Tube City Almanac

November 22, 2005

Looking for Courage in All the Wrong Places

Category: default || By jt3y

From the Tube City Almanac National Affairs Desk: In case anyone didn't catch the sarcasm in Friday's entry, I was kidding about Jack Murtha. (I realize that my rapier-like wit sometimes has the same razor-sharp edge as a cinderblock, so I thought I might as well be clear.)

The attacks on Murtha's patriotism and credibility were as predictable as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. The current Republican strategy is attack, obfuscate, confuse, smear and shout ... much the same play book we saw in 2004.

Take Murtha's erstwhile Central Pennsylvania colleague in Congress, U.S. Rep. Bill "Just Call Me Bud Jr." Shuster, R-Daddy's Boy. He issued a statement saying that the immediate withdrawal of forces would be "irresponsible, ineffective and premature. ... The Democrats’ policy of turn, run and give up would allow the proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East, which would put the fight off until they can strike again."

Whoa. Fightin' words from the Gentleman from Interstate 99. It's a shame that isn't what Jack Murtha called for, but thanks for answering a question that no one asked, Rep. Shuster.

No, Murtha called for the United States to "immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces ... create a quick reaction force in the region ... create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines ... diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." Kudos to Slate magazine's Fred Kaplan for cutting through the B.S. (and a tip of the Tube City hard hat to Mark Evanier).

You also could have easily predicted that other Democrats would scurry and hide instead of rallying to Murtha's support, which come to think of it, is how the United States got mired into this mess in the first place. Instead of standing up in 2002 and demanding hard answers before we went to Iraq, they allowed themselves to be stampeded to war. (You remember the standard bearer of this principled approach to governance, 2004 presidential candidate Mr. "I Voted For It Before I Voted Against It.") Nice job, guys. Way to stake out a position. You've shown all of the moral authority of Marshal Petain.

(Where is Swissvale's Mike Doyle on this issue, for instance? Yes, he said very nice things about Murtha last week in the newspaper. But what's his position on Murtha's plan? You won't find it on his website. He is, however, against Medicare cuts and for lower gas prices.)

It's well worth noting that where people know Murtha best --- in Johnstown --- they're mostly sticking by him, according to the Tribune-Democrat:

Rocklyn W. Myers, a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor, returned home from Iraq after nearly 18 months of service.


Choking back tears, Mrs. Myers said she fully supports Murtha’s comments and wants all families to be able to feel the emotions she had as she watched her husband walk off of the train in fatigues.


Mrs. Myers, who kept in contact with her husband through twice-weekly phone calls, agreed the war should end and all soldiers should come home.


...


Tom Joyce, a Vietnam veteran from Somerset, believes the war should stop.


“Like Murtha, I believe we should stop it and bring them home and get them out of there,” he said. “If this turns into a civil war, the U.N. should take over and we should not be the main force in Iraq.”


...


Charles J. Vizzini of Ebensburg, a World War II Army veteran, agrees with Murtha’s call for troop withdrawal.


“It’s something we should have done a long time ago,” said Vizzini, long active in local veterans organizations.


“I feel sorry for the families who are losing their sons over there,” he said.


“It’s just not worth being there,” added Vizzini, who holds two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star among his World War II medals.


James Kirkstadt of Westmont, a retired Air Force colonel, described the situation in Iraq as “no win” for the United States.


He favors a scheduled pullout of U.S. troops. Kirkstadt added that he feels there are some good things taking place in Iraq relative to the U.S. presence that are not widely known.


At the same time, he believes the U.S. presence there is creating more terrorism.


Dick Cheney can growl his way around the country all he wants, spouting slander and calumny about men like John Murtha, while President Bush can accuse his critics of trying to rewrite history.

"Rewrite history." Ha! I heard Cheney on the radio this week saying that American troops were in Iraq under a "U.N. mandate." Boy, it's funny how we ignore or denigrate the United Nations when they do things we don't like, then run and hide behind their apron when we're looking for cover. And if it's a U.N. mandate, shouldn't a U.N. or at least NATO commander be in charge of the Iraq occupation? Does anyone buy this kind of malarkey any more?

It is becoming obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size that the Bush administration was looking for an excuse --- any excuse --- to invade Iraq. They released only the information which bolstered their claims while ignoring any evidence that they didn't like, and the idea that Murtha and other Democrats had "the same intelligence" as the White House did is simply a flat-out lie, as Knight-Ridder newspapers points out:

The Congress didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.


As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren't available to lawmakers.


Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts.


Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group, circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization.


Jack Murtha only said what most Americans now think --- that the Bush administration took us to war using information that, to be charitable, they should have had reason to believe was flawed. Maybe we were all too busy sticking American flags on our cars to realize that then, but we understand it now. The administration also appears to have no plan for ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

The people in Johnstown can see that. So can most of us in McKeesport, Munhall and Monongahela.

