John Murtha - A true patriot

[PastaJoe]

I've been on the fence on whether the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely with no plan for their departure, but after listening to someone with the stature and military experience of John Murtha, who has always looked after the best interests of the military and the country, I've been convinced that it's time to leave. His plan for a 6-month withdrawl period, and the establishment of a regional quick-response force are the way to go. It's time for the Iraqis to handle their own internal security.

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable. Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "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." In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

[VABills]

You know who Smedley D. Butler is? If not go do research and get back to me.

[SilverNRed]

I've been on the fence on whether the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely with no plan for their departure, but after listening to someone with the stature and military experience of John Murtha, who has always looked after the best interests of the military and the country, I've been convinced that it's time to leave.  His plan for a 6-month withdrawl period, and the establishment of a regional quick-response force are the way to go.  It's time for the Iraqis to handle their own internal security. 

506597[/snapback]

Does it matter that many individuals with as much experience as Murtha, many of whom are actively taking part in the war in Iraq, disagree with Murtha? Why is his opinion suddenly the most important? You can read stuff from the soldiers actually fighting the war who wonder why everyone back home thinks they're losing. The "we're losing because we are" mentality is baffling.

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable. 

Wrong. Completely wrong. Cheney did not question the patriotism of people who disagreed with the administration. He questioned the patriotism of Democrats who spoke of the importance of removing Saddam and voted for the war and are now trying to say they were all completely misled by the administration - essentially rewriting history. Rewriting history to clean your own hands and cut down the war effort is unpatriotic. John Murtha didn't do that and the reporter who asked him to comment on Cheney's statements both screwed up what Cheney said and who he was referring to (not that you expect reporters to actually be able to do their jobs these days).

 

Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "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."  In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

Civilians have always been the ones sending people to war in this country. FDR anyone?

[Alexander Hamilton]

 

He questioned the patriotism of Democrats who spoke of the importance of removing Saddam and voted for the war and are now trying to say they were all completely misled by the administration - essentially rewriting history.

506658[/snapback]

 

So they weren't mislead? The intelligence was right?

[stuckincincy]

Ole' AbScam John?

 

Typical politician - always looking for a parade to get in front of...

[SilverNRed]

So they weren't mislead? The intelligence was right?

506664[/snapback]

Can't read stuff if it's italicized, huh?

 

The intelligence was bad. How does complaining about it now actually help us win?

[Alaska Darin]

Does it matter that many individuals with as much experience as Murtha, many of whom are actively taking part in the war in Iraq, disagree with Murtha?  Why is his opinion suddenly the most important? 

Because Murtha is a Dummycrat and that's what matter most to Rigatoni Ray.

[Campy]

His plan for a 6-month withdrawl period, and the establishment of a regional quick-response force are the way to go.  It's time for the Iraqis to handle their own internal security. 

As you may have picked up on, I'm no fan of this war. Two people I know, one fairly well, the other only in passing, were killed in Iraq. A third is trying to get the money to get a prosthetic lower leg (for some reason supporting the troops seems to stop when they come home maimed). Nobody wants the remaining troops to come home ASAP more than me.

 

That said, I don't see how they'll be able to come home in 6 months. Leaving Iraq with a rather unstable government and probably on the verge of a civil war over the recent Sunni abuse scandal, and a spotty infrastructure to boot, would be perhaps the worst thing they could do.

 

IMO, it would destabalize the entire region, and if we thought Iraq is/was a training ground for terrorists, an unstable, unsettled, and unsecure Iraq would make Taliban-era Afghanistan look like an amusement park.

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable.  Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "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."  In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

506597[/snapback]

That's a pretty powerful retort by Murtha. The administration has gone on the offensive. It's an age-old tactic in politics. They control the debate, they control the topic, and it deflects the debate from other areas where the administration is embroiled in controversy.

 

Murtha's comments and retort only serve to assist the administration's goal of keeping the real issues off the front page IMO.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I've been on the fence on whether the troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely with no plan for their departure, but after listening to someone with the stature and military experience of John Murtha, who has always looked after the best interests of the military and the country, I've been convinced that it's time to leave.  His plan for a 6-month withdrawl period, and the establishment of a regional quick-response force are the way to go.  It's time for the Iraqis to handle their own internal security. 

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable.  Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "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."  In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

506597[/snapback]

 

So you weren't sure, until someone else told you what to think?

 

Never mind the fact that Murtha's entire statement (yes, entire statement, not just the parts that got media play) was pretty damned stupid and ignorant. But then, you could relate to that, couldn't you...

[OGTEleven]

That said, I don't see how they'll be able to come home in 6 months.  Leaving Iraq with a rather unstable government and probably on the verge of a civil war over the recent Sunni abuse scandal, and spotty infrastructure would be perhaps the worst thing they could do.

506690[/snapback]

But if it all goes to hell because we left too early PJ can come on and blame Bush for leaving too early.

 

You wouldn't want him to have to miss an opportunity like that would you?

[Mickey]

You can read stuff from the soldiers actually fighting the war who wonder why everyone back home thinks they're losing.  The "we're losing because we are" mentality is baffling.

