News-Record.com

Until the recent flap I'd never even heard of Rep. Murtha, now that's ALL I hear.
Lieberman, on the other hand, is a former VP candidate. And I'm sure I've heard more from and about another failed candidate, John Edwards, than I've heard from/about Lieberman.
Why is that?
Could it be that the mainstream media is more interested in providing a pulpit to politicians that reflect their own views, biases, and feelings?
Say it ain't so...

waaaaaaaaahh

Liberal this liberal that.

Maybe you guys didnt notice but the Liberals arent in control of government. But, no, you won't be happy until everyone marches lockstep with your happy little conservative killing spree.

You conservatives are such the whiners!

It was memorable when Dick Cheney, during the 2000 vice-presidential debate, longed to hear from "the old Joe."

Senator Lieberman has demonstrated, with a flair, who "the old Joe" was. I had seen some discussion on the web that he is being targeted by certain Democratic interest groups. Also, an article in Newsmax rumored him to be a possible replacement for Rumsfeld at Defense. The Bush administration should find a place for this guy.

Ok, I wont be sarcastic in this post.

The reason why you don't hear lieberman is because what he is saying is nothing new. If he came out and proposed something that hadn't been proposed, maybe, just maybe, DINO Joe would get some coverage.

You guys are amazing. Liberal Media Bias? This is a myth invented in the 90's by Flush Limbaugh, who probably concocted it in some Dope-induced haze. But, you perpetuate the myth. How about if you write some piece glorifying death and killing, I can call it conservative bias!

Because, you cant seem to make the connection that one can be against war, particularly a war of convenience like the one we started in Iraq, and supportive of the troops. If you conservatives are sooooo supportive of the troops, then ask your president why his VA is trying to disqualify thousands of veterans from benefits by 'redefining' what PTSD is.

They fought for us, and deserve the highest in medical, dental, and mental health care. They ain't getting it under this President.

Complaints about inadequate VA care and benefits have been around as long as the VA. Deficiencies should be addressed. But that issue has nothing to do with the reasons we need to win in Iraq, or at least not lose.

I'm not saying we should have started this war. But I agree with Lieberman that we have to see it through to the point where Iraqis can provide enough security on their own to maintain a stable government rather than surrender to al-Qaida.

What Lieberman said is, in fact, new and newsworthy because he just returned from his latest trip and is reporting on progress he's observed.

Doug,

As a former reporter, you're obviously familiar with the concept that elements like "novelty" and a "surprise factor" play a part in what editors define as news. For example, dog bites man is an age-old story, while man bites dog is so far out of left field that any editor worth his salt would immediately give it a very prominent position.

In the same way, "Democratic Sen. Lieberman supports war because he's supported any action tied to the future security of Isreal" is really not that big a story to anybody who has been paying attention.

The more "man bites dog" angle is "hawkish Democrat John Murtha--whose support for military action has been long accepted as a given in conservative circles--comes out against the war."

In the same way, your newspaper didn't just give several days of front page coverage to conservative Rep. Howard Coble's doubts about the War in Iraq because it's a liberal newspaper. What lies behind that story--and the Murtha story--is that it's equally surprising for either man to express doubts about the war.

I think you're looking under every rock for liberal bias in the same way North High Pointers see evidence of Terry Grier's evil under every rock.

Good points, Norskar. I agree that claims of liberal bias are exaggerated. I don't dismiss them, either.

Kathleen Parker points out that Murtha began expressing reservations about the war in 2003 and in 2004 pronounced it "unwinnable." His recent statements weren't that surprising, either.

I have listened to several interview with Murtha since his comments on Iraq and have found him to be a very confused man. He does not seem to be able to make a statement and then remain solid on such. He is nothing more than a lap dog for Teddy, John Kerry and Nancy and of course Howie the ranter.
Joe Liberman on the other hand is well informed but he has "dared" to speak against the far left that has hijacked the party and they are certainly out to get him. Ever hear of Lowell Wicker(sp), arch enemy of Joe Liberman? The far left folks, Ted, John , Nancy and Howard are pushing Lowell to run as a Democrat against Joe in 06.
Had the Democrats put Joe Liberman up as a candidate in the last election we might well have seen a different outcome. At this point in time, Joe Liberman is the only Democrat that I could or would even consider voting for in 08. The man has got common sense, which so far none of the others who are or might be in the chase have shown.

You are right Doug, the media in general is not that biased but, it is the king pins of the media who are biased and they get the attention because of their size.

John Murtha has something that Dick Cheney and George Bush will never have: credibility. I don't believe much of anything Cheney or Bush have to say any more, but I'll give Murtha the benefit of the doubt because of his integrity. At worst, he's misguided; at best, he's right on the money.

