“Usually pro-military congressman”:
By on Nov 18th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
“Usually pro-military congressman”:
Associated Press: “A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered calls by a usually pro-military congressman for withdrawal of Americans fighting there Friday.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
So I guess trying to bring the troops home means you are no longer “pro military.”
I guess you have to be “pro-needless wars” to be “pro-military.”
November 18th, 2005 at 2:38 pm“usually pro military”?
I guess he no longer is?
What is there anti-military about calling for the troops to come home?
Even AP has gone to the wingnuts
November 18th, 2005 at 2:40 pmMurtha IS pro-military, that’s why he wants them home. If anyone knows anything about the military and war, it’s Murtha.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:41 pmThe corporate media consistently demonizes dissent (on the left anyway) in very subtle ways.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:41 pmHis comments sounded pro-military but anti-iraq war to me.
You know, the comments about visiting military hospitals and talking to the troops sounded pretty pro-military to me. He even sounded pro-military when calling for a withdrawal. He sounded like he wanted to help the military by having them not shot at, not stuck in a losing situation, and not away from their families… What is so anti-military about that?
Z.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:44 pmI thought it was gonna be a Pickler.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:00 pmZ- he wants to help the military by #1 not having them shot at? #2 not stuck in a losing situation? #3 not away from their families? What war were any of those conditions met? (I’m putting on my tin-foil-hat to better recieve your signal…)
November 18th, 2005 at 3:03 pmAnd the republican hate, smear and unamerican spin machine begins.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:05 pmThis whole construct of being “pro-military” by supporting their needless deaths in an illegal war to fluff up some venal politician’s reelection chances has been the most maddening part of the faux debate over the war. How exactly is one supporting the troops by letting them continue an unpopular occupation, especially with regard to the Iraqis, so that Bush can save face and look presidential?
November 18th, 2005 at 3:07 pmIt is a joke they asked a Military man in Iraq if we should leave. The only thing he could say is, we have to finish the job because he could not say anything else but that.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:10 pmgiven the unleashing of the attack machine on harry reid, take a moment to show your support… this link will take you to his email page…
http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
November 18th, 2005 at 3:11 pmto me anti-iraq is pro-military, it is anti-oil, and anti-global domination, but still pro-military
November 18th, 2005 at 3:15 pmThe representative will now be demonized by a bunch of chickenhawks in the house of representative. people who never served and never fired a rifle, will now get to take potshots at a hero who disagrees vehemently with an impossible war to win.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:16 pmPeople who got deferments again and again will now get to call Murta pro surrender.
This is our right wing christian leadership. Aren’t you proud of these assholes.
So sending 1/3 the required number of troops into battle with neither sufficient body armor nor enough armored vehicles is PRO military? Gee, thanks for clearing that up.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:25 pm‘Do As I Say’ Hits New York Times List Again
Peter Schweizer’s new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy†has made it to No. 11 on the coveted New York Times best-seller list in its second week out.
The book – which previously reached the No. 1 spot on Amazon.com’s list of best-selling nonfiction works after it was previewed on NewsMax – debuted at No. 14 on the Times list in its first week out.
The book’s prominent place on the Times list is even more remarkable considering it has received little
In his blockbuster book – and in the November edition of NewsMax Magazine – Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.
The book is getting rave reviews from leading conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. Limbaugh told his audience that the book was “just fabulous,” adding, “It is just replete with example after example of the utter hypocrisy of the left.”
New York Times best-selling author Ann Coulter declared that “Do As I Say†is “the book of the century.â€
Schweizer sums up his book this way: “The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things – racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed. But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.â€
November 18th, 2005 at 3:35 pm…and the crickets chirp “.”
November 18th, 2005 at 3:37 pmNewsmax? Bahaha, that’s like the national enquirer, except the difference is the national enquirer is actually correct on occassion!
Bahahahahaahahaha
November 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pmWhich century? – would you pick a number between 6 and 12 and then append ‘th’.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:46 pmIt’s hilarious how many in the national media just don’t know what to do with Jack Murtha: they’ve been so infected with the faux-cynicism of the chattering classes, for them it’s like bumping into ET on his bicycle. Check out the clueless (but cute) Norah O’Donnell trying to steer the discussion (unsuccessfully) here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10097801/
This is Katrina all over again, with the lapdog press of the last few years desperately vacillating between channeling the spin and rising above it. Stay tuned…
November 18th, 2005 at 3:56 pm#15 — I’ve looked through that book. It’s full of things taken out of context, partial quotations, and omissions. It would be a joke if some people somewhere didn’t believe it.
