Comments on: POLL: Americans Strongly Support Murtha’s Iraq Plan

By: Fulfillment Centers And

Fulfillment Centers And — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:18:31 +0000

The Power of Your Self-image and How to Improve it for a Fulfilling Life

I have been reading a book that I first read over 40 years ago. The book is called, Psychcybernetics, which was written by Maxwell Maltz in 1960. This book contained major breakthrough information at the time it was published and it continues to sell t…

By: rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate

rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:44:34 +0000

[...] as a Democrat, I don’t like “defeat” anymore than you do… but I (and the majority of Americans)Â don’t want to sacrifice out troops to a cause we can’t, and won’t [...]

By: Vic Anderson

Vic Anderson — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:09:53 +0000

Push Pelosi and Hoyer off the table, put IMPEACHMENT BACK THERE and let seasoned warriors like Murtha END BUSH’S WARS NOW!

By: The Carter Gilson Report » Blog Archive » CGR Volume 1, Episode 12

The Carter Gilson Report » Blog Archive » CGR Volume 1, Episode 12 — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:32:27 +0000

[...] majority of Americans, 53%, favor setting a timetable for getting the hell out of Iraq. Even more, 58%, support John Murtha’s plan that has come under fire ever since it got [...]

By: A Soldiers Angel

A Soldiers Angel — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:56:33 +0000

Just a quick note to all of those who think that anti-war means anti-soldier…you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

I have been an antiwar protestor since the beginning of the war planning, and since that time, i have devoted my energy to recruiting people to join Soldiers Angels group to support our troops- we send letters of support and care packages every single week to our soldiers in theater.

Our guys&gals tell us that those letters mean the world to them!

We can truly say we ACTIVELY SUPPORT the soldier while we also ABHOR the senseless conflict. (ps- i did notice that there were a lot of leftist members in the group…and i wondered exactly where the right-wing war-mongers were…)

By: Think Progress » Post’s poll write-up includes Murtha question.

Think Progress » Post’s poll write-up includes Murtha question. — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:24:13 +0000

[...] Washington Post editorial page has condemned Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) plan to address the U.S. military’s readiness crisis and restrain the Iraq escalation. Yesterday, [...]

By: craig johnson - cognitorex

craig johnson - cognitorex — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:04:26 +0000

The No Escalation Vote is a Euphemism
( cognitorex blogspot )

Ask me if I am against the surge and increasing troop numbers in Iraq and I will vociferously say yes.
Ask me to sign a petition, demonstrate or take a poll and I will gladly lend my name that no escalation should be forthcoming.
Do I believe that I have sufficient information to intelligently second guess anyone on military tactics in Iraq?
No, no and emphatically no.
Then, you might ask, why are you willing to go to the length of demonstrating miles from home if you don’t feel qualified to second guess the decision to surge in Iraq.
Answer: I oppose the surge because I am vehemently opposed to a continuation of George Bush et al as the military and policy leadership of my country and my military.
My ‘No-surge’ vote is a vote of no confidence in our present leaders.
I believe most Senate and House votes against escalation are in essence a no confidence vote for the President; a political statement first, a military tactics’ statement only by default.
I suggest a polling question that would illuminate my proposition that the no surge vote is a political no confidence vote rather than a strong feeling on how to proceed in Baghdad would useful.
To wit:
Part A: Do you support or oppose the President’s plan to send 40,000 additional troops to Iraq, the surge plan?
Part B: If the Iraq war military decision making leadership was turned over to a new commander in chief who had strong military and foreign policy credentials would you then support or oppose a similar surge plan if backed by this new leadership?
(Yes? No? Undecided?)
Voting against surging in Iraq reflects a deep desire for competent and accountable leadership. Or did you know that already?

By: marcus robinson

marcus robinson — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:56:00 +0000

The 39% must Defense Contractors and mindless republicans who don’t have kids of war fighting age.

By: solorunner

solorunner — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:21:19 +0000

2/3 of Americans dont know who that fat slob Murtha is your poll is a fraud.

