's position is that he'd like the US to engage in the larger war against terrorism rather than the what we have been doing in Iraq. Which is based on the false premise that Iraq had *anything* at all to do with 9/11. It did not.

Goodness, Brenda, I am so humbled to be discussing Iraq and tribal positions and territory and such with such a renown expert in geopolitics:

That isn't going to happen. The factions in Iraq have absoulutly no interest in forming a *national* military force. They *are* interested in protecting their own respective interests and territory though.

Really? It isn't going to happen? I recall folks on your side saying that the elections and constitution and the selection of representatives were not going to happen either. News Flash! They did happen, didn't they? Gee, could the lefties possubly be wrong again?

Let's check these sentences, OK?

My understanding of Murtha's position is that he'd like the US to engage in the larger war against terrorism rather than the what we have been doing in Iraq. Which is based on the false premise that Iraq had *anything* at all to do with 9/11. It did not.

You refer to a broader war against terrorism, but at the same time you are willing to tie the President's and Department of Justice's hands by watering down the Patriot Act to the extent that it is meaningless, and you want to dampen the efficiency of the NSA surveillance operations against international al Qaeda communications with their operatives in the U.S. Doesn't sound much like a very serious war to me.

You also express absolute certainty that Saddam and his elite forces had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. How about the embassy bombings and the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the developments in the Sudan and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and on the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Are you willing to say, too, that Saddam was in no way involved with the training of some 8000 terrorists at three training camps in Iraq? The U.S. Forces have captured, translated and evaluated some 50,000 pages of captured photographs and documented information from Iraqi files to say that it is YOU that are dead wrong in making such bold and flawed assessments.

Stay tuned for the big hammer that falls on this urban legend of the lefties in the not-too-distant future, Brenda.