Cheney

[theknife]

rather than actually formulate a coherent policy in Iraq, the administration has chosen instead to stage a chickenhawk eruption, using first the Prez and then Cheney to slam war critics:

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

today, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats, responded by calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is time for a change in direction...Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."

way to go...uh, John who?

First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform. Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.

oh, ok....and the Congressman had special hugs and kisses for Cheney:

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. 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."

ouch. he further added:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion"

damn straight - bring 'em home now.

btw, Cheney lecturing anyone on honesty is a bit of a stretch - Congressman Henry Waxman has put together a nice little cheat sheet, documenting 51 distinctly misleading statements from Cheney, and hundreds from other cabal members - check it here.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

What's all this about chickenshit eruptions? Jeez, not another thread about albed.





















OK, I'll stop, I swear.

[albed]

I don't believe you.


You apparently never stop having fecal fantasies.



Maybe there's a support group somewhere.

[albed]

Saw that senile old fuck Murtha blubbering and bawling on CSPAN last night about his visits to wounded U.S. soldiers, too brain dead to understand that there dozens of wounded Iraqis for each soldier and there'd be many more if the U.S. follows his clouded judgement and withdraws. Even John Kerry disagrees with him, at least until he agrees.

Of course the liberal media clipped out some of the rational parts of his speech to make him sound more reasonable for this mornings sound bites.

It'd be laughable if some intelligent reporter asked him to explain the strategic results of his desired action.

The question still goes unanswered by the 'lost memories and spines crowd'; how will retreating from Iraq make the U.S. safer?

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Scott McClellan: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America, so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled--nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

I guess the liberal media left in the irrational parts of McClellan's statement. Michael Moore for chrissake? Surrender to the terrorists? It's not surprising their approval ratings are plummeting when they use logic that wouldn't work on a ten year old.

This administration pretends that the only considerations about policy in Iraq that matter are the right vs. left political climate at home and continue to inflame the debate with the allusion that we're fighting some mythical amalgamation of the insurgency which targets us there and a small unrelated group that attacked us four years ago--"The Terrorists." Meanwhile Saddam is gone, and elections are being held, which was their stated goal, woohoo, and they've still never adequately explained how this is supposed to make the US a safer place even though it's strengthening and focusing an apparently endlessly renewable indigenous source of hatred for Americans on foreign soil.

Meanwhile these tactics seem to ensure that the question remains unanswered and completely avoided by the 'false guts and balls crowd': how does staying in Iraq make the US safer? It's easy to see how it made a few of us richer, and about 2000 of us deader, but anyone who feels safer is either deluded or simply lying.

Hardly surprising that no one seems to have any real concrete viable answer, since they never adequately answered the question of how going to Iraq in the first place made us safer, we were simply branded as cowards for asking--and now we're called spineless for wishing to complete the mission, come home and get on with actually protecting ourselves.

[JackSpratts]

Scott McClellan: "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.

it's always the "eve of something historic" with these prevaricators preventing us from doing anything - unless it happens to be what they want done, been that way for years. they've got more eves than a feminine hygine drug counter.

they'll have us* stay there until we lose another few thousand young kids. then when the conservatives get bored w/the process and decide it's more important to fight evolution or contraception or gay marriage or thinking in general it'll be ok to leave. not that anything will change in iraq mind you. it'll be as dangerous as bush could make it, they'll just have dreamed up a spiffy explanation by one of their potomac "think" tanks (lol) and vetted on right wing talk radio to con the choir, who will swallow it whole of course and bore us endlessly with why it's now the right time to leave, while iraq explodes into civil war and decades of chaos.

- js.

*"us" defined as anyone but the hawks supporting the war. they apparently need to remain here in nice comfy chairs so that they can post quick retorts to liberals. that's what they must think real battlefield activity is i guess.

[albed]

LMAO. Now here's a really progressive liberal; already bitching in advance in case the conservatives do what he wants and pull out of Iraq.

