Murtha Two Years Ago Today: Bush’s Iraq Course Is ‘Flawed Policy Wrapped In Illusion’
Murtha Two Years Ago Today: Bush’s Iraq Course Is ‘Flawed Policy Wrapped In Illusion’
Today marks two years from the day that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) boldly called for a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq. “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,” Murtha said, adding that his call for withdrawal was motivated by deep concern for the state of the military:
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.
The right-wing assailed Murtha as a “senile” Hitler sympathizer. The White House attacked him for “surrendering” to terrorists, and Rep. Jean Schmidt called him a “coward” on the House floor.
On Nov. 17, 2005, House Republicans hastily forced a vote to bring the troops home, sensing a political opportunity to isolate Murtha. The measure to begin immediate withdrawal was rejected 403-3. But events in Iraq over the past two years have vindicated Murtha’s wisdom. Just this week, a majority of the House voted to pass a bill that largely reflects Murtha’s original call for redeployment.
The Gavel offers some metrics to assess how the situation in Iraq has changed in the past two years:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Murtha has been right about Iraq for a long time now. I support him on this issue. It’s unfortunate that he also happens to be one of the most corrupt members of Congress.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe unrest? Quelled? Bwaaahahhaaaahaaaaaa! You sound as if you still believe we will have dollars to buy oil with, once the bill comes due. You’re either smokin’ dope, or drinkin’ Kool-aid. You crack me up!
November 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pmWell, it looks like Francine is back and still with no balls.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#1. Frank…
[.....Once the unrest is quelled,the prices will come down..]
————————————————————————————-
You seem not bother by the number of killed and wounded soldiers and the hours of electricity available to Iraqis.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:19 pmYou seem to be very optimistic that oil prices are going to go down if Iraq produces some 900,000 barrels more daily.
The oil prices will never go down again as you predict..because our dollar is going down..and oil is sold on dollar basis.
The more we spend on this war..the more we are get ourselves in debt..and the more we get ourselves in debt..the more the dollar goes down.
One more factor is our increased consumption will not help prices go down,in addition to other countries consumption vs. output of oil produced .
It is laughable that you call a war of 51/2 years an ‘unrest’.
Frank M sez:
Tell me, Frank…is the oil worth the nearly 4000 dead u.S. soldiers?
Is the oil worth the over one million Iraqi civilian deaths?
Is the oil worth the agony and despair all future generations of Iraqis must endure, due to our indiscriminate use of 2000 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq?
Is the oil worth it, Frank?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:19 pmFrank M sez:
That’s monstrous. Congrats.
And what exactly makes you think we have any control over Gulf oil? And if we do, tell me again why oil is almost $100/barrel.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“#7: Is keeping the US economy running worth the nearly 4000 dead U.S. soldiers? Yes it is. Do you have any idea what would happen here if we lost our control over the Gulf oil?”
Comment by Frank M
Isn’t it a little late to now be admitting we really invaded for the oil? Trolls like Frank went ballistic when liberals pointed this little fact out to them, years ago.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:29 pmBush is a psychopathic lying election-stealing war-mongering monster. He spreads his misery as far as the eye can see… I’ve said it before, and I will say it again:
Broaden yourself beyond bird-watching and try the exciting new hobby, fascist-watching…
In the back of the last two issues of The Bird Watcher’s Digest, there were articles that suggested the filling your car’s trunk with a variety of natural history guides, including books on variously, insects, mammals, reptiles, wild flowers, shrubs, trees and even rocks and minerals and geology. All to equip you for any natural history questions of identification or understanding which might come up on your driving bird-watching field trips. The articles were trying to broaden the horizons of many traditional bird-watchers, who often watch only birds, and ignore other life forms.
This is all well and good, but I have a modest suggestion on how bird-watchers can really broaden their horizons: by getting into the exciting new world of fascist-watching. Fascists have been springing up in 21st century America like wild mushrooms after a heavy spring rainstorm. Actually, fascist-watching is very easy; you don’t need any binoculars, spotting scopes or field guides; you don’t even have to go outdoors at all; you simply turn on your cable or satellite-fed television set and you will see many fascists, squawking and screaming, fussing and fuming, sliming and smearing, jiving and lying. These fascists can be often spotted on three major corporate propaganda channels, Fox, MSNBC and CNN, which masquerade as “news” channels. If you care to go further afield (so to speak) you may visit some of the many so-called “religious” channels, which are mostly just spewing christo-fascist intolerance and hate for any and all that don’t agree with their every pronouncement… If this doesn’t satisfy your urges for fascist-watching, you can always turn to CSPAN most any afternoon and listen to Ms. Dana Perino, the new press secretary for the fascist Liar-in-Chief, El Supremo Busho.
