Murtha calls for withdrawl in Iraq.

[Bill O'Rights]

Congressman Jack Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), ranking member, and former chairman of, the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense. has called for a withdrawl of American troops in Iraq.

Link

The Honorable John P. Murtha

War in Iraq

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

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

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.
Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

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

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

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

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.


Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Murtha, a retired Marine, who has served in two wars and has earned two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, also fired back at Bush and Cheney. When asked about their attacks on war critics, Murtha referred to the vice president's failure to serve in the military during the Vietnam era.

"I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. ... I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done,'' Murtha said.

I've always respected Jack Murtha, and perhaps even more so now. His critics, however, are saying that he wants us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world, and is highly insulting to the members of the Armed Forces. Personally...I like the last quote of his that I've posted.

[Charlatan]

From what I understand, Murtha is highly respected by the military and even the military brass. I think this is the first time he has come out and said anything negative about Iraq...

It appears to me that he is not waving a white flag rather he is saying that he has the best interests of the soldiers in mind with this speech. The worm is definately turning for the Bush Administration.

[Mantus]

Even if people disagree with his solution I think Murtha outlined the problem rather well. US troops are the main catalist for violence in Iraq right now. Further we end up getting all the blame. For examle, the latest prison tourture scandle brewing. That prison was handled by Iraqi forces that had very little contact with US troops yet we are still going to be held responcible in the eyes of the world.

Something NEEDS to be done about this. For those who say that a pullout may spell disaster, it's important to note that our present course of action might lead to the same conclusion. Years ago people were saying there is a 50/50 chance of stabalizing Iraq - now what?

[host]

Murtha has stuck a fork in Bush-Cheney....they are done:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._murtha18.html

<b>Emotional statement</b>

As he spoke to reporters, Murtha frequently choked back tears, describing his weekly visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center as a big part of why he was taking such a controversial stand.

Murtha, who won a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, said he visited one young man who had lost both hands and was left blind by "friendly fire."

"I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. 'Anything I can do for you?' <b>His mother said, 'Get him a Purple Heart.' "</b>

Because he had not been injured by the enemy, the military had said he did not qualify for the honor.

"I met with the commandant. <b>I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine,'</b> " Murtha said. "And they gave him a Purple Heart."

Murtha is known as a friend and champion of officers at the Pentagon and in the war zone. It is widely believed in Congress that he often speaks for those in uniform and could be echoing what U.S. commanders in the field and in the Pentagon are saying privately about the conflict............

[raveneye]

Sounds to me like a leader is rising out of the ashes . . . .

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by raveneye

Sounds to me like a leader is rising out of the ashes . . . .

More like a king maker... I don't think he is charismatic enough to pull off being the President.

Now if he were to back McCain? What do you think?

[host]

On display for all the world to see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...gewanted=print
November 17, 2005
Transcript
House Republicans Respond to Murtha

The following is a transcript of a news conference Thursday by House Republicans, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.


SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KAY GRANGER (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEOFF DAVIS (R-KY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON (R-SC)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CONAWAY (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM TANCREDO (R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DREIER (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB BEAUPREZ (R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CARTER (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JEAN SCHMIDT (R-OH)

HUNTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And I'm joined by my colleagues today to make some comments regarding the recent congressional initiatives that would call for an immediate pullout of American forces from Iraq.

You know, American military operations have two phases. In the attack phase there's great patriotism, there's a groundswell of support for the troops and much flag waving.

The second phase is a more difficult phase. That's a time when you have casualties. That's the time when you make incremental gains. And it's a time when you sometimes see faltering political support. That always happens. And right now in the war-fighting theater in Iraq, we're in the second phase.

And I thought that we would talk a little bit about what's at stake, because I think that the attack on 9/11 is something that Americans have not forgotten, and I think they understand that the aggressive operations of America's military have helped to keep the insurgents in the war against terror off balance.

That's why Americans today are able to go to parks, go to schools, go to the grocery store, live life without fear of having a second 9/11 attacks, and that's why four years have expired without a second attack on our homeland: because we've aggressively projected America's fighting forces in the theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are doing a superb job.

Interestingly, this fall-off of support among Democratic ranks is not shared by the war-fighting forces. It's not shared by our troops. In fact, we're seeing now letters coming out of Iraq, with some that point with dismay toward the initiatives in the Senate that, thankfully, were rejected, that would call for a timetable for withdrawal.

HUNTER: And now we have an initiative in the House that calls for immediate withdrawal.

You know, one thing that we've learned in this century -- in winning the world for freedom in World War I, World War II and the Cold War -- is that freedom around the world is in America's interest. We have freed hundreds of millions of people in Europe, and that's accrued to the benefit of generations of Americans.

And we are in the process of delivering a free Iraq and delivering a nation that will be, instead of an enemy of the United States, a friend of the United States in a very strategic area of the world, that will not be a platform for terrorists, that will have a modicum of democracy and therefore not be a threat to the United States.

And I just wanted to remind our friends that now is the time for endurance. It's easy to be a flag-waver and to be patriotic and to support the troops when you're in the initial attack phase and it looks like you may have only a two-week war.

Lots of our enemies think America is only capable of a two-week war and that we don't have the endurance for the hard, tough battle of winning a war, securing the peace, providing the military shield and building up a country and building up its democratic institutions at the same time.

In fact, we do.

And I think that the Democrats who have undertaken this initiative have made a mistake. I think they've underestimated the toughness of the American people and the understanding that if we don't change the world, the world is going to change us.

And right now, in Iraq, we are changing the world. We're changing a very strategic part of the world in such a way that it will not be a threat to the United States and, in fact, will be an ally in the global war against terror.

So I just wanted to offer those words today, as the other side in this debate, as opposed to the statements that have been offered on the Senate side and now, regrettably, on the House side also, calling for withdrawal from the war-fighting theaters in Iraq.

HUNTER: And Kay Granger put this conference together, and I'd like to ask Kay Granger of Texas to make a few comments.

GRANGER: Thank you very much.

