Friday
09Jun2006
John Murtha's Pattern of Wrongness
Friday, June 9, 2006 at 12:22PM Reason #99 why the US military cannot stand John Murtha: he’s a hypocrite.
In his interview yesterday with CNN regarding the death of Al-Zarqawi, John Murtha was asked this question:“Is it fair to say that this attack and the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wouldn’t have happened if U.S. troops were not on the ground?”
Murtha’s reply:
“Well, I’m not sure about that. I’m not sure it was a bomb that killed him from the air. So I’m not sure about that. But one thing for sure, this is significant. This is significant, two aspects. One is the fact that Zarqawi is killed, but also the fact that they appointed a defense minister and an interior minister. There’s no question we can’t win this militarily. So it’s a matter of time. The Iraqis are getting better. I think the intelligence came from the Iraqis, as I understand it. Now, this is the early reports. And it came to the security forces and the Iraqis and then passed on to the Americans. So this was a key element. Whether they could have done this themselves in this isolated area, I don’t know.”
This the same Murtha who said of Iraqi civilian casualties in Haditha, Iraq:
One woman, as I understand it, in talking to the officials in the Marine Corps, was bending over a child pleading for mercy and they shot her in cold blood. There has to have been a cover-up of this thing. They killed innocent civilians in cold blood.They tell me this is dereliction of duty.There’s nobody done more for the troops than I have. Nobody’s worked harder than I have, in trying to make sure the troops have what they need. But I will not excuse murder. And this is what happened. There’s no question in my mind about it.
So let’s get this straight, Congressman: You doubt the SUCCESSES of our troops in Iraq but are sure of ALLEGED FAILURES of our troops in Haditha? No charges have been filed against any Marine in the incident, nor is the investigation complete, but Rep. Murtha KNOWS and is SURE they are true because he read it in Time Magazine?
If that weren’t enough, after all Murtha’s insulting comments about Iraqis not standing up for themselves and using the United States, he praised them as “getting better”. How convenient.
Mr. Murtha, here’s the video of the US military killing Al-Zarqawi “from the air”. Now tell us that this attack would have been pulled off by Iraqis if the US had taken your advice to cut and run back in November 2005.
By the way, John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Somalia in 1993. We did and today Somalia is an Al-Qaeda recruiting center. Murtha said in 1993;
“There’s no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don’t agree with that.”
Sound familiar?
As a result of this “cut and run”, Osama Bin Laden became emboldened and planned new attacks against the US: “Our people realized more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows.”
So… why exactly should anyone EVER listen to ANYTHING John Murtha has to say EVER again?
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/532777
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/532777
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (25)
Murtha is totally illegitimate. Ann Coulter is right that the left uses liberals with personal experience as "human shields".... the foundation of the argument is obsolete... Murtha was a MARINE so he has the right,they say, to make unfactual and asinine accussations against the troops.
Bingo! I was just about to write a post along those lines
I do so like your comparison of the Murtha of today against the 1993 Cut and Run Murtha of Somalia. Like you-- I too think the Somalia incident really says it all. Just one more reason why his state really needs to fire his butt this election...
AubreyJ.........
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
>>>"WASHINGTON, March 30, 2005 – “In the last analysis it will be the Iraqi people that will defeat the insurgency, not the coalition,”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters here March 29.
Speaking at a Pentagon press briefing with Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Marine Gen. Peter Pace at his side, Rumsfeld’s statement was part of his response to a reporter’s query on what options the United States possessed in ending the insurgency in Iraq.
The secretary said he didn’t “see a lot of options to end the insurgency” in Iraq, but instead envisioned “steps that one needs to take that will reduce the insurgency.”
Iraqi leaders continue their work to establish a new, democratic government. Meanwhile, ongoing military, political, economic and other types of assistance provided to Iraq by the United States and coalition nations, Rumsfeld observed, “is going to create an environment that’s hospitable to the Iraqi people’s success.”
When the Iraqi people fully realize they have a voice and a stake in their nation’s affairs, Rumsfeld noted, then that event “should have the effect of reducing the insurgency.”
And a recovering Iraqi economy that produces more jobs, he said, should also contribute to “reducing support for the insurgency and increasing support for the Iraqi government.”
Rumsfeld also noted that the training and fielding of well-led Iraqi counterinsurgency forces also “contributes to reducing the insurgency.”