You can attack John Murtha's message, but you'll have a hard time attacking his character. After all, this is a decorated soldier who has a long history of supporting the military, and who routinely visits wounded soldiers (not for photo ops) simply because he cares.

In fact, Murtha (and John Kerry, for that matter) were among a miniscule number of our elected officials who were actually fighting for this country while the rest of us were hiding behind our deferments.

And, what's this nonsense about a liberal media? Maybe the NY Times and Washington Post, but otherwise I've never seen such as conservative media.

Johann,

Being the same age as I, you were too young to need a deferment from the Vietnam-era draft.

I hope no one thinks I'm attacking Murtha. Nor do I think Kathleen Parker was doing so. The point is that Joe Lieberman's views are just as worthy of attention.

Murtha's posturing is all politics. He gambled that support was leaving the Republicans for the Iraqi war and like other Democrats wants to get as much mileage as possible out of it.

The word is that Murtha's Democratic support in his district is weak on the war and of course, he needs to speak to that element publicly to shore this support. The word also is that he may be challenged in the primaries by a popular anti-war candidate and is trying to turn that threat upside down.

In any event, it's interesting that during our Bosnia involvement, of which we still have a notable presence after all these years, the Republicans supported an opposition President even though many of them during the initial runup had questions about the engagement. After we got involved, you didn't hear a peep from them, primarily, and not because they were necessarily in agreement with the engagement, because of their concern for the situation our troops were faced with.

The Democrats are engaged with rotten politics and see an opportunity to have gains in 2006 without any consideration for the adverse effect there childish banter has on our troops.

Diego --

I included myself as a potential draft dodger cause I'm fairly confident I would have sought a college deferment had the draft not ended one year before I turned 18. [I'm reminded of Dan Quayle's first interview after being named VP candidate, who said, in response to a question about his avoiding Vietnam by pulling strings to get into the National Guard, "If I knew I'd be here today, I'd have done it differently."]

You might not be attacking Murtha's credibility, but everyone else on this blog sure seems to be. I saw Murtha's press conference, when he was near tears recalling wounded soldiers he'd visited at Walter Reed Hospital. I think it is pretty low of your wannabe neocon readers to attack Murtha's character.

Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised your detractors haven't somehow linked Murtha, the liberal press, Michael Moore, and you to the apparently sorry state of High Point city schools and the ruling Emerywood elite. Those rants sure seem to show up in the strangest places!

Go Heels.

Johann,
No one is detracting from Murtha's record as a soldier(Marine) and to put him and John Kerry in the same catagory as great soldiers is absolutely ridiculous however. John Kerry committed treason 30 plus yrs ago and had to audicity to stoop to the lowest level on political demogogoryI have ever withnessed. His words last week were simply aid and comfort to the enemy and that is treason. He should be tried on two counts and dismissed from the Senate in disgrace.
His Now back to Mr. Murtha. His military record is not the question here. What one of the things I questioned was his ability to actually function rationally . I watched him on one of the Sunday morning interview programs and the poor man could not maintain rationalality in his comments. One minute it was we should not withdraw from the region and the next it was the opposite and the same type of thing went on for probably 10 minutes.He could not settle on one answer for the question. The poor man has been used by the farleft wing of the Democrat party as a political ploy. If you critize him , the they can claim that you question his service to his country and that is pure barnyard bovine excrement. If you give creadence to his statements then you become a part of the left wing democrat party and join Ted, Nancy, John and Raving Dean.
I know Murtha's record and I know what he has endured in his military service for I have given over 30 years of my life in service to this country as well. I pulled my tours in Nam just as he did and know a bit more about war than you can claim to know since you have no experience in that field. I know what constitutes good judgement and what doesn't. Mr. Murtha did not use good judgement in allowing himself to be used for a political purpose.
Joe Liberman is a man to be respected but the leftoids in the party are down on him like white on rice because he dares to disagree with them. At least the man has the intelligence to make the trips, actually talk to the generals on the ground in charge of this war and then make a credible decision. His trips are not made to find fault but to find truth. He is one of the few Democrats with any credibility imho. If the majority of Democrats in this country want to win back the seat of power it is going to take someone like Joe Liberman to do so. His agenda is open for all to see unlike the others who are posturing for office these days. That goes for those on both sides of the aisle.
Power to the Blue Devils

Mr. P.,

Very well said by a person with the background and experience to speak to the matter.

I agree that John Murtha is an honorable man, but he appears to be coming unglued with this thing. He just said that we should redeploy our troops out of country to Okinawa in the South Pacific where they can maintain readiness, and then they could be returned to Iraq, if needed. South Pacific?! Does this man know how far that is from Iraq? Is this man rational?

Yes, he did give indications some time ago that he was against the war, and was quoted as suggesting that the war is unwinnable. Then, to say our military is broken and living from hand to mouth??? What is this man thinking?

