The Lies of Haditha

I don't think there's any question about it. The reporting of the alleged massacre at Haditha was an absolute disgrace, the hyping of the incident unconscionable.

Much to the dismay of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, and in some cases, anti-American crowd, it seems that Haditha hasn't turned out to be My Lai after all.

God knows the Left wanted it to be.

The Leftists, elected Democrats and their mouthpieces in the liberal agenda-driven media, were so eager to believe that U.S. Marines murdered Iraqi civilians in cold blood that they didn't bother to wait for an investigation into the allegations.

They scooped up all the leaks about the incident and splashed them without hesitation.

There were emphatic declarations of the Marines' guilt, with remarks from John Murtha being some of the most disgusting.

Will TIME run a cover story to complement "The Ghosts of Haditha" issue?

I think something like "The Left's Besmirching of U.S. Marines" would be in order. It would be appropriate to counter "The Shame of Kilo Company" with "The Shame of the Foaming at the Mouth Liberal Media."

Michael Duffy wrote:

[O]ne morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood. The details of what happened in Haditha were first disclosed in March by TIME's Tim McGirk and Aparisim Ghosh, and their reporting prompted the military to launch an inquiry into the civilian deaths. The darkest suspicions about the killings were confirmed last week, when members of Congress who were briefed on the two ongoing military investigations disclosed that at least some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged in connection with the deaths of the Iraqis--and that the charges may include murder, which carries the death penalty. "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials. "This is going to be an ugly story."

It did get very ugly.

Murtha repeatedly asserted that the Marines slaughtered civilians in cold blood.

An example:

"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.

Murtha, who was decorated for his service in Vietnam, said the death toll may be more than twice as high as originally reported.

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," the congressman said.

Another example:

Murtha said he understands the stress being put on Marines fighting in western Iraq's turbulent Anbar province: "The pressure builds every time they go out," with roadside bombs exploding "every day they go out."

But, he said, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened," adding that there is "no question in my mind about it." He reiterated a previous statement that shootings of women and children occurred "in cold blood" and that there was no firefight in which civilians were killed in a crossfire, as some Marines asserted after the event.

"This is worse than Abu Ghraib," he said, referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at a prison west of Baghdad that, when revealed in spring 2004, became a major setback for the U.S. effort in Iraq.

The lib media loved giving Murtha a forum.

They relished the story.

They couldn't get enough of Murtha blathering about Marines murdering women and children "in cold blood."

Things have changed. Investigations have brought exonerations.

The certainty with which the disgraceful libs relayed the alleged actions of the murderous U.S. Marines at Haditha has evaporated.

LOS ANGELES -- A general dropped all charges Thursday against a Marine who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.

"The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision.

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, had been charged with the murder in the deaths of three of those killed after the bomb attack Nov. 19, 2005.

...In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in an 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

I'm sure there are libs unwilling to accept that all those initial reports of the alleged massacre at Haditha were highy questionable or completely false. I imagine that John Murtha would be among them.

No doubt the conspiracy theorists will surface to say that the military is engaged in a vast cover-up.

It's much easier for all the people that rushed to judgment about what happened at Haditha to cry cover-up than to admit that they accused U.S. Marines of atrocities.

Don't forget. The libs may call the Marines cold-blooded murderers, but they support the troops.

The Disgrace of Haditha

I don't think there's any question about it. The reporting of the alleged massacre at Haditha was an absolute disgrace, the hyping of the incident unconscionable.

Much to the dismay of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, and in some cases, anti-American crowd, it seems that Haditha hasn't turned out to be My Lai after all.

God knows the Left wanted it to be.

The Leftists, elected Democrats and their mouthpieces in the liberal agenda-driven media, were so eager to believe that U.S. Marines murdered Iraqi civilians in cold blood that they didn't bother to wait for an investigation into the allegations.

They scooped up all the leaks about the incident and splashed them without hesitation.

There were emphatic declarations of the Marines' guilt, with remarks from John Murtha being some of the most disgusting.

