Murtha's predictions on the Republican exit strategy.

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

------------------------

Murtha Details His Exit Strategy

Jan. 13, 2006

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.”

• Murtha's predictions on the Republican exit strategy. - Democrat
  • Why does President need help with a way out? - MTRE
  • I wonder which war is globally safer: - PK
    • Liberals: Please read. - PK
      • Bush - suzyd
      • The fact that an article was written does not make it fact. I hope you know that. nm - sm
        • For goodness' sake, where did critical thinking go? - MTRE
          • I don't recall saying I was right or left for that matter. What happened to your ability to sm - sm
            • So you're actually a Democrat! - MTRE
        • So true. But it makes it a theory. - PK
      • Swiftboating continues; you're in good company. - sm - Starcat
      • Looks like you've been swiftboated, PK - sm - Starcat
        • LOL. Coulter. Now there's a real gem. - PK
          • You know what I don't understand? - sm - Starcat
            • I didn't realize they were even doing that - PK

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

don't think he will run for president on any ticket. I like him because he chose to withdraw from both parties. He says he does not want to answer to a particular party's platform or mollycoddle special interests of that party (whichever it may be). I would LOVE it if this country had a truly feasible viable third party. I believe we need more choices, not less and not the same tired old candidates with their same tired old plans and policies. I don't suppose that will happen in my lifetime but there is always hope.

So we now have war from Palestine to Pakistan. I cannot keep the relgious sects, the insurgents, the terrorists apart any more. There are so many names and so much going on. This is quite a mess we have created; and I do not say that because I hate America or Bush. I say it because I do not believe that we would have this level of calamity throughout the entire region if we had not invaded Iraq (at this time). The region, as most of us know, has been in turmoil for thousands of years. There is nothing anyone can do about that but those who are involved themselves. They have to want it first and foremost. They have to want to live more than they want to be right or more than they want to be in power or more than they want a theocracy. People who are willing to go on suicide missions for a cause don't value life in the same way that I do.

I have a prediction as to how this all will end. Eventually, we will come home, meaning the majority of troops and surges and sorties et al will be over. Nothing will have changed in the Middle East other than it will have become more volatile than it was before we arrived in 2003. It has been this volatile before and it will be again, this particular time we played an active part but with or without the US, the Middle East will remain a volatile, recalcitrant area. The Middle East is a place you have to have been to, lived in or studied for a long time, to understand. I too have met **the enemy.** I lived there (in Bahrain) for a few years, and other places where Islam was alive and well (Korea, the Philippines, South Africa and the UK). So my prediction is that the last plane will be leaving the Green Zone and the surgents will be 5 minutes behind it and things will go on as they always have. I agree (in theory) that something had to be done after 9/11 and that we could not just suck it up and move on. The move on Afghanistan made sense to me. Iraq did not, does not and will not ever make sense to me. It is hard for me to see Saddam teaming up with Al-Que'da as he was a hedonistic  bacchanal who lived in a gold palace with heroin, diamonds and lots of women and the bin Laden's beliefs were quite the opposite. But, at any rate, my prediction is that this will end much like the conlict in you know where. Hundreds of thousands of lives will have been lost and nothing will change. As with the cold war and the conflict in you know where, manipulation through fear using that same old chestnut that the commies, the Russians, the Viet Cong and now the terrorists will be in our cities killing us is in full force. That scenario has not come to fruition yet and I don't believe it ever will. Crazy people possibly trying to carry out another attack somewhere here in the US is quite possible, another Oklahoma City is possible but in my opinion those possibilities are not worth the certainty of more US troop deaths and civilian deaths in a war without end. So while I grieve for those lives that will be lost between now and September, I pray that someone somehow will keep his word and get us out of there. Iraq is not ours to win or lose; it is theirs.

it is quite clear in the Bible (number 1 in book sales, btw) that those who do not accept Jesus as Savior will not be accepted into heaven.  While your friend may have been a nice person, she did not have salvation.  I have faith and believe in the truth that Jesus is my Savior and while I am a sinner, I pray for forgiveness, repent and know with a full heart that I am saved and will be accepted into heaven when my time comes. 

