Murtha's Big Waves

With all of the news coverages surrounding Representative John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), someone must be wondering who is John Murtha? As an avid follower of national politics, I must admit that I have never heard of Congressman Murtha before last Thursday when he became the darling of the liberal media. Following a little internet research, one of the most interesting facts to come to light is Murtha's support of Howard Dean for the DNC chairmanship. In an article posted at Red State, Captain Toke asks if Murtha is going the way of Jimmy Carter.

"The media wants to portray Murtha as a war veteran, centrist who is now against the war. I don't know of any centrist Democrats who endorsed Howard Dean for DNC chairman. I think like many of his aged, Democratic brethren, Murtha is drifting further and further to the left. One would figure that an old school war veteran would go the way of Zell Miller, not the way of Jimmy Carter. And as a Vietnam vet, I would figure he would be a little more hesitant and thoughtful about letting his party exploit a war for political gain. Any intellectually honest person can look at this current partisan battle over pre-war intelligence and can see the Democrats hypocrisy and exploitation of the war."

Representative Murtha attempted on Friday night to redefine his position which is still posted on his congressional website today. His statement included the following words: My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Is there anyone who believes that his choice of the word "redeploy" means anything other than the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Murtha chose his own weasel words, and then had to eat them when congressional Republicans called his bluff.

Murtha's criticism of the war has a history that began prior to last Thursday. According to an article posted at CNN, Murtha had significant problems with the war as of May 10, 2004. In a joint appearance with Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Murtha described the war as "unwinnable." Further, Murtha went on to state his case more forcefully, "We cannot prevail in this war with the policy we have today. We need to mobilize or get out," he said." It would be devastating to pull out now, but it may be impossible to mobilize now that the public has turned against it," Murtha stated. Despite these strong statements from nearly two years ago, the liberal media has attempted to portray "road to Damascus" conversion just last Thursday. By appearing with Pelosi two years ago, Murtha was establishing left-wing credentials ignored by many. This evidence of the real John Murtha confirms my conjecture stated Friday night.

Murtha's lack of support for the war goes back further to September 2003. In a New York Times article, Representative Murtha heavily criticized the war and President Bush. Democrat Minority leader Nancy Pelosi joined Murtha and called for resignations of the entire administration Defense Team. In an interview the following day on HardBall with Chris Matthews, Murtha made a strident case against the war, "Well, I certainly feel misled by myself. I mean, I'm not blaming anybody else because I saw all the intelligence reports. All of them indicated we had imminent danger. Obviously, we made a mistake. I made a mistake. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. We didn't find any nuclear weapons. We didn't find any al Qaeda." There are many other colorful quotes in this post at News Busters. It is clear that Mr. Murtha has been a strong critic of the war for more than two years.

Brent Baker has a great post showing Bill Schneider on CNN calling Murtha the "Walter Cronkite" of this war. WOW! The liberal media picked up on this liberal propaganda immediately. They loved it! And now, they have their own Walter Cronkite to parrot their treasonous charges.

Furthermore, John Murtha appeared on HardBall on Friday, and made statements that were factually incorrect. There are many voices who say that they can no longer defend him. A full transcript of the interview reveals the bias, half-truths, innuendo, and partisanship so regularly demonstrated by Mr. Matthews.

Finally, this brilliant article by Bill Kristol sums up Representative Murtha's lack of insight and intellectual integrity and his outright irresponsible behavior this past week. On Fox News Sunday, Mr. Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, called for an imperical debate regarding the US Military presence in Iraq. Kristol says that it is preposterous to suggest that the presence of US troops is the foundation of the unstable conditions in Iraq. Kristol asks the question, "would Iraq be better off without the presence of US troops?" Let's have that debate, as the House of Representatives did on Friday night, and even Congressman Murtha did not vote to withdraw the troops immediately.

But that would be just the beginning. If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the Iraqi people were not able to defeat the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, what would happen? What if Zarqawi and his al Qaeda allies were able to make common cause with the Baathists to turn Iraq into a terrorist state or to provide a haven for terrorists, complete with an oil supply to finance their global activities? And what of Iraq's neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? They would likely decide that they could not afford to let a vacuum develop in Iraq or allow their adversaries to establish a base there. All these nations would contemplate military intervention in Iraq, directly or indirectly through the arming of allies. The possibility of a regional conflict erupting among any or all of these powers could not be excluded. Is this is a tolerable outcome for the United States?

In fact, Murtha does seem to be aware of the disasters that are almost certain to follow the immediate withdrawal he demands. He calls for the creation of "a quick reaction force in the region." He calls for "an over-the-horizon presence of Marines." And he calls for the United States "to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." We have too much respect for Murtha to believe that he seriously imagines we would be able through diplomacy alone to bring "security and stability" to Iraq. But the question is, when the inevitable disaster unfolded as a result of his proposed withdrawal, what would be his plan for the "quick reaction force" and "over-the-horizon presence" of the Marines? It seems he would have us withdraw our forces, hand a monumental moral, political, and military victory to the terrorists in Iraq and all over the world--only to take us back into war when the inevitable disaster began to unfold.

Check out Ian's Schwartz's video of Murtha on Meet The Depressed.