Will TIME run a cover story to complement "The Ghosts of Haditha" issue?

I think something like "The Left's Besmirching of U.S. Marines" would be in order. It would be appropriate to counter "The Shame of Kilo Company" with "The Shame of the Foaming at the Mouth Liberal Media."

Michael Duffy wrote:

[O]ne morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood. The details of what happened in Haditha were first disclosed in March by TIME's Tim McGirk and Aparisim Ghosh, and their reporting prompted the military to launch an inquiry into the civilian deaths. The darkest suspicions about the killings were confirmed last week, when members of Congress who were briefed on the two ongoing military investigations disclosed that at least some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged in connection with the deaths of the Iraqis--and that the charges may include murder, which carries the death penalty. "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials. "This is going to be an ugly story."

It did get very ugly.

Murtha repeatedly asserted that the Marines slaughtered civilians in cold blood.

An example:

"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.

Murtha, who was decorated for his service in Vietnam, said the death toll may be more than twice as high as originally reported.

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," the congressman said.

Another example:

Murtha said he understands the stress being put on Marines fighting in western Iraq's turbulent Anbar province: "The pressure builds every time they go out," with roadside bombs exploding "every day they go out."

But, he said, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened," adding that there is "no question in my mind about it." He reiterated a previous statement that shootings of women and children occurred "in cold blood" and that there was no firefight in which civilians were killed in a crossfire, as some Marines asserted after the event.

"This is worse than Abu Ghraib," he said, referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at a prison west of Baghdad that, when revealed in spring 2004, became a major setback for the U.S. effort in Iraq.

The lib media loved giving Murtha a forum.

They relished the story.

They couldn't get enough of Murtha blathering about Marines murdering women and children "in cold blood."

Now, it's over.

The certainty with which they relayed the alleged actions of the murderous U.S. Marines at Haditha has evaporated.

From The Washington Post:

An investigating officer in the case against a U.S. Marine accused of murdering civilians in Haditha, Iraq, has recommended that charges against him be dropped, concluding that the government's allegations that the Marine executed a group of men are "unsupported and incredible."

The findings by Marine Lt. Col. Paul Ware could exonerate Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, who formed part of a convoy that was struck by a roadside bomb in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. Members of his unit -- Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment -- allegedly killed a group of young men who were ordered out of a nearby car. The Marines then went house to house, allegedly killing as many as two dozen people, including women and children.

Ware's 18-page report, released by Sharratt's attorneys, was submitted Friday to Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Mattis could disregard the recommendation and order an administrative punishment or a court-martial, but it would be unusual for a commanding officer to go against such a strongly worded conclusion, legal experts said.

...Sharratt, 22, of Canonsburg, Pa., did not take part in the first shootings on Nov. 19, and he has acknowledged killing a group of men in a home later that day, when, he said, he believed they raised weapons at him. Sharratt told investigators that he used a 9mm pistol to shoot them as he and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich searched the home.

"He responded instinctively, assaulting into the room and emptying his pistol," Ware wrote. "Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCpl Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement."

The rules of engagement have become central in the Haditha cases, as defense attorneys have argued that the troops used aggressive but approved tactics to assault what they thought were enemy targets. The first shootings have garnered more investigative attention because they came immediately after a Marine was killed in an explosion and because unarmed people were killed.

Sharratt's incident in 2005 came hours later, after Marines swarmed the scene to secure the area. Sharratt and others noticed suspicious behavior in the home before entering and shooting, they said. Marines reported finding two AK-47 rifles in the house.

Ware's recommendations came after Sharratt's military Article 32 hearing, the equivalent of a civilian grand jury proceeding. Ware, a military judge, weighed evidence from prosecutors and defense attorneys, and read thousands of pages of documents. He also suggested that Sharratt be given immunity to testify in other Haditha-related cases.

"This is just a big relief for us," said Sharratt's mother, Theresa. "This is the declaration of Justin's innocence. I'm confident General Mattis will do what is right."

