Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Murtha, He is pretty much a full blown joke now. Just goes to show u the liberals are wrong again and again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Murtha might be getting used by liberals, but he is certainly no liberal.

Murtha, He is pretty much a full blown joke now. Just goes to show u the liberals are wrong again and again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Nathan at December 2, 2005 04:52 PM
——————————

Sir,

Please explain to me why you think Congressman Jack Murtha is A.) A Liberal. He is surely not. and B.) A joke.

Mr. Murtha has consistently been in his 30+ years with the US Congress an avid hawk on defense. He has just as consistently been a voice of support for veterans and veteran’s affairs. He visits wounded soldiers EVERY week to let them know they are appreciated as is there service. This is a man of good conscience with the background, knowledge and experience supporting his views. You may disagree with him, but to call this man a joke is absurd. He is a patriot as evidenced by his military service and his service in the congress. The Vice President, with whom the congressman disagrees with on Iraq has said he is a “good man and a patriot”. Please re-consider what you call this man. He is not a joke.

If you disagree with his views, fine disagree, debate and show where he is wrong. I’m sure he would welcome the discussion. Calling him a joke is petty and does nothing to support the notion that liberals are wrong and wrong again, when clearly, the congressman is not a liberal and certainly not a dove.

You’re absolutely right. You never hear about the cars that don’t blow up. You never hear about toys that don’t cause injury. You never hear about the birds that don’t have the avian flu. Darn liberal media!

Real Debate-

The last few elections have been surprisingly peaceful, but don’t count this one as in the bag until it is all over. According to
Debka:

But Zarqawi’s overriding goal, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s counter-terror sources. It is to cast the Iraq capital into such a state of turmoil and dislocation as to make it impossible to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled on December 15. This would bring to a halt moments before its consummation the entire democratic cycle on which Iraq has been moving forward this past year.

The al Qaeda commander rates this objective so high that he has tied himself down to Baghdad and so restricted his freedom of movement, which was unfettered in the wide open spaces of Anbar province. At the center of the action instead of behind the scenes, he is also more vulnerable to capture or being killed.

So this could be Zarqawi’s last stand. Or it could be a clear demonstration that the terrorists are indeed on the run and powerless to stop the advancement of the political process. Either way I think the next few weeks will be a watershed moment for Iraq and the U.S.

I don’t know - I thought some of Murtha’s comments made some sense:

1. The number of attacks in Iraq has increased from a hundred and fifty a week to 700.
2. An estimate 50,000 soldiers will be working under “battle fatigue” conditions.
3. Only seven percent of the insurgents appear to be coming from outside Iraq. The rest are Iraqi’s who view us as “the one commone enemy”.

Reenlistment may be higher than expected but many soliders will be called upon to make their 4th or 5th tour of duty.

We are quickly making Iraq into a terrorist haven. We have broken our bank. We have transgressed the ideals we went there to defend, such as freedom of speech and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Our nation seems less secure and less able to respond to emergencies than it was on September 11th after having spent billions on Homeland security.

I realize you think this is a Republican versus Democrat thing, but honestly I don’t understand how any self respecting Republican can stand by Bush’s record. Worse than that is hearing about how everything is “GREAT”. The economy is great, the war is great, everything is great and you wouldn’t want it any other way. You wouldn’t change one thing.

How sad that people in this country have become so partisan.

Murtha is a joke. Why would you go and visit troop when you want to cut and run. And have all their wounds and deaths go in vein!!!! I KNOW so you can get VOTES

/

Max

War is war. There is reason for optimism, but it is costly.

The economy is great. Those who have not recognized this are less well off than they would have been had they understood the truth in 2003.

Nathan,

First of all, it’s not “in vein”, it’s “in vain”. Secondly, you must not know much about the congressman. He wouldn’t have to go anywhere except to his district to get reelected. He’s something like a 15 term congressman. If you really think the only reason the man visits wounded soldiers is to obtain votes, then I feel pity for you. You are either so cynical regarding politicians that you can’t acknowledge a sincere gesture, or you are simply ignorant of the facts of the man in which case you probably shouldn’t write about things you don’t know.

As I said before, the man is not a joke. I believe if we had more people like Mr. Murtha in Washington our nation would be better served.

Real,
You guys are not helping your cause. The previous article by Jack mispelled ‘Pelosi’ three times. To Jack’s credit, he corrected the mistake as soon as he was made aware.
You make an obvious mistake. Will you correct it too?

“Full womens rights?!? Hey liberals, are you listening? If we had left the former regime in power these women would still be oppressed…”

Saddam’s Iraq was a secular regime, and in general terms, rights for women were as good or better than any other country in the Middle East. Women were not impressed. What a stupid mistake. It’s a particularly obnoxious mistake, because you sound aggressive, as if you were speaking truth, and liberals were not paying listening.

Real, we’re paying attention. We’re listening. And we’re NOT impressed with what we hear.

Speaking of unimpressive:

“Did you ever wonder why other terrorists states in the area are so on edge? Simple, they see the people taking power and do not like it in the least.”

Ya think? Because many countries dislike seeing instability on their borders. It literally makes people ‘edgy.’ For example, Turkey, Iran, and Syria all have Kurdish minorities. In fact, the Turks have been fighting with the Kurds for the past two decades, and over 30,000 died in the fighting. So yeah, the Turks “see people taking power” and they don’t like those people, not at all.

“Pay attention now I am going to make a prediction…”

You predict the election will be a success, but that the press will discount it going in, and ignore the results afterwards. Do you consider the installation of a government dominated by SCIRI to be a good thing? Do you even know who SCIRI is, or what country they are closely connected with?

“Yesterday morning I was driving to the office and heard a radio report of how insurgents had fired three mortar rounds at a US compound hitting nothing, no injuries, no damage.”

Are you talking about the ceremony where there were all those dignitaries? It was supposed to be a secured area.

Today 10 marines died in an IED explosion.

You’ll be glad to know Bush held a mini-press conference and announced some good news about economic numbers.

You’ll be proud- yes, proud- to know Bush never mentioned the deaths of those 10 young men during his conference. He knew. He just didn’t mention or acknowledge it.

We wouldn’t want the deaths of friends and neighbors and co-workers and sons and daughters to interfere with good news, would we?

You have to feel sorry for Republicans these days:

1. 10 Marines were just killed in a single massive IED blast in Iraq. I suppose you think this is not important and should not be reported on. Fresh paint on an opened school where students are too scared to go to are more important.

2. 70% may think that sniping is bad for morale but I bet 100% thinks incompetent Leadership is bad for morale too.

3. The re-enlistments are so high because the DOD is offering bonuses of as much as $150,000 cash upfront.

4. 82% of Iraqis think next year will be better because they can’t imagine it getting more worse than the present.

5. Full Women’s Rights? That’s a joke, right? There are gangs in Baghdad and in Southern Iraq right now enforcing Sharia Law. They have their own Judges and everything. Women who do not wear veils are beaten and they are hundreds getting raped daily.

6. FYI. The Iraqi Constitution is dropping that Full Women’s Rights thing. You could surf it in the Internet.

7. “Terrorist States” like Syria and Iran are on edge because they have their on ethnic groups and any civil war will spread to thier own countries.

8. 63% of Journalists believe the Iraq War is lost because when you can’t leave your Hotel without 20 GIs, 4 Humvees and 2 Black Hawks as an escort, it probably means you are losing.

9. 12-15 will probably be quiet. The US has banned all Cars and locked down Iraq. All businesses are closed and all travel is suspended. If only they could do this EVERYDAY, eh?

The long and short of it is simple. The Republicans have Bush as a leader and he is an idiot. Too bad all Americans are paying the price…

“The War On The War On Terror”

How appropriate; in the sense that the only thing as preposterous as a war on a method of combat (terrorism) is a war on war itself.

(however, cowardly, terrorism is soley a method - not a people, country, or anything else that can ever be defeated)

Now to the point; all these polls being used as support for both sides are, by and large, of no value whatsoever. Polls (particularly those conducted by the media, but any non-academic poll) are highly biased and grossly innacurate. Besides, the people often don’t know or can’t agree on what they want, and their opinions change like the sun sets: daily.

What matters is that this war is a lost cause, when measured against the proposed goals, for exactly the reason mentioned above (and several others) We need to change our goals, or pull out - cut and run, or strategic withdrawal - whatever you want to call it…not because we’re scared, but because American troops are dying for the ‘freedom’ of a people who don’t pay taxes to support our troops, and don’t like us much anyway - nor do they share our values.