A lot of those right-wing books that hit the NYT list are the result of mass-buys by conservative-funded organizations anyway.
Yawn.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:51 pmPlease contact Congressman John Murtha and thank him for his integrity.
By Internet: http://www.house.gov/murtha/write.shtml
More contact info: http://www.house.gov/murtha/contact.shtml
-
November 18th, 2005 at 5:04 pmWhite House careful in reply
November 18th, 2005 at 5:07 pmBush administration officials have been cautious in responding to Murtha.
Wow, Murtha is a coward. I guess the Bushies have a right to make that assertion considering …
http://www.airfarceone.net/sendme.html
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/images/graphics/Crawford-Coward-Small.jpg
-
November 18th, 2005 at 5:11 pmThe pukes trot out slob Hastert to call Murtha a coward.
The hypocrisy of the right is so overwelming it makes me want to puke all over Hasterts desk.
Instead of saying “ok, lets debate this thing on the floor of the house”. the pukes push out a piece of legaslation designed solely to sink Murtha and stab the democraats in the ass.What a bunch of pukes.
What the dems ought to do is TRY and introduce a piece of legislation calling for a vote on the handling of the war by the Bush administration. This would back them into a corner real fast. If the puke voted for it, he is a loser, if he voted against it he is un-patriotic.
On the piece of legislation tonight the dems should not vote, just say “present”.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:36 pm#7
In World War II, we were not in a losing situation. No tin-foil hat needed and it took me all of one nano second to think of it.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:37 pmI found this on crooks and liars, very funny comment at the end…
Jean Schmidt, who defeated Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett for her seat in Ohio, shut down the House of Representatives by challenging the courage of decorated Vietnam War veteran Jack Murtha, saying “cowards cut and run.” The place exploded. It was probably everybody pulling out their Blackberries and Googling Jean Schmidt’s war record, where they no doubt found her history as the head of Cincinnati Right to Life. Presumably if Murtha’s combat experience had been blowing up local Planned Parenthood clinics, that would have qualified.
posted by Jane at firedoglake
November 18th, 2005 at 6:22 pmWhy is pro military assumed to be pro war?
November 18th, 2005 at 6:55 pm#26, Ryan — what a gem in that post! She who defeated Hackett, has the gall to condemn yet another veteran.
This is what is making me sick. We have a bunch of non-military people telling veterans how wars should be fought.
This is the same as family counselors that don’t have kids. Marriage counselors that are single. Preist that don’t rape young boys. Oops, not sure how that one slipped in.
November 18th, 2005 at 7:06 pm#15
I don’t get it. Are you trying to prove that far right wingnuts know how to read?
November 18th, 2005 at 8:20 pmIf so, well then congratulations.
Think Prgoress where is the thread about the debates last night? Comeon already, the Democrats freaking walking all ove the Republicans.
The Republicans kept trying to make it seem like the House was debating Rep Murtha’s resolution. Until finally the chair stood up and said “Mr. Speaker, are we debating the Hunter resolution or the Murtha resolution?†First the speaker replied back with “We are debating resolution 571.†the democratic chair then asked “Is resolution 571 Mr Hunters resolution or is it Mr Murtha’s resolution?†to which the Speaker replied “Mr Hunter’sâ€
You see the republicans want the world to think that Mr Murtha wants to “cut and run†Rep Murtha had to repeat himself a couple of times that his resolution did not call for imediate withdrawl and that it in fact called for redeployment.
It was Rep Hunter that put forth a vote on his own resolution to “cut and runâ€
So, the republicans put forth a resolution to “cut and run†in which they planned to vote down their own resolution making everybody think that they had just voted down Rep Murtha’s resolution.
The republicans thought that all of the democrats would vote for “cut and runâ€
To their shock, the democrats voted it down also.
So, any republican that says that democrats wnat to “cut and run†have just lost that talking point.
But, on the flip side watch for this to come from the republicans “Well, the democrats voted to keep our troops in Iraqâ€
November 19th, 2005 at 1:44 pm