One hopes the scales will eventually drop from the eyes of Republicans like Rep. Shuster, the shameful Jean Schmidt (who called Murtha a "coward," and later disavowed her own comments, speaking of cowardice), and the rest of the people who supposedly were elected to watch out for the best interests of the United States of America --- not to act as the cheerleading squad for a President who, frighteningly, seems to be increasingly out-of touch with reality.

One hopes that some Democrats will rise to the challenge of statesmanship and demonstrate some moral courage, rather than continuing to waffle, waver and spout mealy-mouther palaver. (They seem to think their election prospects in 2006 are excellent, though they present little reason to vote for them other than the fact that they're "not Republicans.")

Given the events of the past four years, however, one is not inclined to hold one's breath.

...

Mea culpa: Last week I forgot to mention that Our Fair City's "Salute to Santa" parade was to be held Saturday. You can read all about in the News. ... Resquiescat in pace to former city police Chief James Lundie, who will be laid to rest Wednesday. He died Friday of complications from heart disease at age 69.






Your Comments are Welcome!

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Murtha several times in the past years. He is a straight-shooter and it really surprised me (much to my delight) when he came out and said these words. I don’t know of any Congressman who is closer to the generals and troops on the ground than Mr. Murtha and his words rang with much more meaning than if any other politician would have said the same. Being that I’m from Bill Shuster’s district, I can honestly say that he is simply a toy for the Republican agenda and hasn’t mustered a thought that wasn’t spoon-fed to him by his higher-ups in the entire time that he has been in office. In fact, 2 years ago I switched my registered party to Republican simply so I could vote againist Shuster as much as possible.
Jerky (URL) - November 22, 2005



Maybe “most” of the people in Mckeesport agree with Congresman Murtha, but certainly not all.

As someone who is originally from McKeesport (Class of ’79) and who served 25 years in the U.S. Navy, I for one do not. That doesn’t mean that I have any desire to denigrate the man or his service or his reputation. Nor is there any need to question his motives. He’s saying what he believes is right. The sad fact that you convieniently choose to ignore is that many in his own party disagree. You didn’t comment on Sen Clinton’s disagreement with his position.

He said that American soldiers are now the main target of the insurgency and the facts don’t bear that out either. The VAST majority of the insurgent attacks target Iraqi civilians. Just check the facts.

I think that he’s wrong and there are lots of folks who disagree with him. Personal attacks don’t belong in the discussion, but that doesn’t seem to deter extremists on either side of the discussion.
Joe DeUnger - November 23, 2005



Thanks for writing, Joe. “The sad fact that (I) conveniently choose to ignore,” eh? Good thing that we’re not engaging in “personal attacks.”

Hillary Clinton, like most of the Democratic Party, is trying to work both sides of the street. In the process, she’s saying a whole lot of nothing:

—-

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=1338211

“Then we have to tell this new government we are not going to be there forever, we are going to be withdrawing our young men and women and we expect you to start moving towards stability,” Clinton said.
The former first lady said an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a “big mistake.”
“It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us,” she said.
She suggested, however, that Iraq may not be stabilized until the United States signals its intention to leave.
Clinton said the Bush administration’s approach amounted to giving the Iraqis “an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.”

—-

Once again: Jack Murtha did not say to leave tomorrow. He said we should be planning a six-month phaseout.

Guess what? The democratically elected government of Iraq, which we helped create, is asking for much the same thing. They think we’re now contributing to the chaos, not helping stablize the country.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/11/22/iraqi_leaders_want_timetable_for_us_pullout/

So at least Jack Murtha’s offering a proposal. What does the administration offer? “Trust us.”

Why? What have they been correct about so far?

Meanwhile, the administration has been notably cold to the Iraqi peace talks:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10662

It amuses me, though, to find so many Republicans (like Rush Limbaugh) holding up Hillary Clinton’s comments as “proof” that Jack Murtha is wrong.

Some how, they found time to anoint Hillary Clinton as a model of senatorial wisdom in between publishing books proving that she’s a radical feminist who murdered Vince Foster.

I’m not sure, but I think hell just froze over.
Webmaster (URL) - November 23, 2005



Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

The comment that you point to was not intended as personal attack, but apparently there is great disagreement as to what constitutes a personal attack. There is nothing in my comments that in any way can be construed to malign your character, integrity, intentions, etc. which is what I consider a personal attack.

In the course of civil discourse people should be able to reasonably discuss differing points of view without attacking the holders of those views. I think it’s a sad commentary on our society that this is no longer possible either amongst our elected officials or the citizenry responsible for putting them there.

I for one certainly didn’t intend to hold up Hillary Clinton’s statement as “proof” that Rep Murtha is wrong. I simply referenced it to illustrate that there isn’t universal acceptance of his position among either party, nor certainly among the public at large.