Ask the typical Iraqi what form of gov’t they want, and I doubt they’ll say a democracy exported from the ‘evil, oppressive, godless America’. More likely they’ll ask for a benevolent dictatorship that allows them to go about their daily lives in the fashion they are accustomed to.
Do you think that shoving democracy down their throats will make them like us any more? Will they be greatful? Will they adopt our values and hail us as their saviors from tyranny? I doubt it.
When has anyone ever been handed their freedom without having to so much as lift a hand to achieve it - that didn’t then look at what they held in their hand, first in wonder, then in confusion, and then in tedium toss it away, or trade it for something that was a little less cumbersome to maintain…freedom must be fought for and earned to be respected.

All of this is debatable, some of this is simple speculation, but that’s all anyone has. You can no more predict the coming events than I - only I don’t share your biases, so I would suggest that if it is possible to predict anything, my objectivity is a much better tool with which to do so.

When I claim that I am impartial, this is obviously an overstatement - I really don’t much like Jr. He’s arrogant, incompetent, and narrow-minded, in my humble opinion. Yet, I too am disgusted by the callous, opportunistic backstepping of the Democrats. I merely posit that my dual biases towards both Bush and the Democrats nullify eachother, creating a sort of quasi-neutrality.

“The long and the short of it is simple, good news in Iraq is good news for Bush and Republicans in general, and the left can not have that.”

This is probably the only statement that you made with which I unconditionally and full heartedly agree. Now if we could just shut them up long enough for the country to see the truth they’re abusing for their own purposes, perhaps we could end this thing and bring our troops home.

Did Lyndon Johnson get in front of the press every time there were deaths in Vietnam? Did Clinton announce every death in Bosnia? What standard would you like Bush to live up to? It is awfully hypocritical to state that this is an unjustified war and at the same time find fault with whom the Iraqi’s are voting for. It is their country, if they vote in a member of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution than who are we to oppose it. The fact is they (the public) are freely voting for the first time EVER. Re: paragraph three “women were not impressed”? Did you mean “not oppressed”

Dennis….. Murtha,spoke to get members of his party in office For Votes> Also if mister murtha has the plan to end all plans then why did your party savior HILLERY denouce it? ? Would BUSH noting the deaths of those young men done anything positive!!! We are at war arent we??

You are so full of shit Aldous:
1. Ten deaths, although deplorable, not exactly a massive IED.
2. 100% do think incompetence leadership is bad, that is why Kerry lost.
3. Don’t make shit up without proof.
4. Denigrating the Iraqi’s again, how liberal of you.
5. Again the proof thing. I can easily say that liberals have their heads up their ass’s but I can’t prove it, except in your case.
6. The elected women in Iraq will stand up against it.
7. Terrorist states are nervous because their LOSING.
8. 37% percent of journalists might actually be reporting the truth.
9. But I thought you said we were losing, if we are able to gain complete control, isn’t that the opposite of losing. Again, it’s that head up the ass thing.

for the word police,
‘soley’ = solely. You know, just because someone makes a spelling error:
a. doesn’t make their arguments any less valid, and
b. may very likely be a simple typing error,

so please disregard speeling erors and try to fucus on the messedge…though it was rather humorous the way you incorporated it into your argument.

Oh, and good points!

I wonder if F.D.R announced that their were 5000+ deaths on D-day would that help moral!!!!

The definition of a Broken Military is one that cannot field fresh troops, troops that haven’t been worn out and stressed out by continual combat experience. We keep doing this and morale will become an intolerable problem, discipline will suffer, and atrocities from our side will increase as our soldiers snap from the pressure. Once that starts happening, the soldiers will not be able to fight as effectively, and it will lend an advantage to our enemies, should they chose to engages us in Iraq or elsewhere.

The problem here is that the Bush administration want to revel in the glory of fighting a war, but not deal with the practical headaches of it.

Jay,
Yes, I stand corrected, it should be ‘oppressed.’

Hypocrisy? Like many liberals, I was opposed to going into Iraq in the first place. Now we see the Bush administration hyping democracy in the region. The Bush administration insisted the US invade, and this outcome we face was predictable. I know, because I predicted it in writing, here on Watchblog in January, and others did too. Now we’re watching the allies of Iran take control of the country.

That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, except that the Shia, representing the majority, will legally disenfranchise the Sunnis, take their revenge, and whale on the Sunnis.

Worse, the Bush administraton consistently engages in saber rattling, and making not-so-veiled threats towards the Iranians. SCIRI is closely allied with Iran. This couldn’t be much worse.

Nicely done Stephen, way to change the subject. Are you not acknowledging the elections, the 200,000 strong Iraqi military and the trial of Saddam. Just breeze by that and off to the next complaint. How liberal of you.

JAY You cant have a battle of facts with a liberal, they are unarmed!

You are giving no credit to the decent people of the middle east and are assuming that every member of SCIRI has extremist intentions. I disagree. Members of SCIRI have so far been quite tolerant of others in the region and until otherwise proving the opposite, I say we accept them for who they are and what they believe in. Isn’t that what the Democratic party use to stand for?

Keep up the good fight Nathan.

“JAY You cant have a battle of facts with a liberal, they are unarmed!”

Nathan,

This makes absolutely no sense. They have the same facts as you do, though you both interpret them to your own advantage, and conveniently forget any that do not support your uncompromising, one-sided opinions.

I must assume that you meant, ‘you can’t have a battle of wits with a liberal, they are unarmed’. If this was your meaning then you have proven nothing, accept that this theoretical battle would have to be a fistfight.

;)

Jay,

what 200,000 strong forces? You mean al-Sadr’s Mehdi militia? They’re part of the security forces. You mean the other Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni militia? They’re part of security forces too.

And as soon as we pull out, this thing is going to blow up. Al Qaeda will have find somewhere else to go play because they’ll be in the middle of a full out shooting war.

What makes you think that two years of our occupation is going to stop the Shiites from avenging the decades of oppression at the hands of Sunnis??

Why do you think the Sunnis will not trust the political process? Answer: they know what Saddam did to Shiites and that the Shiite interpretation of the Koran has some generous views on vegeance.

Stay as long as you like, we cannot prevent this conflict, only delay it.

We can’t win this because we can’t leave a stable democracy behind, the forces against it are too strong. I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist.

Being Cuban, I know the hate for Castro can’t be taken out of the heart of my parents’ generation. I have friends whose fathers were tortured in Cuban jails 40 years ago.

And I know they would sooner have Fidel in their homes than Sunnis and Shiites will let go of their almost 1,400 year old conflict.

Nathan-
How much do you believe in the American people? I believe they’re tougher than you think. I think they’re smarter than you think. I think they know what’s Bullshit and what’s not.

I think your side of this debate has cruised for too long on every loophole of subjectivity, ambiguity and emotional blackmail they could. When the opportunity came to reassure people with their actions, they wheedled and made excuses instead. In the meantime, they’ve bought time to have this war all to themselves, and in the process not only failed to make progress, but make things much worse.

I’m sick and tired about the whining from your side about how the media is sabotaging the war. Never mind that nearly every complaint is about some critically important failure of man or material. Never mind the continuous ivory tower behavior of this administration. Everything has to be a trick of the light, smoke and mirrors. Those mistakes can possibly be your own, can they?

You talk about courage, but the joke is, the people you’re imitating don’t have the courage to admit mistakes and fix them. They would rather try to keep the world from turning, and the bad information from getting out, than put a stop to the bullshit behavior that got them in trouble. The joke is, these people want us to believe that they’re the ones with guts, they’re the ones most dedicated to our defense.

Morale is something you have to earn with a war, through success, through purpose, and through credibility up and down the chain of command. You want it for free. Sorry, welcome to the real world.

My point is simple ITS a Fact things in iraq are getting better. ITS a fact that we will win this war on all Fronts. LIBERALS argue from emotion not from facts. It seams to me that they want to make IRAQ out to be another Vietnam!

The 200,000 strong Iraqi military that is fighting to secure the peace in their country, did you miss that when Gen. Casey proudly boasted of thier efforts? Of course you might know more than he does, because he is only there on the scene in the thick of it. So I don’t know who to believe, you or Gen. Casey; oh I guess I will go with Casey. A lot of faith there in the human spirit CP. What’s it like to get up every day?

Stephen, I am still here and still waiting for your acknowledgement of the progress in Iraq. Remember, the elections, the trials, the build up of military. Talk about smoke and mirrors, you are the king of smoke and mirrors. And “whining” from our side, oh my this is laughable.