Clearly there's no pleasing you warped, chronic complainers.

[Sinner]

This morning on KABC radio in Los Angeles, Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth made a great point. He wants Murtha's surrender strategy brought to an immediate vote in Congress.

It would put the administration snipers on the Left in the uncomfortable position of actually having to take an on-the-reocrd stand. Enough with the teary-eyed posturing. Enough with the weak-kneed "should we stay or should we go?"

Let's have the vote and see exactly who is willing to support Murtha's strategy to win the war on terror by surrendering.

By the way, Murtha's timing is extremely suspect--he waited until the President is in South Korea to publicly embarrass him before one of our allies, which is facing a dangerous enemy to their north. Has Murtha thought about what both Koreas (North and South) think of this, and how this impacts the national security of not only the United States, but South Korea? Is Murtha too cowardly to face Bush when he is down the street at the White House?

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Withdrawal is not surrender. The word 'surrender' in this context is nothing short of propagandist bullshit.

If withdrawal is surrender, I guess we might as well settle in to stay there forever because the suicide bombings etc. won't be stopping any time this century. Unfortunately for you, we won't be staying there forever though, as the idiots in charge have all but wasted any shred of credibility they had and the pendulum is bound to swing the other way.

But I guess it's nice and everything that you guys don't give a shit about how many lives (not your own) will be wasted on this political sham to make 'your side' feel brave and heroic at home.

Enjoy that sense of superiority while it lasts.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Withdrawal is not surrender. The word 'surrender' in this context is nothing short of propagandist bullshit.

Is that opinion or fact????

If withdrawal is surrender, I guess we might as well settle in to stay there forever because the suicide bombings etc. won't be stopping any time this century. Unfortunately for you, we won't be staying there forever though, as the idiots in charge have all but wasted any shred of credibility they had and the pendulum is bound to swing the other way.

Can I use the term “Cut and Run” – is that better? My guess is you are right on one thing, there will always be a US military presence in Iraq, why not have a military base there? Makes sense to me. The US Military is doing a lot more then just hunting down terrorist in Iraq, They are also training Iraqi Police and Military personal and they are getting on the job training. In the not to long future it will be mostly if not all Iraqi soldiers patrolling their country. I guess yourself and some of the left would rather cut and run to allow Iraq fall into a long civil war, like Lebanon did.

But I guess it's nice and everything that you guys don't give a shit about how many lives (not your own) will be wasted on this political sham to make 'your side' feel brave and heroic at home.

Enjoy that sense of superiority while it lasts.

I guess you don’t care about the 500,000 children in whom Saddam allowed to starve to death or the thousands he murdered, etc…

I don’t believe that but do you really believe what you wrote?

Also you might see the death of an American Soldier in combat, (No Matter what the cause), as a wasted life, I don’t, there are casualties in all wars, I know it, you know it, the soldiers fighting know it, as do their families.

I don’t see the political sham either btw.

[albed]

The term "lives" to Ramona only means handsome young U.S. military men that he fantasizes about. Skinny dark haired Iraqis who get killed 20 times as often as Ramona's dreamboats don't matter a bit to him.


Just as blacks have been shown to be more racist than whites, I suspect gays may be more prejudiced than heteros.



Certainly our very own "Citizen Of The World" falls far short of his self-proclaimed title.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

By the way, Murtha's timing is extremely suspect--he waited until the President is in South Korea to publicly embarrass him before one of our allies, which is facing a dangerous enemy to their north. Has Murtha thought about what both Koreas (North and South) think of this, and how this impacts the national security of not only the United States, but South Korea? Is Murtha too cowardly to face Bush when he is down the street at the White House?

Bush has already embarrassed the greatest military force on the planet by putting them into a war they cannot win. Murtha cannot give China or Iran or North Korea anymore comfort than Bush already has, from seeing US forces, bogged down and quite vulnerable, in Iraq.

