 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! January 18, 2006 60 Minutes With Murtha and MeBy GreyhawkHey come on in! Grab a beer, pull up a chair - you're right on time to watch the 60 Minutes Murtha interview with me. What? You'd rather go to the Dentist? Fine, click here. Okay, extra chair now. Sit down, show's on: tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick... MIKE WALLACE, co-host: A vast majority of American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year. Who says so? Congressman John Murtha. And tonight he'll explain his plan to make that happen. The 73-year-old Democrat from Pennsylvania is a much decorated war hero from Vietnam and Korea, the heavyweight in military matters in the Congress who stunned the Bush White House last November by calling for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Representative JOHN MURTHA: Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. My plan calls for immediate redeployment of US troops consistent with the safety of US forces. (Footage of Murtha and Wallace) Me: The primary target? According to the Government of Iraq, over 7,000 Iraqis were killed in 2005 by "insurgents". Are you sure we are the "primary target"? Representative JOHN MURTHA: ????? WALLACE: And now he told us the withdrawal is going to happen sooner than we think. Rep. MURTHA: I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year. And I'm hopeful they will be out sooner than that. WALLACE: Vast majority by the end of? Rep. MURTHA: I--I think so. (Footage of war protesters) Me: Well, this is interesting. Before you called for a drawdown the administration said that if the commanders in Iraq determine drawdown is feasible then it will happen. Sounds like everybody is talking drawdown. However, in a recent Town Hall meeting you stated that what concerned you was a draw down "which makes it look like there's a victory". That seems to be the main difference in your approaches. Any comment? Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: And here's how he says it will happen. Murtha told us that mounting pressure from constituents in this election year will force the Congress to pass his withdrawal plans, or something like it, to bring the troops home. Are you going to press for a new debate on Iraq in this session of Congress? Rep. MURTHA: I think you'll see not only debate, I think you'll see some changes. Me: What about the vote on your demands in November - it was something like 403 to 3... WALLACE: And is the Congress going to insist upon a major withdrawal from Iraq before Election Day in November? Rep. MURTHA: Sure. You're going to see a plan for withdrawal. WALLACE: How do you get that plan through the Congress and impose a withdrawal plan on President Bush? Rep. MURTHA: I think the political people who give him advice will say to him, `You don't want a Democratic Congress, you want to keep the Republican majority. And the only way you're going to keep it is by reducing substantially the--the troops in Iraq.' (Footage of President George W. Bush) Me: What about the rarely mentioned House vote last summer, it passed 291-137, that declared it was the sense of Congress that early withdrawal from Iraq should be opposed? You lost votes between then and November... including yours. You voted against this one - back before you "stunned the Bush administration". Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: Apparently, the president hasn't gotten that message yet. This past week, here's what he told a veterans group about decisions to withdraw troops from Iraq: President GEORGE W. BUSH: All my decisions will be based on conditions on the ground, not artificial timetables set by Washington politicians. (Footage of a burning car in Iraq; US troops in Iraq) WALLACE: But it's those conditions on the ground, most Iraqis wanting the US occupation to end, and insurgents killing or maiming Americans that convinced the congressman that it's now time to get our troops out. Rep. MURTHA: Troops I talk to, and they say to me, `In the daytime they wave at us, at nighttime they throw hand grenades.' Me: Does that translate into wanting out? Troops I talk to don't want to leave before the job is done. Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: Who are these insurgents? Rep. MURTHA: The insurgents are Iraqis. Ninety-three percent of the--the insurgents are Iraqis. A very small percentage of foreign fighters. The Iraqis know exactly who's--who's doing the fighting, they just won't tell us. And--and they'll tell other Iraqis. Once we're out of there, they'll eliminate them. (Footage of President Bush; US troops in Iraq; burning car; Iraqis throwing debris) Me: What methods will they use to "eliminate" them? Rep. MURTHA:????? Rep. MURTHA: They take Iraq, and then they talk about terrorism. We're diverting ourself away from the war--the war on terrorism when we're fighting an insurgency in Iraq. (Footage of President and Laura Bush; President Bush giving speech) Me: Hold on; which is it - the insurgents are mainly targeting us, or we're just caught in the cross fire of an Iraqi Civil War? Make the call. Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: Murtha's criticism prompted the president to launch a series of speeches to regain public support. He says you're wrong. Let me show you what he said just two days after your speech back on November 17th. Pres. BUSH: The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. If they're not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to de--destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, and to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I'm going to make you this commitment: this is not going to happen on my watch. Rep. MURTHA: He's trying to fight this war with rhetoric. And Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is. So when he says we're fighting terrorism over there, that--that is--we're--we're inciting terrorism over there. We're encouraging terrorism, we 're destabilizing the area over there by being over there, because we're the targets. He said before, there's weapons of mass destruction, he said there is an al-Qaeda connection. There's--many, many things he said turn out not to be true. So why would I believe him when he says the things that he just made that statement? (Footage of President Bush) Me: "And Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is" - okay, where is that center? You ask him, Mike - he's ignoring me. He served that one right up for a hard-nosed journalist like you - pounce! WALLACE: Murtha feels that, all along, the White House has been long on spin, short on truth. Me: Oh well... Rep. MURTHA: They need to be honest with the public. They need to admit they made mistakes. WALLACE: Who's "they"? Me: Yeah! Pin him down! Make him squirm! (/sarcasm) Rep. MURTHA: The--the administration needs to be honest with the public. WALLACE: Who's "they"? Me: Nothing gets by you Mike! Make him give the "money quote". Go, go, go! Rep. MURTHA: The adm--the president himself needs to be honest with the public. He's getting bad information from somebody. And I've been arguing with him now for several months, and I would hope he's become less isolated. Me: Speaking of bad information, are we the main target or are we just caught in a civil war? WALLACE: Face-to-face, have you argued with him? Rep. MURTHA: I have not talked to him face-to-face. WALLACE: How come? Rep. MURTHA: Well, he hasn't invited me to talk to him. Me: Well, obviously he hasn't got the confrontational skills of ol' Mike Wallace here! WALLACE: What do you think of President Bush? Rep. MURTHA: Well, he's isolated, most isolated president that--that I have served with. (Photo of Murtha taking an oath; Murtha by helicopter; Murtha with constituents) Me: How about a photo of Murtha with Code Pink? WALLACE: Murtha has served with seven presidents, starting with Richard Nixon. He's been in Congress for 32 years representing Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Most of his constituents backed the war, but the congressman is king here, so his stand has led a shift in some local opinion about Iraq. Murtha, who has two Purple Hearts, told us that if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had been in combat themselves, they would have been more reluctant to send young Americans into battle. Me: Click here. Speaking of "king" - your brother has made some bucks on defense contracts, eh? The Village Voice says Murtha's ties to his brother's lobbying firm are once again coming under scrutiny. Some 10 companies with ties to KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm where Murtha's brother Robert is a senior partner, got $20.8 million in defense contracts. The Los Angeles Times in June reported that the funding was passed as part of the Pentagon's overall $417 billion spending bill.and... Roll Call recently reported Murtha leaning on Navy officials to transfer the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to San Francisco on land whose rights were at one time held by a company whose top execs included Laurence Pelosi, a relative of Nancy Pelosi's.And Pelosi supported your cut and run call. But it's all good... Rep. MURTHA: War is a nasty business. It sears the soul. The--there--the shadow of friends killed, the shadow of--of killing people lives with you the rest of your life. So there's--there's no--there's no experience like being in combat. (Footage of American troops; Iraqis protesting) Me: How about footage of Code Pink protesting outside Walter Reed? WALLACE: Murtha wants all the troops home within six months, except for a quick reaction force of about 20,000 who would be based nearby in Kuwait. But he admits that when the Americans leave, the civil war in Iraq will intensify. Me: And what will that "Quick Reaction Force" do during that intensification? Rep. MURTHA: When we leave, it's going to continue, and somebody will prevail, just like in our civil war in the United States. Somebody is going to prevail. It's up to them. If they want democracy, they've got to fight for that democracy. (Footage of American troops) Me: Like the French, in World War II! WALLACE: But President Bush believes US troops can stop the civil war, and he paints John Murtha as a defeatist. Me: That might be because Murtha declared us defeated. Pres. BUSH: Now, there are only two options before our country, victory or defeat. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor. And I will not allow it. Rep. MURTHA: Victory vs. defeat is not a policy at all. What is the definition of victory? There's two policies. The one is you stay with an open-ended policy and Iraqis determine when we leave. And the other policy is my recommendation, where we redeploy as quickly as possible. (Footage of Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) Me: “Redeploy as quickly as possible” – heh. Good one. Of course, there's also the President's policy, where US commanders on the ground determine our timetable. But actually, you declared us defeated and said you feared a "withdrawal that made it look like victory"... WALLACE: I asked Murtha why his policy has not been endorsed by prominent Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden. Rep. MURTHA: Because they're afraid, they're afraid to--they don't understand it. They think there's a safe way to work their way through this. And they're afraid to get out there and--and make a statement that--that later on might come back to haunt them. (Footage of Murtha) Me: Last November Newsweek revealed you are actually playing a scripted role for the Party so others wouldn't have to. Here, I'll read it: Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."Now a few years ago you urged President Clinton to withdraw US troops from Somalia, declaring US troops demoralized and defeated. Some might argue this was a political ploy to give a Democratic President military credibility - "cover" so he could cut and run. They could further argue that the same thing applies now - you embarrass a Republican President who doesn't want to cut and run - once again, your Party "scores". Others might insist you're sincere, actually in favor of running from both conflicts. But if so, by what measure are you a "hawk"? Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: But Murtha's stand could come back to haunt him if President Bush turns out to be right about Iraq. Me: Yeah, no doubt the media big guns like you won't let him forget it. (/sarcasm - no, really, this time I mean it.) WALLACE: You left college to fight in the Korean War. Rep. MURTHA: Yeah. WALLACE: You stayed in the Marines for 37 years. Rep. MURTHA: Yeah. Me: Thank you for helping make the world in which I speak freely. I'm an Iraq war vet, by the way. Those who attack your military service are despicable. In light of your current actions it's like arguing whether a child molestor bought or stole the candy he used as bait. WALLACE: Last week, you said you would not have enlisted to fight in Iraq and you wouldn't encourage others to enlist. Rep. MURTHA: Yeah. That's because I disagree with the policy. I mean, I--I--when I was in college, I remember vividly, I stood in my--my--my dormitory room and I looked down, it was in the wintertime, and I said, `I can't stay here. I got--this is not right for me to be here. We're fighting communism and--and I ought to be in the military.' And I remember my mother cried, she was upset, my goodness, I left college. And after that, three of my brothers joined the Marine Corps. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II, so, you know, we know what it's all about. Me: But would you join back then if you had it all to over again? I would. Some things like Nazism, Communism, Slavery... you just have to take a stand. Of course, no doubt some veterans of that war against Fascism probably didn't support your war against Communism. So anyway, if Iraq isn't the current center of terrorism, where is...? Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he said your comments are damaging recruiting and hurting the troops. Take a look. General PETER PACE: It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed and it's damaging to the morale of the families who believe in what they are doing to--to serve this country. Rep. MURTHA: Well, you know, he's frustrated, he's frustrated because he can't meet the goals. Here's what hurts recruitment: they're rotating four and five times, they have no clear mission. It's not what I say that hurts morale, this is long before I said anything that their recruiting had problems. One of the problems they have with enlistment is because they continually say how well things are going, and the troops on the ground know better. (Footage of Murtha) Me: Okay, hold up. The troops on the ground are reenlisting in huge numbers - if they know better, why are they doing that? And what's that got to do with enlistments? Are you implying the troops are discouraging others from enlisting - while re-enlisting in record numbers? And actually, recruiting goals have been met for the last six months too. And on that topic - here are some stats on Guard re-enlistment and rotation. Most volunteer for additional tours: Nationally, of the nearly 500,000 Guard and reservists deployed since September 2001, only about 76,600 have been called up twice - and all but 2,200 of them volunteered for a second tour, according to the Pentagon.Back to you, Mike. WALLACE: To prove his point, he read us a letter he had received from a soldier in Iraq. Rep. MURTHA: (Reading) "I am a US soldier currently stationed in Tel Afar. It's frustrating to me that many other soldiers to be fighting a war on an idea with no goal, no end in sight. Iraq as a country is never going to stand on its own until we leave and give them a chance to do so. Our presence is no longer beneficial to anyone." Now, this is an ordinary soldier that's saying this. (Footage of US troops carrying a wounded individual) Me: Wow - I'll bet a lot more of the ordinary soldiers would