Dennis….. Murtha,spoke to get members of his party in office For Votes> Also if mister murtha has the plan to end all plans then why did your party savior HILLERY denouce it? ? Would BUSH noting the deaths of those young men done anything positive!!! We are at war arent we??

Posted by Nathan at December 2, 2005 05:48 PM
————————————-

Nathan,

What are you saying? I don’t recall saying anything about Murtha asking his own party for votes. If he was pitching legislation of course he would ask his colleagues for support. You were implying he was visiting wounded soldiers in the hospital for votes. That in and of itself is ridiculous. Secondly, Hillary (Not Hillery) Clinton not signing up for Jack Murtha’s proposal is not relevant here. You were calling the man a joke.

Finally,

Yes, if the President had acknowledged the deaths of those soldiers and if the President would visit Dover where the bodies are brought back, and if the President would meet with the wounded in the hospitals it would have a great impact on morale in a positive sense. It would show he is engaged at the personal level in this war (yes, I know we are at war Nathan) and his acknowledgement of the loss would make him seem more human and caring about the soldiers. People now view him as a insulated and isolated person much like LBJ during the last days of his presidency not acknowledging anything unless it looked or sounded good. The president has “lost the country” as Johnson did.

Jack Murtha is one of many congressmen and Senators that have strong disagreements with the Whitehouse on the conduct of the war. Some complaints are on tactics (e.g. McCain on torture and extraordinary rendition) and others on strategy (Kerry, Hagel, Biden) and many others. It’s not just Jack Murtha, although in my mind, he has more credibility on this subject than anyone in the senior leadership of the administration. The man served militarily and as a congressman who loves the military. Ask the joint chiefs who they’d give more credibility to.

The truth is we lost this war. There is no other way around it. The incompetency of the administration reflects the majority of the people that still support Bush. We needed more troops and people asked for them, but it was like telling a crackhead that crack kills, they never listened. People that still support Bush are borderline retarded. Sorry, but they will never change and there is no reason to try to reason with them. It’s best just to ignore them, because they are creating the issues through the attention they recieve.
My question to you Democrats is why do you support them? The majority of people want the troops out but none of them except a few support this. The Republicans are obviously criminals that do a great job in destroying our Constitution and still the Democrats can’t win the support of the majority of people. Instead of making decisions, they try to compromise with criminals. I know we have a two party system, but damn, they are about as dim witted as the Republicans and it’s pitiful. So I ask again, why do we support these losers?

Stephen, talk about smoke and mirrors, you are the king of smoke and mirrors. You asked for progress and three of us pointed out huge progress just within the last year and POOF the smoke and mirrors shined through as you changed the subject and found something else to complain about. Nicely done once again.

STEPHEN……So your saying our guys in the field need to earn it … Well sir I think they have done a great job. This is not vietnam anymore.. I am sorry u feel that things have gone so wrong! It must be hell for a person like you to even get out of bed everyday!! Also when CLINTON went into somila and dicided to tie our troops arms behind their back,, did he earn Moral

Touché Stephen.

“Morale is something you have to earn with a war, through success, through purpose, and through credibility up and down the chain of command. You want it for free. Sorry, welcome to the real world.”

A similar concept to that of ‘respect’, which must also be earned… if your singleness of mind matches its clarity and articulation, you should run for office.

It’s time for both sides to do some introspection - in order to find and eradicate the hypocrisies and fallacies which currently infect both sides of the debate.

Yeah, blame the media for only reporting negative news. Perhaps you’d prefer these headlines:

It’s so funny to watch the Right twist, squirm, and do anything - ANYTHING - to avoid taking the blame for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When are you folks gonna take responsibility for your actions? You folks on the far Right wanted the invasion of Iraq, and your leaders sold it to the American public like a freaking can of tuna, and without a warning label. Well, now the American public has discovered that the tuna is rotten, and all you can do is try to spread the blame. “Wahhhh, it’s not just our fault! Those lousy Dems - they voted for it too! Blame them!” What a bunch of hypocritical babies.

Jay,

did you know that military action he was talking about was actually KURDISH militia putting out a TURKISH uprising in their province?

Do you know what that means? It means the Kurds are already successful at exactly the kind of oppression they will prosecute within their autonomous region once we leave.

OK reality, stay with me here if you can. Typically Presidents listen to the advice of the Generals, not the people, who are actually engaging in the theatre as to how much troop strength they need. Bush provided what they asked for. Three free elections within the last year for the first time ever, Saddam on trial and a 200,000 strong Iraqi military helping to secure the peace would suggest that maybe the war is not lost. I don’t thinkt the democrats are actually “supporting” the republicans unless you call the daily administration “bashing” support. And please explain this sentence “It’s best to just ignore them because they are creating the issues through the attention they receive”? That really doesn’t make sense, then again you are a liberal.

Jay,
You refer to “the 200,000 strong Iraqi military.” That number refers to security forces. Security forces and the military are not the same.

Elliot, I will take full responsibility. Are you happy now? And I did that without one squirm.

It’s actually a combined troop strength number, military and security.

WOW we lost the war already!! YES I AM SURE OF IT NOW ITS 1969 VIETNAM (WALTER CRONKITE) WE LOST ANOTHER ONE!!!! WE SHOULD LET THE U.N STEP IN AND RUN THE U.S.A ………………OH THATS RIGHT THE LIBERALS WILL BE IN POWER THIS PLACE WILL BE UTOPIA!!!!!!!

Folks, just one observation on this interesting thread: just what is the Democrats’ plan for winning the war on terror? Is it to deny that Iraq has nothing to do with it? Is it to blame W for going into Iraq and making the Al Qaeda angry? Is it to sic more Justice Department suits on the bad guys? Is it to repeal the Patriot Act because it denies civil rights to terrorists? Is it to prohibit interrogation of terrorists unless they have the full panoply of Miranda rights? Is it to put Saddam back in power because he was, after all, elected with 99.99% of the vote? Is it to pull out all of our troops from the Middle East right away? Is it to enlist the help of France, Germany and Russia who have been so effective in dealing with Iran?

The only strategy I can see is to bash Bush on everything, see doom and gloom in everything, trash the military and the mission, declare that the fight is hopeless, declare that every problem in the world is our fault, and accuse Bush and Karl Rove of making up the whole thing in the hope that the American people become so disgusted with Republicans that they will elect Democrats en masse and we can then go back to the pre-911 status quo. One of the talking heads recently asked Howard Dean this very question and he said they were going to release their plan in early 2006 after extensive inetrnal meetings. That is not leadership, that is politics.

For once, just once I would like to hear how the Democrats plan to deal with Islamofascism and why their plan is better than the President’s. As he said in the debates — a litany of complaints is not a plan. His plan is very simple: Saddam bad, democracy good. Terrorism bad, freedom good. Islamofascism bad, liberty good.

If the liberals out there agree with those simple statements, then what is their plan for achieving the same result? if they do not, then please explain why.

Nathan,

Stop putting words in his mouth, you only make your argument appear even weaker than it already is.
“So your saying our guys in the field need to earn it” No. he didn’t say that. he said;
“You want it for free” meaning, literally, you - or more likely it was intended to mean Bush, but perhaps even the entire Republican Party. The only way that this sentence *cannot* be interpreted is that he intended that the *soldiers* must earn it. Again, this makes no sense. They are the who ‘give it’, to whatever extent it can be given. The politicians earn it.

Start making sense or start shutting up. Their are good points to be made on the Republican side of the debate, yet you are not making any.

Democrats - try to sound a little less ‘Al Gore’ (like:’I created the Internet!!’ or, more aptly, ‘I predicted this entire thing would happen, how it would happen, what you would say, and how the whole thing would turn out’.) and you might earn a bit more trust and respect.

Nathan,

in that our political objectives for Iraq are unobtainable, yes, we lost the war.

We will kill more people than we will lose soldiers, we can inflict as much damage as we like, BUT,

insofar as establishing any sort of stable democratic government that respects human rights and diversity and is not vehemntly opposed to our presence in the Middle East and an enemy of Israel,

that dog was never going to hunt.

Diogenes
I no whet you maen abuot tha speelang polizce.
The only time the come out is when they cann’t find a rebuttal to your post.
Jest doon’t pey thim no minde.

Paul,

forcibly occupying countries and exhausting our resources is not a successful option.

let’s get out and come up with a better plan.

this morning on npr, a general said that the first thing you do to get out of a hole is to stop digging.

personally, i think that’s sound advice.

