Leonard Pitts, Jr.: Bush supporters show their true colors

LEONARD PITTS JR. THE MIAMI HERALD

Bush supporters show their true colors

November 25, 2005

(snip)


He (Murtha) struck a nerve, didn't he?

(snip)

No, Murtha's achievement is that he challenged us to define this ill-defined mission, to decide what "victory" will finally look like. In the process he also managed to show us the character of those who sold and support this war. He ripped away the mask and dragged truth, blinking, into the light.

I mean – did you see the way they went after the man? House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused him of wanting to "surrender" to terrorists. The White House said he was in thrall to the "extreme liberal wing" of the Democratic Party. But the coupe de grace was left to Rep. Jean Schmidt from Ohio, who delivered what she said was a message from a Marine colonel:

(snip)

Yet, who can be surprised? Lowbrow attacks have always been part of the playbook for Bush and his surrogates: When you don't like the message, kill the messenger. Call him unpatriotic, call him crazy, call her a liar, smear his name with every half-truth and non-truth you can. It happened to former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, to Sen. John Kerry, to the anti-war activist Sheehan. Happens to anyone who dares disagree too loudly with the great and powerful Bush.

But Murtha is less vulnerable than most. As Schmidt apparently learned to her embarrassment only after she delivered her ill-advised lecture, he is a decorated ex-Marine who served in Vietnam and has a 30-year congressional record of supporting the military. He enjoys bipartisan respect. Small wonder the White House was last seen frantically making nice. "A fine man," the president said of Murtha on Sunday. "A good man," Vice President Richard Cheney parroted the following day. It was, for the Bush team, an extraordinary concession to decency. Apparently, they had finally gone too far even for themselves.

(snip)

Pitts can be reached via e-mail at lpitts@herald.com.


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051125/news_lz1e25pitts.html

and then backed off 100%. The cheap W smear didn't go over this time. W has a reputation for attacking vets; McCain, Cleland, and Kerry.

It didn't go over this time. Having Powell on the administration was the only thing that gave this chickenhawk administration any credibility. He's gone.

yeah, I know what they meant :)

Not that he's like that evil trollop at all. But you know what I mean....

HOWDY ccbombs! :hi:

Still working nights? I am. I'm off this evening but it's back to the grind tomorrow....

have to work this evening; not to worry though, my job will be outsourced within a year :o

Do you have something else lined up?

Thus, when Bush resists calls for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq because it would only embolden those who are already quite bold enough, he makes a valid point. No, we should never have been there in the first place. Yes, the enterprise has been marked by incompetence at every step. Still, we simply cannot afford to be seen as running away – again.

So yeah, I think Bush is right. More to the point, I think John Murtha is wrong. Murtha is the Democratic representative from Pennsylvania who made headlines last week by calling for an immediate pullout of American forces.

As I said, I can't go along with him on that. And yet ...

He struck a nerve, didn't he?
*******************
It pays to click the link and read the entire article/editorial, instead of reading a few sentences out of context.

What do you find right about that?

Read the f***ing link.

We DUers pride ourselves on our honesty. A post such as this which cherry-picks what we agree with and ignores the rest is what THEY do:mad: **edited for spelling**

and he found out it went over like a lead balloon so this dishonest administration changed tactics. Scott has defamed his reputation to zero.

and, second, if you just read the beginning it does not match the subject line - though I suppose this is given by an editor.

Yes, do read the whole thing and you can see that even though the writer disagree with Murtha, even agrees with the administration to stay the course, he loathes the freepers who, instead of debating the issues just smear the messenger. Clearly, smearing Murtha as "coward" really exposed them for what they really are.

I obviously can select only four paragraphs and Leonard Pitts Jr. is really on our side - based on previous editorials.

I started reading it, wondering about where he was going and clearly it was to where the Bush supporters cannot even debate the issues but rather go to smearing the messenger since it is so much easier.

But then, this is why they are so proud to be called "dittheads.."

and with the 4 paragraph rule at DU, I know you had to choose which paragraphs to include. Would have liked you to include a comment with your original post....similar to above.

But then I read the whole article, all the way to the end. His last sentence: "Even when they (the Bush administration) are right, they're wrong."

I think Pitts' only point is that we would look "weak" if we pulled out b/c of too many casualties. Well, that's his opinion... guess he's entitled to it. I don't agree.

But I do agree with his opinion of Bushco, which he clearly expresses in this article.

Pitts illustrates in this brilliant paragraph:

"Lowbrow attacks have always been part of the playbook for Bush and his surrogates: When you don't like the message, kill the messenger. Call him unpatriotic, call him crazy, call her a liar, smear his name with every half-truth and non-truth you can. It happened to former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, to Sen. John Kerry, to the anti-war activist Sheehan. Happens to anyone who dares disagree too loudly with the great and powerful Bush."

All of that POPPY did first to MICHAEL DUKAKIS and then to BILL and HILLARY CLINTON.