The Blog @ Spolitics

Murtha Attacks Air Conditioning Yet Again

Congressman John Murtha has ramped up his attacks against air conditioned offices, a condition he says leads to Republicans making bad foreign policy decisions rather than supporting his Murtha Doctrine. From crosswalk.com:

“Enough,” Murtha said in a Friday email message written on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a group that aims to shift control of the House from Republicans to Democrats. “To all the Republicans who sit in their air-conditioned offices and talk of the courage it takes for them to keep young kids in harm’s way — I say enough. Karl Rove talking about ‘cutting and running’ while he sits on his big, fat backside, saying ’stay the course.’ I say enough! That’s not a plan!”

However, our sources tell us that Murtha is making these attacks at the worst possible time. “Support for air conditioning goes up dramatically during the summer months,” said one pollster who wished to remain anonymous. “Murtha isn’t going to find a receptive audience if he continues to bash air conditioning and the people who use it.”

Others are accusing Murtha of hypocrisy since he’s also fat and has an air conditioned office. “If it makes Karl Rove wrong, how does it make John Murtha right?” asked on congressional aide who would only speak to Spolitics.com on condition that we not print her name. “Technically, Mr. Murtha is fatter than Mr. Rove, so if there is a fat-to-error ratio when it comes to war planning, Mr. Murtha would be less reliable.”

Murtha went on to write in the email that he expected Republicans to “to acknowledge that there is more to be done than sitting and watching.” Our sources inside Murtha’s office tell us that the congressman plans to introduce legislation that will call for congress to be re-deployed to Okinawa where it can better monitor the situation in Iraq.

Kos Intends to Swift Boat Ko$ola story

First off, we should define what it means to “swift boat” something, since so many on the left use the term incorrectly. When accusations are made and charges levied, you can “swift boat” the story by fleeing the argument and waiting for the firefight to play out. By staying far away from the accusations and not firing back, you hope to escape the charges unscathed. Then, once the firing dies down, you return to the scene of the argument and mount your defense.

The term is derived from an anecdote from Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service in which he ordered his swift boat to flee a firefight, waited for the shooting to end and then returned to the scene so he could pull Jim Rassman from the water, earn a medal and run for President.

Now, on to Kos. According to The Plank [and here], Kos intends to swift boat the Ko$ola story [and more here]. Kos writes to his co-conspirators:

My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I’ll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on. If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let’s starve it of oxygen. And without the “he said, she said” element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction.

It makes perfect sense why Kos would employ the “swift boat” strategy when dealing with the Ko$ola story considering how well it is working for John Kerry, who is currently trying to “swift boat” the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry ignored accusations that he was greatly overstating his military heroics in the 2004 campaign. Now that no one cares anymore, Kerry is jumping back into the fight.

The only confusing thing is why Kos — a blogger — seems to think the story is worthless as long as the “traditional media” (read: MSM) doesn’t print it:

This story will percolate in wingnut circles until then, but I haven’t gotten a single serious media call about it yet. Not one. So far, this story isn’t making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn’t do anything to help make that happen.

Kos to blogosphere: we’re irrelevant! I’m sure Dan Rather would agree.

More: Ko$ola in Ohio. Iowa Voice. Red State. SFPH.

Deconstructing the “Chicken Hawk” Argument

I have to admit, I am thoroughly confused by this whole “chicken hawk” argument. As I understand it, according to Dems like John Kerry, John Murtha and Howard Dean, because President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have never seen combat, they have no business advocating that we stay the course in Iraq. To do so makes them “chicken hawks.” Perhaps if they had seen combat, like Murtha, they would have known from the onset that we could have fought the war in Iraq out of Okinawa (as long as it wasn’t too hot, of course).

But they’ve never been shot at so they, along with all the other chicken hawks, have no right to criticize those who have dodged bullets and are now calling for a troop withdrawal. Only combat veterans can voice their support for — or against — a war.

By this rationale, we also never should have fought in World War I or World War II since both Wilson and FDR were — by the Dems’ definition — chicken hawks.

Confounding the chicken hawk argument even more is the fact that LBJ won a silver star in the South Pacific during WWII. So, we should have stayed the course in Vietnam because LBJ saw combat. But Kerry opposed that war and Murtha points to it as an example not to follow.

George H.W. Bush saw combat, so the Gulf War met the chicken hawk test, but Kerry voted against it. And then, over a decade later, Kerry goes and votes for Operation Iraqi Freedom even though George W. Bush is a chicken hawk. Now Kerry says we shouldn’t finish the war because… well, because Bush is a chicken hawk? (Wait, what am I complaining about. Criticizing Kerry for a flip-flop is like criticizing a chameleon for changing colors.)

And then, of course, there’s the biggest chicken hawk of them all: Thomas Jefferson. Apparently he had no business writing that Declaration that sent so many troops to their death. So, according to the chicken hawk argument, there should be no Democrats to indignantly lecture us about chicken hawks in the first place.

I just don’t get it. It seems this whole chicken hawk argument isn’t worth a damn. Perhaps there’s just some confusion about what a chicken hawk actually is. Let’s consult Webster’s… 

Oh, okay. I get it. A chicken hawk is a hawk that preys on chickens. Well, I guess Bush, Cheney and Rove are chicken hawks after all. Chickens beware!