Vietnam Vet Murtha on Cheney:
By on Nov 17th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Vietnam Vet Murtha on Cheney:
“I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.” (Via Nitpicker)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, let’s see Cheney comment on that. Why exactly did you not go to Vietnam, Dick? Too busy defending Wyoming from the Red Menace?
November 17th, 2005 at 10:16 pmBring it home!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:17 pmLove it!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:24 pmDuring Vietnam Cheney was hiding in a closet with the lights off, sobbing and wetting himself.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:26 pm“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
November 17th, 2005 at 10:27 pmLove Murtha’s comment, but question where has Murtha been over the last two plus years? Why did he suddenly now get religion? It’s been well known since the last presidential campaign that Cheney and Bush were draft dodgers and chicken hawks who stooped to smear true war heros . . . So why the big speech now?
November 17th, 2005 at 10:38 pmToo Bad there isn,t more HARDCORE MILITARY VETS SPEAKING UP!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:39 pmLove Murtha’s comment, but question where has Murtha been over the last two plus years
AND WHERE ARE THE OTHER TOUGH MILITARY LEADING STRATEGISTS?
November 17th, 2005 at 10:41 pmI JUST DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN ALLOW “punks”
November 17th, 2005 at 10:48 pmLIKE BUSH AND CHENEY, PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES!
OPEN LETTER
TO: Dick Cheney… c/o
the WHITE (multimillionaire club) HOUSE
.
VICE_president@whitehouse.gov
.
From Your…
EMPLOYER / BOSS
the American Citizens
.
.
Hello Dick-ie boy…
…JAIL IS… NOW… READY… 4 U
& Your Multimillionaire / Law-Less / Friends
4 KILLING People & AMERICAN DEMOCRACY…
.
It Will B One Happy Day For
My Grand Children, Children, And I
2 C U Behind Bars
.
While You Are In Jail…
PLEASE SPEND SOME TIME
And READ THIS BELOW ( and the other one )
.
WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS
IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE
of the United States TO ALTER or ABOLISH
the United States Government
as it exists in the year 2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06
.
Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence.
.
And Now the People Step Forward and Charge High Treason,
and Show that Democracy in its roots today, is Corrupt.
.
And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed
in Favor of A Small Group of Millionaires,
.
Over Another…
.
the Governed,
.
the People of the United States.
.
And that the Election Process is UN-fair
and has been
Overwhelmed and Monopolized
by Millionaires
and their millions of dollars
.
Read the rest – Continued at
http://www.RogerART.com
see link to ( Re-Written )
Declaration of Independence
PS. Now Dickie boy…
( I Know by your actions that you do not understand this document.
Please find some school children
to help you understand what the founding
fathers and mothers were talking about
)
Thank You, Roger@RogerART.com
…
Copy, Paste, Send to Dickie boy, If U Want 2
November 17th, 2005 at 10:52 pmMy *MOM* says that Murtha is her new hero!
November 17th, 2005 at 10:56 pmHopefully he’s just the first, testing the waters so to speak, and that soon he’ll say, “Come on in, the water’s fine” and the remaining dems/repubs will jump on in too.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:09 pmBLINDED BY FAITH?
November 17th, 2005 at 11:17 pmFrom what I’ve heard, Murtha has been a bipartisan member of Congress who thought he could change things by playing by the rules. He learned that there are no rules under this administration and its time to bite back.
Off topic but I as a woman I love this tidbit on Patrick Fitzgerald….check it out ladies, he’s hot!
November 17th, 2005 at 11:30 pmhttp://www.nbc5.com/news/5350104/detail.html
Kick’em while their down! Give it too them with both barrels. Enough of this keeping quiet bs! It’s past time to take our country back from the Neocon Menace.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:40 pmOK #14, I bit the bait. If all goes well for PF, SP, he’s got it made. We’ll remember him well over the “Older guy in Dazed and Confused”. Sorry, chick content…
November 17th, 2005 at 11:43 pmIt’s amazing the Scott McClellan can sit up there behind that podium and spew those stupid comments. You know, how many times has that guy visited the hospitals? Murtha was a commander. The men under him had families back home. They had futures.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:16 amTo Scott McClellan and Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld those soldiers are nothing. They are cannon fodder. That is the ultimate cruelty. I don’t know how comparing Rep Murta to Michael Moore is going to scare a Viet Nam Vet into shutting up. What an effing idiot.
