EJ Dionne today: Murtha and the Mudslingers

[whometense]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600913.html

I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing...

...John Kerry, as well as John McCain -- who faced scurrilous attacks on his war record when he was running against Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary -- could have warned Murtha: If you're a Vietnam veteran, don't you dare get in the way of George W. Bush....

...But from 2000 forward, the Republicans had a problem: They confronted Democrats, first Al Gore and then John Kerry, who actually did go to Vietnam, while it was their own standard-bearers who had skipped the war. Suddenly, service in Vietnam wasn't the thing at all. When a Democrat went to war, there must have been something wrong with the way he did it. Gore's service was dismissed because he worked "only" as a military journalist. You can even find Bush's defenders back in 2000 daring to argue that flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Gore did.

The Republicans had an even bigger problem with Kerry, who did unquestionably dangerous duty patrolling rivers. Not to worry. The Swift Boat Veterans simply smeared him...

Great column. Did anyone else watch Murtha on 60 Minutes Sunday? I'm not his biggest fan - he called Kerry a coward for not calling for immediate withdrawal - leaving me with the impression Murtha has no idea what Kerry's withdrawal plan actually is - but that's another story.

[karynnj]

1. That's pretty nasty of Murtha

Kerry (and Teresa) both jumped to defend him when he was called a coward by Republicans who disagreed with his political opinion on what to do on Iraq. So, Murtha then calls Kerry a coward for not asking for immediate withdrawal, this is pretty ironic. I guess Kerry should ask him whether he (Murtha) was a coward in 1971. From one account, he backed Kerry in 2004, but said he didn't approve of Kerry's antiwar activities - which really amounted to asking for immediate withdrawal. Kerry makes a pretty good case of the difference between the two.

I didn't see 60 minutes, but I haven't been impressed by Murtha - he seems to be motivated by realizing that the military is being destroyed by Bush's policies, but of all the plans his seems the least thought out.

[TayTay]

2. This is what Murtha said

WALLACE (voice-over): I asked Murtha why his policy has not been endorsed by prominent Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURTHA: Because they are afraid, they are afraid to -- they don`t understand it. They think there is a safe way to work their way through this. And they`re afraid to get out there and make a statement that later on might come back to haunt them.


Sigh!
***********

What Kerry said on CNN 11/1/05 When Cong. Murtha unveiled his plan:

BLITZER: Let's talk about a proposal that was put out today by Congressman John Murtha, who's very involved in the Armed Services Committee. He says there should be an immediate withdrawal over the next six months of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Good idea?

KERRY: I respectfully disagree with John Murtha. And I laid out a plan which is, I think, a good plan, a solid plan. It builds consistently on everything I said throughout the campaign last year of what you need to do to be successful. And I believe my plan supports the troops in the right way. General Casey has said very clearly that the large presence of our troops in Iraq is part of the problem. It attracts terrorists. Former Secretary Melvin Laird, secretary of Defense for Richard Nixon, has written the same thing, that it's our presence of troops that's part of the problem and we need to reduce that presence. BLITZER: But you don't want a timetable or a hard and fast deadline?

KERRY: I have laid out a plan where we could withdraw some 20,000 troops around the holidays, based on the fact -- not as a rigid timetable -- linked to the success of the election. We have about 160,000 troops in Iraq today, Wolf. We had 138,000 -- it went up for the purpose of making Iraq safer for the referendum and the elections.

My benchmark is, if you have a successful election after having had a successful referendum, we've done our part with those extra troops; they should come home, taking us back to the level that we were at before that. Then you set a target for the taking over of security responsibilities in Baghdad and in other provinces and Syria (ph), in a sort of step by step basis. You set out a timetable, not for withdrawal, but for success, that allows you to withdraw. And I believe if you do the right things, and I've laid out what they are, we can bring the bulk of our combat troops home over the course of next year.
*****************************************

Hardball transcript of 11/17/05 (That's when it came across.)

MATTHEWS: Are you surprised at Jack Murtha, the congressman from Pennsylvania, such a pro-military guy -- You're a military guy. He was another combat veteran from Vietnam -- coming out so emotionally today, saying we've basically got to get the troops out, this is not where we should be?

KERRY: I have so much respect for Jack Murtha. He is one of the best in the Congress. And his love of the military, his respect for those in uniform is second to nobody in the Congress, and everybody knows that.

So that's a very important statement that he made.

I don't happen to agree, and I've laid out a way that I think we can get out over the course of time in a way that doesn't require such a precipitous transition.

But I understand where he's coming from.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... and say let's get our guys out.

KERRY: Because he sees the mess. Because he doesn't see this administration changing their policy. Because he has no confidence, as most of us do have no confidence, in this administration's willingness to do what's necessary.