As you will soon discover, there are many different kinds of fascists to be seen, beard, identified on television and then added to your “life list.” Christo-fascists, fearmongering-fascists, corporatist-fascists, imperial-fascists, neocon-fascists and war-fascists. Seen ‘em, identify ‘em, collect their images, take some field notes and soon you will be an expert fascist watcher. You may even spot a clucking chickenhawk or two. Then you can give ‘em “the bird”…
November 17th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt’s not our oil to “control”. Or don’t you believe in free markets? Are you some kind of commie, or something?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#7: Is keeping the US economy running worth the nearly 4000 dead U.S. soldiers? Yes it is. Do you have any idea what would happen here if we lost our control over the Gulf oil?
Comment by Frank M
So Francine, please tell me what right we have to control the Gulf Oil. What if most of the oil in the world was in the United States. Do you think it would be OK for other governments to claim rights to control our oil?
And yes, I do know what would happen to our economy if we didn’t have the instant availability to oil. It’s too bad that Bush doesn’t know and hasn’t done anything to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
You do know, Francine, that oil is a finite resource. And you do know, don’t you, that we are on the downside of Peak Oil, meaning that we can no longer produce enough oil to meet the needs of the world. So knowing that oil is a finite resource, wouldn’t it make sense to do everything we can do to break our dependence on oil?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe current administration is also making ‘progress’ on a vehicle that runs on blood.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pmIf you’re wondering how much it will cost, you can’t afford it.
That is a total misrepresentation of the Carter Doctrine.
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force
November 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Frank M sez:
BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. On your way out, don’t forget to pick up your copy of the ThinkProgress home game.
The Carter Doctrine was not about us controlling the Gulf region…it was about preventing others from seizing control. From the Wikipedia article:
If you’re going to cite the Carter Doctrine, rank, you really ought to know what it means, don’t you think?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pmFrank M sez:
That may be your viewpoint, but it wasn’t Carter’s. Don’t attempt to claim otherwise.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:03 pmWhy can’t I? Because I am not a criminal. I cannot claim what is not mine. At best, I could defend a country’s right to sell their commodities to anyone they damned well please. Of course, I would be justified in doing so only in the defense of free markets (not as an occupying force, or to establish a geopolitical footprint in the region), and, having a modicum of integrity in matters regarding my stated beliefs, I would be compelled to defend that country’s right to free trade even if that country decided not to trade with me.
For example: if a strong nation invaded a weaker nation to wrest control of the weaker nation’s resources, I’d have to object to that. Kind of like what we’re doing in Iraq.
If you’re going to be a Fascist, at least be an honest Fascist.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pmIt’s not common sense, it’s ethical dishonesty. It’s criminality.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pmFrank ,if what you say is true about ‘Vital Interests’…then why Bush did not sell the war as ‘…a vital interests’ instead to control the oil?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:19 pmBush sold the war by using fear of Saddam non existing rockets loaded with poison etc..etc..aimed at our cities…then the mashroom clouds stories…
Why all the administration staff resorted to scaring people about Saddam WMDS rather than come forward and say:”this war is for oil”,and let people decide if they want to send their sons to die for oil.
At least the crude oil production is up. Once the unrest is quelled, the prices will come down, too.
Comment by Frank M — November 17, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
What a loser, Frank. Can you lower the bar any further for your guy Bush? What were they forecasting, 7 or 8 million barrels per day? Or was it more? 2.46 is less than produced under Saddam, even with sanctions, I believe.
Frank M sez “Hey, Bush is only a little bit worse than Saddam!”
What a morally bankrupt jack*ss you are. Now shut up and crawl back under your slimy rock.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:19 pm#7: Is keeping the US economy running worth the nearly 4000 dead U.S. soldiers? Yes it is. Do you have any idea what would happen here if we lost our control over the Gulf oil?
Comment by Frank M — November 17, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Oil has gone from $10 a barrel to $90 a barrel under Bush, you d*psh*t. Invading Iraq has hardly helped us control Gulf oil.
