Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Now The Times Corrects Itself When They Are Right | Main | Media Alert! »

November 19, 2005

Comments

clarice

It saves me money --Why pay for comedy club admissions when we've the NYT?

p.lukasiak

Yes, far too often the Times simply regurgitates White House lies and spin, then finds it has to correct itself. (indeed, isn't that one of the reasons we're in this mess right now?)

The GOP has shown itself to be nothing more that the most despicable partisan scum imaginable. They gleefully send children they don't know to Iraq to die, and then smear anyone who questions their actions.

If the GOP was not a bunch of scum, they would have insisted upon a vote on Murtha's real motion -- a vote that they doubtless would have won, but that would have put most of them on records against withdrawing our troops as soon as it was "practicable".

Syl

p.luk.

Oh, cry me a river.

The GOP was calling the bluff of the party's far-left.

Murtha has used those words 'immediate withdrawal' in countless interviews. The GOP took him at his word. Reading his proposal shows it means the same damn thing.

We need some clarity in the discourse. The 'get the troops home now' screeching will no longer confuse the issue.

Thank you, GOP, for having some backbone!

Syl

as soon as it was "practicable".

Weasel words and you know it.

arrowhead

Best sentence in the article on the Murtha & House Democrats' temper tantrum last night:

"It seems to me that Rep. Murtha, retired Marine colonel, pulled the pin on the grenade of the Democrats' Iraq policy, but he forgot to throw it."

clarice

ROFL,Jim

danking

I suppose the GOP could let the Dems cry foul for a little while and then come back with another resolution similar to Murtha's "Swift" withdrawl.

Any bets on how that vote would go? LOL!

Anyways, I bet the MSM regret describing Murtha's Thursday's bombshell shocker an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWL".

And the Dems are saying: "Damn it, why didn't we roll Murtha out on Friday?"

Rick Ballard

I thought the Democratic vote was a perfect match of lack of courage with lack of conviction.

The Republicans really should bring the precise language to the floor after Thanksgiving. It would be a lot of fun to watch the weasels at work one more time. Then the Republicans could bring a 'Stay the Course' resolution to the floor and watch the squirming one more time again.

Shoot, they could turn it into Groundhog Day if they wished.

andrew

"They gleefully send children they don't know to Iraq to die,..."

I demand an immediate investigation into who is sending children to Iraq.

clarice

The same children who when the left isn't mourning their service and casualties are instantly believed by them to have committed every atrocity possible no matter how farfetched the charges or incredible the accuser.

andrew

Always with the emotional buzzwords - "the children", etc... They're responsible adults and should be treated as such.

Gary Maxwell

Puke

It takes "dispicable partisan scum" ( your words) to know one.

andrew

I guess, "They gleefully send responsible adults to Iraq to die.." doesn't have the same impact.

Jim E.

"Then the Republicans could bring a 'Stay the Course' resolution to the floor"

I don't get it. I think a "stay the course" resolution would be about as unifying for the GOP as a "I want Goerge Bush to campaign with me" resolution. That is, not very unifying at all.

boris

I liked the in your face strip down of the weasel words to the essence.

In practice they say the same thing, cut and run it's just that one is implicit about the process and the other was explicit. Of course it gives the dems a fig leaf, I think it was supposed to. The vote is more lopsided than it would have been and that's the story I want out there for the troops and the enemy to see.

Two problems with voting on the weasel worded version:

(1)Had it passed (no way) implementation would be a matter of interpretation. Had it gone slowly enough for Iraq to sustain their democracy you all know the dems would have taken 200% of the credit and if it had failed the repubs would have taken 200% of the blame.

(2) Even defeated any future drawdown would be spun as admitting the dems were right all along but repubs were too stubborn to admit it.

At least this way the repubs can claim that a sensible drawdown was the plan all along but while still fighting you never EVER specify when.

TM

The GOP has shown itself to be nothing more that the most despicable partisan scum imaginable. They gleefully send children they don't know to Iraq to die, and then smear anyone who questions their actions.

Calm, mind-changing rhetoric. Thanks for sharing.

TexasToast

ISTM we are squeezing out the center. A or B. Black or White. What if the country wants something in the middle? Inflexability will break with a stiff wind, while compromise will bend, but survive.

Jim E.

Is this recommendation cut-and-running? Or is this withdrawal in a safe and practical manner? Or is there no difference?:

Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan
Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

p.lukasiak

Calm, mind-changing rhetoric. Thanks for sharing.

when the bloodsucker that you support commit outrageous acts, you get outrage in response...

perhaps you should be explaining to your audience that Jack Murtha is about as far from "the party's far-left" as you get, and that when Murtha starts saying stuff like Bush's war is an irredeemible failure, its time to sit up and take notice.

But that wouldn't be possible for a partisan hack, I guess....

boris

I'd say the vote was taking notice.

You just didn't like the result. You might want to tone down the bile a bit.

danking

Jim E.

There's a huge difference.

First, it's offered by the Military's top commander "in Iraq" and not by some peacock-preening politician.

And it's not an "Immediate" or "Swift Withdrawl" of "all" our troops.

