Hannity falsely referred to Republican resolution as the "Murtha amendment"

On both his television and radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity referred to a congressional resolution calling for the immediate termination of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq as the "Murtha amendment." But the resolution in question was not sponsored by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA). While Murtha had introduced a detailed measure that called for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date," his resolution bore little resemblance to the Republican-sponsored measure Hannity was discussing. This one-sentence resolution -- described in news reports as a "political trap" and "aimed at embarrassing war critics" -- simply ordered "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Further, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely wrote that the House of Representatives had voted "on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, only the GOP measure, sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), reached a vote in the House.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210009

DEMOCRATS KEEP SHIFTING TOWARDS SURRENDER




Rep. John Murtha pushed the national argument on the Iraq War further towards the International ANSWER/MoveOn agenda this afternoon by demanding an immediate start of an American retreat from Iraq, declaring that American soldiers do not have the capability to defeat terrorists. He based his conclusion not on the facts on the ground, but apparently his experience in Viet Nam, which he tossed around like a West Point degree all afternoon long:

One of Congress' most hawkish and influential Democrats called Thursday for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, sparking bitter and personal salvos from both sides in a growing Capitol Hill uproar over President Bush's war policies.
"It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."

The comments by the Pennsylvania lawmaker, who has spent three decades in the House, hold particular weight because he is close to many military commanders and has enormous credibility with his colleagues on defense issues. He voted for the war in 2002, and remains the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."


I listened to Murtha extensively on CNN this afternoon as Wolf Blitzer interviewed him, and the AP left out some of Murtha's more idiotic commentary. He kept bringing up Abu Ghraib as if it were the most critical juncture in the Iraq War and kept insisting that it doubled the casualty rate. He repeatedly told Blitzer that the military could not beat the terrorists, a lovely message to send to the 150,000 men and women currently deployed to Iraq, as well as the Zarqawi network and their recruiters. In fact, for most of the interview Murtha could hardly complete a sentence, he became so hysterical.

After the White House disputed his assertions -- mostly rehashed arguments we've now heard for almost all three years of this effort, disregarding the actual fact that our military has allowed the Iraqis to develop a democracy and hold two successful and remarkably peaceful elections -- Murtha got viciously personal, pulling out the chickenhawk argument:

Underscoring the rising emotions of the war debate, Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments this week that Democrats were spouting "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges" about the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the war.
"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," said Murtha, a former Marine. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."


When will Democrats get through their head that our military comes under civilian control? This isn't Starship Troopers, where only veterans make decisions on war and peace, and most Americans wouldn't want to live in that kind of society. All due respect to Murtha's Viet Nam service, but being an enlisted man in Viet Nam doesn't make him the reincarnation of von Clausewitz, either. Dick Cheney has served as a Secretary of Defense and has his own expertise on military matters, even if Murtha doesn't want to admit it.

Cutting and running is surrender, no matter who proposes it. I don't care if Murtha has a chest full of medals -- telling the national media that American troops can't handle Islamofascist terrorists and must be withdrawn from their range of action is cowardice. As I recall, Marshal Petain managed to prostrate himself right quickly before the Nazis despite his status as a WWI hero, too. Besides, where exactly will Murtha draw that line -- New York City? Logan Airport?

Now, of course, the Democrats have the political cover to say that they disagree with Murtha, but they have a more reasonable proposal for a fixed timeline for surrender than Murtha's -- and the media will treat them like "centrists". Blitzer put on that show with John Kerry later tonight, where the erstwhile presidential candidate came up with his latest formulation of an Iraq policy after trying out at least a half-dozen during his failed presidential bid last year. The Democrats, no longer satisfied with being the Party of No have now become the Party of Panic, all while the Iraqis continue to (a) build up their security forces, (b) establish their democratic structures, and (c) more fully engage the Sunni in the political process than ever before.

The Iraqis have more courage in their (purple) finger than Murtha has in his entire hysterical body. Shame on him, and shame on his party.

Rep. John Murtha Urged Somalia Pullout in '93


After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia.

Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."

Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "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."

