November 18, 2005
Murtha Breaks the Dam
After 9/11, President Bush built a dam behind which he esconced himself in the presidency. He built the dam with the bricks of militarism and patriotism and cemented it with fear. Protected by this seemingly impregnable dam, Bush attacked Iraq, and the Democratic officeholders went along. Though events in Iraq went from bad to terrible Democrats, except for a brave soul like Feingold, were afraid to say anything. Yesterday, the dam broke when Democratic Representative John Murtha, a decorated veteran of the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and up to now a strong hawk, called for immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
You remember how Bush blanketed the country with fear? There was talk of an "imminent threat," "mushroom clouds," and "destroying terrorists there instead of here." The "war on terror" seemed to grow more ominous when he changed the threat color codes, usually before some important national event. Bush and other administration officials talked and the rest of us shivered.
Bush was bent on attacking Iraq before 9/11. Richard Clarke, who worked in the White House at the start of the administration, told us so. Before Bush went to present his case to the UN, he had already deployed all the necessary ships, planes and arms to areas close to Iraq. When UN inspectors said they could settle matters with a little time, Bush ridiculed them. He could not wait to attack with what was called "shock and awe." He did not need "permission" from anybody.
If anyone was bold enough to criticize anything, he was immediately called unpatriotic. Some anti-war activists demonstrated and were immediately labeled as traitors. This is war, they were told. They were hurting our troops. In time of war no criticism of the commander-in-chief is allowed.
Democratic officeholders were scared too. Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress voted to authorized the use of force against Iraq. To his credit, Senator Feingold voted against hostilities.
The war went fast and well, but the aftermath has been awful. After 2-1/2 years of deaths and destruction in Iraq, the majority of the public has finally decided that the Iraq war was a mistake. Feingold has recently stated that we should withdraw our troops by the end of 2006.
All this time Representative Murtha has been a hawk. He is a decorated Marine and has been a strong voice for a strong defense in Congress. Yesterday he said this:
"Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home."
President Bush was taken aback by Murtha's statements. After saying in a statement that Murtha is "a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," he continued:
"So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
Vice President Cheney also unleashed his vituperative mouth. To which Murtha retorted:
"I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them. This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public knows it. And lashing out at critics doesn't help a bit. You've got to change the policy."
Murtha broke the dam. People are throwing off the blanket of fear. They are beginning to realize that militarism is destructive to our way of life and is not effective. As for patriotism, Republican Senator Hagel is setting our values straight when he says:
"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
Hagel, too, is for leaving Iraq, although not suddenly.
Now that the fear-militarism-patriotism dam has been broken, the president is exposed and naked. We are no longer afraid. Soon, with a little coaxing, we will switch from a policy based on militarism to one based on diplomacy. And we will not be prevented from expressing ourselves because we fear being branded "unpatriotic."
What a great day! Murtha broke the dam!
Posted by Paul Siegel at November 18, 2005 06:51 PMPaul,
It’s ‘Murtha.’
Quite a day. This was on C-Span. The House refused to consider Murtha’s resolution. Instead, the Republicans presented their own resolution, which simply calls for an immediate termination in Iraq. It’s a false option, but it prevents the possibility of an approval of Murtha’s resolution.
I’ve never said this before. I’ve never even thought it. But today, after following the various shenanigans and statements, I finally came to realize:
Iraq is a Republican War.
No one outside the Republican Party has any obligation to support this war. It’s the way the Republicans want it. It’s the way they present it. It’s war as a matter of party affiliation, not national interest.
It’s a shame the Republican leadership is incompetent to such an extent, that war becomes the action of this one political party, waged for its own gain, even at the expense of the country. Their tone and actions make the realization unavoidable.
By Republican standards, somewhere between half and two-thirds of the country are traitors. That is where we are going.
How could it come to this? How could this country’s leadership be so utterly inept, so callous, so self-aggrandizing at the expense of ‘we the people.’ Simply unbelievable, and truly shameful.
Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2005 07:13 PMPaul, isn’t it about time? Surely Watergate taught Americans that you cannot place your trust in any man, however exalted by his office? I recall seeing GW at the WTC after 9/11, wrapping his arm around a firefighter and mouthing platitudes. I could not imagine how Americans could not see the completely fatuous and vacuous response from Bush, at a time of such national tragedy. It seems to me, as a outside to the US, that Americans are so in thrall to their President, or perhaps more properly to the office of the President, that they give a free pass to the incumbent at a time of national emergency.
Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former CIA Director, was on British TV last night, and he spoke of his huge embarrassment, to quote him, “so embarrassed, that America has a vice President for torture. It’s reprehensible” He accused both Bush and Cheney of lying. Patriotism is a wonderful thing in the appropriate circumstances, but it seems to me, again as an outsider, that the patriotism that Americans are raised with, to meld a disparate society of immigrants, can blind good honest people to what is before their very eyes. Bush is a puppet in the hands of the very people who sought to control Bush 41 Presidency. But Bush 41 was a man of more substance, he was himself a true warrior of WWII, and he was also a former director of the CIA, so he was no neophyte, and therefore not pliable in the hands of the neocons. The project they sought to advance with him with poor results, they advanced more powerfully with junior. Now the US is paying the price. The nation that was venerated across the world as the champion of liberty and human rights, is now the chanpion of torture and pre emptive strikes, purely on the say so of highly suspect people. America, how far you have fallen. You have watered down the rights of your own citizens under the Patriot Act, you have sullied Reagans shining city on a hill, by holding prisoners out of reach of due process and fair procedures. You lose your credibility with your enemies, but more importantly, with your friends. Your friends who are well disposed to you in normal times, but especially so when your citizens were under that dreadful attack on 9/11.
A true patriot speaks against what he knows to be wrong,no matter what the prevailing emotional wind. In that regard, Democrats also failed the US and it’s citizens. Vietnam was a humiliation for the American belief that massive military power could overcome a challenge from a military minnow by comparison. Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past, are doomed to repeat it. You know, in the northern part my country, after 30 years of terrorism, an agreement was finally reached. It was very similar to an agreement that had been promulgated 30 years before at a place in England called Sunningdale. The new agreement was described as Sunningdale for slow learners. Is Iraq a Vietnam for slow learners?
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 18, 2005 07:21 PMEuropaul,
I can’t help but wonder if the Bush administration is using the divisiveness of Iraq to distract attention from other developments.
Fitzpatrick is seating a new grand jury to continue investigating the Plame scandal.
The House of Representatives is bandaging the bleeding budget deficit by reducing spending on programs for the poor- roughly $50 billion in reductions over 6 years- while cutting taxes for the wealthiest by $70 billion.
And the biggest story, one which won’t receive much press at this point, involves an investigation of cooked intelligence.
The Inspector General at the Pentagon, the IG, is investigating Douglas Feith, from the Office of Special Plans fame. There is suspicion he provided uncorraborted intelligence directly to the White House, intelligence which never came from the CIA.
The IG is tough. These are people who will be as relentless as Fitzpatrick.
At some point, you’d think Bush would take control. You’d think he would fire some people, bring in new blood, sit down the congressman from both parties and forge a consensus.
Fat chance. It’s all attack with the Bush administration, campaigning 24/7. Right now Iraq is being used as the main campaign device. It’s pretty horrible to watch.
Keep your fingers crossed. This country needs a lucky break in the worst way.
Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2005 07:41 PMPaul, phx8 — excellent article/posts, as usual.
Nice post, Paul — but Reagan seemed pretty tarnished, rather than shining, IMO.
phx8 -
It’s amazing to try an keep up on everything going wrong with the REP machine… I can’t keep up with it. Did you catch the CNN piece on the arguments Bush has been making to support his invasion of Iraq (‘Everyone had the same information’ and a ’ committee has looked into the pre-war actions by the White House and found nothing wrong.’) It kind of kicks those arguments … and if CNN is covering these stories, I think this feels like a tipping point for Bush.