Like most of the members up here, I've traveled to Iraq. I've stood at the foot of a mass grave that held thousands of the remains of Iraqis that were killed by Saddam Hussein.

And I traveled to Iraq and I listened to our men and women in uniform who told me how proud they are of what they're doing, and some with tears in their eyes, because they say, The people understand it back home? Do they still support us? Are they still with us? And I've also worked with the women of Iraq who literally risked their lives to run for office so that they could be a part of writing a constitution and having a form of democracy -- and, as they said to me, and having the freedoms, Kay Granger, that you have in the United States.

That's all I can speak of as far as being a member like that. But I think it speaks best, and I'm going to quote Army Major General William Webster, who just yesterday -- now, he's the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division; he's responsible for three-fourths of the security in Iraq's capital.

And this is what he said. No one can say it better than he said.

Setting a date would mean that 221 soldiers I've lost this year -- that their lives would have been lost in vain. Our troops are trying to get this accomplished. They believe they're doing the right thing. The soldiers believe they're helping. I think this: Bringing them home now is a recipe for disaster. Setting a date is a loser. That's what he says. He's there. He's risking his life and the lives of men and women. That's what we're all about.

ROS-LEHTINEN: I'm Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a member of the International Relations Committee. I represent Miami, Florida.

My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his fiancee are currently serving as Marine officers in Iraq. They are flying F-18s. They enlisted. They're proud to serve their country.

And when we have the ability to communicate with Dougie and Lindsey almost daily about what they're going through, they are very proud of their mission. They're proud of their service. And they know that pulling out now is a serious mistake, not just for the morale of our troops -- who understand their mission -- but also it would be a great defeat for the Iraqi people, who have struggled for so long to build up their country and to make sure that they have democratic governance.

ROS-LEHTINEN: They have ridden themselves of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who had mass graves, who used chemical weapons against his own people. We cannot abandon the Iraqi people now. They need us now more than ever.

To pull out now, to surrender now is to give back to the terrorists a country that they don't deserve. The Iraqi people deserve to be free, free of tyranny, free of these terrorist insurgents. And that's what our military is doing: ridding the Iraqi people of these insurgents and bringing democracy, freedom, hope, the rule of law and true governance to their country.

And I have been in Iraq, as well. And we had a historic, all- female delegation where we had the opportunity to meet with brave women of Iraq who said, Finally, now we are free, and finally, now my children have a future that we can look forward to.

Let us not surrender now. Let us have an exit strategy that is built on success.

And as President Bush said, we will stand down when the Iraqi security forces are able to stand up.

Thank you.

HUNTER: Geoff Davis, a former Army officer and member of the Armed Services Committee.

DAVIS: I'm Geoff Davis from Kentucky, a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, and also the co- chair of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.

I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made.

Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress.

And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.

I think, most importantly, that the soldiers and the Marines on the ground in Iraq have made the statement that with their unbelievable, unprecedented reenlistment rates -- I've talked with hundreds of soldiers and Marines, ranging from junior enlisted soldiers to my West Point classmates who I've known for nearly 30 years and served with in the Middle East myself as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, and they believe in the mission. DAVIS: They see the success. And they ask me, Why is politics consuming this mission that we are clearly winning?

And I would say this for all to hear in America, as well as for our enemies who watch this broadcast: that our exit strategy is winning and supporting the Iraqi people.

HAYWORTH: J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 5.

No need to sugarcoat what has transpired today. People talk about exit strategies. Well, let's let the American people decide.

As was mentioned earlier, the majority's exit strategy is victory and freedom for the people of Iraq. Now, sadly, many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender. The American people will not stand for surrender. The American people are made of sterner stuff. And the American people understand that if we turn tail and leave now more problems will visit our shores and the consequences will be far greater. And, if there's a doubt, take a look at the people of Old Europe. Take a look at the French. Take a look at what is transpiring in the streets of France.

Saddam Hussein has been deposed; he is behind bars. That is an unqualified success. Dare we now snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, plagued by poll-driven self-doubt of those who embrace surrender?

I don't believe the American people will stand for it.

I believe the American people have a simple approach. We prevail. We are victorious. Freedom prevails in the Middle East and we say no to the spread of Islamo-fascism around the globe.

WILSON: I'm Joe Wilson. I'm very grateful to be a member of the Armed Services Committee. I'm also a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard. And I'm also very, very grateful that I had a son serve for a year in Iraq.

And I know, from my five visits to Iraq and a visit to Afghanistan, that we're winning the war on terrorism.

WILSON: The clearest example of that was, obviously, the adoption of the constitution. There were many naysayers who said the constitution couldn't even be developed.

I met with the chairman of the drafting commission and I had a feeling when I met with him that the people of Iraq do want to live in freedom, they do want to live in democracy, which then provides a protection for the people of the United States. In all of my military studies, retreat and defeat is not an option of the American military. This will only bring greater conflict in the world and ultimately to the United States, particularly in light of the attacks in Amman, Jordan, last week. Dozens of Jordanians and Palestinians were murdered by homicide bombers. We've had the bombings of buses in London, the bombings of buses in our ally of India and New Delhi.

We do not, obviously, want to see that return to the streets of the United States. We will not forget September the 11th. I'm confident the American people will stand firm in the war on terrorism.

<b>HUNTER: David Dreier, the son of a Marine Corps drill instructor and our chairman of the Rules Committee.</b>

DREIER: This month marks the first anniversary of the very incredible and tragic war in Fallujah. In that battle, I lost the one and only constituent that I have, J.P. Blecksmith (ph). He was in the Marine Corps. His father was a Marine. And his father recently said to me that, The single worst thing that we could do for the life of my son, the name of my son, would be to withdraw from Iraq.

Unfortunately, we have not seen much reporting of the incredible ripple effect that our involvement there has had. And I will tell you that a few months ago I had the privilege to go to Egypt before the elections were held there, and I sat in a country that has been a military dictatorship, through Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.

And I sat with the defense minister of Egypt, who said to me that, Because of what the United States of America has done in Iraq, we, for the first time in our nation's history, will be holding multi- candidate elections.

