Archive for the ‘Murtha’ Category

Murtha, No Stranger to Trouble, Faces Tough Re-election Bid Tuesday

November 3, 2008

U.S. Rep.  John Murtha, D- Pa., left, addresses  supporters ... 
U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., left, addresses supporters with Senator Bob Casey, D-Pa., right, during a campaign rally outside a steel workers union hall in Latrobe, Pa. Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008.(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Rep. John Murtha, scrambling to keep his seat after recently saying his western Pennsylvania home base “is a racist area,” told supporters Saturday he should have started campaigning sooner.

“I was blindsided this time. It was my own fault. I take full responsibility and I’m worried that I waited too long to get people activated,” Murtha, 76, a 17-term member told about 100 campaign volunteers at his campaign headquarters.

Associated Press

In addition to the Johnstown stop, Murtha toured a steel mill and held a smaller rally with steelworkers in Latrobe. He emphasized the jobs and billions of dollars he’s brought home.

“They kick the hell out of me all the time because I’m for earmarks, because I’m for taking care of the people I represent,” said Murtha, who chairs the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

At Murtha’s side at the Saturday stops was Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who said Murtha was a close ally to his father, the late Gov. Robert P. Casey. On Monday, former President Clinton was scheduled to campaign for Murtha in Johnstown, and for another longtime House Democrat, Paul Kanjorski, in Wilkes-Barre.

Murtha’s being challenged by Republican William Russell, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who moved to Johnstown to run against him. Russell has said the earmarks have created an unhealthy dependence on federal money.

The district has heavy Democratic registration, and Murtha has a long history of handily winning his races by double-digit margins.

Murtha recently told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” He later apologized….

Read the rest:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/
03/rep-john-murtha-fights-to-keep-seat/

*******************************

Murtha Called “Fat Little Bastard” By Iraq War Vet

By Alex Roarty, PolitickerPA.com Reporter

NEW STANTON — Republican congressional candidate Bill Russell’s rally on Sunday featured several Iraq war veterans vehemently criticizing U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Johnstown), who they say betrayed them when he said troops in Iraq killed innocent civilians in Haditha “in cold blood.”

Those remarks sparked Russell to run against Murtha and have been a theme of his campaign ever since.

During the rally, Shawn Bryan, a former sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps., said Murtha visited his unit in Iraq in 2005. At the time, Murtha told the soldiers “what a great job we did,” Bryan said, only to see him tell his district back home he no longer supported the effort.

Bryan said he didn’t put his life on the line for his country “just so some fat little bastard can come back and run his mouth.”

It was the second time during his speech that Bryan, who flew in from Albuquerque, New Mexico, had called Murtha a “fat little bastard” during his speech. His remarks were not publicly repudiated at the rally.

In an interview after the rally, Russell told PolitickerPA.com Bryan’s comments didn’t reflect his own feelings, but he did the defend the fellow veteran.

The remarks are reflective of the anger many marines, who have lost dozens of fellow soldiers during combat, feel toward Murtha, he said.

“Am I going to throw him under the bus for it?” Russell asked. “No. I understand — he’s going to say what he believes.”

Murtha, who himself served 37 years in the Marine Corps and won a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, said about the 2005 shootings of Iraq civilians in Haditha: “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Charges have been dropped against…

Read the rest:
http://www.politickerpa.com/alexroarty/2481/marine
-vet-russell-rally-murtha-fat-little-bastard

U.S. lawmaker eyes China’s military buildup

February 5, 2008

By Richard Cowan
February 5, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Ask Rep. John Murtha about the U.S. war in Iraq and the conversation eventually veers to China.

A Chinese soldier tries to prevent being photographed before ... 

Five years into a war the 75-year-old ex-Marine actively opposes, Murtha worries Iraq is sapping the U.S. military at the exact time the United States should be adding muscle to answer Beijing’s growing military and economic clout.

“We’ve got to be able to have a military that can deploy to stop China or Russia or any other country that challenges us,” Murtha told Reuters in an interview. “We want to look ahead of just Iraq … to be prepared to prevent a war.”

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080205/lf_nm/
usa_china_military_dc_2

John Murtha
Congressman Murtha

Iran-arms importers captured in Iraq

July 28, 2007

By Sara A. Carter
The Washington Times
July 28, 2007

Four terrorists linked to an Iranian smuggling operation — responsible for targeting coalition forces with powerful bombs — were captured yesterday in Iraq, according to Defense Department officials.

The announcement came as U.S. officials continue to investigate links between Iran and insurgents seeking to destabilize the region and who target U.S. forces on the ground.

“I would say that it’s clear to us that there are networks that are smuggling weapons, both explosive-formed projectiles, IEDs, as well as mortar and other capabilities from Iran into Iraq,” ….

Read the rest at:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070728/NATION/107280053/1001

Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan

July 25, 2007

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he’ll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.

A vote on Rep. John Murtha’s proposal likely will come in September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and members of Congress weigh some $600 billion in defense spending requested by President Bush.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_
go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Ao0_
f7N9aUymThvNX.UIrFKs0NUE

War in Iraq: Democratomyopia

July 23, 2007

Mona Charen
The Washington Times
July 23, 2007

I am convinced, based on everything I have read, it won’t be a hell of a lot worse than it is now.
Rep. John P. Murtha

Jack (redeploy to Okinawa) Murtha of Pennsylvania was speaking of Iraq after an American pullout. He’s not worried, nor are most Democrats now urging America to flee Iraq. There really ought to be a name for the “it can’t get worse” fallacy. For the moment, let’s just call it Democratomyopia. …

Echos from Vietnam…..

