"The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly," Reagan-era Secretary of the Navy James Webb writes in today's New York Times. That the well-wishers of a president who avoided wartime service would besmirch the reputations of men who actually served--John Murtha is the latest Vietnam vet to come under attack--is in bad taste. It's also bad politics.

Veterans shouldn't be immune from criticism, particularly ones who make their service the issue. But something as sacred as combat experience shouldn't be fodder for spin doctors--particularly ones seeking to aid men who avoided combat. Even Bill Clinton--who once expressed sympathy for "so many fine people...loathing the military"--had the good sense as president to avoid attacking the military records of men who at least had them. Perhaps Bush has that good sense too, which is why party stalwarts have waged these smears on his behalf.

Webb writes: "A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line." Webb's article is definitely worth reading, but his point about politicians (and the public) discarding soldiers once they come home as veterans has been made before--in Rudyard Kipling's Tommy, in Eric Bogle's And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda, in John Fogerty's Fortunate Son.

Dan, I agree with Webb to a point, but I also recognize that as a veteran, there is no portion of my service or medical record that I would not divulge to the public, particularly if I was in or was seeking to enter public office.

I find it even more curious that Murtha would decline such a request or refuse to make public his records. Coming on the heels of John Kerry making such a promise, and to date failing to keep it, Murtha's refusal just doesn't feel right.

Also, was not the issue of Murtha's service first raised by the Dims in an effort to forestall or deflect any criticism of his bewildering Iraq pronouncements?

I'm not qualified to comment on Representative Murtha's service other than to say, "Thank you."

However, I find it incomprehensible and just plain infuriating that he would align himself with the likes of Code Pink. It's one thing to fall back on your record when it's germaine to the discussion, but using it as a shield to ward off questions about current behavior is cowardly.

I couldn't believe these photos when I saw them and it's enough for me to wonder if Mr. Murtha might not be off his nut a bit.

http://andisworld.typepad.com/welcome_to_andis_world/2006/01/john_murtha_coz.html

Mr. Murtha's scandalous remarks about the war in Iraq, which are damaging to our troops' morale and, thus, the war effort, should be the focus here. I believe it is wrong for Murtha's service record to have become an issue - it is not - and this p*ssing contest over who's service record is better is detracting from the real issue, which is Murtha's recent public remarks and their effect on the war effort.

Let us keep in mind those North Vietnamese generals who said that the anti-war protestors of the sixties, including Jane Fonda, were instrumental in our loss of South Vietnam to the communists. The same effect can result from remarks such as Murtha's, whether intended or not. When Murtha makes public statements that the terrorists can interpret as a weakening of U.S. resolve, they will know, as the North Vietnamese knew, that they only have to wait us out.

Gary, there is no "p*ssing contest over who's service record is better." Murtha has a serivice record, while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc etc, don't.

Also, you are begging the question. Murtha's point is that there is nothing more we can get from fighting in Iraq. If he's right, then your complain makes no sense.

Bottom line is that in their quest to win political points by trying to take down the President, they are indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy, and are either too stupid to see it or they don't care!

I think there are two categories (and maybe a mix of the two) of Dems who are playing the political negativity game and who will say anything to smear the opposing party and others who truly dislike this country.

Either way, it's pretty sad.

"Gary, there is no "p*ssing contest over who's service record is better." Murtha has a serivice record, while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc etc, don't."

Actually, yes, this piece of Dan's is nothing more than a blow-by-blow "he said-he said" over who has served their country well and who hasn't. My comment still stands, then.

"Also, you are begging the question. Murtha's point is that there is nothing more we can get from fighting in Iraq. If he's right, then your complain makes no sense."

I'm very much aware of what Murtha's "point" is. What "question" does this "beg?" You haven't said. The whole point is that Murtha is NOT right and my "complaint," as you call it, is legitimate. I am hardly the only one saying so. YOUR comment begs the questions, "Do you believe Murtha is right?" and "Whose side are you on?"

Look Gary, there can be no pi**ing contest about who runs faster between a decathalete and a criple. It's only because the guys on your political side here are, in this case, criples, that you want to say that bringing up war records is a mere "pi**ing contest."

Second, regarding "begging the question." It is a fallacy in which one assume that one's conclusion is true in order to prove it. Murtha's claim is that there is nothing more to win in Iraq. And then you retort that he's keeping us from winning! He's saying that the game is over, and you are yelling at him for lowering the team's morale! In other words, your attack on Murtha asssumes that Murtha is wrong. You call his remarks "scandalous" but you don't argue that they are false.