Like the President has said constantly:

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

I think the Democrats and the Anti-War Left have so much invested in their Vietnam comparisons, that they are actively working to make them come true.

Syl

TT

ISTM we are squeezing out the center.

Au contraire. The vote squeezed out the far-left moonbattery cut-and-run faction.

Syl

Okay, now that that's over, what are the Dem's thoughts on Iran, Syria, and Zarqawi?

Do the Dems even know there's a world out there?

clarice

I can't say how much I loved that vote and how overdue I think it was.

I think it should be a monthly event.

In between the cut and run votes there ought to be a tax the rich vote where wealthy tax dodgers like Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry stand up and tell us how they'd define the "rich" for tax purposes..especially the alternative minimum tax..

LOL

Syl

p.luk

Who cares what faction Murtha belongs to? His proposition is backed by the far-left moonbats who take the position that Iraq is a disaster.

Iraq is a triumph of will over adversity.

And Reps are tired of Dems pissing all over the Iraqi people like they don't even exist.

Syl

Clarice

LOL

And a proposition to cut oil companies profits to a minimum so they can't invest in new energy technologies.

Squiggler

p.luk ... Murtha has been saying the same thing for a year, why didn't you sit up and take notice back then? And, what children are being sent to Iraq? I'm with Andrew, I want an immedeate Congressional investigation into who is sending children to Iraq. I'm sure my brother-in-law, a 45 year old father of 4 college age young adults would be glad to testify ... oh he'd have to come back from his 2nd VOLUNTARY tour first though. Children indeed.

My gag is with John Kerry's remarks in the NYT ... "I won't stand for the Swift boating of John Murtha." No one questioned Murtha's heroic and honorable service in Vietnam, which was in stark contrast to Kerry's own shameful 4 months of cowardness. Dems can not get personal attacks out of their politics and they do not understand the words "policy debate."

Truzenzuzex

p.lukasiak:

The GOP has shown itself to be nothing more that the most despicable partisan scum imaginable. They gleefully send children they don't know to Iraq to die, and then smear anyone who questions their actions.
Well, P.lukasiak, tell us what you really think.

I can't understand why you hang out around all us dispicable scum. Why, if the GOP (and by extension thier supporters) really affect you this way, you have no business debating them. If I thought the Democrats were as dispicable as you describe the Republicans above, I would assume that trying to rationally persuade them otherwise would be utterly futile. After all, why would someone who "gleefully sen[t] children they don't know to Iraq to die" be persuaded by a person who thinks they are so reprehensibly vile?

I think perhaps you have a serious case of BDS, and should get to a doctor immediately. I fear for your health.

Lion

FDR sent children he didn't know off to die. So did Truman. So did Kennedy. So did LBJ. So did Clinton. So did Woodrow Wilson. So did Abe Lincoln. None of them was "gleeful" about it, neither is George Bush, and neither are the many Senators from both parties who voted to authorize this action. It's childish to suggest otherwise.

JayDee

Murtha is a hero. Pure and simple. He's a hero whether you agree with him or you don't. For one simple reason - he started the dialogue this lily livered no-plan-whatsoever WH has been hiding from like the elitist sissies they've always been. They threw this nation into a war that - at the least - did not need to be calibrated to their election campaign schedule, could have - at the least - provided time enough for planning how they would consolidate the peace. We see how easy it is for think tank elitists to call for "sacrifice" when it is ALWAYS someone else's family member's blood and when their fatcat taxcuts are rolling in fatter than ever.

What Murtha has exposed - with the help of that decrepit looking flagwearing hoi polloi female Congresswoman from Ohio last night - is that we have become such a nation of COWARDS that to even DISCUSS the debacle these fools have unloaded upon is subjects one to McCarthyite harassment as a traitor. From the likes of that little creep! To the likes of a man like Murtha. That's how far we have fallen back into the dark ages.

We have a serious FUBAR problem on our hands - all of us, the entire nation. If we stay, our young soldiers get picked off for target practice by a nation that utterly despises their presence. If we leave, we create a vacuum into which both the terrorists and the regional fundamentalists will create an infernal chaos. If we stay, we don't even know how we will prevent that happening anyway, just that we can probably slow the process. The democracy we've implanted is at its core an Islamic state with close ties to Iran - our arch enemy. This is absolutely the most disastrous foreign policy misjudgement in a hundred years. Instead of containing a terrorist threat we had only begun to understand, we beat the hornet's nest with a bat and released a chaos we have no idea how to control.

We are running out of troops and money. Our troops are hurting. THIS is what Murtha was addressing - and the Republicans know it. But they care more about their failed president and their cynical party than they do about this country. All they have is jingoism to cover up their complete lack of a plan. What did Murtha mean by a "horizon presence" in the area? I took that to mean withdrawing forces to protected positions where they can monitor and intervene as needed without being daily targets. If we aren't willing to double our ground forces, what is so wrong with this option? Why can't people at least discuss this situation like adults?