And if they're not willing to do what's necessary, a lot of people are beginning to feel very deeply the responsibility for the lives of those young soldiers. And I know Jack feels that above all.

[whometense]

3. Yeah.

I sighed too. Totally unnecessary.

This may be unfair, but my impression is that Murtha's not a real great listener. He's got his back up, and everyone else should either sign on or get out of the way. I really did get the idea from what he said that he had no idea what Kerry was proposing - esp. since he lumped him in with Hillary and Biden, who so far as I know have proposed no exit plan at all.

[karynnj]

15. In fairness it was Wallace who lumped them all together

But no matter who it was to ascribe a political motive - unless you have back up - just seems wrong.

[whometense]

17. Wallace did lump them together,

true, but Murtha didn't have to accept his framing of the question. Anyone who knows what's going on could have answered, that they don't all have the same position on withdrawal.

[karynnj]

22. Very true

[TayTay]

4. Congressional record: Kerry backs Murtha

11/17/05 Floor of the US Senate:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday, as all of us know, JACK MURTHA, one of the most respected Congressmen on military affairs, one of the most respected Congressmen on national security issues, a former marine drill sergeant and a decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Congressman Murtha is not the point. He did not come to this moment lightly. Any one of us who knows Congressman Murtha or anybody who has worked with him over these years, Republican or Democrat, respects this man, respects his personal commitment to our country, respects his understanding of these issues, and understands he did not come to that moment lightly.

He spoke his mind and he spoke his heart out of love for his country and out of absolute and total unconditional support for the troops, of which he was once one.

I do not intend to stand for, nor should any of us in the Congress stand for, another Swiftboat attack on the character of JACK MURTHA. It frankly disgusts me that a bunch of guys who never chose to put on the uniform of their country now choose in the most personal way, in the most venomous, to question the character of a man who did wear the uniform of his country and who bled doing it. It is wrong. He served heroically in uniform. He served heroically for our country.

Have we lost all civility and all common sense in this institution and in this city? No matter what J.D. HAYWORTH says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines JACK MURTHA's character and his conscience.

DENNIS HASTERT, the Speaker of the House, who never chose to put on the uniform of his country and serve, called JACK MURTHA a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. On its face, looking at the record, looking at his life, JACK MURTHA has never cut and run from anything. JACK MURTHA was not a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and he earned two Purple Hearts. He was a patriot then and he is a patriot today. He deserves his views to be respected, not vilified.

JACK MURTHA did not cut and run when his courage earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice ought to be heard today, not silenced by those who would actually choose to cut and run from the truth.

Just a day after Vice President Dick Cheney, who himself had five deferments from service to his country because, as he said, he had other priorities than serving his country, just 1 day after he accused Democrats of being unpatriotic, the White House accused JACK MURTHA of surrendering.

JACK MURTHA served 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. JACK MURTHA does not know how to surrender, not to enemy combatants and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking one's conscience is unpatriotic.

The other day we celebrated what would have been the 80th birthday of Robert Kennedy. When Robert Kennedy opposed the war in Vietnam, despite the fact that his brother and the administration he was in had been involved in articulating that policy, he talked about how there was blame enough to go around. He also said the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.

CHUCK HAGEL showed that he has not forgotten that when he said: The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.

Too many people seem to have forgotten that long ago and too many of our friends on the other side of the aisle somehow think that asking tough questions is pessimism. It is not pessimism. It is patriotism. It is how one lives in a democracy. We are busy trying to take to Iraq and take to Afghanistan and take to the world the democracy we love and we are somehow unwilling to fully practice it at home.

We have seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, there are some Republican leaders who engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It does not matter who one is. When they did it to JOHN MCCAIN, we saw that it does not matter what political party one is in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw that it does not matter if one's service put them in a wheelchair. And when they did it to

JACK MURTHA yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of the Congress, we saw that some in this administration and their supporters will go to any lengths to crush any dissent.

[whometense]

5. Showing that, once again,

all the respect goes one way only??

[ProSense]

8. So much for honor. n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. What really makes me mad

is that Kerry has the only plan that has been laid on the table. For Murtha to compare him to Clinton and Biden is just not right. Murtha I believe is on a bit of an ego trip, I heard him say on one show my way is the ONLY way, my reading of that and the way he said it, its my way or the highway, no ifs ands or buts about it, no discussion. Right then he turned me off, I think he is the one that doesn't want to sit down and discuss all the ideas from other Dems.

[whometense]

9. I agree with you.

That's what I'm hearing from him, too.

[ProSense]

7. Yeah!

Is Kerry the only one expected to pay attention? Sigh!

