Murtha Slaps Another Pro-War Republican

Thank God for Murtha! He knows his stuff and accepts no bluff. Here he is, masterfully calling Cheney's bluff.

But he's really dead on when he criticizes Bush on Iraq. In less than 20 minutes, Jack Murtha explains how our current actions are harming, not helping, the peace initiative - and then he tells what to do to really get the "Mission Accomplished!"

Jason Smith, a columnist for Mamma's Boys News Daily (they wishfully call themselves "Mens News Daily," tsk tsk) uses his forum (singing to the choir of other mamma's boys) to deride a real man - John Murtha. Smith says that Murtha's stand on the war is "reassuring the terrorists" and that Murtha was sorry Al Zaraqawi is dead. What an asshole statement for anyone to make! But coming from a punk like Smith, it's even worse.
Yeah, Smith - we just bet you know all about war. Probably the closest you ever came to a war zone was your bedroom before mommy finally broke down and cleaned it up for you....again. Guys like Smith - who only break a sweat at their over-priced gyms on work out machines - are quick to cheer on soldiers who are slogging through what these little wimpos would never dream of putting themselves through. In between trips to the Mall, football/soccer/basketball games or "way cool" clubs, these spineless little worms are eager to condemn veteran soldiers who have the balls to stand up and take the heat for what is right.
In short, people like Smith make me want to puke.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/06/16/john-murtha-democrats-reassure-terro...

Hey, let's not act like repukes! Let's deal with the facts and the facts are that in this country you are innocent until proved guilty. Murtha accused the Marines of "cold-blooded murder." I read it, he said it. How can they possibly get a fair trial now? Does anyone here support this kind of jury-tampering? Support the war or not. The Marines never gave up their rights to a fair trial. Murtha seems to be acting like a political opportunist. What will he have to say if they are proved innocent? What if this is a new tactic (the setup) of the terrorist? How will we apologize to these brave Marines?
I am open to comment.

Last week when the Democrats debated the Republicans on the Iraq war issue, it was made very clear, for anyone who bothered to follow even parts of the debate on C-SPAN, that the Democrats DO have a clear alternative to Bush policy on Iraq. It is called the MURTHA RESOLUTION. And yet the Murtha Resolution was not mentioned by a single major mainstream news outlet. Nor were any of the strong and forceful comments of Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Henry Waxman and others who stated an alternative position in no uncertain terms. Waxman’s case was relentlessly compelling. He laid out the clear case – citing findings from the GAO, State Dept., etc., that, even setting all other considerations aside, the US cannot afford, morally or financially, to continue a war that has been riddled with corruption since the start, especially when no one (Halliburton in particular) is being held accountable for said corruption and loss. But all we have heard are snippets from John Murtha - a guy who is certainly heroic, but one who has become the Bushie camp’s best-defined target. So the media is sticking to the "one voice" portrayal because the Limbaughs, Coulters, et al. have their responses all ready and prescripted.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats resisted the Rove trap - the bogus "support the troops" resolution (I mean, who at this point was stupid enough to fall for that! Yeah right - support our troops by hangin' em out to dry for another 2 or 3 years!). But what do the headlines say? “Republicans Stand Firm on Iraq”; “Democrats Fail in Debate”, etc . ad nauseum. All are headline that were preplanned by the marshallow-faced thug Rove. and executed by his subservient goons in the mainstream media.

But even the supposedly more progressive writers/editors are dancing at the ends of Rove's strings. Like Frank Rich of the NY Times, and the editors at Raw Story (who apparently think that being "more balanced" means printing at least one Rovian piece of propaganda each day- including Rich's piece). Rich's story: "Rove Beats Democrats Again" and his comment that the Democrats have not been able to come up with "a stirring narrative" that defines their stance "is not only misleading, it is downright false - unless, of course, what he means by "beating the Democrats" is that Rove has again succeeded in manipulating the media and insuring that only the Bush "narrative" ever sees the light of day. When you black out the speeches by Waxman, Waters, et al, black out the position statements of the Out of Iraq Caucus (let alone its existence), and black out the Murtha Resolution, it's pretty damn easy to make the claim to the unwitting public that the Democrats have " no narrative" and that Rove has "won again."

The only thing that can be achieved by this systematic twisting and suppression of the truth is the perpetuation of an immoral and pointless war and a failed, dictatorial presidency. This being the case, then one must conclude that these things are also the goals of the editors and "journalists" participating.