April 15, 2006
CONGRESSMAN MORAN APPARENTLY BUCKING FOR ALEX TREBECK'S JOB:
Troops in Support Of the War (Wade Zirkle, April 13, 2006, Washington Post)
Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. The event also featured Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that's become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent "our" views. With all due respect, most often they don't.Posted by Orrin Judd at April 15, 2006 6:59 AMThe tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . ."
"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."
What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."
It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol.
Well, a little over two years ago, Howard Dean told just such a 'constituent' in Iowa to sit down and shut up.
And we know what Dick Durbin thinks of the troops, and Cindy Sheehan, and so on. And we know what Cynthia McKinney thinks of security. And Sandy Berger.
The point isn't that these people are rude, or even that they are 'bad', although both may be true. We also know what Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco think of government service, now don't we?
The point is that for most Democrats, government is a way of life, an entitlement, a sinecure, with protection and insulation from the public and the daily grind. Murtha and Moran can act prissy and fussy and petulant all they want, but when confronted by a real vet, they are speechless. Their posturing is empty.
George Bush has been in situations like this many times, such as Coretta's funeral, and has sat there while the fools raged. Just last week in Charlotte, a man stood up and basically said that he was never more ashamed of the US than he is now. The audience began to boo, but Bush quieted them and let him finish. The local media hailed the man as a 'hero', but all he did was recite the stale talking points of the left. Bush's one direct response was to say that he was proud of the NSA intercept program and that he would never waver in protecting America.
The Democrats have become the political equivalent of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; they believe the most bigoted and foolish ideas, but think themselves righteous and wise for doing so. And even when these 'ideas' are inimical to many of their supporters, they trumpet them and accuse the opposition of being stupid, blind, greedy, and evil. And then they delete their logos from these 'ideas' to cover their tracks (e.g., the 403-3 withdrawal vote in the House).
Drive the stake in all the way.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 15, 2006 9:45 AMRepublicans have so much good material for political ads and a lot of money in campaign coffers. Question: Why aren't these two being put together so the public can learn what only we political junkies know at the present time, i.e., the media is lying both by commission and omission about what's happening in the military and all other aspects of modern life in the U.S. and around the world?
Posted by: erp at April 15, 2006 9:53 AMWade Zirkle has started Vets for Freedom. See his site vetsforfreedom.org. I heard him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and he was interesting and articulate.
See the About Us page: "In January 2006, this group of veterans, enlisted personnel, and officers decided to take action. The result was the creation of Vets for Freedom, a non-profit advocacy group whose mission is to promote the unbiased, nonpartisan truth of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to educate the public and mobilize public support for the Global War on Terror."
I'm going to join and send them some money too.
Posted by: Kay in CA at April 15, 2006 10:07 AMThanks Kay in CA. I joined and am sending a donation.
Posted by: Genecis at April 15, 2006 10:37 AMMe too.
Posted by: erp at April 15, 2006 11:30 AMBetween this story, the one posted above about the ravings of Maryscott O'Connor and the recent editorials saying that Bush did have a right to get his message out with the release of information contradicting Joe Wilson, it's no wonder the left is fuming at the Washington Post for going off the reservation, as opposed to the more solid (but in their eyes, still too conservative) New York Times.
Posted by: John at April 15, 2006 1:37 PMI'll take 'Rank Opportunism and Malodorous Defeatism' for $500, Jim.
"Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world. ...When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, there was a sense of respectful disagreement among most military personnel. But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face."
When Murtha says "You cannot win this thing militarily," he is coming perilously close to telling soldiers "You cannot--and should not--win this thing." He should know better.
Murtha also betrays his ignorical historance when he states that the Army is "broken, worn out", "living hand to mouth". That was the circumstance that obtained at Valley Forge. At New Orleans. At Bataan. At Chosin and perhaps even Ia Drang.
But it is not the circumstance today.
Posted by: Noel at April 15, 2006 3:49 PMmurtha is pelosi without the charisma and charm.
Posted by: toe at April 15, 2006 5:34 PMAnd the botox and facelifts. Murtha looks like a moribund bassett hound.
Posted by: ratbert at April 15, 2006 6:53 PM