NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Congressman John Murtha may indeed have been in Vietnam, but he sure forgot the leassons he should have learned while there. Either that or he never learned them in the first place. Congressman Sam Johnson set the record straight and took Murtha to the woodshed.


GOP Congressman and Former POW
Rips John Murtha (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200602/POL20060210a.html)


By Sherrie Gossett
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 10, 2006

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Amid cheers, whistles and two standing ovations, U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) took fellow Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.) and the U.S. media behind the proverbial woodshed for a verbal walloping.

"Most of you know, at the end of last year, a liberal congressman from Pennsylvania insisted we immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq," Johnson told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. "When I heard this, it made my blood boil."

Johnson was referring to Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who has been quoted as saying that the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and may not be able to meet future military threats to the nation.

"It hurt to think what the men and women in harm's way would believe when they heard the news that someone in Congress was not behind America's mission," Johnson said. "It hurt to think what the military families here at home would believe when they learned that people in Washington did not support the troops. And it hurt me to think that some people would just give up on our men and women in uniform.

"What would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out?" Johnson asked. "What would Iraq be like if we left and allowed dangerous people like the head of al Qaeda, (Abu Musab al-)Zarqawi, to run the country?"

Johnson, without naming Murtha, compared criticism of the war and demands for withdrawal with his own experience during the Vietnam War. A 29-year Air Force veteran and highly decorated pilot, Johnson fought in both the Koran and Vietnam wars. After being shot down over North Vietnam, Johnson spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, half of that in solitary confinement.

"I do know what it's like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life and hearing that America doesn't care about you," Johnson said, choking back tears. [ As do I, and it's not pretty at all! ]

"[Hearing] your Congress doesn't care about you. Your Congress just cut off all funding for your war. They're packing up and going home and leaving you." Johnson added he was "scared to death" by such talk because years ago, he was afraid he would be left in Vietnam "forever."

"I know what it does to the mission," said Johnson, "and so help me God, I will never, ever let our nation make those mistakes again."

Johnson told the packed hall that Congress needs to give U.S. troops "the tools for ultimate success," including "the best armored trucks they can drive, the best weapons they can fire, and the best ammunition they can use."

The troops need something else though, Johnson said -- "[F]ull faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry." Knowing they are fully supported by Congress, is "mandatory for mission success and troop morale," Johnson argued.

"Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now or political timelines just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field."

Johnson accused the U.S. media of predicting "gloom and doom" and ignoring or giving inadequate coverage to successes in Iraq. "What makes me angry at the critics is that we are making great progress in Iraq," said Johnson. He listed last January's election in Iraq and the December vote on the Iraqi Constitution.

"Remember the December vote on the constitution," Johnson asked, "when people came out in droves to make their voice heard? You wouldn't have known about it because there was so little mention of it here in the American press."

Johnson also connected the Iraq mission to both 9/11 and the wider war on terror. "We were attacked. We are at war against terrorists. We need to stay there for as long as it takes if we want democracy to take root in tyranny's back yard."

The Republican congressman picked up an earlier theme from President Bush's second presidential campaign: "We must fight the bad guys over there, not over here."

Johnson told the crowd that there are confirmed reports of al Qaeda cells "plotting here on U.S. soil."

"What part of al Qaeda do you want operating here in America?" he asked.

Insisting withdrawal was not an option, Johnson called criticism of the war "Democratic nonsense" and compared it to the "peaceniks and people in Congress and America" who "started saying bad things about what was going on [in Vietnam].

"The people of Iraq are thirsting for something more. They are risking their lives in the name of a new government. We must stay the course if we want to foster a stable Iraq and create hope for millions in the Middle East," Johnson said.

Last November Murtha told reporters, "It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering; the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised," Murtha added, according to the A.P. report on his comments. "It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.

Last December the Associated Press also reported that Murtha, who is the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, predicted President Bush would "make it look like we're 'staying the course'" but that troops would be "withdrawn within a year anyway."

They called Murtha a liberal--that's all I needed to read to know they were full of shit.