I feel like puking every time I hear W espousing torture. Isn’t our nation founded on a more civilized code of principles?
November 18th, 2005 at 12:27 amHow about the 170 or so detainees they found in the Interior Ministry detention center in Bahgdad…malnurished, beaten, skin peeled off.
Rumsfeld’s response, “detainees tend to exagerate these things”.
These detainees were discovered by American soldiers TODAY while searching for a 15 year old boy.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:45 amWhy was Murtha bringing up Clinton? Sure, he didn’t serve and sent our guys to war but that doesn’t mean he didn’t mean well!!!
November 18th, 2005 at 7:47 amHaven’t seen a right-wing comment here yet. Where are you guys? Still thinking of whom to smear and how?
Also, a thought on the new Alito pro/con commercials I’ve heard previewed: the anti-Alito spot targets specific written statements the man himself has made and must be called upon to explain. The pro-Alito spot essentially says, “there those dumb liberals go again, they love terrorists, they hate America.” There is actually no real content related to Alito.
Hopefully the wonderously effective broad smearing tactic that has worked so well for the Rove machine (aka the Bush Presidency) for so many years may now be wearing down and failing to fool most Americans, who don’t obsess over politics as we here do.
I love you America! Even you benighted Righties!
Let me hear the love!
the GTL
November 18th, 2005 at 7:52 amQ: What do you call a GOP chickenhawk who smears a veteran?
A: A sick Murthaf*cker
November 18th, 2005 at 8:30 amHow’s about the White House smearing Murtha by saying he is endorsing the policies of the the Michael Moore crowd and the extreme liberal left. Uhh, a 34% approval rating, the mainstream is speaking.
The right is out on a shakey limb sawing away furiously thinking they will watch the tree fall.
November 18th, 2005 at 8:40 amway to go! the blogosphere has been saying this for a while, but they’re always dismissed as fringe players by neocons… it’s good to hear someone in office making these pointed statements!!!
November 18th, 2005 at 8:59 amif Cheney addresses this at all, which he’ll do only if pushed, I imagine his response will be something about Murtha playing politics… he won’t respond directly to the comment… no one in that administration does!
November 18th, 2005 at 9:02 amI understand that Mr. Cheney’s last deferrment was obtained after he learned that expectant fathers could get one. So that’s when he and his wife decided to have their first child. Would that make her a “love child” or merely and “anti-war child”?
It must have been difficult explaining that to their child when she grew up. “Mommy, Daddy, did you have me because you loved each other so much and you wanted to make a family together?” “No, Honey, your father didn’t want to have to fight in a war and this was the last remaining way he had to get out of it short of mutilating himself.”
Which he no doubt considered.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:25 amThrow some red meat to the morons!!!
Fine, let’s pull the troops out. But, when the Iraqi people are slaughtered and Americans see another Saigon before there very eyes, can we blame Murtha and those of his ilk. Oh – I’m sorry, just blame Bush.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:43 amJohn Murtha injured in friendly fire incident
WASHINGTON: Decorated combat veteran John P. Murtha (D-PA) yesterday stunned supporters and opponents alike by evading White House security and planting a verbal landmine underneath President Bush’s chair in the Oval Office. Murtha’s brazen action …
November 18th, 2005 at 9:47 amActually, NED, I think most of us blame Cheney. The decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was made not as a last resort (as the President and Vice President like to claim), but rather it was made the day that Dick Cheney picked himself to be George W. Bush’s 2000 running mate. This was something that HE wanted to do from the beginning.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:55 am#29 gimme a break. If they had plans to invade, you can pass some of the blame to Maddy Albitch and Clinton for telling us how dangerous Saddam was.
The left can call for withdrawl at their own risk. AND go ahead and trash Cheney – he’ll be gone before the mid-term elections.