say the same thing too. One thing we know for sure is Soldiers aren't afraid to speak up. Here's one that told you to your face about his fellow Guard members volunteering for Iraq after an Afghanistan tour. You ignored him, of course. Now, about those re-enlistment rates... Rep. MURTHA:????? You know, in talking to these various people who've lost legs and arms and traumatic brain injury and so forth, I was astonished. They are not taking any punches at the people who sent them there. Me: Roll that Code Pink footage again. And here's a troop from Walter Reed. And another. And some more... Rep. MURTHA: Now, obviously the troops themselves have to believe in what they're doing. Me: Woah - rewind. Because we just went from a letter from a soldier in Iraq agreeing with you about "Our presence is no longer beneficial to anyone." to dismissing the wounded troops by saying "obviously the troops themselves have to believe in what they're doing." Which is it? I mean, I haven't seen an about face that swift since... well, since you claimed we were the main target of insurgents then stated we were just caught in the crossfire of a civil war. Rep. MURTHA:????? Me: Don't let him off that hook Mike! WALLACE: Why do the generals who speak publicly all say that the US is on the right track in Iraq, and that you, in effect, are off your rocker? Rep. MURTHA: Well, they don't say that to me privately, I will tell you that. You know, they're going to be fired if they speak out. (Footage of letter) Me: Which General said he was in effect off his rocker? Wallace:????? Me: Do you know how much a General's pension is - plus the book deal? Come on, congressman - name one General that whispers truth in your ear. No way the administration could fire him after that - he'd be bullet proof. Or are you implying they're all simpering cowards, afraid to say what they think? Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: Murtha told us that 80 percent of his mail has been positive. But he also got this: "Congratulations, you are now an honorary member of al-Qaeda. Your words have emboldened the enemy and endangered our troops on the ground. You have become the new Hanoi Jane." But Murtha has a thick hide. Rep. MURTHA: When I don't agree with the policy, I have to speak out. Me: unlike those cowardly Generals who won't speak out, and those soldiers who have to support the war except that one who sent you a letter... WALLACE: Well, I've got to speak out about you. A year ago, you argued against what you're arguing for now. Let me quote; "A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment, but also its perseverance." Were you wrong a year ago? Rep. MURTHA: I was wrong a year ago. And--and--and times have changed since that--since that statement. (Footage of American troops; Zawahiri) Me: That reminds me. When you first launched your new improved "anti-war" message you claimed that over 15,000 troops had been seriously wounded in Iraq. That was definitely "wrong", as I pointed out here. Then in your Town Hall meeting you changed your claim to reflect the actual number - about half that 15k. I know you're a big time hawk on the armed services committee and all, but did you find out the real number of wounded by reading here? While we're on that topic, your brother has made money on defense contracts. One of the companies benefiting from the contracts got $1.7 million, three times its 2004 sales. Other firms got contracts totaling more than half of their sales in 2004. Murtha received $68,000 in campaign contributions during the 2003 cycle from defense contractors.Your brother responded: "Let's be honest: The name certainly creates some kind of impression, but I can't help that. We're not doing anything improper or underhanded. I'm entitled to make a living, like the next guy."Was he wrong to say that? We're you wrong to take that money too? WALLACE: But the change that Murtha wants, pulling all US troops out, could embolden the terrorists--when President Bush announced he'd withdraw just 20,000 troops after Iraq's recent election, al-Qaeda claimed victory. Al-Qaeda's number two, Zawahiri, in a video message this month he said, "America's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq proved the victory of Islam in Iraq." Rep. MURTHA: I think they are trying to incite this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because they--they--we have united the Iraqis against us. We're spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we're involved in a civil war in Iraq. Me: Okay, that's two "civil wars" versus just one "we are the primary target". At least you haven't called us the enemy - tonight. WALLACE: Zawahiri also says al-Qaeda is growing and increasing in strength. Rep. MURTHA: If it is increasing in strength, I think it's because it actually helps these terrorists to be in Iraq because it unites the--the world against us. Me: Okay, let's clarify that, because I'm hoping I got that wrong. The world is taking the side of the terrorists - and you've made the distinction between terrorists and insurgents quite clearly. Is that really what you meant? While I'm on the topic, you recently said the suicide attacks in Jordan were America's fault. Do you stand by that claim, or were you wrong then? And do you think the Jordanians think that way? Are they part of the "world turning against