John "Unindicted Abscam Co-conspirator" Murtha graces us with an op-ed in the Washington Post. He proudly embraces the title of "defeatocrat". As he should. But he's not just advocated a 'minor' redeployment to Okinawa this tim. Oh no, he wants more.
The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and — oh so cleverly — "Defeatocrats."
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."
It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure.
In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course — and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.
Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin.
Why, yes they do, Johnny boy. Perhaps you could explain to them how your attempting to use a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will only damage the Republican party and not the entire country? Perhaps you could explain how Charles Rangel's stated objective to cut off funding to the war won't leave out troops standing in harm's way without the means to defend themselves? Better yet, perhaps you could explain why the troops detest you? (They do, too.)
We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored?
Since you're really big into statistics and polls, Johnny, perhaps you could explain why the revolting spew of a few revolting generals (many selling books) is more important than the silence of the more than 1,000 retired general officers who weren't injecting themselves into civilian politics? Perhaps you could explain why the leakage of secret documents to the world to further a political agenda you favor does not damage the entire country, not just your political opponents?
Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability.
Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.
Actually, Johnny, a lot of people call you a defeatist. Also geographically challenged, Okinawa being a bit far to offer rapid response when needed. Mostly your 'two fronts' consist of, "How can the Democrats advance politically regardless of harm to the nation as a whole" and "How much personal advancement can I get out of trashing the military"?
You're pathetic, Murtha. A disgrace to your office and to the uniform you used to wear.