BJU Joins Murtha and Sheehan?

Blawger Eric Muller thinks that this is evidence that “support for the war is slipping a tad bit” : the editor of Bob Jones University’s student newspaper, the Collegian, is calling for a troop pullout from Iraq.

The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.

UPDATED December 7, 2005: Now the Washington Post‘s taken notice:

Getting Dovish at Bob Jones

Speaking of going off-message, a notable college newspaper editorial last week carried this headline: “Congress must begin gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.”

“The U.S. government must gradually remove troops from Iraq, being responsible about the war but giving control back to Iraq,” the editorial said. “We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.”

Words from the Antioch Record? No. Turns out it’s the Collegian, published by the students of Bob Jones University.

The editorial rejected “remaining indefinitely” in Iraq and sending in more troops. “But how can we do that when we’ve already been there just about 32 months? When will the end come?

“The United States can’t really expect to make things perfect before ending its Middle East visit,” the paper said. “The Iraqis won’t feel independent and capable of launching out on their own until we, the Americans, the foreigners, have left.”

But after this Murtha-like flirtation, the editorial rejected “immediate and complete withdrawal” — settling on a variant of a Pentagon drawdown proposal, so long as it includes “a relinquishing of oversight to the Iraqis.”

UPDATED (again) December 7, 2005: Daily Kos gives moderate approval:

There isn’t anything startling or new in the editorial in the Collegian, the student newspaper of Bob Jones University. It calls for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, cautions against a quick pullout, etc.

But it is startling because of where it appears — in the student paper at arch-conservative Bob Jones University, the place where Bush spoke during the 2000 primary campaign, the place that used to forbid interracial dating (I think they lifted that ban).

The editorial takes a few shots at war protesers, but hey, just calling for withdrawal is an earth-shifting event for them.

27 Comments

  1. Actually, if you read the article, the BJU Collegian editors are not joining Sheehan. Rather, they feel that Sheehan is dishonoring the memory of her son and others who have given their lives for the cause of freedom in Iraq. All they are saying is that they feel that we’ve done what we can do there in Iraq after 2 1/2 years. I think they make a valid point. I am not sure if I agree with it or not at this juncture as I don’t have all the facts, but I believe it is valid.

  2. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that BJ is joining the Sheehan/Murtha crowd, however, it is simply an opinion by one person who happens to be an editor. Haven’t we proven time and time again that opinions mean very little?

  3. gbfluteman, you’re right that the editors take a shot a Sheehan (that’s why I put a “?” in the title). However, both are calling to remove troops.

    So although it’s unlikely the Collegian editors will be parading around with Sheehan, their position is tough to distinguish from Murtha’s, who has also advocated a gradual withdrawal.

    By the way, did anybody else think that the shot at Sheehan seemed out of place? I wonder if it’s not just an effort to make clear that the editors aren’t peaceniks.

  4. Yep. The Sheehan shot is right-flank covering. The way the three choices are framed it’s not a particularly hard question. It’s prettty close to asking should we make Iraq a long-term colony, or should we retreat into an isolationist shell, or should we do something in between?

  5. It’s important to note that this isn’t the official BJ position. I very much doubt if you could actually get an official position out of them. This is the opinion of Ryan Fisher. And I think he’s right – there’s no real purpose being there anymore. I think we’re only staying there to save face – kinda “Well, we’re here now, so we might as well do what we want.” I think the moral and just thing to do would be for Bush to get up, say, “Sorry that didn’t quite work out like we thought, folks,” and start pulling troops back, and not too slowly. If the Iraqis are not ready to handle making choices on their own, then no number of Marines in the streets is going to teach them. World-wide democracy is a nice, laudable goal…but I believe that it has and can prove impossible in practice.


  6. If the Iraqis are not ready to handle making choices on their own, then no number of Marines in the streets is going to teach them.

    I’m not sure that’s quite right. The Iraqi military may need more time for training, and we need to further rebuild the infrastructure.

    I’ve always thought the timing and approach to the war in Iraq were a mistake, but we made the mess, so we need to clean it up. We can’t let the place be overrun by thugs.

