Another Example of Republican Hate Speech

“This is not an issue of who’s patriotic and who’s not patriotic. It’s an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq.” President Bush called John P. Murtha a good man who served America with honor, but said his proposal to immediately withdraw troops “does not make sense.”

It doesn't sound so bad to me. But then I actually quoted the President and not what his opponents said that he said. I am sure that between those lines there is an insult worthy of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy. Maybe someone will point it out to us poorly educated guys who can only read words.

Posted by Jack at November 21, 2005 9:06 AM
Comments
Comment #94494

Jack,

Is there a material that is weaker than straw, yet strong enough to make a human effigy out of? I think you just invented it.

To answer your rhetorical question: No, that is not hate speech.

The context is that other Republicans were saying things that were completely outrageous and over the top about their critics, so Bush had come up with something sensible-sounding. This past week was a real low point for the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2005 9:31 AM
Comment #94499

Jack, I don’t believe anyone said Bush criticised Murtha. Perhaps you can provide a link so we have some clue what you’re talking about.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #94500

Woody

My point is that the President rarely says anything hateful, yet there is the constant clamour about it. I searched for what he said about Islam. He always praises it as a religion of peace and always talks tolerance. He responds to critics is a calm manner. Yet his critics keep on talking about hate speech. If you want to find hate speech you can. YOu can find it in some conservative commentators and a lot of liberal ones, but not in the President.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 9:43 AM
Comment #94503
yet there is the constant clamour about it.

Is that as specific as you’re going to get?

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 9:45 AM
Comment #94504

The context is that other Republicans were saying things that were completely outrageous and over the top about their critics, so Bush had come up with something sensible-sounding. This past week was a real low point for the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2005 09:31 AM

______________________________

Why was the past week a “low point” for the GOP? Is that b/c they finally fought back against this nonsense about the war and getting into war?! The dems have been virulent in their rhetoric for over two years now and finally (FINALLY!!!) the Bush Administration fought back and took a stand.

Debate is good in this country. It is great to show these extremist islamist that we’re not afraid of them and we will take a stand against them. And, just b/c they are making it very messy, we’re not standing down; even though some “brave” anti-war and anti-Bush people are calling for us to “cut and run”.

By the way, “cutting and running” would be a victory for the terrorists. Is that what you want? We owe our troops a victory by supporting them and supporting their cause. They believe we can win! Do you believe we can?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 9:46 AM
Comment #94506
By the way, “cutting and running” would be a victory for the terrorists. Is that what you want?

So far, only the House Republicans have brought a “cut and run” proposal to the floor, rahdigly. I hope you’re proud of ‘em. Democrats overwhelmingly defeated the Republicans idiotic and irresponsible resolution to leave immediately.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 9:52 AM
Comment #94507

Jack,

The President’s comments were just damage control.
After the disparaging remarks made by Rep. Jean Schmidt and others, it remains to be seen if the Republican retoric and the attempt to smear Murtha will isolate the far right and far left even further from the mainstream.

Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #94510

AP

Okay. I guess I was mistaken. Democrats don’t believe that the president engages in hate speech. They think he is a reasonable guy who is open to debate.

I won’t need to give you any examples to the contrary, because I expect they will fill in below this entry as soon as your colleagues finish reading the main post. They will say it much more eloquently than I could. Some will even favor us with poetry, such as Bush lied …

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 9:59 AM
Comment #94511

American Pundit wrote:
So far, only the House Republicans have brought a “cut and run” proposal to the floor, rahdigly.
____________________________

Oh, is Rep Murtha a Republican? Don’t think so. The repubs came up with a time line; however, it’s the Dems that have been trying to get out of there. And, you know it! All you had to do is watch C-span this past weekend and watch the debate between the Repubs and the dems on Murtha’s bill. The dems were booing and trying to derail the repubs everytime they read transcripts from Generals and Commanders in Iraq that say cutting and running would be horrible for the US. I’m paraphrasing of course, but everytime they quoted someone in the military, the dems booed and tried to drown out what the congressman was saying.

So, AP, do you (at least) agree with that statement “Cut and run would be a victory for the terrorists”?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 10:01 AM
Comment #94514

Jack, Rocky is right, damage control. Anyone remember, “you are either with us, or your against freedom”, or how about, those who call for our withdrawal from Iraq are aiding and abetting our enemies. Now that an imminently respectable Marine General Officer has joined his voice to Bush’s critics of an endless occupation of Iraq, and now that Bush’s approval ratings are setting historical lows, a critic is suddenly a good guy. OK. I will accept that. I am on record here at WB as having written that 500 lost American GI’s was a high enough price to pay. Suddenly, I must be a good guy, since, Bush is willing to acknowledge that folks such as myself who advocated not wasting American lives in Iraq, like the General, are merely misguided patriots.

Hey, its a baby step forward for the President. In about 20 years, he might just be up to speed with the majority of Americans who hold his policies in such low regard today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 10:10 AM
Comment #94515

rahdigly, Murtha’s resolution never made it to the floor. That was a Republican resolution that the House voted on. Go read a newspaper.

As for cut and run, I’ve been pretty clear on that. Read all about it.

Jack, Bush did lie — or was “over zealous in advocating his policy”, to use your euphemism — but I’m not sure what that has to do with hate speech.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 10:15 AM
Comment #94520

Jack, the President is the leader of his party, and last time I checked the employer of people like Scott McLellan and others. All these people under Bush and representing his party said these venomous things about Murtha (not to mention millions of Dittoheads), and then the president comes on and says this.

You know what it is? Plausible deniability. All the other people act like lightning rods, and Bush comes out and says something reasonable so that people will say what you say.

If he really meant what he said, he would have never let everybody say all those things, poison the discourse like that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 21, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #94524

Stephen,

If he really meant what he said, he would have never let everybody say all those things, poison the discourse like that.

The president can not control what everyone says. Some are giving their own opinions. But what he can do is ,like you said, set the tone and try to bring the discourse back to reasonable discussion.

Posted by: dog selur at November 21, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #94527

“Some are giving their own opinions. But what he can do is ,like you said, set the tone and try to bring the discourse back to reasonable discussion.”

Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.

Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 11:36 AM
Comment #94531

Since when is a strategic withdrawl a ‘cut and run’? The chickenhawks act as if we’re winning yet even the Bushies with actual service experience know we’re 50-50 at best looking out 10 years.
We’re not looking at VietNam-redux here, we’re looking at the Soviet Afghanistan.

As far as Bush and hate speech, he doesn’t do it. He has proxy slimebags do it for him.

Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2005 12:10 PM
Comment #94533

So maybe the President needs a new press secretary? If he can’t control that, well……..

Statement by the Press Secretary on Congressman Murtha’s Statement

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. 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. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #94535

Womanmarine

That is what you call hate speech? I would not want to be associated with Michael Moore and the liberal Dems, but I don’t think that others would consider it a hateful insult to be called a liberal Democrat. If it is, we might ask why?

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #94536

Jack:

I never said it was hate speech. I just don’t buy that the President can’t control what even his press secretary says.

Murtha never said anything about surrendering.

The President’s words (which I posted in another column before you posted this one), would indicate to me that it is no longer traitorous to be vocally in disagreement with the administration. And yes, calling folks who disagree with the war traitors is hate speech.

Kinda like the quote of “You’re either with us or against us”. That has been the tenor of what has been coming from the Republican/conservative side of the aisle.

And I think you DO know, Jack, that there has been hate speech directed at those who are against the current policies.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 12:32 PM
Comment #94539

“Cut and run would be a victory for the terrorists”?
=============

rahdigly, is that an original thought or is that something you have seen on Fox News?

Us invading Iraq was a victory for terrorists. We lowered ourselves to the same tactics they use, only at a larger scale. To me that is a bigger crime, especially since we should have the intellectual capital at our disposal that allows us to rise above bombs. We (americans) have also killed many more civilians (or as some would say — collatoral damage) than that of the world trade center attacks, the event that put “terrorism” into your volcabulary.

One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

Would cutting and running be a “victory” for terrorists. I don’t even know what the term victory means here, so maybe you could actually define it for me. Thousands of dead soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and the raping and pillaging of their cultural heritage (remember the museums with priceless ancient artifacts unprotected when the oil fields with a price on them were) hardly sounds like a victory to me, it certainly isn’t a “victory” i want my country a part of.

Not unless they can get a first round bye and homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.

Posted by: tree hugger at November 21, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #94540

womanmarine

The President’s words (which I posted in another column before you posted this one), would indicate to me that it is no longer traitorous to be vocally in disagreement with the administration.


I’ve never heard Bush call anyone that disagrees with him a traitor. And if disagreeing with him makes you one then I’m one. I disagree with him on his domestic policies.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #94543
watch the debate between the Repubs and the dems on Murtha’s bill.

rahdigly,

The debate you watched was not on Murtha’s bill, it was on Republican Duncan Hunter’s “cut and run” bill.

All,

Murtha never proposed an immediate withdrawal or “cut and run” from Iraq. He actually proposed a redeployment that would allow troops to be withdrawn sooner than later.

The whole spectacle is just another example of the Republican Party strategy of trying to twist and distort the truth.

Jack,

Bush’s statement was not hateful, unless you call mischaracterizations of Murtha’s proposal hateful.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 12:59 PM
Comment #94545

Tree

One man’s terrorist …

That is a silly statment. It has been repeated for many years and become even sillier. I don’t doubt that some people consider Zarkawi a freedom fighter, but they are wrong. We need not pretend we are going to solve this arguement with them with words alone.