"Second, regarding "begging the question." It is a fallacy in which one assume that one's conclusion is true in order to prove it. Murtha's claim is that there is nothing more to win in Iraq. And then you retort that he's keeping us from winning! He's saying that the game is over, and you are yelling at him for lowering the team's morale! In other words, your attack on Murtha asssumes that Murtha is wrong. You call his remarks "scandalous" but you don't argue that they are false."

That is the most amazing display of pretzel logic I've read all week. The fact is that Murtha's comments HAVE damaged morale and I certainly did "argue that they are false." That's my point. It is the ONLY point anyone should be talking about; not who served their country and who didn't. Apparently, you side with Murtha and those who would undermine our war effort by declaring, as Howard Dean has, that this war is "unwinnable." You are sadly wrong.

I'm sorry, where did you argue that Murtha's point (viz., that there is nothing left for us to gain by finghting in Iraq) is false? I saw you say it was scandalous and that it was hurting morale and undermining our efforts, etc etc. Where did you argue that it's false?

ROFLMAO! Ummm....the fact that I regard Murtha's remarks as false is IMPLICIT in the fact that said he's wrong and that his remarks are damaging troop morale.

Yes, "implicit." In the same way that in the fallacy of begging the question the conslusion one is trying to prove is actually implicit in one of your premises. Never mind. You don't want to provide arguments; you'd rather assume Murtha is wrong. I couldn't care less. But you should be aware: given that Murtha believes that the game has ended, he won't be convinced by people who say he's undermining team spirit.

"Yes, "implicit." In the same way that in the fallacy of begging the question the conslusion one is trying to prove is actually implicit in one of your premises."

Okay, at this point I'm going to assume English is NOT your primary language, since you this statement makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise. First of all, I uttered no fallacies. Secondly, you've still not said what "question" my comments beg (I don't think you even understand what the expression "begs the question" means, in the first place. It is evident you don't).

As for the fact that Murtha's argument being false is implicit in the very first thing I said about it ("Mr. Murtha's scandalous remarks about the war in Iraq, which are damaging to our troops' morale..."), yes, it IS. That's what I just said. How can you read what I said and infer anything else from it? I obviously don't think Murtha's remarks have any shred of truth to them. That should have been self-evident in the first sentence I wrote about Murtha. If I believed he was telling the truth about the war, I wouldn't have made the comment I made, now would I?

Never mind. You don't want to provide arguments; you'd rather assume Murtha is wrong. I couldn't care less. But you should be aware: given that Murtha believes that the game has ended, he won't be convinced by people who say he's undermining team spirit.

Sorry, I missed answering the last paragraph of your ridiculous post:

"Never mind. You don't want to provide arguments; you'd rather assume Murtha is wrong. I couldn't care less. But you should be aware: given that Murtha believes that the game has ended, he won't be convinced by people who say he's undermining team spirit."

First of all, I'm not trying to "convince" Murtha of anything. He is beyond the pale, as you appear to be, yourself. You want arguments against Murtha's claims? Then why didn't you say so? First of all, Murtha hasn't even been to Iraq and knows nothing about what is happening there that I don't know. Secondly, I trust the views of those who are conducting this war more so than I do someone who hasn't had a thing to do with it beyond complaining about it. As for discrediting Murtha's statements that are army is "broken," there are plenty of soldiers fighting this war who have expressed their disagreement with him openly. I think our troops know a lot more about what is happening in Iraq than either of you do. This isn't just my opinion.

Gary, The question you were begging was whether Murtha's point was correct-- namely, is there anything left for us to gain in Iraq? You assumed Murtha was wrong when you said his "scandalous" remarks undermined our ability to "win" in Iraq. If Murtha is right, then your complaint makes no sense. But you didn't bother presenting reasons to show that Murtha was wrong. You wanted to condemn him morally for doing something that, if his point is correct, he isn't doing. Who here doesn't understand what 'question begging' means?

Clearly you think that he--and anyone who doesn't want to condemn him--are so "beyond the pale" that reasons are not necessary to condemn him and liken him to Jane Fonda's parading herself around with the enemy. Peace out.

Gary, what more can we gain by fighting in Iraq?
Am I also against the troops for merely posing a question you cannot or will not answer.

What more can we gain from fighting in Iraq? We can gain a free and independent Iraq, for one thing. We can also gain an ally in the Middle East, in the war on terrorism. We can gain a new trading partner. We can gain stability in the Middle East. Also, we can gain the ability to bring our troops home without having to worry that Iraq will immediately fall apart. That's what we can gain by completing our mission.