    And since when does the Collegian not reflect the official position of BJU? :)

  7. I don’t believe for one nano second that BJU has signed on with the Sheehan/Murtha extremist minority in calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The Collegian editor is giving support to the Bush administration stated goals to bring the troops home soon.

  8. Well, Bush has said that he’s not going to agree to a troop pull-out timetable, so asking for one isn’t exactly “giving support.”

  9. FWIW, Ryan Fisher didn’t write this editorial. And it isn’t the “official” position of BJU. We (advisors and administration) really are trying to allow students to reflect on issues and come to conclusions and have their say. That’s true throughout the paper– there are many articles that I wouldn’t write the way they’ve written or editorials that I might slightly or even thoroughly disagree with. I’m just happy to see students thinking through an issue and coming to a conclusion. Pretty admirable, I’d say. There’s a LOT of work that goes into producing a weekly campus paper. And the student staff is solely responsible for that. It’s easy to find fault and pick apart what a 19- or 20- or 21-year-old has written. But at least they’re writing! — speaking as one of the faculty advisors for the paper :)

  10. When I read the article online, I was struck with this thought. The young people in our country have different view of war, in that it needs to be quick and decisive. Of course the only war in their lifetimes is Desert Storm. It was a short, decisive war with few casualties on our side. Unfortunately, that is an unusual war. To view 32 months as a long war that needs to end because of the length and the cost is unrealistic. A review of history shows a much different picture of the length of wars. The ending of a war must be decided by victory and obtained objectives, not cost or length. I support withdrawal only when our military leaders (including the Commander in Chief)say that our objectives are reached.
    I believe that will be soon.
    Tim

  11. The Collegian editorial is just a muddle. It’s nice when undergraduates are able to think independently, but we shouldn’t expect them to do so on a regular basis. As for Bet’s comment, I’m reminded of what Will Rogers said about the FDR, “If he burned down the Capitol, we would cheer and say, `Well, we at least got a fire started anyhow.’”

  12. Austin,

    Don’t you think this is quite irresponsible journalism on your part? The article gives three options and of the three I think you would choose what the article has stated. Also, to have your “lead in” read “BJU joins Mertha and Sheehan” is a complete misrepresentation of what was stated in the article since the article specifically goes against Sheehan.

    Has being in DC gotten to you? :)

  13. Matt, I really don’t understand your complaint.

    The article gives three options and of the three I think you would choose what the article has stated.

    Of the three options, I quoted the one the authors consider the “best”:

    Gradual withdrawal is the best of the three possible options.

    Also, to have your “lead in” read “BJU joins Mertha[sic] and Sheehan” is a complete misrepresentation of what was stated in the article since the article specifically goes against Sheehan.

    1. I used a “?”
    2. Sheehan and Murtha have taken very public positions in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. In that limited sense, the editors have joined them. It’s pretty clear that the authors recognized this, because they went to pains to reject the Sheehan’s other shenanigans. The authors’ position is not significantly different from Murtha’s.

    Has being in DC gotten to you?

    The most time I ever spent in DC was a summer, a long time ago, and its most lasting effect was a greater appreciation of modern art. :)

    Matt, you’ve thrown out some significant accusations. I quote the authors and link to their article; you accuse me of “irresponsible journalism.” I get the same impression of the authors’ thesis as a law professor and the Washington Post; you accuse me of “a complete misrepresentation.”

  14. Austin,

    I have thrown out some significant accusations and I stand by all of them besides the DC comment. I would like to apologize for that. For some reason I thought you were working in DC. Sorry about that.

    However, on the other accounts, I still believe your post is irresponsible. The writer of the collegian article gave three options.
    1. Stay in Iraq indefinitely – do you want that? neither does the president!
    2. Gradual withdrawal – He did not state when this withdrawal should take place or how it should take place. I too want our troops to start coming home as soon as possible, but not any sooner. I will admit that the writer of the article did not do a good job of being completely clear, but to compare him to Murtha and Sheehan is not accurate at all.
    3. The third option was immediate withdrawal. That is what most of liberal DC is calling for. The article categorically denounced that.

