|
âUnwinnableâ comment draws GOP fire
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 7:19 PM EDT (2319 GMT) Democratic lawmaker says changes needed for victory From Ted Barrett CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A pro-military Democratic congressmanâs description of the war in Iraq as "unwinnable" unless changes are made sparked anger in House Republicans Thursday. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, in a news conference with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the problems in Iraq are due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable." Republicans seized on that word, ignoring Murthaâs overall point: that more troops and equipment should be sent to Iraq. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the majority leader, accused Murtha of participating in a "calculated and craven political stunt." Who is this @ssclownâs mentor, Ted Kennedy? "The Democrats are quitting, calling the war unwinnable while we have our men and women and their families sacrificing every day" charged Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Democrats are "basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy," echoed Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas. Murtha usually wins high praise from Republicans for regularly supporting increases to the Pentagonâs budget. As the top defense appropriator in his party, his views tend to carry a lot of weight. But the word "unwinnable" -- which greeted lawmakers Thursday morning above the fold in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call -- quickly became a Republican target. Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, who chairs the appropriationsâ defense subcommittee, said his friend was co-opted by Pelosi so she could drum up opposition to the war she voted against. He said it was part of "movement" by Pelosi and her strategists "because it could have an impact on election time." Sheâs "using the issue for purely campaign political purposes," Lewis said. At the news conference, Pelosi said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign because of his handling of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. "He has been engaged in a cover-up on this issue and continues to be," she said. Murtha complained that the administration treats Congress "with absolute arrogance" but said he doesnât want Rumsfeld to resign. He also said he does not think the United States should withdraw from Iraq. Rather, he said, more troops and supplies should be sent. "We cannot prevail in this war with the policy we have today. We need to mobilize or get out," he said. "It would be devastating to pull out now, but it may be impossible to mobilize now that the public has turned against it," he said. Iâm obliged to place Murthaâs pronouncement on a par with the f**ksticks that abused prisoners in Iraq. Both have served only to damage the performance of our soldiers in the field. While freedom of speech certainly permits Murthaâs observations, it is also the duty of any good American to support our troops while they are in harmâs way. Undermining their morale, be it through misconduct or mischaracterization is a subtle form of treason. In Murthaâs case, his words are a flat out distortion. His statement is a slap in the face to those who fight, their commanders and the tools they campaign with. During the decades of my high technology work many projects Iâve participated in directly contributed to Americaâs military supremacy. In all those years it has never once occurred to me that I might sabotage any of those efforts. There is a glow of pride that such a thought did not cross my mind until I typed these words. Murthaâs sabotage of our troopsâ morale is a most wretched form of partisan sniping and makes no constructive addition to any dialogue about the Iraqi war. Sure, he has the freedom to say what he thinks. Like so many other politicians these days, he fails to realize that just because you have a right to do something, that does not make it the right thing to do. Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-07 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=32453 |