John Murtha, Traitor extraordinaire

Once again, kicking 'em while they are down ... John Murtha rises up from the sewers to attack the military as a whole when a couple (seemingly) screwed up. I'll get to more of how totally asinine this whole thing shapes up to be in a bit ... but to begin with we have to take a hatchet to the dirtball Congressman from PA (yeah, really, not CA).

And for the record ... Murtha gave up all right to claim his "patriotism" accorded him from his service in the Marines after continuing attacks, particularly from podiums of such prestigious groups as Move-On, etc. Actually, because he was a Marine, Murtha now is on the same scale as a traitor.

In one despicable interview ... Murtha attacks the (mainstream media) reporter who had the audacity of suggesting that we wait until the results of the investigations are concluded. Murtha ... an elected US Representative ... demands that the reporter not "defend the military".

Please ... stop and think about that for a minute. A so-called "patriot" ... former military guy that is always held up by the libs as a posterboy for lefty military representation ... out-n-out shouts at a reporter (liberal, no less) for trying to give our marines a break. Actually, you don't have to think about it that long ... hate-Bushism seems to be a qualifiable psychological disorder that has no limit as to how deranged its victims act.

So how long before the Murtha interviews are all over Al-Jazeera? What time is it?

Wesley Clark ... open mouth, insert foot

In another fascinating interview (I am being facetious, of course), former general Wesley Clark shows up on Bill O'Reilly echoing the absolutely ridiculous point that somehow the military is fatigued and overstressed. In the same breath ... not recognizing the absolute stupidity of the contradiction, Clark "trumps" O'Reilly's assertion that 95% of the soldiers in the Iraqi zone are doing an admirable job by saying "99.5 percent or more".

So, fathead ... if 99.5% "or more" are doing admirable, then how the hell do you argue that they are fatigued and overstressed and all the other bad (liberal, anti-american) puke you have been spewing forth? Also, why are re-enlistments at all time highs? Sounds like beatin' and down-troddin' pee-ons to me, how about you?

The situation ... it HAD to happen

Remember how I commented months ago about how sooner or later a situation will blow up exactly like this? If combatants were fighting from and hiding amongst civilians, particularly willing on the part of the civilians ... sooner or later a significant amount were going to get caught up in a raid or firefight ... and many "innocents" would die.

Note: in many places (either totally unreported or misreported as "civil war") ... the civilians have gotten sick of this crap and taken matters into their own hands. How many times have you heard the stories of 8-10 or even more men, bound and gagged with bullets in their skulls, floating down a river. I have heard reported that when the foreigners move in, neighbors begin to worry everytime they hear a jet engine ... then finally get sick of it and slaughter the terrorists.

The argument against showing any decency to terrorists (non-uniformed) had to do with idiots arguing about Geneva conventions when it came to the non-uniformed. My point in the generic sense was that if the terrorists do not suffer severe, and I mean SEVERE, consequences for fighting out of uniform, innocents will be killed.

So how did the hate-Bush, cut-n-run liberals respond? By continuing their moronic arguments ... including the garbage coming from the international human rights groups about all the bad things Americans are doing to captured Al Quaeda murderers. The blood of these victims (assuming that they were victims and not combatants) is on the hands of the dirtballs that hide among us and their advocates in the world.

Terrorists MUST be untouchables ... exposed to the worst possible consequences civilized humanity can reasonably deliver. I do not pretend to know what we should do ... but we now seemingly have strong evidence of the disasterous course we are on by listening to these idiots. We cannot tolerate combatants attacking from and hiding among civilians ... under any circumstances.

Redefining rules of engagement

The biggest mistake of the Bush administration is the failure to engage the debate on the home front of the new rules of war. I have heard the "9-11 changed everything" phrase enough to make me puke ... and that goes particularly for Republicans. Unlike the liberals, however, I am not saying that nothing changed ... to the contrary everything has changed, and we absolutely need to rewrite all rules of engagement to deal with the situation.

Terrorists want to kill us, and these killers are (potentially) living among us. Over 200-some-odd years of history ... we have completely re-written everything around the idea that "real" wars will be fought completely outside of the US ... think about it ... we cannot even use our own military to guard our own national borders under Federal control. I mean really think about how absolutely lunatic that is!!! Obviously the situations we envisioned ... like fighting off Germany (who, with only very limited exceptions, never actually threatened our borders) and Japan (who also, with the only exception being Pearl Harbor, was a long way from any serious threat of hitting major mainland points).

Vietnam was the first example of the type of new situation that we were going to have to deal with. Yet I am not aware of any real efforts to face the new situation (again, in terms of rewriting all of the rules). We now have a much worse foe comparitively speaking. Going on 40 years later ... we still have not faced the hard work of recreating the rules.