I then went to Beirut and stood in Martyrs Square next to the grave site of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister who was tragically killed in a car bombing, as you all know. And a young student said to me that, Because of what the United States of America has done in Iraq, I'm willing to die to ensure that the Lebanese people do not face the repression imposed on us by the Syrians.

DREIER: I have the utmost respect for my colleague Jack Murtha. My father was a Marine. Jack Murtha was a very proud Marine. And I have worked with him for the last quarter century on the struggle for liberation in Central America and in other spots throughout the world -- in military conflicts.

And he was the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He's now the ranking minority member of that subcommittee.

And for the first time that I can remember, I totally disagree with his assessment and I believe that it would be an absolute mistake and a real insult to the lives that have been lost and those today who are continuing this struggle for freedom if we were to withdraw.

TANCREDO: Tom Tancredo, 6th Congressional District of Colorado.

I have no doubt that, during the darkest days of the Second World War, when reports came back to this country of the number of casualties that we took in, let's say, taking Iwo Jima or in the Battle of the Bulge, I have no doubt that there were Americans who said, God, I wish this was over with. God, I wish those troops could come home.

But I doubt that there were many that said at the same time that they were willing to do it before the job was done and before victory was achieved.

That's, sort of, where we are today. I want every American out of Iraq. In fact, I want them out of that peninsula. I want that to happen as soon as we get that job done.

I have no idea what motivates the people who stand up and call for an immediate withdrawal. I have no doubt that some are motivated by the finest of altruistic ideas and the greatest desire to do what they believe is right for America. I have also no doubt that some are doing it for the crassest and basest of political reasons.

But for whatever reason someone puts that proposition forward, I would suggest that the job is not done and that to leave today, as my colleagues have said, creates a world in which I think we are far more vulnerable, a far uglier place for us all to exist; where when we complete this mission -- and we will -- we will have the opportunity to see the spread of a wonderful idea throughout the world, and that is freedom.

TANCREDO: It's just possible that we can do this. And I am willing to take the risk, to stay the course, and to get this job done and to get every American back home.

LUNGREN: I'm Dan Lungren. I'm from the 3rd Congressional District in California.

I returned to Congress after an absence of 16 years, motivated by the events of 9/11. I don't serve on the Armed Services Committee, but I do serve on the Homeland Security Committee and am very concerned about anything that makes us more vulnerable here at home.

I am disappointed. I say this in sorrow, rather than in anger, of some of the comments that I've seen coming from our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate.

Particularly am I disappointed in that this comes immediately after the declassification of that correspondence between two of the leaders of Al Qaida, in which they talked about the stakes in this war in Iraq and in which they made specific reference to us leaving Vietnam as an example of what they hoped would happen in Iraq. That was very real to me because when I was here before I represented a district that had tens of thousands of refugees from Southeast Asia. And meeting those people and talking with those people and seeing in their eyes the disappointment that America had left them behind makes me hope that we're dedicated to never having that happen again. And so I hope that if we have a debate on this issue, it will be of the highest level and we will understand what is at stake here. And as I say, I am extremely disappointed, in sorrow rather than in anger, at what's happened. Because I think it ultimately will be very, very damaging to our position, not only in Iraq, but in the entire war on terror.

HUNTER: Bob Beauprez, Colorado?

BEAUPREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for coming.

I'll confess, I come with a bit of a heavy heart. America is not a place that I think of as a land populated by people that basically cut and run.

I have a ethnic group in my district -- Hmong, people from Vietnam -- and we did that to them. We left them behind so that the communists could slaughter them as we left Vietnam. But that's not America's finest hour. We don't need another one of those. I'll tell you who will tell you categorically to stay and finish the job...

(AUDIO GAP)

BEAUPREZ: ... last name for now because I've not asked his permission to give it.

When I called Jerry (ph) -- and he was obviously in tears, very heavy tears -- I got to the point of the conversation -- and this happens in every single of the five or six that I have made -- point of the conversation: What can I possibly do for you, father or mother, now that you've lost your son? And they say, He believed in the mission. His life had a purpose. He knew the risk he was taking. You make sure that he didn't die in vain. You finish the job.

Now, folks, it can't be any better put than in the words of parents who are grieving over the loss of a child.

I'll tell you another story. Some say the Iraqis don't want us there, they'd like us to leave. When I was there in November of '03, the first time I went, I had a small Iraqi woman who couldn't speak English who simply had to come up and embrace me when she was told I was a member of the United States Congress: wrapped both arms around me and buried her face in my chest and would not let go. This is a small, little Muslim woman who is very reserved around men, especially foreign men, but when she heard, He represents the United States of America, she had to demonstrate her thanks and her appreciation, her hope that she thought never would show its face in her life or even her mind. Now, are we going to dampen that hope? Are we going to just turn and run and, worse than pour ice water on these people, turn them back to a future that I think is unimaginable? That's not the America that we know. That's not the America that I'm going to stand back here and defend and represent.

This is a tough day.

BEAUPREZ: This is a tough day.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to show that there's another face. God bless you.

HUNTER: Mike Conaway from Fort Hood?

CONAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

Two things. One, the people who live in Iraq today are coming out of 30-plus years of having to pick the right side in conflicts. And if they pick the wrong side, they pay for that pick with their lives.

We have to show these people that we're going to stay and win this war.

We're at war with an idea that's currently being fought for the most part in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the war goes around the world and it will come to the streets of America. So we should continue to fight that war.

Let me put out another name for you. Last year at this time, I was congressman-elect. And a young man was killed from my hometown. And I went over to sit with his young wife, Amy. And Amy was pregnant, at that point in time, seven months pregnant, with twins, twin kids, twin boys who will never see their dad. And in the midst of the most crushing grief you could imagine, she looked at me and, tears pouring down her face, she said, You tell the president -- from Midland, Texas -- you tell the president to finish this job and don't let my husband, Brian, have died in vain. And that's the message. We're paying a terrible price, a horrible price -- all 2,000-plus lives that have been sacrificed in this fight; each one of them is precious. We all have all those kinds of stories. But they were volunteers. They knew what they were going for. They knew why they were going to do it. And the story, coming back is they don't understand the stories in the American press as to what's going on in Iraq. So a part of our job, a part of our failure, is that we've not done a good job of putting up a right face on what is happening in Iraq. We are winning. That election will happen next month. A five- year or four-year parliament will be elected and we will see progress made. So I disagree wholeheartedly with our colleagues on the other side who call for a timetable and especially those who would call for an immediate withdrawal. I would like to add my voice to that group. Thank you.