By clearing Sharratt in the shootings of Jasib Aiad Ahmed, Kahtan Aiad Ahmed and Jamal Aiad Ahmed, Ware also appeared to clear Wuterich in that attack, concluding that the Marines' account was more credible than the allegations of residents who said the deaths were executions. Ware found that physical evidence showed that the shots that killed the men were fired from a distance, "inconsistent with an execution."

Wuterich is also charged in other slayings that day. However, Ware did not examine the previous shootings, reporting that it is only a "compelling theory tying in the events and actions by other Marines as a prelude for the actions" Sharratt took later that day.

Civilians interviewed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service said that the Marines came to the final house and separated women and children before leading the men back inside to kill them. Ware found their accounts questionable and inconsistent.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent that . . . may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.

Gary Myers and James Culp, civilian attorneys for Sharratt, said in a joint statement that they are pleased with the report and that earlier "prejudgment within some elements of the media and by certain members of Congress was particularly offensive to us," a thinly veiled reference to comments by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) last year that the shootings were cold-blooded murders.

What else can be said about Haditha?

What can you say about the Left's creation of the myth of the massacre?

What can you say about the Leftists that used Haditha to advance their anti-Iraq agenda?

What can you say about Murtha and his insistence that Marines murdered innocents "in cold blood"?

What can you say about the media that rushed to judgment and embraced the allegations as fact?

I don't think it's fair to say that they supported these troops of Kilo Company. To the contrary, they shamelessly exploited the Marines and depicted them as murderers.

The shame of Kilo Company? No.

The shame of the despicable John Murtha and the American Left? Yes.

Murtha Gone Wild!

Uncut and uncensored, John Murtha shows what an upstanding guy he really is.

Murtha can't cut and run from his past.

The thing about the past is it never goes away.

CNSNews has a bit of the damning Abscam video.

NewsBusters has a bit of the damning Abscam transcript.

Undercover FBI Agent: "I got, I went out and I got the $50,000, okay? From what you're telling me, okay, you're telling me that that's not what you, you know, that's not what you-"

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): "I'm not interested."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

Murtha: "At this point."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

Murtha: "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't, you know."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

The American Spectator has a more complete version, with Murtha explaining why he didn't take the money.

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."

..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

The dialogue continued as follows:

Amoroso: Let me ask you now that we're together. I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard [middleman Howard Criden] what we were willing to pay, and [This is where the available videotape begins]I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know....

Murtha: I'm not interested.

Amoroso: OK.

Murtha: At this point, [This is where the available videotape ends] you know, we do business together for a while. Maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't.... Right now, I'm not interested in those other things. Now, I won't say that some day, you know, I, if you made an offer, it may be I would change my mind some day.

Watch the complete video.

The American Spectator: Full video of Murtha's Abscam meeting with the FBI.

The complete and unedited video of Congressman John Murtha's January 7, 1980 meeting with the FBI's undercover Abscam investigation. At Abscam's W Street townhouse in Washington, D.C. With FBI Special Agent Anthony Amoroso, informant Mel Weinberg, and Howard Criden.

What is Pelosi thinking?

Ruth Marcus gets it right.

John Murtha is UNFIT FOR MAJORITY LEADER.

Marcus writes:

The biggest puzzle, and biggest disappointment, in all this is Pelosi, who was pitch-perfect in her first several days as speaker-elect. Now comes this lose-lose move.

If she gets her way and helps Murtha win a come-from-behind victory against Maryland's Steny Hoyer in tomorrow's leadership election, she's buying herself -- and the Democratic caucus -- endless news stories about Murtha's ethics. If, as he says, Hoyer has the votes, Pelosi has made herself look weak within the caucus -- not a smart move for any new leader, and certainly not for the first woman in the job. Perhaps the late timing and measured phrasing of Pelosi's endorsement were meant to ensure that it would have little impact. If so, Pelosi failed to recognize that once she weighed in, the vote for majority leader would inevitably be seen as a gauge of her clout.