    Simply putting a question mark at the end of your lead in does not absolve you from all responsibility. You insinuate that BJU is taking the same stance on the issue as these other liberals are. You never clarify this at all in your post. You basically make it sound like BJU is in disagreement with the president and conservatives on this issue. The following is the closing statement in the Collegian article:

    “The United States needs to ignore anti-war protesters and focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.”

    I’m sorry we disagree, Austin, but this is the kind of selective reporting that I’m used to seeing in the main stream media – not from conservatives.


  15. You basically make it sound like BJU is in disagreement with the president and conservatives on this issue.
    [Matt]

    Matt, I’m just going by what the Collegian editorial said. You may not like it, but I’m not the one who wrote it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.
    [Collegian]

    This is what Murtha has called for, and Bush’s response was that no, we are not going to start withdrawing troops. We will start withdrawing troops at a future date. Furthermore, Bush thinks that it is not the case that “we’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.” The Administration has made it explicitly clear that this position is in disagreement with its current policy. By taking this position, the Collegian editors are disagreeing with Bush on this point. I’ve never suggested that they agree with Sheehan on all points, but on starting to withdraw troops, they agree with her and disagree with Bush. I don’t know how it could be any clearer.

    Let me try to explain this another way. If the editors were agreeing with existing policy, why would they use the term “start”? Why wouldn’t they just say, “Attaboy, Bush! Let’s keep doing what we’re doing!” Instead, it is clear that the editors are asking for a change in the status quo. The status quo is the current Bush policy, so advocating a change in it goes against Bush policy.

    If, as you suggest, the Collegian editors are not advocating anything new, and they are therefore just supporting current Administration policy, then why do you think the Washington Post, one of the most influential papers in the country, a UNC law professor, and Daily Kos, the huge liberal blog, all find it newsworthy? Do you think they’re just making this stuff up out of whole cloth?

  16. Austin,

    You are again ignoring the whole context of the article. The context was in choosing 1 of three options. Please indicate to me which option would be chosen by the President if having to choose one of the three options proposed in the Collegian article? He would choose the gradual withdrawal as indicated by Rumsfield’s comments made today to members of Congress. Status quo is not the president’s policy as the comments by Rumsfield indicates. What is it about this statement that differs from anything the president is for? The president does not want us there indefinitely, and he does not think we should withdraw immediately. (neither does the collegian)

    We ALL want to see our troops come home, but ONLY when it is feasible. This seems to be what is being indicated in the Collegian article.

    These others (news sources) find it newsworthy because they are always looking for anything against Bob Jones. They have distorted and mischaracterized the article just as you have. That is what troubles me about your position on this.

    Is this article confusing? Yes is is! The editor should have done a much better job in clarifying. However, the context of three options, should help you in figuring out what is NOT being said – (i.e. we must start immediate withdrawal). Please consider again the closing statement in the article. “The United States needs to ignore anti-war protesters and focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.” This to me makes very clear what the Collegian writer was intending.

    Just please read an article as a whole. It is SO frustrating to hear the mainstream media take bits and pieces of comments and articles and make entire news stories out of it. That is what seems to me to be the problem with your take.

    Thanks for the discussion, Austin. And, just in case you were seriously asking – I don’t think they they make stuff up out of “whole cloth”. :)


  17. Is this article confusing? Yes is is! The editor should have done a much better job in clarifying.
    [Matt]

    I think you’ve put your finger on the main problem here. As someone else pointed out in a previous comment, the essay is a “muddle.” But as another said, they’re college kids, so we should be happy they’re thinking on their own–believe me, I am.

    Now, you insist that I come up with an consistent interpretation of the entire article before I quote any part of it. Sorry, that’s not my job–that’s the job of the writers. If they didn’t mean to suggest that we “should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough,” then they shouldn’t have said it.

    Look at it this way. Suppose I wrote an editorial in which the first sentence was, “We should start to tear down the WILDS,” but then later on I said, “The WILDS has helped numerous young people over the years, and we need to support it as long as it’s still beneficial.”

    No doubt your doppelganger would come along and say, “Matt, Austin doesn’t really mean to say we should tear down your ministry. You have to put that first sentence in the context of the rest of the article, where he says it’s been helpful. When he says we should tear it down, he really is just acknowledging that someday everything will fall apart. Surely you would agree that eventually all physical things will pass away? Don’t misinterpret and mischaracterize that first sentence by taking at face value.”

    These others (news sources) find it newsworthy because they are always looking for anything against Bob Jones. They have distorted and mischaracterized the article just as you have. That is what troubles me about your position on this.
    [Matt]

    Matt, for the charge of distorting and mischaracterizing to stick, you really need to provide an alternate interpretation of the quotation that started all this. I’ve explained above how it clearly goes against Bush’s policy and agrees with Murtha and Sheehan in at least one way. Explain how it doesn’t.

  18. I believe I have provided an alternate interpretation at least 2 times which I don’t believe you have addressed at all. I have given you the “3 options” context over and over and you have not yet addressed this.

    I do disagree that it is only the repsponsibility of the writer to make sure things are clear. It is also the responsiblity of the reader. It is also the responsibility of the reporter to give the FULL story, not just a small segment. That is the fault I see in your “report”.

    I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. However, we can agree that our troops need to stay as long as possible to get the job done! :)

    BTW, you didn’t comment at all on Rumsefield’s comments. Seems to me he is suggesting the withdrawal of troops as well.


  19. I believe I have provided an alternate interpretation at least 2 times which I don’t believe you have addressed at all. I have given you the “3 options” context over and over and you have not yet addressed this.
    [Matt]

    No, providing an interpretation is different from saying that we might be able to make one. Here’s what you said before:

    Please indicate to me which option would be chosen by the President if having to choose one of the three options proposed in the Collegian article? He would choose the gradual withdrawal as indicated by Rumsfield’s comments made today to members of Congress. Status quo is not the president’s policy as the comments by Rumsfield indicates. What is it about this statement that differs from anything the president is for? The president does not want us there indefinitely, and he does not think we should withdraw immediately.
    [Matt]

    1. This has to do with the “3 options” section, not the quotation in question.
    2. Obviously had Rumsfeld changed policy today that wouldn’t be the status quo at the time the editors wrote the article.
    3. Anyways, from what’s been reported of Rumsfeld’s comments, he only raised the possibility of a withdrawal–he didn’t commit to start one, which is what the Collegian article called for. The difference is important.
    4. I think you misunderstand what I mean by the Administration’s policy status quo. I’m not saying the Administration wants troops to remain in Iraq forever (in that sense maintaining the status quo); I’m saying that the current U.S. policy doesn’t include a commitment to start withdrawing troops, although it of course leaves open that as a future possibility. It’s status quo in the sense of its being current policy.

    Besides, I think the “3 options” argument is meant to support the quoted sentences, not interpret them. For support, it’s pretty weak, as G.K. pointed out.

    If it were meant to provide interpretation, then we would run into the same old problem as before: how is it any different from the status quo? If it is different, then it’s disagreeing with Bush. If it’s not different, then there’s no point in saying anything but “attaboy!”

    I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
    [Matt]

    Matt, you’ve said that I’m irresponsible and that I’ve mischaracterized, misrepresented, and distorted the quotation, and you’ve reiterated that you’re serious about choosing those terms.

    Yet your argument is against taking the quotation at face value. When I show that it disagrees with Bush policy and agrees in a limited way with Murtha and Sheehan, your response is to cite a vague context (one that you said yourself was “confusing”) that may or may not be provided by a false trichotomy.

    That’s pretty thin support for such accusations.

    The editorial says,

    The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.
    [Collegian]

    Now, please tell me how to interpret this so that it doesn’t mean we should start removing troops from Iraq and that it doesn’t mean we’ve been there long enough and spent enough. If you can’t, then you can’t claim that I’ve distorted, misinterpreted, etc. anything.