The linked article appears to be from a 'conservative news' source, does not provide equal representation of both sides of the debate and appears to conflate supporting the war with supporting the troops.

In other words, it is more of an editorial than actual journalism.

"Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now or political timelines just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field."


Remember, kids, dissent is bad. It helps our enemies.

Ahh yes, more CONservative blustering and posturing. That this article is from a CONservative source is no surprise. The republican party is still stuck in the 80s, style over subastance. Talk big, and then cry like a bitch when you get caught (anyone remember Randy "Duke" Cunningham?). But, I think people are starting to get that Repo talk is cheaper than ever.

Good (and by that I mean bad) luck in '06... Douchebags.

Somebody call the Thought Police...

The linked article appears to be from a 'conservative news' source, does not provide equal representation of both sides of the debate and appears to conflate supporting the war with supporting the troops.

In other words, it is more of an editorial than actual journalism.
I disagree. It seems like fairly straight-forward journalism to me. ( shrug )

Remember, kids, dissent is bad. It helps our enemies.
Hmm. Strange, I thought he was protesting idiocy, not "dissent." Interesting how divergent the interpretations are for the very same article. Perhaps it's the old "depends upon whose ox is being gored" sort of thing. :)

HaHaHaHaHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1

Oh dear me - that is some FUNNY SHIT!

I especially loved the bit you bolded Eutrusca:

"I do know what it's like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life and hearing that America doesn't care about you," Johnson said, choking back tears. [ As do I, and it's not pretty at all! ]

"[Hearing] your Congress doesn't care about you. Your Congress just cut off all funding for your war. They're packing up and going home and leaving you." Johnson added he was "scared to death" by such talk because years ago, he was afraid he would be left in Vietnam "forever."



Right.


That's EXACTLY what Murtha has suggested. Cutting the war funding and telling all the troops that they have to find their own way home. Perhaps handing each one a map and handy "how to hitch-hike through the middle east on $1/day" brochures!

And you're BUYING this baloney Eutrusca?

You actuall call that "taking someone to the woodshed"?

Taking himself to the woodshed and dancing naked on the roof singing "How sweet to be an idiot" to himself perhaps.


But that's about it!



Thanks for the laugh though. I needed that today.

Ahh yes, more CONservative blustering and posturing. That this article is from a CONservative source is no surprise. The republican party is still stuck in the 80s, style over subastance. Talk big, and then cry like a bitch when you get caught (anyone remember Randy "Duke" Cunningham?). But, I think people are starting to get that Repo talk is cheaper than ever.

Good (and by that I mean bad) luck in '06... Douchebags.
Of course you have SO much better a handle on that than a highly decorated former POW, yes? [ kowtows to your obvious wisdom ] :rolleyes:

HaHaHaHaHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1

Oh dear me - that is some FUNNY SHIT!

I especially loved the bit you bolded Eutrusca:

Right.

That's EXACTLY what Murtha has suggested. Cutting the war funding and telling all the troops that they have to find their own way home. Perhaps handing each one a map and handy "how to hitch-hike through the middle east on $1/day" brochures!

And you're BUYING this baloney Eutrusca?

You actuall call that "taking someone to the woodshed"?

Taking himself to the woodshed and dancing naked on the roof singing "How sweet to be an idiot" to himself perhaps.

But that's about it!

Thanks for the laugh though. I needed that today.
As I have stated before, you chose your nickname far more wisely than you knew. Can you say "more disengenuous horse-hockey from Silliopolous," boys and girls?

Congressman Sam Johnson set the record straight

or makes some shit up. i always get those two confused.

Somebody call the Thought Police...
Awww! Did someone take your cookie, little person? Tsk! I'm so sorry your right to think was revoked. Perhaps you can get it back someday, although I have serious doubts. :D

or makes some shit up. i always get those two confused.
It's that reality-challenged ideology of yours! [ nods ]

it is john murthas job as a member of congress to evaluate our participation in the occupation of iraq. he is obligated to make sure we dont waste the lives our our men and women who are deployed there. it is his job to make sure we dont make the situation in iraq worse by continuing to stay there past our time.

too bad the rest of congress doesnt have the balls that john murtha has to stand up and say what he really believes. there is no sense just parroting the presidents postions. congress needs to think on its OWN. they are the check to the executive branch going the wrong way. if they dont, who will?

you dont need to agree with john murtha. he has a point of view. but to suggest that he is unpatriotic or anti-military because his opinion differs from that of the bush administration is sickening. its what is wrong with politics today. there is no acknowlegement that people can disagree on an issue. its either you are with me or you are evil. thats just wrong.

