IF JOHN MURTHA, WHY NOT GENERAL ABIZAID?

After watching the Senate Armed Services Committee grill General Abizaid I am once again convinced that  the Democrats cannot keep track of their own lunacy. For years the left has been on President Bush for refusing to listen to his own generals about the situation in Iraq. This week the Democrats had their chance to show us how it's supposed to be done. General Abixaid thought he would tell the Democrats what he needed, how the war was going and what the next move should be in order to bring it to a successful conclusion. Unfortunately he wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear. He said "under current circumstances I would not recommend troop withdrawal." That evening the left was back on television calling for...you guesed it. Troop withdrawl.

In other words the Democrats ignored him.

Carl Levin A martyr to the Comb over Continues mouth the same talking points despite sitting through Abizaids testimony.

Barack Obama has called for a 6 month timetable even though General Abizaid stated that a timetable would hamper the military's ability to maneuver in Iraq as the generals see fit.

What happened to listening to the Generals on the ground?

I'm not a millitary person but I am smart enough to know that it is better to listen to the Generals on the ground in the current war rather than a millitary "Expert" who last saw action in the Crimean war. John Murtha whose considered a war hero simply because he tells us he is wants us to surrender in Iraq based on his experience in Vietnam. Now I'm, also not a Geography expert but Vietnam is I'm told, filled with Vietnamese people. Who live in a Vietnemese culture. The most popular religions in Vietnam are Buddhist, Taoist, Roman Catholic, indigenous beliefs, Islam, Protestant, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao. In other words not Islam. I'm not an expert on Religion either but I am fairly sure none of those religions advocate eliminating anyone who does subscribe to their particular religion.

Then there is the war itself..

The chief cause of the war was the failure of Vietnamese nationalists, in the form of the Viet Minh, to gain control of southern Vietnam both during and after their struggle for independence from France in the First Indochina War of 1946-1954. In other words it was not about the North Vietnamese wanting to destroy the Unites States because we were not North Vietnamese.

Can anyone please point out to me how Murtha and that other guy General Eric Shinseki  can be experts on a war in a country that resembles absolutely nothing these men encountered in the past? Have they been to Iraq? Has John murtha been to Iraq? was he actually in Vietnam during the Vietnam war? Inthe Vietnam war we faught the Vietnamsese and the Chinese. In the Iraq war we are fighting the Saudis, and the Jordinians, and the Syirians, and the Iranians, a few chaps from Pakistan, a few more from Afgahnistan and yes some Iraqis as well.

I'm still not seeing the similarities, and I doubt any soldier on the ground, in a firefight is thinking "I wonder what Napoleon would have done"...

Somebody recently had a great idea. One that will certainly wash over the head of the American left. Let's ask the soldiers in Iraq. The Washington Post published a story in which every single service member interviewed over the course of the previous month -- which just happened to be the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since the start of the war supported staying and completing the mission. Not one supported withdrawal.

Hello?

The Concord Monitor, a local paper in New Hampshire, did a similar story focusing on New Hampshire service members. Again, not one supported pulling out

Hello?

George Bush listened. he fired Donald Rumsfeld. George Bush listened. He agreed to hold a summit on Iraq with the Democrats. But why? They are not listening to the millitary that are actually there so why would they listening to the man they want to impeach for defending the country? Bush as many, many, faults but his love of the country and his stance on security are not among them.

The one time the Democrats will not referrence Vietnam is when the subject is American casualties.

Why?

The war raged from 1964 until Walter Cronkite surrendered in 1975.
Total servicemembers: 8,744,000
Serving in-theater: 3,403,000
Battle deaths: 47,410
Nonmortal woundings: 153,303

Compare that to the roughly three thousand battle deaths in Iraq and the Cut and run chant loses it's zeal.

-Bert