HUNTER: Louie Gohmert?

GOHMERT: When I was in Iraq earlier this year, talking to a former general under Saddam Hussein, he said -- and he was a Sunni -- and he said, If you will just stay with us, just back us up long enough for us to get a constitution and then to vote and elect our own people -- just do that, please. He really said, I believe most of the violence will subside.

But the messages that are being sent today tell our enemies over there, those who would destroy freedom and our way of life, just like Osama bin Laden said early on, They don't have the stomach to finish the job.

Well, a majority has the stomach to finish the job and we're going to finish it.

And you expect people like that to come up. You'll have a parent or two here, as you know, whose tragic grief from the tragic loss of a loved one, of a child, causes their mental thinking to be a little destabilized. That's understandable. But the vast majority of parents know that pulling out now means their child died in vain. And there are a majority of us that do not want to see that happen. And, thank God, we've got a president that feels the same way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CARTER: I'm John Carter from Texas. I represent the part of Texas that contains Fort Hood, the home of the 4th Infantry Division which was the division that captured Saddam Hussein, and the home of the 1st Cavalry Division, the division that held the first successful election in the history of Iraq.

CARTER: I have been over there twice, am going back a third time hopefully in February, because the 4th I.D. has gone back to Iraq.

And I'm here to tell you that the soldiers that are going to war on behalf of this country are the best people on Earth, and they do not deserve to have people bail out on them and take the cowardly way out and say, We're going to surrender.

Because, quite frankly, we have to stay the course not only for the benefit of the people of Iraq and the Middle East, but for the benefit of our soldiers who have given everything they have and are willing to go back and go back and go back because they know they're doing the right thing.

You never hear about the hospitals we've opened, the sewer systems we've installed, the fact that, while battling insurgents in the streets, the 1st Cavalry Division, while fighting soldiers in the streets, were picking up children out of garbage piles, clearing the garbage off the street, collecting the garbage that hadn't been picked up in nine years in Sadr city. These are the kind of things that you're not going to hear about, but it's the kind of things that our soldiers are willing to do for the people of Iraq. And we cannot allow ourselves to bail out on those people when we are sitting on the verge of success. We have a huge success. In fact, if you weigh this war against any other war in any other period in the history of the United States, we are very, very successful. But you need to study your history and realize that this is a well-run, successful war and will go to a conclusion which will be of great value to the Middle East.

I support our troops. I think that Mr. Murtha was absolutely wrong to start proposing a surrender provision, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you.

SCHMIDT: I'm Jean Schmidt. I'm from the 2nd District in Ohio. I'm the newest person on the block. And this morning I spent time at the Arlington National Cemetery watching, witnessing, being part of a funeral of one of my fallen heroes in my district.

SCHMIDT: And I walked away from there seeing the glorious graves of the people that have fought for our freedom more resolved than ever to make sure we keep the enemy on their shore and not ours. You know, you all are not getting the big picture. The big picture is that these Islamic insurgents want to destroy us. They don't like us. They don't like us because we're black, we're white, we're Christian, we're Jew, we're educated, we're free, we're not Islamic. We can never be Islamic because we were not born Islamic. Now, this isn't the Islamic citizens. These are the insurgents. And it is their desire for us to leave so they can take over the whole Middle East and then take over the world. And I didn't learn this just in the last few weeks or the last few months. I learned this when I was at the University of Cincinnati in 1970, studying Middle Eastern history. And I was told by a very valuable professor, one that I still remember, Wie Zuefabushi (ph). He was Palestinian. He said, If we don't create freedom in that region it's going to come back and attack us. And this was during Vietnam, when everybody thought the issue was Vietnam. And he said, No, the issue is not Vietnam, it's the Middle East, it's Islamic insurgents that will come back and destroy us.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, 9/11 proved that they can come here and they can attack us. We must continue the course, not just for the sake of the soldiers that have given their time, their talents and their lives to protect our freedom, but for ourselves and our children.

We are the best nation in the world, and it is incumbent upon us at all levels, whether we are soldiers, whether we are in Congress, or whether we are the press, to protect our freedom.

I'm doing it. The soldiers are doing it. I hope my Democratic colleagues will do it. And I hope you will, too.

Thank you.

END

The hypocrisy and hollowness of these "representatives" knows no bounds.
Dreier is trotted out, on cue, draped in the mantle of his credentials as "the son of a Marine Drill Sargent". And....the MSM capitol press corp is running a close second......

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...7/ai_n14695329
Independent, The (London) > Jun 27, 2005 >

David Dreier, the Republican congressman expected to mentor Tony Blair's eldest son Euan during a summer internship in Washington, is a hypocritical homosexual with an anti-gay voting record, critics allege.

During the election campaign last November, his Democrat opponent in California, Cynthia Matthews, came out as gay and urged her West Coast conservative rival, who idolised Ronald Reagan, to do the same.

One prominent LA publication outed him as gay and denounced him as a hypocrite. Mr Dreier, who is not married, has consistently refused to comment on his sexuality.........

<center><center><img src="http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/dreier-reagan-us-house.jpg">

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/47/news-ireland.php
Closet Politics
What doomed Dreier’s rise to the top
by DOUG IRELAND

When House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced on September 28 that California Congressman David Dreier — the powerful chair of the House Rules Committee and buddy of Governor Schwarzenegger, whose transition team he headed — would be his nominee to replace the indicted Tom DeLay, that should have made it a done deal.