  20. I didn’t think the editorial was that badly written. I didn’t think it was “a muddle.” I thought it was pretty clear. And although it doesn’t agree with the Bush administration’s current policy on Iraq, it also isn’t an endorsement of Murtha’s or Sheehan’s view that we should remove the troops immediately. To me it seems a pretty reasonable view: gradually bring the troops home while making sure we leave the Iraqis in a position to control their own country. As the writer said, we should “focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.” I don’t think any reasonable person would interpret this editorial as a slam against the Bush administration or its policy on the Iraq war.

    I’m not fond of these online arguments so I’m not going to get into that. I do think we can all make too much of one little editorial.


  21. The Iraqis won’t feel independent and capable of launching out on their own until we, the Americans, the foreigners, have left. They needed us, but only for a while. So continuing the stay indefinitely risks losing the welcome.
    [Collegian]

    I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. . . . I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
    [Murtha]

    *****

    We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.
    [Collegian]

    Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
    [Murtha]

    *****

    The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq.
    [Collegian]

    Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies; that if they wait long enough America will cut and run and abandon its friends. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists’ tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.
    [President Bush]

    Bet, I think you’re right that “we can all make too much of one little editorial.” However, I’m told that I’ve mischaracterized, misrepresented, and distorted the editorial, and that I’m irresponsible and unreasonable, all because I think the editorial agrees more with Murtha et al. than Bush. It’s frustrating to me, because it seems so obvious.

  22. I suppose it’s one of those “agree to disagree” things. I understand your frustration since you say you see obvious similarities between the editorial and Murtha’s views.

    I see the editorial as more of a “middle ground” between those who are calling for immediate withdrawal and those who are not ready to even begin withdrawing. I should just ask the writer if he intended to second the views of Murtha and Sheehan. The students have already learned a lesson about being aware of how many eyes are viewing what they write and how their words can be misinterpreted if they are not careful to be very clear.

  23. Austin,

    This will be my last post on this issue. This will also be a very long post. Thanks in advance for your patience.

    Your headline of your blog post stated, “BJU joins Murtha and Sheehan?” In order for this headline to be even close to acceptable, you should have stated right from the start how this is not true! You should have pointed out how the Collegian’s article may have (at first glance) sounded like this, but upon further examination it was clear that the Collegian was not in agreement with these 2 liberals. A simple question mark in your headline does not magically remove the link you are making between the Collegian article and these people. I am not the only one here on your blog that has pointed this out. Several others had made this charge and you have simply passed it off by saying, “I put a question mark”. Here are a couple samplings of what others are saying on your blog:

    “Actually, if you read the article, the BJU Collegian editors are not joining Sheehan. Rather, they feel that Sheehan is dishonoring the memory of her son . . . “

    “I wouldn’t go as far as to say that BJ is joining the Sheehan/Murtha crowd . . .”

    “it also isn’t an endorsement of Murtha’s or Sheehan’s view that we should remove the troops immediately. I don’t think any reasonable person would interpret this as a slam against the Bush administration or its policy on the Iraq war.”

    Sheehan is denounced in the Collegian article. Murtha is never mentioned. You try to make the link by giving your select isolated quotes by Murtha. This does not tell the whole story of Murtha’s views or the Collegian’s. Murtha’s view is “immediate withdrawal”.

    Washington Post, November 18, 2005

    “The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush’s latest attack on his critics.” (emphasis mine)

    Murtha’s views are further explained by this report in the Los Angeles Times, November 17th.

    “Murtha said the war had become “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,” the intelligence on which the decision to invade Iraq was “a U.S. failure,” and that the war was exacting far-reaching and damaging costs on the U.S. military and the nation’s readiness to defend itself.” (emphasis mine)

    Murtha’s and Sheehan’s view is clearly dismissed by the Collegian when they state, “The third possibility would be immediate and complete withdrawal . . . Now that we’re in Iraq, we have to responsibly finish the job.”

    Austin, you have asked me to address the statement, “The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.” I will do that, but I will ask you to again read this statement in context. Right above his statement, the Collegian gives THE ISSUE: and OUR VIEW: Their view is stated this way, “The U.S. government must gradually remove troops from Iraq, being responsible about the war but giving control back to Iraq.” Everything else in this article must be interpreted by this. If anything is confusing, we must go back to their thesis statement about the issue.