To CPAdams:

Every time I hear a liberal say that Iraq can never be a stable democratic government that respects human rights and diversity and that will always be opposed to our presence in the Middle East and anti-Israel, I have to ask, why? Are you saying that Arabs are genetically incapable of leving in a peaceful Democratic sociaty? Are you saying that Arabs inherently hate Jews and Americans? Are you saying that Arabs inherently hate everyone who is not like them?

These conclusions are impossible to reconcile with the millions of Arabs living throughout the world and in the Middle East who share the same fundamental values as do all of us. Not all Arabs are members of the Taliban. Not all Arabs think that OBL is a prophet. In fact, the Administration’s entire policy is based on the premise that Arabs, just like you and me, want to live in freedom and in peace, and want their children to have greater opportunities than we had. Millions of stained fingers in Iraq seem to support that.

So tell us: why do you believe that “that dog was never going to hunt?”

So much for RealDebate’s respect and support for our troops and veterans. Obviously, by his comment that Murtha is flapping his gums again, RealDebate holds no soldiers or veterans in high regard, nor is he thankful for their service, unless they speak RealDebateSpeak.

Just more of the same, though, any American who isn’t a Republican is unpatriotic, traitorous, and by the very act of their disagreement, they are aiding and abetting the enemy. Though I have heard and read it many times, it still amazes me how little regard some Republicans have for their fellow Americans, the Bill of Rights, and our Veterans and soldiers.

RealDebate’s article appears to advocate shutting up the media that informs Americans of how many of our own are dying or that the frequency of their deaths and injuries grows instead of abating this long after the proclamation “Mission Accomplished”.

The good news comes through, but that is not enough for RealDebate according to his article. His article implies that the bad news should stop. So much for the 1st Amendment. He wants to ignore the fact that President is out their trumpeting the good news until many are sick of hearing it, against a backdrop of increasing American deaths and maiming, against a backdrop of no plan with an end in sight to this 2nd Viet Nam the Bush administration sold us on.

But, it is also apparent from RealDebate’s article that he wants the best outcome possible for his president and his political party. Well, that’s partly patriotic. I personally take a bigger view, I want the best possible outcome for all Americans and that includes our soldiers. Gen. Murtha has put forth a plan that leads to a positive result for America and all Americans, especially or soldiers in Iraq, by creating an exit strategy.

I listened to Pres. Bush. His plan says our exit depends upon the Iraqis and what is good for them, not on Americans and what is good for America. Murtha is putting America first. Bush is putting his legacy and the Iraqis first. To me, it is a no brainer who has the better plan and for that matter, who cares more for America and all Americans, and has personal motives which come first.

The problem here is that the Bush Johnson administration want to revel in the glory of fighting a war, but not deal with the practical headaches of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 2, 2005 05:54 PM

Hey you see the similarity?

DIOGENES,,,, WHY WOULD HE MEAN BUSH? OR REPUBLICANS WITH THAT STATEMENT? HE SAID UP AND DOWN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND!! THAT INCLUDES THOSE IN THE FIELD??

CP Adams:

So the liberal’s answer to the war on terror is simply to stop what we are doing, bring our troops home, admit defeat, and start thinking about a better plan. If so, then that’s what the Democratic party leadership should be saying. Personally, I put very little stock into what retired generals say on NPR. Wesley Clark is a retired general and he has been wrong about Iraq every step of the way.

RealDebate -

I assume you’re putting up your long history of service in the military up against Murtha. Else, how the hell could expect to represent anything other than a baseless attack on a decorated war hero. Or do they loose the honor of their service because they disagree with your dear President.

WE HAVE NOT LOST ANYTHING YET!!! YOU DOENT GO TO BED AND WAKE UP AND EXPECT THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN FIXED!! GIVE IT SOME TIME THINGS WILL TURN OUT!!

Yes, if the President had acknowledged the deaths of those soldiers and if the President would visit Dover where the bodies are brought back, and if the President would meet with the wounded in the hospitals it would have a great impact on morale in a positive sense.

I like how the left thinks that a Republican President should do thing that a Democrat President wouldn’t do in 3 different wars.

RealDebate -

Also explain how the opposition to the war/occupation in Iraq is “A war on the war on terror.” Maybe the connection to 9/11? Or a connection to Bin Laden?

I see no connection between Iraq and terror aside from what we have created there. What do you see?

(hint: I don’t think the war in Iraq has jack to do with fighting terrorism…)

lol Ron,

nice to have you back. maybe you can talk some sense into the democrats, cuz few others on here are being very successful. as for your comment,
i was not policing a spelling error or a typing error or any sort of fault with his syntax. What he said didn’t make sense. Plain and Simple.

Nathan,

you can construe his meaning as you see fit, but the message was clear. you’re dodging his point with a weak argument over semantics, a last resort of a losing argument. When I say that you need to make sense, I do so in the hope that you can and will, rather than focus the debate on inconsequential misinterpretations of the obvious.

MURTHA IS BEING PULLED AROUND BY LIBERALS IN HIS PARTY WHO WANT TO COME OUT LIKE HE DID. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THEY STILL WANT TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. I AM SURE HE IS A GOOD MAN BUT TO SIDE WITH LIBERALS IS WHERE HE LOSES HIS HONOR

NATHAN,

YOUR COMMENTS IN CAPS MAKE IT THAT MUCH MORE OBNOXIOUS.

Nathan Babbled

“WE HAVE NOT LOST ANYTHING YET!!! YOU DOENT GO TO BED AND WAKE UP AND EXPECT THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN FIXED!! GIVE IT SOME TIME THINGS WILL TURN OUT!! “

Really, 2,100 Plus dead US tropps, 10,000 plus civilins dead, 16,000 plus seriously wounded US soliders (seriously is classified as life time disabilites like missing limbs, blindness, wheel chairs), 250ish Billion dollars. How much more time do we need? Should we just “stay the course” and pretend everything is going great like we have been. Nathan you have put up some of the sorriest posts I have ever seen on this blog I could listen to Rush for 10 minutes and he would cover pretty much everything you have said. If you are just going to post crap and rhetoric do it some where else I’m sure pople on the right agree becasue you are just embarrising youself.

Hey - the Titanic was completely unsinkable. STAY THE COURSE!

I like how the left thinks that a Republican President should do thing that a Democrat President wouldn’t do in 3 different wars.

Posted by Ron Brown at December 2, 2005 07:06 PM
——————————

Ron, come on, you know me better than that. Here’s the link. www.hnn.us/articles/1784.html

Johnson, Carter, Clinton all attended funerals of fallen soldiers. As did Reagan.

Paul,

You can’t force-feed a sovereign country democracy and expect them not to vomit. The dog was never going to hunt because the dog had never experienced ‘hunting’ before. You can’t throw a house pet into the wild and expect that it should live for very long.

Enough with the metaphors. Iraq was never going to be a democracy because they were not ready to institute a democratic government on their own - which is how every (successful) democracy in the history of democracies has done it.

As for the millions of Arabs living throughout the world, sharing our values…they did so by choice, and not at the insistence of an army of foreigners with guns. Imagine foreigners coming into America and attempting to force any change, regardless of whether that change was worth making. Now you tell me, is that effort going to be successful?

DIOGENES, MORAL IS NOT SOMETHING YOU EARN, RESPECT IS SOMETHING YOU EARN. MORAL IS A FEELING . GOOD MORAL HELPS PEOPLE IN A BAD WAY FIND A WAY THROUGHT! YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND RE-READ WHAT HE SAID!!

*sigh*

I really used to like Jack Murtha. Perhaps he is getting senile; I don’t know. I do agree with him that the idiots in the Pentagon are screwing things up, but that’s about as far as it goes.

The military is hardly broken. We are routinely rotating from a source of 310,000 troops. Why this is the case when we have a standing Army of 499,000 is beyond me. Additionally, there are 700,000 USA on active reserve. The 310,000 includes USMC, USAF, and USN personnel, as well. Which begs the question why the same 5 USMC regiments, when there are 15 active duty and 27 reserve, are being rotated. (There are currently 49,000 USA troops in Europe and Asia).

Mr. Murtha did raise a good point. Is the military “broken?” No, but somebody in that five-sided building in Arlington needs to wake up. Is morale being hurt by continuous deployment? Not from what I have seen, or heard, from my friends still serving. What does hurt morale is coming home and discovering that your own people do not support you. Yes, you read right. Everyone running around about our “losing the war” will do more to destroy morale than any IED ever will.