Womanmarine

If you want to find slurs and slander, you will find them all over the place. I see them more to the left of me. Look at the various names our President is called by the other side of this blog.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone’s ideas wrong if you think they are. In fact, that is our duty as free people. The slurs are unnecessary.

I would count up the instances where our president was called chimp, stupid, monkeyboy etc., but it would take too much time.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 1:06 PM
Comment #94546

AP,

Murtha was the one that started that whole debate and the dems backed him. So, that’s why Rep Duncan Hunter introduced the Bill, to see if the dems were all talk and no bite. And, it certainly was voted on, the 403-3 vote to “shoot it down” certainly showed us how the dems really feel about this issue; all talk no bite. Even Murtha voted against it. Why? He’s the one talking all that junk about how we should get our troops out now. Dems are on the losing side of this issue by demanding pull out and demanding defeat.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #94549
And, it certainly was voted on, the 403-3 vote to “shoot it down” certainly showed us how the dems really feel about this issue; all talk no bite. Even Murtha voted against it. Why?

rahdigly,

The Republican stunt got you hook, line, and sinker.

Murtha and other Dems rejected the Republican bill because it was a “cut and run” bill, not resembling Murtha’s proposal in any way, shape, or form. Murtha and his supporters never called for a “cut and run” strategy.

Stop spreading the lie.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #94552

jack-
McClellan is Bush’s spokesman. That implies he speaks for the president. If the president says one thing and his press secretary another, that indicates either an inexplicable divide between what Bush and his Press Secretary are saying (unlikely with Bush’s message control), or a strategy by which people like McClellan say what the president is forbidden by decorum to say, and the President says what makes him look more moderate.

If you’ve got a better explanation that’s consistent with the facts, go ahead and explain it to me.

RahDigly-
I don’t suppose you’ve read the actual text of the bills, now have you? I don’t think so. Duncan Hunter’s version is an immediate pullout, something nobody accepts. Murtha’s version is a withdrawal when it’s practicable (capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished). Big difference, don’t you say? We could be there indefinitely, depending on how you define practicable. One thing he makes clear is that withdrawal is the inevitable goal. We aren’t going to hang around forever waiting for the last insurgent to kick the bucket. When things are clear for our departure, we go.

But that’s not all. Murtha’s bill, instead of just going for a flat, idiotic withdrawal, also goes so far as to call for their to be a force just around the corner ready to intervene at a moment’s notice. Does that sound like abandonment to you? It sounds like a contingency plan to me. Additional Diplomacy is called for in Murtha’s resolution, to help things along.

But hey, those are just the details. It doesn’t matter whether we badmouth folks for sentiments they don’t express. Do yourself a favor: actually look at what the opposition is saying before agreeing reflexively with your political comrades.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 21, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #94554


Jayjay, check this out:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47489
______________________________

Tree wrote:
“rahdigly, is that an original thought or is that something you have seen on Fox News?”
________________________________________

No, not foxnews. Actually that’s from the words of OBL, when he talked about the US “cutting and running” in Somalia. That actually emboldened he and the terrorists:


“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians…When this took place, I was in the Sudan, but this great defeat pleased me very much, the way it pleases all Muslims”…

“The Somalia operation, in some ways, made bin Laden. During the Afghan war, the CIA had been very aware of him (although the agency now insists it never “controlled” him), but in Somalia, bin Laden had taken a swing at the biggest kid in the school yard and given him a black eye.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html


Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #94555

Murtha’s plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Repub’s have twisted an “immediate redeployment of U.S. troops” into “immediate withdrawal”. If repubs can so blatantly twist Murtha’s words here, is it so far fetched then to believe that they twisted the intelligence that got us in Iraq in the first place?

rahdigly or to anyone else spreading the lie,

Please go
here and read what Murtha really said. Then come back here and quote exactly were Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #94557

I have yet to see or hear any of these lefties’ plan to win in Iraq or conduct the war on terror. Is there any plan on the other side of the aisle that makes sense? All we hear is bitching and complaining. People, the enemy is out THERE, not your fellow countrymen.

Posted by: nikko at November 21, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #94556

When one Marine officer sends a message to another retired officer that a unilateral withdrawal at this stage would be a cowardly act, I don’t hear a charge of “cowardice.” I hear one officer chiding another that withdrawing at this stage would not be in the tradition of the Marine Corps. How could anybody interpret this as accusing Rep. Murtha of being a coward. Mr. Murtha is not on the field of combat any more. By all accounts he served his country bravely during Vietnam. He is not charged with falsifying his record, so Kerry’s comments were mystifying, at best. One could argue that reading that letter on the floor of the Congress was in very poor judgement, but the Democrats’ hysterical response was rather amusing.

Posted by: Larry at November 21, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #94559

Stephen

I have no trouble with what McClellan said. It is hardly hate speech. It is okay to disagree. He didn’t call anyone any names. Unless you believe being associated with Micheal Moore and liberal Democrats is a slur.

BTW - google Bush + Hate. You will find a lot of interesting things.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #94560

Oh for pity’s sake Jack — you’ve blown nothing but a spit-bubble with this post. Bush uses many surrogates to express his hatred for everyone on the left. That’s nothing new, and while outrageous, it’s happened so many times, we’re actually quite used to it.
Why not talk about some of the other things he said during that press conference? Specifically:

And our strategy is proceeding. There’s a political strategy, and as I said the other day, I said a couple of times, the progress in Iraq is amazing when you think — the political progress. I mean, they’ve gone from tyranny to the election of a transitional national government, to the ratification of a constitution. And they’re about to have elections again. And all this took place in two-and-a-half years. When you compare it to our own history, our road was quite bumpy getting to a constitution. And so the progress is strong.

The other progress that’s being made is the training of the Iraqi forces. And more and more of the forces are more capable of taking the fight to the enemy. And as that happens, and as our commanders on the ground inform me that Iraq’s security can be maintained by Iraqi troops, we will adjust accordingly.

These comments remind me of how half a year ago Dick claimed that the insurgency was in it’s last throes. IMO this whole administration lives in it’s own little fantasy world. The reality of what’s happening in Iraq is too harsh, therefore, it’s something they will never, ever acknowledge. I find this extremely frightening.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 21, 2005 2:03 PM
Comment #94561

Jayjay wrote:
Murtha and other Dems rejected the Republican bill because it was a “cut and run” bill, not resembling Murtha’s proposal in any way, shape, or form. Murtha and his supporters never called for a “cut and run” strategy.
________________________

Well, here’s what Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt said and the response the dems gave her.

“The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
“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,” Schmidt said.

Democrats booed and shouted her down - causing the House to come to a standstill.”
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003927.html


Now, it’s certainly not Repubs that opposed her or were “spreading lies”. So much for the Dem party “supporting the troops and their mission”…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 2:06 PM
Comment #94562
Jayjay, check this out:

rahdigly,

Thanks for your reference to your neo-con website source. Stop relying on biased sources and go straight to the source. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

nikko,

Follow the same link above.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #94563

“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,” Schmidt said.

rahdigly,

This proves my point exactly. Why would a marine in Iraq think that Murtha called for a “cut and run” strategy, when he didn’t. Spreading the lie, that’s why.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 2:19 PM
Comment #94565

Jack:

I will only take responsibility for my own posts and ideas.

You are absolutely right that there are slurs on both sides.

There is a difference though, between calling the President names, and calling folks traiters and saying they “aid and abet” the enemy. Big difference in my book.

Both sides are doing so much posturing it is mind-boggling. The difference is in who is actually in control of policy and decisions. Lets keep that in mind.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 2:23 PM
Comment #94568
Now, it’s certainly not Repubs that opposed her or were “spreading lies”. So much for the Dem party “supporting the troops and their mission”…

I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt’s comments were based on the lie that Murtha called for a “cut and run” strategy. Then based on these lies she called Murtha a coward. The outburst from the dems was more than appropriate. Keep in mind it was repub. Duncan Hunter that called for a “cut and run” strategy, not Murtha.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #94572

rahdigly,

“You can support the troops but not the president.”
—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 21, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #94573

Scuse me while I cry about those mean Christian Republicans - cause ya know minorities like gays etc do so well in Non Christian countries - like China and Afghanistan

Update Afghanistan - scuse me while I tune into a soccer field beheading

Update China scuse me while we watch some gays being tortured

etc etc.
Oh you evil hate mongering Republican Conservative Christians!!

Posted by: MIKE at November 21, 2005 2:40 PM
Comment #94575

Hi Jack,

It’s those who speak for Bush who have been saying hateful things about Democrats. Cheney tried to paint us as traitors. Cheney’s freinds on the radio (Limbaugh and Hannity) refer to Democrats as communists.

There are a lot of lying right wing weasels these days and several are close to Bush.

Do you support hate-filled lying weasels like Cheney?

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #94577
YEs!! PLease get your troops out 0f Iraq - it would help us a lot

Hillary in 08!!