My sense is that some of the far left leaders of the Dems set Murtha up to test the public waters for a military pull-out. You see Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean, and even Kerry now getting on the bandwagon in different forms, but the party can't seem to get their message quite right on this. They'd like to come out as a party and demand a troop pull-out, but they aren't quite sure how that will play politically in 2006. As a result, they are hurting themselves with their stumbling around on the subject. They should have been happy just to sit-back as they had been doing, critizing George Bush's handling of the war. Unforunately, for them, the party's far left supporters have gotten impatient with their do-nothing posture. History may show that they jumped too early. Time will tell, but they may have painted themselves as a defeatist party once again just in time for the next elections.

Oh, and why did the Dems launch this pull-out the troops because the war is unwinnable just before a critical election in Iraq? Don't they realize what impact this could have on Iraqis, and cause them to begin to wonder what the level of commitment is of America? Couldn't they have waited at least until after the election?

And, watching the Saddam trial circus, raises the question in my mind about the timing of this defeatist talk. What will be going through the minds of Iraqis if they think that we are going to cut and run from this war, leaving them to face the terrorists? It is a reasonable possibility that Saddam would be freed and would return to power. Now, that would really unleash a disaster in Iraq, and we would be sitting in Okinawa watching it unfold.

Murtha is not a political pawn, being used by those whacky liberals. I remain convinced it pained him to take the position he took, but he did so because of his love and concern for our soldiers. It is that simple.

He may not be able to articulate a new strategy, but that doesn't stop him from suggesting that "staying the course" is wrong. You can disagree with his comments, but to disregard them by attacking his character or motives is, well, a debate ploy often used by sitting presidents; don't stoop to their level. I give him Murtha credibility than most of the other Republican and Democratic blowhards in Washington.

I don't think Iraqis are spending a lot of time following debates in the U.S. about the war. They're probably more concerned with staying alive, finding a job, and wondering if the electicity will ever be turned on again. There's also a growing school of thought that removing U.S. soldiers from the front lines in Iraq would go a long way to ease the insurgency.

What's the answer in Iraq? Hell if I know. Seems to me it is time for some new ideas, though.

Johann, it seems you know little of politics, nothing of war and military and just where in the hang did you get the idea that Murtha's charecter is being attacked for I certainly did not. His record as a miltary man is beyond question. The only questions asked were that concerning his ability to reason with clarity. His military service was yesterday, his leadership in the political arena is today and that is what is being questioned.

Ouch. OK, I admit it, I don't know beans about war. But a lot of soldiers coming home from Iraq are saying we've made a few blunders and our nation-building efforts aren't going so well, and that's good enough for me. I'm not suggesting we pack up and leave Iraq, but I am open to some new ideas. [Isn't "Stay the course" a political euphemism for "Let's hang in there till after the next election and then we'll try something new?"]

Oh, right, I don't know much about politics either. But, unlike some folks, I don't see a Ted Kennedy-Michael Moore-liberal conspiracy behind everyone who criticizes George Bush. Occasionally, people speak from the heart (despite what their handlers might say). Perhaps John Murtha is among them.

Johann,

A lot of soldiers coming back are saying what?

Strange to me. I just talked with abut 265 young men who returned from a years tour and it sure is funny , I didn't hear a one of them say anything negative about how things are going. In fact I did hear many of them say that given the opportunity they would go back again in a heartbeat, and these young men are reservist not RA. Now I also see that the re-up rate is the highest it has been in years and it sure aint because they are getting a pay raise anytime soon. I also see that the extension rate is higher than it has been in any war since WW2. Does that sound like a lot complaining that things are not going well and that blunders are too many? Sound like you know even less on this subject. Try talking to some real troops once in a while and not those being interviewed for moveon.org or for Air America. There are always those who will complain, I saw it over and over again and have on occassion seen a handful who were and will always be complainers. The military doesn't want or need that kind and thank God they are the ones who will get on out of the way. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. I am proud to know those who lead or follow, the rest had better get on out of the way before the other runover thier sorry butts.

MP, thought I'd lost you.

OK, you've made your point, again, that I have no credibility since I've never been in the military. Got it.

Re-up and extention rates are not up, I'd bet, because US soldiers care about democracy in Iraq; rather, they are fiercely loyal to their country and their mission, good or bad, and even more to their fellow soldiers, especially those still in harm's way in Iraq.

Are you telling me the 265 soldiers with whom you spoke think they had sufficient numbers and, in fact were succeeding in their efforts to fight insurgents; train the Iraqi police and army; provide food, water and electricity; and stop the flow of men and weapons from Syria and Iran? Do they think we should "stay the course?" Did they express any concern about insufficient armor and lack of counter-measures to roadside bombs?