BTW, I’ve been checking to see if I know anybody from yesterday’s action. I have one friend who is a 1stSgt with 8th Marines. No answers yet.

“i am sure he is a good man but to side with liberals is where he loses his honor”

so you are suggesting that his years of proud, dedicated military service are negated because he ‘sides with liberals’? or was only his honor sacrificed?

that hardly sounds fair - Clinton came out the other day supporting the war - does that mean that the war is no longer honorable? who here stands by *that* argument?

As prophecied in earlier posts, I have been reports today and yesterday of increasing sectarian violence.

Some of you might want to go back and read them, and then you’ll gain an understanding for NOT leaving.

Nathan,

I understand what you are saying, and to some degree you have a point. Moral is not ‘earned’ so much as ‘created’ or, perhaps more accurately, ‘inspired’. It is still the duty of those in charge to do so. Point stands. Anything else?

Morale is something you have to earn with a war, through success, through purpose, and through credibility up and down the chain of command. You want it for free. Sorry, welcome to the real world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 2, 2005 06:15 PM

Morale in war does come from success. But more improtantly it also comes from knowing that the folks back home are behind you and are supporting you all the way.
If the only thing you hear from the home front is most people don’t support you all the success in the world won’t keep morale high.
The saying -Supporting the war is supporting the troops, not supporting the war is not supporting the troops - is correct. At least in the eyes of the troops that fighting the war.
If all the troops hear is everyones against the war back home they begin feeling that the people back home are against them too.

There are groups all around the country that are collecting Christmas gifts for the troops in Iraq and Afganastan. They aren’t asking for expensive items. Most the troops want things like foot powder, tooth brushes, hard candy that they can give the kids, and other toliet articles. Things that we take for granted but are not easy to come by in these places.
It would be a great boost in the spirits of some mighty lonely troops at this time of year to recieve these things.
If there’s a group in your area that is doing this, I cann’t think of a better way to show your appreciation to our brave men and women than by donating some of these articles to be sent them.

It is sad to see that so many Republicans cannot think for themselves. Those of you that don’t believe that propaganda doesn’t exist with our media, just read NATHAN’S COMMENTS. With all of the wonderful things that the internet provides, there are still people who continue to believe every lie that is brought to us from the Bush administration and our media. Noam Chomsky wrote about a concept called “intentional ignorance.” I can’t remember what book it comes from and was wondering if any of you know?
As much as I believe and know that O’Reilly, Coulter, Hume, etc… are horrible people, at least I listen to what they have to say, so, before you nutcase right wing idiots respond how Chomsky is a communist why don’t you read a little of what he has to say.

P.S. NATHAN YOUR A MORON

Do you measure the success of something like war and nation building on the medias take or on a military personal view. Do body counts help in the struggle or are they for the media to exploit. .. We are there, and i hope for the sake of this country we have the backbone to see this thing to the end. Regardless of how long it takes. To many lives are at stake, we only have one option to win. We cant keep our stance in the world if we are viewed as having a glass chin

Ray, provide the links to the posts you refer to please. I’d like to read them. I’d also like to understand what the right think is a legitimate plan for pacifying Iraq. Do we simply continue on with the current methods? Several of the commanders on the ground in Iraq and even General Casey himself has stated this fight against the insurgency will not be won with the military. Now they haven’t said they lost, and (even as a liberal) I don’t believe we have “lost” either. I think we are moving to a new phase where the political power in the country will be much more effective in quelling the violence than the military.

The Bush Administration (Rice, Rumsfeld, and others) have begun to discuss troop draw-downs in 2006. The conditions for those include the ensconsed parliament and a functional security force. If that is the criteria for success, then fine, let’s support things until that happens and bring the troops home. Murtha’s not saying much more than that.

I think we’ve confused the whole “war on terror” issue with what is going on in Iraq. Sure, terrorist groups are in Iraq. They were probably there prior to the war also. Guess what. They were and still are in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Dubai, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc. They will probably still be there when we are gone.

We won the “war” in Iraq. Saddam is gone. An opportunity for Iraqi self-determination is emerging. We will likely not see an American style democracy. We’ll probably see a republic based on theocratic law. Not necessarily a bad thing if human rights are supported. Israel is an example of this. Iraq could be. Iraq could also swing entirely to the right and become a conservative theocracy in the fashion of Iran. This is the risk that is the outcome of people voting themselves a new government. Will it “win” the war on terror? Who knows at this point. If the mullahs of Iraq instantiate a Shia dominated government instead of a secular government, then I would say we have simply seen an increase in Iran’s power base. What do we do then?

I was not in favor of the war, but it’s been done. Saddam is out of power. That is a good thing and the president should be commended for removing him. However, the aftermath of Saddam’s removal has been less than effective. The best thing for us to do is find a way to remove and redploy from Iraq and re-focus our efforts against Al-Qaeda. Iraq will be a hot-bed of civil unrest and perhaps war for at least a decade. It will be that way if we are there or not. I’d just a soon not be there and lose any more GIs.

dennis
Accually I wasn’t talking about Carter and Clintion. I was talking about Roosevelt, Truman, And Johnson.
But sense you mentioned them, if any of these 5 Democrat Presidents did what yaall want a Republican President to do, It’s a better kept secrect than ALL the military opperations of the Veitnam War.

Mr.sucks It kind of sounds like “NATHAN” hit a nerve with you, no need to get personal. This is after all just a BLOG.

Ron,

“The saying -Supporting the war is supporting the troops, not supporting the war is not supporting the troops - is correct.”

You had me til here. After this, the argument gets dicey, and falls apart.

“At least in the eyes of the troops that fighting the war.
If all the troops hear is everyones against the war back home they begin feeling that the people back home are against them too.”

I concede that there may be a general sense that stems from attacks on the war which may leave some of the more impressionable soldiers feeling a bit disconcerted or abandoned - but the constant reassurances of the entire country that we *all* support the troops should serve to dissolve this feeling.

My only concern is that they may feel jaded, cheated, or used, leading to a general anger towards *all* of us for sending them over there.

dennis
Accually I wasn’t talking about Carter and Clintion. I was talking about Roosevelt, Truman, And Johnson.
But sense you mentioned them, if any of these 5 Democrat Presidents did what yaall want a Republican President to do, It’s a better kept secrect than ALL the military opperations of the Veitnam War.

——-
Whoa, who is Ya’ll? What are you talking about regarding the 5 Democratic presidents? I simply said morale would improve if they saw the President take a more active role involving the troops. I’m not comparing Democrats or Republicans here Ron, I’m talking about the current president in the current situation. Don’t make this a bake-off between Dems or Republicans because neither side has the corner on virtue in terms of behavior in war-time.
Posted by Ron Brown at December 2, 2005 07:47 PM

“We won the “war†in Iraq. Saddam is gone.”

Yes. Mission accomplished. Time to leave.

But,
It saddens me that what has cost over 2000 American lives (thus far) could have been done with two or three covert operatives and a sniper rifle.

Yes, this would have been breaking international law, Ron, but in this instance, no one ever had to know. (and so it would have been legal, right?)

;)

Hi Paul,

“Every time I hear a liberal say that Iraq can never be a stable democratic government that respects human rights and diversity and that will always be opposed to our presence in the Middle East and anti-Israel, I have to ask, why?”

I wouldn’t say they can never be stable and Democratic.

They aren’t showing any signs of stability or respecting human rights so far. The Iraqi Constitution says that no law shall violate Islamic laws which indicates no respect for human rights or diversity.

Religious repression is rampant in Iraq. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group (the “Dawa” party).

The government consists mostly of members of the Dawa party and “The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)”.

Given that the government has close ties to Iranian Mullahs what makes you think they’re going to be free or diversified?

Diogenes

My only concern is that they may feel jaded, cheated, or used, leading to a general anger towards *all* of us for sending them over there.

I’m concered about that too. Unfortunatly this is a side efect of war. Some troops get that way. One of the best ways to avoid the high numbers of this like we had from Vietnam is by insuring that they know that we support them. Then showing our appreciation for what they’ve done when they come home.

A few questions for both sides,

First line of questions goes to the W cohorts…

Assuming that you’re right, and that victory in Iraq is possible, how long should we continue trying? How many more must die and for how many more years? Will we still be debating this in 2012? Assuming, for a second, that you are wrong; what will it take for you to concede defeat? Do we need to institute a draft, run the national debt into the quadrillions, go through all the young men of our country and begin deploying women to the front lines?