Bush holds every card in this fight and don’t you forget it. The terror sympos on the left will be exposed as the haters they are.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:04 am“Had Joe Wilson not tried to exploit Valerie Plame’s position to attack the Admin, she would have never been outed.â€
“I wish the GOP was stealing elections”
-Northeast Dilemma
November 18th, 2005 at 10:10 amWhat is troubling to me is the large number of military people who are actively speaking out against the war.
What? It’s only one person? Never mind.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:10 amYou know it’s more than one person, cynicon. Pullout is now officially on the table as a public talking point. Military are now free to discuss the subject because a hawk has made it possible. It’s a natural progression of the end of the war.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:14 amBush does not hold all the cards. Even if he did if he’s not smart enough to see the Neocon party going down with his policies then so be it.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:15 am#33 – defeat is a natural progression for Democrats, not most Americans. YOU are an anti-American scum bag.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:16 amATV, I think discussing the timetable for getting out is fine. I just fear that doing it prematurely could cause catastrophe for the people we are trying to help, a la Vietnam.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:19 amHEY NED;
They are BAFFLED I tell you, completely BAFFLED.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:21 amAhh, the idiot reichtwingnuts creep out from under their rocks.
Guys, go back to your blow-up girlfriends. They are the only “people” in the world who don’t say NO to you.
btw – cheney got a couple of just plain ole college defermits prior to knocking up his wife for the next round of I don’t wanna go to Vietnam’s. Actually, I don’t blame him for not wanting to go to Vietnam, I wouldn’t have either (I was too young thank god).
But I do blame tricky dicky for being the asshole chicken hawk he now is. I’m gonna really enjoy his roasting over the coals.
Happey Fitzmas everyone, especially you goosestepping morons out there.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:28 amCheney wouldn’t make a pimple on Murtha’s ass, and Murtha told him as much.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:32 amSo take that and shove it down your puss gutted throat Dickey.
I’d love to wipe that snarl of his pig face with my 3 iron.
#39 – this about your hatred for Cheney, not what’s best for the country.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:33 am“What is troubling to me is the large number of military people who are actively speaking out against the war.
What? It’s only one person? Never mind.
Comment by cynicon implant”
Iraq Veterans Against the War – http://www.ivaw.net/
Veterans For Peace – http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
Veterans Against the Iraq War – http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
Bring Them Home Now – http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
Vietnam Veterans Against the War – http://www.vvaw.org/
It’s more than one, chickenhawk.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:40 amWhy do you hate the troops NED?
November 18th, 2005 at 10:41 am#40 – Is the topic of this thread, ‘what’s best for the country’ you bush supporting twerp?
November 18th, 2005 at 10:41 amNo, it’s about Cheney’s response to Murtha.
UPDATE: Cong Henry Waxman has a document online detailing 51 times that Cheney misled the country about Iraq
Do you remember the one where…
1. Cheney Claimed Iraq Was Providing WMD Training To Al-Qaeda Months After Source Recanted
or the one where…
2. Cheney claimed Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda? He wasn’t.
or the one where…
3. Cheney claimed Saddam gave Al Qaeda bomb-making expertise and trained Al Qaeda terrorists how to use chemical and biological weapons? Saddam didn’t.
CONT.
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3496
November 18th, 2005 at 10:45 amHey NED #27, I like the “throw the red meat to the morons” line. But, really, you and the others here have hammered away for the democrats to some up with a “plan” or have an “agenda” for the future—-well, be careful what you wish for, NED, us conservatives are getting caught in our own rattrap.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your “ilk” group seems to be everyone who opposes Bush’s “stay the course” bunch.
I mean, here’s some facts to chew on: a recent poll of Iraqis for the Brittish Ministry of Defense found that 82% of all Iraqis are stongly opposed to the presence of all coalition troops. And 45% think attacks by insurgents on our troops is justified. So much for Bush’s “spreading democracy” horseshit, huh?
