I agree with you, especially about Murtha...sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I agree with your statement on the others. I think Pelosi is too pushy and I wonder why she is in such a hurry to pass all O's stuff so quick. I often wonder what kind of background she has.

I watched a program the other night (don't ask who, I'm always flipping channels) and they had a perfect answer for where Gitmo prisoners should go....to Alcatraz, right in Pelosi's backyard and she can then look through those viewers that look out over the bay and watch the prisoners herself. I thought it was hillarious.

It's apparently acceptable to advocate assassination as long as you're a darling of the Republican party.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569

Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On Fragging John Murtha

By E&P Staff

Published: June 15, 2006 11:55 PM ET

NEW YORK With the brief debate over Iraq in Congress producing such acrimony this week that one congressman suggested opponents of the war support al-Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that columnist and author Ann Coulter would top them all.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the World's most intensely private exhibitionist, she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'

Fragging, which became a well-known expression --and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right. He went on to call her fragging remark absolutely disgusting....there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.

Coulter's column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate. On its home page, Universal hails her witty, no-holds-barred commentaries on the Washington scene. She tackles the hot issues with fervor and stands up for the things that she believes in.

I'm past convinced but time will tell just how politically motivated *Iraqi freedom* is to this administration. How much you want to bet nobody gets it?

I agree with Murtha, now that we have relieved Iraq of the Saddam regime the mission sould be getting our soldiers home safely. But its not that easy with the new wave of terrorism that replaced Saddam's regime as a result of the war.

I still say though we have our own battles to fight at home and need to accelerate training what Iraqi men are willing to fight for democracy and do what we can to restore their infrastructure and get out. With the right enthusiasm (or upcoming congress elections) it can be done. ~Democrat

CBS) Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., believes the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq will be out by the end of the year and maybe even sooner. In his boldest words yet on the subject, the outspoken critic of the war predicts the withdrawal and tells 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace why he thinks the Bush administration will do it

�I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year and I�m hopeful it will be sooner than that,� Murtha tells Wallace, this Sunday, Jan. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

�You�re going to see a plan for withdrawal,� says Murtha. He believes Congress will pass it because of mounting pressure from constituents tired of the war that could affect the upcoming midterm elections.

The political situation will force President Bush to accede to Congress, he says. �I think the political people who give [the president] advice will say to him, �You don�t want a democratic Congress. You want to keep a Republican majority, and the only way you�re going to keep it is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,�� Murtha says.

The president has said publicly that any decision regarding Iraq would be based on the situation there and not on Washington politics.

Murtha rejects the president�s argument that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq. �The insurgents are Iraqis � 93 percent of the insurgents are Iraqis. A very small percentage are foreign fighters�.Once we�re out of there, [Iraqis] will eliminate [foreign fighters],� says Murtha.

�[President Bush] is trying to fight this war with rhetoric. Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is,� he says. �We�re inciting terrorism there....We�re destabilizing the area by being over there because we�re the targets,� Murtha says.

When Wallace challenges him by saying, �General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says your comments are damaging recruiting and hurting the troops,� Murtha responds by saying it�s the military�s own fault. �[Troops] are rotated [into Iraq] four and five times. They have no clear mission,� says Murtha. �One of the problems they have with recruitment is [that] they continually say how well things are going and the troops on the ground know better.�

President Bush has said there are only two choices in Iraq: victory and defeat. And he has implied that Murtha is a defeatist. Murtha, of course, disputes that.

There have been 13 servicemen from his Congressional district killed in Iraq. Could the families of those dead be offended? Wallace asks.

�Well, I hope [those families] understand,� says the Vietnam combat veteran. �It�s my job, my responsibility, to speak out when I disagree with the policy of the president of the United States,� says Murtha. �All of us want this president to succeed�I feel a mission here, with my experience, that I have to help the president find a way out of this thing.�

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).

The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:

Imagine that. I'm shocked.

Murtha Attacked by the Right For Quote Falsely Attributed to Him

UPDATE: Multiple ThinkProgress readers report that Gail Bulfin of the Sun-Sentinel admits the paper�s report was inaccurate and says a correction will be printed tomorrow.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported on Sunday that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had claimed that the United States is the greatest threat to peace in the world:

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Though the Sun-Sentinel never provided a direct quote of Murtha, the story was featured on the Drudge Report and Murtha immediately came under attack from conservative pundits:

Bill O�Reilly, Fox News, 6/26:

Murtha has lost all perspective and did months ago, but his message is firmly entrenched in America�s far-left precincts. � [T]hat kind of extreme thinking, based on little evidence, by the way, is putting all Americans in danger.

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 6/26:

What is really going on here, and you know it as well as I, is that Jack Murtha has been intoxicated by the amount of publicity that he has gotten from his anti-war crusade, and he has become progressively more unreasonable, progressively more left-wing as the days go on, and he is in the thrall of people who, I think, have hostility towards the United States.

Newt Gingrich, Fox News, 6/26:

For an American congressman to say that is beyond any acceptable behavior, and I would hope the Congress would move to censure him.

One problem: Murtha apparently never said anything of the sort. What he did was cite a Pew poll released two weeks ago showing that people around the world, including in closely-allied countries like Great Britain, believe the U.S. is the greatest threat to peace.

A statement released by Murtha�s office today quotes an email from Melissa Sanchez of the Miami Herald, who also attended the speech, saying of the purported Murtha �quote�: �That was in reference to international polls. It was not so much his own conjecture, but a conclusion drawn from polls in various countries.� ThinkProgress confirmed with Murtha�s office that the email accurately reflects the views of reporters at the Miami Herald.

~~Email the Sun-Sentinel�s reader liason Gail Bulfin � gbulfin@sun-sentinel.com � and ask that the paper print a retraction.~~ See update above.

It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico." If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.

Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources. If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.

Bush and his military brass treated this family horribly. They did nothing but lie about everything. (Big surprise, huh?)

They tried to use Pat Tillman as their poster child for recruiting purposes, but Tillman wouldn't agree to be used that way.

When I think if the incredible courage and integrity Pat Tillman had and I look at what a coward Bush was when it came to fighting in a war and what a lying sack of crap he is today, it's easy to see who the REAL man is, and it just makes me want to spit on Bush.

He never advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He suggested we redeploy to the periphery in an attempt to let the Iraqis stand on their own feet, with us still being there if they needed us.

Regarding the deaths of the civilians, he said that continued stress and repeated tours of duty can can take a toll on soldiers.

As you said, I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live every single second of every single day, not knowing if the next step you take will be your last. Regardless of whether or not these soldiers had excellent training, in the end, they are human beings and can only take so much before they crack. Although I don't condone the killing of innocent civilians, I also can't crucify American soldiers, either. I've never walked in their boots, and it must be terribly difficult to survive physically, mentally and emotionally under such extreme conditions.

Even if an investigation proves the facts to be as reported, rather than condemn them to harsh punishment, I think instead they need intense mental health treatment, probably for the rest of their lives. I don't think a prison exists that could be more painful for them than the prison that exists within their hearts and minds.

This was a very poorly planned war, and our soldiers are suffering because of it in the form of repeated tours of duty. I think they deserve our compassion, not our condemnation.