Osama Bin Laden
Posted by: O. Sama B. Laden at November 21, 2005 02:44 PM

Nice. Typical republican response. When you have nothing constructive start Dem. bashing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #94579

correction:

Nice. Typical Republican response. When you have nothing, start Democrat bashing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 2:53 PM
Comment #94581

Jayjay wrote:
The outburst from the dems was more than appropriate. Keep in mind it was repub. Duncan Hunter that called for a “cut and run” strategy, not Murtha.
___________________

If they didn’t believe in it, then why did they boo? I mean, if you accused me of something when I didn’t do it, why would I chime in and respond as if I did do it?! You’re just not making sense on that one. The dems are for pulling out and cutting and running and they certainly proved that Friday night with the boos. They don’t care what a military personnel said, they just booed the hell out of that kind of rhetoric.

By the way, when you said “Stop relying on biased sources and go straight to the source.”, you followed up with the Dem’s website. It was informative and (technically) you’re right he didn’t say “cut and run”. However, many of our generals in Iraq have said that if we set a timetable or immediate withdrawl that would be a defeat and embolden the terrorists. Now, we all know that’s true; it’s not “Republican lies”.

So, by taking Murtha’s advice, it would do the same damage as cutting and running. The Repubs called Murtha and the dems out and the dems got caught bigtime! The dems just pointed to Murtha and tried to have him explain it. Listen, there are big changes in the 2 and a half years we’ve been there; especially this year with 2 elections and a drafting of the constitution. Funny how the “War hawk” Murtha didn’t mention that.

One more thing, come up with something other than “that’s a typical republican response” when combatting us. Come on dude, we could easily (EASILY!) say that about you and the “left-wing soundbytes”. So, let’s just debate without the same old bias banter.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 2:59 PM
Comment #94582

Hi OBL,

When you tell these filthy lies about Democrats you are showing that you’re extremely confused…..You’re confusing Democrats with your mother.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #94583

JayJay:

Murtha said, “I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.”

Its clear that “redeploy” in this context is similar to withdrawal. Note his following sentences: “All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation.”

The only way for Iraq to be free from what Murtha calls ‘occupation’ is for the US to withdraw. And he sets a very fast timetable for his redeployment.

He then calls for the Marines to have an ‘over-the-horizon’ presence, meaning NOT in country, but in the region. While this is not an abandonment, it certainly is a withdrawal from Iraq.

From what I’ve read, I don’t see Murtha as a coward, a traitor or even a bad guy. But I do see his ideas for policy as being very very flawed.

I’ve used only his words, taken from your link, to show the true meaning of his statement. Perhaps you can show me how his idea does NOT equate to a withdrawal. Thanks

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #94587

Herman Goering was a Nazi. His comments about denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism show remarkable foresight of the comments made about Murtha the other day by the Republican caucus. “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” Mr. Murtha is a patriot and a war hero. But in much the same way as the Republicans smeared John Kerry and his exemplary war record, they are now attacking Murtha as a traitor and a coward. I’ve heard the word ‘reprehensible’ uttered by Dick Cheney a lot recently. How hypocritical.

Posted by: Jon at November 21, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #94589

Bush actually started backing off when the GOP realized their slimy Swiftboating of Murtha wasn’t working anymore. Remember Bush saying how irresponsible anyone is for questioning the war? Bush, Cheney and the entire GOP went on attack mode which exploded in their faces when the Dems fought back. So now they are retreating.

Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #94590

If they didn’t believe in it, then why did they boo? I mean, if you accused me of something when I didn’t do it, why would I chime in and respond as if I did do it?! You’re just not making sense on that one.

Your not making sense to me on that one. How do you equate booing with “responding as if I did do it”?

They don’t care what a military personnel said, they just booed the hell out of that kind of rhetoric.

They do care what the military personnel said. However, it is apparent that Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt didn’t care what miliitary personnel said as long as it furthered her agenda. Otherwise, why would she perpetuate this lie? Why didn’t she inform the Marine colonel what Murtha actually said? Dems were not booing the Marine colonel, they were booing Jean and her perpetuation of a lie.

The “dems website” was Murtha’s, the source. Duh.

Again, Murtha never calls for a timetable. He calls for a change in course that would speed up the end of occupation. As Stephen pointed out:

Murtha’s version is a withdrawal when it’s practicable (capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished). Big difference, don’t you say? We could be there indefinitely, depending on how you define practicable.

This is neither a call for withdrawal nor a call for a timetable.

I find it interesting that you consider OBL’s comments “debate without the same old bias banter.” I find it interesting that you call it debate, period.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #94591

Joebagodonuts:

“And he sets a very fast timetable for his redeployment.”

I believe Murtha called for “as soon as practicable”, leaving it up to others to set the timetable.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #94592

Just to remind everyone of the actual words used:

“STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. 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. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.”

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 3:37 PM
Comment #94594

btw… this is the first time Jack actually quoted his Fearless Leader. Here are a few more Bushisms:

“These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will,”

Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #94596

Womanmarine and JayJay:

Here are Murtha’s own words, again from the website that Jay Jay provided, which links to Murtha’s website:

“I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.”

I’m sorry, but that seems like a pretty strong indication of a time frame to me. How else would you read it?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #94598

Sounds like the Press Secretary was right on with his comments on Murtha!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 3:58 PM
Comment #94601

Joebagodonuts:

“must be put on notice” means just that. And that isn’t the only thing he said, as you well know.

It allows the Iraqis time to be prepared by knowing what is going to happen.

It’s not a bad strategy, actually. Let them know that we are available to help, but that they need to stand up and take over their own country.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 4:07 PM
Comment #94602

One more thought.

How much better it would be for us to deploy and be available and have the Iraqi government REQUEST our help.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 4:09 PM
Comment #94607

womanmarine:

Its not like you to parse words to such a degree to find something that you like. Murtha clearly says that before the mid-December elections, we need to tell the Iraqis that we intend to “immediately redeploy”.

You can say that’s a good thing, or you can think it a bad thing. But you cannot accurately say he is “leaving it up to others to set the timetable.”

We do need the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take over control. And that must be done as they can do so, but not before. I’m in favor of bringing our boys and girls home, but not prematurely. And I think its premature now.

But don’t kid yourself about Murtha’s comments. He is very clear in what he says. If you want to parse his words to find a different meaning, have at it. It won’t change what he said.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #94608

Womanmarine

Just for the record, I have always found your comments moderate and respectful.

Now to the comment on your comment

The spokesman used the strong words for how he characterized the proposal. The Administration believes that pulling out of Iraq prematurely would be surrendering to the terrorists and the retreating from Iraq is just that. It is not a hateful thing to say what you think about a course of action.

Aldous
“These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will”

Again, I fail to see how this is hateful. As Americans we have the right to question whatever we want, but others have the right to characterize it and to question us.

Do such attacks hurt? Put the shoe on the other foot. What if many prominent people in Zarqawi’s organization were saying publicly that it wasn’t worth it for them to stay in Iraq and they were saying that he was a liar and a fool for having gotten involved in the first place? Would that make you feel more or less inclined to predict a victory?

Just so everybody knows, your quotation was not related to Murtha’s comments, so nobody has to write and tell me.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #94611

Joebagodonuts:

But I love to parse words!! So do the rest of you, that’s what this discussion is all about, after all. Intend is another good word. It might be helpful to read the actual bill he put forward.

:)

Jack:

Thanks. I guess I have to ask what you consider hateful? You seem to be defining it for everyone.

I think it’s hateful to say or even imply thay anyone is a traitor (see, I can spell it correctly), or in any way in support of or aiding the enemy because they disagree with the President’s policy/war/etc. Those to me are very hateful words.

What rhetoric on either side have you found hateful?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 21, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #94615

Womanmarine

I think it is hateful to call someone a traitor, unless he really is one.

It is hateful to call people nasty names or say that they are killers, perverts or idiots. If I call Zarqawi that, for example, it is because it is true and I also hate him.

It is not hateful to question what people say or do. I believe that some thing some people do in fact do harm the U.S. It is my opinion and I should state it. I don’t hate Michael Moore and I think he has the right to say what he wants, but I also recognize that his works might be harmful to us overseas. I don’t hate Howard Dean but I see that his comments are not helpful. I could say that same about many conservatives.

So, I don’t think that what the spokesman said was hateful. If he had called someone a chimp or an idiot, it probably would have been.

There is no fast definition for this, since a lot depends on intent and the context. Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs were traitors. That is a factual statement that requires no hate on the part of the speaker. But you know that I would get in trouble in some circles over the Rosenbergs. (as far as I know Benedict Arnold has no constituency.)

When Howard Dean says he hates Republicans, however, the context and intent is supplied by the statement itself.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 5:05 PM
Comment #94616

womanmarine:

I’ve read his words directly from his website. Is there anything more I need to know in order to understand what Murtha is saying besides reading his own words in context and totality?

By the way, good people can offer bad solutions to problems. It is not hateful to suggest that someone’s idea of a solution is a bad one, even to the point of showing how it ends up unintentionally aiding the enemy. What is hateful is to assign intent to someone’s opinion.

It is fully possible to say that a withdrawal of troops prematurely would result in giving the enemy support. To suggest that is someone’s intent would be wrong.

That’s the difference between what you call hate speech and how I see it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 5:06 PM
Comment #94619

There is a big difference between Murtha’s idea of redeployment and withdrawal. The Republican congress, calling it “cut and run”, sees it as defeat, as surrendering. That is not the context that Murtha uses the word “redeployment”.

The right charges that the left has no ideas. But, the truth is is that there is no exit strategy for Iraq, and the right doesn’t want us to focus on that. Eventually, I hope and I hope you would agree we will leave Iraq and turn the country back over to the Iraqis.