Second line of questions goes to the Democrats…

What is your official plan for Iraq? Slow or immediate withdrawal? Or would you continue to do as the Republicans have, but in some ‘superior way’? It seems that you can’t come to a consensus amongst each other, so how do you expect to negotiate a withdrawal of any sort, or any ‘new’ plan - with the Republicans? Do you really expect the Republicans to concede anything while you bash their values, morals, and intellect? (They control the gov’t currently, so if you are really trying to do anything other than make them look bad, I would avoid attempting to place any further blame or point any more fingers until our troops are safely home - you can’t do it without them.)

These are serious questions - I would appreciate a serious response. Thanks.

Hi Diogenes,

“What is your official plan for Iraq?”

I don’t think there are any valid options in Iraq. Staying is a really bad idea and leaving is a really bad idea.

If I was to get caught cheating on my wife and someone asked “what’s your plan” I’d say “There is no plan I’m completely screwed”…….the only “plan” would have been not to go in for aldutery in the first place.

We are so screwed in Iraq in so many ways that there is no “plan” that will work. There are just a lot of really bad options.

I felt strongly about not wanting to go into Iraq because I pictured a disaster…..I didn’t fortel exactly what happened but I assumed we’d be stuck in a situation with no good options.

Hi Diogenes,

“Do you really expect the Republicans to concede anything while you bash their values, morals, and intellect?”

We’re considered to be guilty of treason, a crime which carries the death penalty, by significant numbers of neocon assholes.

What is the proper response to having repeated vicious lies told about you? “You’re a filthy liar and your views are extremely un-American” is what comes to mind.

This isn’t a Republican war.
This isn’t a Democrat war.
This is an American war.
This is a British war.
etc.
This is an attempt to defeat terrorism.
This is an attempt to stop Nations from harboring terrorist.
This is an attempt to take out a bad enemy.
This is an attempt to keep the terrorist
occupied, and off of our soil with their attacks.
This isn’t an attempt to please everyone.

PHILIPZ 7:39 p.m.

WELL SAID!

Hi Rick,

“This is an attempt to defeat terrorism.”

It looks like it’s a pretty bad attempt. The Iraqi government is full of terrorists and we’re supporting them.

“This is an attempt to stop Nations from harboring terrorist.”

We went into the wrong place as Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Somolia were harboring far more than Iraq was.

“This is an attempt to keep the terrorist occupied, and off of our soil with their attacks.”

That’s a ridicuous justification for the war. You right wingers are very gullible.

Can anyone tell me the time between the first major attack on US soil by Bin Laden and 9/11?

Was it 5 or 6 years?

How long has it been since 9/11?

Still feel like the war in Iraq is ‘keeping them off our soil?

I still did not see in these posts the Democrats’ plan for Iraq or the war on terror, except in two respects: (a) the assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and (b) we should surrender, go home, and come up with a plan. Where’s the leadership from the left?

Assume for a moment that Saddam was just a peaceful country gentleman minding his own business when we brutally deposed him. The Nobel Peace Prize candidate Mr. Zarkawi was living as his guest in Baghdad. Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and he did at at least at one time have a nuclear program. Ansar al Islam was living as his guest in the North. Assume that this was all a coincidence, a misunderstanding, and that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to contribute to the war on terror. He was, after all, secular and the terrorists are religious. (And we all know that people with inconsistent ideologies would never, ever team up to defeat a common enemy — which reminds me, did you know that Churchill just adored Stalin’s rabid communism?)

Today, Al Qaeda itself now says that Iraq is the central battlefield in the war on terror. You can say that “we” caused that, but that is a moot point. It is what it is. Frankly, having been far too close to ground zero on September 11, 2001, I’d rather be dealing with the terrorists and Al Qaeda by using the marines in Iraq than by having the NYFD clean up the mess in Manhattan.

—-
Frankly, having been far too close to ground zero on September 11, 2001, I’d rather be dealing with the terrorists and Al Qaeda by using the marines in Iraq than by having the NYFD clean up the mess in Manhattan.
—-

So, explain to me to connection between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11?

Or - if 9/11 really does still haunts you - maybe you’ll consider (just maybe) we’re fighting the wrong war.

Watch “Winning Iraq: The Untold Story†— Saturday, 9pm / mid ET

Bush and the Secretary of Defense have botched this thing by trying to do it with too few troops.
The 25 miles between Fallujah and Bagdad is suicide without an escort for protection.

The troops deserve respect.

But, I don’t think the troops are getting the respect they deserve.

Bush and the gutless generals that won’t speak up for more troops (for fear of being fired) are the problem. They continue to ignore advice to increase the number of troops to get the job done quickly and correctly, and to train the Iraqi troops faster.

It is sad how many lives are wasted due to the irresponsibility and unaccountability of the gang of over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.

The essence of totalitarianism, is the destruction of the parliamentary or legislative branch of government, by the Executive branch.

We should send a clear message to Congress and the Executive Branch, vote them all out, and elect people who would take their oath of office to the Constitution seriously. And one of their first acts of such a constitutional Congress would be reducing the severely bloated and out-of-control Executive Branch.

For example, did anyone hear about the pentagon spending a lot of money to bribe Iraqi news papers to print propaganda (e.g. $1200 for one story; $900 to the news paper and $300 to the middleman). Is this a good use of tax payers money. Couldn’t that money be put to better use to buy armor for troops and humvees or medical care?

And Republicans shouldn’t be singled out. Democrats are equally as bad.
The two parties really just take turns using and abusing the tax payers.

Seriously…do Americans need to know how out of control the federal government really is?
And it just gets worse and worse, as the government continues to grow ever larger, and the National debt grows ever larger, and the nation’s many pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Another thing about Bush that pisses me off is the gall he has to call the Minute Men vigilantes. What’s up with that? Would anyone here like to try to explain that? Because it seems many just want to ignore it, and ignore the fact that Bush is delinquent regarding border security. Well, I think Bush should try to explain it to the family of the Dallas policman that was shot and killed two weeks ago by an illegal alien. That’s a murder that should not have happened. Thank you Bush for doing nothing about border security. So, what good is 2.6 million active, guard, and reserve troops if you can’t even station a measely 1% (26,000) troops along our 9000 miles of land boarders (that’s about one troop every third 1800 feet). We could place stations every 10 miles (900 stations). It would cost that much, because it would use a lot of troops and resources we already have.

But Bush and other politicians aren’t really serious about border security. What good is national defense with wide-open borders? Al-Qaeda has already been reported to have crossed the southern border.

And, just consider some of these fine examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the very difficult decisions they make daily (while our troops are dying):
[] Vote for $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail or Vote for body armor for troops with armor ?
[] Vote for $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck or more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud or more armor for humvees and military vehicles ?
[] Vote for $84,000 to find out why people fall in love or secure the nation’s borders ?
[] Vote for $1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence or shore up the plundered Social Security and Medicare systems ?
[] Vote for $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws or funding for flu vaccines.
[] Vote for funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys or improve public education ?
[] Vote for $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television or vote use that money for scholarships ?
[] Vote for $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe or secure the nation’s coastal ports ?
[] Vote for $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] Vote for $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest or reduce election/voting fraud ?
[] Vote for $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley or better medical care for injured soldiers and veterans ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft or funding for better defense systems ?
[] Vote for $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument or funding fight diabetes, aids, and other diseases ?
[] Vote for $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument or improve existing and operational water treatment and sewer systems ?
[] Vote for $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce or better intelligence that would prevent us from going to war for the wrong reasons ?
[] Vote for $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency or funding for communications and aerial surveillance of our borders and coastlines ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to research soybean-based ink or funding to increase produce production ?
[] Vote for $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center or reform our ridiculous tax system ?
[] Vote for $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two or more and better weapons and armor for active duty troops.

Does that strike any of you as a responsible and accountable government?

All in Congress and the Executive Branch look the other way all the time.

It’s no wonder the war on terror isn’t going as well as it could, because D.C. is full of irresponsible and unaccountable politicians that are trying to do the same damn thing they did in Vietnam and Korea. Take Fallujah for instance. The Marines went in, and were doing a great job. Then, the politicians caused them to be pulled back. Then we had to go back later and do it again. And, still to this day, Fallujah is not safe. Why? Because politicians meddled. It never fails. We should have let the military do it the way they wanted to, the first time, the right way. But politicians are so arrogant, so corrupt, so self-serving, it would never occur to them that they were meddling. That meddling has unnecessarily cost the lives of American troops.