I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi's first test as speaker would be whether she picks Florida's Alcee Hastings -- who was removed from his federal judgeship for agreeing to take a bribe -- to head the intelligence committee. As it turns out, I was wrong. Pelosi's first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens tomorrow, she flunked. Whether she'll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen.

Michael Barone discusses why the Madame Nancy Pelosi would back the unethical Murtha to be majority leader.

He notes:

[S]he has taken some serious political risks by supporting a man with Murtha's record. House Democrats are backing some serious changes in ethics rules, but Murtha's election would cast a pall over them. The word from Capitol Hill has been that Steny Hoyer, the current minority whip who ran against Pelosi for that job in 2001, has the votes. Hoyer is an experienced and competent politician who is respected and well liked on both sides of the aisle, and I suspect that many House Democrats are miffed that Pelosi is opposing him.

What I find particularly troubling is that lib outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times are now citing the dirt on Murtha. This stuff isn't new.

Diana Irey used it in her campaign, but Murtha won reelection anyway.

The people of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District knowingly elected a scumbag.

And Pelosi is backing him to lead the majority in the House.

So much for clean government and a new Washington.

Murtha and Obey Go to War on Rumsfeld

Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, John Murtha and Dave Obey are firing more shots in the Dems' orchestrated effort to force Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

From The Huffington Post, always on the cusp of the Dems' antics:

Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey will announce a resolution today calling for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. Rep. Murtha (D-PA) is a Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee and Rep. Obey (D-WI) is a Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee.

This resolution may get more support than Russ Feingold's lame effort to censure President Bush for his efforts to protect the American people from terrorists. The Dems have determined that Rumsfeld is a convenient scapegoat so it will probably get more traction.

Still, it's a cheap stunt, just like Feingold's idiotic resolution.

Such posturing and attempts to appeal to the radical Dem base are embarrassing.

They're so clearly calculated.

The bottom line: Rumsfeld will resign when, and only when, President Bush considers that to be an appropriate move.

I am ashamed that Obey, a Wisconsinite, has deemed it prudent to attack the Secretary of Defense in such a flagrant manner DURING WARTIME.

Please remember that Wisconsin is a battleground state. Not all Wisconsinites are fringe radicals like Obey and Feingold.


Note to Murtha: It's "RUMSFELD," not "RUMSFIELD."

Murtha's Pink Badge of Courage

John Murtha continues to solidify his place among the looniest of the Left.

Sunday, on Face (Is that still on?) the Nation, Murtha had some things to say about U.S. forces withdrawing from Iraq.

Transcript

(Excerpt)

SCHIEFFER: But I guess the one thing that worries me about it, if we just left, is it going to send a signal that they're going to take this to mean
that they defeated us, and won't that just give them--won't their morale go up and--and cause them to try us in another place?

Rep. MURTHA: Well...

SCHIEFFER: Perhaps here?

Rep. MURTHA: I--I know that--that's the common theory, because that's thefear that they try to--to sell to the American people. I don't see that at all. There was no terrorism in Iraq before at all. Iraqis have to settle this themselves. This is not a "we" thing. This is a "them" thing. They got a government now, and they have to settle it. No matter how complicated it is, they have to sit down, figure out what--what needs to be done, and settle this civil war themselves. There'll be some fighting, but the--the al-Qaeda, the thing that we're worried about worldwide, the threat we're worried about in the United States will disappear, because the Iraqis do not like them. It's just that they put up with them because we have become occupiers, and we've united everybody against us.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

All I can say is, "Keep it coming, Murtha."

He's painting himself into the far, far Left corner of the room.

For instance, CODEPINK, one of the wacko groups that had planned to "Take the White House by Storm," considers Murtha a hero, a knight in shining armor.

From the CODEPINK website:

Thank You Congressman Murtha!

CODEPINK co-founder Gael Murphy and DC coordinator Allison Yorra met with Congressman Murtha to thank him for his courageous stand on Iraq. We presented him with our pink badge of courage and pink flowers sent by CODEPINK members nationwide. Rep Murtha was very appreciative of these gestures as he has been receiving many responses to his public denouncement of the war. Murtha said that while many of the calls and emails have been supportive, those opposed have been quite vitriolic. He stated that the best support of his position and of the troops would be to ask legislators to support H.J Res 73 (Murtha's resolution).