How do we do that? See Murtha’s plan. How do we not do that? See Duncan Hunter’s plan.

I guess the bigger question is when do we do that?

Murtha and others believe that should start to happen after the December elections. (Murtha states that Iraq should be “put on notice” prior to the elections) This is not a “cut and run” strategy this is an exit strategy. He is not suggesting that we abandon Iraq, but that we turn the country back over to the Iraqis and make them responsible for their own government and safety, under the protection of Coalition forces.

Militarily, what else do we need to accomplish? Ending the insurgency? That won’t happen until the Iraqis take control of their own country.

The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.

We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.


Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 5:22 PM
Comment #94620


This is why the administration is brilliant in a particular way. The target is attacked directly and ruthlessly by those close to or involved with the president and he then comes out and praises the target so that the negative message is out there and is heard, yet Bush can say that he had “nothing” to do with it. They did it to McCain during the primaries in ‘00 by having a veteran speak against him at a Bush rally, to Kerry in ‘04 by the swiftboat veterans, and they’re doing it to Sen. Murtha. I think one has to be rather naive in thinking that this is not orchestrated (I place my bets on Cheney and/or Rove). Bush and other may say that he doesn’t control what other people around him say. Well, he definitely should, it’s part of being the boss.

Posted by: catdaddy and dr. squeeky at November 21, 2005 5:38 PM
Comment #94622

Being Bush means never having to say your sorry. One thing riches buy is respectability. You can hire other people to do your sliming for you.

Posted by: Buce at November 21, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #94625

Its the same thing that happened during the presidential campaign. When President Bush pointed out some of the times John Kerry contradicted himself on issues or brought up Kerry’s voting record in congress, liberals called it unfair personal attacks. When conservatives moveon.com called Bush “a slave master” and “worse then Hitler” and some NAACP leaders called the president “BushHitler” liberals said the president should stop complaining about “legitimate policy questions”.

Posted by: kelly at November 21, 2005 6:03 PM
Comment #94631

Jack,

The Administration believes that pulling out of Iraq prematurely would be surrendering to the terrorists
So would you agree that Reagan’s decision to withdraw all Marines from Lebanon in 1983 following the bombing of the Marine barracks was ALSO “surrendering to the terrorists”?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 21, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #94633

Elliot

The pull out of our Marines from Lebanon and the debacle in Somalia were things that convinced Osama bin Laden and his ilk that they could stand up to the U.S. with impunity. It was a mistake. But it was a much smaller commmitment. If a little surrender like that can cause us so much grief, imagine what a big one could do.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 7:14 PM
Comment #94636

‘Surrender’ is not the word you want. It’s being used by Republicans for its emotional content. Surrender means putting oneself under the control of another. For example, the The Army of Virginia surrendered on April 9, 1865.
Ironically, about Lebanon, Reagan said “We will never surrender.” The US immediately did withdraw, and three days later invaded Grenada. Believe me, I’m no fan of Reagan; but the withdrawal from Lebanon did not involve delivering the US into the control of another. Defeat? Manybe. A loss? Maybe? Surrender? No.

By the way, ‘withdrawal’ can involve defeat, but not necessarily. It can be a matter of choice, of changing the field of battle to one more advantageous.

The misuse of the term ‘surrender’ is putting the Republicans in an impossible position. If withdrawal = surrender, the troubles will be endless.

Posted by: phx8 at November 21, 2005 7:27 PM
Comment #94637

Phx8

Good point.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 7:32 PM
Comment #94643

JJ said:
“They do care what the military personnel said. However, it is apparent that Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt didn’t care what miliitary personnel said as long as it furthered her agenda. Otherwise, why would she perpetuate this lie? Why didn’t she inform the Marine colonel what Murtha actually said? Dems were not booing the Marine colonel, they were booing Jean and her perpetuation of a lie.”
_______________________________

Congresswoman Schmidt did care what the military personnel said that’s why she recited him. If the dems (really) did care they wouldn’t of booed. However, when they did boo, they just showed the American people what we already knew and that is the dems don’t have a plan to fight the war on terror and they are not to be trusted with our country’s National Security. Period.

And, if Bush and the Repubs are lying about this, then why would Hillary come out today and say that “a pull out would be a mistake”? That’s the same thing the president has been saying for years; all of sudden now Hillary goes on record agreeing with the Prez? Hmmm.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 7:50 PM
Comment #94648

Elliot

The pull out of our Marines from Lebanon and the debacle in Somalia were things that convinced Osama bin Laden and his ilk that they could stand up to the U.S. with impunity. It was a mistake. But it was a much smaller commmitment. If a little surrender like that can cause us so much grief, imagine what a big one could do.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 07:14 PM

You forgot to mentinon cutting and running in Vietnam, but your point is correct. Terrorist leaders are still using these as motivation.
Basically “just keep fighting a little longer, the Americans will quit they always do”(obviously not a direct quote)

Posted by: kelly at November 21, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #94649

rahdigly,

“Congresswoman Schmidt did care what the military personnel said that’s why she recited him. If the dems (really) did care they wouldn’t of booed.”

She called an honored member of Congress a coward. It doesn’t matter that she says it was a message from one of constituents, it was wrong and she said it anyway.

Hell, I’m not a Democrat and I booed too.

Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 8:15 PM
Comment #94655

rahdigly,

If that is what you believe, fine. If a Democrat had quoted a service member as calling the President a coward, how do thing the repubs would have reacted? Applause?

I was unaware that Hillary was ever on the record as supporting a pull out. Most Dems, including Hillary, Murtha, and Biden, do not support a pull out. They support a change in direction. The point is , is that we are at a crossroads. It’s time to take the next step and forget about Bush’s “stay the course” strategy. That type of thinking will never bring an end to this conflict.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 8:37 PM
Comment #94656

Kelly,
They kept fighting the USSR in Afghanistan 1980-89. The Soviets lacked a free media & a loyal opposition party; lacking these, the USSR had no critical, self-correcting mechanism to address its mistake. Broke and demoralized, the USSR broke up soon after its loss in Afghanistan. It prosecuted that war with unbelievable ferocity, no quarter given and none asked. The Afghans- some of the same people we fight today- never assumed the Soviets would ‘cut and run.’ The Mujahideen determined to kill them as long as there were Russians to kill. The USSR attempt to negotiate withdrawal was horrifying for the Soviets. The Mujahideen showed little interest in negotiating despite US pressure. The Afghan fighters made it clear, they would stop killing Russians when there were no more Russians in Afghanistan to kill.

The moral of the story? Don’t go around invading other countries. If it is absolutely necessary, be the good guys on the high moral ground, bring in the international community as much as possible, and leave as soon as practical.

Posted by: phx8 at November 21, 2005 8:38 PM
Comment #94661

JJ wrote:
They support a change in direction. The point is , is that we are at a crossroads. It’s time to take the next step and forget about Bush’s “stay the course” strategy. That type of thinking will never bring an end to this conflict.
_______________________________

Interesting. So what is that next step? How do we go about bringing an end to this conflict?” Hmmm?!

The only reason we are at a “crossroad” is b/c the majority of dems will not get on board with this mission in Iraq; they’re doing the same thing they did in Vietnam. Iraq is not a Vietnam; although, the dems will have you believe that it is. How many times does Ted Kennedy have to call this war a “qagmire”? Funny how he never uses that term for the terrorists.

And I say that b/c it is clear that the terrorists are (indeed) in a quagmire; they can’t get control of Iraq, they’re losing the battles against the US forces and (now) the Iraqi forces, they keep blowing up their own people (muslims) and the muslims are getting tired of it; and they can’t stop the elections (and the drafting of the constitution) that have happened and will continue to happen in Iraq. And yet, we continually hear things like “qagmire”, “we can’t win”, “crossroads”, etc.

So, you can believe that if you want. I for one will not believe that, ever! And I’m not drinking the “kool aid” nor am I reciting “right-wing” talking points. I and the military truly believe we have won this War and it’s a matter of time until it is palpable to all the nay sayers.

You’ll see, we will Win!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #94665
The only reason we are at a “crossroad” is b/c the majority of dems will not get on board with this mission in Iraq; they’re doing the same thing they did in Vietnam.

rahdigly

I love it! Put all the blame on the democrats. Anything that goes wrong, just blame the dems. Funny, the Republican’s control both wings of congress and the White House. But blame it on the Dems. Ok, whatever.

I have never said that we will not win the war. In fact I think we have made tremendous strides to that end, and yes we will win. I also believe their are things we could be doing to accelerate that win. Like giving Iraqi’s more control over their defense. If you do not believe that a change in course is needed, then you have been severely Bushwashed. “stay the course” “stay the course” “stay the course” “stay the course”…

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 9:10 PM
Comment #94666
The only reason we are at a “crossroad” is b/c the majority of dems will not get on board with this mission in Iraq;

No, rahdigly. The only reason we are at a crossroads is because President Bush and the Republicans refuse to totally support victory in Iraq.

The President and Republicans in Congress refuse to deploy the number of troops and civil affairs officers necessary to deny al Qaeda the use of Iraq as a base and a training ground.

Republicans will eventually withdraw the majority of troops from Iraq leaving poorly trained Iraqis to deal (or not) with al Qaeda forces operating there.

President Bush lost Iraq politically by lacking the strength of will to privatize their socialist economy and by accepting — indeed, praising — their piece of crap, Sunni-repressing, disunifying, theocratic constitution.