Hey, NED, I got a question for you: what’s your take on that lowdown puke Dennis Hastert yesterday using the “cut and run” BS on John Murtha, and then thowing in the “surrender to the terrorists” remark? What a typical piece of Repugnican work, don’t you think? By the way, Hastert is one of the many chickenhawks infesting the Repugnican Party: Hastert dodged the draft in Vietnam War by using college deferements. When those ran out, he got himself classified as 4F for having a bad shoulder while others went off to war.
I mean, that “bad shoulder” didn’t stop him from being a High School wrestling coach when the Selective Service let him out of serving his country. Is he a typical conservative war-hawk, or what? Almost makes a guy want to give up on those “conservative ethics”, if you ask me.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:46 am#40 – what’s best for the country is to do what bush promised in 2000, i.e., restore honor and integrity to the white house. he has done neither. the current regime has done irreparable harm to this great nation, and it’s high time they be held accountable.
——————-
“Freedom Isn’t Free” proclaims the bumper sticker on the gas guzzler.
“Then why are we trying to give it away?” asks the true patriot.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Forgotten…
November 18th, 2005 at 10:47 amDon’t forget, “67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation”.
Here is all the poll results:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified – rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
November 18th, 2005 at 10:50 amIt’s time to bring our boys and girls back home.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:51 am“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” – Edward R. Murrow
November 18th, 2005 at 10:54 amyes, we were lied to about Iraq, now there is a great war that we all must support. Never, ever doubt our fearless leader, George Bush, he da man.
quit che beefin’ and get on out there an support the Bush cabal and go over to Irack and fight, fight, fight.
they hate our freedoms. Let’s just give them up, lie down like whimpering, cowering dogs and be slaves for murka.
freedom and democracy requires sacrifice. just sacrifice your rights and let George rule. give up. It’s not worth having freedom when George is there to protect us all.
long live George Bush. vote Bush in 2008
go to the ‘bread and circus’ and forget about it.
the senators and congressmen don’t have to send their children over there, they’re special. you can die for freedumb and demockcracy.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:54 amNED, what is the Bush plan? Do you honestly think that by having elections in Iraq is suddenly going to stabilize the country? Bush is for the status quo: keep training Iraqis who will have to fight on their own. When does that happen? One year? Two? Five? Ten? Meanwhile, Americans are being killed everyday while the terrorists have a new training ground to learn their evil skills. And tell me, where is Osama Bin Laden and why is Afghanistan now producing more heroin than ever before? I thought we won there? Maybe it’s because President Karzai can only govern Kabul while the Taliban and Al Qaeda control the countryside. Apparently the military thinks the Taliban have been “reinvigorated”. Tell me again? What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
November 18th, 2005 at 11:05 amhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-16-afghan-insurgents-inside_x.htm
“go back to your blow-up girlfriends”
Hee!
November 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am#30 No, NED, most emphatically NO! You can even make that a Ted Stevens “NO!” if you like.
This can NOT be blamed on Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, nor can it blamed on former President Clinton despite what your friends in the RNC would have you believe. There appear to be gaps in your education.
Mr. ElBaradei (sp?) of the IAEA had determined that by 1998, pretty much most of Saddam’s WMD had been destroyed. Containment was working and Saddam was no longer a major threat to the United States. Most of the quotes you conservatives like to pull are from before this time when it was not so certain that the WMDs were all accounted for. Yet conservatives keep beating us over the head with that crap, “But Clinton said Saddam was dangerous, too!” But he never said that Saddam was so dangerous that he must be removed from power by force. Never. It was the neo-cons who kept looking to remove him from power so that Iraq’s oil fields could be divided up among the oil companies.
Have you ever heard of the “Project For a New American Centuryâ€? You should familiarize yourself with it, or at least learn about the gist of it. This was a group of people, including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and many others, who advocated a doctrine of pre-emption and Middle East “reformâ€. Their position was (and still is) in essence that the United States, being the last superpower left on Earth, should use its military might to impose its will on the rest of the world. That we should strike first before any threat could grow to the point of being an imminent danger (n other words, don’t even let it get close to being a threat to us). That we should declare oil to be our primary national interest and that we should do everything in our power (not merely “whatever it takesâ€) to ensure that the Middle East is stable enough to keep supplying us with oil. And to that end, they felt that Saddam Hussein was the single most destabilizing threat in the region and that he should be removed from power (by our military if necessary) and replaced with a democratically-elected, pro-Western government.