Posted by: tony at November 18, 2005 08:42 PMThis whole houseo’cards is coming unhinged, the programs that he’s cutting I think have been on the republo-honey-do for a while as more of a starve the beast. Spend till thecows come home and then excusingly discard of social programs (Note how there obviously was no cutting of corporate welfare which accounts for billions).
Now with Murtha, he’s just saying the blatently obvious for the most part. Aghast as George W. Quixote might be it’s all the obvious stuff that this administration via it’s consistant myopia has really overlooked. Even with the capture of Saddam it’s still a quagmire with new information about torture and taking captives to other countries for these purposes that many start to question who the good guys are.
The dems are sort of starting it snail out getting info on how it’s going and other things. But this whole debackle was sold to us wholesale (though only the daftest amongst us believed it) that 9/11 was connected to Iraq and thusly cause to invade.
It’s insane and we could probably pull out with safety in the region BUT here’s where it get’s weird (please read twice) We because of our invasion ARE NOW AN OPEC PLAYER! Fact! Now how quickly do you think we’ll get out of their now that we have gained status.
My guess if oil hierarchies remain at the helm: Not very likely.
Murtha and the rest of the left on the hill can squeel all they like but a pull-out ain’t gonna’happen, why, because we are now Opec by proxy of an invasion.
Posted by: Novenge at November 18, 2005 08:43 PMOh lord, I should have guessed. :( I was going to respond but after the ‘oil’ comment it just doesn’t seem worth it anymore, no one on either side seems to want to use their brains, the political bashing just keeps going like the energizer bunny.
Have fun with the bitch fest guys, in 3 months you’ll be saying the same things, talking about how it was all busting open (didn’t I hear that after the Downing Street Memo, or before the election, etc…) and the same thing will be going on and nothing will be happening.
*sigh*
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 08:48 PMYeah you have a point, Rhinehold But here’s the difference. Now republicans are starting to ask questions about many of his policies that’s the other half of the Unravelling. They are really looking at issues from Immigration to Safta/Cafta/Canamex (Also oil prices, currency value under his “Export Economy” and more). Not to mention the rather liberal package after Katrina, The Meiers nomination. See what I’m sayin’ not so teflon any more when republicans stop sending money to the RNC if they aren’t getting their domestic policies met. Also didn’t fight back the gay-marrige thing primarily due to the amount of RNC donations from the log cabin.
Granted I’m way off topic as to the war but that’s just in part what I mean by his administration unravelling.
Also he has no Rove and Hughes is busy with Iraq.
Posted by: Novenge at November 18, 2005 09:01 PMWell Adrienne, I was no great admirer of Reagan either, believing him to be the original stalking horse of the Neo Cons, or the puppet in the hands of the invisible puppet masters. Having said that, his policies did lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But hey, he did get very lucky there. They might just have led to the apocalypse.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 18, 2005 09:10 PMEuroland Paul,
The ruble, Paul an intellectual economy cannot stand of it’s own weight when it’s currency is backed by good intentions. Yes there were moves such as the war in Afghanistan that broke thier balls enough to bring it down eventually with no safety-net of any kind which was an act of stupidity on Gorby’s part. The Politbureau wanted no help in becoming a Capitalist nation from western countries other than monetary and now there are leaders who are creating a Laissez Fairist version of the Iron Curtain replete with it’s own state sponsored news.
But Reagan was just doing what The Pentagon/DoD suggested okay he thought up Star Wars that I can see. But really, Policies?
Posted by: Novenge at November 18, 2005 09:27 PMI don’t understand the first part of your post Norvenge. Yes, Afghanistan did play it’s part in the downfall of the USSR, not least because of Reagans backing and training of the Mujahed, including a certain gentleman by the name of Bin Laden, ironically. But primarily what really broke the back of the SU was Reagans vastly accelerated Defence ( Defense in the US?) spending. Mother Russia couldn’t compete and provide butter as well. The rest, as they say, is history!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 18, 2005 09:43 PMPS Novenge, I think it was actually Andropov who sent the troops into Afghanistan, not Gorby. It was Gorby who eentually pulled them out.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 18, 2005 09:45 PMI am a dumb widow and a very hot Christian.
Has anyone but me ever considered Bush being the
Anti-Christ? He has tried to be God and save the
Iraqies. He is breaking our nation. Just about all the prophesies have been completed. I have been told that all of them have been. I am not that much of a bible scholar I do read and do believe I am on the right track. If he is they will not find him out and roust him until the 7th year. I hope he is for I want to go home to my Lord. God Bless You
Paul In Euroland,
Allow me to explain, the Berlin wall came down within 48 hours of the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was the final fight that decimated them as well as competitive defense spending from the US.
the stronghold was collapsing when Reagan took office you know that. But it was the defeat in Afghan territories and subsequent withdrawal that sparked the hammers to hit the wall.
But again I doubt either was Reagan Per se, but the DoD,Pentagon,Central Intel,Thatcher,and other thinks. I’m just saying not unlike you of his Stalking-horse placement on the right but my doubt was in him having any policies other than his Gung-ho yearning to bring it down. So thus in rhetoric atleast I knee-jerkingly ask, what Reagan-borne policies?
Remember we’d been at this decades before he came into office so there was already the grand effort.The culmination of death-throw agendas came during his eight years and the pay off in Bush 1’s administration.
Posted by: Novenge at November 18, 2005 09:56 PMPaul
It was I think (I thought Breznev which might get me a buzzer on Jeopardy)
My point about Gorby was his lack of a safety-net in Russia as it came down and the conversion to Capitalism.
Posted by: Novenge at November 18, 2005 10:00 PMPaul
I am happy that you see the importance of Reagan’s policies. He was a polarizing figure at the time, as is anyone who tries big thing. About 15% of Americans still hate him and want to hear nothing good.
I lived in Poland where Reagan (at least in the 1990s) was acclaimed as one of history’s great heroes. It was always very amusing to hear Americans liberals try to explain to Solidarity activist why they were mistaken about how much Reagan helped them.
I was a little ashamed of my fellow Americans when they criticized their own former president to people who wanted to express gratitude and knew a lot more about the situation. These Americans rarely spoke Polish, so I could always make jokes at their expense. They wondered why everyone seemed so amused.
Reagan was necessary to ending the Cold War. He was not sufficient. Many people contributed and cooperated so it is impossible to tell where the efforts of some left off and others started. Ending the evil empire was a group effort.
Re our the subject of Iraq
We should stay in Iraq if it is the best thing to do for our country and leave if it is not. It is the same principle of the Cold War and all foreign policy. A county should have the security it needs. Too much is a waste. Too little can be fatal. There is a right answer. It really doesn’t matter who holds what opinion and it cannot be decided by majority opinion any more than we can say 2 + 2 = 5 if everyone says it is. If we stay in Iraq there will be one set of consequences. Pulling out quickly will produce another. A rapid pull out would make a lot of Americans feel happy for a short time. It would make a lot of terrorist feel even happier for a longer time. Our choice.
Jack said: If we stay in Iraq there will be one set of consequences. Pulling out quickly will produce another. A rapid pull out would make a lot of Americans feel happy for a short time. It would make a lot of terrorist feel even happier for a longer time. Our choice.
I agree that there are two paths.
Stay; and lose tens of thousands of more American soldiers, dead and wounded, spend hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy a nation and give profits to a corrupt company, then lose in the end (see Viet Nam).
Leave; cut our loses, spend our money more intelligently, win by regaining our allies and respect of the world (impeaching Bush43 and Cheney for treason etc…would be a good add-on), and take away a rally cry of the terrorists.
As for Reagan, at least he didn’t blow a good lead. Lucky for us we had the internet to pay off his debt. What’s going to pay for the chimps folly?
Posted by: Dave at November 18, 2005 11:06 PMDave
The Vietnam analogy.
First the insurgency in Vietnam failed. South Vietnam was conquered by the North. Think Grant takes Richmond. What country in Iraq’s region is going to play that role?
Our disagreement is about the consequences. It doesn’t matter whether or not you like Bush. I don’t believe leaving Iraq soon would give us any peace. Our pullout from Vietnam made our enemies more agressive. Osama learned to underetimate us by looking at our behavior in Lebanon, Somalia etc. What lesson would Iraq teach?
Please let me know which oil firms are going to make the big bucks off Iraq so that I can invest. Since Iraq produces only around $20 billion in revenues and it costs us a lot more, I don’t really see how we can make money off this, but I would like to hear how it is possible.
Remember the problem with sanctions is that Saddam was willing to sell as much oil as anyone would buy AND he sold at less than market rates. If we were interested only in profits, that was the place to make them.
Posted by: Jack at November 18, 2005 11:30 PMJack,
Good luck getting someone to explain the logic behind the ‘there for oil’ theory, I’ve been trying for years to get someone to do it and no successes yet. We could have easily purchased the oil, if we had needed, which we didn’t.
We are not making any money off of the oil production now, even though oil production in Iraq is the highest it’s ever been , as it is going to the country who owns it, the Iraqi government.
But, if anyone DOES want to come up with a believable, logical scenario for why we are there for their oil, please let me know, I’d like to hear it.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 11:39 PMThe War in Iraq was won, but what remains to be seen is whether victory can be translated into an enduring and stable nation. The irony is that if we left tomorrow, the Sunni minority (a portion of which support the insurgency) would be slaughtered by the Shia majority in a genocide that would make Rwanda look like child’s play.
Elections will take place in Iraq next month.
More Iraq troops are becoming combat-ready every day.
Before the 2006 elections, troops will begin coming home. By 2008, we will probably have a token force in Iraq.
So I wonder: what are Democrats more afraid of? Failure in Iraq or success?
Posted by: sanger at November 18, 2005 11:49 PMRhinehold,
Don’t play stupid. We both know Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. And it’s not about control of the oil itself. It’s about access.
Next month the Shias will almost certainly take full control of Iraq’s government. The Iraqi & Iranian Shias are about to become a dominating force through their control of oil markets.
Jack,
Today the House Republicans replaced Murtha’s resolution, which presented a reasonable plan for withdrawal over time, with an utterly bogus resolution for immediate withdrawal, which practically no one advocates. It poisoned any possible discussion of reasonable paths for the war’s termination in order for the House Republicans to score political points.
They use the US military as pawns, and they look so sorrowful as they express respect for the casualties; but you can bet your bottom dollar their sons and daughters aren’t over there in Iraq. It’s despicable.
Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 12:39 AM
phx8,
Play stupid? If you what you say is correct, how does it help the US or the oil companies? Please, explain it to me as if I’ve never heard of a republican or democrat before…
And as for Murtha’s resolution, how is it any different than the president’s? Bring the troops home as early as possible. Ok, where is the definition? What is the time table? If you are going to get up and make a speech that says they should come home immediately and then put an opened ended resolution on the floor, expect to get your teeth handed to you, IMO.
Please, both parties are playing the military like pawns for months, let’s not go down that road.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 12:56 AMPaul in Euroland said:
(America was a)nation that was venerated across the world as the champion of liberty and human rights, is now the chanpion of torture and pre emptive strikes, purely on the say so of highly suspect people.
Excuse me, but I believe that America was respected (never venerated) for (1) their struggle to have a good economy and allowing the majority of Americans to share in it, and (2) respected for their government that could react to human rights issues with mainly good outcomes brought about by independent, thoughtful citizens (even though it takes many decades). IMO, America lost its way when their main focus became the struggle to have an ever-escalating economy at any expense and not having enough checks and balances in place to include middle-class America as the economy was directed toward globalization. It seems to me that the fear of the other had set in during the economic changes that had been going on in middle America for several years before 9/11. This allowed an Administration to play the fear card to the hilt and have the effect on citizens that the Administration wanted after 9/11. This was reprehensible. The US citizen has been used and the whole world suffers as a result. The terminology of being at war with an enemy that is terror is abominable. Why is no one questioning this crap? IMHO, America is not at war. They have invaded Iraq and they are using their war machine to accomplish the Administration’s desires. And imagine this, they are having a hard time getting what they wanted.
If terror was their enemy, is it still today? Do Americans plan to live forever in fear of terror and then want to continue to throw their munitions at other nations because they have different radicals in their midst so that average Joe American will think that the concept of terror will be overcome? I want to scream from where I sit up here in Canada, get a grip, please.
D. Allen,
There is a difference between terrorists operating with a country’s borders and having the government of that country give aid, comfort and financial support to those terrorists in order to fulfill the government’s desires.
When you figure out that difference from ‘up there in Canada’, let me know.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:01 AMRhinehold:
I’ve figured out that you believe that if I don’t think like you do and my government isn’t what you want, then my country is perceived as an enemy. In your view, is this correct?
What is your definition of a bully?
Everyone is totally forgetting that in a debate with Kerry before the election, that the war in Iraq will never be won. We need to cut our losses now before there are more American lives lost and more of our hard earned money wasted rebuilding something better than it was before. That money could be better spent here in our own country than over there. There are millions of people out of jobs and without benifits that could be taken care of instead of wasting it where we are not and have never been wanted. The job market is getting worse with both Ford and GM cutting more jobs. I say if the damn towel heads want to kill each other in the name of Islam get our men and women out of there and let them do it.
Posted by: Sherri at November 19, 2005 01:17 AMPaul,
“Yesterday, the dam broke when Democratic Representative John Murtah, a decorated veteran of the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and up to now a strong hawk, called for immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.”
The media, including Al Jazeera, was quick to pick up and aid weight to this DNC simplification.
Like WMD, they take a complicated situation and strip it of all common sense to fit a catch phrase. Perhaps the Democratic constituency necessitates the dumbing down of national policy to a third grade level? IMO, at least the media have a legitimate, if not honorable, excuse for the laziness of catch phrases, talking points, and name-calling. To this day, the DNC insists that because they and the media latched onto and used WMD as their only justification for war, everyone else must be just as simple-minded.
And if you did not get their message, take note of their recorded vote tonight. Not a single Democrat voted for: “[an]immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.” Oops, so much for using the C-Span to grandstand. I suggest Democrats stick to their picket signs and rock concerts, and leave the floor of congress to the adults.
Posted by: Grins and Giggles at November 19, 2005 01:21 AMD. Allen,
Come on, if that were the case we would have invaded Canada long ago, wouldn’t we have? Or Cuba? Or Mexico?
You know little of our country, sorry to say, so it’s probably best you learn a little about the reality of a thing before you judge and badmouth it.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:23 AMRhinehold,
Here is the language of the Murtha Resolution which you are referring to:
“The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.”
Here is the language of the Hunter Resolution, which House Republicans used in place of Murtha’s:
“Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
Note the difference. Murtha’s language is intentionally vague, using the phrase “earliest practicable date.” It gives the president discretion by allowing him to define ‘practicable.’ The Murtha Resolution does not give a “timetable.”
Bush, on the other hand, seems to have no exit strategy. We’ll ‘stay the course,’ and apparently plan to occupy Iraq indefinitely.
Grins,
You write: “And if you did not get their message, take note of their recorded vote tonight. Not a single Democrat voted for: “[an]immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.”
See my previous post. Guess you missed it. The House Republicans replaced the Murtha Resolution with their own, introduced by Representative Hunter.
Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 01:28 AMPhx8, I read the resoultion. It’s an open ended resolution that means little. Bush has said that he would be bringing the troops home when it was practical to do so. All this does is re-inforce what the President has already stated.
It’s also NOT what Murtha was asking for in his speeches. Instead, he seemed to want to create a resolution that everyone would vote on and then tie to meaning what they wanted it to mean based on the polls during the 2006 elections. It would not have gotten the troops home any faster and it would have done nothing to end the debate about the war.
