Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'

The Washington Post ^ | October 15, 2006 | John P. Murtha

[John Carey]

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.

Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis.

[Lancey Howard]

"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."

Yep, that's what all the Democrat scumbags say: "Change course." "Bush is wrong on Iraq." Etc. Etc.

Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals. All they have are meaningless soundbites like "change course".

[Henry Wilson]

100 + years later, and it is the same old story from the same treasonous party:



"The Peace Democrats were opposed to the war and would have accepted a negotiated peace resulting in an independent Confederacy. Most Peace Democrats were from the midwestern states of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, but political dissent was widespread throughout the North. Midwesterners had close economic and sentimental ties with the South, and many of them bitterly opposed the Union's war against what one of them called "the injured, incensed, downtrodden people of the South."

In 1861, Republicans started calling antiwar Democrats "copperheads", likening them to the poisonous snake. By 1863, the Peace Democrats had accepted the label, but for them the copper "head" was the likeness of Liberty on the copper penny, and they proudly wore pennies as badges.

The Copperheads mounted a forceful and sustained protest against the Lincoln administration's policies and conduct. The most popular of the Copperheads was Democratic Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, who in 1862 introduced a bill in Congress to imprison the President. Instead, Vallandigham and a host of other Democrats, including judges, newspaper editors, politicians, and antiwar activists, were arrested and imprisoned without trial on the orders of Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton, who had decided to take off their gloves in dealing with persons "guilty of any disloyal practice".

Fascinating Fact: At the 1864 Democratic convention, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform that declared the war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. "

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/HomeFront/copperheads.html

[John Valentine]

Instead, Vallandigham and a host of other Democrats, including judges, newspaper editors, politicians, and antiwar activists, were arrested and imprisoned without trial on the orders of Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton, who had decided to take off their gloves in dealing with persons "guilty of any disloyal practice".

Its about time we took a page from our history.

[Hexenhammer]

Defeatocrat seems to imply that at one time they stood in support of America in the War on Terror, which looking at the facts makes it quite clear that this isn't true. I've been calling them Traitorcrats because of their endless opposition to giving the administration the tools it needs to win the war. They hamstring us abroad with their cut-and-ruin rhetoric and thus embolden our enemies and cause more troop deaths, they harm us at home opposing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and calling for terrorists bastards captured abroad in a time of war to be afforded more civil liberties than they would have had in the countries they were captured in.

[Mr_Moonlight]

Ping

[L.N. Smithee]

Yep, that's what all the Democrat scumbags say: "Change course." "Bush is wrong on Iraq." Etc. Etc. Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals. All they have are meaningless soundbites like "change course".

The implication is that if the White House and the GOP are dumb and wrong, the Democrats and Murtha must be right and smart simply by virtue of their disagreement. This is lazy thinking at its worst.

Joe Biden is the only Democrat that has outlined a specific strategy, and it involves subdividing Iraq into three ethnically-dominated sectors -- Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish. This supposedly would end sectarian violence, but the stickier and more important question of how to share oil money to the satisfaction of all when the majority of the crude comes from the persecuted Kurdistan region goes unanswered.

[malia]

"Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals. All they have are meaningless soundbites like "change course".

Nor does the DBM ask that question!! Just continues to give stories like this coverage.

Same story posted earlier under a different name and source...

"chron.com"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4260012.html
Rep. Murtha blasts GOP for name-calling

© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who favors withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, wrote an essay for Sunday's Washington Post blasting Republicans for referring to him and other Iraq war opponents as "Defeatocrats."

Frankly, between a Democrats .....or a Defeatocrats .... I think the later fits perfectly!!!

[Armigerous]

Well where Murthafurka is concerned, the correct term is Faggocrat....which I took pleasure in calling him

[malia]

oops - sorry
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1719617/posts

Rep. Murtha blasts GOP for name-calling

[bad company]

Morning John. Murtha is at it again huh? Well, let's take a look.

some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Wasn't their cry that Iraq had no wmds at all and no ties to terrorism or al-quaeda at all? Is it me or has their war cry shifted on that issue again?

Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq

And then;

I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date

We don't have enough troops there so even less would be the answer. Thanks for that little gem.

Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist.

Nice try murtha but the only measure you put forth to increase the readiness of troops in the U.S. is to pull out of Iraq.

Well Senator, I gave you a chance, I read the entire column that the post provided you and all you have is defeatism. Not one idea to improve the situation. Not one sentence that could be constrewed as constructive criticism. You have offered nothing of value to the discussion. You have just fully reinforced Roves assertion that you are nothing but a Defeatocrat.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

The Republicans main campaign theme from now to the election should be "the Democrats either don't have any ideas, or if they do, they don't want to tell you, because they know its not what you want, and you would reject them at the polls."

Defeatocrats, I like it!

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals."

You heard it. The RATS want to retreat to Okinawa.

[PGalt]

Diana Irey BUMP!

[savedbygrace]

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.

Translation: "If we don't change course, we'll have enough success in Iraq on a regular basis that Republicans will keep getting elected over and over again - that's a disaster of epic proportions."

[Beagle8U]

"Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them."

Another Murtha lie? Most RATS voted against the use of force?

[June K.]

MM- Thanks for directing me to this.

Of course, there are no surprises here.

...I can't see that leaving in the middle of a job is the answer! All the lives lost would have been in vain.

If the Dems get in, that's exactly what will happen.

...Do they think that the world then will automatically be a peaceful place...that all we need to do is close our eyes to the threat of terrorism and it will cease to exist?

J.

[yoe]

Never ONCE have I heard any SPECIFIC proposals from the Democrats on what they would do differently in Iraq and what SPECIFIC results they would expect from their proposals. All they have are meaningless soundbites like "change course".

The SPECIFIC plans are to put into practice the Terrorist Bill of Rights and cut military funding in Iraq; fire the generals and bring on the Pampered Princes like pretty boy Wesley Clark, who may be another Mark Foley........and mind you, let the United Nations take over - take? You Bet.

Murtha IS the enemy.

VOTE REPUBLICAN IF YOU WANT FREEDOM FROM TERRORISM

[neverdem]

Forget Murtha. Here's what the Pentagon admitted as of June 27, 2005.

"Casey said the level of attacks -- between 450 and 500 a week -- is roughly the same as it was a year ago. There were times when the level was between 800 and 900 attacks per week. The area of the attacks is also pretty confined. In 14 out of the 18 provinces in the country, there are only about three attacks a day."

For your consideration:

The Terror War Is An Honor War

Bring Them Freedom, Or They Destroy Us

Waging War, One Police Precinct at a Time

[bnelson44]

Saddam agrees