Seriously, all I hear from Republicans is phoney ass patriotism (like that despicable Ohio Congresswoman, who won her seat by slandering another Iraq War vet) and hysteria about mushroom clouds of terrorists, who will magically transport themselves from their desert huts to our city streets, in battalions , to kill us all. It has begun to seem that the Republican party is made up of only two factions - the manipulative party robots to whom America is nothing but a cash cow and the insane retards they use to cook up the necessary hysteria that can use to put a stop to all intelligent debate.

We have a right to an intelligent debate on a topic that is so important to all of us, that this administration has CLEARLY mishandled from day one and that they CLEARLY have no plan for whatsoever, except how to position themselves best for the next election cycle.

Jim E.

"some peacock-preening politician"

Prior to this week, I'd never heard of Murtha. But I don't think that description of him is accurate. Murtha supposedly is very, very close (politically, foreign-policy-wise, and personally) with Pentagon generals. The suspicion is that Murtha is publicly voicing the very concerns that the generals have in private.

Who knows. I don't know much about Murtha, and that could be wrong. But if he is giving voice to what military higher-ups actually think (and are not allowed to say publicly), I don't think he can be so simply dismissed. It doesn't mean he's correct, but it doesn't mean he's some Michael Moore-type lefty, either.

Cyber

I can't figure out whether P.lukasiak was posting while under the influence or has posted after coming off a long bender. In any case he's not exactly putting his best foot forward in the argument department.

jarhead ted

Murtha and JayDee are both cowards. Don't worry you two, real Americans will save you!

Truzenzuzex

p.lukasiak:

perhaps you should be explaining to your audience that Jack Murtha is about as far from "the party's far-left" as you get, and that when Murtha starts saying stuff like Bush's war is an irredeemible failure, its time to sit up and take notice.
Speaking as a dispicable, partisan scum, I would like to suggest that Murtha's position was nothing new, even though it was hyped by the press as some sort of watershed event.

Sadly, Murtha's tirade (no matter how well-intentioned) gave our enemies a free shot at us.

The sad fact is, the media set Murtha up and the Republicans dutifully knocked him down. If I were Murtha, I would be livid at the press for foisting the complete falsehood that Murtha had somehow changed his position.

danking

Jim E.

That peacock reference was for both parties (not Murtha specifically)

and should have been "politicians".

danking

JayDee,

Which War are you watching?

Al-Qaeda's winning?

Cyber

So Murtha is now speaking for all of the generals, and it's the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq plus the the vast majority of the Republicans plus a few Democrats who disagree.

Gotcha! Makes perfect sense unless one factors in common sense.

Lion

I regret omitting, in my most recent post, to put quotation marks around "children" which is an awfully simple-minded way to describe soldiers and marines, and one they would in no way adopt. In any event, the rhetoric on this site has drifted so far from the art of persuasion and into infantile ranting that I regret to say that I'm outta here.

Jim E.

The significant thing about Murtha is the one JayDee brought up: he's given credible voice to a legitimate policy approach. Why is it so bad to have our politicians finally discuss what the American people are leaning towards? The American people ought to have their viewpoints represented, or at the very minimim, discussed, by their own representatives.

Or is that -- political representation -- an anti-American concept, too?

p.lukasiak

Iraq is a triumph of will over adversity.

"Triumph of Will"...

well, at least we now know where syl is coming from...

Jim E.

"So Murtha is now speaking for all of the generals, and it's the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq plus the the vast majority of the Republicans plus a few Democrats who disagree."

Strawman alert!!

Truzenzuzex

JayDee:

We have a serious FUBAR problem on our hands - all of us, the entire nation.
Yep, you are absolutely right. It is called the Democrat party and the liberals who support them.

Look, it is hard to take you seriously when you make comments like this:

Seriously, all I hear from Republicans is phoney ass patriotism (like that despicable Ohio Congresswoman, who won her seat by slandering another Iraq War vet)
and this:
the manipulative party robots to whom America is nothing but a cash cow and the insane retards they use to cook up the necessary hysteria that can use to put a stop to all intelligent debate.
Intelligent debate is not what you have posted. What you have posted is a tirade, and a bad one at that. Get a grip.

Rick Ballard

BDS is a given. The wondrous thing about the Kossack Krewe is the belief that if they find a vet with anti-war views some sort of super aura attaches to both him and the views.

John Kerry reports for duty and we're supposed to forget Winter Soldier. They round up a JAG lawyer to run in OH2 (and lose) and crow that they have "6 more vets" ready to run in '06. They get "solidly behind" Murtha and now they're having a hissy because a version of his proposal got dropped like a red hot rock by all but McKinney, Wexler and Serrano. They ignore the fact that the vast majority of the people in the service support the war and reject the anti-war view completely.

They need to have a long sit down with Gen. Honore and have him explicate at length what Stuck on Stupid means in a practical sense. I doubt that it will help but you've got to start somewhere.

boris

My brother and I volunteered during Nam and he saw combat. The lesson we took from that conflict is different from the likes of Kerry, Cleland, and Muthra who appear to be experienced primarily in how to lose by cut and run. Never again. If you vote to go, go hard, go to win and stay til it's done.

p.lukasiak

Speaking as a dispicable, partisan scum, I would like to suggest that Murtha's position was nothing new, even though it was hyped by the press as some sort of watershed event.

