![]() |
|
March 05, 2006
Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha seems to have gone around the bend. Check out this exchange from this morning's Face the Nation: Congressman Murtha, thank you for coming this morning, and I want to start by quoting something that General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this morning on "Meet the Press." He said he believes the war in Iraq is going, in his words, "very, very well." What is your assessment? It's rather remarkable that a sitting United States Congressman would play so fast and loose with the facts, especially in the context of accusing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of being a liar. Pretty much every "fact" that Murtha hysterically tossed out is wrong. Murtha's suggestion that the administration said Iraq had nuclear weapons is absurd. (Why don't talk show hosts ever seem to call Democrats on these wild misrepresentations?) Likewise his claim that there is "no al Qaeda connection." In light of everything we now know, that statement can only be described as ignorant. And, even if we charitably assume that Murtha is behind the curve on this one, how about Zarqawi? How about Ansar al-Islam? How about the terrorist training camps? How about the many connections beween Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda that are documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report? Murtha says he can tell we aren't making any progress in Iraq because one of this staffers reads the State Department's Weekly Status Report, which shows that "we've made no progress at all." Maybe Murtha needs some new staffers. Whoever has been describing the State Department's Weekly Status Reports to him forgot to mention a few things. Here are some selections from the most recent Status Report, dated March 1: Iraqi Police and Coalition Forces conduced a raid resulting in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda military leader of northern Baghdad. And this is the source that Murtha cites as authority for the proposition that "we've made no progress at all" in Iraq! Murtha claims the unemployment rate in Iraq is 60%, which is unbelievable on its face. This is a figure that is sometimes cited on far-left blogs, which I suspect are Murtha's source; the CIA's World Factbook estimates Iraq's unemployment rate for 2005 at 25-30%. (The Factbook didn't attempt to estimate the unemployment rate under Saddam.) Murtha says 80% of Iraqis "want us out of there." This too is silly, if by "out of there" Murtha means that 80% agree with his call for immediate withdrawal. We have linked to a number of Iraqi public opinion polls, like this one, where only 12% of Iraqis wanted American troops to pull out "at once." I don't know where Murtha got his 80%; the closest I've seen is the World Public Opinion survey, done in late January, that is reported on here. In that survey, 35% of Iraqis say they want the U.S. to withdraw within six months, and 35% "gradually over the next two years." (29% want U.S. troop reductions only as warranted by the security situation.) So Murtha's figure is ridiculous unless "wanting us out of there" means wanting us to withdraw over the next couple of years--which is what I want, as, no doubt, does President Bush. Next comes one of Murtha's most bizarre claims: "Water production, only 30 percent of the people getting water." This seems pretty obviously false; otherwise, 70% of the population would be dead. Murtha says there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Only, there isn't. Murtha should know what a civil war is; we had one here once. You could tell it was a civil war, because half of the officers in the U.S. armed forces resigned and went south to fight for their "country;" afterward, opposing armies fought in the field. If that happens in Iraq, there will be a civil war. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. Violence, yes; the Middle East is a violent place. But it is simply false to say that there is a civil war going on, as Murtha must know, if he is not completely unhinged. Murtha's claim that 20,000 American soldiers have been "lost in this war" is loopy, too. That number is pretty close for total casualties, but to suggest that everyone who has been wounded, no matter how slightly, is "lost" is both false and insulting to our combat personnel. If I'm reading these numbers correctly, only half of those wounded are even evacuated from Iraq, and two-thirds of those evacuated are accidental injuries. On any rational interpretation, Murtha's claim that 20,000 have been "lost" is off by a factor of at least four or five. It's no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that Murtha has joined the lunatic left. What's disappointing is that journalists continue to treat him as a serious person, rather than as the crank he is. UPDATE: One of the dimmest of the dimwitted left-wing web sites has tried to respond to this post. Among other things, the proprietor of this slough of ignorance has resurrected the old chestnut that Dick Cheney said in an interview that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons;" ergo, Murtha was right! This is so stupid it makes your head hurt. We debunked this silly claim here. On March 16, 2003, Cheney was interviewed on Meet the Press. The following exchange was part of the interview: MR. RUSSERT: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq? As I wrote some time ago: [I]t is perfectly clear...that what Cheney said was that Saddam was "pursuing" nuclear weapons and "trying to produce" nuclear weapons. Cheney said that he disagreed with the IAEA's claim that Iraq did not have a "nuclear program," and when he said that "he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," it was a slip of the tongue. What he meant to say--as Tim Russert clearly understood--was that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. A reconstituted program makes sense; a reconstituted weapon does not. In that same interview, Cheney said several times that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. He also said, "It’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons." So obviously, Cheney was not claiming that Iraq had nuclear weapons at that time. This is consistent with how President Bush described the nuclear issue as it related to Saddam: Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem....The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program....If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Do the liberals really believe that Vice-President Cheney had a hot scoop that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons and forgot to tell the President? For that matter, don't the liberals think that if the administration believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons as of 2003, that would have been an issue in the run-up to the war? Like, there would have been some discussion about what we might do if Saddam dropped a nuclear weapon on our troops? President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and other members of the administration discussed the threat from Iraq countless times before the war started in March 2003. Over and over, they said, not that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons, but that Saddam had a long track record of trying to acquire such weapons, and that it would be gravely dangerous if he succeeded in doing so. The administration never claimed that Saddam already had nuclear weapons, contrary to Murtha's bizarre assertion. Are liberals really this dumb? Do they really think that the administration believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, but forgot to mention it except on a single occasion when Vice-President Cheney referred to "reconstituted nuclear weapons"--what does that mean?--while at the same time saying that it was "only a matter of time" until Iraq had such weapons? Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid. Worse, I think that many liberals--like the proprietor of the hate site that resurrected the Cheney quote earlier today--are so far gone in hatred of President Bush that everything they say and do is said and done in bad faith. Like Jack Murtha, they have lost any ability to distinguish truth from fiction, and any desire to do so. MORE: Expose the Left has viodeo of Murtha's meltdown. SEE ALSO Gateway Pundit, 9 Lies In 90 Seconds. |