This has been the Vice President’s dream from before he picked himself to be Vice President. The War in Iraq was his doing, and it was never necessary. And it took valuable resources away from the real War on Terror then being fought in Afghanistan alone.
And this is one of the many reasons we would like to see him removed from office and, if possible, thrown into a secret CIA black prison.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:12 amCynicon,
I have thought long and hard about the pros and cons of pulling out. But it keeps going back to the poll that Murtha cited yesterday about the actual popularity of the forces. It’s not very high. And I know that there are soldiers who have become very sentimental and attached to their role in Iraq but quite frankly this war doe not belong to the soldiers. It belong to the civilians. And the civilians want it over. The civilians think there already is a civil war. At the very least benchmarks have to be accurately described and met. But this sentiment is being expressed while inwardly having little faith that any respectable benchmarks CAN be met.
“‘Stay the course’ is not a strategy. It’s a slogan”-Sen. Carl Levin
November 18th, 2005 at 11:16 amI love America, NED. I never realized how much until 911.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:20 amEven if there were a civil war HERE of all places I would still love America and I would be grateful I did not live under a dictator.
T2005, so what do you advocate in terms of a plan? Typical liberal post — offers no solution.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:21 amATV, putting aside the unintentionally ironic Carl Levin quote (he comes up with a slogan to mock Bush’s “slogan”), your post is at least thoughtful, which is more than I can say for most here.
I don’t really have the answer either, but I think that a rapid pullout is not advisable.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:26 am“T2005, so what do you advocate in terms of a plan? Typical liberal post — offers no solution.”
Comment by cynicon implant
There is a plan and there always has been.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
The false assumption that the Democrats do not have a plan is a repeated talking point in the right wing media.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:29 amTypical Neocon response: respond to post by not answering the charges leveled in said post. Instead, deflect and attack using talkingpoints. I’ll respond to your bs post once you respond to mine, cynicon.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:35 amI’d advise “Rapid Pullout” For all male extreme right wingers. Their inferior intellectual bloodlines are polluting the quality DNA stock here in America and will stop us from advancing and evolving as human beings.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:37 am#60
How does an immediate pullout make us safer? If we “cut and run”, we admit defeat just like we did in Vietnam. Is that what you want? I love America. I want us to eventually be safe from terrorism. You can’t negotiate with terrorists. If we did, I would offer up California and New York first. I don’t want our troops there any longer than they have to be either. After next month’s election, it should be more apparent to Al Qaeda that Iraq will be a free democratic nation. We need to have a victory strategy, not cut and run now. What you and your party are doing is motivating the enemy. You and your leaders should all be tried for treason.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:59 amNED,
Your just falling back on the old soundbytes intended to manipulate and cloud the issues. “Why do you hate America.” And stuff like that. It’s pretty transparent. No credibility.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:01 pm#60 was a human sexual reproduction joke Randy.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:03 pmYou are with the minority NED. So if you really believe the majority of Americans hate America, then prepare yourself for a revolution.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:03 pmNED,
How was cutting and running from Vietnam so bad for us? Did Communism prevail? Was our way of life changed? Wasn’t there almost 3 decades of no US involvemnt in a major conflict? The war monger in office was put out of running again, so he could focus on his taylor keeping his balls comfortable when his trousers were made.
Don’t pull the Siagon crap, I don’t believe you give a crap about people in other countries being killed, it’s not consistent with your current views.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:10 pm#58 Jeremy — that link you provided to the Dem agenda gave no plan re. exiting Iraq. It was just fluff. I want to see the Dems timetable and an explanation of why it makes sense and how it will provide the least loss of life of both Americans and Iraqis. Right now they are just taking cheap political shots at Bush (admittedly an easy target) and thus cannot be taken seriously by serious people.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:45 pm#
What is troubling to me is the large number of military people who are actively speaking out against the war.