Truzen, if you would bother to actually read the articles you link to, rather than just list to crap you see on FreeRepublic or LittleGreenFootballs, you would find that in the article you cited (from May 7, 2004) Murtha's position was....

"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.

"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.

I mean, could there be anything more pathetic than the fact that you posted that link WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE? Doesn't that tell you something about HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING being discussed here?

Jim E.

"Stuck on Stupid"

I will patiently wait for Truzenzuzex to deliver a lecture for your tirade.

I won't hold my breath.

p.lukasiak

oops

p.lukasiak

Look, it is hard to take you seriously when you make comments like this:

Jay, I wouldn't worry to much about being taken seriously by someone who is so pathetically ill-informed that he links to articles he hasn't read, and which contradict his statement. Indeed, trying to engage in a "serious" discussion with someone like that would be a waste of your beautiful mind.

clarice

LOL, Rick--I'd like to see General Honore give lessons in SF and Seattle, Cambridge and Madison--better yet I'd like to see him in an open debate with all the area studies profs in the country..

Truzenzuzex

Jim E.:

Why is it so bad to have our politicians finally discuss what the American people are leaning towards? The American people ought to have their viewpoints represented, or at the very minimim, discussed, by their own representatives.
It isn't so bad. The problem is that there is no real effort to have such a discussion by the Democrats. This is the discussion Murtha really wants (from the text of his speech):
For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited.
Murtha is as guilty as Reid and the other Democrats of attempting to rewrite history. He is attempting to use his status as a veteran to innoculate the Democrats against charges not having the nerve to finish the job.

The question I have for the lefties is is, why does Murtha's veteran status give him any more credibility on the war than McCain and Rep. Sam Johnson?

TexasToast

The question I have for rightees?

What will "victory" look like?

President Bush said himself we can't "win" the "War on Terror"? So what does a "win" look like in Iraq?

Jim E.

"He is attempting to use his status as a veteran..."

In fairness to Murtha, I think it is others who are "using" his status as a veteran. Murtha is merely speaking up for what he believes.

"why does Murtha's veteran status give him any more credibility than McCain"

I'm not aware of anyone making this claim. I think the idea is that Murtha -- due to BOTH his veteran status and his reputation as a pro-military hawk who enthusiastically voted for the war -- has more credibility than, say, Michael Moore. His credentials ought to prevent him from being dismissed out of hand.

But who knows. Scowcroft, Odom, Zinni -- none of those guys raised convervative pro-war Republican eyebrows, so I don't expect Murtha to either. But Murtha, thanks to the GOP, did get a prime-time gig on a boisterous C-SPAN last night. His viewpoints, moreso than Scowcroft's, Zinni's or Odom's, just got into the nation's bloodstream.

Rick Ballard

Jim E.,

Gen. Casey has already submitted plans for withdrawal of a fair portion of our forces according to task accomplishments and Iraqis meeting milestone goals. The plan includes a complex set of options that the SecDef will review prior to making a proposal to the President. When the President presents the plan to Congress for its funding approval it will be debated prior to being passed.

Sometime in the early spring the Iraqis and the US are going to begin talks on long term basing arrangements. Americans can anticipate that we will have garrisons in Iraq for quite a long time. Long after the Baathist terrorists have been eliminated.

Both of those subjects are worthy of debate. The cheap Democrat ploy of calling for immediate withdrawal with some weasel wording tossed in so that they always seem to be right isn't. It's a sop to the far left fringe which will never amount to more than 20% electorate. The Democrats got called on their cheap ploy and with a bit of luck the Republicans will call them every time they bring up another cheap trick that finds its main support on al Jazeera.

Truzenzuzex

p.lukasiak:

I mean, could there be anything more pathetic than the fact that you posted that link WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE? Doesn't that tell you something about HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING being discussed here?
Could there be anything more pathetic that an open "bold" tag? Maybe SHOUTING, but certainly not my post. I don't know what all the LGF and Free Republic stuff is supposed to be about, but I never visit FR and rarely visit LGF.

I'm sorry you find my point inconsistent, but after your "dispicable scum" tirade, I think I have a ways to go before I get to the level of "pathetic", at least in this thread. For some reason, though, it seems like you just can't get to coherence today.

By the way, if Murtha has had these same "concerns" for over a year, how has his position changed?

JayDee

Hey, Turzen, guess what? The main reason for going to war HAS been discredited.

Republicans - if that's what you are here, just seem like McCarthyite hysterics to me - do NOT have any claims to superior patriotism. It was YOUR president who is responsible for this monumental miscalculation. It is YOUR administration that has mismanaged the fiasco from day one. And there are MORE combat veterans serving in Congress right now who are Democrat than there are Republican, not to mention that EVERY returned Iraqi vet who is running in 06 is running as a Democrat. There is no basis for the Republican claim to owning the national security debate other than a mindless chauvinism and an idiotic addiction to empty slogans and jingos.

If you had any real love for this country , you would respect its heritage of open debate and free speech. You would stop embracing the disgraceful legacy of McCarthy. We have every right to this debate, every last one of us. I am convinced you will see this sentiment grow in most parts of the country in the coming months - those who make sincere proposals of any kind, who attempt to address the reality without jingoism , are the ones the American people are going to be rallying behind. Right now that describes Jack Murtha a lot more than it describes George Bush.