There are “a lot of things right now,” Pace pointed out, that make you hopeful about the way ahead in Iraq.”
Asked about reports that Iraqi leaders are negotiating with some insurgency chiefs, Rumsfeld replied: “That’s up to the Iraqi people” and “they’re going to have to make those judgments.”
The Iraqi people, the secretary concluded, are going to have to decide through their government “what is the limit to their tolerance for embracing people back into the Iraqi community.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050330_362.html
So Donald Rumsfeld, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, states right here, in black and white, for ALL of you to read, that the US military cannot defeat the insurgency. Read it again...slowly.
The Zarqawi hit was a surgical air-strike based upon intelligence with F-16 fighter jets.
And what about the the F-16 Fighting Falcon?
>>>"In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050330_362.html
Since the Insurgency has no air force, exactly what strategy tactic employed in taking out Zarqawi contradicts Murpha's plan, which is re-deploying troops to an "over-the-horizon" position of readiness, that doesn't put GROUND TROOPS and their SUPPORTING TROOPS and supply lines in harm's way?
Use the minds God gave you. If the Secretary of Defense claims that the Insurgency won't be defeated by the US Coalition, what is the logic of constantly putting them in the line of fire, I.E.D's, and sectarian warfare...unless there is ANOTHER agenda afoot.
--Cobra
Any soldier who serves his country is worthy of respect. John Murtha has done what he can to distance himself from his honorable service by continually criticizing US troops in a time of war. Here are some interesting facts about the Congressman:
http://www.house.gov/murtha/bio.shtml
-Murtha was Active Duty Marines from 1952-59. In 1959, he transferred to the Reserves where he served until 1967. He spent one year, 1966-67 in Vietnam.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200601%5CSPE20060113a.html
Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question
January 13, 2006
"Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.
A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.
"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967."
Prosecuting the GWOT is not politics, it is strategic, operational and tactical execution in support of our nation's stated security objectives.
1. We were already at war with Iraq and were manitaining expensive and dangerous no-fly zones from 1991-2003.
2. Regime Change in Iraq has been our nation's OFFICIAL policy position towards Iraq since 1991, which far predates George W. Bush (43).
3. Insurgencies cannot be defeated by foreign powers; only the indigenous population can win a sustained and decisive victory over an insurgency.
4. There would have been no way to coordinate F-16 raids on al Zarqawi without intricate, expert land component combat operations directed by our own headquarters, not to mention the intelligence apparatus (which includes ground surveillance) necessary.
5. Murtha's position as not even taken seriously by most democrats.
6. The endsate of our mission in Iraq is to field competent, integrated combines arms units that can develop their own intelligence, train officers and leaders at academies, manufacture materiel, and prosecute ground combat against both foreign belligerents and indigenous insurgents. That is being achieved as General Pace says with promise and impressive progress.
People like Cobra decry the deaths of American servicemen and women but actually assist the terrorists, who are the enemies of the people of the United States, when he uses the cut'n'run rhetoric. I am a professional combat Soldier, and Iriaq Freedom veteran, and speak with some authority when i say that troops and marines despise both the rhetoric and policy initiatives of democrats like Murtha, Pelosi, et al. You cannot say you care about soldiers when you are using the same talking points as Bil Laden.
Here's what you said:
"So Donald Rumsfeld, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, states right here, in black and white, for ALL of you to read, that the US military cannot defeat the insurgency. Read it again...slowly."
Here's what the article says:
“In the last analysis it will be the Iraqi people that will defeat the insurgency, not the coalition,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters here March 29. "
Cobra, the US Military CAN DO ANYTHING, including defeat any damn insurgency. Rumsfeld did NOT say that the US military CANNOT defeat the insurgency. Nice try. He said the Iraqi people WILL defeat the insurgency.
Why? Because the US is training Iraq and is handing over full control to Iraqi forces. We're transferring our abilities to defeat insurgents to Iraqis. That's why, as Rumsfeld said, "The Iraqi people will defeat the insurgency."
He also said this because of the level of intelligence provided by Iraqis. Iraqis are turning their backs boldly on the insurgency and the US relies on them for their intelligence, which they continue to provide. Proof of this is the Zarqawi assassination.
Murtha said:
My plan calls:
2. To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
Let’s review.
Murtha says we should get out immediately.
Iraqis want us to stay.