I hope Murtha wears his pink badge proudly.

I want everyone to know that Murtha is on board with CODEPINK.



The big question:

Will the radical Left recruit Russ Feingold and John Murtha to run on a third party ticket in 2008?

It's well-documented that they aren't going to be happy with Hillary.



Feingold and Murtha are a match made in Lefty heaven.

I'd be willing to write a check to support that campaign.

Murtha is 'Broken, Worn Out'

LATROBE, Pa (AP) -- Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

..."I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."

Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.

He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.

"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."

What's with this guy?

Soon he'll be chaining himself to the gate outside the White House and going on a hunger strike.

He acts like he's related to the grim reaper. He's all death and defeat. He's taking on the worn out mantle of the radical far Left.

The thing is his words are truly dangerous. He keeps bashing away at our military and demoralizing our troops. Although he means to do damage to the Bush Administration, Murtha is undermining the war effort by emboldening our enemies. I sincerely believe that.

Now, he's taking his show on the road. The Dems have decided to tap Murtha's talent and trot him out to raise money. His tour schedule hasn't come together yet, but I'm sure it will fill out quickly.

Murtha will be in Boston tomorrow for a Dem fundraising event to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Nick Lampson, a former Texas congressman running against Tom Delay.

Instead of going to Boston to help bring in cash for the Dems, I think Murtha should go to Iraq. I think he should talk to the troops. He should tell them how sorry he is that he voted for the war.

He won't do that. It wouldn't bring in the bucks for the Dems, would it?

This decorated Vietnam combat veteran should quit blathering to the lib media and addressing Bush-haters to fill campaign coffers. Murtha should take his message straight to the troops. He can tell them how he believes that they've made no progress, that they aren't engaged in a noble cause.

If he truly supports them, Murtha should go to Iraq and apologize for his role in getting them caught in this quagmire. He should beg their forgiveness.

Does he have the courage to do that?

THE WAR EFFORT

You remember this woman, don't you?

As Americans and others around the world were reeling in stunned disbelief and horror in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she was celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocents and the catastrophic destruction.

Something tells me that she would engage in a similar celebration upon hearing calls for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq from former and current American elected officials. This cut and run strategy, the Democrat Mogadishu plan, signals American defeat and emboldens terrorists. It pleases our enemies.

That's not a theory. That's a fact.

On November 6, 2001, in a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, President Bush said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

At that time, Bush was referring to cooperation from other countries in the War on Terror. I think the same could be said to the American Left today.

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

In recent weeks, many on the Left have exposed themselves as against us.

Their comments aren’t made in a vacuum. Al Qaeda members hear them. Would-be suicide bombers hear them. Iraqis preparing for elections on December 15, hear them. Our troops hear them. The world hears them.

Statements that show weakness on the part of the United States demoralize and endanger our troops currently in harm’s way. Such statements certainly shake the will of Iraqis struggling to establish a democracy, at great personal risk. In addition, going wobbly hands the terrorists a victory, like in Mogadishu.

Criticizing policy is not the issue. I’m not suggesting that debate be squelched.

I’m saying that many remarks made by those on the Left have crossed over the line of expressing a difference of opinion to becoming some of the most reprehensible, politically opportunistic comments imaginable.

Who belongs in the "AGAINST US" column?

Osama bin Laden

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Kim Jong Il

I think most Americans would agree that these individuals are our enemies. Of course, there are Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan types that consider these people to be freedom fighters; but for the most part, they are deemed to be the enemies of the United States.

It's time to update the list of our enemies.

Some "AGAINST US" Additions:


BILL CLINTON


Bill Clinton speaks at the American University of Dubai.

On Wednesday, Bill Clinton spoke to Arab students at the American University of Dubai. This former U.S. president had the audacity to savagely attack the Bush administration.