Jim E.

"The cheap Democrat ploy of calling for immediate withdrawal ..."

I believe that was the Hunter amendment. That was cheap.

They shoulda let Murtha's amendment be voted on. It would have also been crushed. In fact, I have no idea why Murtha's amendment wasn't voted on.

Seriously, can someone explain this to me? By not letting Murtha's amendment get voted on, it's given Dems a talking point they never would have had otherwise. I can only speculate that Murtha's amendment might have actually received a handful of Republican votes. I mean, the vast majority of Dems would have voted AGAINST the Murtha amendment anyways, so what's the deal with the Hunter crap? Enlighten me.

boris

JD:

You got your debate fair and square like it or lump it.

Truz:

If PL didn't honestly mistake your post as accusing Muthra of flip flopping (I know pretty hard to imagine) then he's clearly on acid or off his meds.

Truzenzuzex

Jim E:

"He is attempting to use his status as a veteran..."

In fairness to Murtha, I think it is others who are "using" his status as a veteran. Murtha is merely speaking up for what he believes.

Therein lies the point I made earlier. The media set Murtha up for this, and for some reason is willing to promote his opinion over the consistent opinion of other veterans in Congress. Why? Sells papers, I suppose. I suppose they could also find Murtha compelling because his comments fit their view of the situation.

Perhaps Murtha is just speaking his mind, and perhaps he isn't. Let's face it - after John Kerry's misguided attempt to capitalize on his veteran status for credibility on the war, is it really such a strech to impute the same vulgar narcissim to Murtha? Or McCain?

JayDee

Tex has an excellent point, which means no one will address it here. But what would victory look like? I have read that the Interior Ministry in the newly democratic Iraq, for one example, is in the hands of a fundamentalist Shiite faction very closely allied with Iran. That is where the 100 some Sunnis were found tortured recently. Since our last gasp rationale for this thing is that we are spreading democracy, I'd like to have someone answer this - If we accomplish George Bush's "firm resolve" and eradicate all the terrorists from Iraq (or whatever his "firm resolve is, no one really knows), and we are left with a governement fundamentally hostile to US interests, allied with our enemy Iran ... uh, what happens next, patriots? Do we do some more regime change? Or do we say que sera, that's democracy, and leave the region as promised?

Has ANYONE thought this through? Is it even possible? It is amazing that people like Murtha are being criticized by fighting keyboardists when I can't think of one rightwinger that has explained the endgame here and how it is consistent with what our troops are being slaughtered for?

boris

I have no idea why Murtha's amendment wasn't voted on.

I do:

It gave the dems a fig leaf, I think it was supposed to. The vote is more lopsided than it would have been and that's the story I want out there for the troops and the enemy to see.

Jim E.

"is it really such a strech to impute the same vulgar narcissim to Murtha"

As I stated above, I never heard of Murtha prior to this week, so it would be a stretch for me. I don't generally attribute negative/evil/mentally-deranged motivations on behalf of those I don't know well or merely don't agree with.

"It gave the dems a fig leaf, I think it was supposed to."

Why would the GOP be in the business of providing fig leafs for the Dems?? Not a good enough explanation.

boris

Not a good enough explanation

Your projection is showing. Winning in Iraq is more important than scoring debate points.

Rick Ballard

TT,

The end of state supported terrorism is going to look very much like the end of slavery and the end widespread piracy. Perhaps a little like the end of the Cold War. It will come more quickly if regime change in Iran is effected - whether by diplomatic means or by other means is immaterial. As long as the mullahs remain in power in Iran, the potential danger from terrorism remains higher than the world can tolerate.

"Victory" has no meaning wrt the war on terror in the sense that it is used in referring to battle between nations. Did the USSR ever sign a cease fire, an armistice or a peace treaty?

Syl

JayDee

I have read that the Interior Ministry in the newly democratic Iraq, for one example, is in the hands of a fundamentalist Shiite faction very closely allied with Iran.

You made the bolded part up, or you believed your friends when they told you. That is why I don't take your ranting seriously.

A spinner who uses good grammar is just a spinner who uses good grammer.

JayDee

Of course the Pubs weren't trying to give a fig leaf to Dems. They were just trying to rush through a political stunt to gladhand themselves a little more,and garner a little more hollow self congratulation. Why subject the Murtha proposal to debate? Why discuss what "earliest practicable opportunity" might be? Why discuss the efficacy of "withdrawing to a horizon position"? Why discuss anything concrete or meaningful at all? Better just to rush through meaningless bullshit, give everyone half a minute to grandstand and then have a meaningless vote that they can pretend shows support for troops? The kind of support for troops the Republicans like - the kind that takes no work, no sacrifice, and gives politicians something to brag about.

I am grateful though to that silly little woman from Ohio for exposing the true colors of her party. She was incredible- a little country club airhead preaching to a 37 year retired Marine Colonel about courage. If that isn't today's Republican party in a nutshell, I don't know what is.