[Mass]

10. One of my problems with Murtha is that I think he is on the right track

but for the wrong reasons. He is not really ready to question Bush's motives. He is certainly not asking Bush to withdraw the troops because he does not believe that the war is wrong or anything like that.

He is clearly asking for troops withdrawals because he thinks that the military should get ready for future missions (being ready for another super-power for example). He has clearly expressed several times (including Sunday) that he does not care about the Iraqis (I dont even think that he has said it was an error to have gone there, simply that it was poorly executed and that we cant do anything more).

It is clear that Kerry and Murtha share one goal, do what is good for the troops. The problem is that their larger goals are probably at the opposites one from the other: Murtha believes in military action, particularly when it comes from the Marines (and clearly, so do Clark, from what I heard him say on FOX concerning Iran), while Kerry believes in the power of diplomacy as long as possible.

It was not clear to me though, whether Murtha really answered specifically concerning Kerry, or if he was making a general statement. For example, he did not name Pelosi or anybody else who supports him. I think he was making a point that I share, that the Democratic leadership, and particularly in the Senate, is afraid to make waves. It is getting particularly irritating. I had to disagree strongly with Reid saying Bush does not have a policy for victory: what is victory?

[ProSense]

11. Exactly! n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

12. Very good point n/t

[TayTay]

13. Excellent point, What is victory?

That was my question at the Town Hall forum with my Congressman two weeks ago. What is victory? Sigh!

[kerrygoddess]

14. Posted about this earlier

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1676

[wisteria]

16. I hadn't heard that Murtha had said those things about Kerry.

he will definitely be on my list to contact. Why can't our Dem's just refuse to answer these set-up questions. Why couldn't he just say he didn't know enough about kerry's position to comment on it. Now, I am mad at Murtha- it looks like his head has swelled from to much ego.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. I saw that and my respect for him dropped about 10 points

Too bad.

[politicasista]

19. LOL!

:applause: :hi:

[JI7]

20. never thought much of him myself

ever since i read that as recently as 2004 he still had problems with Kerry protesting the Vietnam war. arsehole

yeah, respect him in the way you do mccain as a war vet. but not much more.

[karynnj]

21. That didn't bother me as he also clearly supported

the man Kerry was in 2004. Clearly Murtha who was in the military before and after the Vietnam war was a far more typical military officer than Lt Kerry was. He obviously still believed the lies we were told about Vietnam - the domino theory and all.

My respect went down greatly because he opted to assume base motives for everyone who didn't agree with him. This is not unique to him - look at the Bushies or the far left here. He really needs to read any of Kerry's comments and consider the genuine grace of being able to say that he respects those who disagree.

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Not to mention Kerry's plan is far more of a withdrawal plan than his

Murtha's plan is a redeployment. Kerry's plan will get them home. But of course, Murtha is not a 2008 contender, so he is the media-selected face of the movement to get out of Iraq. I expected such duplicity of the media, but to hear Murtha parrot the same crap is disappointing. Perhaps the limelight is affecting his judgment. It's especially disappointing and dishonorable after the great lengths Kerry went to to defend Murtha's patriotism and courage in the face of Republican smears.

[JI7]

28. perhaps that's his problem with Kerry's plan

it actually brings them home and really helps put an end to the war.

[JI7]

24. did he single out Kerry or did he say that about others also ?

[karynnj]

25. All of them - Wallace asked about Kerry, Clinton and Biden

Murtha answered without using names. (As Kerry is clearly closer in position to Feingold/Kennedy - the problem was partially that of Wallace's question.

[ginnyinWI]

26. and I don't think he was particularly trying to blame any of them.

He was more stating the fact that any politician who wants to run for, say, president might be hesitant to speak out.
But he spoke too soon, as today's interview shows, about Kerry being reluctant. I can still hear that clear, "Yes!" in my mind.

[karynnj]

27. But that assumes that Murtha's plan is right and that it is only to remain

politicly viable that they don't agree. That is a very arrogant position unless in private conversations he knows it to be true. You are right that the many instances of Kerry speaking out simply and clearly on other things proves that that is not the reason he doesn't support Murtha's plan. Kerry actually addressed that several times and he made the point that, though he respects Murtha, he still thinks his own plan has more chance of leaving a better situation.

It may be that Kerry's genuine acceptance of the value of diplomacy shows itself domesticly in his real efforts at bipartisanship and his desire for everyone to work together in crafting a solution. He would come in with his plan, but he would likely seriously consider elements of other plans. Murtha, on the other hand, seems to want to hear as little of the other Democrats' plans as he does Bush's plan.

Clinton and Biden may also have some deep seated beliefs (that we may agree with or not) that lead them to their positions. The pundits who see everything as positioning or politics may be the source of this perception behind Murtha's comment.