Rumsfeld says the Iraqis will defeat the insurgency (because they are an amazingly strong and resilient people who want the chance the US is giving them, which John Murtha wishes to take away)
Cobra says the US CANNOT feat the insurgency, lying about the Rusmfeld quote.
Typical liberal.
Don't worry, we're working on it. And Cobra, for the last time, stop spinning and try to be objective. Murtha has lost all credibility when he delcared our troops guilty before they were even tried. He refuses to listen to the people actually doing the fighting over there, but then this is true of all liberals who oppose this war. If you want to quote one of leaders, make sure you quote them in context, otheriwise you prove yourself for the partisan hack we knew you to be.
Murtha, by all accounts, is playing politics, and deliberatley misleading Americans into thinking he gives a damn about our troops. If our troops were not getting killed, Murtha and the rest of the Dem Goon squad would be the first to complain. They'd lose their only platform.
>>>"Cobra, the US Military CAN DO ANYTHING, including defeat any damn insurgency. Rumsfeld did NOT say that the US military CANNOT defeat the insurgency. Nice try. He said the Iraqi people WILL defeat the insurgency.
Why? Because the US is training Iraq and is handing over full control to Iraqi forces. We're transferring our abilities to defeat insurgents to Iraqis. That's why, as Rumsfeld said, "The Iraqi people will defeat the insurgency."
Amy, your passage reminds me of other famous statements about the US Military in the past:
>>>“There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.”
--Gen. George Armstrong Custer
And some more fun statements from the recent past:
>>>"
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
Now how is that "training of Iraqis" going, Amy?
>>>"The Pentagon has stopped making public its assessment of the number of Iraqi army units deemed capable of battling insurgents on their own without American military help.
Previously, U.S. officials had released a tally every three months of Iraqi military units that were sufficiently trained to operate by themselves, without the aid of U.S. firepower, logistics or transportation.
The decision to stop making the information public came after successive reports showed a steady decline in the number of qualified Iraqi units. That number now is classified, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The fielding of independent Iraqi units, which will eventually take over from the 130,000-plus American service members, is a critical indicator of when U.S. forces can begin leaving Iraq.
President Bush has said that American forces will hand off increasing responsibility to the Iraqis "as more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line."
Last June, the Pentagon said three Iraqi battalions were ready to take on the enemy by themselves. By last fall, that number had dropped to one.
By February, that number had fallen to zero, meaning there were no Iraqi units capable of taking on the insurgency without American help."
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/14792752.htm
Let me post that last paragraph AGAIN, Amy...for the sake of your readers who gloss over FACTS I present.
<b>By February, that number had fallen to zero, meaning there were no Iraqi units capable of taking on the insurgency without American help./<b>
--Cobra
"In Iraq, the progress has been enormous. We still have a lot of work to do, but when you look back over this past year, for example -- a year ago, there were just a handful of Iraqi army battalions that were in the fight. Today there are over 130, a battalion being 500 to 600 guys. Just over a year ago, there were no brigades. Brigades are about 3,000 men. Today there are over 30 Iraqi brigades. Just over a year ago, there were no divisions of 14,000 or better. Today there are 10. And the Iraqi armed forces are taking over more and more responsibility for more and more territory. So as the combined armed forces of the coalition and more and more of the Iraqi security forces provides stability in the country, the Iraqi government can step forward and take hold of their future."
General Peter L. Pace, Chairman, JCoS February 17, 2006
http://www.jcs.mil/chairman/speeches/060217NatPressClubLunch.html
Oh, and did I mention we got Zarqawi? :)
>>>“There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.”
--Gen. George Armstrong Custer
EXACTLY HOW FAR BACK IN HISTORY ARE YOU PLANNING ON GOING THERE, COBRA?
>>>"
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE OF A REPUBLICAN... WE DISAPPROVED OF PRES. CLINTON BUT SUPPORTED THE TROOPS. WHAT DELAY DIDN'T SAY IS THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT **NOT** THE MISSION. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?? LIBS **SAY** THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT NOT THE JOB THEY'RE DOING. STUPID IGNORAMOUSES.
>>> "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to
be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
CONTEXT? AND WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT JOE SCARBOROUGH THINKS? OBVIOUSLY HE'S WRONG ANYWAY!
>>> "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home
in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
AGAIN, CONTEXT AND DID YOU NOTICE THE DATE? PRE-9/11 THERE, COBRA.