By: karl halmstrand Sweden

karl halmstrand Sweden — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:23:26 +0000

warloving people read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2906583
Gen. Pace: Military Capability Eroding

Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won’t be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

By: karl halmstrand Sweden

karl halmstrand Sweden — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:22:18 +0000

warloving people read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2906583
Gen. Pace: Military Capability Eroding

By: karl halmstrand Sweden

karl halmstrand Sweden — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:20:37 +0000

warloving people read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2906583
Gen. Pace: Military Capability Eroding

By: karl halmstrand

karl halmstrand — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:21:13 +0000

Stalin and Hitler wanted to unify the world according to thier own image. Bus and Blair want it too, but this time they have to pay much if some vise men do not stop them.

By: Fascist Nation

Fascist Nation — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:24:12 +0000

Screw this! Pull out now!!!!

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:59:05 +0000

Given your comments there is really no other conclusion one can reach.
Comment by Exley â€” February 26, 2007 @ 11:26 pm

Given Juan’s comments here is the conclusion I can reach: Iran is only responding to the US’ aggressive rhetoric, and actions. Their pursuit of a nuclear reactor is part of a strategy to diffuse an attack by the US -aka deterrence.

Should the Bush administration tone down the rhetoric, and show a disposition to dialogue -aka diplomacy, it is very likely Iran would be willing to cooperate. Drop the threats. Talk. Throw them a bone. Like with North Korea.

See? That is another way of reading what Juan wrote. I cannot read any advocacy for nuclear proliferation in his comment at all.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:26:17 +0000

Actually, Juan, Given your comments there is really no other conclusion one can reach. You seemingly support Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Your entire posting (#133) is a justification and rationalization for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

By: Juan C

Juan C — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:20:21 +0000

It suprises me, Juan, to see you argue in favor of greater nuclear proliferation.
Comment by Exley

You really dont stop to think anything, do you?

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:50:56 +0000

The Washington Post(tm), with whom I agree most of the time, has taken an inexplicable stance by criticizing John Murtha’s proposal. When “armchair strategicians” like neocons and Bushland Uber Allies members and media supporters who have never experienced combat or soldiers’ situations open their INEXPERIENCED YAPS and criticize experts who have gone to Hell and back like Murtha, I FIND IT LAUGHABLE IN THE EXTREME. GO and FIGHT in the army and then OPEN YOUR FILTHY MOUTH…Until then, keep yer YAPS SHUT, and that goes DOUBLE fer ya, CHIMPya, Torticola Cheney, Rove, Rice, and the WHOLE DISEASED CLAP-RIDDEN SORRY BUNCH O’ YA JERK-OFFS!!!!!

By: ben

ben — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:33:03 +0000

I believe that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is preferable to one with more. It suprises me, Juan, to see you argue in favor of greater nuclear proliferation. -Exley

Nice strawman. The sign of a real genius. Maybe you should hit up a critical thinking class at YourTown CC.

By: PrahaPartizan

PrahaPartizan — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:10:27 +0000

#123 — “…The uranium-based bomb program simply didnâ€™t exist, except as a pretext for the US to back out of the deal and provoke NK into resuming its extant program. So until Bushâ€™s and Boltonâ€™s false accusations, the Clinton deal was working…” PeterW, I’m pretty sure that it’s been confirmed that the North Koreans were pursuing an enrched uranium program although they were abiding scrupilously to the framework agreement struck with Clinton. That framework didn’t address enriching uranium because the idea seemed so preposterous that it just wasn’t considered. Going the enriched uranium route yields so little for so much effort that it’s just not practical. The US had the full resources of a real war-time economy backing the Manhattan Project during WW2 and produced enough weapons grade U235 for something like three weapons after three years of work. Does anyone believe that North Korea could pursue a program even a tenth the size of the Manhattan Project? No, the North Koreans would be still working on getting enough weapons-grade uranium for their first bomb when they would be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the death of Dear Leader. The plutonium route offered mechanized production of multiple weapons and Dubya let the North Koreans take that high speed exit with a vengence.