What a mind-numbing goose stepper you are, Frank.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pmThanks for showing up here to put on a first-class display of just how STUPID and TWISTED you neocons are, Frank. You do your side proud, let me tell you. Maybe you and that nitwit Krauthammer can have a backslapping session about how well things are going.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pmHello earth to Frank M, it is not about lowering gas prices, it is about controlling the production of gas to keep the prices high and climbing.
Man how do we deal with these numbnutz?
Fascist IQ’s and reasoning power must be on empty.
Murtha was right, like we all didn’t know that already.
Buck Fush
November 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pmAnd Hill Billy is drunk and stoned today. It is raining in Washington alot today so he has nothing better to do.
Buck Fush
November 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm$90 a barrel, Frank, $90 a barrel. The market is trying to tell you something, but you aren’t listening. This high price is the premium paid for the unrest caused by Bush’s foreign policy.
And to think that Krauthammer, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and all the other Neocon freaks said that Iraqi oil would pay for the war PLUS rebuilding. Iraq cannot even supply its internal needs at 2.5 million barrels a day.
You really need to STFU, Frank. You aren’t doing yourself any favors when you open your mouth.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pmAnd Hill Billy is drunk and stoned today.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmComment by Buckie Boy
He probably has to drink to overcome the psychological damage caused by the beatings he endured as a child.
Frank M. helps me understand who that d*psh*t president is mumbling to. It also explains why we have such a screwed up administration….home schooling is not what they say it is. Home schooling turns out boot licking, ass kissing, bottom dwelling, troglodytes.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm#28
November 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmYou’re ride also produces commentary.
It seems that the war was sold under many justifications and was fought for many given reasons,like:
1. WMDS of Saddam,mashrrom clouds…
2. Democracy
3. Oil
4. Freedom & Liberating the Iraqis.
5. Israel
6. Fighting Al-Qaeda…!!
7. Changing the whole Middle East. !!
8. Challenging the ‘axis of evil’.
But Frank says…
November 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmit is all about oil and Carter’s doctrine.
Why then the media and politicians didn’t come straight forward to tell us this before or after the war, that this is all about Carter’s doctrine?
Is Frank for real?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pmAfter reading that list comparing 2005 and 2007, he still calls the Iraq war Unrest” — he reduces it to the production of crude oil and its prices? Many others have addressed his outrageous comment better than I.
Frank must have one cold heart. The means justifies the end to him and the end is the effect on the contents of his wallet.
“billy†the PSYOPS
Comment by Arn Gunnutes — November 17, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Billy may think he is being clever but today’s BS may be enough to get his sorry a$$ kicked off this site. The ranks of the trolls has been decimated this week and if enough of us flag BH, he will be next.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pmMule facts I found on the internets tubes:
Grooming your mule doesn’t have to be a negative experience for either of you. With the proper mule grooming equipment and training, it can be a pleasant experience – a time to reaffirm the bonds and trust between the two of you. In fact, regular grooming will do more than just keep your mule’s coat clean and healthy. You’ll have the opportunity to spend vital quality time with your mule, combing, bathing, and generally bonding with it. You’ll also discover where they like to be touched and where they don’t. By paying special attention to these areas, you’ll be able to make your mule more comfortable and won’t resist future grooming sessions. Knowing these “sweet spots†will also be helpful if you need to calm them during veterinary visits.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pmMurtha’s looking more like a prophet every day. Just like all of us who predicted gloom and doom for the Iraq War and Bush’s infamous “surge” – hah! What a sick, sorry joke this war has become.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI believe it t be pathetic and revolting that the Bush ass-kissers around here are so quick to brand anyone who disagrees with them and their warmongering criminal president as traitor – when the person who has betrayed this nation, its citizenry, its Constitution, and its military is in the Oval office.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm#44 Marie:
I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe with them.
It feels bizarre.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIs Frank for real?
Comment by Marie — November 17, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Yes, sadly Frank M. is for real. He used to troll these parts quite often. I haven’t seen him here in a while, though. But what he posted today is typical Frank M. style. He is RNC all the way. Frank used to have more fight in him. He crawled away rather quickly today. I guess whack-a-troll has taken its toll on him. He makes a big, fat target every time he shows up.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pm“The ranks of the trolls has been decimated this week and if enough of us flag BH, he will be next.”
Comment by troll buster — November 17, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Not just the one troll, but ALL trolls need to be reported for abuse. And, here is why:
The topic is the FACT that Murtha was RIGHT and the warmongers who smeared him were WRONG!