The comments were eerily similar to Murtha's assessment of U.S involvement in Iraq last week, when he declared, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

Taking Murtha's advice back then, however, turned out to have deadly consequences for U.S. security.

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

What do you expect from a braindead republican chickenhawk? Reading comprehension? Good reporting? Give Me A Break... you ain't a gonna get either of those from a Faux News hack... and anyone that watches Faux News and believes what they hear on it is also braindead...

Bucky refuses to answer that question. I wonder why.

BTW Bucky, John Murtha's bill did not call for an immediate pullout from Iraq. THE REPUBLICAN BILL CALLED FOR AN IMMEDIATE PULLOUT FROM IRAQ! STOP LYING!

To me... those that refuse to state whether or not they have participated in defending the citizens of our country through military service... haven't.

And go easy on poah bucky, shoeless, he's been drinking the rovian koolaid for so long now he doesn't know what REAL truth is...

And it appears to me that the majority of the republicans we run into on the multitude of forums we all visit, are for the most part, pathological liars who wouldn't know the truth if it reared it's beautiful head and tore them limb from limb...

so we should pity poor buck... not condemn him... poor poor delusional bucky... poor thing...

bucky is just like those he supports; otherwise, he might, however involuntarily, find a reason to stop supporting them.

Catherine

Hume, backed by Liasson, falsely claimed that Democrats want to "pull out now" from Iraq

On the December 4 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and National Public Radio national correspondent Mara Liasson mischaracterized as "pull out now" the Iraq redeployment plan proposed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA), which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has endorsed. Hume used this false characterization to support his claim that the American public does not back proposals for leaving Iraq put forth by Democratic elected officials, telling National Public Radio special correspondent Juan Williams: "The public has to some extent, as you correctly note, lost faith in this conflict. However, the pull-out-now number is very low in the public's estimation, and that, however, is the viewpoint to which the Democratic Party increasingly is rallying."

When host Chris Wallace asked Liasson if it was actually "fair ... to say that the Democrats are for 'pull out now,' " she responded, "I think it is fair to say a big chunk, not all, because Democrats -- are split ... in the House, are in the pull-out-now camp."

In fact, no prominent Democratic politician has proposed pulling out of Iraq immediately. In particular, as Media Matters for America has noted, Murtha's proposal does not call for the United States to "pull out now." Instead, his resolution (House Joint Resolution 73) would force the president to withdraw American troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date," which Murtha explained at a November 17 press conference meant an "immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." Asked by a reporter "how long that would be," Murtha responded, "you have to do it in a very consistent way, but I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there."

Other Democrats in Congress have made proposals for pulling troops out of Iraq, none of which called for American forces to leave immediately. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) has proposed a flexible timetable that targets December 2006 for the full departure of U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has proposed a non-specific timetable, which a statement says, "[i]f followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months." The Senate Democratic leadership offered a proposal that declared, "Democrats believe we should see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006 so that our troops can begin coming home." The amendment, offered to the Defense Authorization Bill, would require that the Bush administration provide regular progress reports on Iraq and "a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise." While the amendment was rejected 58-40, an almost identical plan proposed by Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) -- which principally lacked the requirement that the administration produce a withdrawal timetable -- passed 70-19.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512060001

oh yea we just love dean's defeat and retreat.

http://www.rnc.org/

You better hurry child. You still have a bit of time to join the service and show your support!!! Oh wait....you are a coward, I forgot. I wonder, if you did not serve, was it because you scored to low on the ASVAB?

"Defeat and Retreat" How original! Did you just make that one up Bucky?

GOP ad blasts Democrats' 'retreat and defeat'


Republicans Accuse Dems of 'Retreat and Defeat' on War


RNC Releases New Web Ad On The Democrats’ Plan For Iraq, “Retreat and Defeat”

Have you ever had a thought which did not originate in the Republican National Committee? Were you spewed from your mother's loins jabbering RNC talking points?

Bucky knows a little bit about and he really likes

But I think he's been "cornered by the truth" so many times here at TVNL, I'm sure this will be information he'll appreciate:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.ph ... e=&order=0

Catherine