But by the time the House Republican Conference convened to formalize the election of a new majority leader on the afternoon of Hastert’s breakfast anointing of Dreier, there was an unexpected revolt by conservative Republicans. In a stunning challenge to the speaker, they insisted on dumping Dreier in favor of Christian right darling Roy Blunt of Missouri. Dreier, who had already been trumpeted by the national media as the next majority leader, all but disappeared from press coverage — and so did the real reasons for the unexpected refusal by Republican members of Congress to back him.

What really happened?

“A Different Kind of Republican” was the way the Washington Post Web site bannered the story after Hastert picked Dreier. Whoever wrote that headline had a muffled sense of humor because, although the Post’s story talked about how the slickly telegenic congressman from Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, while “reliably conservative... never comes off as extreme,” it failed to mention what truly set Dreier apart from most of his Republican colleagues — the fact that Dreier is a closeted homosexual who has slavishly followed the homophobic GOP party line.

Flashback: Last fall, I reported on the outing of Dreier in two L.A. Weekly articles, (<a href="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php">September 24</a> and <a href="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-ireland.php">October 1</a>). While the blogosphere quickly echoed the Weekly’s reports, the mainstream U.S. press — which has steadfastly refused to cover the outing campaign that has revealed a host of top Republicans as closeted homosexuals — ignored how Dreier’s closet door had been pried open. By contrast, the eminently respectable and serious British daily The Independent picked up on the outing this summer, when the lead of its June 27 story read, “David Dreier, the Republican congressman expected to mentor Tony Blair’s eldest son Euan during a summer internship in Washington, is a hypocritical homosexual with an anti-gay voting record, critics allege.” The Independent cited the L.A. Weekly’s coverage.

Fast-forward to the majority-leader revolt: Within minutes after Hastert’s selection of Dreier, Blogactive.com — the D.C.-based Web site that first outed Dreier — posted online and widely e-mailed an alert. “Call Dennis Hastert and thank him for standing up to the Radical Right by recommending a gay man as Majority Leader,” Blogactive’s Mike Rogers wryly wrote, giving Hastert’s phone number. Within hours, according to a low-ranking Hastert staffer who requested anonymity, the speaker’s office received more than 400 phone calls about Dreier’s being gay.

Many of those calls were from right-wingers. The Hill — the D.C. weekly covering Congress — later reported that “Republican aides across Capitol Hill said they were overwhelmed by phone calls from conservative activists” about Dreier. A lot of those calls, House staffers told me, were homophobic about Dreier’s being gay. Slate reported, “The House ‘Values Action Team,’ a group of GOP members tasked with pushing pro-life/pro-family issues within the caucus, blasted ane-mail to their colleagues alerting them that Dreier was to be tapped as a replacement and underlining his voting record supporting stem-cell research.” These conservative GOP congressmen didn’t need to tell their colleagues that Dreier is a closet case — it’s hardly a secret on Capitol Hill. When I was first reporting on Dreier’s outing, one well-known gay congressman told me, “Everybody in the House knows,” adding that he was “100 percent sure” that Dreier was gay.


The closest the mainstream media came to mentioning Dreier’s being gay was a story the Associated Press ran a few days after his dumping — just by coincidence, of course — on the outing of politicians. This October 4 <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9591678/">AP story</a> said, alluding to Dreier, “A cadre of activist bloggers and alternative-media journalists have been contending for more than a year that another Republican congressman is gay and yet has often voted against gay-rights legislation. Thus far, the mainstream media — both national outlets and those in the congressman’s home region — have declined to report on the campaign, although the effort is common knowledge among political reporters and on Capitol Hill.” Making the reference to Dreier unmistakable, the AP then quoted openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, who said that “the perception that the congressman might be gay had damaged his standing with some fellow Republicans in the House — and Frank said this issue of bias should be aired publicly. ‘I think he’s wrong to be silent about this,’ Frank said of the congressman. ‘You should not cover up this act of prejudice.’?”

But that, of course, is just what the mass media did — including all the dailies serving parts of Dreier’s district.

Dreier’s closet-case hypocrisy continues: Just two weeks before the majority-leader revolt dumped him, Dreier voted against including gays in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (this provision passed the House 233-199). Yet even this latest in Dreier’s long record of anti-gay votes wasn’t enough to save him from the wrath of the Christer right that dominates the House Republican caucus.

Was Dreier’s sexuality the only reason he was dumped? Of course not. One other factor, little mentioned in the press, is that there’s been a lot of grumbling by GOPers that Californians had too much power by holding a half-dozen important committee chairs, including Dreier at Rules and Rep. Bill Thomas at Ways and Means. And Dreier’s oh-so-rare deviations from the Christer agenda were anathema to those who wanted DeLay’s replacement to be as staunch a storm trooper as The Hammer on their puritanical, anti-science approach to social issues. But the fact that Dreier is, although closeted, a homosexual — something they consider a mortal sin — made him anathema to the Christer GOP majority in the House.

And it’s a damn shame the press didn’t feel the voters should know what everyone in Washington knows.

[highthief]

I'm trying fathom his "plan" however. To wit:

My plan calls:

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

Does he mean add forces until such time as the US has enough troops to safe guard themselves or to withdraw the troops immediately so that they are safe?

[Ustwo]

Throw Iraq to the wolves. Good idea.

That won't come back to haunt us, nosireebob.

Plus his plan has no details, might as well say he plans for Santa Claus to bring them all candy canes.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Now if he were to back McCain? What do you think?

I saw McCain in an interview yesterday on the news and he said that he respects Murtha as much or more than anyone but does not agree with his analysis at all.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by flstf

I saw McCain in an interview yesterday on the news and he said that he respects Murtha as much or more than anyone but does not agree with his analysis at all.

I saw that too... but it's kind of beside the point.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Throw Iraq to the wolves. Good idea.

That won't come back to haunt us, nosireebob.

Plus his plan has no details, might as well say he plans for Santa Claus to bring them all candy canes.

Murtha cares about the troops. They bear suffering of the insane policies that you advocate, not you. Risk your own life and limb in Iraq, ustwo. Stop being so willing to offer the lives and limbs of our son and his fellows in our military in order to facilitate your face saving posturing. The current price of the current "gameplan" in Iraq is two dead Americans on average per day. For what?