ARE THESE ALL CLINTON ERA QUOTES EXCEPT FOR KAREN HUGHES?? WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
Cobra, you're a Daily KOS reader. They're less legit than Newsweek who, if you'll recall, WRONGLY accused US military at Gitmo of flushing a Koran. Propaganda, Cobra.. its alive and well on the left. You guys and Osama make great bedfellows.
It also appears that Cobra has discovered that there are some effective Mongoose on this site! Yeah, baby!
And listen to yourself here Amy...
>>>"AGAIN, CONTEXT AND DID YOU NOTICE THE DATE? PRE-9/11 THERE, COBRA."
Are you saying here that Sean Hannity's quote was applicable to every military action prior to 9/11/2001? And that 9/11/2001 suddenly means our servicemen and women's lives are now akin to worthless pawns on the neo-con chessboard because Bush is in office?
You're not saying that, are you?
Amy writes:
>>>"THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE OF A REPUBLICAN... WE DISAPPROVED OF PRES. CLINTON BUT SUPPORTED THE TROOPS. WHAT DELAY DIDN'T SAY IS THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT **NOT** THE MISSION. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?? LIBS **SAY** THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT NOT THE JOB THEY'RE DOING. STUPID IGNORAMOUSES."
The United States Armed Forces are NOT "nation-builders". They are not beat cops, social workers, or security guards. Their job is to take down opposing armies, which they accomplished back in 2003. Again, supporting the troops does not mean blindly supporting the civilian leadership.
Why don't you folks accept the truth? There is no way in hell you'd support this war if a Democrat was the President. We know this because the partisan attacks on Clinton over war in Kosovo (no KIA's there, by the way) and missile strikes against Al Qaeda AND Iraq.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
--Cobra
Well, if their quotes are anything like "The United States says is CANNOT beat the insurgency" quote inaccuracy, I'd say yes!"
>>>"Cobra, knock it off and quit embarassing yourself. You have deliberatley taken quotes that could apply to almost anything that has happened in the last 15 years and you expect us to credit that as proof? Get over yourself."
You know exactly what those quotes were about. Anytime Clinton used military force, right wingers would froth at the mouth condemining it. And if a Democrat was in the White House today, presiding over THIS war, you'd be taking to the streets in outrage.
Amy writes:
>>>"Well, if their quotes are anything like "The United States says is CANNOT beat the insurgency" quote inaccuracy, I'd say yes!"
But Amy apparently didn't read Johnny here:
>>>"3. Insurgencies cannot be defeated by foreign powers; only the indigenous population can win a sustained and decisive victory over an insurgency."
I'll let you two slug it out over this one.
--Cobra
"There is no way in hell you'd support this war if a Democrat was the President. We know this because the partisan attacks on Clinton over war in Kosovo (no KIA's there, by the way) and missile strikes against Al Qaeda AND Iraq."
You are wrong.
I served 8 years under president Clinton and was part of the invasion force that restored democracy to Haiti in 1994 and proudly so. You're also wrong if you think none of the Clinton-ordered bombings produced collateral damage.
"There is no way in hell you'd support this war if a Democrat was the President. We know this because the partisan attacks on Clinton over war in Kosovo (no KIA's there, by the way) and missile strikes against Al Qaeda AND Iraq."
I'll echo Johnny on this one. I served in Bosnia under Clinton. You deal with your own partisanship.
If you supported the Kosovo War under Clinton, then you were against these people:
>>>"
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"
Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage
"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R )
"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will
either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/08/17/heresWhatRepublicansSaidAboutClintonAndKosovo.html
Of these folks, I give a little credit to Pat Buchanan, who is consistant in his isolationist stance, and is also against the Iraq War.
--Cobra
>>>"So? What, you mean politicians are partisan in Washington? *gasp!* I had no idea! Of course Cobra. But don't act like the Republicans are the only partisan group in Congress. Both sides will criticize the other every time."
OK, but you also write BEFORE my array of quotes...
>>>"Murtha, by all accounts, is playing politics, and deliberatley misleading Americans into thinking he gives a damn about our troops. If our troops were not getting killed, Murtha and the rest of the Dem Goon squad would be the first to complain. They'd lose their only platform."
By your own standards, shouldn't the above list of Republicans and conservatives be condemned for their statements on Kosovo?
--Cobra