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.

[pisser]

Originally Posted by albed

how will retreating from Iraq make the U.S. safer?

How will it not? Terrorists?

Horseshit, they were around long before 9-11 and will be long after.

We need to get the fuck outta dodge ASAP, and stop the bleeding, literal or not.