Instead, we now have everyone who has been wanting to bring the troops home immediately soundly silenced.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:31 AMDid you guys hear what Rep. Jean Schmidt (subject of an Ohio ethics investigation for taking money from Delay’s PAC) announced on the House floor late today while trashing Murtha’s resolution and pulling their political stunt of rushing the vote? (And on a Friday no less, suprise, surprise!)
Referencing a phone call she supposedly received from a Marine colonel in Iraq, she said:
“He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,”
As phx8 said, I believe that this should now be considered strictly a Republican War — let all the fatcat, chickenhawk, armchair warriors enlist if they wish to keep fighting it — since they don’t know how to show any respect for anyone but those in their own party.
These Republican’s are always talking about loyalty to America. But the honest truth is, they don’t know how to be loyal to our Constitution, nor do they have a grasp of what America is actually supposed to stand for — and it is quite the opposite of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations, or lying to Congress, the American People and the Entire World to go to war for greed or empire. Nor is it about permanent occupation, or using torture for information, or chemical weapons on a civilian population during warfare, or bankrupting the nation, or giving enormous tax cuts to the rich while taking the health care from the old and the food from the mouths of poor children, or revealing the names of our covert CIA officers because their spouse is attempting to expose lies for the good of the country, or cutting the benefits of our soldiers while simultaneously making them fight a war with not enough numbers and too little armor.
It is MADNESS.
And yet, it is MY loyalty always being questioned.
Well, righties, at this point, I can’t help but question your intelligence and sanity if you actually consider this good leadership.
To me, it seems these folks either don’t understand the history of this country, or they don’t know how to learn lessons from that history, because time and again all comparisons to Vietnam are dismissed by them at every turn, even when it comes from a man like Murtha, who was there.
And though Neocon’s use the word constantly, they don’t seem to understand that Freedom means letting people be free to live however they see fit, as long as they aren’t causing other people grief. As I see it, since they truly don’t want our people to live in true freedom, how the hell do they expect to sell that idea to anyone else?
Right now, quite obviously, they don’t understand a damn thing about real bravery either if they’d stoop to mocking the experience and dedicated service of a guy like Colonel Murtha on the Peoples Floor in the House. Indeed, is BENEATH CONTEMPT to call a Marine 37 years in the military with a bronze star and two purple hearts, a coward.
This group we’re dealing with here are acting exactly like Fascists — scapegoating and demonizing anyone who might possibly thwart their goals in any manner whatsoever.
To quote from the Chimp in Chief himself, “You’re either with us or against us.”
Well, I personally couldn’t be more against what the Republican’s now stand for: LESS THAN ZERO.
PS. Novenge, I agree.
To many people like to give Reagan credit for the end of the Cold War, though it was something he didn’t really do very much to bring about (though he may have speeded the inevitable up a bit), while on the other hand, just as many don’t like to give him the debit for what he did do regarding Iran/Contra.
Adrienne, name one congresscritter who called Murtha a coward during this debate, please? Because I’ll stand with you against that person. But I saw a lot of congresscritters exuding all kinds of glowing words for Murtha…
As for the ‘supposed’ phone call, she did name who it was. It was Marine Corps Reserve Col. Danny Bupb, Ohio representative from the 88th District in the state House of Representatives. Were you suggesting by the way you worded your statement that Jean Schmidt was making that up?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:47 AMRhinehold,
“…. we now have everyone who has been wanting to bring the troops home immediately soundly silenced.”
I suppose. That was a pretty small crowd though. Like I said, it was a false choice.
The problem with the Bush administration’s position is that it leaves the impression the US could stay indefinitely. This does not sit well with the Iraqis, and fuels the insurgency.
Announce a deadline for withdrawal? That gives insurgents a target. Refuse to announce a deadline? That creates the impression the occupation will never end.
The problem, Rhinehold, is with our leadership. We need to underpromise, and overdeliver. We need to announce modest, realistic goals, a plan to achieve those goals, and measureable steps for attaining them.
The Bush administration overpromises, and underdelivers. What is the goal in Iraq? What is the plan for achieving the goal? What are the measureable steps?
Lost amid all this is the fact we’ve actually achieved something positive. Saddam Hussein is out of power. The Iraqis have an opportunity for democratic self-rule. What they do with it is up to them.
I fear the worst. I think they would have been better off with Saddam. Because I think by the time the Shias settle scores with the Sunnis, it will be that bad.
But to return to the topic- the Murtha Resolution offers the Iraqis concrete proof that we’re not there indefinitely.
The House Republicans poisoned this message by substituting the bogus Hunter Resolution. This does great harm by perpetuating the impression the US will occupy Iraq indefinitely. It costs our military casualties.
Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 01:48 AMphx8,
And might you enlighten us as to why the DNC feels the need to be purposely ambigiuous? What are they trying to hide? lack of a plan?
Face it, the Republicans didn’t take the political games lying down this time and the Dems fell flat on their faces.
The headlines” shoud now read, Democrats Vote Against Immediate Withdrawal
Posted by: Grins and Giggles at November 19, 2005 01:50 AMRhinehold:
Be gentle with me here for a minute. I don’t control my government any more than you do yours. But, the American economy controls our lives equally. And, why is it that when I said the world respected the US and then moved to the thought that the average US citizen has been had by the military movement into Iraq that you felt I condoned abetting radical forces? I believe we have the right to our freedom of frustrated expression with what has been unfolding under the present US Administration. My views on world affairs are as legitimate as yours. However, I want to draw a line that says - do not tune me out because I am from away. Remember on 9/11 the best friends you would ever have wanted were right here and, guess what, with different policies from the WH, we still are here. As I said originally - don’t take what is being said by those in power as being the infinite truth, understand the terminology, figure out if it is a ruse and give serious thought as to how you fit into the world community before bombs are dropped. Living in terror is not what I expect of US citizens; I call that madness. The logical move, as I watch this play out, would be to find a way, sooner rather than later, to have leaders who are not allowed to play on your fears.
Phx8,
NO ONE has suggested we stay indefinately. Bush has always said that we will leave when the job is done (whatever that means).
The resolution would have done nothing to convince anyone of anything. We have never been trusted by anyone in Iraq, ever. What makes you think that the Murtha resolution, with it’s vauge and open-ended language, would have made a difference to that?
It was political, nothing else. And it was out politiced. What was gained by anyone?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2005 01:59 AMGrins,
How is the DNC being “purposely ambiguous”?
Did the DNC write the Murtha Resolution? Please explain. Maybe I’m being naive. I thought Murtha was responsible for his resolution.
Rhinehold,
‘Staying until the job is done’ is not a realistic goal. It puts us in a position of possibly doing great work, yet feeling bad because we failed to meet something vague and unachievable.
Hang in there Adrienne - you are on a sane track and a nut house.
phx8,
Have the Democrats now abandoned Mr. Murtha?
Their their vote seems to indicate it.
If so, why the uproar?
Ah, I forgot, cameras. :D
Say “Cheese”…
It is the most substabce we will hear from Democrats for another decade.
Posted by: Grins and Giggles at November 19, 2005 02:16 AMGrins,
Did you read my previous post? Do you understand the Murtha Resolution was replaced by the Hunter Resolution?
“Have the Democrats now abandoned Mr. Murtha?
Their their vote seems to indicate it.”
What you write indicates you missing the most fundamental aspect. I’m willing to give and take, but what you’re writing shows the most basic element of this story is eluding you. I don’t want to critique the messenger and violate this site’s policy. But do you understand the Murtha Resolution was replaced by the Republican Hunter Resolution?
Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2005 02:34 AMYes, I realize it was replaced.. with the substance fo what the DNC was prmoting and the message they were shooting off the prsees and airways…
And the Republicans publicly revealed the disengeuous nature of the DNC move. The resolution was only presented as a means for the “progressives” to grandstand on the floor (oh, sorry, “debate” in the liberal vernacular”)
It was just show, no subtsnace, no plan. Same ole Democratic fluff.