Now President Bush is losing Iraq militarily by not providing the number of troops necessary for victory.

In the absence of total commitment to victory by President Bush, Congressman Murtha offered the same plan Republicans will propose before the end of next year.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 9:26 PM
Comment #94667

Rah,
Our enemy in Iraq is not a monolithic group. Not everyone who fights us is a terrorist.

I think you’re right; in a sense, Iraq is a quagmire for the terrorists. The foreign jihadists and Al Qaida in Iraq represent a small percentage of the opposition (I hope), but their suicide bombings are disproportionately effective. Al Qaida in Iraq targets Shias with these attacks.

The other components of the enemy consist of Baathists- secular Sunnis who once supported Saddam; and nationalist Sunni insurgents. These groups cause the most US military casualties. They are not terrorists. They attack US military targets, and their goal is US withdrawal.

Both the terrorists and the Baathists/insurgents share the goal of US withdrawal. The Baathists/insurgents represent a large portion of the Iraqi Sunni population. These are the people who will take over when the US withdraws. These are the groups we should be negotiating with, co-opting with money, co-opting with offers of power, and so on.

Will we win? Define the terms of victory. If winning means deposing Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqis an opportunity to establish democracy, at which point we’ll leave, then yes, we will win.

If winning means never withdrawing, never leaving, we will lose.

Posted by: phx8 at November 21, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #94668
Interesting. So what is that next step? How do we go about bringing an end to this conflict?” Hmmm?!

rahdigly,

By having thoughtful debate on all ideas brought forth, no matter if from the right or the left. Certainly, not by acting like a bunch of kindergarteners on the playground.

The Republicans always complain that the Dems have no ideas, all they do is bitch and complain. Well maybe because when an idea is brought forward the Republicans trash it, twist it and try to use it against the Dems, rather than acting like adults and debate it.

The Republican controlled congress should have opened debate on Murtha’s ideas. Instead, they acted like a bunch of bullies, calling him names and introducing phony legislation. This from the party that is in control of our country. Very, very scary!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #94671

JJ,

Why are you getting so defensive about me saying the “majority of dems not getting on board with this mission in Iraq”? The dems were on board in Afghanistan and in Iraq originally; however, look at this past year, all the success in Iraq (elections, constitution, building up of Iraqi forces) and the majority of the Dems are (still) not supporting our troop’s mission and they don’t sound like we can win this! That’s my point.

And, by the way, if you believe in “giving Iraqi’s more control over their defense.”, well so does the President and the US for that matter. That’s what we are doing over in Iraq by “staying the course”, we’re building up the Iraqi forces (over 200,000) and trying to have them fight without us. It just takes time to do this and we are committed to this and we will get it done. Some people just don’t have the stomach for this, that’s all. Not only that, but some people are so hateful of Bush that they actually want us to lose just to rub it in Bush’s face. They also think that America created terrorism and therefore we shouldn’t win. Now, don’t get defensive, I’m not talking about you. However, there are people like that and they are mostly on the left and I think it’s disgusting!

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton; I thought he was a mediocre President and, quite frankly, the worst Commander in Chief we’ve ever had. Now, with that said, I never (ever!) wanted him to fail at the country’s expense; I never wanted to see our troops fail or their mission just to say “Clinton’s terrible and incompetent as a leader”, and I certainly never used the term “chicken hawk” when he was President; even though that moniker could apply (he’s a draft dodger). The reason I didn’t say that when he was President is b/c it’s wrong to do that; he was elected and reelected so I have to respect the title even though I didn’t respect him.

So, JJ, you’ll be happy to know that the Pres is doing what you said he’s “giving Iraqi’s more control over their defense.”; however, he’s doing it by “staying the course”.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 9:42 PM
Comment #94676

Rah,
Make up your mind. Either we have won or we will win, but NOT both in the same post.

“I and the military truly believe we have won this War and it’s a matter of time until it is palpable to all the nay sayers.

You’ll see, we will Win!!!”

To the Dems and Reps, my question is, how do we know that we can trust any of what is now coming out of Washingtion? Once tainted with the brush of distrust, it will take a LONG time before I will ever believe any coming from the our current administration.

I’ve already been mislead enough so far. I thought we were looking for terriorists - well, it’s obivous we’re not. I heard Mr. Bush say he no longer cares about Osama Bin Laden, because he’s not important anymore. (???????)

Granted that was some time ago, but I saw his mouth move and words come out over the tv. I was also under the impression, that we were there to remove Saddam, and strenghtren the IRAQI troops.

As to Saddam - well we removed him rather handily.

From what I heard on Fox news yesterday, over 200,000 Iraqis are perpared to handle the problems in their country. Looks like we’ve done that too.

They have already had elections, and in Dec. there should be no reason for us to remain in Iraq.

So what is the problem? We move out just as Mr. Bush stated in the beginning of this horrendous war. We have accompolished all the goals he set out for. Why the confusion NOW?

Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at November 21, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #94677

Jack,

I have to hand it to you and the President. What you quoted is certainly not hate speech. But I find it interesting that in order to try and solidify this argument you’ve been trying to make for a couple of weeks now, you are now individually highlighting quotes from the President that take the high road. Seems like there should be so many of those, that you could never catalog them all, eh Jack?

But “catdaddy” was spot on when he talked about the disingenous nature of Bush and Cheney’s high road. The smack talk attacks against Murtha have Rove’s signature all over them. But the only people stupid enough to buy into an attack on such a respected member of Congress were McClellan and a rookie Congresswoman who’s been on the job for about a day and a half. When the backlash came, she didn’t know what hit her, and it certainly illustrates that Rove is off his game.

Additionally, in Cheney’s speech today that praised Murtha, he had the gall to talk about how much he and the administration prize the art of debate. In fact, he said he enjoys debate so much it is one of the reasons he has stayed in politics. This nonsense is so laughable I’m surprised even a grump like Cheney could keep a straight face. Say what you want about this adminstration’s rationale for their policies in Iraq and elsewhere, but it can’t be denied that this is one of the most secretive, tight-knit administrations in the history of the country. And the one thing that is neither welcomed, nor even tolerated, is debate, dissent, or being “off message”.

Again, we’re seeing a desperate administration scraping the bottom of the political barrel, and it doesn’t help that the master orchestrator is distracted beyond effectiveness.

And finally, as a side note, Jack you like to say that Rove is always pulling one over on the Democrats. And while that may seem accurate, it really isn’t the case. Rove’s job, and what he is quite good at, is not in deceiving Democrats, but deceiving Republicans. Allowing them to swallow huge amounts of debt, losses of liberty, and massive spending increases, while covering up incompetence of historic proportions is no small task. But as long as there are those who will buy into and parrot anything with even the slightest plausibility, his job is accomplished.

Posted by: Burt at November 21, 2005 10:10 PM
Comment #94680
I heard Mr. Bush say he no longer cares about Osama Bin Laden, because he’s not important anymore. (???????)

Granted that was some time ago, but I saw his mouth move and words come out over the tv.

Linda,

I am glad you brought this up. I saw this also. From the presidential debates. John Kerry asked Mr. Bush about his comments and Mr. Bush claimed to never had said this. However, after the debates, NBC had the footage and indeed he did say it. This was about the time that I lost all respect for this President.

The answer to your question about trust is simple, you can’t. All incumbants need to be voted out. It will never happen, but in order to take the country back, that is exactly what will need to happen. The only way this may happen is if we level the campaign finance field.

As far as Iraq, I think you are right, and that is the point I have been trying to make. We have done the job we went there to do. Elections have been held, Iraqi forces have been trained, Saddam has been removed, the Constitution has been approved. Murtha’s plan is the next logical step.

I hate to say this, but based on past actions of this administration, I think Murtha’s plan may have made it more difficult for the administration to move forward. They wouldn’t want Murtha to get the credit.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 10:26 PM
Comment #94682

Linda wrote:
Make up your mind. Either we have won or we will win, but NOT both in the same post.
___________________________

I have made up my mind; we are winning and will win this war! The “you” in “You will see” is for the “nay sayers”. Just reread my post again and it is very clear.

As far as your comment “We have accompolished all the goals he set out for.”, I’ll use a “sports” analogy for you. We’ve accomplished the goals that we set out for; however, the game is not over. It’s in the second half now. We completed half of it, we can’t coast the second half, we have to “stay the course” and make sure the Iraqis can defend themselves. And we will; even despite the nay sayers.

And, Linda, if you want to keep reciting Bush saying “he no longer cares about Osama Bin Laden, because he is not important anymore.”, you go right ahead. We all know he said that b/c he cut off OBL’s “cotzies”; he nuttered OBL and Al Qaeda. He took out 3/4 of Al Qaeda and broke up his terrorist camps and financing. He made OBL useless and ineffective; how else can you explain not having a terrorist attack in this country for over four years when our border is wide open?! And, we’re after all the terrorists, not just OBL. Why people think that if we had OBL that the war will be over I have no idea. This is a long-term war.

So, if you feel “mislead” by this administration then that’s how you feel. I’m just curious if you felt “mislead” by the Clinton administration in 1998? There’s a list of quotes from Bill Clinton, his administration and fellow Democrats; they sounded like the repubs and the Bush administration in 2003. Check it out:


“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” Bill Clinton February 17, 1998.

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” Madeleine Albright February 1, 1998.


“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.” Sandy Berger February 18, 1998.

“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.” Dick Durbin September 30, 1999.

