Alright, I might as well start cross-posting these things to my site since I spend more time writing in other journals than my own. I'm a little unsure how to start formatting these responses so no promises about readability yet:
From Stop the ACLU - When You're In A Glass House... Don't Act like Jack Murtha Raging Anura posted a nice little satire comparing Jack Murtha's comments about Karl Rove's speech in New Hampshire. It is a beautiful example of deflection and slight-of-hand managing to completely ignore what is said and convert it into personal attack (see: Jabba The Hut), and distortion of previous events (see: Murtha's speech about Haditha). I'm aware that Murtha's statements about Rove's "fat backside" are about as personal as attacks can get... one thing at a time.
And the response
Wow. You managed to miss the entire substance of what he said. Impressive.
To start: `Not counting the fact that all evidence indicates that Karl Rove's office is not in New Hampshire'
Shows a nice little bit of entirely missing the fact that the speech Murtha was responding to was given in, you guessed it, New Hampshire. You might have caught that fact if you'd have read the deeply elusive allusion disclosed in THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES: `He's in New Hampshire. He's making a political speech.'
While this speaks volumes of the careful analysis you did of what he said, I'll push on.
You don't have to parse Murtha's statements that carefully to catch that he's saying that a politician with absolutely nothing to lose should offer more of a plan than `stay the course', which is open-ended and provides no road map for ending a conflict which is costing America's young their lives. As for the sitting in an air-conditioned studio, I think after 37 years of service, and being of ripe old age of 74 he's done his duty to the military already.
It also ignores the speech which inspired this response. The speech in which Rove, yet another draft dodger (though, I'll give him credit for at least finding out where in the lottery he was before getting a deferment, unlike Cheney or Bush's defacto deferment) is attacking Kerry and Murtha for being cowards who'll run at the first sign of trouble. Of course, those he's attacking actually DID serve, and actually DID see combat. This is so brazenly hypocritical it's unbearable. It also shows a common tactic: take your opponent's advantages and pretend they're somehow a disadvantage, whilst claiming your disadvantage as an advantage. A tactic I have to show disgusted respect for when it's so painfully successful in the media. It also is an attack based entirely on the idea that a politician should never, ever, ever change their minds based on the changing face of reality. A mind-numbingly stupid idea, to say the least.
Finally: `Congressman Murtha one one basic truth he may have blissfully overlooked: his star may be bronze, but silence is golden.'
You have GOT to be kidding. If a congressman in a time of war isn't supposed to be talking about the war in progress, who the heck is supposed to be? I could sure rant on, but this is already longer than it should be. I'm not a Democrat, but I'm one of those `crazy far left fringe liberals' (who are tremendously common for how crazy, far and fringe it is), and I'm willing to admit when a liberal says something inappropriate and stupid. You might consider doing the same.