Opening The Files: 02/19/07
The Murtha Malign
The hit jobs against Jack Murtha and the Democrats continue unabated. On top of WaPo's disapproval of the congressman's plan to increase troop readiness comes this scathing editorial from Investor's Business Daily which claims the plan "shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." Brit Hume got in on the Murtha maligning by questioning his senility.
On a related subject, Jeff Jacoby had an op-ed in the Boston Globe in which he tries to point out the supposed irreconcilability of supporting the troops but opposing the war. He cites as an example of this dichotomy "No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control." Of course he fails to point out that the Fire Chief was the one who started this "blaze" in the first place.
Kevin Hayden thinks he knows the real reason behind the Investor's rant. And it has little to do with stale bromides about "victory".
Robert Farley wonders why it is that those who throw out accusations of treason never seem to follow them through to their logical conclusion. Maybe they're just in it for the win, so sez Blue Texan.
Libby Spencer on the unparalleled inanity.
Maha has a long response to Jacoby's contention that you can't be for the troops but against the war. Kathy links approvingly to Maha and brings up some good points of her own.
Yes, BooMan, you can be offended. I know I am.
And finally, BarbinMD helpfully chronicles some of the smears, what Murtha is actually proposing and why it has opponents in a snit.
Update: What Arianna said.
(Filed at State of the Day)
The hit jobs against Jack Murtha and the Democrats continue unabated. On top of WaPo's disapproval of the congressman's plan to increase troop readiness comes this scathing editorial from Investor's Business Daily which claims the plan "shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." Brit Hume got in on the Murtha maligning by questioning his senility.
On a related subject, Jeff Jacoby had an op-ed in the Boston Globe in which he tries to point out the supposed irreconcilability of supporting the troops but opposing the war. He cites as an example of this dichotomy "No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control." Of course he fails to point out that the Fire Chief was the one who started this "blaze" in the first place.
Kevin Hayden thinks he knows the real reason behind the Investor's rant. And it has little to do with stale bromides about "victory".
Robert Farley wonders why it is that those who throw out accusations of treason never seem to follow them through to their logical conclusion. Maybe they're just in it for the win, so sez Blue Texan.
Libby Spencer on the unparalleled inanity.
Maha has a long response to Jacoby's contention that you can't be for the troops but against the war. Kathy links approvingly to Maha and brings up some good points of her own.
Yes, BooMan, you can be offended. I know I am.
And finally, BarbinMD helpfully chronicles some of the smears, what Murtha is actually proposing and why it has opponents in a snit.
Update: What Arianna said.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Labels: OTF
Post a Comment