What? It’s only one person? Never mind.
Comment by cynicon implant — November 18, 2005 @ 10:10 am
Hmmmm-
How about this:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/13027623.htm
In case you were wondering, North Carolina regards itself as one of the most military-friendly states in the country. It’s also one of the most “red” states.
How about retired General Anthony Zinni?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
He spent 2 decades in the Middle East, but I suppose you know more than he would.
General Brent Scowcroft?
General Joseph Hoar?
General Wesley Clark?
Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki?
Army Gen. Richard O’Meara?
Gen. John Fugh?
Army Gen. Robert Gard?
Army Generals Evelyn Foote, Robert Gard, and Claudia Kennedy?
Navy Admiral Don Guter?
Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak?
USAF National Guard Gen. Melvyn Montano?
Let’s not forget Scott Ritter (former Marine and UN WMD Inspector), who the Right has smeared uncontrollably, even though his assessments have turned out to be true.
How about a whole slew of former military lawyers?
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3210law_v_rumsfeld.html
So, Cynicon, who exactly is ‘not supporting the troops’?
Do you not have any shame when you type lies about people who actually fought for their country?
November 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pmAnd NeD- you’ve proven to be such a chickenhawk coward (you’re 29 and you have stated you would not join the NY National Guard), I don’t honestly know how you live with yourself.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:53 pmIn #60, Randy asked, “How does an immediate pullout make us safer?”
It’s not rocket science: when you find yourself in a hole, the number one rule is to stop digging.
Our presence in Iraq IS THE PROBLEM:
– the Iraqi people don’t want us there (where is the “flower brigade” who were supposed to welcome us at liberators?)
– our troops have become a magnet for terrorists (the incidence rate has climbed from 150 a week to 700 a week in the past year — are we succeeding?)
– multiple tours are demoralizing our military (how long can we keep it up?)
– the over-reliance on the National Guard leaves us unprepared to respond to emergencies at home (remember Katrina? Would we have been any better prepared if a terrorist had blown up the levees?)
– the heavy troop commitments in Iraq leave us vulnerable and unable to respond to other emergencies (the State Department reports a sharp INCREASE in terrorist incidences worldwide since 2001)
– the prospect of a never-ending quagmire has created unprecedented recruiting challenges (will reinstating the draft be good for America?)
– the cost of financing the war is causing us to cut budgets for veteran services (how does this help recruiting?)
By invading Iraq, we took our eye of the REAL ENEMY: Osama bin Laden. Remember him? he’s the one who ATTACKED US here at home!!!
————-
November 18th, 2005 at 12:54 pmLet me turn the question around: given that it’s NOT WORKING, how does staying the course make America any safer???
Oh, and by the way, NeD, Cynicon, and Randy- you’re doing a heckuva job: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
November 18th, 2005 at 1:02 pmI love the “How does pulling out make us safer?” schtick.
Only a dumb f*ck propagandist like Bartlett or Rove could say that with a straight face.(And by the way I think Bartlett seems alittle beaten down lately).
Know what else is funny? Being so Goddamned out of touch that your only recourse against your critics is to compare them to Moore(the new Fonda). Funny stuff indeed!
November 18th, 2005 at 1:07 pmdumbshit alert – hey – wingnuts. just because you accept you foolish idol leaders words doesn’t make them true to us.
Here’s our point. Currently 82% of Iraqis feel the US & the British are occupying powers and are stromgly opposed to our continued presence. 45% believe it is justified to attack the americans & British ( The Telegraph as source for you doubters).
We’re better off funding their government after their elections next month and letting them settle their issues themselves. I mean, we need to make sure they know we will back their stability ($) but that they need to do their own security. Right now we are sitting ducks in the middle taking pot shots from whatever yahoo wants to make a name for himself. The Iraqi government won’t fall. But it will get bruised cause it is a civil war. So, no one is saying cut and run but you righties. We are saying we’ll back them from somewhere else. That will take away the 82% objection to us and make them deal with themselves.
