Posts Tagged ‘Jack Murtha’

Obama Keeps Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians

February 23, 2010

During the campaign, Obama attacked George Bush’s Afghanistan policy saying:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

So the question is, why is the man who demagogued George Bush for air-raiding villages and killing civilians air-raiding villages and killing civilians?

KABUL — American-led efforts to avert civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban suffered a new blow over the weekend when a NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed about two dozen civilians.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the head of coalition forces in Afghanistan, sought to contain outrage Monday for the attack by delivering a personal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He conceded, however, that the attack Sunday was likely to shake public confidence in his pledge to minimize civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

“We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives,” McChrystal’s statement said. “I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will redouble our efforts to regain that trust.”

Sunday’s airstrike was the second in a week to kill Afghan civilians. A week earlier, U.S. Marines killed 12 Afghans during the ongoing offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan.

Sunday’s strike hit a three-vehicle convoy of civilians in a remote part of the country. There were conflicting estimates of the death toll. The Afghan Council of Ministers said that 27 civilians — including four women and a child — had been killed, while the local police chief said 21 had died. Two others were missing, he said.

The fact of the matter, for all of Obama’s demagogic rhetoric, is that civilians deaths are up significantly in Afghanistan since Mr. “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” took over the war.

Obama owes Bush a profound apology.

Obama is killing more civilians than Bush ever did in spite of the most perverse and self-defeating rules of engagement ever to be used by any military in the history of warfare:

MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

Obama is so concerned with preventing the possibility of civilian deaths that he is displaying what amounts to depraved indifferent to our own warriors’ lives.

Which explains why American causalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled, and will keep going up and up and up.

There’s a part of me that says, “Hey, we should support our president at war.  We should recognize that the fog of war makes tragic outcomes unavoidable, but trust that our warriors and war planners are doing the very best they can.”

And then there’s that part of me that recognizes that Democrats never once considered any of that while they were tearing President Bush apart day after day while they gleefully demagogued the war and deliberately eroded public opinion and public support.

I remember Democrats like Jack Murtha – and Barack Obama – accused our soldiers of war crimes.  I remember Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “Now I believe this war is lost” while our troops were in the field fighting to secure the victory that those same Democrats are now hypocritically and despicably calling “this administration’s greatest achievement.”

I can’t be like the Democrats.  That would be utterly vile of me.

Unlike the Democrats, I actually want our troops to WIN:

July 30, 2007: [Democrat] “House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.”

Barack Obama: “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”  As opposed to Ronald Reagan’s view: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”

For the record, I have a dramatically different take on the Japanese surrender (Hirohito was not present; Obama is wrong as usual) to the United States.  I welcome it.  I liked it.  I’m thrilled we won and the Japanese lost.  I think the American victory over genuine totalitarian evil was a great thing.  I actually have the “audacity of hope” to WANT my country to win.

Crazy, I know.  Damned politically incorrect of me.

I support our troops.  I support their mission.  I support their courage and their dedication and their respect for the sanctity of civilian lives.

And unlike their current commander-in-chief, I always have.

A Time to Ponder: If US Attacked Again, Will We Still Favor Obama’s Dismantling Of Bush Safeguards?

September 11, 2009

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action.  Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack.  And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.  We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001.  Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

Democrat Jack Murtha denounced as war criminals and murderers Marines who were later proven to have been innocent.  Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  Democrats openly attacked Bush’s “surge” strategy that proved to be the difference in turning the war around and providing victory for the United States.  And Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Now I believe myself that this war is lost” even as our military was valiantly fighting on foreign soil to win.  Barack Obama joined Democrats in voting to defund the troops fighting overseas as a means of politically undermining George Bush.  Democrats denounced the credibility of General Petraeus even as liberals ran a New York Times ad entitled, “General Betray Us?”

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.”  Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.”  We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack.  Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays.  Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

As I reflect on the hours of that terrible day of 9/11, I remember Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets and holding up ‘V for Victory’ gestures.  I remember people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the skyscrapers rather than endure the heat that would have murdered them even more agonizingly.  I remember Democrats and Republicans arm-in-arm singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol Building – at least until Democrats determined to undermine virtually everything they had previously supported.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I just wonder what will happen if we are attacked again.  How will we respond?  What will we want?  How will we demand our president act?

Will Americans say, “We agree with President Obama.  Let us hasten our dismantling of our intelligence apparatus to show the world our good will.”  Or will there be a dramatic swing back to the strategy envisioned and implemented by former President George Bush, based on aggressively taking the fight to the enemy, remaining in those fights, and winning them?

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today.  Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming.  And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama?  Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation?  Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead?  Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack?  What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran.  Is such a country a threat?  Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them?  The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time.  One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  What do we want our president to do about it?  Everything?  Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.

Pennsylvanians Can Add “Racists” To Being “Bitter”

October 16, 2008
Democrats view of Western Pennsylvanians

Democrats' view of Western Pennsylvanians

We all remember Barack Obama’s description of Pennsylvanians to a group of wine-sipping pinky-in-the-air San Franciscans:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Well, apparently Pennsylvanians agree with that assesment; after all: the guy who so opined is well up in the polls there.  Pennsylvanians are poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freaks who are too stupid to tolerate anyone who isn’t similarly a poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freak like themselves.