How fast would the policy change if daughters Jenna Bush, Liz Cheney, or your own daughter were "next up" on the list of next week's "two per day"?

I agree that we have to mitigate the international destablization that has been caused by this illegal invasion. We can do that by defending Iraq's border with Iran and Syria, until such time as the democratically elected Iraqi government orders our troops to pull out completely.

[stevo]

My plan calls:

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

Diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq...ok so we send condi to negotiate with who exactly? They guy wearing the bomb? Zarqawi? Syrian gov't? Thats the most assinine plan I've heard all day.

If we leave iraq, the terrorist bombings will not stop. Mosques will continue to be blown up. Markets and banks will continue to be blown up. The people of any arab country that conducts business with the iraqi government will be targeted.

Either some people can't see the picture or refuse to believe their own eyes. All-out civil war has not happened. howmany times has that horizon been predicted and come to pass with out civil war? Iraqis know what they want and they don't want anymore war. The terrorists in iraq want war. Withdrawing our troops will not stop their indescriminate bombings of civillian targets.

Murtha is only suggesting total withdrawl because he knows it will not happen.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by stevo

Murtha is only suggesting total withdrawl because he knows it will not happen.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

Say something to appease the left wing knowning its just empty words.

His plan is as empty as a campaign speech.....mmmmm.....

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by stevo

Diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq...ok so we send condi to negotiate with who exactly? They guy wearing the bomb? Zarqawi? Syrian gov't? Thats the most assinine plan I've heard all day.

I believe the idea is that Iraq should be looking after its own problems. Build up their military and police and remove the salt (US forces) from the wound.

I don't see that as assinine at all, unless it's your plan to occupy Iraq indefinately.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

Say something to appease the left wing knowning its just empty words.

His plan is as empty as a campaign speech.....mmmmm.....

God bless you, Mary...may you rest in peace. ustwo's comments bring to mind
your prescient predictions of three years, and nearly 2100 dead U.S. troops ago. Maybe you can scout out some land, next to Arlington, to annex?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct26.html
Pit-Stop Presidency

By Mary McGrory
Sunday, October 27, 2002; Page B07

........... Bush continues his partisan pilgrim's progress until Election Day, which he will spend in his spiritual home, his ranch without horses in Crawford, Tex.

During the campaign, in which he has insisted on being the central figure, he has portrayed himself as a tireless, affable, aggressive leader who is endlessly helpful to his party. His policies, however, have given the world a different image of his country. With him at the wheel, Uncle Sam has become thought of as the SUV of nations: It hogs the road and guzzles the gas and periodically has to run over something -- such as another country -- to get to its Middle Eastern filling station.

Bush rather glories in the antagonisms he arouses, at least in Europe and, incipiently, on campuses. His intentions toward Iraq will increase tensions with the Muslim world, a factor he does not seem to have taken into consideration. His partisans are citing the secret nuclear program just revealed in North Korea as an inevitable result of "soft-headed" Clinton fantasies about "engagement." Bush will welcome the antiwar movement slowly beginning, as Ronald Reagan did. Both Reagan and Nixon bragged that they "didn't make foreign policy on the street." That was a way of discouraging massive turnouts and dismissing them. The dilemma remains: Demonstrations only stiffen spines, but their absence suggests there is no resistance.

Maybe when Bush makes one of his excursions to Washington, he might take a walk through Arlington National Cemetery and see that it is running out of space for those little white slabs, which give the heartbreakingly short span of many lives.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I believe the idea is that Iraq should be looking after its own problems. Build up their military and police and remove the salt (US forces) from the wound.

I don't see that as assinine at all, unless it's your plan to occupy Iraq indefinately.

And this is different from the current plan how?

Maybe when Bush makes one of his excursions to Washington, he might take a walk through Arlington National Cemetery and see that it is running out of space for those little white slabs, which give the heartbreakingly short span of many lives.

Oh jesus christ on a stick. Emotional bullshit OP-ED at its finest. You would think we had 50,000 dead and an on going slaughter. Give me a break host.

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I believe the idea is that Iraq should be looking after its own problems. Build up their military and police and remove the salt (US forces) from the wound.

I don't see that as assinine at all, unless it's your plan to occupy Iraq indefinately.

There are two problems:

1) That IS what we are doing.

2) What he is saying sounds far more like an immediate withdrawl then building up the nation first (which is, again, EXACTLY what we are doing).

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...

On Pacificsm (Internet version, abridged):

Pacifists note that there will never be a "war to end all wars." While this is true, it does not mean that we should not strive to eliminate as much evil as we can. There will never be peace without war. No one can argue that America's peace with Germany and Japan are not the direct result of America defeating them in war. Nor can anyone argue that Hitler would not have continued his quest if no one had stood up to him. If good people simply looked the other way when evil people did terrible things, this world would be run by people like Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden.

This doesn't apply, of course, to the neo-communist and/or nihilist types who wished the world *were* run by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden. YMMV.

[roachboy]

i take it from the stream of non sequitors thrown up by the usual far right suspects above that lumpenconservatives do not approve of murtha's rejection of the logic of bushwar.

and, again all too typically, i see nothing even remotely approaching a substantive argument from the rightwingers who have posted here.

it is not that all conservatives are incapable of argument--obviously the opposite is the case---so the pattern of vacant posts from conservatives in thsi context cannot be blamed on the politics themselves--rather, it is that these particular conservatives, who post here and elswhere on this forum in more or less ineviatbly the same style, choose not to bother taking their posts, those who read them or the board seriously enough to make actual arguments.

reading through the above is like watching a roomful of 8th graders throw food at each other. it is not funny, it is not witty, it is not interesting, it is not even sophomoric--it is simply abject. i wonder if there is a linkage between the implosion of conservative politics and this new and improved tendency to wallow in abjection from folk on the right here. i certainly hope that there is at least this therapeutic function to this trend to make posts without even a whiff of content, without any thought, and often without even logic to connect them to what precedes.
a cyncial fellow would see this kind of abject, ridiculous posting as an attempt to spike threads that they do not like.