If Americans want to be pissed off about something, why don’t you stop being seduced into the petty partisan bickering, and start holding all of these corrupt, arrogan, irresponsible, and unaccountable politicians accountable ?

Or are you all too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan bickering ?

Can anyone here name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 218 (half) of those in Congress that don’t look the other way, don’t vote on pork-barrel (while some troops and humvees don’t have armor, and some wounded troops go without medical care), don’t spend a great deal of time raising big-money from their big money donors, don’t fuel the petty partisan warfare, and even show up to vote ?

Someone mentioned John Conyers.
He’s got the second worst record for not even showing up to vote.

Someone mentioned Joe Biden.
He’s got a bad habit of plagiarizing. He likes the lime light, and likes to grand stand, and he also fuels the partisan warfare. Joseph Biden is a lawyer too. When he ran for Democratic presidential candidate, was discouraged from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

Someone mentioned John McCain. Of all of them, McCain is probably the most honest, but I still have a problem with him too, which exemplifies the problem with the system, how low the bar is set, and the lack of transparency and accountability. McCain has voted on pork-barrel too. One of his pet pork-barrel projects was $1 million for the brown tree snake in Guam. I’m sure it’s important, but should it be sneaked into a defense appropriations bill? And, shouldn’t we first make sure our troops and humvees have body armor? Why should troops have to buy their own armor? Also, I heard McCain admit to looking the other way. While it seems to bother McCain some, too many don’t have any trouble looking the other way.

So, you see? The bar is set far too low.
Corruption has been allowed for too long to grow to far.
And, the longer it goes on, the harder and more painful it will be to reform it.

So, unless someone can name at least 218 (half) of those in Congress that are responsible and accountable, then why vote for any of them?

Need more proof of government irresposibility and unaccountability? There’s lots more. It’s blatant and rampant.

So, what’s it going to take to get Americans to stop being fooled into the circular pattern of thought that keeps them entrenched and distracted with the petty partisan warfare, and less substantive issues, while the nation’s truly seriously important problems grow worse every day?

What can you do ?

Start voting all if the incumbents out of office.
Take off your partisan blinders and reject the seduction into the petty partisan bickering.
See what both main parties are doing…just taking turns being irresponsible.

Start voting out all incumbents.
Repeatedly. Every Election.
Until government gets the message.
Until government implements transparency
that voters need to know who to keep and
who to vote out.
Until government adequately addresses this nation’s top 10 serious issues (many problems of which a majority of Americans already agree upon the solutions, but politicians won’t tackle for fear of risking re-election if they anger their big-money-donor puppeteers).

Government is FOR SALE.
It shouldn’t be.
Voting for incumbents is the problem.
A few with vast wealth and power predictably fund and control government.

How can the average person have a voice in government when 5% of the wealthiest have 60% of all wealth, and 60% of the population only has 5% of all wealth in the nation? The average person doesn’t have a voice as long as they keep doing what they’ve been doing.

Is it working? Hell no.

But, if anyone has a better idea, let’s hear it.

Because, voting out irresponsible incumbents is simply the smart, non-partisan, inexpensive, patriotic, peaceful, and responsible thing voters should have been doing all along, to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too !

rick,

“This isn’t a Republican war.
This isn’t a Democrat war.
This is an American war.
This is a British war.
etc.”

This isn’t an American war.

This is now a global problem. If we wish this to end anytime soon I would suggest that we boot Bolton out on his ass and start working the diplomatic corridors.
I’m not talking about negotiations with the “terrorists”, I’m talking about everyone else that inhabits this planet with us.
It’s time for Bush to put his six-shooters away and pull the world together to fight this problem.
We can’t do this alone.

Yep, that’s another problem with our arrogant, irresponsible, unaccountable government.
It has alienated our allies.
How many American lives has that arrongance caused?

Real Debate,
“Yesterday morning I was driving to the office and heard a radio report of how insurgents had fired three mortar rounds at a US compound hitting nothing, no injuries, no damage.”

Quotes often come back to bite…10 military deaths from an IED shortly after this quote. I’ve heard folks say 10 deaths aren’t a “massive” bomb. I suppose that’s a true statement. But when one of the fallen is one of your own, does it matter?

The Iraqi’s will be voting soon. They will, in all liklihood, vote (democratically) for a government with a constitution founded on Theocracy. When that happens….no more democracy. Yes, the Theocracy may have been democratically elected; it’s still a theocracy. Have our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers died on foreign soil so another people could vote for a theocracy that none of us would want to live in?

I agree we are in Iraq and that we have got to find a way to stablize the situation. Most of us aren’t looking for a “time table” for pulling troops out of Iraq. We would like to see some definitive goals that, when accomplished, will allow our fellow Americans to come home. Securing Iraqi boarders, supplying electrical power and clean water to the majority of Iraqi’s, the Iraqi military taking a front line position in securing their boarders, etc.

I don’t know about you guys but I wouldn’t want to live in Iraq. Everyone talks about the media only reporting the “bad” news. The only “bad” news we see is, for the most part, involve our military deaths, Iraqi military deaths, or Iraqi government official deaths. What we never hear anything about are the deaths of the women, elderly, and children that occur on a daily basis because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You want to see a christmas gift and lift the Iraqi populace moral at the same time? Then, give them dependent electrical power, clean water, an education, and readily available medical care. Want icing on the cake? Employ these folks in rebuilding their own country. Sure, these things are happening in microcosims…but not across the country.

As far as the 200,000 troops (or security forces) the Iraqi’s now have trained? Well, as I recal, this is the same number (if not slightly smaller) than the number quoted by our President and the secretary of defense over a year ago during the presidential election year. Now, we are told (again) there are really 200,000 Iraqi security forces….really this time….no, honest! The credibility of this administration is diminishing.

I don’t want failure in Iraq. I don’t think anyone from the red or blue side does. I would like to see concrete milestones and goals (not necessarily time tables) that will demonstrate progress and be a roadmap for the return of our troops.

Dennis,
There is a another way to look at the war on terror as it relates to Iraq. There well may be terrorists in those other countries , along with all of Western Europe, Austral Pacific, North America, et al. Given the blatant lack of cooperation that the international community has exhibited, the attitudes of the world’s leftists who feel that terrorists are made by a lack of love and understanding by the rest of the world, and the fact that the U.N. has spent a couple of years just arguing about what the definition of terrorist is sort of limits our options. As with so many problems and past conflicts we find ourselves in the unenviable role of “heavy lifter” and are paying the price in prestige, treasure and most of all blood for being willing to act. Just take a look at the Middle East problems that we have dealt with for the past thirty five years. We, (the U.S.), have been the only steadfast ally of the region’s only democracy. To the best of my memory, our military has shed more blood than the rest of the “enlightened world” combined trying to bring some modicom of peace to the region. We give more money to the Palistinians than all of the Arab countries combined do. We are one of the few western countries that fully asimilate middle eastern Muslims into our society. We led the way in blood and money repelling an invasion from a sovereign middle eastern nation. It was our pilots, along with the Brits that spent over a decade enforcing a no fly zone in order to protect Shias and Kurds that live in Iraq. We were the country that pushed hardest for sanctions against Saddam, again, while many of the most influential countries in the U.N. were making billions buying his oil under the table and even going as far as selling him arms and munitions. After 9/11, the time to take a long sober look at this situation was at hand. To the best of our knowledge Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Queda, but what we did know about him was that he had possesed chemical weapons and had no compunctions in using them. We also knew that he was very interested in aquiring biological and nuclear weaponry. We also know that he had a hand in an assassination plot involving one of our former presidents. It was common knowledge that he gave money to the families of suicide bombers, the vast majority being motivated by jihad, or holy war, rather than by political purposes. So having all of this information and history at our disposal, do you honestly believe that the possibility of Saddam becoming involved in some aspect of Al Queda’s operations was really a leap? Do you feel that it would have been prudent to wait and see? I submit that what we did was the right thing to do and by reading many of the other posts here feel like I was one of the few that listened to this administration’s admonishments about doing nothing and understood the depth of the the situation. I did not confuse “strong possibility” with an absolute nor did I feel that all of this administration’s aims were altruistic. It was simply the right thing to do. have mistakes been made in the prosecution of this war? Of course. That is the nature of war. Have we made mistakes over the past thirty five years in the middle east? Many, and some monumental ones. We share in the rest of the world’s shame there, but we have done and sacrificed vastly more than any other country has, in my opinion. In closing, I will challenge the naysayers and the partisans to please, in all sincerity, to offer up how they felt that this problem should have been handled. It would be truly refreshing to here something other than the tired old party line, for like it or not, we all have a stake in this and I feel truly that war is ALWAYS the last, worst option, but sometimes an unavoidable one.