506658[/snapback]

This is a good point. How you measure "winning" and "losing" in this endeavor is a very difficult proposition. If roughly the same people are dying today as yesterday and the day before and the day before and the day before, etc, does that mean we are winning? By the same token, does that really mean we are "losing"?

 

What I keep hearing as far as determining when we leave is that we will leave when the Iraqi's can handle their own security. What in the world does that mean? It seems to me to be an impossibly amorphous standard. I'm not sure it is realistic either. If we can't stop the insurgency or at least stop its ability to kill lots and lots of people, why on earth do we think that there will come a day when the Iraqi's can do it? Are they smarter, tougher, better equipped or better trained than our own troops? What is the basis for realistically thinking that the Iraqi's will achieve what we have not been able to achieve?

 

My sense tells me that this standard for our departure is for the cameras. We will leave the split second it becomes politically tolerable to the President and the Republican party to do so. As soon as they can pull out and credibly make a case that it was a vicotry, we are outta there. I think the long term fortunes of the Republican Party are, for this administration, the most importan concern in Iraq right now than the future of Iraq as a democracy.

 

We can't be seen as retreating from this "insurgency" but at the same time, we have been unable to defeat the insurgency if the death toll is any indication. This is the predicament behind the "quagmire" metaphor. We can't totally defeat them and yet, until we do, we can't leave lest it be viewed as a retreat or defeat. So we are stuck there indefinitely, forever on the edge of a victory that never comes.

 

The only solution for the President, the Republican party and even the country is to develop some face saving pretense that lets us get out of there and credibly claim that we finished the job despite whatever hell breaks loose in the wake of our departure.

 

This isn't science so I'm not dug in on this, I'm just thinking out loud.

[stuckincincy]

As you may have picked up on, I'm no fan of this war.  Two people I know, one fairly well, the other only in passing, were killed in Iraq.  A third is trying to get the money to get a prosthetic lower leg (for some reason supporting the troops seems to stop when they come home maimed).  Nobody wants the remaining troops to come home ASAP more than me.

 

That said, I don't see how they'll be able to come home in 6 months.  Leaving Iraq with a rather unstable government and probably on the verge of a civil war over the recent Sunni abuse scandal, and spotty infrastructure would be perhaps the worst thing they could do.

 

IMO, it would destabalize the entire region, and if we thought Iraq is/was a training ground for terrorists, an unstable, unsettled, and unsecure Iraq would make Taliban-era Afghanistan look like an amusement park.

That's a pretty powerful retort by Murtha.  The administration has gone on the offensive.  It's an age-old tactic in politics.  They control the debate, they control the topic, and it deflects the debate from other areas where the administration is embroiled in controversy.

 

Murtha's comments and retort only serve to assist the administration's goal of keeping the real issues off the front page IMO.

506690[/snapback]

 

 

Campy, we have a clash of civilizations going on. We are opposed by ancient hatred armed with modern capabilities. Should we twiddle thumbs and hope for the best, or take action?

[Campy]

But if it all goes to hell because we left too early PJ can come on and blame Bush for leaving too early. 

 

You wouldn't want him to have to miss an opportunity like that would you?

506718[/snapback]

Given that he's a politician, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that too was part of his 6-month plan.

[Mickey]

But if it all goes to hell because we left too early PJ can come on and blame Bush for leaving too early. 

 

You wouldn't want him to have to miss an opportunity like that would you?

506718[/snapback]

If Iraqi's want a civil war, they will have one unless we are there to forcefully prevent one. That will delay but not prevent a civil war.

 

What if it is all going to go to hell when we leave anyway whether that is this year, next year or 10 years from now? Should we still stay so that PJ can't blame Bush for the failure of the Iraqi invasion?

 

Tell me what would have to happen, how many more months of an insurgency whose lethality continues despite our military efforts, before you would consider the possibility that we have already achieved all that can be achieved in this war and it is time to go?

 

At the same time, being optimistic, what would we have to achieve there that we haven't so far that would be enough for us to leave?

[Mickey]

So you weren't sure, until someone else told you what to think?  

 

Never mind the fact that Murtha's entire statement (yes, entire statement, not just the parts that got media play) was pretty damned stupid and ignorant.  But then, you could relate to that, couldn't you...

506704[/snapback]

Tom, don't hold back, say what's on your mind and stop beating your bush, I mean about your bush, I mean about Bush, er..um, nevermind.

 

Maybe I could interst you in a sex survey for first graders?

[Campy]

Campy, we have a clash of civilizations going on. We are opposed by ancient hatred armed with modern capabilities. Should we twiddle thumbs and hope for the best, or take action?

506742[/snapback]

Are you trying to get me riled up?

 

I'm not sure if I'm totally understanding the question, but you know me - that'll never stop me from giving you my two cents!

 

I don't think we should have gone in to begin with. IMO, morally it was acceptable if for no other reason than to make it one less despotic regime in the world, but I'm not sold on the legalities of it. Many of my posts from yesterday notwithstanding, it's something of a moot point now that we are there.

 

We, ie, America, has an obligation (to the dead, to the injured, to the Iraqis, etc) to see to it that we finish the job.

 

When I said that I wanted them home ASAP, I didn't mean immediately, I met as soon as the mission is accomplished, literally as soon as possible, but IMO it's not possible until the mission is done.

 

Not being a military man, I'll only say that the mission was a success once the country is stabalized and the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves - from external threats as well as internal ones. That's when I'll want our troops home, and I'll want them home immediately.

 

IMO, bringing them home before such a time would make the mission a failure (with apologies to The Honorable Mr Murtha).

[blzrul]

 

And for Dick Cheney to question John Murtha's and others patriotism because they disagree with the administration is laughable.  Murtha handled it perfectly.

When asked about Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Murtha replied sarcastically: "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."  In the Vietnam era, Cheney had five deferments and did not serve in the military.

506597[/snapback]

Perhaps you slept through what they did to Max Cleland? No, I know you didn't. It's hard to believe but there is NOTHING those slimeballs won't stoop to.

[SilverNRed]

Are you trying to get me riled up?

 

I'm not sure if I'm totally understanding the question, but you know me - that'll never stop me from giving you my two cents!

 

I don't think we should have gone in to begin with.  IMO, morally it was acceptable if for no other reason than to make it one less despotic regime in the world, but I'm not sold on the legalities of it.  Many of my posts from yesterday notwithstanding, it's something of a moot point now that we are there.

 

We, ie, America, has an obligation (to the dead, to the injured, to the Iraqis, etc) to see to it that we finish the job.

 

When I said that I wanted them home ASAP, I didn't mean immediately, I met as soon as the mission is accomplished, literally as soon as possible, but IMO it's not possible until the mission is done. 

 

Not being a military man, I'll only say that the mission was a success once the country is stabalized and the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves - from external threats as well as internal ones.  That's when I'll want our troops home, and I'll want them home immediately.

 

IMO, bringing them home before such a time would make the mission a failure (with apologies to The Honorable Mr Murtha).

506767[/snapback]

The way out is victory. That should be priority number one right now. Sadly, it isn't because plenty of Republican senators are losing their backbone and plenty of Democrats are trying to rewrite history so that people don't know they were in favor of the war two and a half years ago.

 

Even W just woke up from a six month coma and realized he's supposed to be out there talking about why winning the war is important.

 

It's embarassing the people we have as our "leaders" these days.

[stuckincincy]

Are you trying to get me riled up?

 

 

506767[/snapback]

Of course!

 

Yes - leaving would be wrong. I fear that we are at the beginning of a potentially world-changing struggle.

 

We must not make the mistake of thinking that these are just a bunch of folks that rail against their own nation's oppression - not that those crumbs are much to talk about either - and hope that under a different regime, all will be better.

 

This is ideological - the regimes are pigs, and their opposition are pigs in their own right. Either bunch would like to re-institute the 6th century IMO. They are very intellectually crippled, what with forcing more or less, half of their population - women - out of the picture. Very thick skulls abound.

 

It's a matter of time until these monsters unleash a nuclear explosion here - and kudos to the folks since 9/11 who have prevented it so far. And Hurricane Katrina is a pipsqueak compared to a bomb.

 

Personally, I'd be planning a squaring off with Iran...

[Campy]

What I keep hearing as far as determining when we leave is that we will leave when the Iraqi's can handle their own security.  What in the world does that mean?  It seems to me to be an impossibly amorphous standard.  I'm not sure it is realistic either.  If we can't stop the insurgency or at least stop its ability to kill lots and lots of people, why on earth do we think that there will come a day when the Iraqi's can do it?  Are they smarter, tougher, better equipped or better trained than our own troops?  What is the basis for realistically thinking that the Iraqi's will achieve what we have not been able to achieve?

506739[/snapback]

This is just my take -

 

I agree that it's a vague standard. I can only hope that as the standing Iraqi army grows and becomes better trained than a rag tag militia, that we'll be a lot closer to pulling out.

 

I'm not thinking that there will be a crime rate of 0%, but that when the Iraqis will be able to effectively police themselves. 'Course the Interior Ministry's torture of Sunni's isn't going to help the process along very much either.

 

As a firm believer that history repeats itself, the baseline that I think we might go by is that of the once-named "Phillippine Insurrection," now called the The Phillippine-American War, which lasted 15 years at the start of the last century. Instead of a despotic regime, we ousted Spain (at the same time we attacked them in Cuba). It was never a declared war, and many historians believe that this was intentional because of the increased costs associated with caring for "real" War vets as opposed to those injured "in action." The McKinley administration intended to avoid the extra costs by foregoing a Declaration of War.

 

There are a lot of similarities between the two conflicts - everything from cries of US imperialism to news of atrocities being committed by US troops. The conflict started in 1899 and lasted to 1913. We were "nation-building" in the Phillipines until 1946, at which point in time we withdrew our troops because we finally felt that Manilla could govern itself.

 

Hopefully this mission won't take nearly as long.

 

But it is possible.