It is obvious that people like Murtha, Howard Dean and others, including yourselves, don't want us to complete that mission. You'd rather see us pull out in defeat and humilitation, instead, and allow the Iraqis to become victims of the terrorists we're fighting. That makes you an ally of our enemy.

Gary-- Just curious: let's say that it would take another 25 years in Iraq continuing exactly as we are now ($, deaths, etc.) to get all that you are promising. Do you still think it would be worth it? Whether yes or no, please follow up with, roughly, the number of years, and the number of troop deaths, that you are willing to pay for all the benefits you say we shall gain by "completing our mission."

Ah, Gary, you won't answer the question. You won't identify the numbers of U.S. years, dollars, and corpses you are willing to sacrifice in this mission. Perhaps you are worried that someone will say you are a traitor, an "ally of the enemy," a Jane Fonda impersonator, as you have called me, for saying that Iraq isn't worth the possible price.

On the other hand, it seems a little absurd that there is NO limit to what you are willing to pay for a stable, free Iraq to be our trading partner and ally against bad guys.

I did answer your question, which was "is there anything left for us to gain in Iraq?"

"You won't identify the numbers of U.S. years, dollars, and corpses you are willing to sacrifice in this mission."

The objective is to hand off the fight to the Iraqis as soon as they are capable of handling it themselves. To that end, it won't be anywhere near 25 years; more like another year, two at most. As for deaths, we could double what we've had already and still come out of it with fewer casualties than in any war ever fought in history, with the exception of the Gulf War. The only reason we lost fewer men in the Gulf War was because we didn't finish the job. That's why we're there again now. As for how much it costs, I really don't give a sh*t, as long as the job gets done and gets done right this time.

Now, back to you. What do YOU think we should be doing, hmmm? If you're so smart and have so many bright ideas, tell me what you would do. Oh, wait; I already know. You'd never have fought this war in the first place and Sadaam Hussein and his two phsychopathic sons would still be raping, torturing and murdering the people we're currently bringing democracy to.

Gary, well never mind that you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask how many dollars, corpses and years you thought it would take. (That's an uninteresting question-- The prowar people have already demonstrated irrational optimism about how hard it would be to "complete the mission.") I asked you what price would be worth it.

For my part, I never bragged to you about how smart I am or claimed to have a lot of bright ideas about the Iraq debacle. Though I didn't support the war, I think we have clearly completed the mission: there is no longer a chance that Saddam's WMD's will end up in terrorist hands.

"Gary, well never mind that you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask how many dollars, corpses and years you thought it would take. (That's an uninteresting question-- The prowar people have already demonstrated irrational optimism about how hard it would be to "complete the mission.") I asked you what price would be worth it."

Actually, I did answer, at least in part: "As for how much it costs, I really don't give a sh*t, as long as the job gets done and gets done right this time." I'm not going to give you a dollar amount, or a body count that I'm "comfortable" with because I can't answer such a stupid and meaningless question.

"For my part, I never bragged to you about how smart I am or claimed to have a lot of bright ideas about the Iraq debacle. Though I didn't support the war, I think we have clearly completed the mission: there is no longer a chance that Saddam's WMD's will end up in terrorist hands."

I didn't say you did brag. I'm simply asking what your solution is. You've implied that everyone else is wrong, so what's your proposal? It's evident, from your use of the word "debacle," that you don't have a clue as to what is going on, let alone an answer. Like all liberals, all you know is how to be a contrarian; i.e., how to oppose. Your whole tactic is about tearing down, not being constructive.

We've completed the initial military objective, yes. We haven't solved the unforseen problem of the so-called "insurgency," however. As for Sadaam's WMDs not winding up in terrorist hands, I'm not so sure about that. I believe there were WMDs in Iraq and that most of them were moved into Syria. Syria being a chief exporter of terrorism, that would mean the WMDs are definitely in terrorist hands.

Gary: OK. So it doesn't matter how long it takes, or how much more or how many lives -- you think a free Iraq-trading partner is worth it. And you've called anyone who disagrees with this -- anyone who thinks that we should just bring the boys home at some point short of completing this "mission" -- is a scandalous Jane Fonda, ally of our enemy, traitorous type. Oh, and you believe the elusive WMD was moved to Syria instead of being used against our troops in battle. Well, at least our exchange has made your position clear. I'm sorry for tearing you down, man. I won't bother you anymore.

Fine with me, as you will only continue to distort everything I say and deny I'm answering you when I clearly have been all along.