As I have stated before, you chose your nickname far more wisely than you knew. Can you say "more disengenuous horse-hockey from Silliopolous," boys and girls?


Hey - you're the one who brought the article and bolded the section.

Now how about you find some support for his spurious notion that ANY member of congress, democrat or republican has suggested:

1) Ending the war by de-funding it.
2) That Congress doesn't care about the troops.
3) That troops will be abandoned to their fate in IRaq.

Murtha at least put strategic context around his reasons for troop withdrawl. This person has naught but overblown and patently false rhetoric to offer.

And clearly we have an understanding of which of those appeals to you: blowhards over substance it seems.

[ kowtows to your obvious wisdom ]

Wonderful! I was wondering how long it was going to take you to come around :D Maybe you'll stop being such a dick in the future. Or at least you'll stop dissing congressional vets with a "D" in front of their name while calling yourself a liberatarian (which you only use as a club when people call you out for your obvious CONman leanings)

I disagree. It seems like fairly straight-forward journalism to me. ( shrug )
And we all know how your opinion of straight-forward gets skewed when it comes to something involving criticism of the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. You've admitted it before, Eutrusca--you have a bias that you have no wish to overcome, so you don't even attempt it. Any criticism of the way the war is handled equals a bashing of the troops in your eyes, and goddamnit you won't have any of it. Well guess what, Eutrusca. Murtha wasn't bashing the troops. He was bashing the leadership, and they deserve it. That you can't see the difference is evidence of your bias.

It's that reality-challenged ideology of yours! [ nods ]

honest question - don't you ever tire of being shown that you are being used as a patsy by these people?

Because you can only support the troops if you think they should remain in danger of getting killed daily.

Silly Americans, with their silly politics :p :p

*don't hurt me*:eek:

Eut, when are you going to learn that you're just pounding sand trying to get these guys to appreciate an alternate position? They've heard all they need to hear and all they're going to hear.

Eut, when are you going to learn that you're just pounding sand trying to get these guys to appreciate an alternate position? They've heard all they need to hear and all they're going to hear.

Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

Maybe some people don't like the idea of the kids getting killed for Shrubbys personal vendettas.

Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

Maybe some people don't like the idea of the kids getting killed for Shrubbys personal vendettas.
I think you missed the point of the quoted article. But that doesn't surprise me much.

Eut, when are you going to learn that you're just pounding sand trying to get these guys to appreciate an alternate position? They've heard all they need to hear and all they're going to hear.

Oh, the irony...

Eut, when are you going to learn that you're just pounding sand trying to get these guys to appreciate an alternate position? They've heard all they need to hear and all they're going to hear.

If you'll pay attention, you'll see that people are taking issue with Eut not being able to appreciate an alternate position, nor is Johnson in the story Eut posted who is supposedly spanking Murtha by staing complete falshoods.

I think you missed the point of the quoted article. But that doesn't surprise me much.

Ahhh to quote Fass: Oh the irony.....

God I hate both sides in this debate sooo much.

Democrats - We should pull out of Iraq. Everything will be better then (bad plan)
Republicans - You see! Democrats are pussies who hate the troops! (obnoxious, inflammatory insult)
Democrats - Oh yea, well this war is just about oil! (beating a dead horse of a talking point)
Republicans - Bull. This war was to disarm a madman. (patently false bullshit)
Democrats - But he didn't have WMDs. (pretty true)
Republicans - Well, pretty much all of you voted for the war (sadly the truth)
Democrats - Bush lied to us. We've changed our minds now. (funny how no one questioned Bush's facts or this damned war until the polls showed it to be a wise course of action)
Republicans - Bush didn't lie. He did the best he could with the information he had. (And it's not a tad scary that the information he had was 100% wrong...?)
Democrats - Well maybe he should do the best with the info he has NOW and realize that we should bring the troops home. We simply can't continue this war, and Iraq will be fine without us.
Republicans - You see! Democrats are pussies who hate the troops!
*ad infinium*

The two parties suck so much wang... it makes me want a multi-party system quite badly.