Murtha's credentials in this area are impeccable - it's a reality check you can take to the bank.

edit: btw, the GOP resolution to withdraw, being debated at this moment, is a bluff - a sham to see if the Dems have the spine to stand up and be counted (it's unlikely they do). note the difference between Murtha's resolution and the Republican version:

Murtha's Version -

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Republican Version:
RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

Murtha's credentials in this area are impeccable - it's a reality check you can take to the bank.

I don't care about his credentials or his character. I care about his plan or lack of one. Murtha said something about moving American troops "outside the borders" of Iraq and using them as a "quick strike force". What type of plan is that? Who's borders is he talking about? Please tell me, Iran's? Kuwait? Syria? Turkey didn't let the US launch the an attack from there in 2003, so I guess he means put aircraft carriers and lots of fast helicopters in the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean. Great idea....or does he mean invade an border country and put troops there?

-If they were outside Iraq, how fast could they strike from there, if called back in to respond to a car bomb or sniper attack or uprising from a few dozen Al Qaida thugs? About all they could do is come in a few hours later and write up a casualty/damage report, while the bad guys have either been shot by Iraqis or disappeared into the woodwork.

Murtha's "strategy" makes no military sense whatsoever.-

there are attacks by diehard Saddam fans and Al Qaida terrorists, it is much easier to respond to them QUICKLY by working side-by-side with Iraqi forces, who know where the attackers came from, and our troops can respond within minutes, before the attackers have a chance to hide. Any attacker that is killed will never attack again, whereas an attacker who hides may attack again.

If American troops were stationed outside of Iraq's borders, it would take many hours to respond to any guerrilla attacks, and the guerrillas would have ample time to hide and live to attack again.

Murtha's "strategy" is lousy, and would only delay the final victory by failing to kill the enemy. If, according to Murtha, our "strategy" is to train Iraqi troops in complete safety, why not airlift Iraqi troops to West Point and train them there? Except that the enemies will have a field day against civilians while they're gone!

We need to tell the truth about Murtha's plan. It might reduce American casualties, but it would lead to either defeat or a much longer war, since the enemies would be killed more slowly.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Murtha's "strategy" makes no military sense whatsoever.-

well then, let's stick with the current plan: send our troops into an unwinnable war based on a lie with no strategy, no exit plan, and no body armor, then just watch them get killed while claiming everything is going well.

[albed]

The war against Iraq was won in short order. Now it's no longer a war it's an insurgency and that too can be won. Get away from your liberal propaganda sites and try learning something from the internet. I believe Malaysia is the standard case study for counterinsurgency but there are a lot of examples. The Marine Corp Small Wars Manual has the basic strategy and it's been expunded numerous times in speeches by the administration. But as usual, since you don't know about something, to you it doesn't exist, like the body armor apparently.

[theknife]

the Congressman lays it down cold right here. the most candid take on the Iraq to date and well worth the download - decide for yourself, Murtha obviously did.

[albed]

You wouldn't know a candid take if it fell on your head. Where's the info on the geographical areas the insurgency is active in? The activity level of the insurgents? The estimated strength of the insurgents? The Iraqi governments military strength and capabilities? Fuck he doesn't even give info on the U.S. forces involved.


But I guess information isn't necessary for liberals to make a decision.


They hear someone say something so they clear their throats and squawk it themselves.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

note the difference between Murtha's resolution and the Republican version

One reads like a political parody of the Declaration of Independence, while the other one is a rather straightforeward resolution that basically says the same thing.

[theknife]

yet another cut-and-run, cowardly traitor:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

whoops, that's the General George Casey, top US commander in Iraq. hasn't he been listening to the psuedocons? didn't he get the memo that the only way to honor the sacrifice of our brave troops is to continue getting them killed?

[albed]

He must have thought the dems might actually vote for what they said they wanted.


He should realize that their entire agenda is impeding the administration with hot air and bullshit and they have no intention of actually doing what they say should be done.


They've been called on to walk their talk and now it's perfectly clear that they don't walk at all.