Will it be pretty? Hell no. This is no fairy tale the BushCo has started. But it will be better for the long run, both for Iraq and the US.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:09 pm#72
The majority of insurgency is from Non-Iraqis. You don’t hear about Iraqis shooting at us do you? Also, what civil war are you referring to? Last I heard the Sunnis are participating in the election process. And no, you are saying to cut and run. What part about bringing the troops home in six months is not cutting and running? We are close to victory in Iraq. Lets not blow it by doing something stupid and listening to democrats.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:18 pm“I want to see the Dems timetable and an explanation of why it makes sense and how it will provide the least loss of life of both Americans and Iraqis.”
Well, jeebus freaking christ man, that’s exactly what we are asking you guys to do! Aren’t you paying attention to the news? Als, we liberals don’t all follow the same talking points and we don’t speak in unison like conservatives tend to do, so we have many ideas on Iraq floating around. The main one is (if you have been paying attention) is that we have to pull our troops out as soon as possible (Bush has not given any idea when this will be. Another good idea is to pull the troops out and let the U.N take over security (a neutral party).
But untill anything happens, we are just going to have more soldiers killed and we will see the death rate top 3000 by next year. Now, once again, if you have been apying attention, you would realize that these Iraqis don’t want us there and believe that our presence is what incites the violence. Just a withdrawel of our troops would send a signal that we are not there to occupy them for the purpose of oil.
Now untill Bush states when hes going to pull the troops out, the democrats will keep pushing for an answer. We have a plan, get them out as soon as possible. So, I ask, what is Bush’s plan? We don’t know yet. I hear in the range of 10 years and so on. That’s not good enough.
“Right now they are just taking cheap political shots at Bush (admittedly an easy target) and thus cannot be taken seriously by serious people.”
Are you saying the majority of America is not serious? Think again.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:24 pmWorld > Terrorism & Security
posted September 23, 2005 at 10:30 a.m.
The ‘myth’ of Iraq’s foreign fighters
Report by US think tank says only ‘4 to 10′ percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don’t come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq “feed the myth” that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
Your lies are unpatriotic Randy.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:41 pm“The majority of insurgency is from Non-Iraqis. You don’t hear about Iraqis shooting at us do you?”
My god, you are one ignorant moron! You are really misinformed my friend. Only 4-10% of the insurgency is considered foreign. Remember, most of the attacks occur in Sunni areas, do you not consider them Iraqi’s or something? Read and weep Freep: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html
“Last I heard the Sunnis are participating in the election process.”
A small minority is hardly anything to brag about.
“And no, you are saying to cut and run. What part about bringing the troops home in six months is not cutting and running? We are close to victory in Iraq.”
LOL. Close to a victory huh? Really, where did you hear this? Rush Limbaugh? Come man, if that was true, then Bush could give us a timetable, but he has not done that, so your just pulling crap out of your ass.
“Lets not blow it by doing something stupid and listening to democrats.”
You mean stupid as in listening to Bush and invading a country that wasn’t a threat to us?? LOL.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pmWell, the one encouraging sign is that at least people, including conservatives, can now safely start making the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam
[T]he Vietnam War “was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
November 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pmI misremember. Can anyone tell me the last time a right wing president won a war?
November 18th, 2005 at 2:50 pm#78 DU: the answer is 1989 (Panama). Before that, it was 1983 (Grenada).
Oh, did you mean against countries larger than a postage stamp? In that case, you got me.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pm#53, Wayne, Nice attempt at educating NED, who doesn’t seem to grasp much more than slogans. He may be suffering from ADD or he is hyperactive, requiring Ritalin in order to speak (type) rationally.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:36 pmYour summary was concise and factual, so I hope he was able to focus for a couple of minutes in reading it.
Hey Ned
I had one of them blow-up plastic life sized dolls one time. Had all the feature.
One night I was kinda horny so I blew her up and we were going hot and heavy.
I bit her on the neck, she farted and flew out the window.
Your posts on this website remind me of lucy.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:09 pmRandy shows everyone why republicans are all thought of as short bus retards.
No iraqi insurgents – bahahahaha – now that’s whacko!
November 19th, 2005 at 11:04 pm