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by roachboy

...reading through the above is like watching a roomful of 8th graders throw food at each other. it is not funny, it is not witty, it is not interesting, it is not even sophomoric--it is simply abject.

And yet, you......just.....cannot......look......away.....

(Which means there must be something to it, eh?)

[stevo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

... is like watching a roomful of 8th graders throw food at each other. it is not funny, it is not witty, it is not interesting, it is not even sophomoric--it is simply abject.

I disagree. I find a room full of 8th graders throwing food at each other to be rather funny. I have seen it I have laughed. While there might not be any witt involved, sometimes it is interesting and it is definitley sophmoric. I once saw an eye put out with a fish stick. That wasn't as funny as it was tragic.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

a cyncial fellow would see this kind of abject, ridiculous posting as an attempt to spike threads that they do not like.

And I find your bad E. E. Cummings impersonation sort of tiresome, pretentious, and non-conducive to legibility, but you don't hear me complaining.

I'm sure there are many things you find ridiculous which I am happy to say are seen in a different light on the other side of the isle.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

Say something to appease the left wing knowning its just empty words.

His plan is as empty as a campaign speech.....mmmmm.....

Wrong again, Ustwo, which you would know if you actually followed the news. The "left" wing in Congress has backed away from him. He is speaking from his heart and not for his party, and he has taken quite the beating from the "right" wing. I'd give the guy another purple heart for this.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Wrong again, Ustwo, which you would know if you actually followed the news. The "left" wing in Congress has backed away from him. He is speaking from his heart and not for his party, and he has taken quite the beating from the "right" wing. I'd give the guy another purple heart for this.

Right, so did Dean, and it just about worked for him if the party didn't torpedo him in Iowa.

The guy just made a name for himself (you don't make a name by being a moderate), just wait.

[tecoyah]

This Will Stop....discuss the topic....or lose the thread

[stevo]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

This Will Stop....discuss the topic....or lose the thread

I've tried. I think most have. But Roach offers no discussion. How is one to discuss anything with him? The topic to be discussed is whether troops should pull out of iraq 100% immediatly or not. I've said, along with others why it is a bad idea. I've also said why I think Murtha made the statement. Roachboy's rebuttle, is anything but. He proceeds to tell us we are incapeable of arguement and not worth his time, in so many words. What kind of discussion is that, I ask? Roach has given no reason why troops should pull out now, other than the lumpenconservatives can't argue.
I, for one, found ustwo's description of roachboys posts to be right on.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by highthief

I'm trying fathom his "plan" however. To wit:

My plan calls:

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

Does he mean add forces until such time as the US has enough troops to safe guard themselves or to withdraw the troops immediately so that they are safe?

I would like to take a best guess at what his plan means and I certainly wouldn't expect him to spell it out in a speech.

To immediately redeploy US troops consistent with the safety of US forces.

"Consistent with the safety of US forces" appears to be his key point. I don't think he is advocating "cut and run" which conceivably would embolden those that are attacking our troups.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

That would be our special forces personnel from all branches of the military, in my opinion. Let's bring our national guard members home to serve in our national defense. Kuwait is the obvious "region" to stage this force.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

"Over-the-horizon" is close by, but out of sight. Many others have stated that our "occupation" is the source of much of the insurgency. I mean no disrespect to any other branch of the military, but the Marines never allowed themselves to be undermined by social experiments. They are the best of the best.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

This is not a new idea, as there has been much criticism that no diplomatic component existed or was planned for after the fall of Bagdad. Murtha was eloquent in stating that our military forces have met all of their obligations in Iraq. He also stated that their continued presence makes them targets of the insurgency, bringing more death.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Iraq must provide for their own security. I strongly question why they are no further along than they are, and why our young men and women must remain targets of the insurgency. It strikes me as a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" type of dilemma. Murtha's been there before, and I respect his opinion.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

That would be our special forces personnel from all branches of the military, in my opinion. Let's bring our national guard members home to serve in our national defense. Kuwait is the obvious "region" to stage this force.

To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

"Over-the-horizon" is close by, but out of sight. Many others have stated that our "occupation" is the source of much of the insurgency. I mean no disrespect to any other branch of the military, but the Marines never allowed themselves to be undermined by social experiments. They are the best of the best.

So, station a substantive number of troops in a nearby country and then have that country be the target of terrorist attacks for harbouring US troops?

I fail to see how that makes the situation any better.

I hope that the US will stay in Iraq until such time as Iraqi troops are fully capable of handling the mission both in terms of equipment and training and then get the hell out and stay out of the middle east.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And this is different from the current plan how?

I don't believe I suggested it was otherwise... I am simply pointing out that you shouldn't be slagging the guy off considering he seems to share the same goals...

My feeling is twofold:

1) He wants to hold the president accountable... Bush seems to be rather teflon coated but like every T-fal I've ever owned, the coating eventually wears out and your eggs start to stick...

2) There is an election coming and it doesn't hurt to score points (like the Republicans don't do this sort of thing on a regular basis )

[Elphaba]

So, station a substantive number of troops in a nearby country and then have that country be the target of terrorist attacks for harbouring US troops?

I fail to see how that makes the situation any better.

Highthief, we already have a substantive number of troups in Kuwait and we have had a military presence there since the first Gulf War. Are you aware of any reports of terrorist attacks in Kuwait over the past seven years?

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Highthief, we already have a substantive number of troups in Kuwait and we have had a military presence there since the first Gulf War. Are you aware of any reports of terrorist attacks in Kuwait over the past seven years?

Yes, there have been a number of terrorist attacks in Kuwait over the past several years, Elphaba. Several marines were killed by Kuwaitis while on exercise just prior to the Iraqi invasion, and about 35 people were arrested earlier this year - half Kuwaitis and about half other nationalities - for committing or planning terrorist activities in Kuwait, just off the top of my head. There have been gun battles in the streets between terrorists and suspected terrorists and the military. And of course, prior to the period you mention, Shiites bombed the US embasy in Kuwait.

