P2P-Zone - View Single Post

Repo · 28-11-05, 09:34 AM

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania was right when he said that the U. S. military "have become the target" and he was right to suggest the U.S. should pull the troops out of Iraq. Immediately after Murtha's statement the Bush Administration linked the pro-military Democrat to Michael Moore and the so-called radical left of the Democratic Party. When the Bush War Room realized that most Americans agree with the hawkish Murtha, they toned down their description of Murtha recognizing his military service before criticizing his call to leave Iraq. The Bush Administration has two War Rooms, one to fight the political battles at home and one to fight the political battles in Iraq. Sometimes they forget which room they are in and tend to paint Democrats with the same brush they paint insurgent Sunnis. Vice President Dick Cheney called critics of the war "dishonest and reprehensible." Do you think he would have described himself that way when he asked for and was granted 5 deferments from the Vietnam War? Maybe deep down in his subconscious he knows that he is dishonest and reprehensible and now feels the need to call others that for criticizing his Iraqi war. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for Cheney to call critics of the Iraq War "dishonest and reprehensible" when he himself did everything possible to avoid the Vietnam War. Rep. Murtha was right to call Cheney on his 5 deferments. That is what stopped the Bush Administration from their catcalling and linking of Murtha to Michael Moore, the fact that Bush and Cheney did everything to avoid going into the Vietnam War and will do everything to keep sending others to war, a war in which they embellished the intelligence so they would have a reason to go to Iraq, throw out Saddam and take the Iraqi oil. Unfortunately the prosecuting of the Iraq War was not as simple as the simpletons in charge thought it would be and we find ourselves in the no win situation of staying for decades with the U.S. military getting picked off daily or leaving and letting the country fall into an all out civil war...

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in the House said to Murtha that a former marine told her to tell him, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through." I have a question that everyone that voted for Schmidt should ask her and every other Pro-Iraq War congressperson. How many American casualties does it take for her to "see it through?" There are over 2,100 American dead from the Iraq War. At what number of American dead do you say enough already? In six months, a year, two years a decade, two decades, if the insurgency is the same and 4,000 or 10,000 US. soldiers are dead will you still say, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do" and will you still want to give "the assurance from this body that we will see this through?" Voters should hold their representatives and senators to their word. What is exactly the end game? Is an Iraqi democracy, as Bush and Cheney want worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars while little or nothing gets done to help the New Orleaneans that became refugees in their own country? An exit strategy should be laid out on the table for all to see with a specific timetable; anything less is nothing short of dishonesty. But then again dishonesty is something Bush, Cheney and the Republican led Congress have made into an art form...

Rep. John Murtha has the foresight and understands that staying the course means more American dead with little or nothing to show for it. It is easy to wrap yourself in a flag, say 'support the troops' and stay the course but the best way to support the troops is take them out of a war with no end in sight. Murtha has a strategy to get the U.S. military out of Iraq. President Bush and the Republican Party have a strategy to stay the course with some small temporary withdrawals to appease voters....

The bottom line is that no one likes another country to come into their country and occupy it, even if you remove a dictator in the process, occupation is occupation. As long as American soldiers patrol Iraq there will be an insurgency and as long as there is an insurgency there will be American casualties. Is that really the course you want to stay? I don't think so...

28-11-05, 09:34 AM	#46
Repo Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 123	Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania was right when he said that the U. S. military "have become the target" and he was right to suggest the U.S. should pull the troops out of Iraq. Immediately after Murtha's statement the Bush Administration linked the pro-military Democrat to Michael Moore and the so-called radical left of the Democratic Party. When the Bush War Room realized that most Americans agree with the hawkish Murtha, they toned down their description of Murtha recognizing his military service before criticizing his call to leave Iraq. The Bush Administration has two War Rooms, one to fight the political battles at home and one to fight the political battles in Iraq. Sometimes they forget which room they are in and tend to paint Democrats with the same brush they paint insurgent Sunnis. Vice President Dick Cheney called critics of the war "dishonest and reprehensible." Do you think he would have described himself that way when he asked for and was granted 5 deferments from the Vietnam War? Maybe deep down in his subconscious he knows that he is dishonest and reprehensible and now feels the need to call others that for criticizing his Iraqi war. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for Cheney to call critics of the Iraq War "dishonest and reprehensible" when he himself did everything possible to avoid the Vietnam War. Rep. Murtha was right to call Cheney on his 5 deferments. That is what stopped the Bush Administration from their catcalling and linking of Murtha to Michael Moore, the fact that Bush and Cheney did everything to avoid going into the Vietnam War and will do everything to keep sending others to war, a war in which they embellished the intelligence so they would have a reason to go to Iraq, throw out Saddam and take the Iraqi oil. Unfortunately the prosecuting of the Iraq War was not as simple as the simpletons in charge thought it would be and we find ourselves in the no win situation of staying for decades with the U.S. military getting picked off daily or leaving and letting the country fall into an all out civil war... Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in the House said to Murtha that a former marine told her to tell him, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through." I have a question that everyone that voted for Schmidt should ask her and every other Pro-Iraq War congressperson. How many American casualties does it take for her to "see it through?" There are over 2,100 American dead from the Iraq War. At what number of American dead do you say enough already? In six months, a year, two years a decade, two decades, if the insurgency is the same and 4,000 or 10,000 US. soldiers are dead will you still say, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do" and will you still want to give "the assurance from this body that we will see this through?" Voters should hold their representatives and senators to their word. What is exactly the end game? Is an Iraqi democracy, as Bush and Cheney want worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars while little or nothing gets done to help the New Orleaneans that became refugees in their own country? An exit strategy should be laid out on the table for all to see with a specific timetable; anything less is nothing short of dishonesty. But then again dishonesty is something Bush, Cheney and the Republican led Congress have made into an art form... Rep. John Murtha has the foresight and understands that staying the course means more American dead with little or nothing to show for it. It is easy to wrap yourself in a flag, say 'support the troops' and stay the course but the best way to support the troops is take them out of a war with no end in sight. Murtha has a strategy to get the U.S. military out of Iraq. President Bush and the Republican Party have a strategy to stay the course with some small temporary withdrawals to appease voters.... The bottom line is that no one likes another country to come into their country and occupy it, even if you remove a dictator in the process, occupation is occupation. As long as American soldiers patrol Iraq there will be an insurgency and as long as there is an insurgency there will be American casualties. Is that really the course you want to stay? I don't think so...