There is a huge difference between a majority (anything over 50%) agreeing with something and everyone agreeing with it as Rep. Murtha implies when he states “the American people” want them home now. Certainly there are a large amount of folks that agree with him, but there are a lot that don’t.

In your original post on this topic you included several quotes from a newspaper in his hometown that show he has wide support. There was no mention made of anyone who may disagree with him because people don’t bother to report both sides of an issue anymore.

John McCain doesn’t agree with Jack Murtha and he is every bit as knowledgeable and informed on the subject. Does this make him some kind of firnge lunatic because he wants to continue follow some sort of aimless policy toward Iraqi self-sufficiency? I think not. I think his intentions are every bit as honorable as Jack Murtha’s.

Lastly, as I pointed out, Rep. Murtha’s proposal is based on a very flawed premise that nobody in the media wants to examine or otherwise report. He repeatedly states that the American forces have become the number one target of the insurgency, when that is not true now, nor has it been the case for a very, very long time.

Why do you suppose that nobody wants to talk about that? It’s easily verifiable simply by reviewing the online news archives of any national or international news organization. The vast majority of the attacks and bombings by the insurgents simply are not directed at the Americans, they are targeting the Iraqis in an effort to stop the progress the Iraqis themselves are making toward self-governance.

Since Congressman Murtha insists on making this a central premise of his proposal, I think it’s a great mistake not to examine it.
Joe DeUnger - November 24, 2005



And a happy and prosperous Thanksgiving to you, as well, Joe!

First, you’re right that not everyone agrees with Jack Murtha, though the latest poll I’ve seen —- and I don’t have it at my fingertips —- says something like 60 percent of the American public disagree with the handling of the war, and a similar number thinks we should be planning for the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.

Second, you’re also right that even some people in Murtha’s hometown don’t agree with him, and in fact, the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat did talk to and interview them. I did not include their comments, but you can fault me, not the T-D. Follow the link to the T-D’s story, and you can read them.

I would agree with you that the insurgents are targeting Iraqis to a large extent right now, but from the reports I’ve read, the reasons are more complicated than just “trying to stop their progress toward self-governance.”

They’re attacking Iraqis because it’s much harder for them to get at American and British personnel right now. Those targets are hardened. They can get at soft targets, like innocent Iraqis, and because they’re terrorists, they’re thugs who will take any opportunistic target they can get.

Yet I think the most crucial —- and to me, chilling —- bit of information is that it’s becoming harder and harder to tell the “insurgents” from the average Iraqi.

According to British intelligence, 65 percent of ordinary Iraqis in at least one province —- and 45 percent of Iraqis overall —- believe that terrorist attacks on American and British forces are justified. That’s according to The Telegraph, which is among the more conservative papers in the U.K. (Brits call it the “Torygraph”):

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Only 1 percent of Iraqis think that coalition forces are adding to the stability of the region. 72 percent “do not have faith” in the coalition forces, and 82 percent are “strongly opposed.”

I think that’s a pretty commanding majority of Iraqis that want to see us withdraw. Those can’t all be “insurgents.”

Here’s something else to keep in mind: Since the Reagan administration, Murtha has been among the toughest hawks in Congress, and is according to all reports very well-connected at the Pentagon. As the Post-Gazette pointed out this morning, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he’s speaking up on behalf of foot soldiers who are afraid to talk on their own:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05328/611712.stm

“(The) Bush administration has sometimes punished senior U.S. military officers who have expressed positions at variance with its policies. The best case in point was U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik K. Shinseki, who was retired early and had his farewell ceremony snubbed by senior administration defense officials for having testified that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be needed to occupy Iraq after it was conquered. (...)

“In that context, it is very likely that the advocacy of withdrawal by Mr. Murtha, the congressman who is perhaps closest of all to senior military officers, reflects the considered views of some or many of those in the service’s top ranks. Rather than taking themselves out of the game by opposing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, they may be telling the American public through Mr. Murtha, whom they trust, that it is time for U.S. forces to go home, to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.”

In the final analysis: No matter how well-connected Rep. Murtha is, I don’t think he could possibly have all of the answers. He’s in the United States, observing from afar.

However, I think his opinion is worth listening to, and I think those who attempted to shout him down last Friday did a great disservice to the country.

If nothing else, Murtha has moved this debate back to people’s minds again, and I think that’s a good thing. Too many Americans have forgotten that our Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps are still engaged right now in a fighting war.

True, those men and women volunteered to serve —- and that’s something to be thankful for today. But when our elected officials deploy them, we need to understand what we’re asking of those forces, and why we’re asking it of them.
Webmaster (URL) - November 24, 2005



You have now written one of the most thoughtful and more importantly unemotional commentaries I have read to date on this topic.

Now what a wonderful democracy this would be if only the mainstream media establishment and the politicians on both sides of the aisle would conduct themselves in a similar manner.
Joe DeUnger - November 28, 2005



Kewl site webmaster.
government grants (URL) - July 04, 2006



To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.