Syl

JimE

By not letting Murtha's amendment get voted on, it's given Dems a talking point they never would have had otherwise.

Well, duh. And the Dems just look stupid with their complaining. That's the brilliance of it. What part of the press saying 'Murtha calls for Immediate Withdrawal' do the people of America not understand?

JayDee

Rick Ballard, please explain that little caveat of yours - regime change in Iran if necessary. How would that work exactly? Please don't leave out the word DRAFT or the one that really strikes terror into Republican hearts - TAX HIKE.

Syl

JayDee

It is amazing that people like Murtha are being criticized..

There you go again. We're not questioning his patriotism or courage. We're criticizing his judgement!

JayDee

Hey, Syl, I can tell you're a Republican by the way you love to take phrases out of context. I guess if you can feel like you're making a point, it's the same as actually making one.

And just keep assuming that the American people think "immediate withdrawal" sounds like complaining.

Syl

JayDee

Since you're such a brilliant foreign policy expert and have a good handle on what's going on the world ::cough cough::

What's your solution vis-a-vis Iran?


Syl

JayDee

And just keep assuming that the American people think "immediate withdrawal" sounds like complaining.

As usual you miss the point. The American people know Murtha called for Immediate Withdrawal. That's what was voted on last night. So what the heck are the Democrats complaining about. Now do you get it?

Syl

JayDee

the way you love to take phrases out of context.

No. I criticize the way you insert out-of-context phrases in your spin. I pull them out for the world to see.

JayDee

No frigging idea, Syl. Just like Rick Ballard. Just like George Bush.

How do we use diplomacy now that we've emboldened Iran by empowering their allies within Iraq and hyperdriving anti American passions throughout the region? Can we even use diplomatic surrogates, now that we've shown contempt for our traditional allies in Europe? Maybe Murtha's "horizon presence" is an option, marshalling our forces in a few fixed points, using what was always the most powerful diplomatic weapon - the THREAT of force. But diplomatic options look unpromising. They have seen our vulnerability - not because there's no domestic support for this war, but because our military has been grievously depleted by failure to plan responsibly.

Militarily, there are even fewer options. The American people will never support an elective invasion of that country, which would be far more difficult than invading Iraq was. And if it becomes a mandatory situtation, god help us. Even with a draft, it would be 18 months before we'd have the troops, and there are also equipment deficits that the military already can't deal with in our current deployment.

Like I said, FUBAR. We need SOMEONE to start coming up with some ingenious ideas. We sure as hell don't need to be shouting them down for trying.

clarice

Exactly, Rick-- BTW Isn't JD's neo left argument delicious:The brown skinned towel heads aren't ready for democracy?
Where have I heard that one before?

In the meantime we have the saintly Sistani and the brilliant Chalabi showing all of us how good will and unusual brilliance can shape a democracy out of such difficult situations.

And Assad is pissing his pants. And Libya threw in the towel. And the Pak nuke souk was rolled up. And Lebanon threw out Syria. And Iraq had two free and fair elections and is heading for a third. And so on and so forth..Go towel heads!!

Rick Ballard

JD,

Why would you think that it would be necessary to invade or occupy Iran? The mullahs can be removed through a number of different military means that don't involve invasion by US forces and if invasion were necessary, occupation would not have to necessarily involve US troops.

I don't think you are paying close enough attention to other alliances being developed throughout Asia. And I really don't think you are paying attention to what is going on with Russia.

The mullah's time is running out.

I know that a draft is the dream of the anti-war fringe but it isn't going to happen. In fact, there is not a single left wing anti-war fantasy that is ever going to ccme true. But don't let common sense or reality deter you from your dreams. Your rants are going to help get out a lot of Republicans this fall.

JayDee

Please explain in a little more detail, Rick. Explain how our good friend Russia is going to help us deal with Muslim fundamentalists. I'm all ears. Also explain why NOW we have so many non-military options when Saddam had to be torn out of his shoes with not a second to spare, and there was absolutely positively no other way of going about it.

I'm willing to learn. Tell me about the alliances in Asia and how your clairvoyance has revealed to you they will develop to our advantage. Just please try to be more coherent than Clarice.

Believe me, with four kids 14-21, the draft is hardly my fantasy, unless you mean the nightmare kind.

Truzenzuzex

JayDee:

If you had any real love for this country , you would respect its heritage of open debate and free speech. You would stop embracing the disgraceful legacy of McCarthy. We have every right to this debate, every last one of us.
Jeez, JayDee, nobody is trying to deny you anything. I don't know what you mean by "legacy of McCarthy" (I'm pretty sure you don't either) but all this hyperbole is not exactly conducive to a civilized debate about anything.

However, if you have anything other than accusations of McCarthyism to offer as a debate, I'd sure like to hear it.

Hey, Turzen, guess what? The main reason for going to war HAS been discredited.
Has it really? From the President's speech Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati:
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
WMD's were a big part of the rationale for asking Congress for authorizing force, but punishing Saddam for ignoring the UN was the actual reason the President gave to Congress.