And what is the topic of the thread now that the troll dung has been spread around?
It has morphed into, “Is the invasion, occupation, and desturction of Iraq in our National Interest?”
DON’T RESPOND TO THE TROLLS; REPORT ‘EM FOR OFF-TOPIC, LYING ABUSE!
November 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pmBush’s Iraq Course Is ‘Flawed Policy Wrapped In Illusion’
I somewhat disagree.
A more accurate description would be: It’s flawed policy wrapped in willful self-delusion.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pmConservatives are all about “free markets” when they are the ones in control.
Should the countries in the Middle East try to gain control over their own natural resources, these conservatives change their tune and are all about “strategic interests”, justifying, in their minds, murder and thievery.
You gotta love conservative “moral values”.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pmI wish The Gavel had shown the number of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq November 17, 2005, and now.
Does someone know where to find the exact troop levels for the two dates?
The addtional troops our current corrupt, criminal president have put into the meat grinder, have been sacrificed for so little gain in some areas, and HUGE losses in human life and living conditions.
Murtha was correct in his assessment of the situation in Iraq two years ago. And, his assessment is even more “spot on” today, two years later!
November 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pmBAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — A senior State Department official in Baghdad acknowledged Thursday that the first American oil contract in Iraq, that of the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas with the Kurdistan Regional Government, was at cross purposes with the stated United States foreign policy of strengthening the country’s central government.
The Iraq Govt. has since declared regional oil deals with individuals illegal. Good thing the surge has given Iraq breathing room , so they can work this out before America runs out of troops and money.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pmRumsfeld and Cheney’s mission is being accomplished.
Unwinnable quagmire with forever occupation.
Depopulation of Middle East.
Banktupting of America.
Creation of “Eretz Israel.”
Rise of Israel and China.
Destruction of Freedoms.
Destruction of Military.
Implementation of Fascist Dictatorship.
Mission Accomplished on all counts.
Traitors.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThe American electorate, time and again, exhibits an incredible blind eye to its self-interests and ability to be distracted by emotional claptrap of corrupt Svengali’s.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pmThis thread is the first time I’ve heard someone blame Jimmy Carter for George W. Bush’s decision to wage an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq. I’ve heard plenty of Clinton-bashing on this front, but this is the first time I’ve heard anyone blame Carter. I wonder who will be the first to try blaming JFK.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThis thread is the first time I’ve heard someone blame Jimmy Carter for George W. Bush’s decision to wage an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq.
Frank M is an RNC operative. He was floating a trial balloon here, code-named “Carter did it”. He crawled back to his RNC masters to report that it was a disaster. It shows just how desperate the Bush goosesteppers have become.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm#48 Comment by Gregor Samsa — November 17, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Bush’s Iraq Course Is ‘Flawed Policy Wrapped In Illusion’
I somewhat disagree.
A more accurate description would be: It’s flawed policy wrapped in willful self-delusion.
Both these descriptions are far too nice and overlooking of the real problem. When you have no right to invade another country and steal their resourses, whatever those resources may be, there is NO defining “the policy.” Whether the invasion was “illusion” or “willful self-delusion” is totally beside the point.
When a crazy man, surrounded by incompetent criminals, does illegal things that are ethically and morally wrong, you don’t make idle observations (illusions) as if he were sane. You get him out of power as fast as humanly possible. Then bring him and all his cronies to trial and, based on the outcome of the trial they should be sequestered in either prison or a mental hospital.
The precedent for this took place right after WWII.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pmControlling the Gulf oil was declared a vital interest to US – a right that we would defend with deadly force if necessary. This doctrine (Carter Doctrine; look it up on Wikipedia) was formulated by Carter who is perhaps the most liberal of our Presidents. Even he could see that it was imperative for us to control the Gulf oil. Why can’t you?
Comment by Frank M — November 17, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
From Wikipedia:
After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed “a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil,” Carter proclaimed:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)
This was about stopping the Soviets from overrrunning the ME. Right now, we’re trying to take control of the resources from the LOCALS. I don’t think that’s what Carter had in mind.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pmIt is truly appreciated. You have made my day!
Comment by Billy Hill — November 17, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Back under the double wide, HillyBilly. The adults are talking adult things right now.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:58 pmThe price of oil would fall if we built some new oil refineries. Common sense is lost to the simple minded.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pmCommon sense is lost to the simple minded.
Comment by chriswyse — November 17, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
And so is irony. Sheez!
