AP says Murtha is 'usually pro-military'

[quaoar]

Usually? As in most of time he is, but sometimes he isn't? Sounds like a backhanded slam against Murtha by the Associated Press, or am I reading too much into that?


U.S. Commander Counters Murtha on Iraq
Hawk Democrat Calls for Immediate Pullout

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 18) - A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered calls by a usually pro-military congressman for withdrawal of Americans fighting there Friday, while Democrats defended Rep. John Murtha as a patriot even as they declined to back his view.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051117110009990002


And just below that article on AOL, is a poll. Here are the results:

What do you think of Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
I applaud it 55%
I think it's irresponsible 31%
I have some reservations 14%
Total Votes: 143,454

[Seen the light]

1. What I think it implies is that...

calling for a withdrawal makes you NOT pro-military. Asshats at AP, I don't know why this stuff still surprises me.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I think it's an unintentional slap...

pro-military is just the common term. I doubt the writer stopped and thoguht about the fact that the opposite would be anti-military, not anti-war.

It's the same problem you run into with pro-life and pro-choice. The anti- of either one makes no sense. The same goes for pro-military and anti-war. No one is really 100-percent anti-military or 100-percent pro-war (no one with any sense, anyway).

[The Anti-Dittohead]

3. Back-Handed?

Don't know their intentions, but I believe it gives him more credibility than if a Kucinich or someone like that makes a similar statement.

The guy is ex-military. Let the right wing nut jobs go after his patriotism. I think he was genuine. He has seen the victims at Walter Reed. He knows this was worthless.

[Don Claybrook]

7. I think what the original poster meant

Was that with their language, AP was implying that what Murtha said yesterday was not pro-military. And I think the underlying thought is that getting the military out of this situation IS a case of being "pro-military" or supporting the troops, if you'd like.

By the same token, it could be easily argued that the Bush admin is anti-military, since they get lots of soldiers killed, with no plan, no end in sight, no armor, no veterans benefits, and so on. Of course, conventional wisdom has it that Bush is pro-military (he does seem to be pro-military, but certainly not pro-soldier) and that Democrats are anti-military. The facts tell a different story, but the GOP has never, ever let inconvenient facts get in the way.

[Mass]

4. You're right - He is all the times and yesterday he was as well.

[quaoar]

6. I think you could say

that Jack Murtha was never more pro-military than he was yesterday.

God bless him.

[Trillo]

5. No, I think you've read into it precisely what the phrase intended.

They're framing the term 'pro-military' incorrectly.

[Tommy_J]

8. Did the poll. Felt good

Still 55% applaud Murtha

[Oceansaway]

9. Done....

What do you think of Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
I applaud it 55%
I think it's irresponsible 31%
I have some reservations 14%
Total Votes: 143,615

[BR_Parkway]

10. Bringing home troops while they are still living, breathing is Pro-

military. I don't understand the confusion

Check out the polling:

I applaud it 55%
I think it's irresponsible 31%
I have some reservations 14%
Total Votes: 143,836

[applegrove]

11. I think he is thinking of the troops being used as cannon fodder. And

how quickly that would stop (for U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqi ones) as soon as the USA leave Iraq (perhaps leaving air cover behind because really there is no other airforce in the world that can take on US jets so if you want air cover these days - it has to be the USA kind - then nobody can bomb you because it is technically impossible for any Syrian or Iranian jets to take on the USA ones).

I would not send my troops into that shit. And have it go on for months and years.

As soon as the USA makes plans to leave - then the insurgency is really killing civilians and that never works for insurgencies (unless there is an occupyer). So the suicide bombings and the danger to civilians and soldiers will go down a great deal as soon as the USA says it is leaving or starts to leave. That is why it is so important - because it will change the nature of the battle in Iraq.