Democrats' Diminishing Credibility

John Murtha's at it again. He's using the same misinformation months after he's been discredited. It's to the point where I think of him as the Joe Wilson of the House. Speaking at a fundraiser last night, Murtha told the gathering the following:

"We have become the enemy; our troops have become the targets," he said. "We have to hand this over to the Iraqis. We have to ask them this question, 'Do you want us to leave? Do you want us to stay?' It is truly up to them. It is their country."

It's obvious that Murtha doesn't care about the truth at this point. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee. A major part of his committee responsibility is to stay current with what's going on in Iraq. Murtha's been briefed that we're turning more terrain over to the Iraqis on a weekly basis. Murtha's seen the statistics that show American casualties dropping dramatically. Those facts alone undercut his statements.

Murtha also said this:

Unless "we replace the people responsible for the failed plan," the U.S. will not be able to get the international help and cooperation it needs, Murtha said during his half-hour speech.

Mr. Murtha, Are you saying that we should replace the people whose plan was initially flawed but is now working well? What's the logic behind that?

IS THERE LOGIC BEHIND THAT STATEMENT?

Further, do you really think that replacing Rumsfeld will unlock the purses of the French, Germans and Russians? If you do, then you're further deluded than I originally thought. Those countries won't contribute more because their economies won't support it.

If that isn't enough to undercut Democrats' credibility, consider this James Klurfeld column :

Please spare me any more mush from the wimps. I'm talking about Democrats who once supported the war in Iraq but now say they were terribly misled by the Bush administration. It's enough to turn you into a Republican! The latest Democrat to turn my stomach on this issue is Rep. Steve Israel of Huntington. He's been a very good lawmaker in his five years in the House: savvy, hardworking and not always predictable, trying to carve out a position as a moderate to conservative suburban Democrat. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he has tried to develop a reputation as a champion of military reform. He was a vocal proponent of the war to remove Saddam Hussein, a position I, too, favored.

But this week Israel said: "I never would have voted the way I did had I known what I know now... Either he [President George W. Bush] was misinformed or he misled. I'm not satisfied with either opinion." Israel says that Bush personally assured him that weapons of mass destruction would be found and that the fighting would be quick and relatively inexpensive. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, but don't blame it on being duped by the White House.

If Israel is that gullible, he hardly deserves to be representing us in Congress. Part of his job is to be a check on the White House.

The "I wouldn't have voted this way had Bush not lied" line is indeed tired. It's asinine for another House Armed Services Committee Democrat to tell us that he didn't make his decision based on all the information he had available at the time. What kind of congressman would decide how to vote on going to war without doing his due diligence? Shouldn't everyone voting do his/her due diligence independent of the administration's briefings?

After all, this isn't just any ordinary vote. It's literally a life and death matter. Young people will die in war. We're sending our best and brightest, our bravest, into harms way. Doesn't a Steve Israel owe it to the families and the soldiers to gather all the information available before making that vote? Shame on anyone who voted without doing that due diligence beforehand.

Politicians like that deserve to be fired this November. We owe it to the fallen.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

---

Posted Friday, April 21, 2006 9:55 AM

No comments.