November 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pmHay is cheaper than gas and my mule turns it into fertilizer for my cucumber patch for free. I am one lucky man.
Comment by Billy Hill — November 17, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
your chances of getting laid are much better now, as well.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:12 pmComment by Merlin — November 17, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
I agree with what you posted.
My use the word self-delusion is partly because I am so completely frustrated by this administration’s ability to sell a war with all kinds of rosy scenarios to an utterly gullible public.
Greeted as liberators? A cakewalk? Protecting our freedoms and spreading democracy in the Middle East? Puhl-eeze. You need to have a heavy dose of self-delusion to buy all that claptrap…
November 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm#62 Comment by Gregor Samsa — November 17, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
My use the word self-delusion is partly because I am so completely frustrated by this administration’s ability to sell a war with all kinds of rosy scenarios to an utterly gullible public.
Yes, I know we agree. I was not really addressing your post personally. I am frustrated by many progressives losing sight of the point I made in my post. There is so much talking about, and arguing with, the neocons talking points that the only thing that matters gets completely lost. Incompetance, stupidity, arrogance, our “national interest,” should we fund the occupation, and the list goes on. None of them matter nor should we waste our time thinking and talking about them. Doing so is simply “philosophizing” and means nothing more than passing the time of day.
This country has committed a grievious act that we had no right to do, based on lies and deception and that is all that matters. Everything else is totally beside the point. If our Democratic leaders would recognize this and have the strength to stand up for what is morally and ethically right, we could then begin to make amends for the horrors we have perpetrated in Iraq. And, we would be out of Iraq as fast as possible.
Greeted as liberators? A cakewalk? Protecting our freedoms and spreading democracy in the Middle East? Puhl-eeze. You need to have a heavy dose of self-delusion to buy all that claptrap…
And of course you are right about the 80% that bought into this invasion, and the 24% that still believe today. It is an astonishingly sad state of affairs we have arrived at since the rise of the neocons and the wingnut right starting in the late 70s and compounded by the complete sell out by the Democrats in 1985 with the founding of the DLC. Since that founding there has been no effective voice of the people, as the DLC is just the echo of the neocon ideology in foreign policy. The DLC poster boy, Bill Clinton, was and is today, a corporatist as is his better half. How the people can by into this corporatist mentality must be, as you say, self delusion.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:09 pmThe stats above list the price of oil “now” as being $86 per barrel. I believe that should read “$96″, not “$86″.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:55 pmTroll Comment November 18, 2007 @ 9:18 am: Troll Dung.
Please do NOT respond to this Troll. Responding to the troll will take us off topic. Report it for Abuse.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:43 amMany people, not just Fox News viewers, don’t fully understand the need for impeachment of Cheney and then Bush.
I am writing a series of three articles that put forward the reality of that need in terms of world opinion, the crimes of this administration, and ultimately the danger of allowing this kind of behavior to continue unchecked.
This is the first.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/so-impeachment-will-make-the-us-look-bad-to-the-rest-of-the-world-is-that-so/
November 18th, 2007 at 9:52 amComment by willyloman — November 18, 2007 @ 9:52 am
The topic here is Rep. Murtha’s being smeared for being correct two years ago. A discussion of impeachment is on another thread.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:57 amI am not so sure the topic is the Smear of Murtha. It seems to me the topic is more about supporting the notion that Murtha was correct in his historical statements.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:07 amComment by dbadass — November 18, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Your right, dbadass. My bad.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:11 amPlease ignore Onan the troll.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am“Please ignore Onan the troll.
Comment by troll buster — November 18, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Please don’t just ignore the off-topic troll. REPORT it for off-topic ABUSE!
Thanks.
Now on to the topic:
US Troops in Iraq
November 2005 – 138,000
November 2007 – 175,000
Source: THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Iraq Index, Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq, page 24 (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf).
Adding that data to metrics offered by The Gavel and you have an even more complete metrics to assess how the situation in Iraq has changed in the past two years.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:42 amOff-topic TROLL DUNG: November 18, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Please, troll buster, don’t respond; REPORT it!
Thanks.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am“Please don’t just ignore the off-topic troll. REPORT it for off-topic ABUSE!”
November 18th, 2007 at 10:49 amComment by hterrya
It may also be a good idea to flag all the troll’s posts and add a brief note regarding the fact that he is spamming several threads this morning.