In addition the ISG found that it was Saddam's intention to reconstitute his WMD program even though none were found. That combined with the fact that he had already used them several times (even against his own people) should have been sufficient reason for invasion. Combine that with Saddam's consistent violation of UN security council resolutions and firing upon No Fly Zone patrols (an act of war), your argument seems weak.

Truzenzuzex

Jim E:

As I stated above, I never heard of Murtha prior to this week, so it would be a stretch for me. I don't generally attribute negative/evil/mentally-deranged motivations on behalf of those I don't know well or merely don't agree with.
Well, you have erected a strawman and knocked it over with nice, egalitarian sweep of your rhetoric.

I don't believe narcissism fits into either the evil or mentally-deranged category. Depending upon one's point of view, I suppose it could be a negative, but your addition of the others is curious.

boris

After GHW was defeated by BJ, Saddam actually thought he had won the 1st gulf war. That's why he thought he could get away with gaming the US and bribing the UN, France, and Russia. He did not realize he was running on borrowed time and using up his one and only 2nd chance.

Saddam did not believe he had been defeated and that compliance was his only option after 911. That kind of delusion would have led to a mushroom cloud somewhere eventually and in that alternate reality the results would have been unimaginably worse for everyone.

capitano

The biggest obstacle for the Democrat defeatists is the resolve and high morale of the active military in Iraq. The goal of the Cindy Sheehans and their ilk is to break the resolve and demoralize the troops -- then it will be more like VietNam -- their ultimate goal.

Murtha is just their latest anti-Bush proxy for the military -- someone supposedly speaking for troops with with some claim of authority (30 year military career). Mara Laisson said as much on Fox News last night, only she couched it in terms of "Murtha speaking for the military families."

It isn't working....yet. see photo and link.

There's a reason the MSM and the Dems keep trotting out proxies instead of interviewing the troops and it isn't because they think the troops are "children."

boris

Yes exactly so capitano.

That's why there is so much desperation over the eventual return of the troops in victory with stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The public is going to lionize thos heros and their story will be a hundred times more compelling than the doom and gloomers worst mightmare.

boris

Hey TM, preview needs spell check!

Gary Maxwell

Ha ha ha

The lefties are in full indignation strut. Spitting and wailing and gnashing teeth.

Gosh what happened. Did the House of Representations pour cold water on your little fantasy?

And what the hell, cant these Represenatatives read? Why Pew polling already had 2/3 of the public against the war. We know that because one jack ass poster has quoted it ad nauseum for days and days in every post of every thread.

Cynthia McKinney and two of her fellow travelers. How funny! Even A.N.S.W.E.R. gets more to an anti war rally than that!

And Murtha is much closer to Michael Moore than he is to Joe Lieberman. Dont let the lefties crap about him fool ya. I may post his March 2004 vote against a House resolution to commend the troop and admit Iraq is better off without Saddam H. He did get some company then, but it passed by over 3 to 1.

Rick Ballard

JD,

As the UNSC tightens the noose on the mullahs, Russia is going to be very handy. They won't be siding with the French whores this time. The President won't be announcing much on this Chinese trip but I would imagine that discussions concerning Iran's fate will occur. Would you care to wager on when sanctions will be imposed? My bet is by March 1.

When sanctions fail (and they will) then I expect that Iran will be reduced in the same way that Serbia was. We may slice off the south but there is no reason to invade the north. Iran is big but it's not tough. It would take about 48 hours to reduce its air defenses to rubble and then it's just a matter of time and patience. Certainly not a cakewalk but not much more difficult than either Serbia or Iraq.

Rick Ballard

JD,

I forgot - nobody with 4 kids 14-21 would ever spend as much time on the internet as you do. You need to work on your game. If you were actually over 25 you would be able to use appropriate historical referents to frame your experience. Your Zinn/Chomsky babble is also a giveaway.

Hopefully you have a really huge student loan to repay. It serves you right.

Didn't you read the Kossack manual? It's all covered.

Jim E.

Truzenzuzex wrote: "Depending upon one's point of view, I suppose it could be a negative, but your addition of the others is curious."

So now we're going to have a disagreement over whether narcissism is a positive or negative personality trait?

I didn't include "negative/evil/mentally-deranged" as a strawman to your argument -- you didn't make that point. (Heck, you don't necessarily think "vulgar narcissim" is a net negative, so I'm lost as to your point.) But in political discussions people frequently attribute malignent motivations upon those which they don't agree or find suspicious. (I think, for example, that boris has accused me -- or the Democrats, I can't tell -- of wanting to "score debate points" over winning the Iraq war. Nice.) I was merely covering all the bases ahead of time. I assumed by attributing "vulgar narcissim" to Murtha, McCain and Kerry, and not, say, Bush, you were using it in a denigrating way. Silly me for interpreting it in that way. (If I dared describe Bush as a "vulgar narcissist" I would be called a sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome.) I'm left wondering why Murtha can't simply be speaking up for what he thinks. Not conspiratorial enough of me to think such a thing?

And I've yet to read why the Murtha resolution wasn't debated. So far I've heard boris say the GOP has the Democrats best interests in heart (and provided them a "fig leaf") by debating and voting on the GOP's resolution instead of Murtha's resolution (and I think he's arguing the success of the war hung in the balance of voting on the Hunter versus Murtha resolutions), and syl thinks by NOT voting on the Murtha resolution, the GOP has made the Democrats look "stupid." Mmm-kay. And finally, syl has also argued that the Murtha resolution WAS debated and voted on. Not very helpful.