While on foreign soil, Clinton played politics. He sought to weaken a sitting president during wartime for purely political gain.

Clinton said, "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done. It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

As American soldiers were fighting, spilling their blood, this disgusting man made statements that can only be interpreted as encouragement to the insurgents.

What Clinton did on Wednesday, slamming the current Commander-in-Chief, is the sleaziest thing he’s ever done. The disgrace of his shameless womanizing, soiling the presidency, and lying to his wife, his aides, his cabinet, and the American people is nothing compared to his effort to undermine the War on Terror.

That’s unforgivable.


JIMMY CARTER


Jimmy Carter promotes his book and bashes Bush.

In the November 4, 2005, edition of the Christian Science Monitor, David Cook writes some of the comments made by former President Jimmy Carter at a breakfast sponsored by the Monitor. Carter was hawking his new book.

Cook writes:

Members of the Bush team “decided to go to war against Iraq long before George Bush was elected.”

[T]he Bush administration's decision to invade to prevent any future act of aggression from Saddam Hussein's Iraq came in for a scathing reproach. “The attitude of going to war against a relatively defenseless country in order to prevent violence in the world is a complete fallacy,” Carter said.

The likelihood that the US could leave Iraq “safely and with honor” would improve if the Bush administration were “to vow that we will actually withdraw from Iraq militarily,” he said. “I don't think there is any inclination or desire in the leadership in this administration to withdraw militarily from Iraq at any time in the future.”

Cook adds, “It is decidedly unusual for a former president to publicly castigate the policies of a sitting president.”

Unfortunately, it’s not unusual anymore. Clinton and Carter seem to be addicted to the practice. In the process of selfishly satisfying their habits, they are jeopardizing democracy, here and around the world.

Apparently, book sales matter more to Carter than the good of the nation and the world.


JOHN MURTHA


John Murtha calls for U.S. to surrender.

In a positively sickening display of political opportunism, John Murtha called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

He said:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

The fact that Murtha is a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former Marine doesn’t make his words more credible; it makes them more revolting.

While our troops are on the frontlines, how could he betray them in this fashion? How could he demoralize our brave troops? Doesn’t Murtha realize that his words bolster the will of our enemies?


RUSS FEINGOLD


Maverick Russ Feingold attempts to undermine the War on Terror.

On November 14, 2005, Senator Russ Feingold sponsored an amendment that included a call for the Bush administration to set a withdrawal timetable from Iraq.

Although it was defeated 54 to 40, the message that he, and thirty-nine other senators sent to our enemies is clear: The United States is weak and ready to cut and run.

Feingold wants to be president.

Do Americans want a president willing to surrender to terrorists?

Is it wise to retreat and encourage more attacks on our homeland by making it appear that the United States lacks a backbone?

Feingold believes his is a winning strategy. I believe it’s a winning strategy for the terrorists.


HARRY REID


Harry Reid, D-Nev., right, standing with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, holds up a copy of the pending ammendment for an Iraq policy proposal during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this week, Reid said, "Our troops and the American people deserve better. The White House needs to understand that deceiving the American people is what got them into trouble. Now is the time to come clean, not to continue the pattern of deceit."

Like the others, Reid is playing politics with the lives of our military personnel. Reid’s constant mischaracterizations of the President and the administration serve to undermine the War on Terror, embolden the terrorists, and threaten the safety of American troops.

There are too many other instances of Americans seeking to derail the war effort for me to get into now.

The bottom line is some on the Left are willing to accept defeat in the Middle East to pursue what they believe to be a winning political strategy at home.

These Leftists are not defenders of freedom and democracy. They are appeasers. They are defenders of tyranny.

Rather than working toward a lasting, long-term peace in the Middle East, something that would benefit every person on this planet, they care about their own political fortunes. They are looking no further than the 2006 elections.

That’s reckless, irresponsible, and unconscionable.

Clinton, Carter, Murtha, Feingold, Reid, and those of their ilk are against us.

Am I questioning their patriotism?

No.