“It may also be a good idea to flag all the troll’s posts and add a brief note regarding the fact that he is spamming several threads this morning.”
Comment by troll buster — November 18, 2007 @ 10:49 am
I already have done that, troll buster, and I would ask all other progressive posters on the TP site, who are sick to death of the troll’s off-topic dung cluttering up all the threads, to do the same.
Thanks.
Now back to the topic:
Increasing the U.S. troops by 37,000 from the level when Rep. Murtha said, “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…,” to the level this month has produced the results shown in The Gavel.
I say, two years later:
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!
November 18th, 2007 at 11:01 amso TP is a liberal blog then HOW come my comments with another computer do not show up unless I use the computer with the cookie with that username
So much for freedom of speach ………. I knew this site was a fake
and cant handle anti american comments
what i was saying before is the figures dont mean anhything above the most important figure is how many inncoent Iraqis have died because of MORON bush
November 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amyou know what stuff america and this site it FAKE
November 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am“HOW come my comments with another computer do not show up unless I use the computer with the cookie with that username”
Comment by Blurpy Bardfast — November 18, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Because the situation on this progressive site was getting intolerable with troll dung taking almost every thread off topic with long diatribes and down-right LYING in order to cause a brouhaha that defeats the purpose of this site, Think Progress added registration requirements, including cookies. It is a small price to pay, in my opinion. Being able to report trolls for abuse, and having the offending trolls identified with cookies so they can’t use multiple aliases has cleared a LOT of troll dung off the threads.
I admit that I almost reported YOU for abuse for your troll-like comment, “I knew this site was a fake and cant (sic) handle anti american comments…”
However, I thought better of it and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You are wrong. This site is NOT fake.
However, you are right when you point out the importance of the figure of “…how many inncoent (sic) Iraqis have died because of MORON bush…”
Getting reliable data about exactly how much death and destruction the U.S. has caused from the current corrupt, criminal administration, is difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE! They don’t WANT us to know!
November 18th, 2007 at 11:45 amWe are getting closer to ending this mess. Bring em’ home!
November 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm“We are getting closer to ending this mess. Bring em’ home!”
Comment by ForTruth — November 18, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
AMEN!!
November 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThe percentage of Iraqis without access to decent water supplies has risen from 50 percent to 70 percent since the start of the U.S.-led war, according to an analysis by Oxfam International.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm>Every indications proves it to be true, to such an extent the news >networks are having to actually work to find bad news to report,
Uhm huh. Its has nothing to do with the fact that the iraq government recently made reporting on the aftermath of bombings illegal, right?
Its not the fact that every major news outlet is in the hands of big business, defense contractors, etc it is? Last I checked, at best, body counts have dropped as much as 50 percent…if half the violance is still there, you think they can’t find any of it to report on? Or you think that maybe some of the millions and millions of dollars that is going to bribe the people who used to be taking shots at us is going to grease the palms of the newsmakers as well? Or do we only bribe people to not kill our soldiers?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:24 amHow much airplay did CHeney’s comments in 1994 about predicting iraq being a quagmire get from the so called liberal media?
How much airplay did General Sanchez’s recent remarks about iraq being a “nightmare” and the surge being a “desparate play” get from your so called liberal media?
How many news stories have there been about the NON-EXISTENT political progress the surge was supposed to buy time for? (and when I say “buy” time, I mean that literally)
Anybody know what happened to IRaqBodycount.org ? That was a damn good reosource for credible, cited sources about the reality of the violence thats still ongoing in iraq….
November 19th, 2007 at 1:24 amIts time for people who call themselves “Democrats” to wake up to the sad reality that their party has already chosen Hillary Clinton as the nominee and that those in the party got to Obama a long time ago to tell him to ease off and not present serious attacks or serious alternatives to Hillary’s campaign. The Democrats apparently do not want to see her damaged for the general election and want the defense money that comes with non-commital answers on questions like “would you get out of Iraq before 2013?”.
Here is some proof of this collusion as I see it. Look at both of these answers and see how Obama is deliberately protecting Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as a whole. But he is doing so to the detriment of the voting public by mirroring her stance on Iraq before the year 2013. The American people deserve to have a say on the war, and with this crap going on we wont have any say at all.
Obama On Iraq War, 2013
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=995976a7-4b49-4c8a-ba8f-1a52d2736dfe
Clinton On Iraq War, 2013
November 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pmhttp://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=48e72937-39f7-4e7f-9dce-c653802b3237