Again, why wasn't the Murtha resolution voted on? I think everyone here agrees it would have lost a laughable, lop-sided vote. I'm genuinely flummoxed and the name calling and factually incorrect ("it WAS voted on") nonsense isn't helping. Sorry for asking. Anyone know of a coherent explanation that I can read somewhere else?

TexasToast

Rick

The invasion of Iraq was a cake walk as well - its the occupation that was (and is) FUBAR. I have no doubt we could take down the Iranian military in short order. Syria is even easier.

The question becomes - then what? It takes boots on the ground to hold territory - and we are out of boots.

This isn't like Russia and the cold war - its like the crusades. The kingdom of Jeresulam lasted for 100 years - but when the west lost interest, it dissapeared in a sea of muslims.

Will we lose interest first or will they?

clarice

Rick--It helps that we'll have bases and troops nearby and that none of her neighbors will rush to Iran's defense.

boris

we could take down the Iranian military in short order. Syria is even easier ... It takes boots on the ground

How many boots in Bosnia ???

The Serbia strategery would work with Syria, with Iran the Iraqi Shiites will undermine their theocracy for us.

TP

Maybe I'm stupid, but any direct action in Iran or instability there, will, as time passes, be of increasing interest to the Chinese because of their newly established commercial and oil interests there. We are a lot more likely to do something in Syria, first. My guess is that Bush will kick the Iranian can down the road.

r flanagan

All of saw of the debate was Murtha's
15 minutes around 10:30 pm ET. His take on the pre war intelligence was his basic
argument seemed cogent: WE can't win .
1. Because our presence stengthens the
insurgency , and
2. Because we simply don't have a big
enough military , and can't absent a draft.
Ergo we can stay for years with our troops
dying and the insurgency being constantly replished or we can leave and the insurgents will cease being able to use or troops as both as a target and a recruiting tool.

When we finish insulting one another any
making witty remarks we need to deal
with the possibility that his argument is
valid.

boris

or not

r flanagan

Some missing words distorted the above.
I wrote " his take on the pre war intelligence was more of the same old same old but....his basic argument etc.

TexasToast

So Boris

Occupation from the Med to the Indus - indefinitely? Only Alexander dreamed that big - and look where it got him.

r flanagan

Sure "or not" which to me is
implicit in "deal with" and
"possibility"

clarice

It's a par for the course argument which that idiot Kerry has been making--our troops make us hated;send more ; and pull them out faster.

It's pretty simple, really. The opposition there is largely revanchist--old Baathist organized to upset any effort at change. They are losing support and on their last legs. Sunnis have caught on that this is not an occupation; the world has turned; and they can accept the new order and work within it or be left out. (And thank Chalabi for adopting the Alaska petro dividend for helping with that.)

The remaining opposition--the terrorists are doing so poorly for the first time in the ME people are demonstrating against them (200K today in Jordan; 150K the other day in Morrocco).

We simply are waiting for the Dec elections and the increasingly large Iraqi forces to be able to take over more.

Murtha's a dope.

Jim in Chicago

R Flan:

We can win, and indeed we are winning, by using our troops the way we have been for about the last year or so, ever since we went into Faluj the 2nd time.

That is, we train the Iraqi army and police to take over in the 3/4 of the country that isn't a problem -- ie everything outside Baghdad and Anbar province. Then we go into Anbar, and clean things out. Which is what we've been doing for the past two months along the Euphrates.

Once we clean out the problem towns, the Iraqis move in to keep the peace, ie keep the Z-man and his Alq nutjob friends out.

In the meantime we continue to hold votes and buy off the main Sunni tribes, getting them involved in the new political system.

Bill Roggio at Fourthrail has been all over this campaign for months.

What Murtha is saying has no basis in reality. And the reality is that we'll begin moving our guys out of Iraq, but as the Iraqis become capable of keeping the peace themselves, and the dead-enders and foreigners are killed. All of which is happening, and has been happening since, last January.

Rick Ballard

Boris,

Reduction of Iranian ability to move troops would probably be welcome to an insurgent movement bent on removing the mullahs. I know a thirty day air campaign would really cheer me up if it made moving reinforcements impossible.

TP,

One might expect the President to assure China that the US bring pressure to bear upon the new Iranian government to honor contracts with China. Maybe even to offer China a chance to bid on current Toatal/Final/Elf concessions as a sweetener.

JM Hanes

pluka -

"oops"

Now there's an understatement.

JM Hanes

JayDee -
"We have a right to an intelligent debate on a topic that is so important to all of us...."

lily livered
elitist sissies
decrepit looking flagwearing hoi polloi female Congresswoman (AKA despicable Ohio Congresswoman, a little country club airhead)
little creep
phoney ass patriotism
manipulative party robots
insane retards
McCarthyite hysterics
mindless chauvinism
idiotic addiction to empty slogans and jingos

Physician, heal thyself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame