Which Way Does The Wind Blow Today?

Does the Democratic Party really know what they want to do with the war in Iraq?

On one side we have those led by Congressman and ex-car wash owner and unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator John “Cut and Run” Murtha (D Pa.) who has turned into an anti-war “over the horizon” guy…….

.....and on the other side we have the Hillary-ites (D.NY.)who try to talk tough on terrorism but are afraid to say that we should stay in Iraq lest they lose the lunatic fringe that they will need in '08,

.....and yet on another side we have the Joementum moderates led by Joe Lieberman (D.Conn.) who still have the guts to stand up for what's right,

.......and then we have the hyper-loony leftist from San Francisco and other loony parts who what to disband the military and kick the ROTC out of our nation's schools..

.....and on the other we have the flip-flop weathervanes led by John "I did,then I didn't, then I did" Kerry (D.Ma.) who has a plan but never tells anybody...

...and finally we have the pacifist designer burka crowd led by Howard,Micheal,and the "galaxy" of glittering Hollywood stars....

I mean c'mon...how the heck can a single coherent strategy be drafted by the Dems in the war on terror when they can't decide among themselves what to do.?

Either we fight this war all the way...as the Republican Party is committed to do...or we withdraw from fighting it at all as some Dems want.

In or out.

So,Dems,what the platform gonna be?

One way or the other...

....which is it?


Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 31, 2006 4:19 PM
Comments
Comment #153079
‘John “Cut and Run” Murtha (D Pa.) who has turned into an anti-war “over the horizon” guy’

A little tip: when you lard your prose with Rovian smears like this, you lose your argument.

The only people who keep reading after this point are those already singing in your choir.

Have fun ranting.

Posted by: pianofan at May 31, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #153081

pianofan

Truth is an absolute defense.No rant necessary.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #153082

…marks pianofan down as ‘undecided’.

Posted by: Craig at May 31, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #153088

And the rights’s strategy is “kill em all and let God sort em out”?

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #153091

As one of my life heroes said, “In war there is no substitute for victory”.

Those that oppose that advice surely have to ask, “If I don’t want victory, then what can I settle for”.

I have never heard of somebody competing at the Olympics or in any organized sport, or running for public office with the goal to lose. It is the gold or championship or the office attempted to gain that is what matters.

Since we are at war, there is no place to go nor any goal to attain except victory.

Posted by: tomh at May 31, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #153093

All

STAY and finish it or leave.What say you?

PICK ONE AND JUSTIFY PLEASE

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #153094

Eagle:

Murtha is a war hero. As such, deserves the gratitude of our nation, which I freely give to him. It does NOT give him absolute authority over all military matters, nor does it make him right when he speaks out against our Marines.

What he should have said was that if true, it will be a black mark for America. If true, we should punish those who perpetrated the killings. But we must fully and openly investigate the evidence first before proclaiming guilt.

His comments that the Marines are already guilty are abhorrent, and help to inflame Iraq against America. I don’t think that was his intent, but it is the natural result of speaking out as he did. Of course, with free speech, he can say what he wants, but he can also be held responsible for the results of what he says.

Democrats are divided on what to do in Iraq. They have leaders amongst the party espousing different solutions and positions. There is no singular position regarding Iraq, seemingly other than its all George Bush’s fault. That had a chance of working in 2004, but failed. It has no chance of working in 2008.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #153097

JBOD

Yes,he is a war hero.Thirty years ago.He is also an unindicted co-conspirator named in the ABSCAM investigation AFTER he was a war hero and an over the horizon guy too AFTER he was a war hero.

Thus he is fair ggame for me.

My view is the fact that he is a war hero is profoundly mitigated by his actions these last six months.

Semper Fi…he wasn’t……and check out the veteran’s blogs if you have a chance to see what his brothers in arms think…I posted some comments yesterday.

Who is my hero in Congress?One guy:Sam Johnson (R TEXAS).

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #153101

SE’s question and tomh’s comment both reflect simple-minded black-or-white perspectives on the matter. Reality is unfortunately more complex.

I say the goals are: (1) promoting stability in the Middle East (and Iraq in particular); (2) minimizing American casualties; and (3) protecting what’s left of the goodwill with which America can hope to influence events across the globe. Neither “status quo” nor “leave” will best achieve those goals. Unfortunately, of course, none of us is well-equipped to detail the optimal strategy, but I would suggest that we find a way to more heavily involve - financially and diplomatically - the European nations and what’s left of our Middle Eastern allies, so as to make the effort look less like an American-imposed solution. Unfortunately, I suspect that our friends on the right will be too proud to admit the limits of America’s power.

Posted by: Homer at May 31, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #153102

Well we can always use the tried and true “why can’t we all just get along?” You’re good, I’m good we are both right we all get a ribbon, we all pass the finish line.

We deserved to get 3000+ civilians killed 1st day of war because we are a bunch of capitalist who only want a better life for our families and be free.

It was their misconception of Hollywood that ingrained into them that all Americans are immoral gutless bums who don’t have what it takes to sustain a fight to the desired outcome.

Because violence is not an acceptable behavior on our part but an endearing trait for the enemy.

They see how Congress will give them anything they want if they only say it loud enough long enough.

We have no moral compass as we have expelled God from our schools because it might offend 1 person out of a thousand.

Heck if it is good for the illegal aliens why the Democrats can’t use it?

Posted by: lm at May 31, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #153105

Homer

ummmm….I take that as a Democratic way of saying we should stay?

Kinda round-about way,no?

How about a simple yes or no?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #153107

Murtha’s not the only one speaking out, if he and they are right, what then:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops’ account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
Forensic data from corpses showed victims with bullet wounds, despite earlier statements by Marines that civilians were killed by a roadside bomb that also claimed the life of a Marine from El Paso, Texas, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a defense official said.

“The forensics painted a different story than what the Marines had said,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The official said there were wounds that would not have been caused by an improvised explosive device. “Did someone shoot somebody just for the sake of taking him out?” the official said. “Bad things happened that day, and it appears Marines lied about it.”

You can read it here

A preliminary inquiry was ordered in February only after Time magazine presented the U.S. military with information casting doubt on the official military version of the incident — that civilians had been killed along with the one Marine by a roadside bomb.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 31, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #153108

Simple-mindedness continues.

“Stay” suggests that the status quo is fine. That may be good enough for the GOP, but not for me.

Of course, I recognize that veering from the status quo will expose Bush to all those uncomfortable questions, such as: “How’d we get in this screwed up position in the first place?” and “What moron thought it would be a good idea to flip the bird at Europe and the Middle East before starting this war?”

Posted by: Homer at May 31, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #153109

JoeBag: “But we must fully and openly investigate the evidence first before proclaiming guilt.”

I congratulate you, Joe, on making this point, which I’m sure all of you Red-Team posters equally well endorse, especially in light of the as yet unfounded allegations about Harry Reid’s boxing tickets.

Big Bird, as noted elsewhere, Republicans are also divided about Iraq. “…Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has twice argued since August 18 that the United States is getting “bogged down” in Iraq much as it did in Vietnam. Newt Gingrich [has said] “Any effort to explain Iraq as ‘We are on track and making progress’ is nonsense,” Newt Gingrich, a Republican who is a former House speaker, said. And polls show fewer and fewer Republicans supporting Bush’s handling of Iraq.”

Most Dems and independents and more and more Republicans view the invasion of Iraq as a huge mistake. There is no consensus as to what to do because there are at this point no good options. There is no “undo” button here, guys. Much as we would like there to be one, there is no easy way back - leaving Iraq in a state of chaos is hardly an inexpensive way out. And despite BigBird’s chest thumping and flag waving, there’s no easy way forward either.

I’ll believe Republicans are serious about winning in Iraq when they stop pretending that shouting “treason” and slinging a few John Wayne quotes will lead us to victory, and start firing the idiots who got us this mess!

Posted by: William Cohen at May 31, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #153113

“Duke” Cunningham was a war hero, too. In fact, he was much more celebrated as such than Murtha or, for that matter, Kerry.

Does that mean that Cunningham should be exonerated of his wrongdoings? No.

Any “war hero” who begins making a name for himself by accusing soldiers of crimes without giving them the benefit of an investigation and/or trial is a disgrace to the uniform and the country. It’s political opportunism at it’s ugliest.

Have a handful of our soldiers done things they shouldn’t have done? Unfortunately, yes. Have these soldiers committed a crime? Let’s let the investigation and trail tell us. I hope not.

Unfortunately, many on the left are hoping they did everything the media has already convicted them of. Personally, I’ve seen too many “news reports” that ended up being transparent attempts to spread lies…Newsday’s “flushing the Kuran” bit that resulted in the deaths of hundreds….Rathergate…on and on. I’ll wait for the real story. I doubt you’ll hear anything in the press if they end up being innocent.

Sometimes issues are, indeed, as simple as black-and-white, Homer. One side thinks our soldiers are serving a noble cause, the other thinks they are thugs.

William, do you actually realize what you said in your opening statement? You are criticizing someone for actually wanting to see the results of the investigation BEFORE proclaiming them guilty or innocent? Unbelieveable!! Wipe the drool from your chin and take another sip of your kool-aid, buddy!!

Posted by: Rich at May 31, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #153115

SE-
As I recall it, he never accepted a bribe in the Abscam operation and was cleared by the House Ethics Committee. Suspicion does not equal commission. This sort of misunderstanding is apt to occur when the scoring of rhetorical propaganda points takes precedence over discussion of actual issues.

Harry Reid, meanwhile, target by the same sort of rhetoric, concerning boxing tickets is revealed to be free and clear. Guess what? He couldn’t pay for tickets. He was given VIP credentials, which it was illegal for him to pay for. Where he could pay for boxing tickets, he did. What’s more, as I recall it, Reid turned down the legislation that his hosts wished him to give them.

So what’s the pattern here? Rhetoric over facts.

I think the main consensus of the new Democratic party is founded on good old fashion American pragmatism and free thought, rather than dogmatic dependence on one set of positions.

If you want an example, look at Murtha. To this point, Murtha has been Anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and has been more hawkish than other Democrats. I think he may in fact represent the kind of Democrat we may see in coming elections, as folks on my end court the alienated Reagan Democrats back from the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #153116

Rich,

“Sometimes issues are, indeed, as simple as black-and-white, Homer. One side thinks our soldiers are serving a noble cause, the other thinks they are thugs.”

Boy, talk about “black and white”.

You can’t possibly believe this drivel.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #153119

Rich,

Just because members on both sides “think” in black-and-white terms doesn’t mean they’re right. Miscreants thrive in the environment created by black-or-whiters who would refuse to acknowledge that their “side” could ever do wrong.

Posted by: Homer at May 31, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #153124

I think to answer your question, there has to be some agreed upon starting points that can be taken as FACT. To establish the following points as fact - just fill in True or False next to the statement…

1) We are at WAR right now (not just Iraq or Ashcanistan). We are at war with certain groups of people that hate us and our way of life. (T/F)

2) Our enemy transcends traditional nation states and their boundaries, and as such can wage war either through the promotion of the destruction of western civilization or direct action towards us and our allies. (T/F)

3) Our enemy is resilient in their cause. They believe that our way of life is corrupt and theirs holy. They are waging a fanatical religious war with zealous martyrs willing to die for their cause. (T/F)

4) Our enemy is sponsored by well funded individuals or governments. They are equipped and trained to wage terror. They are an enemy not to be taken lightly. They have shown a willingness to kill without discretion and have already done so (USS Cole, Foreign Embassy’s, London and Madrid Bombings, World Trade Towers…etc). They have no regard for innocent life. (T/F)

5) Our enemy is planning suture attacks. These attacks in their own words will not stop until their Jihad has been achieved. (T/F)

I’m sure I can think of many more…but the basic jist is that we can either cut and run, and essentially wait for the next attack, which is a certainty. Or, we can do something about it. We can let other nations that harbor terrorists know that we will not rest. We will not back down. We will take the fight to them, and we will not quit until our defense is ensured. We used to be a nation that would have been resolute in this. The greatest generation made way for the peaceniks and the pot smokers. The pendulum has swung, but it will make a correction, and is already doing so. There are an increasing number of us here in the US that are willing to fight for our continued way of life. You saw most of us come out in force right after September 11th. Remember all of the American Flags? The patriotism. The shared feelings of “oneness”. I have to tell you it felt good to be an American again. Some of you forgot that feeling. Others have always felt and will always feel that way. My question is; what will it have to take for us to get that feeling of unity back again? To be resolute in our common defense of our way of life. How many more towers have to fall? Innocent blood spilled. How much more do we have to endure before enough becomes enough?

Posted by: b0mbay at May 31, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #153126

For all their professions of love for our military, folks on the right here do have a love for disrespecting some of our most honored military like Murtha whose goal and objective is to find an end to this war that is killing and maiming so many of our soldiers. All talk and no walk is what the right stands for. If they love our soldiers, they too would be supporting efforts to bring our troops out of harm’s way as soon as practicable. But, they don’t love our troops, they love being in power.

Much like their all talk no walk on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and homeland security, which nearly 5 years after 9/11 still leaves our borders wide open to our enemies. All talk, no walk - that’s what the Republican Party has come to be.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #153127

bOmbay,

(1) False. We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(2) False. There is no monolithic “enemy.”

(3) False. Some of our enemies hate America; others have more local concerns, e.g., a Sunni who is mad that Americans have installed a Shiite government in Baghdad.

(4) False. Some are heedless of innocent victims. On the other hand, others are motivated precisely by what they feel to be wrongful attacks on innocent life.

(5) False. There is no evidence of any attacks with sutures.

By the way, you apparently believe that America must attack to defend itself. Maybe so, maybe not. But you appear incapable of comprehending that sometimes the attacks are what inspire the terrorists. I’m not sure your “attack, attack, attack” approach is best-suited to deal with that problem.

Posted by: Homer at May 31, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #153128

b0mbay-

It’s funny, if you take the first line of each of your “facts”, that’s how I look at the war thinking people need to fight against Bush and his Radical Right:

1.We are at WAR (w/ Bush),

2.Our enemy (Bush) transcends traditional Nation Sates (by setting aside their laws),

3. Our enemy is resilient in their cause (will of the people be damned)

4. Our enemy is sponsored by well funded individuals and governments (Halliburton, Enron, etc.)

5. Our enemy is planning future attacks (but in Novemeber, we’ll be ready!!!)


In an actual reponse to what you said, did you enlist after 9/11, or just wave a flag? Bush ahd the opportunity to truly unite the nation, and he squandered it. Granted, there will always be pacifists and neo-hippies who will denounce every war, but they are no more representative of the Democratic party than Jerry Falwell is of the Repubs. The fact is that since 9/11 Bush has slowly lost the support of all except his most loyal, never-say-die followers. The entire nation (91%) trusted him after 9/11 to lead us, and he dropped the ball.

Posted by: David S at May 31, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #153129

Well…

It has always been my position that we cannot leave Iraq until every Al Queda Terrorist there is dead.

That said. I believe Iraq is a Republican War and only Republicans should fight it.

As for Murtha, he feared a cover-up was being attempted. Evidence suggests there WAS a cover-up. This is a lot like the Pat Tillman cover-up.

Posted by: Aldous at May 31, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #153135

I did enlist after sept 11th. Ive said so in other posts. I took the officers test (passed) but failed the physical because of chronic tinnitus in my ears (i always hear ringing). I was really disappointed too. I don’t use enrollment or actual serving in our armed forces as a litmus test for being patriotic. I think that we all can be patriotic (even those that are against the war in Iraq, or disagree with our current administration). Im not going to use the traitor label, because I dont think that there are any traitors in here, but I do think that if you love this country, there has to be a fundamental willingness to want to protect it.

With regard to the monolithic enemy statement (there being none) I have to disagree…

mon·o·lith·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-lthk) adj.
Constituting or acting as a single, often rigid, uniform whole: a monolithic worldwide movement.

If you think the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by a bunch of rag tag “freedom fighters”, then you don’t understand that much about coordinated military tactics. And that isn’t your fault, I don’t know much about packing a bong, but then again, you wont see me making statements of fact on that subject…

Posted by: b0mbay at May 31, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #153136

Of all the foolish things that are said about Al-Quaida and the enemy here, the dumbest is that we are at war because “they hate us and our way of life.” How dumb is that? You know, I don’t think much of many people’s way of life, but I never even remotely consider sending airplanes into our towers. I think Bush et al. have spread this “they’re against us because they hate freedom” junk because many Americans are just dumb enough to believe it.

They hate us because we have staunchly supported Israel’s theft of Palestinian land and the creation of a huge underclass of permanent refugees that everyone in the Arab world has had to deal with. They hate us because Bin Laden hates Americans being in Saudi Arabia. The original group hated us for various things we’ve done and also because they’re nuts.

But now, now they all hate us, and for things like shooting pregnant women at checkpoints and breaking into peoples’ houses and murdering whole families, and bombing wedding parties, and failing to get the lights on for Iraq’s ordinary people while managing to build a huge new embassy in Baghdad for the Americans.

They hate us for good reasons now. Thanks George, Dick, and most especially “Handy” Don. We’re most obliged.

Posted by: intelligentlife at May 31, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #153138

“Which Way Does The Wind Blow Today?”

Umm, nice troll. In that spirit, how about: Up Yours?

But seriously, how is it even possible for you righties to goosestep mindlessly behind a leader who says things like: “dead or alive” AND “just not that concerned” when it comes to Bin Laden??? Or “The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies” AND “We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic” in the same damn speech (2005 State of the Union)???

David:
“All talk, no walk - that’s what the Republican Party has come to be.”

You got that right. To which I might add: All bluster, no muster. All sneers, no cheers. All pain, no brains. All flag waving, no savings.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #153139

intelligentlife

Wasnt the worldtrade 1st bombed during the clinton administration??? So that cant be a bush thing. Im sure I can find numerous quotes from statments made by al quaida about the western way of life that they despise. But to your point, I think that there are many reasons why they hate us. But at the end of the day, does it really matter? As long as they are willing to kill us to foster their nutty ideas, Im willing to be on the side of force to blow them right to allah.

Posted by: b0mbay at May 31, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #153141

puff puff give. puff puff give. you are @#%#ing up the rotation!!!

Posted by: b0mbay at May 31, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #153145

LEAVE NOW. Because Bush/Cheney have already said:

1) “The end to major combat is over.”
2) “The insurgency is in its last throes.”
3) “Iraq can now be counted among the world’s free nations.”

Well…hang us a mission accomplished banner! Oh wait, i almost forgot, THE OIL THE OIL THE OIL THE OIL THE OIL has not been secured and may not be for years and years, what with its OBVIOUS VALUE. if only the US-Mexico border was getting as much security detail as THE OIL THE OIL THE OIL THE OIL is.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #153146

b0mbay,

“Wasnt the worldtrade 1st bombed during the clinton administration??? So that cant be a bush thing.”

Those perps were caught and prosecuted.

As I see it the attacks on Sept. 11th, had two purposes;

1)To scare the bejeezus out of America, and helped along with Mr. Ridge’s duct tape and plastic sheeting and the ever popular color code, they were pretty successful.

2)Change our way of life, and with the help of Mr. Ashcroft’s spy on your neighbor’s suspicious activities,and the Patriot Act, they succeeded again.

If anyone had a mandate to do anything, after Sept. 11th, Mr. Bush had one.
With nearly unanimous backing from the American people, and our allies, we went into Afghanistan. A very good move.
When the decision was made to go into Iraq, I, with quite a few other folks, thought it was a distraction from our purpose, but when we arrived there I was for it if we didn’t just fiddle fart around.
Well, the rest is history.
IMHO, if we are going to be serious, I think we should stay and finish the job.
If we are going to continue to fart around, it’s time to bring our boys and girls home.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #153149

Hey Rocky, decent post there. Sounds like at least some on the left can wipe the hate for Bush from their brow (for at least a minute) to think clearly.

Posted by: Craig at May 31, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #153151

“William, do you actually realize what you said in your opening statement? You are criticizing someone for actually wanting to see the results of the investigation BEFORE proclaiming them guilty or innocent? Unbelieveable!! Wipe the drool from your chin and take another sip of your kool-aid, buddy!!”

Actually, I’m all in favor of an investigation before rushing to judgement. This is serious shit, and it will be like another Abu Ghraib if it is verified - it certainly needs serious investigation. In my post, I actually pointed out that there’s an element of inconsistency here - a couple of days ago, there was a chorus of voices from this very column screaming about “Dirty Harry’s” corruption - without anything at all like a trial or investigation (or indeed, without reading the news very carefully).

Murtha knows more than we do, and he obviously believes he knows what the outcome of the investigation will be. But he should have pointed out out that those soldiers are innocent until found guilty….just like Karl Rove, Harry Reid, and even William Jefferson with his fridge full of $100 bills.

On the other hand, a cover-up or perceived cover-up would be pretty damaging to the US also. Some evidence suggests there was a cover-up. As a vet and a lawmaker, Murtha’s not being irresponsible if he puts on the heat and makes sure the investigation really happens. And anyone that spends time and effort spewing bitter invective in any direction about this issue is, in my view, being irresponsible.


Posted by: William Cohen at May 31, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #153153

Murtha took a chance. If he is correct the he was corageous if he was incorrect then he is a fool. If he is correct he is bringing light to something that can not be tolerated in our country. If he is incorrect then he is adding fuel to the fire for our enemy.

I choose to wait and see what is happening. I choose to see what the courts find out. I see something that is highly UnAmerican judging someone prior to their trial. I realize that there will always be people who do this but now we have major media and even elected officials who are condemning these marines prior to actually knowing what is happening.

I think it would have been more appropriate if Murtha said “There is a possibility that some marines may have killed some civilians with out cause. I demand that we have an investigation into this and see if it is true. If he had approached it this way I think we would have had the same results with out all the infighting with out the name calling and with out the public defaming of individuals before anything is actually known.

If this turns out to be true then I will condemn them myself and I will call for their death. I believe in the death penalty for most forms of murder. If you find it in yourself to murder someone then you forfeit your life. This is my stance.

The problem with the standard democrat right now all they do is accuse. They make the differences in philosophy as something that is morally wrong something that we should be ashamed of. What I do not see is someone on that side of the aisle who is actually offering help towards a goal. I would like to see that.

I would also like to see most of the republicans and democrats who voted to increase the size of our government in the huge manner that we have voted out this election. I see no real opportunity for change in this nation with our current law makers in congress it does not matter if they are democrat or republican.

Oh well I have spoken enough now.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 31, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #153155


S.E.: I say stay in Iraq and put all of the neocons on patrol in Ramady. After all, it is the neocons who have the winning strategy and the insurgents have been in their last throws for two years now.

I have this cartoon in my mind: George Bush in ten gallon hat, six shooters and spurs, Cheney in his S.S, uniform, and dapper Don walking patrol in Bagdad. The caption over Cheneys’ head reads: don’t worry, the insurgents only have two throws left.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #153159

The Republican defense on this has been all over the place. The truth is, if people are not willing to speak out of turn on matters like this, there is a hell of a lot that will go wrong, and nobody will know anything about it until it’s too late.

Murtha waited until much of the investigation was complete, and related the facts responsibly. To call it cold-blooded is correct, because of the systematic nature of the killings, the innocence of those gunned down, and the fact that many had already surrendered. You can add the fact that rather than admit it, people within the unit deliberately falsified a report.

Those who call Murtha unamerican must ask themselves whether we want to have a bunch of nasty secrets around about policy we think is more benign. I think it’s more American for policy to match impression, for our principles to be reflected in our actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #153160

Craig,

“Sounds like at least some on the left can wipe the hate for Bush from their brow (for at least a minute) to think clearly.”

I haven’t been from the left since the eighties.


Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #153164

But thanks for the kind words anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #153166

So you can get off Serving from ringing in your ears, eh? I suppose its better than having a cyst up one’s ass.

Posted by: Aldous at May 31, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #153169

All

Well,everybody has opinions about the prosecution of the war,but tell me…what will the democratic platform be and who will be the standard bearer….that was the point of the post.

Will the platform be anti-war a la Murtha and Dena or pro staying there a la Clinton and Lieberman?

THat’s the question…and I am still looking for an answer.

The Repuublicans has several who question the prosecution of the war…I agree to that,but when push comes to shove,the platform of the Reblican Party will be that of the president.

Now,again…what will the platform be of the Democrats.Can someone please answer that single question?

Stephen and David
On the thread down below,over 150 something posts,both pro and con covered Murtha I think.

I couldn’t hace been clearer:I objected to him labeling marines as cold blooded killers BEFORE the NCIS investigation was completed and a trial held.I also said that if the investigation does inculpate marines and they are found guilty,they should be punished.I couldn’t be clearer.

On the other hand,virtually every veteran organization(aging I listed them on the previous thread ) are beserk over the way Murtha want public.

The thread was limited to two narrow points.

Now,this thread I am attempting to narrow to one point:What will be the Democratic platform on Iraq?

How about an answer to that single question.

Adrienne

I am going to send you a book on nice Republican rhymes…no offense,but your poetyr needs a tad bit of work. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #153174

I think we all who blows here.

Posted by: gergle at May 31, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #153176

SE:

What is your position on the Army lying to Pat Tillman’s parents about his death? Do you think McCain was opportunistic in going after the Pentagon for the cover-up?

There is no question that there is a cover-up on the Haditha Massacre. Otherwise, all this would have been finished a year ago.

Posted by: Aldous at May 31, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #153181

Given Eric’s last post and this one, I was reminded of a movie with Robin Williams. The reference to meow and blow reminded me of one scene. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but in the scene where he is sent out of country for his connections to a VC spy he comments to his replacement, ” I have never seen anyone in more serious need of a blowjob.” Somehow that seems appropiate when describing the rather strained attempts at humor and punditry by some posters. Perhaps Freud is at work here, perhaps not. I guess some people have it, some don’t.

Posted by: gergle at May 31, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #153182

Aldous

Quick answer (but you have to promise to answer the thread question,ok?)

I would nail someone if there was a cover-up on Tilman.I loved that guy.However,I am not familiar with the facts enough to make comment.I gotta read up on it.
Regarding McCain..I think his stock may be dropping a bit..it’s still way too early however..but I am intrigued with Rudy…he has the cachet to pull moderate dems IF he can get by the religious fanatics of my party.See?we have the same problem as the dems…loonies on both fringes…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #153202

SE:

To answer your question:

The Democratic Party does not require its members to become drones in service to the Cause. In its entire history, you will be hardpressed to find an instance where Party Obedience overrode one’s principles. The Dems are the party of individuals.

Murtha believes a cover-up was attempted on Haditha. Considering what happened to Pat Tillman, I don’t blame him.

Murtha wants a scheduled pull-out. Hillary Clinton does not. Since neither of them are the idiots who claimed Saddam did 9/11, I see no reason why either position cannot be reconciled later on. They are legislators. They will negotiate a compromise that will work. Unlike this “Your with us or Against Us” GOP, Dems work with everybody for the greater good.

Posted by: Aldous at May 31, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #153203

SE, Murtha knew, and knows, that to permit the Haditha cover-up to continue, would send the wrong message to our troops and their commanders. Murtha respects and cares about our soldiers. He also knows they have the power of life and death in their hands and proper guidance and limitations on that power are absolutely necessary to insure that our military remains one of heroes, not boys with unrestrained anger, fear, and power of life and death.

Murtha saw the conflict in the reports, indicating rather clearly that these soldiers were incorrect about how these Iraqi’s died in their homes, and that their commanders were not expeditiously investigating and reporting this contradiction in reports and facts on the ground, up the chain of command. Pres. Bush only learned of this when the story broke in the press.

Murtha acted in the best interests of our soldiers and the mission in Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #153213

SE-
I’d just as soon my party didn’t put all it’s eggs in one basket, that it instead came to it’s policies by consensus. I think we can all agree that change is needed in the war in Iraq.

I think we can agree that we can’t afford too much more deficit spending. I think we can agree that we need to fix a lot of the bureaucratic messes Bush created (ala FEMA).

I think we can all agree that we need to repair America’s relations with the rest of the world, and make diplomacy more than the red-headed step-childed of War, or the other way around.

I think we can agree that corruption and carelessness in government are eating away at our nation’s strength, and its ability to get things done.

Ultimately, I think people know what we stand for, if they’ve been listening. It may not be consistent from individual to individual, but I think that’s a good thing because if everybody in a party is agreeing, folks aren’t thinking for themselves.

As for Murtha releasing the information, I think you have to take into consideration that your president runs one of the most secretive administration in this nation’s history. Even John Dean, veteran of THAT White House, when confronted by the level and the extent of Bush’s secrecy, found it astonishing.

It’s become the bad joke of this administration that it fiercely denies the charges leveled at it when the story originally breaks, but then admits them to be true about a year or so later. It happened with WMD, with case for war, with the war planning, with atrocities, and with the Plame case.

The question is, what big surprises will we find out about next? What kind of stuff will we find out when Bush leaves office?

With that in mind, I think Murtha’s revelation of those details was meant to prevent this from being another nasty surprise buried, only to be resurrected later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #153214

Support for the wrong wing is draining like water out of a toilet, and their response is to continue the mudslinging. Amazing.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 31, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #153229

Sicilian Eagle, I have two things to say:
1. I ended up reading your article only because I thought the title was very thought out. Very good catchy title I must say.

2. Anyone who has read my posts knows I do not like John Kerry, so even though I dont agree with you on the war or on probably anything else nice cut at John Kerry I loved that part.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 31, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #153241

Withdraw. Now.

One of our soldiers shot a woman about to give birth along with a 57 year old woman, because their car was speeding.

And what else could that soldier do? The car could have been a suicide bomber. It ignored warnings & warning shots. The soldier had an obligation to protect fellow soldiers. That soldier will never, ever recover.

War should only be waged as a last resort.

Republican conservatives can blame everyone else for their evil folly. They can blame messengers and avoid acknowledging the message. But this is a conservative Republican war from start to finish. It is a war of choice. Republican conservatives control the presidency, both houses of the legislature, and the judicial branch.

How dare you blame others for Iraq! How dare you! Choosing to wage a war is wrong. It is monstrous, and the definition of evil.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #153275

David Reemer

I actualy agree with you about Murtha.Virtually every sentence.
However,he could have gone up his own “chain of command” if he was worried about the investigation,no?
Thus,while I do admire his service to his country (that was NEVER an issue),I believe two things:one is that the investigation must be completed and the facts checked and double checked.Especially with the sensitivity involved with this issue.Two,a person is guilty until proven innocent.I have spend most of my professionial life defending that phrase,David.They are entitled to a trial.If guilty,THEN drop the hammer.If guilty,THEN drop the hammer if a cover-up did in fact take place.
Here is the biggest problem in defending the marines (I am speaking as a defense attorney right now):Video shows they were executed.However,the defense has an impossible task to perform here because Muslim law requires that the dead be buried immedietly.Thus no forensic analysis is available to match the bullet to the shooter,or in fact establish the wounds were caused by an American weapon.
Now,the shell casings on the floor CAN establish who shot,but those casings must be linked(or unlinked) to a body.
Insurgents kill be single gunshots too and if the body is immediately buried and if the survivors are told to say the Americans did it unless they too will be shot…well it’s out there as a possible defense alibi (among many).
My scenario is a stretch.All the evidence poits to the marines.However,a full vetting of the investigation,plus a trail is what should have taken place.And David…not only me feels this way…a LOT of people do.All of a sudden,right or wrong,his Congressional seat comes into play.There are a lot of vets in Pa.
As you say,we can agree to disagree.

Stephen

Nice speech.Answer the question.In or out and who leads the Dems.Don’t dodge.

Aldous
You too.I’d like an answer to the question.One way or another.

phx8
I respect your view,you at least came forward with a reasoned answer.Now who is the standard bearer?

Richard Rhodes
The trick is getting multiple cuts in within a single sentence.
He isn’t a challange,though.

Elliot Bay
Try answering the question.In or out and who

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 1, 2006 6:19 AM
Comment #153285

William,
I applude your last post. My opinion of you shifted a little (for what that’s worth - LOL).

Unfortunately, I believe your last two sentences conflict with each other and with your support of Murtha. Your last sentence underscores my point.

IF Murtha was simply demanding a comprehensive investigation, I would not be upset with him. However, he’s already convicted the soldiers in question - without the benefit of an investigation and/or trial. It’s not HIS job to proclaim guilt or innocense. The fact that he is doing just that, in my opinion, makes him irresponsible. It damages his ability to effectively “put on the heat and makes sure the investigation really happens.”. In my opinion, it lowers him to someone “that spends time and effort spewing bitter invective in any direction about this issue is”….irresponsible.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #153286

EAgle:

It’s amazing that even someone like the estimable David Remer would forgo the concept of innocent until proven guilty. These Marines have their lives at stake over these charges, after having put their lives at stake by being in Iraq. The very least they deserve is what the very least in our society get as a matter of course: innocent until proven guilty.

If they are proven guilty, throw the book at them. But don’t throw the book before the investigation.

My earlier comments about Murtha were in support of his patriotism in serving his country as a veteran. I have no support for his heinous actions in calling these Marines guilty at this point, and for doing so in such a public manner. It is reprehensible for a man with his experience to ignore one of the most basic principles in our country.

He could have just as easily said that he wants the investigation to be above board, to be public, to be free from any appearance of impropriety. He could have said that he won’t make any decisions until all the evidence is fully investigated.

Murtha appeared to be guilty in the Abscam issue, but the matter was investigated and he was not charged. At this point, there are no charges against the Marines. Why wouldnt Murtha give the Marines the same benefit that he himself received?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 1, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #153287

It’s no dodge, actually. I think the Republican’s greatest weakness has come from that greatest strength: they encouraged, essentially, partywide groupthink. You of course think of it as a strength, because unity reflects your idea of how a party should run.

Trouble with unity comes when one of the main belief systems of your party turns out to be wrong or counterproductive. The party discipline works against shifting to a better strategy, then, discourages people from running with their individual thoughts. Only now are people starting to break free of that in your party, but unfortunately everything’s so tightly organized in your party that things are shaking themselves apart. The stiffest materials are the most brittle, when external force is applied.

The Republicans have had the benefit of the good times of the 90’s, times in which their beliefs had not really been tested. Now they’re put to the test, and like all consistent, logical, philosophies about how people should act, it fails. Since there’s not much of an alternative within the party, there’s not much of a way for the party to shift over in order to better confront it’s current situation.

The Democrats, in all their fractious glory, have the advantage of being able to shift back and forth with different segments of the party contributing different ideas. By not straining out dissenting views, we raise the chances that one day, a dissenting view may become a survival trait for our party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2006 8:11 AM
Comment #153290

Stephen

“The Democrats, in all their fractious glory, have the advantage of being able to shift back and forth with different segments of the party contributing different ideas.”

Shifting back and forth…I get it…you are supporting the flip-flopper Kerry…Why didn’t you just say so?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 1, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #153293

One thing that has puzzled me throughout the last five years: why are Republicans not first in line to defend their honor by aggressively investigating things like Abu Ghraib or Haditha? Why do they instead circle the wagons and say, “oh, it’s not so bad,” or “poor kids, they were under a lot of pressure.” Or suggest, criminally, just blowing up Iraq to resolve the problems there. Or attack patriots like Murtha who want to hold our country accountable for its sins. It all seems to be about excuses for blind hatred and unprovoked violence.
Is this any way to run a democracy?

Posted by: intelligentlife at June 1, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #153299

Any vets on this blog? I’m not, the only war raging during my teens and twenties was the cold war, but I have lived with my older brother and his experiences in ‘Nam. 1st Cav had a rough go of it, and he saw many of his friends die - some at the hands of women & children. Were these civilians in the strictest sense? In ‘68 he had friends killed by a child, (shining their shoes to help the kid out), his shine box was a bomb. Did they, (the kid}, deserve to die? No one deserves to die wrongly. Were they forced into actions detrimental to themselves and their families by terrorists? Maybe. Did these few marines “lose it” after one too many of their friends died? Perhaps. I know my brother has never been the same since ‘67-70, could be these marines went nuts, could be a set-up, could be like Wm. Tecumseh Sherman said all those years ago, “War is all hell”. Let’s let the facts come out, see what punishment is deemed needed and then stop and take a breath, pray for the families of the civilians and the marines, then try to understand what happened and make an effort to correct it. Understanding, isn’t that the hallmark of todays liberal? bite your lower lip and proclaim for all to hear “I feel your pain”. But that’s just for other liberals, not the few, the proud, the marines.

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #153311

intelligentlife:

I have not seen the attacks on Murtha that you claim. What I have seen is Murtha’s actions and words being discussed. Read back to what I posted above about Murtha, and you will not find an attack on him. You will find instead a complete disagreement with his handling of the Haditha situation. You aren’t suggesting, I’m sure, that anyone’s actions be beyond reproach, are you? That would be a form of censorship.

Stephen:

Group think is dangerous. It exists in some degree in both parties, but more so in the GOP. Unity can be a good thing, and it exists in some degree in both parties, but more so in the GOP.

The Dems have multiple positions regarding Iraq. It reminds me of an Indian tribe in upstate New York—they had several factions with differing ideas of how to build a casino. Each faction had enough power to stop the others, but no faction had enough power to move forward. What resulted was gridlock.

The Dem party must take a position officially. If they continue to shift between the Hillary faction, the Kerry faction, the Murtha faction, the Pelosi faction etc, they will only ensure that none of their ideas gain traction.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 1, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #153337

JR,
Yes, I am a veteran.

And supporting the troops does not mean sending them into an impossible situation, just because conservative Republicans do not want to suffer the political embarrassment of being wrong; wrong, at the cost of thousands of lives, of tens of thousands of lives ruined, Iraqi as well as American; and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.

Conservative Republicans would rather send more troops into Iraq than admit they were wrong, , and force the ones there to stay tour after tour, rather than cut the losses.

There is no plan other than “stay the course,” and the course is going in a completely unacceptable direction.

I am sickened and disheartened. Most Americans think Iraq is a mistake, but few even bother to protest. Everyone is too depressed and apathetic to do anything other than wait out these disastrous Bush years, and wait out all the disastrous failures caused by the implementation of conservative philosophy.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #153349

Somewhere I must have missed where the news media or blogs were able to convict.

I thought they either reported the news or made up the propoganda from talking points, in the cas of Fox news.

Silly me.

I guess all those traitor comments must have locked up a lot of people by now. You’d think a lawyers would at least know the difference. Oops I forgot. Fox news drones.

Posted by: gergle at June 1, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #153362

phx8 — excellent post. Nice how you can garner the Sic Eagles respect, while I, holding the exact same positions as yourself, don’t.

jbod:
“The Dem party must take a position officially. If they continue to shift between the Hillary faction, the Kerry faction, the Murtha faction, the Pelosi faction etc, they will only ensure that none of their ideas gain traction.”

Like phx8. I’m with the Murtha/Feingold “faction”. Allow me to explain why I must call it that:
Murtha is a hawk who finally came to the realization that there is no possibility that we can win this war because of the way the Neocons chose to wage it.
Feingold, on the other hand, is one who has been right about this war from the very beginning, took the strongest and most intelligent positions (on this issue and many others), and has therefore, earned an enormous amount of respect and support from the true base of the Democratic Party.
Both of these men come from very different places on the thought-spectrum of the Democratic Party but are now in total agreement that this war has been a total disaster. Both understand that it has/is harming our military in every way possible. And Both advocate that a date be set, and that we need to begin bringing our exhausted, overextended, poorly equipped troops home.

“I have not seen the attacks on Murtha that you claim. What I have seen is Murtha’s actions and words being discussed.”

This is disingenuous in the extreme. Murtha has been attacked and called truly vicious names, and you well know it.
You folks on the right all want to talk about Murtha’s actions and words, rather than face the fact these Marines murdered these people, some of them execution-style, and that a cover up was attempted. Clearly he military knew what had happened in November when these murders took place because they quickly paid the families compensations, but it took them until March to even begin an investigation — and when they did it was only because Time came out with a report on what had happened.
I hear you people attacking Murtha and saying how terrible it is that he spoke out, but I bet you haven’t even read the transcript of what he actually said over the weekend. Read that righties, and then go ahead and keep shooting your mouths off Murtha’s “actions and words”.
It’s interesting too, how we haven’t heard a single word from you all about the fact that Republicans have also been saying plenty of things about these murders and the cover up.
John Warner joined Murtha in calling for hearings on this. But you don’t want to talk about that. Nor have we heard a word from you about what Republican Representative John Kline (like Murtha, also a former Marine) has said: “There’s no doubt that the Marines allegedly involved in doing this – they lied about it. They certainly tried to cover it up.”
Yet, no one here has called Kline a “jerk”, a “dolt”, the “official jihadist poster boy du jour” or a “nitwit” the way Murtha has been.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #153376

The problem is that the Democratic party isn’t really a party. There is no leader. They are so concerned about not upsetting the far left fringe that they have ignored the middle. I am definitely a Dem, and pretty much vote down the party line, but it definitely feels like a losing battle when our national leaders are Reid, Pelosi and Dean.

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #153379

Adrienne

Excellent post!

See?I just wanted everybody to pick SOMETHING…and you did…you picked “over the horizon”.and the Murtha/Feingold view.

Good for you.Bravo!

Now,we (you,I and everyone else,will know where you I and everyone else stand going forward into the election cycle)

By the way,I respect your point of view…I think you intelligent and you express yourself well…we just see things differently,that’s all….I from a reasoned point,you from ….

heheh :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 1, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #153383

Adrienne:

You can claim that its fact that the Marines murdered people, but it simply isn’t proven fact. It may become proven at some point, and at that time, I’ll restate my position of throwing the book at the perpetrators.

You are correct that “John Warner joined Murtha in calling for hearings on this”—-what Warner did NOT do is play judge and jury and proclaim their guilt. That is what Murtha has done, and it is that for which I hold him accountable.

From your own link, it says that “Sen. John W. Warner (R) of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John P. Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania said they did not yet have proof of an attempt to surpress evidence of the shootings of 24 Iraqi civilians last November.” Yet in the transcript, Murtha says the Marines “shoot those four or five people, unarmed. And then they go on a rampage throughout the houses and kill people….And then in addition to that, they had - there has to have been a cover-up of this thing…No question about it…There’s no question about what happened. And the problem is, who covered it up? And why did they cover it up?”

Warner is quoted as saying this: “There is this serious question, however, of what happened and when it happened and what was the immediate reaction of the senior officers in the marine corps when they began to gain knowledge of it.” This is why he wants it investigated—-to get to the bottom of it and find the truth.

As far as Kline is concerned, I’d disagree with him concluding guilt at this point, just as I disagree with Murtha. I’ve only seen one quote by Kline (“This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them. This is going to be an ugly story.”), and haven’t been able to determine its context. I haven’t and won’t call either one of them the names that you posted, but I’ll hold them both equally accountable for their comments.

Adrienne, I truly don’t understand your point of view and why you would disagree with mine. I want the matter to be fully investigated before pronouncing guilt. I want it to be done under no veil of secrecy and I want it to include the actions of Kilo Company in Haditha, as well as the actions of anyone in the chain of command who overlooked or suppressed information. I disagree with anyone who pronounces guilt before a full and complete investigation, especially if they are a public official (I’m not talking about bloggers here). Murtha should know better.

What about the innocent until proven guilty
position is there to disagree with?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 1, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #153394

Still conflating the war in Iraq with the war against Al Qaeda? *sigh* Who cares what the Dem’s plan is for winning Bush’s war in Iraq? What’s Bush’s plan? Unless he’s impeached he’s gonna be president until 2009 so that’s the important question and “staying the course” isn’t the answer. The Iraq war is destroying the US military and even if it wasn’t it can’t defeat the insurgency militarily. Indeed our presence there is making the insurgency stronger day by day. Instead of criticizing Dems for not being sufficiently murderous why aren’t you criticizing the president for putting your party and our country in such a precarious state that come November your worst fear, defeat in the midterm elections comes true?

Posted by: Mark Garrity at June 1, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #153396

JBoD-

The reason I don’t have a problem with what Murtha said is that the voice of moral outrage is an important one in a situation like this. Obviously, he has no authority to actually find anyone guilty and pass down sentence. That is where innocent until proven guilty comes to play. But when faced with an overwhelming amount of evidence, as Murtha clearly feels is there, I would hope that all of our elected officials would speak loudly as to their opinion of what happened, and of how it should be dealt with. Most administrations, notably the current one, take a “no comment” stance on any pending investigations, and that has always struck me as cowardly.

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #153402

The Dems know everything to do in Iraq except win; that’s why they won’t regain power anytime soon. We are winning and will win it with or without them…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 1, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #153428

jbod,
DavidS’ reply is basically the same one I would give.

DavidS, you wrote:
“Most administrations, notably the current one, take a “no comment” stance on any pending investigations, and that has always struck me as cowardly.”

I agree. But thanks to Marines like Murtha and Kline speaking out, Bush felt compelled to say something about this issue yesterday. He said he’s “troubled” by the allegations.

Rahdigly:
“We are winning”

Obviously you can’t read the writing on the wall— perhaps because like your Dear Leader, you don’t actually read the news?
May 31, 2006: Insurgent attacks in Iraq at highest level in 2 years

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #153439

SE-
It’s not flip flopping. You try what works, what you think is the appropriate response at the time. If it turns out something else is necessary or better, you do that instead. Emerson said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I’d rather be right than think the same things all the time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #153447

Phx8
So it’s an impossible situation? Forget the fact that most of the leaders on the ground say we are making a difference everyday, how do you explain the re-up’s? If it was as bad as you and those who hate Bush say it is, does it make sense? Maybe they are stupid, like the hollywood nutjob from the Law and Order TV show said about the reports of good things from troops on the ground in Iraq- “do they read a dozen newspapers a day? I don’t think so!” Being on the ground doesn’t count, especially if they say they are winning. Another of your group said the war is “ruining the military”. What? If, as you say, you are a veteran - my thanks for your service. But why place guilt before innocence? Would you agree your fellow brothers in arms deserve better treatment? All the uproar about Abu Ghaib and when punishment was meted out - no headlines or congratulatory statements on how they got it right by punishing those in the wrong. No, it’s unfortunate that even those who put their lives on the line in the past have to forget the sacrfices of our current military heros and beat a path to the soapbox in order to throw some more mud on the Bush administration in the hopes of winning some seats in the House or Senate. What price political victory?

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #153449

David S: (and Adrienne too, since you seem to speak through David S)

The problem is with Murtha proclaiming guilt. Compare his comments with those of John Warner. Both are calling for an investigation, both want the truth to come out, both want to see if there was a cover-up, both want the guilty to be punished.

The difference is that Warner does not call the Marines guilty, nor does he state that there is definitely a cover-up. We all know that this is a bad situation. It’s bad if it didn’t happen and the Marines are innocent, and its even worse if they are guilty. To prejudge them is simply wrong, and to do so publicly is worse yet.

I support Warner for his call for the investigation and his unwillingness to go against the ‘nnocent until proven guilty’ statute.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 1, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #153459

HERE IS THE VOICE OF REASON
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14711087.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #153474

JR,
Military leaders say what they must say, just as business managers present the company line to employees.

I am glad people are re-enlisting. Many, however, are staying because of stop losses. Others are doing multiple tours. Place enough stress on a person, in the field or as a prison guard, and the results will be bad. Guaranteed. That is why people are rotated frequently.

In the military, you delegate authority, not responsibility. It is total crap when only enlisted people are convicted. No one said anything about fair. That is just the way it is in the military, especially for officers. There should have been resignations and dismissals after the torture scandals right up through Rumsfeld, no excuses.

I cannot speak for others, and I do not speak for liberals. I have never, ever said or suggested soldiers are stupid.

I can observe the military is being used as a pawn for political purposes.

And yeah, it is bad, worse than being reported by the MSM. Ramadhi is an ongoing Fallujah. Parts of Anbar are out of control. Basra is in a state of emergency. We just deployed addtiional troops from Kuwait to Iraq. Attacks/day are at an all time high, especially in Ramadhi. In Bagdhad, dozens of bodies are collected daily, young men executed by the Death Squads. Dozens. Every day. That is just Bagdhad. Those are just the ones left to be found. We are spending almost two billion dollars per week in Iraq.

Supporting this situation just means staying until the Shias execute enough Sunnis to stop resistance. I want no part of that.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #153478

sorry blew the link! Philly Inquirer article today by Chuck Williams, liberal.

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #153486

phx8
All the bad you state comes from what source? This is the main problem. You take the reports of media reporting from a hotel room. Leaders don’t just parrot a line, they say what they see on the ground, am I to believe a reporter but not a General? What does that opinion alone say about your view of the military? I just can’t listen to reporters when the boots on the ground say differently. Is war bad? Certainly. Would walking away because of expenses, or death or media opinion help Iraq or America? No way. Taking a stand and seeing a thing through used to be a given for America, now it’s a joke to the leftist who want nothing for America but defeat, so as to be able to stick out their tongue and say “told ya so, nah nah nah nah nah nah!” By the way, were you so vehement, so outraged when the bodies of Shia were stacking up, “everyday”, for 25+ years under Saddams regime? Death is inevitable in war, at the very least the death in Iraq now is because a people are striving, fighting for freedom for the first time in history and yes it is horrible, but death while pursuing freedom has to be honored, perhaps prefered, above death at the hands of a sadistic madman, killing just because he can. Follow Murthas’ cut and run policy and then watch the violence escalate. No, I will err on the side of those who fight and die - not on the MSM.

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #153500

JR,
“BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — The U.S. military has moved 1,500 troops from Kuwait into Iraq to bolster security in the troubled Anbar province, officials said Tuesday, while attacks across Iraq killed dozens of people for the second straight day.

Terrorists and insurgents have control of parts of Anbar, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said last week.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/iraq.main/index.html

“BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki declared Wednesday a month-long state of emergency in the southern city of Basra, vowing to confront troublemakers in the oil-rich city with “an iron fist.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/31/iraq.basra.emergency/index.html

“RAMADI, Iraq - Whole neighborhoods are lawless, too dangerous for police. Some roads are so bomb-laden that U.S. troops won’t use them. Guerrillas attack U.S. troops nearly every time they venture out — and hit their bases with gunfire, rockets or mortars when they don’t.

Though not powerful enough to overrun U.S. positions, insurgents here in the heart of the Sunni Muslim triangle have fought undermanned U.S. and Iraqi forces to a virtual stalemate.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12922324/

“WASHINGTON — The Pentagon reported yesterday that the frequency of insurgent attacks against troops and civilians is at its highest level since American commanders began tracking such figures…”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/31/insurgent_attacks_in_iraq_at_highest_level_in_2_years/

So I have cited the US Ambassador to Iraq, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Pentagon official report, and an embedded reported, dateline Ramadi. It appears I am backing up everything I say with an indisputable source, and knocking your statements out of the park, a 560 towering shot to dead center.

Back up your assertions, JR.

Leftists do not want to see defeat. Leftists told Bush Supporters not to do this in the first place. People like me opposed it, and protested in huge numbers, both in the US and abroad.

The US government under Bush #41 encouraged the Shias to rise against Saddam, then abandoned them. That was not the fault of leftists. That was a terrible mistake by Bush #41, no more, no less.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #153534

I don’t know about the Democrats. I am an independent. they are a straw man. while the republicans under delay managed to retain a lock-step totalitarioan approach, democrats have managed to be individuals.

but i can tell you what is wrong about the war.

1. lack of pre-war debate and selective acceptance of intelligence
2. not listening to the experts military and professional who warned about foreseeable problems
3. possibly lying and intimidating in order to convey to the public we should go to war
4. evidence that paul wolfowits and other neo-cons had drfated an iraq invasion many years ago
5. invading a country that posed no therat to us, and was not a friend of al-quieda
6. weakening our power and making osama unreachable
7. telling the military to shut-up and claiming the generals did not want reinforcements
wasting billions of dollars
8. encouraging torture and weakening our moral stance

republicans were untied in causing this damage. is that better than being scattered in trying to undo it?

Posted by: julian feijoo at June 1, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #153736

Adrienne,
“Obviously you can’t read the writing on the wall— perhaps because like your Dear Leader, you don’t actually read the news?


Oh, I can read fine. I just don’t listen to the MSM and their bias agenda on what’s going on with the war. I go to military websites and get info from former military pals that are over there and telling me the real skinny.


If I were to listen to the NY “treasonous” Times, Newsweek, Time, and other (disgusting) publications I probably would have a similiar opinion to you. Yet, I don’t; therefore, we disagree.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 2, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #153754

George Bush…worst president since WWII. And there is a poll to prove it. You happy now, SE?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 2, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #153770

radigly,

Here’s a quote for you.

“Woe to the people that fails to honor its heroes! It will cease producing them, cease knowing them. Heroes spring from the essence of their people. A people without heroes is a people without leaders, for only a heroic leader is a true leader able to withstand the challenge of difficult times. The rise or fall of a people can be determined by the presence or absence of a leader.”

I was wondering if you could identify it, and if you felt the same way.

Posted by: Rocky at June 2, 2006 3:30 PM
Post a comment