    So, how do I interpret it when they say we should “start to gradually remove troops”? What do I make of the word “start”. Well, I know it can’t mean “immediate” because they have clearly rejected that in this article. It can’t mean just “pull ‘em all out” because the have used phrases like “being responsible” and “responsibly finish the job”. Maybe the third to the last paragraph gives us an insight when the article states, “we have to start focusing on pulling out.” The word “start” in this context seems to mean “as soon as possible”. “Start” does not, as they clearly state, mean “immediate”!

    Consider these statements in the last 2 paragraphs:

    “And the pentagon has already developed a plan for withdrawing more than 60,000 of the 160,000 troops not stationed in Iraq.” (this is very similar to what Rumsfield indicated yesterday on capitol hill)

    “The United States needs to ignore anti-war protesters and focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.”

    Austin, you said that “Sheehan and Murtha have taken very public positions in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. In that limited sense, the editors of joined them.” This is like saying that since I’m in favor of helping the poor that I have joined Ted Kennedy and the democrats, in a very limited sense. You say they have in a “limited sense” joined these others. It is extremely limited, yet you use this as your main headline regarding the article. I know all about titles. They need to be “teasers”. You definitely did that with your title. I just wish you had been more careful with it.

    When dealing with Scripture, we ask people all the time to search out the context and to interpret the whole passage instead of isolated verses. This is not just good practice for reading and interpreting Scripture. It is good practice for the reading and interpreting of anything written. Unfortunately today, the media thrives on pulling out isolated comments and statements. This is what I believe you have done. Again, I do believe the Collegian’s article could have been written better, but to immediately jump on it and give any indication of this agreeing with Murtha and Sheehan is, in my estimation, irresponsible journalism.

    Thanks for the dialogue. I have nothing at all against you personally. I trust I have communicated that in my posts.

    Sincerely,

    Matt Herbster

  24. So, the editorial is not “a muddle,” but the students have learned “how their words can be misinterpreted if they are not careful to be very clear.” I rest my case.

    No harm done. The secular media prefers to view BJU as wacko right-wing and its students as mindless zombies. I doubt that there will be much profit for secularists in emphasizing perceived independence of thought among fundamentalists—even if the reality is more like Bunyan’s waterman, looking one way while rowing another.

  25. You know what would be really great? For the church in general to stop thinking that this administration is somehow the Second Coming and everyone with an “R” behind their name is doing what’s right ….

    Wake up, people! These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing we’ve been hearing so much about. Many of these so-called “Christian” politicians are worshiping “nature gods” in occulting settings or worse.

    If you name the name of Christ and care about current political events, take the rose-colored glasses off long enough to learn something. Visit sites like infowars.com and google up terms like “bohemian grove” to see what these people are really up to ….

    You are truly living in a time where so many things are done in the name of Christ that are just not right. Don’t be a kool-aid drinker; think for yourself and make stand where you are to tell globalists to “stuff it.”

  26. Bob Jones University, the place where Bush spoke during the 2000 primary campaign, the place that used to forbid interracial dating (I think they lifted that ban). cna classes

  27. I think they make a valid point. I am not sure if I agree with it or not at this juncture as I don’t have all the facts, but I believe it is valid. TUBE

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

2 Trackbacks

  • SharperIron on December 5, 2005 at 10:44 pm

    Weblog Watch | 05 December 2005

    Austin Matzko at Il Filosofo notes that the BJU student newspaper The Collegian is calling for US troop withdrawal from Iraq in “BJU Joins Murtha and Sheehan?”

  • Matt herbster | Greenere on September 25, 2012 at 2:25 am

    [...] BJU Joins Murtha and Sheehan? – Austin Matzko’s BlogDec 5, 2005 … Matt Herbster wrote on December 7, 2005 at 8:48 pm. Austin,. Don’t you think this is quite irresponsible journalism on your part? The article … [...]