Slander smears Murtha’s reputation

During the past five years, President Bush’s administration hasn’t been too keen on embracing… During the past five years, President Bush’s administration hasn’t been too keen on embracing criticism. It seems that in the past, disagreeing with the president’s policy was equivalent to being unpatriotic. Although such a statement hasn’t previously been publicly made by any White House official – for obvious political reasons – it is the implication that overpowers rhetoric of “strengthening the terrorists” or “hurting the troops.”

It came as a surprise to me that the commander in chief decided to both address and respect criticism during a speech last Sunday. “People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq,” the president said. I would be wary to take such abrupt change in attitude at face value. What he is saying is simply inconsistent with the rest of his actions.

At first glance, Bush’s remarks last Sunday appear to be a fresh change of pace, a remarkably rational new perspective the president has taken to. Of course, it is perfectly fitting that he chose to say this three days after saying that several of his strongest critics were trying to “rewrite history.”

What can I possibly make of these comments? First and foremost, it is obvious that they were politically motivated. The president has attempted to take the moral high ground by appearing to be more sensible. Had he tried this strategy from day one, it may have been a bit more convincing.

Would I rather see Bush say this instead of saying nothing at all? Of course not. It’s a lie and his actions will continue to speak above the deception. The president should have apologized to Jack Murtha. He should have admitted that he used Veterans Day for his own political gain. Instead he chose to act coyly about the whole situation and pretended to possess some sort of innocence.

This latest move is unmistakably defensive in nature. If you were unable to detect the phoniness of his execution, then I fear that little can be done for you. The charade unfolding is actually the product of two main causes.

First, the president’s percent approval rating is dwindling and has recently been polled to be in the mid thirties. It is spiraling into a path that is somewhat analogous to that of President Nixon.

Second, this is an attempt to save face after a botched attack on Jack Murtha by the GOP. Those of you that don’t keep your eyes constantly glued to C-SPAN missed this hilarious gem of parliamentary-style politics.

Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, part of some greater organization to smear Murtha, made this rather fuming remark: “Colonel Danny Bop-asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.” What a low blow, from such an inadequate attacker. The situation causes me to look for the motivation behind such an attack – to find its origin.

To create a direct link between Bush and Murtha would be far-fetched because such a tie would require a universe in which Bush is one to coldly plot and plan. I cannot push myself to give him that much credit; he is obviously surrounded by others with the capability of doing that job for him.

However, I feel deeply that there must be some sort of system – a machine of sorts – that allows coordination of these crooked plans to be carried out.

Evidence for this machine is quite visible for those who can keep an eye open. It is peculiar, for example, that Republicans called for an ethics probe on Murtha only after his plan for troop withdrawal was made public. The timing of this probe was so political in nature that it must have had the collaboration of several powerful individuals.

The original proposal – put forth by Murtha – was a real suggestion for pulling American troops from Iraq. I viewed this as a direct threat to the president since it flew in the face of his wisdom and oversight. Somewhere along the way, strings had to be pulled to create a bogus smear campaign against an otherwise admirable public servant and Vietnam veteran.

Murtha was even attacked by Dick Cheney, a man also known as Deferment Dick. Luckily, Murtha was quick to make a fool of Cheney: “I like guys who’ve never been there who criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what may need to be done.”

The house was visibly shaken up after Schmidt’s comments, and I can assure you that so too was the American public. It is not permissible to go around slandering the names of noble individuals with unjustified claims. I expect at least that much from civilians; I expect more from the people representing them. Slander and libel should not be permitted anywhere, especially Congress. What Schmidt has done is reprehensible. I hope she loses her job over it.

If you believe that Murtha, and Ohio for that matter, should be removed altogether from the contiguous United States, e-mail Karim at kab85@pitt.edu.