The two parties suck so much wang... it makes me want a multi-party system quite badly.

Problem is that the alternatives are hardly worthwhile. The party name would change but then it would be back to the same ol same ol.....

The linked article appears to be from a 'conservative news' source, does not provide equal representation of both sides of the debate and appears to conflate supporting the war with supporting the troops.

In other words, it is more of an editorial than actual journalism.

meh. don't complain about equal representation - complain that it reported statements that are easily shown to be false without mentioning that fact.

balance is stupid. truth is what matters.

meh. don't complain about equal representation - complain that it reported statements that are easily shown to be false without mentioning that fact.

balance is stupid. truth is what matters.

True. Thank you.

Where's Eut??

Don't tell me he ditched already. Man, I'm getting tired of these people pulling a "cut-and-run" from their own threads. Oh well. :p

The linked article appears to be from a 'conservative news' source, does not provide equal representation of both sides of the debate and appears to conflate supporting the war with supporting the troops.

In other words, it is more of an editorial than actual journalism.

Hmm. So when the press put out Murtha's statement, with no opposing side of the debate, that was fair.

I see. It's only unfair when the Republicans do what the Democrats have already done.

Way to silence your critics, Murtha.

Hmm. So when the press put out Murtha's statement, with no opposing side of the debate, that was fair.

I see. It's only unfair when the Republicans do what the Democrats have already done.

Way to silence your critics, Murtha.

The baton is passed!

:confused: How is what this guy said "debate"? It's nothing but inflamitory garbage.

The baton is passed!

:confused: How is what this guy said "debate"? It's nothing but inflamitory garbage.

So was Murtha's original statement.

If you take Murtha's original statement, and then include this recent rebuttal, it's at least a give and take.

Hmm. So when the press put out Murtha's statement, with no opposing side of the debate, that was fair.

I see. It's only unfair when the Republicans do what the Democrats have already done.

Way to silence your critics, Murtha.
Gee, when I saw Murtha's statement, it was immediately followed up by "analysis" from either Mehlman or Bartlett (can't remember exactly which one) and someone from the American Enterprise Institute. But that's not an opposing side, I guess. Are you even trying anymore?

Hmm. So when the press put out Murtha's statement, with no opposing side of the debate, that was fair.

I see. It's only unfair when the Republicans do what the Democrats have already done.

Way to silence your critics, Murtha.

Well, it would appear that Rep. Murtha made the comments in late november last year. Therefore, it would have been impossible to include Mr. Johnson's rebuttal at the time, as he had yet to comment. However, other people criticised Mr. Murtha's statement at the time.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051201-114744-1406r.htm

My issue is that the article quoted by Eutrusca is more of an editorial than a jounalistic article, not whether or not Republicans or Democrats are being unfair.

Gee, when I saw Murtha's statement, it was immediately followed up by "analysis" from either Mehlman or Bartlett (can't remember exactly which one) and someone from the American Enterprise Institute. But that's not an opposing side, I guess. Are you even trying anymore?

And now it's this person's turn. Or are you saying that only one or two people should attempt to argue against Murtha's position?

And now it's this person's turn. Or are you saying that only one or two people should attempt to argue against Murtha's position?
Nope, simply pointing out that your claim that Murtha's original statement was broadcast unopposed was, as per usual, full of shit.

Nope, simply pointing out that your claim that Murtha's original statement was broadcast unopposed was, as per usual, full of shit.

Does that mean that others cannot refute Murtha?

Nope. Although you wish it did mean that.

Does that mean that others cannot refute Murtha?

Nope. Although you wish it did mean that.
No, and you'll have a hard time pointing out where I suggested no one should be able to. Not that it's stopping you from slandering me in your posts.