us"? Rep. MURTHA:????? WALLACE: Hasn't the occupation done a lot of good in Iraq? Saddam's dictatorial reign over, democracy has begun, schools and factories are reopening, the economy is coming back. Rep. MURTHA: That election, of course, is being trumpeted as being so important to democracy. When I came back from Vietnam in 1967, they had an election. It was supposed to set the state, it was supposed to legitimize the government, if you remember. And we lost 38,000 people after that. Now, I don't say that this has the same intensity and that we're going to lose 38,000 people. But I'm just saying that there's a lot more things have to be done if you're going to have a democratic government. Me: The question was yes or no - reread it if you'd like. You're answer was no? And by the way, there were three elections in Iraq in which people risked death to vote, and you just dismissed them all... Rep. MURTHA: Thirteen from my congressional district. Me: Name one. WALLACE: Do their families feel that you are--this is a tough one--do their families feel that you are dishonoring their memory by speaking out against the war that they gave their lives to? Rep. MURTHA: Well, I hope they understand it's my job, my responsibility to speak out when I disagree with the policy of the president of the United States. All of us want this president to succeed. But you just can't sit back and allow this war to continue on without a clear exit strategy. That's the reason I'm so strong about this. I feel--I feel a mission here with my experience that--that I have to help the president find a way out of this thing. Me: You hope they understand? Have you met with none of them? George Bush even met with the Sheehan family once - but you have no idea how those in your district feel? Or do you know exactly how they feel, you son of a... Mrs G: Turn the TV off. Posted by Greyhawk / January 18, 2006 6:39 PM | Permalink 4 TrackBacksDo. Not. Miss. It. Read More TITLE: I wish, I wish URL: http://homefrontsix.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-wish-i-wish.html IP: 70.95.71.57 BLOG NAME: HomefrontSix DATE: 01/19/2006 03:04:01 AM Read More Great article regarding the 60 Minutes piece on John Murtha, from Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette. I think Greyhawk should have Mike Wallace's job. But then again, I think just about anyone would be better than Mike Wallace. Read More One of the more fascinating developments over the past few years is the Democrats' reliance on veterans to do their dirty work of pushing defeatism. John Kerry made a career out of this, but the ghosts of his past came Read More 32 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Great job Greyhawk. Wish I knew how to forward this to Mike Wallace. Keep up the good work.
Geez, I'm glad I'm not the only one who's wife thinks that the "loyal opposition" is going to give me a heart attack. (Mrs. D is with you on this one, Mrs G)
Excellent take down, Greyhawk.
Now if only such hard-hitting investigative outfits like 60 minutes would set up a REAL face to face, like between Murtha and you, instead of with the washed out and washed up likes of Wallace...
Mrs SD is with Mrs D and Mrs G as well.
I wasn't allowed to watch 60 minutes.
CNN and Christian Amanpour have already claimed 2 televisions. Mike Wallace with Murtha would have surely claimed a 3rd.
Me: Wow, it must be really hard to put a lack of words into your opponent's mouth. Great debating skills!
Greyhawk: ???????
Me: You certainly run logical rings around what you imagine Murtha wouldn't say in response to what you didn't say.
Greyhawk: .... I like dogs!
Me: Fascinating. Is there anything else you can do to show us your intellectual superiority and telegenic presence?
Greyhawk: ??????
Me: It's been a pleasure. I'll walk away now and never troll here again. Honest.
You say:
Me: The primary target? According to the Government of Iraq, over 7,000 Iraqis were killed in 2005 by "insurgents". Are you sure we are the "primary target"?
As if it's some sort of take down. Are you saying that the larger number means the civilians were the primary target or the softer target? Are you saying there are not internecine conflicts that contribute to deaths? Are you saying that Al Queda doesn't want to hurt US troops, over there or over here? After all, we're fighting them over there so we don't have to over here, right? Are you saying that we're not the primary target so therefore they've taken the battle somewhere else?
Do they give purple hearts for keyboard injuries? Doesn't Murtha's count for any respect?
Here's an idea, try something new, try thinking.
"mightcan" might can think himself, but I doubt it. He admits we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq but apparently thinks we ought not to. There's a winning political stance for you. "Oooh, we're afraid to fight the guys who murdered 3000 innocents at the WTC and Pentagon." How about you cowards quit dissembling and tell the American people what you really think?
Greyhawk has nailed Murtha with this alone:
Well, Congressman, which is it?
Purple Heart, Smurple Heart. Thanks for your service but, it doesn't make you a military savant, as is clearly indicated by this rambling and confused interview. And, let's face it, without that medal, nobody would be listening to this doddering old fool.