Perhaps now we can get on with things with a REAL resolution and debate after the holidays.. sorry to have messed up the DNC campaign schedule. ;)
Posted by: Grins and Giggles at November 19, 2005 02:40 AMIts hard to attribute credibility to a writer who can’t even spell names right in the title of his article. John Murtha has been a leading voice in Congress for over 30 years. How could anyone who claims to know anything about our U.S. Congress and the Armed Services Committee misspell his name? Shame on you, Paul.
Posted by: Roger Waun at November 19, 2005 04:34 AMGrins and Giggles:
So you admit you were lying in your post about the Hunter Resolution?
Posted by: Aldous at November 19, 2005 05:36 AMRhinehold:
“Adrienne, name one congresscritter who called Murtha a coward during this debate, please? Because I’ll stand with you against that person. But I saw a lot of congresscritters exuding all kinds of glowing words for Murtha…
As for the ‘supposed’ phone call, she did name who it was. It was Marine Corps Reserve Col. Danny Bupb, Ohio representative from the 88th District in the state House of Representatives. Were you suggesting by the way you worded your statement that Jean Schmidt was making that up?”
I’m not suggesting. I’m certain it was made up, though probably not by Schmidt. More likely, the Republican slime machine sat around last night trying to decide what they could possibly say after Murtha’s amazing speech. No easy task, that, trying to counter the total sincerity and no-nonsense eloquence of the Straight Dope from a hawkish Democrat who fought in both Korea and Vietnam, and who has served in the past as the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
Finally, probably around 2 AM or so, they came up with that BS and decided who was going to deliver it on the floor.
Why am I so certain of this you may ask?
Because it’s positively Rovian — using W’s scarily repetitious “stay the course”, combined with the vicious slash of calling the last man who deserves the title a “coward”.
Yes, over all, I’d say it was quite the concerted effort by the entire GOP apparatus.
D. Allen:
“Hang in there Adrienne - you are on a sane track and a nut house.”
I’ll certainly trying, D. Allen. Thankfully, our public opinion polls have been assuring me that I’m far from alone in this state of clear thinking sanity — even if the country has been stuck in the Neocon Nuthouse for far too long.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 19, 2005 05:41 AMAll
Last night’s debate on C-Span was the most compelling television I have seen this year.
Rep.Murtha is a legitimate hero and I respect him very very much.
However passionate were his views(although his 28 minutes were really a re-play of his presss-conference the day before and the reading the letters thing got tired at the end),Representative Johnson of Texas’ views in opposition were every bit as compelling.He is every bit a hero as Murtha.
Here is the president’s plan:Let’s see if we can understand this:
We will stay in Iraq as long as it takes for the Iraq government to stand on its own and for its forces to develop sufficient strength to protect its citizens.
We think that sometime in 2006 the Iraqi forces will be of sufficient strength to begin the process of redeploying but we will remain there as long as it takes to get the job done.
In order to accomplish this end and to avoid confusion and rancor,on a monthly basis I will advise the Congress and the American people as to this end.
Really,that is all the president has to do.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 19, 2005 06:53 AMDoes anyone know Murtha’s email address: I would like to drop him a note and thank him for the political courage and concern for our troops.
Also - can anyone explain how you get ’ cowardly cut and run’ from an immediate focus on pulling troops out and ending our occupation of Iraq? Can anyone explain the goals and objectives in Iraq? It seems to me that we ‘are in it for the long haul’ and ‘until our job is complete.’ What does that mean? Can Bush not even give definition to what will satisfy our goals and bring the troops home? Or does showing intelligence somehow aid the terrorists.
Posted by: tony at November 19, 2005 09:20 AMIsn’t it funny to see all of this love and support for Murtha. A guy like that can’t get a press line outside of Johnstown and his Murtha Center unless he does something this radical. How long has he been in the Congress now? And yet his voice in the party has been completely silent until now.
Go figure.
All due respect to Murtha and those who support him (politicians and citizens), I applaud his acting on his convictions. What followed however is an example IMO at why we need to take a hard look at some of the incumbents.
>Giving the timing, risky action by Murtha
>Dirty politics by Republicans
>Classless reactions by both (D) and (R)
>This was politics at it’s worst in every regard
>The action on the floor became 0% about the war
and 100% about the partisan politics of the day
Behind every door there is a Congressman or Senator who is a “hero” from military service. The opinions are divided on the war. From the private sector there is a “hero” retired from military service all producing divided opinions.
Wars against anything (countries or terrorism) are nevertheless wars and should UNITE politicians and citizens. We are not, nor have we been headed in the direction for a long time.
We sorely need some new “vision” in the political arena.
Posted by: steve smith at November 19, 2005 11:07 AMGeorge -
And that’s your critism of Murtha? That he’s not a crazy outspoken liberal? Maybe if he were more like Kennedy you’d have better things to say about him?
Or maybe he’s a coward for taking so long to speak his mind?
Or maybe it just fits his mindset that we’ve reached a time when things need to/must shook up. Or is it simply that he disagrees with your President/party, and therefor he is simply guilty for crimes against Bush…???
Posted by: tony at November 19, 2005 11:12 AMsteve smith -
Absolutely. It seems like our politicians are becoming more like professional wrestlers. I am absolutely feed up with these idiots worrying about their allegances to party and lobbyists. They start focusing on their damn JOBS!
Sheeeesh. These are the top jobs in our country, we should demand absolute brilliance.
Posted by: tony at November 19, 2005 11:23 AMOur disagreement is about the consequences. It doesn’t matter whether or not you like Bush. I don’t believe leaving Iraq soon would give us any peace. Our pullout from Vietnam made our enemies more agressive. Osama learned to underetimate us by looking at our behavior in Lebanon, Somalia etc. What lesson would Iraq teach?
Posted by: Jack at November 18, 2005 11:30 PM
Jack,
Al Qeada will not be defeated by conventional military force. International policing, intelligence sharing and limited use of special forces snatch squads/assassination squads are the only way that these people will be defeated. As to Reagan’s contribution to the end of the cold war, certainly he made an important one. But I suggest the greatest contribution was made by the Poles through Solidarnosc, with the real moral and spiritual leadership of John Paul ll. The fact is that the Soviet Union was a monolith which was hollowed out and rotten on the inside, and only propped up by the gossamer rust on the outside. Once that carapace of rust was pierced by Solidarity, the whole edifice fell like a pack of cards. As to Vietnam, the US signed up to withdrawal because it was not a winnable war. Yes, the NVA took south Vietnam, but it could only do that because the US had already come to the conclusion that its war in Vietnam was unwinnable. By the way, I’m off to Vietnam in February! If anyone knows of anything in particular I should go to see, I’d appreciate the suggestion.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 01:02 PMdear paul,
i would like to say something on the subject at hand. first i have had and still have family in the military. some in kuwait, iraq. so i was brought up patriotic. i stand behind/with our troops 110%, what i will never stand with/behind, is a “president” that uses false fear to get what he wants, you ever notice that there is no more “televised” raised terror alerts? boy back last year and right after 9/11/01 they were going up and down. go figure!
my great uncle was a marine (if he caught me using ‘was’) once a marine always a marine. he did his duty for his country. i give credit to mr. murtha for having the balls that God gave him, to stand up and say “enough is enough, our men and women have given ENOUGH. BRING THEM HOME!!!!! we don’t need more blood shed, more of our countrys children coming home in body bags, missing limbs, blind, screwed up in the head. we need to DEPLOY DIPLOMACY!!!! we don’t need guns anymore to do this. our fine country was not founded on wars alone, it was founded on people working TOGETHER. okay we got attacked on 9/11/01, we caught saddium, now we need to send in the diplomats, not the marines, army etc.
i’m not sure who said it, but kudos to you. ‘co-conspiritors with terrorists, will be detained, then why is geogre bush sr. still walking around?’ lmao. i love that one.