Well, since Pennsylvanians don’t seem to mind being called all that, Rep. Jack Murtha – the “hero of Haditha” – decided to label them as “racists” too.

I mean, why not?

Murtha said:

“There’s no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” Murtha said. “The older population is more hesitant.”

Maybe he was just dotting the i’s, making sure Pennsylvanians – who clearly can’t be all that bright – understand that “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” is really just a wine-sipping pinky-in-the-air way of saying “racist.”

Congressman Jack Murtha is one of those human beings who is literally not worth his weight in pig poop, in my humble opinion.

But he stands in the fine tradition of Democratic politicians.

I don’t know, Pennsylvanians: at some point, I suppose I’d start to get really angry at the Democrats who keep raining piss down on you from lofty Mount Olympus.  I suppose you can prove them right by voting for them.

Tim Mahoney Affair, Democrat Hypocrisy, and Media Bias

October 14, 2008

I still remember the name of Florida Representative Mark Foley even after two years.  It’s like that line I heard over and over and over again from George Bush, Senior: “Read my lips: no new taxes.”  I still remember that one 16 years later without having to check out the accuracy of the quote.

Why do I remember that line so well?  Because it was played so many times by the media that I couldn’t get away from it.  President George Herbert Walker Bush had campaigned on holding the line on taxes, and the Democrat-controlled Congress subsequently forced him to break his promise if he wanted to accomplish anything during his administration.  And then they nailed him for it.

In the case of Mark Foley, the investigation just went on and on and on.  Democrats used the Foley story and the hoopla over Senator George Allen’s meaningless “macaca” slang to paint the Republicans as out-of-touch racist and pervert hypocrites.  And it worked pretty good.

You probably won’t remember the name “Tim Mahoney” in a couple of years.  You may well not even know about it now.  But that’s only because the same media that ginned the name of Mark Foley into a Republican witch hunt won’t do the same thing to Tim Mahoney even though he replaced Foley in the same West Palm Beach, Florida district and even though he did much, much worse.

Mahoney spent $121,000 of taxpayer money to keep an aide with whom he was sexually involved with from talking after she threatened to sue him.  Mark Foley, by the way, never actually had sex with anybody in the course of his sexual scandal.

Here is a partial transcript of the recorded exchange between Mahoney – who is married and who so self-righteously proclaimed that he would be better than the Republican he was replacing – and Patricia Allen:

MAHONEY: You’re fired. It’s correct. It’s what I believe. You’re fired. Do you hear me? Don’t tell me whether it’s correct or not.

ALLEN: Tell me why else I’m fired.

MAHONEY: There is no why else.

ALLEN: Yeah there is.

MAHONEY: No–just you’re fired because I said that you y’know … not the judge and the jury. Ok? You’re fired. D’you hear me? Call what’s her name in Anchorage, Alaska if you want to keep on thinkin’ like y’know that I’m not being fair or somehow this is a negotiation. This, this is not a negotiation. Ok? Y’know, you’re not in a position to negotiate with me on this. Ok? My position. Ok? You work at my pleasure. Do you understand what that means?

ALLEN: What does it mean?

MAHONEY: It means that you work at my pleasure. If you’re doing the job that I think that you should do, you get to keep your job. Whenever I don’t feel like you’re doing your job, then you lose your job. And guess what? The only person that matters is–guess who? Me. Do you understand that? Now this is how life really is. This is how it works.

“You work at my pleasure.  Do you understand what that means?”

It means that we Democrats can use our female staff like frivolous little sex toys, and even pay hush money with taxpayer money, and Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emmanuel will still come rushing to our defense.  You working at my pleasure means that you pleasure me.  And if you don’t like it, why don’t you give Sarah Palin a call.  Maybe she’ll care.  Democrats sure won’t.

That’s right.  Rahm Emmanuel and other senior Democrats have done their best to help Mahoney keep his seat:

Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign, the Mahoney staffers said.

ABC has at least run the story, though there’s little chance they will keep pounding away at it like they did with Mark Foley.  Who else has run the story?

Here’s a delicious bit of irony that underscores the sheer hypocrisy of Democrats.  Mahoney – that paradigm of virtue – was tasked to lead the way in the Democrats’ ethics reform package.

Republicans, and the kind of independents who vote for Republican candidates, are the kind of people who demand moral accountability.  When a Republican screws up, he’s usually gone pretty damn fast.  The media – and his own party – drive him out of office.  Not that that matters to the media, who continue to hound the matter as long as it is useful to their liberal friends in Congress.

If Mahoney were a Republican, we would hear the worst portions of the audio tape over and over and over again while we learned every new detail of the media investigation and any other investigation – slowly leaked out for the next three weeks to obtain maximum political damage.  And they would craft the narrative that the Republican Party degrades women and that the Party that nominated a woman for Vice President actually vilifies womens’ rights and self-respect.  But he isn’t a Republican; he’s a Democrat.