This is simple: either Murtha is Right or he is wrong. You guys say he is wrong. He is no dummy and has had a lot of experience. Therefore, I will give things a bit of time to see if he is right or he is wrong. I will leave ilt to the antis posting clever remarks here to know in advance that they are right and Murtha is wrong. Let us check back in 6 months.
Thanks for this - it's excellent. I watched the 60 Minutes segment, and I was angry at Wallace's duplicity - esp. in allowing Murtha to characterize the way soldiers think about OIF, w/o showing the soldier confronting Murtha and Moran in the meeting. Wallace did let Murtha off the hook repeatedly - as you showed in outstanding detail. This was a naked agenda piece by Wallace.
freddie - a lot of experience in what? Planning and prosecuting a war? Nope.
If Murtha is right in 6 months, it will only be because of the stopped clock principle. The administration is already planning on drawing down troops based on having accomplished goals that have been enunciated repeatedly over the last couple of years. This is like the Connecticut Yankee taking credit for blotting out the sun during an eclipse. The Yankee doesn't cause anything, he just knows something the village idiots do not.
mightcan ~ Murtha's service record is NOT THE ISSUE. His behavior over the past few months and the irresponsible and despicable nature of some of those actions ARE. Pull your head out of your dark, stinky place and get a clue.
- hfs
I am a decorated combat infantryman whose active duty service and time in combat [5 battle stars] exceeds Murtha's. If I had asked for a Purple Heart in 1950 for a band-aid scratch the way Murtha and Kerry did the medic would have sent me to the Chaplain to get my T.S. card punched. They dishonor the award. Murtha's suggestion, to leave a secure base but commit to retake it in a hot L.Z. action makes his claim to combat expertise suspect.
Bravo!!! Masterful, simply masterful.
Bravo!!! Masterful, simply masterful.
Murtha is a coward who hates freedom! I bet he never even served - no member of the military could be such an idiot. Murtha emboldens the enemy, hates the troops, disrespects the president, he should be impeached!!!
Walter E. Wallis knows a coward as well. Walter knows what a bunch of pussies that Murtha and Kerry are. Fuck their service!!!
The money question is: How much of that $20.8M in military contracts let to his brother's clients were the result of "earmarks" by Cong. Murtha (ala "Duke" Cunningham)?
GreyHawk,
Well done. I love how some folks have learned so much from watching Mike Wallace's exploits in the VietNam War that now they know so much more about how to win wars than the Generals paid to plan, execute and win them. For instance, they believe a politician in DC, because he is a Dhimmicrat, served in intel in the Vietnam War, and has called for more money for veterans affairs, but consistently voted against using the country's military in ANY military action worldwide, (and thinks that makes him a "hawk"), whose experience is dated by at least 10 years, and thinks he has more knowledge of warfighting strategy than the Generals paid to fight and win wars today. Seems like a lesson we quote frequently from the Vietnam experience as one not to repeat.
I know a defeatist when I see one. I know a man who is opening his mouth just to provide cover for his peers who have Presidential aspirations when I see him. I see a man who is damaging the morale of troops through his statements because he damages my morale just listening to his drivel.
You don't win by playing defense. You win by playing offense. Every first year ROTC student knows that and more. Murtha and Mike Wallace can play this game of "I'm smarter than the average General is", but they can't escape the characterization of treacherous fools providing aid and comfort to the most dangerous enemies of our country since WWII.
But I read this, laugh as hard as I can at your parody, while crying uncontrollably that there are actually people who think Murtha is close to correct. I wouldn't follow his plan to the bathroom, much less to provide a coherent, secure, and decisive foreign policy for the US. He is a fool. I didn't think he was a traitorus fool before. But with every word he utters, he removes all doubt that his aims are anything remotely resembling a just and accurate plan for America's continued survival, and are patently obvious attempts to provide victory to Islamic radicals and lead to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of lost American lives in the next 10 years.
He is a disgrace. And his supporters should know better, or be exposed as the partisan America haters they are.
Subsunk
RedGuy - Ha. Ha. Ha. Nice try.
Military service doesn't make you immune to being wrong or to criticism.
I stopped reading after:
Me: The primary target? According to the Government of Iraq, over 7,000 Iraqis were killed in 2005 by "insurgents". Are you sure we are the "primary target"?
Because, of course, Iraqi civilians have armor and air support.