No, and you'll have a hard time pointing out where I suggested no one should be able to. Not that it's stopping you from slandering me in your posts.
Then you don't have a problem with this article saying that Murtha was wrong - at least from the standpoint of it being just another voice on the other side of the "debate".

You might disagree with its content or conclusions, but saying it isn't part of a debate would be an incredible stretch.

Then you don't have a problem with this article saying that Murtha was wrong - at least from the standpoint of it being just another voice on the other side of the "debate".

You might disagree with its content or conclusions, but saying it isn't part of a debate would be an incredible stretch.
No, I don't have a problem with the article from that standpoint. I think the writer of the article shows bias by calling Murtha a liberal (Murtha's only liberal if liberal means "doesn't suck Bush's cock in public), but beyond that, no. The Congressman who replied to Murtha did so by using straw man tactics, and I disagree with his conclusions, but it certainly is "another side of the debate."

My issue is that the article quoted by Eutrusca is more of an editorial than a jounalistic article, not whether or not Republicans or Democrats are being unfair.

Forrest thinks Jeff Gannon is a Pulitzer-winning reporter too. :D

No, I don't have a problem with the article from that standpoint. I think the writer of the article shows bias by calling Murtha a liberal (Murtha's only liberal if liberal means "doesn't suck Bush's cock in public), but beyond that, no. The Congressman who replied to Murtha did so by using straw man tactics, and I disagree with his conclusions, but it certainly is "another side of the debate."

I'm glad that's settled. The only thing I was trying to defend was the idea that it was just another side of the "debate".

I'm afraid that I disagree with both Murtha (on factual grounds) and the guy who wrote the article (because it's largely based on an appeal to sympathy).

Forrest thinks Jeff Gannon is a Pulitzer-winning reporter too. :D
This Jeff Gannon?



WND Exclusive Homosexual press hot
to 'out' Bush figures
Gannon-gate leads to charges
about top Republican officials
Posted: February 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Disclosures that an alleged homosexual escort working for a pro-Republican website was granted access to the White House press room has led to efforts in the nation's homosexual press to "out" top-ranking Bush administration officials and GOP leaders based on uncorroborated, undocumented and unnamed sources.


Jeff Gannon

In the last week, reports in New York's Gay City News and 365Gay.com and other homosexual-friendly publications and blogs have made specific allegations about individuals based exclusively on unnamed sources and rumors and playing off the sensational revelations about Jeff Gannon – by daylight a credentialed "reporter" covering the White House for two politically partisan websites, while allegedly moonlighting as a $200-an-hour male escort and purveyor of explicit websites like HotMilitaryStud.com and MilitaryEscorts.com. Those sites have since been removed from the Internet.


Jim Guckert

It turns out Jeff Gannon was a pseudonym and alter ego for Jim Guckert, the name under which Gannon allegedly posed for pictures on those sites and advertised his services. He resigned his position with Talon News and GOPUSA.com following the disclosures by bloggers.

Yes, yes, and the Nazis blamed Germany's liberals for the loss of WWI. The propaganda machines are eerily similar.

"Wah! Godwin! The GOP isn't doing anything as bad as the Nazis did!"

Not yet, no. Never said they did. Just comparing the rhetoric.

Johnson also connected the Iraq mission to both 9/11 and the wider war on terror. "We were attacked. We are at war against terrorists. We need to stay there for as long as it takes if we want democracy to take root in tyranny's back yard."
I don't see how Murtha was taken to the woodshed in this article.

What I see is another rah rah for US troops who happen to be in the wrong country at the wrong time.

Trying to equate Iraq with the events of 9/11 is grasping at the same straws that Geoege W. was grasping at in 2003.

Iraq was no threat to the US, and most people know that now and many knew that before the invasion.

I don't see how Murtha was taken to the woodshed in this article.
It was the illusionary right-wing woodshed where all liberals get taken automatically when they declare themselves liberal.

I must agree with Murtha, taking unnecessary military actions against a nation in retaliation for a terrorist attack is detrimental to our budget, morale, and army capability.