So the story will probably go the way of Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha, who falsely and repeatedly accused Marines in Haditha of war crimes who later turned out to be completely innocent.  Or Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, after FBI agents discovered $90,000 of bribe money found in his freezer.  Two years later, he is still serving, and Democrats will re-elect him for another term.  Or like Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who didn’t feel he needed to bother following the very tax laws he wrote for everyone else as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.  Or Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who not only assured the stock-buying public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be solid buys in the future just before the GSEs went belly up (Enron’s Ken Lay would have rotted in prison for doing the SAME THING had he not died first); but who also had an homosexual relationship with a Fannie Mae ececutive while he had oversight over Fannie Mae, and never bothered to disclose the relationship in spite of the clear conflict of interests.

Democrats – who routinely attack Republicans for much, much less – never seem to care about moral accountability.  And the media that hold Republicans’ feet to the fire for much, much less never seem to be willing to make them care.

Update: Mahoney has now been forced to acknoweldge other affairs, including at least one MORE case which appears to have had illegitimate or illegal finances.  Again, the real issue is the fact that 1) the Democratic Party leadership came to help this scumbag win reelection even though he’s lower than whale poop; and 2) the media demonstrates that it is a Goebbels-like propganda machine in its total hypocritical double standard over how it handled Mark Foley vs. Tim Mahoney given a sex scandal in the same district at the same time before an election.

How Can Liberals Justify Themselves Over Their Betrayals On Iraq?

August 15, 2008

I see these “Bush lied, people died” junk and want to vomit. Allow me to explain why.

In April 2003, more than three out of every four Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein. And by my accounting, quite a few of those Americans were Democrats.

On October 11, 2002, nearly 60% of Democrat Senators in the United States Senate voted to pass the Iraq War Resolution, NOT because “Bush lied,” but because they believed (rightly, given the circumstances) that it was the right thing to do. In the House, the vote was 296-133; in the Senate, the vote was 77-23.

CNN noted that:

The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”… The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president’s father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

We did not go to war lightly, or without earnest debate. But it was recognized that – in the face of a corrupt United Nations, with permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council preventing ANY meaningful resolution to force inspections on Saddam Hussein – that diplomacy had fully run its course. The question was whether we would permit a WMD-armed Iraq, or whether we would go to war to prevent it.

Contrast what we did in Iraq with what Russia recently did in Georgia. Did Vladimir Putin of Russia have the legitimacy of being able to point out that Georgia had violated seventeen U.N. Security Council resolutions? Or even one? No. But the United States could point to the 17 resolutions Iraq had violated. Did Russia spend over a year engaging both Georgia and the world prior to launching its military action, as the U.S. did regarding Iraq? No. Russia just invaded without talking to anybody. The fact of the matter is that the United States did not rush into anything, and it did not ignore either the rest of the world or every legitimate means of diplomacy. The people who would morally equivocate between the Unites States and countries like Russia are the very worst sort of moral idiots.

So how did we get to the lowest and meanest political cycle – with the war in Iraq being its central rallying cry – given this early support?

The people most responsible to honesty, decency, and love of country in their politics is our political leaders. How did leading Democrats view Iraq and the looming confrontation prior to the war?

Senator Hillary Clinton, urging the support of her fellow Senators for the Iraq War Resolution, said:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

The following quotes come from Freedom Agenda. Each is sourced.

Sen. John Kerry, the Demcratic candidate for president in 2004, said on Mar 17, 2003:

“It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.”

On May 3, 2003, Kerry said:

“I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”

John Edwards, who was on the Kerry Democratic ticket in 2004, and who finished a strong third among Democratic challengers for the 2008 nomination, said:

“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Dec 16, 1998, said:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

And on Nov 17, 2002 she said:

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

On Oct 10, 2002, she said:

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Howard Dean, former Democratic candidate for president and current Democratic National Committee chairman, said on Sep 29, 2002:

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we’re clearly going to have to do something about it.”

Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Oct 9, 2002 said:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

I defy any liberal or Democrat to look at these statements and many others from their own leadership, and then defend the remarks and positions that these very same Democrats would subsequently take.

The question that I and so many Republicans and conservatives have is this: how can the men and women who said these things, along with many other prominent Democrats who made similar pronouncements, turn not only against how the war was being conducted, but against the very grounds for the war itself? The former can be justified; but how can Democrats possibly justify the latter? How is this not the most cowardly and cynical act of betrayal?

How can you Democrats possibly be proud of Sen. Harry Reid, who said “I believe that this war is lost“? How can you possibly continue to support him?

How can you possibly NOT be ashamed of Rep. Jack Murtha, who tried and convicted in the press what we now know were innocent Marines of the most heinous war crimes in Haditha?

There is simply no possible way that Democrats can justify their post-war behavior in light of their pre-war positions. Post-war Democrats literally call their pre-war selves liars; pre-war Democrats literally call their post-war selves cowards and even traitors. Democrats condemn themselves by their own words.

If you can show me a worse example of cowardly political backstabbing in the modern era, I would welcome the comparison.