Thank you, Jason, for posting this article.

We cannot file this under "I support the troops, but not the war," because obviously Murtha no longer supports the troops either. It is so sad to see such a decorated ex-Marine go down the toilet by pulling the flush handle himself.

As far as I'm concerned John Murtha just joined the ranks of John Kerry.

Old Soldier | Email | Homepage | 01.03.06 - 6:02 pm | #

A decorated soldier weighs in on Murtha via the link below with much the same sentiments.
Thought you'd find it interesting.

http://www.wnd.com/news/ article....RTICLE_ID=47936

disunreconnected | Email | Homepage | 01.03.06 - 10:57 pm | #

Do you agree with every single war this country has ever fought? Even the stupid ones, like Viet Nam and the Spanish-American war?

It's possible to support the troops--the men and women themselves--without believing in the mission. Look, I love the Beatles, but I just didn't care for the Let it Be album.

Marie Antoinette | Email | Homepage | 01.03.06 - 11:02 pm | #

disunreconnected, (love that handle) thanks for the link. What a great letter. Everyone, especially the Democrats should read it.

Old Soldier | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 8:33 am | #

Marie, even if I don't agree with a military operation (like Bosnia), I don't disparage the troops while boots are on the ground. Constant badmouthing of their job does nothing positive for them. The liberals that are using this bogus "I support the troops but not the war" argument are the very same liberals that voted to authorize this war. It's politicians being politicians. Nothing more. They'd just as soon disband the entire military, or convert it into some big social experiment, than praise our brave men and women for doing their duty... a duty they volunteered to do.

Either you support them or you don't. Hedging is just bullshit.

Jason | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 9:42 am | #

That WND article was a keeper. Every paragraph is a gem, but especially:

"Funny how a man like Murtha – who made his career on detailing his heroism under fire – is the first to chip at away at my generation's valor."

"Stupid" wars Marie? Would you tell the million South Vietnamese who died after Democrats pulled the plug on supporting the S. Vietnamese government after Nixon brought our boys home and turned over the fight to them to just "eat cake?"

Mike's America | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 10:51 am | #

Marie, I'm surprised you found your head; obviously it is not the "right" head.

So, liberating a nation from a despot bent on genocide is stupid? Denying our espoused enemy
training grounds, recruitment pools and financial and logistical support is stupid? Vietnam was stupid? (That was a particularly bad choice since I served in Vietnam.) How about the First and Second World Wars, were they “stupid” as well, or were we justified in participating in those conflicts?

”It's possible to support the troops--the men and women themselves--without believing in the mission. Look, I love the Beatles, but I just didn't care for the Let it Be album.”

Is this kind of like, “Go Braves, I hope you lose the game, ‘cause I hate baseball?” You are trying to claim an attribute (supporting the troops) that you cannot possess if you oppose their mission (the war). That correlation defies logic. If you truly “support the troops” you truly want them to successfully complete their mission, not just come home alive. Believe me, the troops view this, “I support the troops, just not their mission,” as so much BS. They see the hallow claim for the empty rhetoric that it is. Just talk with a real Soldier and ask his/her take on the claim. Wait a minute, I was a real Soldier for 31 years; maybe I can answer the question…

Old Soldier | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 12:44 pm | #

But come on, John, you're not a "real" Soldier. I mean afterall, you haven't formed an antiwar group and admitted to war crimes or called for surrender yet. Until then, you're just a warmongering neocon who was duped into military service by overzealous recruiters.


ps: the Braves' analogy is the best one I've seen on the subject, I've been trying to hard to come up with one like that. Great job!

Jason | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 12:54 pm | #

Where in that reuters article that was linked in the post, does Murtha disparage the /troops themselves/? He says that Bush shouldn't have launched this war. He says that he himself wouldn't have signed up to fight this war. He's not criticising the troops, he's criticising the administration and its handling of this war.

What did you guys think about the recent poll showing that a little over half of our troops support Bush's Iraq policy? Are you now going to accuse the troops of not supporting the troops?

W/ regard to Old Soldier,

>Is this kind of like, "Go Braves, I hope you lose the game, 'cause I hate baseball?" You are trying to claim an attribute (supporting the troops) that you cannot possess if you oppose their mission (the war). That correlation defies logic. If you truly "support the troops" you truly want them to successfully complete their mission, not just come home alive.

Nothing would make me happier than a democratic Iraq. We want it to happen, we just don't think it's going to.

Marie Antoinette | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Great blog, also very interesting commentary. I have to agree with oldsoldier, there is no way to support the soldier without supporting the mission itself. "I support your hunting honey, I just don't want you to kill any animals".

stickman | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 3:39 pm | #

"Where in that reuters article that was linked in the post, does Murtha disparage the /troops themselves/?"

When he says that although he served for 37 years, he wouldn't stand beside current soldiers in service. I take it you think that gives current soldiers a nice warm, fuzzy positive feeling. He also disparaged them a month ago when he claimed they were "Broken" and "worn out".

