Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'

The Babbling of an Idiot from my state that is a poster child for Term Limits...
By John P. Murtha
Sunday, October 15, 2006; Page B01

The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats." The TRUTH hurts doesn't it?

Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."

It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. It's NOT name calling when the group that determines the current course is a failure offers no alternative except "cut and run"

In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.
There would be no greater disaster than following your plan of pulling the troops out and placing them somewhere like Okinowa. The country would then fall into Civil War, The Kurds would split off in the north and create Kurdistan which would be immediately invaded by Turkey, while Iran would invade from the other direction to aid Al Sader as he started beheading Sunnies in the south. That's what your plan would do John.

Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin. And our troops know they would not get that from the Dems which is why they vote overwhelmingly Republican, and it's why your party tries to disqualify their votes every election.

Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis. First of all Iraq is run by an Iraqi government ASSHOLE, or did you miss the 3 elections they had while you were enjoying the view you have with your head up your ass. It's NOT an occupation and contrary to what you believe the Iraqi government wants us there until more civility is restored to THEIR nation.

The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, (just like Bill Clinton did by cutting the defense budget) refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. This from the party that did nothing to respond to all the terrorist attacks in the 90s except pass laws that forbid the CIA from talking to "unsavory characters" and just recently bragged about "stopping the Patriot Act" and voted against Listening to Terrorists that call people living inside the US. That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror. LOL

Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them. Since entering Congress in 1974, (32yrs of this idiot) I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution. And what do you know now? That you and your party don't know how to do anything except set Americans up to be killed on the streets of America.

Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; Its Funny how they didn't feel that way in 98 when they all made statements saying exactly that. and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. NO ONE EVER SAID IRAQ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11 YA GIT They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered. It can't waver from never having supported them in the first place. Its always been their position.

In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Which people like you and John Kerry voted against the bill to fix that problem. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist. Since the problems were created by the massive military cuts done by Bill Clinton and your party spending the money as what you called "the peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union. How can you brag about trying to fix a problem that you created. Besides name one bill that you created to fix any of these problems John?

When U.S. forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. We are considered occupiers. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny. Only defeatacrats like you and your willing accomplices in the MSM believe that.

The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010. Oh my god defined goals and a time table to achieve them that goes out to 2010 we can't have that can we John? Why it might actually lead to success.

We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who left because they could not adapt to the change in how war must be fought when you are not fighting an army that is aligned to one country or wears no uniform who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored? that's NOT what the intelligence report said John and you know it.

Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? His recommendation was ignored. Because he was wrong Or what about Gen. Jay M. Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? His recommendations were ignored. The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. And if the General and you were listened to about them they would also have the tanks and still be wearing the uniforms of Iraqi soldiers. The statement speaks for itself. They couldn't be trusted to keep them as the Army their actions as civilians prove that disbanding them was the correct choice. Was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Well we do own it and were not going to cut and run until it's fixed. Was Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S. Truman's administration in Korea?

Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has voiced concern over the situation in Iraq? Or at former secretary of state James A. Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq? Report ain't been delivered yet and Warner has proved long ago that he is more aligned with your party and it's past failures, than the administration.

This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic. For one we are not going it alone, the last Presidential election was a referendum on the War and Bush got the solid majority, so what majority are you talking about? World public opinion didn't want to fight Hitler or Japan or the communist threat either. Unlike you asshole the American people could care less about what any European thinks.

The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits. Your just stupid aren't ya John? I don't hear any praise for the fact that this war is being fought so successfully that even in that extended period of time that you are dreading about only 3000 of our brave men and woman have given their lives. More of our soldiers died in single days and in some cases single battles in the wars that you name. Yet you look at our military mission as a failure. As for the war on terror every terrorist leader has stated that their goal is to get America to cut and run from Iraq and then they will follow the infidels to the US and kill them there. That's what your policies would give the American people. A propaganda defeat for us, and a victory to the terrorists to recruit from and no reason to fear coming over here to kill more of us.

Despite the presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results:

· In September, 776 U.S troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years.

· Over the past year, the number of attacks against U.S. personnel has doubled, rising from 400 to more than 800 per week.

· Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently acknowledged that sectarian violence has replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat to Iraq.

· In the past two months, 6,000 Iraqis died, more than in the first year of the war.

· Last week, electricity output averaged 2.4 hours per day in Baghdad and 10.4 hours nationwide -- 7 percent less than in the same period in 2005.

And your response is to "cut and run", that will fix the problem how?

· A Sept. 27 World Public Opinion poll indicated that 91 percent of Iraqi Sunnis and 74 percent of Iraqi Shiites want the Iraqi government to ask U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent. Sounds like a Democrat party Poll don't it LOL

Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability. Just a little bit of history to put things in perspective. In WWII the most US casualties that we suffered in a single month occured just before Germany surrendered. So using Murtha logic we should have quit WWII before winning also.

Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq. LOL what a Maroon

That's not defeatism. That's our duty.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

He served 37 years in the Marine Corps. (those numbers don't add up he can't have served as long as he has in government and that long in the Marines just another of Johns lies)