Greyhawk=denial + confirmation bias in action.
Murtha said:
"Victory vs. defeat is not a policy at all. What is the definition of victory?"
I love that question, which liberals always ask. Here's my response:
Give me *your* vision of victory in Iraq and then state whether or not you support keeping the troops there until victory is achieved.
Ask a liberal that question, and then watch them squirm.
Murtha is a befuddled old man. Every time I see him, I fancy I smell moldy clothes and Vic's Vap-o-Rub. This is the guy the D's look to for credibility on military issues? I doubt he has control over his own sphincter. Please...
Great job!
BTW:
i posted on this on Sunday:
i focused on a different excerpt of the show:
MURTHA TO MIKE WALLACE: KERRY AND BIDEN AND HILLARY ARE DUMB COWARDS
Murtha appeared on 60MINUTES tonight. He reiterated his defeatist Iraq exit plan - AND insulted his party's leading presidential hopefuls. (Not surprising: Murtha is a jerk!)
HERE'S THE QUOTE:
[MIKE WALLACE:] Why has [your] policy not been endorsed by potential Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or John Kerry?
[JOHN MURTHA:] "Because," says Murtha laughing, "they’re afraid. They’re afraid. They don’t understand it. ... They think there’s a safe way to work their way through this."
Brilliant application of the MST3K treatment, Greyhawk, even if your comments were mostly serious. I'm with SD--I probably would have broken something if I'd watched that.
Greyhawk, that was awesome.
SOTG
First let me say that you actually make a few good points here. However, you should try to keep your rants a little more focused.
Are you trying to:
1. Mock Wallace's interviewing skills?
If so, I could easily assemble a similar piece from any Hannity "interview" w/ Cheney. The quality of Wallace's interview has nothing to do with Murtha's opinions on the war.
2. Accuse Murtha of corruption?
If Murtha directs military contracts to his brother, wouldn't it make sense for him to support the continuation of the war? Murtha's brother's job has nothing to do with Murtha's opinions on the war
3. Accuse Murtha of being inconsistent (i.e., a "flip-flopper")?
He voted for the house resolution last summer, but against the other resolution in November. That would be "flip-flopping" (to use the locals' term) if the resolutions were the same. They were not. Also, most honest people agree that the Nov. resolution was a political farce, put together so people like you could disengenously attack others. I guess you got the memo.
4. Accuse Wallace of "liberal bias"?
I commend you for not actually using the word "bias", but it is certainly implied. In several cases you seem to attack Murtha because Wallace didn't ask him the "right" question.
5. Accuse Murtha of dodging questions?
Be serious. Politicians rarely answer yes or no questions. Let's see why:
Wallace: "Hasn't the occupation done a lot of good in Iraq?"
Murtha (imaginary): Yes, but just because they had elections does not mean the government will survive.
Drudge, Limbaugh, any clown on Fox 7 seconds later: "ANTI-WAR DEM MURTHA FLIP-FLOPS AND SAYS WAR IN IRAQ IS GOOD! THE DEMS HAVE NO MESSAGE!"
It's called taking things out of context, and there is an army of right wing commentators (and bloggers) who are paid to do it constantly.
In other cases I think you're just being lazy. Murtha says war sears the soul and you post a link to some anti-war protestors cutting down a sign? Come on, even your readers will see through this transparent effort to associate Murtha with Code Pink. At least the previous link actually shows him accepting an award from Code Pink. You should have stuck w/ the first link since it better supports your insinuation that Murtha is a big anti-war pussy.
"Like the French"?? Mmentioning the french is like mentioning Michael Moore. That just right-wing laziness.
Having said that, I agree that Wallace does not push Murtha for much detail on his plans. I'd be interested, too, to know what a Kuwait-based "reactionary force" would do. What I'm really interested in is a discussion on how to proceed in Iraq. It seems, tho, that any discussion beyond "whatever George wants to do" often gets shouted down before it even starts. Your post is an example of this effort to prevent discussion.
The country is better served when policy (esp. war policy) is discussed and debated openly. I don't know if Murtha's (or Bush's) plans make sense or not. But I believe our troops understand that debate about war policy IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, because debate leads to better decisions than arbitrary (and unaccountable) decisions made behind closed doors.
If you made it to the end, thanks for listening.
But the war is lost..Its just a matter of who takes the blame for it and who is the last casuality.
Colin
1. Wallace was tossing softballs - Murtha's responses cried out for further questions. Wallace is enough of a journalist to recognize that.
2. Corruption? No indeed. Just pointing out he's a politician first and foremost, an anti-war "purist" when the cameras are on.
3. Flip flopper? - nope. Incoherent on his reversals actually made within this interview? - yes. His vote against the war (more specifically, against any quick withdrawal from Iraq)last summer pre-dates his well orhestrated, well publicized "abrupt conversion" last November.
4. Liberal bias: Mike Wallace? Bias doesn't bother me - the claim it doesn't exist is rather like a claim to some Mr Spock-like unemotional existence. Liberal? I'm a liberal. A lot of people today think they are liberals, but the reality is they subscribe to a very rigidly defined belief system, with little room for variance. I blame Rush Limbaugh for establishing this delusion. (I'm not kidding.)
5. Lazy? War does indeed sear the soul. The video is simply a follow up to the series of videos described in the transcript. It also shows a bit of who Code Pink is - otherwise the photo of Murtha with them lacks value.
"Anti war p----": I'm not insulting Murtha's manhood here - although I'll point out your choice of words is interesting. I would choose a different term.
The French: Not insulting the French either. I've been there several times (I live in Germany), love the country and people, and have done posts saluting them - including during the recent riots. The point is one of comparison - if the Iraqis want democracy they can fight for it themselves; I'm sure some felt the same way about France in WWII but I guess Europeans are worth fighting for?
Valid discussion: I think such a discussion should indeed be made. I can cite Barak Obama's recent trip to Iraq (part of a bi-partisan team) and some comments that came from it as a great starting point. How many people have heard those comments? How many knew Obama went to Iraq?
I appreciate your beliefs on what the troops understand. You are correct - we do think open debate about war policy IS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS. Which is why I raise the questions Mike Wallace (or any other potential Murtha interviewer) never will - and why Murtha's demands to bring us home defeated don't resonate with us. His time in sevice - which I respect - doesn't get him a pass from me or anyone else in uniform. Nor does my service give me validity over you (assuming you're a citizen of the nation I serve).
I appreciate your comments - much beter than those who announced they stopped reading when I pointed out the 7,000 Iraqi deaths last year. Your willingness to read (including the links) and respond with your view is welcome here.
Thus is real debate begun.
The other thing I point out to my wife before she made me turn it off. How about a true debate between another congressman with similiar military service and his point of view, John Kline. He supports the war, understands that we are moving forward in Iraq and will have victory if we allow the troops to finish the job.
Debate is good if there is one. The 60 Minutes piece is not debate it is pure propoganda from a left bias media outfit that will NEVER give the other views. Hard to have an honest open debate under those circumstances.
Dave
Greyhawk:
I think you go a bit far with the snark " Name One". From what can be documented about Murtha's concern for returning vets, I doubt he hasn't visited with the families who lost soldiers within his district. Do you? On what basis?
This last bit really undercut the good points you made earlier in the piece.
Support our troops.
Or sit behind a keyboard and say you do. Whatever.
TruBlu has the best comment here. He thinks the Iraqis killed 3000 Americans in the WTC.
He also thinkd=s the NY Yankees will win the Super Bowl again this year.
Jenius with a capital J.
This is a very stimulating discussion. Great post Greyhawk, not just in content but also in style. I couldn't quit reading. Seriously.
Subsunk - I enjoyed your post. But one point:
"...For instance, they believe a politician in DC, because he is a Dhimmicrat, served in intel in the Vietnam War, and has called for more money for veterans affairs,..."
First of all, they don't believe him. And they don't support him because of his record. They support him because he is willing to say what they all want him to say. They know he will be discredited, and they don't care. He'll be used and cast aside, like Cindy Sheehan.
Colin - very thought provoking. I have to say though, that Greyhawk's post doesn't appear to "prevent discussion" - it seems to have encouraged it.
And it's unfortunate that Mike Wallace not only doesn't ask the "right" questions - he doesn't even ask the logical questions!
"Name one" was a set up for the line where Murtha admits he can only "hope" that survivors of the fallen in his district support him. If he actually knows (or had at least met) the families he could do more than "hope". I'd acknowledge that he, like President Bush, could be reluctant to involve those families in his politics, but if so he missed an opportunity to make that clear - and in doing so he used them for his political ends.