‘what we’ve got here is falure to communicate. some men you just can’t reach. so you get what we had here 2years ago which is the way he wants it, so he gets it. i don’t like any more then anybody else.’ ty gnr.
we all know war isn’t pretty. never said it should be. i’m not a bleeding heart. believe me. we needed to get rid of hitler. but like vietnam. our power that is, doesn’t want to lose. thats rich!!!! i have a cousin that went to nam. he came home so screwed up. he was a tunnel rat, 10 go in one comes out. the man still has nightmares. bring our troops home. stay the course my ass. guard the BUSH/SUADI OIL!!!!!!!!
my husband and i sat and watched the debate on c-span lastnite and got so dam confused, until mr. murtha started reading lettres, then that yokel from ohio (i’m from ohio) please where did she get those letters?! oh we know, officers that sit on ships at night and eat well and get their clothes washed and take nice hot showers, then go back to the ‘feilds’ in the morning. yeah that’s what they do. my husband was in beruit. on carriers. (navy).
our country wasn’t founded solely on wars, it was founded by our fore fathers working TOGETHER.
our constitution is to be used for the good of the people, “Mr.President.” not for your own gain and what you can get out of this country and not to bully other countrys. take a history lesson. you make me puke!!!! what kind of example are we sending to our future generations? i have so much moe to say. but i don’t want to take up space from someone else. thank you. God have mercy on this country
Interesting thought. If it were their asses actually on the line over there, would they be wanting to stay on course? Put some of them on the front lines not behind their little safe zones and let them see what is really going on over there not the sugar coated version they see. I bet the opinion would change really fast. Or wait how about some of their loved ones that are there instead of getting cushy desk jobs state side cause mommy or daddy is a politician. We’d be out of there so fast you wouldn’t have time to say weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: Sherri at November 19, 2005 01:56 PMRhinehold,
“Bush has always said that we will leave when the job is done (whatever that means).”
————-
Exactly. Someone please tell me what “when the job is done” means. Until then, I think it is entirely proper to keep demanding a withdrawal of our forces. I do not think we should have troops in Iraq for the next 5 - 10 years. I don’t think you do either. If anyone believes we can defeat this insurgency with military means they are fooling themselves. With unemployment at astronomical levels and basic services such as utilities and water supplies consistently unavailable, this is a land of walking IEDs. The people there need to sort this out on their own. Remove one of the major reasons for the insurgency (us) and these people may have a chance. Keep us there, and like a cancer, the insurgency will continue to grow and gain power. All one has to do is look to Israel and the Palestinians to see what occupier versus insurgency looks like after twenty years. We’ve done our bit. Saddam is gone. They have a chance at a government of self-determination. Let them have it. Let’s come home.
Interesting thought. If it were their asses actually on the line over there, would they be wanting to stay on course? Put some of them on the front lines not behind their little safe zones and let them see what is really going on over there not the sugar coated version they see. I bet the opinion would change really fast.
Posted by: Sherri at November 19, 2005 01:56PM
Exactly Sherri. I cannot believe how an administration so devoid of people who served in the military under fire, can have such apparent respect from the military families and indeed so many Americans generally. Bush, who apparently didn’t even complete his service to the National Guard, Cheney, who apparently didn’t serve at all etc. Powell, who experienced Vietnam, warned Bush, that if you break it, it’s yours. Seemingly, out of a misplaced sense of a duty of loyalty, Powell stayed with Bush till after his re election. But you will notice how the Administration was happy to let him go. Powell had served his purpose. He had reassured the moderates until Bush got his way. He had reassured the allies of the US. Powell had respect - both nationally in the US, and internationally. Bush chewed him up by using that respect, then spit him out when he had served his purpose. I imagine Powells memoirs will be very educational, if he ever comes to write them. As a soldier, he has a very developed sense of loyalty to his CiC. I wonder if time will give him a stronger sense of his duty to history and posterity to tell the full story of his service with the Bush administration.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 02:30 PMAll Bush is trying to do is play God. The Iraqi’s have had the same beliefs for thousand of years and had the power to do something about how they lived for the same amount of time. Does Bush think that we are going to go in there and change their way of thinking in a matter of a few years? If thats his thinking we will never leave there. These people had a chance to have something better than they ever had, and have repeatedly thrown it back in our faces to the extent of hiding the same insurgents that are killing them at the same time they are trying to take us out. If they really wanted our help they would do the right thing. All of these demonstrations everywhere that Bush goes, shows that we are even more hated than we ever were before. Talk about having to watch our backs. The sad part is whoever gets elected in 08 has such an uphill battle ahead of him, that nothing that he would ever do will be good enough. It will all be his fault when we are in as bad of shape as we are now. The minimum wage will be the same and the cost of all of these programs lost will be higher just as the cost of living will be out of sight. The same can of coffee that used to cost us 3.00 now costs us 7 to 8 dollars while our wages are the same or smaller than it was. I don’t know about anyone else but when I was first entering the job market a full time job was 40+ hours a week, now if you are hired for full time it is usually 30-35 hours a week. Hence the smaller paychecks.
Posted by: Sherri at November 19, 2005 02:30 PMI love the smell of napalm in the morning……….
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 02:39 PMI love the smell of White Phosphorus in the morning…
Posted by: tony at November 19, 2005 03:12 PMMe, I love the smell of dread and fear on Republicans. It’s very strong these days, isn’t it?
Posted by: roger at November 19, 2005 04:50 PMPaul
We agree on Reagan, the role of the Poles and the importance of the Pope.
I don’t see that the Soviet Empire was doomed to fall when it did. The actions of the U.S. were necessary to the happy outcome, but as I said not sufficient. Without the heroic Poles, the Pope, and many others communism could have survived or it could have gone down in a bloody mess. At the end of the Soviet Empire, we have to give credit even to a drunkard (Yeltsin) and a communist (Gorbie).
I am convinced that if the economy had not improved so much starting in 1982 and Mondale had been elected in 1984, communism would have had a good chance of surviving, since Mondale would have rejected the “agressive and decredited” Reagan policy. We came closer to that terrible scenario than we like to think.
Posted by: Jack at November 19, 2005 05:43 PMWell Jack, that’s just one of those things that we’ll never know. The fact is that the Soviet system was rotten to the core. Gorbachev simply wanted to reform the system. He didn’t realise that it was incapable of reform. His was a transitional role. He didn’t have the imagination to lead the total transformation that was required in Russia, because he was fundamentally a product of and a believer in the system. Much of the collapse of communism can be attributed to the fact that people in Eastern Europe were becoming increasingly aware throught western TV and radio leakage into their countries that the propaganda diet they were fed on was complete lies. There’s an old saying, success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 19, 2005 06:25 PMPaul in Euroland Said,
Al Qeada will not be defeated by conventional military force. International policing, intelligence sharing and limited use of special forces snatch squads/assassination squads are the only way that these people will be defeated.
I agree. But if we do this the liberal media will cry torture.
Another thing we should do is mount an information campaign in Iraq. Last week when they blew up the masque there were (I Assume)many korans that were all bloodied and ripped and desecrated. We have to show the hypocrisy of the terrorists in that they desecrated their own holy book.
Where is the news media? they jumped all over the faulse charge. Now when there is evidence that is laying before them they are quiet. The media only works if it can blame Bush.
Posted by: George at November 19, 2005 07:54 PM
These folks are gonna support their monkey president right to the end, no matter how stupid they must make themselves sound to do so, or how irrelevant they become. It’s amazing and sometimes enormously entertaining. Engaging them is silly - their willful ignorance of anything remotely resembling truth is painfully obvious. Why have battles of wit with those who come unarmed?
We have work to do folks - we have a country to save. Of course intellectually pulverizing reptile-brained right-wingers is a blast (not to mention incredibly easy), but it’s a luxury we can little afford right now.
Posted by: roger at November 19, 2005 08:41 PMI do not understand why everything has to be made so confusing. What is happening is really not rocket science.
President Bush is a + religous - man on a x power trip = Dictator.
What concerns me is that know one knows what there job descriptions are in the White House anymore, or we would not be in the mess we are in.
It seems to me that people in the Government get paid alot of money to point a finger at some one else. You should always remember, that when you point a finger at someone else , you have three pointing back at you.