Kuwait is a small, totalitarian regime where the populace is relatively easily controlled - yet even so, we have had terror attacks. Kuwait for a time effectively shut its small borders down to prevent the wrong element from getting in. Imagine what will happen once a little ugly freedom raises its head in Kuwait.

As for Saudi, its a hotbed of terror activity and really the most important nation in the area along with Iraq and Iran.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by highthief

Yes, there have been a number of terrorist attacks in Kuwait over the past several years, Elphaba. Several marines were killed by Kuwaitis while on exercise just prior to the Iraqi invasion, and about 35 people were arrested earlier this year - half Kuwaitis and about half other nationalities - for committing or planning terrorist activities in Kuwait, just off the top of my head. There have been gun battles in the streets between terrorists and suspected terrorists and the military. And of course, prior to the period you mention, Shiites bombed the US embasy in Kuwait.

Kuwait is a small, totalitarian regime where the populace is relatively easily controlled - yet even so, we have had terror attacks. Kuwait for a time effectively shut its small borders down to prevent the wrong element from getting in. Imagine what will happen once a little ugly freedom raises its head in Kuwait.

As for Saudi, its a hotbed of terror activity and really the most important nation in the area along with Iraq and Iran.

Ouch. That's quite a bitchslap.

We've got a military presence in Spain, Germany, and Japan, too. No one has yet postulated a link between those and the terrorist attacks each country has experienced.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

He is speaking from his heart and not for his party, and he has taken quite the beating from the "right" wing. I'd give the guy another purple heart for this.

From what little I have seen and heard from Murtha, I think you are right. After visiting the wounded and maimed in VA hospitals I believe he truly wants to prevent any further harm to our troops, especially since he has first hand knowledge of difficult combat. He is speaking from the heart and wants our troops out of harm's way now. We cannot deny his sincerity in wanting to protect our soldiers from further bloodshed in this controversial war.

[roachboy]

at the risk of this thread, i want to say a couple thing to clarify why i posted what i did earlier here:

i think there are a couple types of conservative argument that you see in this space: the one in whch a substantive argument about information framed in a way that other folk can access and debate--that is which is not presented already *entirely* packaged in conservative logic--and the other, which consists in at best tiresome quips and at worse irrelevant to bogus information presented as factual.

with the former, i have no problem whatsoever: i have had interesting and informative conversations with folk with whom i expect i would disgree fundamentally even in real life--with the other, i see no reason to be patient these claims are inevitably presented from deep within the strange little world of the dominant conservative ideology--they do not bother with logic, with referencing, with research, with thinking to all appearance--they generally leave a reader wishing for the penetrating insight of a sean hannity or ann coulter--a position which frankly is like standing behind an exhaust pipe--like their more articulate talking head counterparts, these folk not only add nothing to conversation that is not a kind of peculiar rightwing circlejerk of mutual affirmation of meaningless statements-----they appear to be actively working to undermine such conversation as might be possible. i have no idea what these folk are like in rel life--i suspect that they are intelligent folk who think about their politics as anyone else does---but in this space, they post in ways that gives no indiciation of that, and does nto even grant others in the space the courtesy of explanation---from which i take it that these folk do not respect the folk that read their stuff here enough to think they capable of arguing about the bases for their quips and/or information. i find this tactic condescending in the extreme--and further i find it ironic that it would be them who choose to complain about someone reacting to their way of posting--which is their way of treating those of us who read what they post.

i come here because i usually find interesting conversations about questions that are unfolding about/in the world in much closer to real time than anyplace else. so this can be a space for working out how to interpret what is being presented to us as happening, and for reading how others are trying to do the same thing. while it is not unreasonable, i suppose, to attempt to fit everything into a relatively static framework--which curiously seems to be a feature of the contemporary right in this point--which i take as an index of the sense of crisis that the folk who run the right media apparatus are experiencing. and from this viewpoint, i suppose that the recurrent spamposts that i am referring to are interesting as an index of the same thing--but it doesn't take long to figure that out and after you do, they get tedious really fast.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Ouch. That's quite a bitchslap.

We've got a military presence in Spain, Germany, and Japan, too. No one has yet postulated a link between those and the terrorist attacks each country has experienced.

I'm not sure what you are driving at here?

[trickyy]

the democrats seem to be wrapping themselves in the peace (or solid white) flag for 2006, just like they co-opted the national flag in 2002 with their myopic war support. seems to me they are wrong in both cases, although i can't say what would happen if we actually left iraq. we don't seem to be stopping the insurgency, that's for sure. leaving would be a victory for the insurgents, as they likely have somalia and vietnam on their minds. what a mess.

[Elphaba]

Ummm, I think I am the bitch that was slapped. That's how I took to mean in any case.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ummm, I think I am the bitch that was slapped. That's how I took to mean in any case.

me, too, elphaba, unfortunately.

trickyy,

how can a US citizen "co-opt" his or her own nation's flag?
such a statement seems to presuppose that the person didn't already possess a valid claim to the symbol.
that kind of logic appears to mirror and illustrate roachboy's observation regarding the lack of respect some conservative members demonstrate against liberal members on this forum. I find it ironic you posted your comments so close to his...

[Aladdin Sane]

Iraq is indeed becoming another Vietnam.

Every time a myopic politician calls for the United States to cut and run from Iraq, the terrorists are given hope; are encouraged to kill more innocent Iraqis; are enlivened in their belief that the U.S. is a clay-footed giant with no stomach for battle.
Yes, indeed, it is their sacred right to speak their mind. No one should argue otherwise. But do American politicians not know that it is their words that are killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans?

Iraq is another Vietnam. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The United States may indeed lose Iraq. Americans have little historical memory and less patience.
The effect will be catastrophic in the short run. The forces of the death cult will rally; which means more butchery, more killing of innocents, more jihadis in Allah's Waiting Room.
Ultimately it is the boys and girls of age 10 or 11 who will pay. They will become Murtha's martyrs.