That’s enough for now, I’ve covered this before, you’ll have to look it up yourself and you’ll see the same thing. If you’re honest with yourself, you can easily feel “mislead” by the Clinton Admin, as well.


Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 10:33 PM
Comment #94688

rahdigly,

I hope your right. Keep in mind it took several years of planning before the 9/11 attacks.

If Bush would have taken care of OBL, he would have more credibility today. OBL attacked America not Saddam. Yet we have allowed OBL to remain at large and spent billions removing Saddam.

I don’t believe that people would think the war on terror would end if OBL were captured, but they would feel that justice had been served on our attacker. I don’t know about you, but Bush’s arrogance of dismissing OBL (whether crippled or not) and going after Saddam instead, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 21, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #94693

JayJay,

“I don’t know about you, but Bush’s arrogance of dismissing OBL (whether crippled or not) and going after Saddam instead, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.”

Yeah, but don’t mistake Bush’s balls for arrogance.

Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #94696

JJ wrote:
“it took several years of planning before the 9/11 attacks…If Bush would have taken care of OBL, he would have more credibility today.”
________________________________

Say what???!!!! It took several “years” of planning and Bush was in office for 7 1/2 “months” (MONTHS!). You do the math. If anybody were to lose their credibility it’s Clinton not Bush. Clinton was the one that “had OBL on a silver platter” and yet no OBL.

“According to Bill Clinton on February 15, 2002, Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration in 1996. However, “At the time, 1996, [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.” http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=886


So, since OBL had been attacking us for 7 1/2 years (YEARS!!) during the Clinton administration, why do you blame Bush and not Clinton?! Why couldn’t Clinton capture OBL? Hmmmm!


Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 11:24 PM
Comment #94709

If you’re honest with yourself, you can easily feel “mislead” by the Clinton Admin, as well.

The problem with this is that some of the intellegance available to Clinton at the time of his statements and used by Bush to justify the war had been debunked after Clinton left office and prior to the invasion. Furthermore, Bush continued to mislead even after the invasion proved the threats were overstated.

“I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had and they looked at exactly what I looked at.” Prior to the vote on the Iraqi resolution in October 2002, the Bush administration told Senators that Iraq could deliver biological and chemical weapons to the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles. Many House members were only convinced to support the war after the administration “showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents”

Iraqi unmanned aircraft lack the range to reach the US. The Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center sharply disputed the notion of Iraqi UAVs to the White House, but was ignored. Even the US Air Force disputed the notion that Iraq’s UAV’s were being designed as attack weapons.

Bush claimed that the “evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group of his ‘nuclear mujahedeen,’ his nuclear holy warriors.”

In October 2002 Bush also stated, “[Iraq] is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

in October 2002, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department told the White House that its WMD conclusions were inaccurate, reporting that “the activities we have detected do not …add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing … an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” This conclusion was reiterated to Secretary Powell before his presentation to the UN Security Council.

In September 2002, Bush claimed an International Atomic Energy Agency report stated that Iraq was “six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon.”

No such report exists. A 1998 report concluded that there “are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.”

In a CIA January 2002 review of WMD proliferation warned of a threat from North Korea, but not Iraq.

President Bush and Secretary Powell repeatedly claimed they had evidence that Iraq attempted to buy 500 tons of uranium oxide from Niger, which can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors.

When the documentation supporting this claim was provided to the IAEA, they quickly determined that the documents were obvious forgeries as its lack of authenticity was “transparently obvious.”

Since the war, it has been discovered that, beginning as early as March 2002, the CIA repeatedly told the White House that this claim was dubious

In December 2003, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board concluded that the White House’s made the questionable claim “because of its desperation to show that [Iraq] had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.”

The Bush administration claims that the existence of the forgery was not revealed to the White House or senior administration officials.

Vice President Cheney requested that Joseph Wilson, a senior US ambassador who President Bush I praised as a “truly inspiring diplomat”, investigate this claim.

In February 2002 he reported that the documents were forgeries to the State Department and the CIA – which was then forwarded to the Vice President’s office and the National Security Council. Ambassador Wilson stated “they knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.”

A senior NSC official explained “the fact that Cheney’s office had originally asked about the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results.”

On November 7, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein” is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda… . A true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda”

The 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The Administration used the word imminent and similar words to convey an impression of an imminent and grave threat.

On the first anniversary of the war, Secretary Rumsfeld told Face the Nation, “You and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase ‘immediate threat’. I didn’t … It’s become folklore that that’s what happened.”

In Rumsfeld’s September 19, 2002 testimony to Congress that “no terrorist state poses a greater or immediate threat to the security of our people” than Iraq and that “some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent but would not be so certain.”

“If we failed to act in Iraq, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.” (2004 State of the Union)

The CIA’s Duelfer’s Report had already dismissed this notion.

“The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”-Bush

David Kay reported that there is no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear or biological weapons program and Iraq did not have an “ongoing centrally controlled chemical weapons program.”

“And when David Kay goes in and says we haven’t found stockpiles yet, and there’s theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war… They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out.”

Kay didn’t attribute the absences of stockpiles to their destruction or transportation to another country, Kay found that they were never produced and hadn’t been produced since 1991.

The Bush administration repeatedly justified a war with Iraq based on its known possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration’s chief Weapons Inspector, David Kay, concluded after 10-months of investigation that “I don’t think WMDs existed.”

In October 2002, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department told the White House that its WMD conclusions were inaccurate, reporting that “the activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

In February 2003, both the weapons inspectors and the IAEA told the White House that there was “no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities” and “they had not found any weapons of mass destruction.”

etc., etc., etc…

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 12:33 AM
Comment #94711
Say what???!!!! It took several “years” of planning and Bush was in office for 7 1/2 “months” (MONTHS!). You do the math. If anybody were to lose their credibility it’s Clinton not Bush. Clinton was the one that “had OBL on a silver platter” and yet no OBL…So, since OBL had been attacking us for 7 1/2 years (YEARS!!) during the Clinton administration, why do you blame Bush and not Clinton?! Why couldn’t Clinton capture OBL? Hmmmm!

rahdigly,

Did you attend the Rove school of manipulation? You did exactly what the Repubs in congress did to Murtha. You took my words out of context and twisted them. Rove would be proud.

My point was that taking comfort in about 4 years with no terror attacks might not be too smart.(End of thought)

(Now, this is a new paragraph, new thought, unrelated to the previous statement.) Bush lost credibility with me, when he went after Saddam and shrugged off OBL, then lied about saying he never did that. OBL attacked America after Clinton. Yet, he still is at large, almost 6 years after Bush took office.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 12:48 AM
Comment #94713

There are some very strong comments here, some knowledge and some ignorance. I see that things never change, no matter where I go the left is always critisizing our president. No matter what he does or says, have they not learned anything in the past 13 years or so. Much of what is being talked about now has been the topic since clinton took his turn in office. Yet somehow it is different coming from the right. For the left’s talks it was a real victory, but the rights talk it is either lies or damage control. The democratic party is slowly but surely killing it’s credibility in the USA and the world. I don’t always agree with mr. Bush and if I don’t I have no problem saying so, but I don’t call him names or a liar. I don’t take excerpts of his speeches and bash or ridicule him. He has always been an honorable and curtious man. I know some who read this will unfortuniately see it as a weakness on my part, but I am not weak just meek.
I hope that in my life I can be half as good a man as Mr. Bush. He looks for and find the good in everything about our wonderful planet and its inhabitants. He doesn’t ridicule them for their differences in culture or religion. For the most part his plans are carefully thought our and well prepared, if not for the cuts in our military by the previous administration the expenditure would not be so great as it is now. But has he critisized them for that? No he has not. He has just done what he thinks is best for our country and our troops.War is never cheap nor pretty, there is always losses of lives and equipment. Just as there are always those who wish to defraud and defame whatever they touch. So is the way of the world.

Posted by: constant_struggle2000 at November 22, 2005 1:17 AM
Comment #94714

JayJay,

You must understand that to people like rahdigly, it doesn’t matter that OBL was responsible for 9/11. That’s in the past. Now, his freedom is an embarrassment to the President, so he must be ignored or minimized. If the administration actually did what was necessary to capture him, there is the potential for failure, and that is not an option. So they must pretend that OBL doesn’t matter.

And it is exactly why people like rahdigly are so weak on terrorism.

Posted by: Burt at November 22, 2005 1:19 AM
Comment #94716
He doesn’t ridicule them for their differences in culture or religion.

constant_struggle2000,

Wow, I don’t even know were to start with this statement, so I won’t.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 1:35 AM
Comment #94720

constant_struggle2000:

To find out what the world thinks of Bush, I suggest you wear an “I Love Bush” tshirt and spend the day in any country on Earth. I suggest you get your life insurance paid in full first though.

Posted by: Aldous at November 22, 2005 2:05 AM
Comment #94725

The Roaring 20s

GOP Hate Speech? From good ‘ol, fun loving, happy go @%#* yourself “Icky Dick” Cheney? Nawwwww couldn’t be…

Hey, anybody see the latest Cheney approval polls? All the way down into the 20s and dropping like a pig out of a helicopter.

You tell ‘em, No Bid breath!

Posted by: Blogical at November 22, 2005 4:35 AM
Comment #94726

JJ,

First let me start by saying that “Your right”. Did I just say that? Ok, yes I did. As I looked back at your previous comments from your November 21, 2005 10:47 PM post, it’s clear that I took you out of context (though not purposely ). The sentences were right after one another so it looked as though you were saying… it doesn’t matter, I see now where you were coming from.

As for your comment: “Bush lost credibility with me, when he went after Saddam and shrugged off OBL, then lied about saying he never did that. OBL attacked America after Clinton. Yet, he still is at large, almost 6 years after Bush took office.”

Ok, “OBL attacked America after Clinton”?! No, he attacked America during Clinton’s 8 years as President and OBL was still alive (and in power) after Clinton. Now, that’s the point I was making before; I had the right ammo, just the wrong target. Now I’m right on target with this one. OBL attacked many times during the Clinton years: in 1993 w/ the first WTC (North tower), 1996 the Khobar Towers, the Embassy Bombings in East Africa 1998, USS Cole 2000, etc., ect., ect.

So, you are clearly dismissing Clinton just to get at Bush in this case. Now, JJ, are “you from the Michael Moore school of manipulation” ?… Just kidding. Anyway, Clinton was ridiculously ineffective against terrorism and he doesn’t deserve to be passed over even a little bit.

Bush is the guy that’s going to win this war on terror; you guys are just going to have accept that. I’ve been saying this for a while now, you’re going to have to learn to how to disagree without hating. I couldn’t stand Clinton, particularly when he was my Commander in Chief, however I never routed for him to fail just so he could be removed from office. And, I could care less about the “sex scandal impeachment” thing so didn’t even bother replying with that.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 6:54 AM
Comment #94737

I guess no one has listened to the debate last Friday in the House, or Cheney’s diatribe over the past two weeks. Instead of arguing the real point, how to we get out of Iraq or do we ever get out, you see the Repulbicans attacking politicians character and patriotism. Hell, you still have Ms. Clinton as a big hawk.

Let’s ask each one of these hawks who say “stay the course” to have their children/grandchildren enlist in the Army or Marines. As you know, not a single Senator, Congressmen or Cabinet member has a child in Iraq. Says something about their patriotism.

Just think how much healthcare we could have if we weren’t spending billions on Iraq. What is really irksome, is that even after all this money spent they will hate our guts for bombing and torturing their people. What a waste.

Posted by: acetracy at November 22, 2005 8:44 AM
Comment #94746

tracy wrote:
“Let’s ask each one of these hawks who say “stay the course” to have their children/grandchildren enlist in the Army or Marines. As you know, not a single Senator, Congressmen or Cabinet member has a child in Iraq. Says something about their patriotism.”
__________________________________

You are wrong! Take a look at this:

http://www.mdtaxes.org/NEWS-Stories-2004/sandiego.reps.w.child.in.military.9.13.04.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=285629&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


You should do some research before you make statements like that. And, if the Iraqis “hate our guts”, then why do (at least) 80% of the Iraqis buying into this democracy? Why do most want us to stay?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 9:13 AM
Comment #94747
Clinton was the one that “had OBL on a silver platter” and yet no OBL.

Wow, rahdigly. More college newspaper editorial. I’m not surprised.

That myth has been debunked thoroughly. Most recently in the 9/11 Commission Report. Here, the whole thing is online for free. Read it and remedy your ignorance.

BTW, the guy who started that rumor, Mansoor Ijaz, now works for FOX News. No surprise there, either.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 22, 2005 9:20 AM
Comment #94758

Rahdigly:

“Why do most want us to stay?”

Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Read it here

Posted by: womanmarine at November 22, 2005 10:03 AM
Comment #94760

Yo! Ap, I watched that on the History Channel special on Osama bin Laden. Is the History Channel now a “college newspaper editorial”?!

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70644

Here’s another source that’s not “a college editrorial”:

“The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.” Even if that was true — and it wasn’t — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 10:22 AM
Comment #94764

rahdigly,

I think you need to take AP’s advice and read the 9/11 Commission Report, rather than (or at least in addition to) books by Richard Miniter…

womanmarine,

Your link isn’t working; here’s the story:
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Posted by: Charles Wager at November 22, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #94765

Here’s the biggest problem with this war - WE LOST!

The main objective with regime change in Iraq, despite the ‘misstatements’ about WMD and then the subsequent denials that we went in to remove WMD.

It’s true. Does everyone agree that our true goal was to install a democratically elected government in Iraq that would be friendlier to the US than Saddam and would lead to greater political stability in the region?

Does anyone disagree that this was the ultimate political objective in Iraq?

Based upon these outcomes:
- both Shiite and Sunni opinions, when solicited by journalists, are shown to be consistently anti-American;
- Shiite dominated Iraq is becoming friendlier with Iran, almost on a daily basis;
- Iraqi/Iranian cooperation have been a State Department worst case scenario in the Middle East for some time;
- by all accounts, this Iraqi war has been the training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is fair to say, with our true goals in mind, that the 2nd Iraq War has been a clear and decisive failure.

Many think tanks and policy heads thought this was not winnable because there was no way to get the objectives, regardless of how well we could operate militarily.

Don’t bother quoting interim objectives to me(elections, constitution). Send me statements coming from anywhere other than the GOP stating that credible, well-informed, unaligned people that believe we have succeeded/are succeeding.

It’s quite a statement that the only people on the planet saying we are winning are the GOP and Tony Blair (and even he is saying less these days).

Posted by: CPAdams at November 22, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #94766

rahdigly,

I agree to a certain extent. I am not dismissing Clinton’s role to get at Bush. Clinton did a poor job on foreign policy, but he was a good domestic President. I’m not sure what good debating Clinton’s role is going to accomplish. The fact of the matter is, we are talking about 2005 now. Clinton has no power now to do anything about OBL, Bush does, but won’t.

Bush is the guy that’s going to win this war on terror; you guys are just going to have accept that.

Bush may very well win the war in Iraq, but he will not win the war on terror. He will not be in office long enough. Besides, he has probably created more terrorist than he has eliminated. Our world image isn’t exactly good right now.

I never routed for Bush to fail just so he could be removed from office, and I don’t believe Bush is failing in Iraq. I just believe, like most, we need a new direction there.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 10:47 AM
Comment #94767

rahdigly,

You should do some research before you make statements like that. And, if the Iraqis “hate our guts”, then why do (at least) 80% of the Iraqis buying into this democracy? Why do most want us to stay?

You don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about:

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Posted by: Burt at November 22, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #94768

Womanmarine wrote:
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Read it here
_____________________________________

Well, I tried to click on that link; however, it didn’t work. So I looked it up myself and I posted here for you. For the record, I’m fine with the Iraqis setting a timetable; they are the ones in charge of their (own) country and they have the right to decide if they’re ready or not. And, that’s the way it should be!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_conference

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #94769

I couldn’t have made my point more clearly. Yes, no doubt we are winning the war in Iraq [sarcasm added].

November 22,2005 TEHRAN (Reuters) –

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged visiting Iraqi officials on Tuesday to ask U.S.-led forces to leave their country and pledged Tehran’s cooperation in restoring security to Iraq.

Khamenei’s meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, the first Iraqi leader to visit Iran for nearly four decades, underscored improving relations between two countries who fought a grueling 1980-1988 war in which hundreds of thousands died.

U.S. and British officials have often accused Iran of meddling in Iraq’s affairs by arming militant groups.

But Khamenei said violence in Iraq was the fault of the U.S.-led forces who are there.

“Iran considers the United States to be responsible for all crimes and terrorist acts in Iraq and the suffering and misery of the Iraqi people,” he said, according to state television.

“The Iraqi people may ask the occupiers to leave Iraq by setting a timetable for them … In the end, Iraq and its neighbors will remain in this region while the U.S. will only be there temporarily,” he said.

Khamenei said accusations that Iran was undermining security in Iraq were baseless and propagated by those who did not want to see improved ties between the two countries.

“Your security is our own security and Iran honors Iraq’s independence and power,” the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying. “We will extend assistance to you in those fields,” he added.

Posted by: CPAdams at November 22, 2005 10:55 AM
Comment #94774

JJ wrote:
Clinton did a poor job on foreign policy, but he was a good domestic President. I’m not sure what good debating Clinton’s role is going to accomplish. The fact of the matter is, we are talking about 2005 now. Clinton has no power now to do anything about OBL, Bush does, but won’t.

Bush may very well win the war in Iraq, but he will not win the war on terror. He will not be in office long enough. Besides, he has probably created more terrorist than he has eliminated. Our world image isn’t exactly good right now…
__________________________________

Well, I certainly can agree with you on that. He will win the War in Iraq; however, the war on terror will take a long, long time; therefore, it won’t be on his watch. Though, he will set the precedent on this War on Terror and the reason for that is b/c no other President before him had taken a firm stance against terrorism like he has. Now, granted his father kicked Saddam’s butt out of Kuwait; however, he never went any further and that got us into trouble (I think so anyway) in the long run.

Now you know you’re always going to spark a debate with me when you talk about “slick willy”, so let me get this going. You said “Clinton did a poor job on foreign policy, but he was a good domestic President.” The reason I bring this up is b/c it’s the foreign policy (or lack thereof) that got us into trouble. What good is balancing a budget when you’re going to have to shell out billions (upon billions) of dollars for war? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I appreciated that aspect of his administration, I just think it was disingenuous of Clinton to brag about “8 years of peace time” when we had terrorists attack and plot all day long all 8 of those years.Also, the 9/11 attacks had a tremendous effect on our economy, too.