You have your opinion, Teddy, and you are entitled, but we Christian's also have our opinions and we are equally entitled. 

Also, Mary, I appreciate your posts. Praise the Lord! 

Art

Attack your opponents strong points.  Read many posts below that ham-handedly attempt to use this tactic.  Throw in a cup of "sour grapes" and NOW your cookin'.  Go Ron Paul!  Split the vote!

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts - the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business - really keep a straight face while denouncing "Eastern elites"?

    Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, "marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu" - that was between his second and third marriages - really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn't think small towns are sufficiently "cosmopolitan"?

    Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself - until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans - really portray herself as running against the "Washington elite"?

    Yes, they can.

    On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named - Mitt Romney mentioned him just once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all - gave a video address to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President Bush, would stand up to the "angry left." That's no doubt true. But don't be fooled either by Mr. McCain's long-ago reputation as a maverick or by Ms. Palin's appealing persona: the Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-resentment-strategy

before the election.

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.

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

For the upcoming elections both this year and 08, do you think democrats should

(a) aggressively lay out their agenda, which includes backing of security recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, a pay-as-you-go budgeting plan to end deficit spending and for deeper restrictions on lobbying activities.

OR

(b) Wait and allow the republicans party finish demonstrating their failures, i.e., rising gas prices, war policies, etc.

I was reading the article below and thought I'd ask the liberals for their point of view.

George Will –

1. "McCain loses his head." 


2. "McCain childish, shallow, unfit for presidency."


3. "McCain in a Glass House." 


4. "McCain flustered rookie playing in a league too high."


5. Compares McCain to the ultimate drama queen (Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland) /"off with his head" mentality after McCain says that Chris Cox of the SEC should be "decapitated."


6. "…McCain showed us his personality this week and made some of us fearful." 


7. "McCain shows he's not presidential."


8. VP pick "female Sancho Panza." 

Charles Krauthammer –

1. McCain VP pick "near suicidal."


2. "Bush Begat McCain."


3. McCain's "hidden agenda:  To kill the United Nations."


4. McCain has "Tempted fate one time too many."


5. "McCain is going down."


6. "Obama will be president."


7. "McCain's 100-year war."


8. "How many Hail-Mary's can one man throw?"

Ross Perot –

1. McCain's "classic opportunist, always reaching for attention and glory." 


2. Perot weighs in on the POW issue after paying for Carol McCain's medical bills following her horrible car wreck:  After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history." 


3. McCain, "unusually slick and cruel."


4. Cindy bails John out of gambling debts.

William/Bill Kristol –

1. Time for McCain to fire his entire campaign.    


2. McCain campaign is "stupid, pathetic, flailing."


3. "Palin represents a cancer on the Republican Party.  She is not even close to being qualified for the office she's seeking."


4. McCain has "derangement syndrome."


5. McCain should "stop unveiling gimmicky proposals every couple of days that pretend to deal with the financial crisis."

Joe McCain (John's brother) –

1. Pleading with campaign advisors to change strategy:  "Let John McCain be John McCain."


2. Loosening the tight (campaign) message control is needed because it has become "counter-productive"  and "counter-intuitive."


3. The campaign needs to make new ads that show John "not as crank and curmudgeon."


4. Decision to clamp down on press contact with intimates of the Arizona senator is "causing gangrene."

Ed Rollins –

1. McCain's prospects on winning the presidency have "vanished."


2. "You have to go give an alternative on the economy,"  To do otherwise could "give the Democrats not only the White House but sweeping congressional victories and a potentially filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate." 


3. Has voiced his concern over a possible Obama "landslide."

I set my VCR!

AlertNet news is provided by

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.

Here are some excerpts.

John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:

Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.

I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.

John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:

The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?

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

My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?

C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.

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.   

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:

    "We will drill..."

    "We'll drill..."

    "More drilling..."

    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.

    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.