"He says that Bush shouldn't have launched this war. He says that he himself wouldn't have signed up to fight this war. He's not criticising the troops, he's criticising the administration and its handling of this war."

He also voted FOR it. To now be calling it the "wrong" war while troops are on the ground (many on their second and third VOLUNTARY tours), in part, because of his congressional action, is disparaging and sad.

"What did you guys think about the recent poll showing that a little over half of our troops support Bush's Iraq policy? Are you now going to accuse the troops of not supporting the troops?"

You mean this poll from the Military Times, which "cautioned that its poll, of 1,215 active-duty servicemen, is not necessarily representative of the military as a whole."

Yeah, that's the poll I thought you were referring to. Now... you were saying?

"Nothing would make me happier than a democratic Iraq. We want it to happen, we just don't think it's going to."

So let me get this straight. You want a democratic Iraq, but don't have faith in our military to help make that happen. And to help achieve the goal you claim would make you "happier" you simply call for our troops to cut and run, thereby guaranteeing that what you'd "like to see" will never happen. Now there's one helluva plan.

Jason | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 4:07 pm | #

”Where in that reuters article that was linked in the post, does Murtha disparage the /troops themselves/?”

How about:
"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

"No," replied Murtha…

"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.

"Exactly right," said Murtha…”

Now to an old warhorse like myself, that says Murtha would not stand beside the troops today to engage in their mission (were he able) and anyone who doesn’t want to join up is justified in not doing so. He’s also claimed the services are “broken.” To the troops who actually comprise the services, that means them.

As Jason pointed out, Murtha actually voted for the war before he started preaching surrender. He actually voted to fund the war before he said it was a wrong war. Murtha is certainly free to express anything he wants to; but he is not free FROM the consequences of that free speech. That’s something the left has a very difficult time grasping – taking responsibility for actions. I also expect politicians to place the country above the party (both parties). IMHO Murtha has placed the party above the country and I cannot abide that from someone who is supposed to be a “statesman.” Irregardless of his past service in the Corps, as a statesman he has let his country and president down by giving the enemy poster material (just visit al Jezeera).

”What did you guys think about the recent poll showing that a little over half of our troops support Bush's Iraq policy? Are you now going to accuse the troops of not supporting the troops?”

Remember, that survey was taken directly after a 3-month blitzkrieg by the MSM and DNC bashing the president on everything imaginable; especially the war. Do you think those negatives have no effect on the troops? As a Vietnam vet I can unequivocally state the negative press definitely has an effect on the troops (and their morale). It was also taken just before the president started firing back with his speeches. Do you think the same results would be repeated today? I certainly think not.

Marie, Murtha was plain wrong for what he did, so please stop trying to justify it with weak disjointed arguments.

Old Soldier | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 5:58 pm | #

I read the poll with disbelief. I do NOT believe it. I am an Army wife of an active duty soldier who served a year in Baghdad (mostly, after kicking Baathist butt from Kuwait up through the southern Iraqi cities). I live on post now. At Ft. Bragg we also lived on post. We are around soldiers 24/7. Our best friends are soldiers and their wives. The vast majority do indeed support Operation Iraqi Freedom and the policy.

U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Opting to Re-enlist By the Thousands:
http://www.aina.org/news/ 2005122...51225123724.htm

Recruiting and reenlistments are up in every branch:
http://www.defenselink.mil/relea...51110- 5089.html

So why are soldiers reuping in Iraq by the thousands (I personally know many who have, incluidng my husband in Baghdad) if they disapprove of the policy in Iraq?

They reenlist for Iraq because they are there, on the ground (unlike Murtha and the politicians) and see the progress. It is so inspiring to them that they reenlisting even though that means more time away from family and country.

Amy Proctor | Email | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 8:03 pm | #

yes, marie, let's look at the poll. Oops.

Hector | Email | Homepage | 01.05.06 - 1:10 am | #

I GOT IT!

Okay, class, here's the poll:
http://www.militarycity.com/ poll...2005_chart2.php

Here's the question in dispute:
10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve
54%
Disapprove
25%
No opinion
9%
Decline to answer
12%

Aw, so only 54% approve of how the President is handling Iraq? Check out the percentage of troopss questioned who've actually BEEN to Iraq:

3) How many times have you deployed to Iraq?
Once
31%

Twice
11%

Three times
2%

More than three times
0%

Never/no response
53%

So 54% approve of the President's handling of Iraq but yet 53% of them haven't even been in Iraq!

What this means is that the guys who are actually there, actually seeing the progress and actually doing the work of making Iraq free, they support the President by far greater a margin than a piddly 54%!

Again, you gotta do the whole math problem. The 46% who disapproves hasn't even been there!

Amy Proctor | Email | Homepage | 01.05.06 - 12:17 pm | #