People dont protest to much because we have it better here then any other country. As long as we pay attention.
There has been a stench emanating from Washington for quite some time now. The public has now gotten wind of it. The juggernaut of accountability will now catch up with, and destroy, those who are responsible for that stench.
Potentially the most serious threat to the bush administration is the just-announced investigation into the special plans office in the Pentagon. This (patently political) entity directed the intelligence analysts to scrutinize ONLY those intelligence reports that favored it’s (and the White House’s) purposes. Never mind that the preponderance of operatives thought that there wasn’t a significant likelihood of W.M.D.’s remaining in Iraq. Chalabi et. al. said there were. Things are likely to get very interesting if this investigation is for real….
By the very act of arguing about whether or not the W.M.D’s existed or not, we sweep aside the more unsettling aspect of the Iraq war: that the United States of America attacked a country without any provocation or justification. In fact the official policy of the United States is now pre-emptive warfare,i.e., we can attack whoever we like based on the fact that we consider them potential threat. I’m the last prson who wants to bash their country. However, both of my grandfathers served in world war 1, my mother, father, and uncle fought in the second world war, my brother fought in Vietnam, and I myself have served in both th Army and Coast Guard, and I’ll b damned if this chickenhawk bastard is going to take my country down like this.
Even worse is the lack of understanding that terrorism by it’s very nature is impossible to fight with conventional forces. How much of al qaida (I’m not going to capitalize the name) would we have wiped out if we had spent the 200 billion dollars pissed away in Iraq on actually going after the people who had bombed the World Trade Center, Instead of W’s hunt for W.M.D.’s? Or was it spreading demacracy? Or was it “fighting them over ther so we don’t have to fight them over here”?
The best thing to happen to this country in years is the uproar over the intelligence “cherry picking”, the speeches containing information known to be false BEFORE the speeches were given, and the attacks on those who qustiond the policies as unpatriotic or not supporting the troops.
Posted by: Steve Miller at November 19, 2005 09:46 PM
Paul in euro;
My theory has always been that Gorby was the best placed covert operative ever. Maybe CIA or OSS or other US, but probably the british.
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2005 09:58 PMI hope everyone realizes that Murtha speaking out was a political stunt laid out by Rahm Emanuel.
It was designed to put the Repubs back on the defensive after Cheney and Bush had recently gone on the attack. It was also a cleverly designed attempt to bait the Repubs. Either they fail to rebut Murtha and let a decorated war hero reframe the debate in favor of the Dems, OR they would be forced to attack Murtha. Obviously the predictable Repubs chose the latter. Thing is, you just will not win in the eyes of the public by going after a war hero. It’s like going after the mother of a fallen soldier.
Anyway, well played Rahm. We just may have the Democrats answer to Mr. Rove…
Posted by: Andrew L. at November 19, 2005 10:04 PMRahm Emmanual is Mother Teresa compared to Karl Rove. Foolishness continues unabated.
Posted by: roger at November 19, 2005 10:11 PMWRONG GEORGE,
Don’t you get the feeling with a country like this that it would take assassination/hit squad secret police just to maintain it as a semi peaceful region? It’s a weird thought, but what is being proposed is what the Shah of Iran had before Khomenei took hold. And secondly what we already have is hit/assassination squads groups it’s just that their ammunition can also be measured in tonage.
We have not only urban warfare but we have contractors and soldiers of fortune in that area doing precisely what Euro-Paul is suggesting. This is a horrible neck of the woods and we should have never entered there especially with such rediculous expectations. Those radicals are freakin’ nuts and readily willing to die and with money coming in from Iranian and Saudi sources there will be many more waves to come. I can’t decide whether I am centrally a peacenik but we obviously need to get a better handle on the area hopefully involving remote camera technology.
WHY are we sitting on our hands with this new Iraqi government with more rulings than Robert’s rules of order read twice? Why not just put them in place and go from there? and I have to assert it has to do with our newfound place at Opecs table and not factions (Suni?Shia) that can be summed up easily something else is going on. Hell we could have divided it all into 3 different regions by now if we wanted peace there and even created or developed states like we have here in this country. Three years still slogging and NO GOVERNMENT, no electricity in many areas, no water in many areas. One has to ask WTF are we doing? If we are to have signs of improvement why don’t we make some? But it’s really about something more and that is what no one wants to hear. It’s about power at tables and energy prices. Either that or we are the most slack “liberators” on the planet. If we are there to liberate why did we turn the WHOLE G-damn region into just a battingcage for terrorist attacks that’s liberation?!!!!
But yet granted we have to have the oil privatized or it’s just too spicy a meatball powerwise. Hopefully to avoid the mess that The Saudi’s have become for future generations.
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 12:53 AMPaul in euro;
My theory has always been that Gorby was the best placed covert operative ever. Maybe CIA or OSS or other US, but probably the british.
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2005 09:58 PM
Interesting theory Dave. But I think that Gorby was in fact trying to save the Soviet Union by reforming it. He didn’t realise that it was incapable of reform.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 20, 2005 07:27 AMPaul in Euroland Said,
Al Qeada will not be defeated by conventional military force. International policing, intelligence sharing and limited use of special forces snatch squads/assassination squads are the only way that these people will be defeated.
I agree. But if we do this the liberal media will cry torture.
Posted by: George at November 19, 2005 07:54 PM
We have not only urban warfare but we have contractors and soldiers of fortune in that area doing precisely what Euro-Paul is suggesting.
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 12:53 AM
I think I’m being misunderstood here. When I advocated snatch/assassination squads, I did not mean anywhere and everywhere. What I meant was if terrorists are hiding in places that allow them refuge beyond the law, then the option is there to pursue them by extra judicial means. I do not sanction torture. As regards Novenge’s comments, I think it is beneath contempt that democratic governments send mercenaries who are not under the same control as soldiers into war zones. It smacks of the privatisation of warfare and seeks to offload the accountability from Government for war making. It is cowardly politically and I believe counter productive. Further, how is the average grunt going to feel that his private sector counterpart is earing a high multiple of his pay, without the same accountability?
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 20, 2005 07:37 AMTony-
I wasn’t criticizing Murtha except maybe the jab at all of his pork (and he is a big porker). My comment was that Democrats like Murtha have no voice in the Democratic Party unless they say something radical in tune with the current leadership. Murtha’s comments are news only so much as if a Republican had said them; he’s outside the mainstream of the current Democratic leadership.
How many of the regulars in this column are big supporters of Murtha and his politics?
I have noticed the Democrats on the news shows more lately. Then, as it so happens, I read an article that analyzed the only way for Democrats to get on the news shows were if they became more “pithy”or basically nasty, callous and vocally passionate as are their Republican counterpart(the articles words). Has anyone else heard this? The majority of Democrats I’ve seen on news shows may feel strongly but don’t seem to have this pithiness in them so guess where that leaves them according to that article.
Posted by: Mabel at November 20, 2005 11:13 AMWhen it comes to the Republicans all they can do is sling mud and total nastiness when their assess get backed into a corner. I still see more republicans on tv trying to get their constituants to fall for their so called solutionsto the problems they created. Their solutions to everything is to cut programs that have been slashed to the bare minimum already. Instead of vetoing some of these outragious spending bills and upholding and even making it more difficult for those making over so much money from having to pay their fair share of taxes. So the ones that are hurting the most is the middle class and those already below poverty level get the shaft again. God forbid someone doesn’t agree with what they want to do then the GOP pulls out the you are unamerican and we are going to get invaded again or in Murthas case you are a coward. I’m sorry the only cowards I see are starting with Bush and working on down. There isn’t one person in his administration that I know of that has served in any branch of the service and actually did something to defend their country. Those that have served in any branch, most were National Guard and had someone pull strings so that they were not in any kind of line of fire or in some cases never completed their duties. If things are going their way the GOP says look at me, look at me, see what I did good. If something goes wrong with what they have put into place by whatever means neccessary their response is to place the blame on others, and to get down and dirty, so sorry for dems notbeing as low and nasty as the reps.