Read the rest:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/COMMENTARY/107230021

Related:
Lingo of Failure: How to Decode Washington Political Speak

Lingo of Failure: How to Decode Washington Political Speak

July 21, 2007

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom 

The discussion of the war in Iraq has created or modified its own vocabulary, especially in the halls of Congress.

Below is our attempt at an easy to use pocket dictionary to help navigate the verbology being used today.

 THIS IS AN UNFINISHED WORK!  We need your input by comment to the blog or website you are reading or by email to:
jecarey2603@cox.net 

Redeploy: (verb) To reduce troops in one area in order to move them to another area. Usually connotes moving troops from combat to the rear. See: Murtha, Okinawa, retreat, surrender on the military goal. See also: Retreat, lose, loss, failure, enemy wins, back down, allies disheartened, terrorists emboldened.

Retreat: (verb or noun) In all prior wars this was an ugly word for Americans.  Indicates failure.  We retreat (we lose and the other guy wins).  Why has this word been moved to the back of the word train?  Because it has been easy to understand and clear for hundreds of years.  See: redeploy.

Lost: (as in “the war is lost”) (noun or past tense of the verb to lose) Indicates failure or in war, an inability or unwillingness to prevail in battle. Usage: “The war in Iraq is lost and the troop surge is failing” (Senator Harry Reid, reported by AFP, April 19, 2007). See also, “We have not lost a military battle in Iraq (Senator Barak Obama, reported by AP, July 20, 2007).

Mission creep: (noun and verb) The activity of expanding upon the existing military mission gradually.  Also used by some Democrats to describe people in support of the mission.  Example: “The General is a mission creep.”

Pillow fight: (noun) A derisive term being used by so called “talking heads” to describe the U.S. Senate’s all night Iraq debate.

Pillow talk: (noun leading to a verb) The discussion, usually between partners, that occurs in the bedroom. Usually means one person is attempting to have sex with another. In the case of the current U.S. Congress, the term refers to Senator Reid’s “all nighter” where each party was trying to screw the other. See “all nighter.”

All nighter: (noun) Term used by adolescents who have failed to do their coursework and homework usually in school. An effort to cram a semester or more into one night: often to no avail. See Harry Reid.

Surge: (noun and verb) A temporary increase in troop levels modulated by political restriction.  Not an attack but better than a retreat.

Support: (verb) As in “support the troops.” An often used and misused sign of patriotic zeal by Democrat Party member who really would do anything to downsize the Army. When used by Democrats, the word “support” seldomly means a plus-up in the budget.  Often used by Democrats in an attempt to bolster backing from the military, and potential red-state voters.

In reality, most Democrats only “support” the troops when they are a) deployed on U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Bosnia, or New Orleans; or b) when a Democrat President is in office, and he needs to rattle the saber to divert attention from domestic problems.

Undercutting: (verb or noun) Usually refers to a disruption of normal structural support such as sawing off one leg of a stool. Am action leading to instability and uneasiness on the part of users of the structure. In Washington currently, refers to efforts to deny U.S. troops proper funding or support. See: treason.

Election season: (noun) That time when politicians can be trusted even less than “normal.” See all self anointed candidates for president (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and a host of others).

Troop morale: (noun)  This word apparently does not appear in any Democrat dictionary.  It means, as any football coach can tell you, if you pull together as a team you have a chance to actually “win.” In April the Senate Majority Leader told our troop, the American people and our enemies that the war was “lost.”  Good luck, coach: you don’t get it.

Best interest of the United States: I am sorry but this term is no longer in vogue in the Congress (or anywhere else).

White Flag: (noun) Made famous by the French in WWII, the White Flag denoted surrender to the enemy so that the enemy would cease any operations against the unit displaying the white flag realizing that they had given up the fight without winning.  The White Flag Party now denotes the Democrats in Washington for the same reasons.
(Contributed to Peace and Freedom by Tom Boley)

[The work above is posted as an unfinished work.  Those that wish to contribute should email jecarey2603@cox.net  ]

COUNTERPOINT

Maybe the Rhetoric is too Harsh: The Phoney Debate

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that’s far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq’s borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that “it’s a position I’d like to see us in.”

The emerging consensus is driven by several inescapable facts. First, the Iraqi political reconciliation on which the current U.S. military surge is counting is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Second, the Pentagon cannot sustain the current level of forces in Iraq beyond next spring without rupturing current deployment practices and placing new demands on the already stretched Army and Marine Corps. Finally, a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid’s answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. “That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

For now Mr. Reid’s cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq don’t matter so much. The result of his maneuvering was to postpone congressional debate until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report on results of the surge — in other words, just the outcome the White House was hoping for. But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond. There are serious issues still to resolve, such as whether a drawdown should begin this fall or next year, how closely it should be tied to Iraqi progress, how fast it can proceed and how the remaining forces should be deployed.

There’s no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.