I’m pretty astonished at the turncoating Democrats who are now insisting on immediate troop withdrawal. It’s as if collective amnesia and stubborn idiocy are now mixing into a vile cocktail of petty partisanship and disastrous antipathy for the soldiers in Iraq. The Administration’s response hasn’t been nearly forceful enough, but it is encouraging to see the GOP demonstrating some stiffness, as they voted to reject the “Democratic Hawk” John Murtha’s call for troop removal from Iraq. This guy is a hawk? How far left have we tilted, if that’s the case?
There’s far more intelligent and interesting coverage of this new upsurge in true revisionist history on the part of the Democrats to paint the push for war as “misleading” and “based on lies”, so I won’t try to throw in my thoughts on the matter, except to say this about the Dems who now insist there was no evidence to support the reasons given for going to war: I didn’t realize that cajones could be that big. Because you’ve gotta have a pair to say that without fear of having soundbites you made in 1999 regarding the removal of Saddam Hussein thrown back in your face.
Even if this current debate (can it really be called a debate when the facts are so one-sided?) isn’t about cajones, you could say that it distracts from the real issue, which is accountability. If you voted in favour of war and now you want out (as based upon a false premise), we’ll consider the issue. In the meantime, you ought to be ousted for poor leadership. This isn’t nuanced decision-making; it is political expediency at its most opportunistic, its most disgustingly venal.
If you don’t think so, consider the following: Murtha was having second thoughts about invasion back in September 2002, a month before Congress gave Bush authorization. He indicated that he would not vote in favour, but did so anyway. Fast forward to May 2004, where he called for more troops: “We either have to mobilize or we have to get out,” Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out. He even voted in favour of reinstating the draft to raise more troops (remember the big scare that had Bush reinstating the draft that everyone got hepped about?), one of only two people to do so. Now he insists that pulling the troops out of Iraq is the only way to end the insurgency. He now claims that terrorism began when we invaded, although he offers an alternate timeframe for the beginning of terrorism: Abu Ghraib.
A man who makes John Kerry look like a political rock isn’t one who should be turned down for interviews, if for nothing else other than the entertainment value. Although it would be a lot funnier if what he was doing didn’t put troops in harm’s way. But his grandstanding and opportunism is encouraging to the enemy. And I say bollocks to that.