Louis XIV,

I don’t have the political or military knoledge to make a decision when or how to go to war. Our leaders made that decision, and I support it. It’s better than sitting around waiting for 911. More santions or inspections would have been more waste of time. sadam wouldn’t comply with anything that mattered. His time was up, and he harbored terrorist.

Tony,

There hasn’t been an attack on U.S. soil since 911.

Rocky,

This was a global war before 911. And I agree with you. I have said the same things in these blogs.

scolex,

Although I don’t agree entirely with your assessment of Iraq and why we are there, you have made some very good points. As a left-leaning moderate I would like to thank you for sharing your opinion while not going out of your way to make one side or the other sound like the enemy.

Well written.

Let’s hope we can stabilize the situation in Iraq and get our folks home while leaving a positive mark in the middle east.

Whether we were for the invasion of Iraq or not, let’s please hope and pray our troops can get home soon.

To d.a.n.,
Allies are people who stand with you when the crap hits the fan. Don’t confuse this with fair weather friends..

To Tom L.,
AMEN to that.

Scolex,
There is another way to look at the War on Terror, and that is, that there never really was a War on Terror.

Remember the phase ‘mission creep’? What we ordinarily think of as the War on Terror is a special ops/intelligence effort that has been going on for decades.

With 9/11, the War on Terror focused upon OBL and Al Qaida. As many have noted, it really should be called the War on Al Qaida and Related Movements. The catch-all name, the War on Terror, directly contributes to the current problem of mission creep.

The first case of mission creep came with the attack upon those who harbored terrorists, namely the Afghanistan Taliban. I supported that. Still do.

What we think of as the War on Terror essentially ended in 2003, with the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. While OBL & Zawahiri still live, and while there have been a handful of indigenous, uncoordinated attacks within several countries, for all practical purposes the War on Terror ended. That enemy will never disappear; but that enemy will never again possess an effective international organization.

Which brings us to Iraq. The mission creeps to a new level.

“… Do you honestly believe that the possibility of Saddam becoming involved in some aspect of Al Queda’s operations was really a leap?”

Yes. It is a leap. Always was a leap. Saddam and the Baathists were secular, unlike Al Qaida. They are enemies; different ethnic groups, different goals, and considerable enmity for one another. Ten days after 9/11, President Bush received a CIA DPB stating there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida.

The White House knew this all along. They misled people like youm intentionally misled you. I do not blame you, or other conservatives or Republicans. I do blame the White House, and look forward to the day when Bush and Cheney leave in disgrace.

What should we have done instead? I don’t ascribe to that kind of thinking. I do ascribe to learning from the past. Now Iraq has somehow become synonomous with the War on Terror. But it’s much more complicated than that. Today, an article in the NYT (I think it was the NYT) estimated there are up to one hundred different, independent insurgent groups in Iraq.

It’s not just three groups, as most of us have been made to believe. The struggle in Iraq is much, much more complicated. In 4GW terms, we’re fighting a horizontal organization, with no central organization, and no one head which can be decapitated to the detriment of the other groups.

They have many goals, many motivations. But they all share one goal: seeing the US leave Iraq.

When it comes to a breakfast of ham and eggs, the chicken is interested, but the pig is committed.

The Iraqis will still live there after we have left. That includes the insurgents.

But when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We have to fight the enemy we have, not the enemy we wish to have. This is 4GW, & we’re fighting an insurgency.

In general terms, Murtha is right. We should withdraw a substantial amount of our military forces in a timely, orderly fashion.

In the meantime, we should negotiate with the insurgent groups where possible. Co-opt, buy them off, whatever it takes to pacify them, & engage them in the political process. Cut off and isolate the intolerable groups, such as Al Qaida in Iraq. Make them the scapegoat, let them take all the blame, blacken them. For everyone else, open the doors, and let them in.
We need international cooperation, but… what a mess.

Too bad we’re holding elections in two weeks. We’re screwed. We’re locking in the current political situation, and guaranteeing the Sunnis will not participate in the government. It’s foolish, but we’re doomed to do this.

realdebate,

>>On 12-15 the Iraqi people will go to the polls again and put into place a permanent Government. A government with a constitution and full women’s rights.
Full womens rights?!? Hey liberals, are you listening? If we had left the former regime in power these women would still be oppressed, open to stoning and the rape rooms of the past.

If this was important enough to go to war and lose over 2000 of our troops, why wasn’t it mentioned until AFTER wmd and terrorist camps had given up the ghost?

If this was important, why haven’t we sent rescuers in to rescue Dafar women? Or for that matter, women of China, N Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. etc.???

phx8,
As I previously stated I was not pulled in by Bush’s rhetoric. I actually believed, given my past observations on the ensuing problem that this was the best course to follow. I do agree with you on the fact that those in charge biggest failure in the whole war was not troop strenghts and timetables,but rather a casual attitude toward the culture that we were involving ourselves with.was’nt it Don Corleone that once said “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer”?

The problem I see, is that to fix all the mistakes we have made, and to get Iraq to a stable place, we need to put in 90,000 more troops minimum, declare full martial law, (suspending a variety of civil rights for the next two years), and spend approximately 270 billion dollars. I don’t think we’re prepared to do that. So I think we’re looking, best case scenario, at the Kurdish areas being better than they were in the short term, with a 50/50 chance of the center and the south being better in about 15 years.

I am hoping that this situation is like South Korea. The war there ended in little social progress, but in the long term the North fell further behind, while the South was able to organize itself into the succesful thriving country that it is today. Through our meddling, they became strong enough to throw out the dictator propped up by Reagan (which is what he essentially was), and create a more democratic nation.

Yes, there are things we could be doing that would solve the problem, but I don’t see anyone organized and smart enough to push those solutions through.

Healthcare is worse than it was under Saddam, and electricity is, once again, below pre-war levels. If we can’t get the Iraqis to organize themselves to provide medicine and electricity to these people, how are we going to organize them as a fighting force? Electricity and drugs are a matter of logistics. Training and organizing a fighting force is logistics + a lot of social and cultural problem-solving.

If you pro-war individuals here really want to help the soldiers, you should start demanding some accountability from your government. The soldiers are ready to solve problems. They just need a good plan. It’s not going to come from this government without prodding. So prod them.

Here’s a place to start: the central organization in Iraq that distributes basic drugs to hospitals is called Kimadia. They haven’t distributed much of anything since the war. That means hospitals are re-using needles and respirator tubing, infecting patients they are trying to heal. Kimadia should be discarded, and replaced by the health supervisors at the WHO, who have been tracking this issue for the past 20 years.

Congratulations Republocrats..er, I mean Demublicans…whatever, you’re all the same.

I ask some (relatively) simple questions - some of the same questions which the American Public has been clamoring to hear, but which both parties have incessantly and meticulously evaded - and like the party leaders, you follow suit, providing nothing of substance, only more of the same. Politics without purpose, arguing for the sake of arguing (or for the sake of distracting?).

Of all of you, only Louis even attempted an answer - giving a response which was vague at best. How can you expect anyone to listen to you? - you say nothing…over and over (albeit it in new and more offensive ways every time).

ANES statistics show that (with the exception of the past few elections)the percentage of independents is steadily increasing while, conversely, the percentage of our voting age population which actually chooses to bother voting is decreasing. Why? What have they to vote for? Dumb and dumber - i’ll let you debate (endlessly) which of these parties is which.

Surely you all understand how important it is for citizens to vote, in order to legitimize our democracy - yet if you can provide no good option for us to vote for, we won’t vote at all.

When you can present something resembling a rationale for voting for either of your bunk parties, get back to the rest of us (perhaps you could collaborate on *this* one? - you obviously need help).

now then,
Louis -

“What is the proper response to having repeated vicious lies told about you? “

Taking the high ground? Blatant lies often speak for themselves, to that effect. Acknowledging them lends credence to what otherwise (ostensibly) deserves none. If you must, acknowledge them in order to dismiss them and no more; then continue with the matter at hand. I’ll grant you that this is easier said than done - and here I must add ‘do as I say, not as I do’. No one’s perfect.

The purpose of these two parties is to represent the American people, not to self-propagate and secure and consolidate power. The parties represent us less and less. The politicians take more and more. The ideologies of both parties warrant consideration - the reality of the actual current party policies of each warrant shame.

If this is the best that our current system can provide, perhaps it is time to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of…revolution. America deserves better.