I’m saying they are as patriotic as Jane Fonda, when she visited Hanoi, the capital city of the enemy, in 1972. She frolicked and giggled with enemies at an anti-aircraft gun site used to shoot down American pilots.


Jane Fonda and friends


Clinton, Carter, Murtha, Feingold, and Reid, etc., are true patriots, in a league with Jane Fonda.

John Murtha

Do you know this man?

He's been in Congress for thirty years and quite an influential member at that. Considering he's been around for so long, I feel like I should at least be able to recognize the guy.

The fact is I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

For others like me, I guarantee that will change. Within the next 24 hours, I predict this man is about to get more air time and ink than any member of Congress. I would bet that he'll get more attention from the MSM than President Bush.

According to the Associated Press:

An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

That choking back tears part always lends a little drama to the moment, doesn't it?

"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," Murtha said.

Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.

He said announcing a U.S. withdrawal would provide the Iraqi government with an added incentive to have their own security forces take control of the conflict.

Murtha is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout.

On his website, Murtha writes:

Our troops have performed extremely well in an intense conflict, and we all owe our gratitude to them and their families for the sacrifices they are making. I assure you I will continue to work as hard as I can to bring our actions in Iraq to a close.

Today, Murtha worked extra hard.

Of course, the MSM is in full drool mode over the Congressman's call for an immediate troop withdrawal.

The libs have been waiting for this moment.

Text of Murtha's speech

(Excerpts)

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

...Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Murtha sounds just like Cindy Sheehan, without the profanity and the anti-Semitic stuff.

The "Honorable John P. Murtha" also stopped short of saying, "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."

True, Murtha has not been arrested for ignoring police warnings after planting himself on the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House, nor has he spent a few weeks in a ditch in Crawford, Texas.

However, Murtha and Sheehan are on the same page. They are similar in that they both are incredibly naive in terms of Iraq policy, as well as irresponsible. They both have problems comprehending the big picture.

Army Maj. Steven Warren provides some good news out of Iraq.

Debra Saunders writes:

Army Maj. Steven Warren, 39, is not happy, because he believes the media are painting an inaccurate picture of what's happening in Iraq. In a call arranged by the Florida-based Central Command of U.S. forces in Iraq, Warren spoke from Diyala province in the Sunni Triangle, where he has been stationed since January.

"I walk into the mess hall every day," he told me. He watches American TV news reports from Iraq, "and I ask myself, 'Where are they?'"

Recently, Warren saw a cable TV story on what the reporter called a fierce firefight in Diyala province. Warren believes the reporter got it all wrong. An IED (improvised explosive device) had gone off near Iraqi troops. Whenever that happens, "the first thing the Iraqis do, they start pulling their triggers" and shooting toward the wood line, he said.

That's not a fierce firefight; it's not even a firefight, Warren tells me, because a firefight requires that two sides shoot at each other.

You hear the bad news stories. Warren wants Americans to read some good news, too.


Did you know there was good news?

I don't think there are any Americans that want our military in harm's way. I hope and pray that our troops can come home and return to their families very soon.

However, there is no question that an immediate withdrawal would jeopardize the new Iraqi democracy. It would guarantee anarchy in Iraq. It could be a humanitarian disaster.

What happened when the U.S. pulled out of Southeast Asia?

On April 17th, 1975 the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group led by Pol Pot, took power in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. They forced all city dwellers into the countryside and to labor camps. During their rule, it is estimated that 2 million Cambodians died by starvation, torture or execution.

Apparently, during his thirty years in Congress, Murtha wasn't paying attention.

The immediate troop withdrawal that he is calling for is shortsighted. It's inhumane. Don't the libs care about the Iraqi people?

One more thing--

Murtha claims that our troops have accomplished all that they can in Iraq and they should come home NOW.

What about our troops elsewhere?

I wonder if he thinks that our troops currently in Bosnia have finished their mission yet.

To paraphrase Murtha, have our military personnel done everything that has been asked of them in Bosnia?

The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Bosnia militarily, right?

Maybe he should give a speech about bringing them home. He'd be choking back tears, of course.