So, the main reason why Clinton was brought into this was b/c of all the finger pointing about Bush not catching OBL in 5 years; while Clinton had his shot with OBL for 8 years and nothing was done…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #94783

Schmidt in war of words

Rookie lawmaker’s ‘coward’ remarks ricochet
Three days after Rep. Jean Schmidt was booed off the House floor for saying that “cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” the Ohioan she quoted disputed the comments.

Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.

“There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.

No doubt Karl and Co. thought it was a good idea for her to lie about their conversation anyway. Trouble is, everybody sees right through the smear tactics now.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 12:17 PM
Comment #94791

Adrienne,
Three days after Rep. Jean Schmidt was booed off the House floor for saying that “cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” the Ohioan she quoted disputed the comments.
Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.

“There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.
_______________________________________

You premise is totally false. The marine said “he never mention Murtha by name”; however, she said that the marine told her “cowards run, marines never do”. So, she was saying that to Murtha b/c he sparked the debate and (eventually) led to the Bill that they were debating. Now, nowhere in your source does it say that he didn’t make those comments. He definitely said that, just not to Murtha. She was relaying a conversation she had w/ the marine when she directed it specifically towards Murtha.

It wasn’t a misquote, you’re just being partisan…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 12:59 PM
Comment #94794

SNL Spoof of Bush speech and Jean Schmidt

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #94795

rah:
“she said that the marine told her “cowards run, marines never do”.”

No. 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.”

She lied — and since Bubp (what a name!) never mentioned Murtha, it was she (and those who were obviously behind the scene directing her) who wanted to decided to call the man a coward.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #94797

uh — that should have been “wanted to and decided to”.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #94808

rahdigly,

You’re wrong. Schmidt said the following words:

“He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: That cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”
The problem is that Colonel Bupb never metioned Congressman Murtha. As the article that Adrienne quoted said:
he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.
So it was Schmidt who lied.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 22, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #94811

Adrienne, I see what you’re talking about now; that’s a good point. I rescind the comment that it wasn’t said to Murtha.

Bupb makes a good point:
“My message to the folks in Washington, D.C., and to all the Congress people up there, is to stay the course. We cannot leave Iraq or cut and run - any terminology that you want to use.”

I do agree with the original quote though “cowards run, Marines don’t”. How about you?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 1:53 PM
Comment #94813

rahdigly,

I do agree with the original quote though “cowards run, Marines don’t”. How about you?

Yes, and who introduced “cut and run” legislation?
A Republican, Duncan Hunter.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #94821

JJ,

“Yes, and who introduced “cut and run” legislation? A Republican, Duncan Hunter.”
______________________________________

Yes he did! And he did it to shut the dems up; he made those (whiny) libs “put up or shut up”. And what happened? Three dems voted for it and most of the rest didn’t even vote on it.

If the liberals want to have a debate on the war, let’s have it. Anytime. Anywhere. Though they’re going to have to leave the “Bush bashing” at home and actually come up with substance, b/c the American people have heard the “Bashing” before and Bush was (STILL!) reelected and the repubs gained more (More!) seats in both the house and Senate.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #94823

rahdigly, you are right, most leftists dismiss the failures of the clinton admiistration to target the bush administration. Yes obl is still alive, maybe. But it is not from the lack of trying, did clinton try? NO he didn’t. he told the country and world that saddam was a threat to our country and then bombed “what?” in iraq. he claims it was the wmd developement sites. but there is evidence that shows mass movements of large transports while bush waited for the UN to stop procrastinating over arms inspections. Now the UN is changing its story, syaing there was evidence of chemical research sites in iraq.
jj, its no wonder that you dont know where to start. because you know what I said is true. bush is a very honorable man, and you lefties cant stand it. I hear you folks say constantly “bush lied people died.” well if bush lied so did the democratic party members that participated in the vote to declare war on terror. then the dems that voted for it started saying “i voted for it before i voted against it.” is that the kind of leadership we need? I think not. john kerry has been quoted saying “i voted for funds to purchase protective equipment for our troops in the middle east, before i voted against it.” he is the best the left has to offer? can howard and his psychotic howls do any better? Aldous, i never said anyhting about the rest of the world liking or loving the US. so your comment has no bearing on what i have had to say. just idiotic comments from the clown seats as far as i am concerned. a typical slack jawed liberal oxygen theif post if there ever was one. as for the comments of others here about the debates in the house recently, i guess the 403 to 3 vote was of no significance to the cowardance of your liberal heros. only 3 had the guts to stick to their guns on their issues about a timetable. the rest cut and ran, so it seems to me that you should take a good long hard look at who the heros in this country really are. you’ll not find them on the left i’m quite sure.

Posted by: constant_struggle2000 at November 22, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #94830

“I do agree with the original quote though “cowards run, Marines don’t”. How about you?”

Yeah, I agree with that — in the sweat and smoke of battle Marines never run. But the commanders of those marines are always kept back from the sweat and the smoke, in order for them to be able to think clearly, strategically and shrewdly. That’s why I agree with what Col. Murtha and Gen. Odom are saying.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 2:26 PM
Comment #94866

test

Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 3:26 PM
Comment #94867

Watchblog Editor,

Could someone perhpas edit the snowman’s large comment as it appears to be ‘infecting’ all others following. Both my posts could also opefully be deleted. :)

Thanks.

Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 3:28 PM
Comment #94927

constant_struggle2000,

Grow up.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 6:17 PM
Comment #94944

constant_struggle,
You said

there is evidence that shows mass movements of large transports while bush waited for the UN to stop procrastinating over arms inspections
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE. Otherwise this claim is just the product of the south end of a north-facing bull.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 22, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #94967

constant_struggle2000:

It would be typical Republican Delusion to think you can win Hearts and Minds when everybody in the freaking planet hates you. You really should wear the tshirt… teach you some humility when the angry mob has you hiding in the American Embassy.

Posted by: Aldous at November 22, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #95558

Rahdigly-
Hunter introduced that bill because the Republican leadership wasn’t sure they could beat Murtha’s bill!

Bush was reelected. Period. So was Clinton. Did you cease to criticize Clinton when he was reelected, or do you base your reasons for liking and disliking a president on things that go deeper than just how a country votes under certain circumstances?

Personally, my opposition towards Bush wasn’t merely political. I think his policies are rife with bad ideas and worse justifications. Just because he’s re-elected does not magically convince me I’m wrong. As news story after story has backed up, what Democrats went into the election believing generally came out truer than what the Republicans had been convinced of.

Constant Struggle-
Have you read the bills? Murtha’s said that we would withdraw when we could, that we would leave troops near Iraq to respond to any sudden flare-ups, and that we would use diplomacy to handle other things as necessary.

Hunters was effectively: WE’RE LEAVING!

Similarly, John Kerry’s bill was “We’re paying for all that this other bill pays for, but we use revenues to pay it not deficits.” The bill have voted against borrowed that same money, which we now have to pay back WITH INTEREST. John Kerry may have spoken without grace, but you Republicans have acted without it. Who did worse?

As for the movement of WMDs, there is no evidence. So says Charles Duelfer, our final Weapons inspector. Now David Kay had previously said that there was an outside possibility that WMDs had been moved, but Duelfer looked into the matter, and couldn’t find a solitary shred of evidence to indicate, much less prove that.

These were the men Bush himself had charged with finding the WMDs. So don’t give me crap about their reliability.

You insist over and over again that our dissent is some kind of insanity brought on by our mad envy of the president’s goodness. Jeez man, should we grow mustaches and start twirling them?

We can dig up the documents to prove what we say again and again. We can read, and understand the meaning of what we read, and because of that, we can see that what our president has done doesn’t deserve the label of greatness.

I can’t do anything to save you from this notion that Bush is the greatest leader ever. But I can make sure that people know just how little fact you and those like you stand on. If you can prove me wrong you’re welcome to try, but so far you are 0 for 2 in terms of telling us what the votes in question really meant. I mean, if Kerry did in fact vote for a version of that bill, then his beef wasn’t with giving soldiers supplies, it was with making our children pay for this war instead of their parents, who made the decision to wage it.

You don’t know who the real heroes are, because you will not admit that it is possible for people unlike you to be virtuous, reasonable, and courageous, much less right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #96091
rahdigly, you are right, most leftists dismiss the failures of the clinton admiistration to target the bush administration.

constant_struggle2000,

and most right wingers distract from the failures of the Bush administration by targeting the Clinton administration.

Yes he did! And he did it to shut the dems up; he made those (whiny) libs “put up or shut up”. And what happened? Three dems voted for it and most of the rest didn’t even vote on it.

The problem with this logic is that the Hunter Duncan bill didn’t resemble Mr. Murtha’s proposal at all. Why, maybe because the repubs knew it might pass.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 26, 2005 2:55 PM
Comment #99291

every single one of you are stupip but i do have to agree with some of the issues

Posted by: tren at December 6, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #375069

Some hate speech from Bob Anderson of Freeland, MI, calling children retarded looking. He is trying to get into politics and should probably be stopped. I think he is trying to work for Ken Horn while he runs for Senator Roger Kahns seat in 2014.
http://s27.postimg.org/b6yi4b8sz/1486784_10200987653757389_1608724697_n.jpg

He also has a picture of himself in black face. http://s28.postimg.org/u8o2fgbbx/603016_688404814506098_1283917292_n.jpg

Posted by: Jon Snow at December 17, 2013 2:29 PM
Post a comment