Janea,
I am not a Christian in the orthodox sense. I am more of a new age metaphysical mystical some days atheist Buddhist Christian eclectic. To say the least, my beliefs are not too rigid or fixed. Clearly you are a true and passionate believer.
You wrote:
I am a dumb widow and a very hot Christian.
Has anyone but me ever considered Bush being the
Anti-Christ? He has tried to be God and save the
Iraqies. He is breaking our nation. Just about all the prophesies have been completed. I have been told that all of them have been. I am not that much of a bible scholar I do read and do believe I am on the right track. If he is they will not find him out and roust him until the 7th year. I hope he is for I want to go home to my Lord. God Bless You
Even if the Biblical prophesies are not the word of God they still have a very real possibility of fulfillment and I have suggested in other postings that Bush may in fact be at least a “baby” or precurser Anti-Christ. Born again Christians like Bush have a set of beliefs, expectations and desires. They want and expect Armageddon and they are liable to create it in the real world. Bush, through his incompetence is certainly creating a set of preconditions that could directly lead to an apocalypse. For true believers such as yourself I suppose that is a good thing. Unfortunately, the rest of us live on the same planet and if your religious prophesies are not real, we are still going to have to live through, or die in, your nightmare.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 20, 2005 04:26 PMHOORAY FOR MURTHA! At last somebody had the balls to say what so many of us have been thinking! And to go head-to-head with that strutting, smirking little chimp in the White House (who we should be impeaching). Yeah, and OK, so we pull out and they have a civil war. So what? They would have had one anyway after Saddam croaked. These people are fighting and killing each other over some religious-based stuff that happened 1400 years ago, for pete’s sake. If they want to, let ‘em! The last thing we need to do is get ourselves involved in that quagmire…heck, they hate us because we aren’t moslems anyway. Our presence is just making it worse. And BY THE WAY, shouldn’t we also get out of Afghanistan??? Or are we there forever also????
Posted by: capnmike at November 20, 2005 04:33 PMHi All,
This is the Christian 68 yr old widow again! I not only read and believe every word that is in the Bible. It was written by God through people. He directs everything.
My husband also worked for the oil companys in the countries over there. He was in Saudi, Kuwait, Iran, Bahrain, Abba Dubiah, all over those countries. He was over there for about 10yrs before he moved on tto the North Sea, Singapor, Argentina and so forth. I am very aware of the Arab mentality. we should never have gone over there because we can not win that war. We can not leave and we can not stay. Bush got us in this and there is no way we can leave now. If we leave they will come after us! If we stay they will just keep on bombing us and all we try to improve for them. We have not done anything for the Iraqies. They have less electricity now than they did before our terrific war of wonder and awe. They are dying more and more everyday. The insurgents are getting braver and have learned how to make better bombs. Bush was so stupid he thought we could go over the and get Saddam and get out. Ohh no, if we leave the Arab’s do not forget. They will always remember and will find a way to get back at us. They NEVER FORGET!! The oil that Bush and Cheny went over there for—they are producing less than before the war. When we try to repair the lines to get the oil to the refinery’s they blow up the linea. We don’t hear too much about that in the News anymore, but they just don’t tell it.
Our very unusal weather—- this was spoke of in the Bible.
Bush has decieved the elite. Spoke of in the book of Mathew. Everyone thought we was going over to help those poor people of Iraq. Saddam was a terrible dictator. He killed so many of his own people. The Kurd,s, Sheitte’s and the Sunni’s. The Kurd’a and the Shitte’s live where the oil is the Sunni’s don’t. The one’s that were poor by Saddam’s rule while he kept the Sunni’s up with good jobs! Remember, I said they never forget. They will get them—-regardless of how long it may take them. When and if we leave it will be killings everywhere for a long time. Bush’s greed for oil and power has got us into this and God knew his character abd his love of power and money. He claims he is a christian. He is not.
This is what we are hung with—God help us.
God Bless You All
To those who claim GW Bush-it as the anti-christos they are indeed correct yup! (Wow now even Christians are on an anti-bushie bandwagon-yippee)
He is! After I read that post I went to a few sites thinking I could atleast troll/flame with this stuff. Well as it turns out I’m startin’ to buy it, and I’m secular to the tenth degree. I mean I’ve said it in passing jest because I think he’s an ass. But now that I think over all the biblical characteristics of An Anti-christy-like figure of what he supposedly is, Dag-Nabbit THAT SHOE FITS!
HERE’S THE A**-KICKER— BUSH IS NOW THE KING OF BABYLON!!! Technically speaking the king of Iraq nothing moves without his say so nothing bought nor sold, and they are being ruled over by a power of 8 as in the G-8!!! The global eight and there’s an entire portion of posters on this site that have bought his mark and standard as ideal. You blew my mind religious posters!
These religious posters may be onto something, hmmmm.
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 10:07 PMOh, yeah. It’s been suggested that Bush is the Anti-Christ:
Sorry to disappoint you, but you can’t use biblical prophecy to impeach Bush… That would be a direct violation of the separation of church and state!
Posted by: TheTraveler at November 21, 2005 09:43 AMGod you people need to get a life! It is a pity to see so much energy go to hating one man. To read what is in here about our President you would think he was Hilter ans Satan rolled into one. I’m not a Bush supporter by any means, but I am not going to beleive he is the anti-christ. you are just hurting your oun cause by being so outlandish!
Posted by: merlyn compton at November 21, 2005 10:06 AMmerlyn,
You’re taking things a bit too literal. Only the really religious might really believe he may be the anti-christ, and that represents a small %. The other 64% think he’s just a lying sack of sh!t.
Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2005 10:23 AMHere I am again!
Speaking of Hitler—Bush has his own type of torture prisons and has done just as bad. He has taken the one in Cuba because it would not be under the law of the USA. It is a military camp and not under the law of the USA. He has no telling how many torture camps as it is rumored now. We (the public) have no idea if he does or not. They are still investigating that.
Have any of you ever heard of the Carlyle Group?
Get on Google and look up Carlyle Group. It may enlighten some of you. I was so disappointed when I learned that Colin Powell was the owner or one of the owners of the Combat Services opperating in Kuwait. I know of some people working for him there. I suppose they came up with the idea to keep him quite as they went forward.
Can’t impeach Bush on Biblical prophesy—that was funny..
I do think there might be something to be said for Bush really fitting what the characteristics are on this anti-christy stuff.
He who so LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE(?)I mean come on it’s staring right at ya? Okay the SON of PERDITION, Raises himself above all people and all nations. He is the King of Babylon currently that’s a fact.
The anti-christ comes as a thief first of all and then a plunderer and has control over all of Babylon. He’s proud and lies constantly and does things PURELY for monetary reasons and lies to cover them up. This person is a deciever has a false prophet with him.
A false Prophet is a doom-sayer essentially and Dag-nabbit if that ain’t Cheney!
Okay really I don’t know but it’s pretty glaringly apparent so I’ll use the material to bother others.
AH-VAY-MAAAAARRRIIIIIIIIIAAAAAA!
Posted by: Novenge at November 21, 2005 10:13 PMPosted by: Rhinehold November 19, 2005 01:47AM As for the ‘supposed’ phone call, she did name who it was. It was Marine Corps Reserve Col. Danny Bupb, Ohio representative from the 88th District in the state House of Representatives. Were you suggesting by the way you worded your statement that Jean Schmidt was making that up?
Hey, Rhinehold:
New York Times (AP) Published: November 23, 2005Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio … was booed on the House floor on Friday after she criticized her colleague, John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, saying, “Cowards cut and run, marines never do.” Ms. Schmidt said the comment came from a conversation with State Representative Danny R. Bubp. … Mr. Bubp, also a Republican, has denied discussing Mr. Murtha with Ms. Schmidt.
Score-To-Date: Adrienne - 10 / Rhinehold - 0
Posted by: Betty Burke at November 23, 2005 07:41 AM
