Friday, November 18, 2005

Sully does it again

On the new hot element of the Anti-War debate Andrew Sullivan takes a break from his almost pornographic obsession on torture to try to re-claim his more reasonable foriegn policy positions ( see here)

ON MURTHA: I guess I should make it clear that I strongly disagree with Murtha's notion that we should withdraw troops from Iraq, and strongly disagree with the Senate's recent amendment all but committing us to troop withdrawal in 2006. I just believe that Murtha is a good guy, a patriot, and utterly undeserving of the partisan and vicious attacks now being leveled against him.

Ok Andy... You and many of the folks in the anti-war movement have lost yer bloody minds on the issue of this debate.

Just because you served in the armed forces that doesn't give you a pass on having your words legitimately rated and debated.Nor does losing a child/spouse/or other relations.

Representative Murtha is a member of the leadership team for the house democrats as a ranking member. With a full court press on an anti-war amendment ( sully even agrees it is that) to major bills in the senate and in the house is part of a partisan act by the democrats on the war.

As Representative Murtha has participated in a Partisan attack he deserves a Partisan attack.

I write this listening to a ludicrous resolution being debated by more ludicrous and bloviating blowhards on both sides of the aisle in the US house of representatives each trying to preen and prawn to make their political agendas fit their job as LEADERS of our nation.

Sully goes deeper earlier on his post and as probably one of the most establishment figures in the place of the blog I find some of this disgusting.

The difference - and surely it's a relevant one - is that Murtha is now calling for withdrawal of troops the same week the Senate went wobbly. It seems to me it would be more helpful if Republicans and conservatives offered positive arguments for how to do better instead of attacking every critic as a wuss, unpatriotic, inconsistent, or worse.

No. No. and NO~!

When the opponents of the war are arguing "Bush lied, people died" and saying "No weapons of mass destruction" when over a million tons of enriched uranium get halled out of Iraq. Saying "we were mislead" an equally morally cowardly positions.

If the critics place a constructive argument about the war then it should be discussed constructively.But when the critics of the war are acting in a matter as partisan members of the dove-party seeking to attack a political leadership that is leading the war then they should be engaged in a constructive manner.

Murtha spent 37 years in the Marines. He voted for the war. But, unlike some, he kept his eyes open and he's reflecting genuine, real, patriotic worries about the war among many Americans. If he's worried, we all should be. It doesn't speak very well of the pro-Bush right that their first instinct is to ignore him and their second to dismiss him. But it's no big surprise by now, is it?

He acted on the partisan agenda of the House and Senate Democratic leaders to assault the war and to embrace the Anti-War ( at all costs) position. This is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to work the media and try to get them to work their audience into marketing "A Vote for the Democrats is a vote for peace."

I know Andrew isn't unable to see that... I think Andrews loathing and hatred for the Bush team and anyone who feels how society deals with human sexuality different then he does has clouded his judgement.

A partisan hack, deserves an attack from another partisan hack and flack from still more partisan hacks.

No comments: