Withdrawal -- From Reality
After its midnight emergency session earlier this year in the midst of the Teri Schiavo carnival, I couldn’t imagine the U.S.congress stooping even lower.
Not until last night, that is, when the House held up its Thanksgiving break to debate and vote on what is one of the most repellant political maneuvers in recent memory.
As the tide of public opinion turns against the war in Iraq, as a conservative Democrat like Jack Murtha calls for a troop withdrawal plan, the response of the Republican leadership is to play beanbag with American body bags.
Instead of hearing the anguish of a majority of Americans who have soured on the Iraq war, instead of searching in good faith for some reasonable way forward – or back— the House Republicans turned instead to a game of playground double-dare. Murtha was asking for a series of hearings, for a national dialogue, some sort of bi-partisan search for a policy that starts getting us of out of Iraq. Instead, the GOP leadership bastardized and mocked his notion and put forward a surprise resolution -- designed to fail-- asking for immediate and unconditional withdrawal. The bogus resolution put forward last night was engineered solely in an attempt to blackmail and embarrass Democrats rather than find some way to stop the bloodshed.
What makes the Republican ploy particularly repugnant is that it comes precisely on the same day that we learn that the top American military commander in Iraq has presented Donald Rumsfeld with a plan to begin withdrawing U.S. military troops -- as soon as a handful of weeks from now.
In other words, Democrats who propose a withdrawal are aiding and abetting the enemy, even though the White House and the Pentagon are secretly drafting a plan to do the same.
I can only give thanks that I don’t have a child fighting in Iraq today. I don’t know how I would react under those circumstances to the contemptuous, cavalier, cynical and reckless manner in which the lives of young Americans in uniform are treated by the Republican political leadership.
Unfortunate I was to have tuned into C-SPAN Friday night in the final moments of the debate—before the House voted 403-3 to reject the faux withdrawal resolution proposed by Republicans. A truly reptilian specimen, Texas Congressman Sam Johnson stood in the well of the House and struggled to read his prepared statement in favor of the status quo. Unable to correctly pronounce the words Al Qaeda or Zarkawi or Al Jazeera he was but a mumbling mummy – who, nevertheless, drew an Animal House like cheer from his GOP comrades. As if the decision to continue spending the lives of American youth in Iraq was some sort of college football game.
Apparently, I missed the worst of this little political opera. Earlier, Ohio Republican Jean Schmidt came onto the House floor and read a letter supposedly from an American soldier, directly suggesting that Marine veteran Jack Murtha was a coward. If you can stomach it, here’s the video of this poor excuse for a U.S. Congresswoman delivering her disgusting libel. The L.A. Times reports the incident:
At one point, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee and other Democrats surged toward the Republican side of the chamber, after Rep. Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, suggested that Murtha — the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee and the recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star — was a coward.
Schmidt, a former state legislator who took office after a special election in August in which the war became the prominent issue, said a Marine colonel in Ohio had asked her to "send Congress a message: Stay the course."
"He also asked me," she said, "to send Congressman Murtha a message: Cowards cut and run. Marines never do."
Democrats erupted in boos and shouts. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.).
"Take her words down," other Democrats cried, using the parliamentary language to demand that she retract what they considered a deep insult. "Take them down."
Schmidt stood up after several minutes of frantic negotiation and retracted her remarks.
Her vile outburst, indeed, got stricken from the record. But the duplicitous behavior of the administration and its Congressional supporters at this moment of national crisis is going tohaunt Republicans for years to come.
The objective of last night's stunt was to split and embarrass the Democrats. No such split was caused. And this time, thanks to the transparency of this enture ploy and the despicable antics of elements like Jean Schmidt, it's the Republicans who look most likejack-asses.
What must it feel like to be a reasonable, decent Republican and to see yourself represented by these yammering, two-bit pols so ready to thoughtlessly expend the lives of others?
November 19th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Such drama… but yes the Reps. have made total asses of themselves publicly, yet again. They’re living 12 months ago when they should be thinking about what happens next. Sorry but the “cut and run” phase is long gone since there is no war being fought as such. The Brits have been asked to leave, so it’s only logical that the time has finally come to begin a large scale withdrawal. Those GOP-artiers just can’t move on without manipulating the situation and twisting it to their advantage. Up until now the American people have mostly backed them, but with Bush’s polls so low and this circus clown Schmidt adding to their bad rep, maybe the scales are about to tip the other way.
November 19th, 2005 at 3:51 am
I made a pic and posted on my blog of Bush vs. Murtha with the caption “Who is the Coward?” Feel free to use it, post it, pass it on………
November 19th, 2005 at 5:08 am
These guys are in the midst of a full scale implosion in every arena. It’s pretty fun to watch save for the disgusting and dishonorable moments like those delivered by the peerless Schmidt. The Peter Principle seems to be alive and well. Is there no rhetorical ploy too low, no stance too unseemly, no jab too greasy to be allowed to ooze forth?
They’ve pilloried Max Cleland, John Kerry, and now Murtha. There is no god damn honor among these worms at all. Nothing–nothing at all is beneath them. I’m completely disgusted.
For those who were around at the time: How does the rhetoric flying around now about “staying the course” and “cowardice” and “traitors” and the like compare to the discourse during Viet Nam? Was it much the same or is the tenor more charged now?
November 19th, 2005 at 5:24 am
Murtha’s resolution said, in part, troop withdrawl “at the earliest predictable date”. Sure, that’s a principled proposal.
Otherwise, I agree that this whole thing was a disgusting spectacle - shame on them all.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Murtha’s resolution said “practicable”, not “predictable”…
Here’s his complete statement and his proposed resolution:
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003914.html
Here’s video of the Wicked Witch of the MidWest, calling Murtha a coward:
http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/schmidt.320.240.mov.html
Here’s Murtha responding to the sandbox tactics of the ignorant goons on Hardball:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10101618/
November 19th, 2005 at 6:04 am
Ok. What does that mean? Is there a “when” in practicable? And how is it different than saying we will leave when the Iraqi’s are ready to fend for themselves? Is it months, years, or decades?
It is a political stunt, not a good faith proposal.
November 19th, 2005 at 6:13 am
It is like saying “purposely misled” instead of lied. He wants the troops out now, not at some “practicable” date, or am I completely misreading the intent?
November 19th, 2005 at 7:02 am
Did you read Murtha’s statement and resolution ? Or his exchange with Chris Mathews? If you check the guy’s statements out, his intent and thinking on the matter are pretty clear, whether you agree with it or not. I can’t speak for the man. In my view, he does a pretty good job of speaking for himself.
November 19th, 2005 at 8:51 am
Speaking of repellant political ploys, using the phrase “play beanbag with American body bags†strikes my ears as pretty repellant. Also, you claim that the Republican resolution was blackmail. Blackmail is using threats to get something that you want. Seems to me that it was the Democrats who were using the blackmail; until their bluff was called. You are correct that the resolution was designed to embarrass the Democrats, and it did. Your post is evidence of that.
Those in the liberal cocoon have been claiming that the Bush administration had no plan for withdrawing troops. Those in the real world have been aware of the administration’s conditions-based exit strategy for some time. Exhibiting what might be called intellectual dishonesty, the cocoon has adopted the DNC talking point (so that they can perpetuate the myth that the Bush administration doesn’t know what it is doing) that there is no strategy.
I don’t wonder that when that clearly articulated strategy brings us to the point of the announcement that it is working and that we can begin troop withdrawals, those in the cocoon are shocked. The plan you refer to as “secret†was no secret to those outside the cocoon.
I brought this point (in tedious detail) to your attention in a recent comment. You ignored it. Now you claim to never have heard of it and that it is a “secret†nefarious plot by the Republicans to do what the Democrats want to do. Marc, it is not a “secret†plot except to those who refuse to discuss it. When reality cracks the cocoon, as in the announcement of pending troop withdrawals, you are forced to recognize the existence of the strategy - so you claim a conspiracy! That, it seems to me, is intellectual dishonesty.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:09 am
“I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. ”
“My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. Where to? Kuwait? I suspect neither Jordan nor Turkey is prepared to house our troops.
To create a quick reaction force in the region. So Iraq is “free from United States occupation” but we still retain the right to allow our forces to do make sorties and drop bombs from great heights? Don’t we need troops in Iraq to continue training and supporting the Iraqi security forces? Is not possible that a gradual, paced withdrawal of troops can be more effective that immediate redeployment? Haven’t we been reasonably effective in Afghanistan with a smaller footprint?
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. What’s this about?
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Isn’t this a given?
*******
I certainly agree that the families of soldiers serving in Iraq need to be kept informed of our accomplishments and should be given an honest accounting of our setbacks in Iraq. They need to be assured that our goals, to prevent the escalation of the civil war into a decades-long affair, to provide security and stability to its citizens and to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, remain attainable, financial feasible and worthy of our sacrifice and commitment.
And, if we determine our goals are not attainable, our sacrifice not warranted, and that a civil war between Shia, Sunni and Kurds and a simultaneous civil war between Islamist and all others in inevitable and perhaps necessary, are we just going to sit back, wring our hands, write countless and useless commentary assigning blame and more often than not, simply avert our gaze?
November 19th, 2005 at 9:45 am
“the myth that the Bush administration doesn’t know what it is doing”
God help us when it turns out that they REALLY don’t know what they’re doing and their ineptitude, misinformation and missteps aren’t merely a myth. I guess in an administration that had a guy with Michael Brown’s stratospheric level of incompetence in charge of disaster management and came up with Harriet Miers as the best pick they could find for Supreme Court, Donald Rumsfeld’s manifestly brilliant plan for securing Iraq looks like the work of someone who “knows what they’re doing”. Mission Accomplished, Dude!
November 19th, 2005 at 9:49 am
I did read it, all of it, and am left with the impression that he is straddling. He wants them out now yet now is defined as some imprecise practicable time line, but out is really only removed to some over-the-horizon position and replaced with a vaguely described quick reaction U.S. force. Maybe those terms have well-defined military meanings, but not to this member of j.q. public.
On the other hand, Cynthia McKinney, who I disagree with, cast a vote in favor of a resolution that is consistent with her position on the issue. As did Robert Wexler and Jose Serrano. Kudos to them.
The prize for Most Cowardly (in the political sense only) goes to those who voted “Present”: Capuano, Clay, Hinchey, McDermott, Nadler, Owens.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Well how’s the workin for ya, as Phil McGraw would say? Not very well. That’s the reality. It may be that the Sunnis will always control the other two factions in Mesopotamia. They may be tougher, more skilled, less dogmatic, and frankly more dangerous than the whackjob Shiites and Kurds. But moderate Sunnis under this new government don’t have enough say to control the nuts. Neither do we.
Back up and let em have at it. Someone will win. Handful of imports notwithstanding this is a local issue. It always has been. Saddam was a local, he arose after meddling from the British. Just like now. Who knows maybe someone more reasonable will control the place, and keep the power on long enough so people can live in that hellhole. They sure as hell can’t now.
November 19th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Why would one even want to give a phony resolution, presented by someone who has no intention of voting for it themselves, the respect of a vote at all ? I think the people who refused to vote on this piece of nonsense were the ones who responded most honestly to a piece of cheap theatrics designed not to get a deliberative response by the people’s representatives but as a tactical stunt. Shouldn’t there be some rule that you don’t propose a legislative act if you aren’t going to support it yourself ? Seems sort of bottom line. But I guess for some there is no bottom…
Here’s an interesting example of how screwed the pro-war faction has become in their arguments. I stumbled on this attempt at “re-rationalization” via my meandeing into the would-be Blogomerate Open Pajamas (also known as Marc’s Overseers in some quarters).
Mudville Gazzette, apparently a military guy who’s spouting a Cheneyesque line defending their speculative pre-emption (via Jail-the-Japs Malkin) : “Thus history is being rewritten, and free speech is being cheapened by some who employ it the most and cherish it the least - even as Americans fight and die to uphold their rights to do so.
One of the most blatant - and most effective - examples has been the highly successful propagation of the idea that the war in Iraq began as a misguided result of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11th 2001.”
But of course, this is completely contradicted, without nuance, by none other than the man with the plan…
9/11 spurred war, Rumsfeld says
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 7/10/2003
The United States went to war in Iraq not because of new intelligence about banned weapons but because Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s previously known programs were viewed differently after the September 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told senators yesterday.
“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass murder,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on September 11th.”
Reason #97 not to bother reading people in Malkin’s corner. (”Jail-the-Japs” should have been reason enough. My bad.)
November 19th, 2005 at 10:47 am
The “Marine colonel in Ohio”:
http://www.geocities.com/danin04/bio
November 19th, 2005 at 10:55 am
“am left with the impression that he is straddling”
So it’s either Cynthia McKinney or Dick Cheney…any position on Iraq between the two must be rejected as “straddling” ? Bush’s incompetence and dishonesty re: Iraq has created a very complex problem - between Iraq and a hard place isn’t a bad pun, it’s reality. People of good faith have a lot of different positions and none of them are particularly easy to come by. The crowd who’ve stuck us with this mess - the Mission Accomplished Guy, the Send In Just Enough Troops To Knock Off Saddam But Fuck An Occupation Plan Guy, the It’s Been Determined That Atta Met With Agents of Saddam & The Insurgency Is In Its Last Throes Guy, the Nuclear Tubes Smoking Gun Gal, etc. ad nauseum, aren’t among those I consider people of good faith three years into this mess. They’ve made every wrong turn possible and at this point they’re running on hubris and fumes. That Murtha, who’s trying to come to terms with their mess by telling it the way he sees it, is being likened to Michael Moore, mocked with a cheap legislative trick and called a coward by their stinking minions proves the depths of sleaze and desperation this reckless wreck of an administration is wallowing in.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Another great post, Mr.Cooper. You’ve been firing on all cylinders lately. I can’t help but think about people like Pat Tillman when I read about these cretins in our congress. It’s people like Tillman who these politicians will just use and discard at their whim in order to further their own little political carrers, and they do it while draping themselves in the flag. Pat Tillman’s status as a real American hero strengthens with each pathetic little piece of political theater that gets acted out every day.
November 19th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Perhaps notherbob2 would like to explain the “intellectual dishonesty” in his flaying Marc for his post and questioning the honesty of those of us who have questioned the need for a war in Iraq all along, but not disavowing “Representative” Schmidt’s slandering of Representative Murtha. Or is it “intellectual dishonesty” only when those who do not march in lockstep to George W. Bush dare to express an opinion, or to point out the lies the leaders of this administration have told in an effort to prove their manhood by sending young people to die when they didn’t have the guts to do it themselves?
November 19th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
I understand Murtha’s announcement as an expression of the deep opposition inside the armed forces to the incompetent management of the Iraq war. This is an opposition that means a lot more than 100 Democratic congressmen and 1 million MoveOn blog-readers. Unfortunately.
Dufuses like Schmidt only widen the profound crack at the top by their chicken-baiting of Murtha, which is why it is so stupid (but predictable) from their own point of view. Their vicious, dogmatic and punitive style that worked so well to win elections is not great for building a coalition under conditions of weakness.
I don’t think we should rush out and embrace Murtha, however, because if you listen carefully to him, he seems to be saying, Piss on these Iraqis, we’ve done enough for them. His expressions of distress are strictly over the death and injury suffered by American troops. I believe the next question is how to not make things worse for the people of Iraq–which is not Murtha’s.
November 19th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
404 to 3, nutbars
November 19th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Hey, lighten up, buddy. I thought it was a darned good political theater. T shirt available here: http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2005/11/the_moral_autho.html
November 19th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
LOL, You seem a little distressed?? It’s called Hypocracy, Got that!!
Reminds me of another Phrase:
PUT Up or SHUT Up!!
November 19th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Jean Schmidt: the mother of all bitches
November 19th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
****In other words, Democrats who propose a withdrawal are aiding and abetting the enemy, even though the White House and the Pentagon are secretly drafting a plan to do the same.****{ during a speech in 2004 alongside then interim Prime Minister Allawi. That was well over a year ago.
In fact, Bush has made it clear that we plan to leave (”stand down”) as the Iraqis “stand up”.
This is no secret.
In addition to those plain-spoken, completely UNsecret statements you should also understand that Bush has, dozens of times, said that he will be following the advice of his military commanders on the ground in Iraq. Therefore, when they submit a plan for a phased withdrawal (which, you should realize, is full of qualifiers) it is not only NOT AT ALL SECRET but it is part and parcel of the Bush Administration’s long-standing policies regarding how and when to begin to wind down the extensive military engagement in Iraq.
Your assertion that there is some secret here, some conspiracy you are alluding to, is intellectually dishonest and I hope you are being disingenious instead of just uninformed because none of what I just wrote above is secret information, either, it is publicly-available knowledge which has been actively and systematically disseminated for a very long time by the Bush administration and the news media.
So, intentionally deceptive or just UNINFORMED? Which is it?
November 19th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
SORRY I AM REPORTING, THE LAST ONE GOT GARBLED BY THE COMMENT MACHINE BECAUSE I USED SOME BRACKETS
your words****In other words, Democrats who propose a withdrawal are aiding and abetting the enemy, even though the White House and the Pentagon are secretly drafting a plan to do the same.****your words
Marc, I notice you used the word, secret, in fact you emphasized it, when describing the manner in which the Bush administration has been drawing up its plans for withdrawing US troops.
Such a characterization of the planning is completely false.
For example, the White House spokesman clearly outlined the Bush Administration intention for the US to leave Iraq after democracy begins to demonstrably take hold this last January (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050131-6.html#6) during a White House press breifing. Bush personally (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-8.html) reiterated such a plan during a speech in 2004 alongside then interim Prime Minister Allawi. That was well over a year ago.
In fact, Bush has made it clear that we plan to leave (”stand down”) as the Iraqis “stand up”.
This is no secret.
In addition to those plain-spoken, completely UNsecret statements you should also understand that Bush has, dozens of times, said that he will be following the advice of his military commanders on the ground in Iraq. Therefore, when they submit a plan for a phased withdrawal (which, you should realize, is full of qualifiers) it is not only NOT AT ALL SECRET but it is part and parcel of the Bush Administration’s long-standing policies regarding how and when to begin to wind down the extensive military engagement in Iraq.
Your assertion that there is some secret here, some conspiracy you are alluding to, is intellectually dishonest and I hope you are being disingenious instead of just uninformed because none of what I just wrote above is secret information, either, it is publicly-available knowledge which has been actively and systematically disseminated for a very long time by the Bush administration and the news media.
So, intentionally deceptive or just UNINFORMED? Which is it?
November 19th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
I am not suggesting there is consppiracy whatso ever. I am suggesting rank, revolting hypocrisy. If the administration position is, as it appears to be, to cut and run as quickly as they can and saving some face behind a facade of an Iraqi army they are standing up, then they ought to stop chucking bricks into the Democrat houses. here’s the simple fact, Quickrob: NO independent objective analyst sees any short term hope whatsoever for a stand alone iraqi army. further, any rational analysts knows that such a thing is not strictly a military/technical question but rather mostly a POLITICAL question. No such thing as a resilient effective army without a political state that is absolutely stable and widely legitmate. We are eons away from tha goal.
So here’s what the admin really wants: they want enough of an illusion of a stable Iraq in order to justify withdrawal of troops. Their hope would be that any ensuing and inevitable collapse of that iraqi regime would not come immediately and create all that bad pr– but rather would be postponed for x amount of time beyond whatever election cycle is in play. In other words, the White House is fully prepared to cut and run– they just dont want to pay any political price for it.
November 19th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Of course your right that this was shameful and stupid, I agree with you.
But, I hope you were including the democrats in the statement about “two bit pols”. The American people I talk to think that our congress is stuck on stupid, out to lunch and should have voted a drastic pay cut to themselves.
In this particular time (neck deep in a war for our survival) the pols can’t be bothered with working together and takeing care of our nation’s business.
Its all about them and getting re-elected or getting there favorite pork.
I think I can tell you, most Americans (and others) are getting sick and tired of it.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
November 19th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Why not put this in context of what happened in the Senate? I believe Murtha’s resolution was initiated by the Democrats to keep the heat on the Administration. In addition, there was a backlash from Republican supporters to the Senate action based on a perception that the Senate republicans were going wobbly. So to counter that perception, the House republicans wanted to leave no doubt that American leadership had no intention of cutting and running. From what I know of active duty military members and their families, the vast majority stand with the House republicans. They do not have much respect the “hypocrisy” of the Dems who voted for the war and are now making political hay out it.
I will say that I believe Murtha genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. I don’t believe, however, that many in the military, especially those who have served in Iraq, agree with him.
November 19th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Well Qbabe here’s how I see it. Because we live in America and not Imperial Rome, our foreign policy should not be shaped merely on the desires of our soldiers. Thar saidn I suhgest war supporters carefully review Murtha’s history and his relationship with the brass. More than the GOP is likely ready to recognize, murtha is probably speaking very much on behalf of military commanders who see this war as now counterproductive to their long term vision.
November 19th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Murtha’s resolution was a political ploy…so you’re calling taking a political ploy and turning it into a political ploy hypocrisy?
And let us not forget…the Congresswoman wasn’t expressing her own views on the floor last night…she was expressing the views of a Marine officer.
November 19th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
I certainly did not intend to suggest that our foreign policy be shaped by the desires of the military. My point was that the intent of forcing a vote on the resolution was not to silence Murtha as some have implied, but to put on the public record our government’s resolve in finishing the job in Iraq.
As far as Murtha’s record, I am well aware of it. There are other elected officials with similar records and access to the military brass who do not agree with the conclusions he has drawn (John McCain comes to mind). In addition, I am sure there are military commanders who agree with him. You can not presume that many or most of them do, however.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
“From what I know of active duty military members and their families, the vast majority stand with the House republicans.”
My son’s only been in the miltary for two months, but I guess we - he and his entire family - fit the description of someone who “doesn’t fit the description”. That barely approaches the level of “anecdotal”, but on this issue - aside from the well-known contempt of much of the brass charged with fighting this war for Don Rumsfeld & his Neo-Con Cohorts and the way they’ve undermined the military and put the men on the ground in an untenable position over the long term with their half-baked Iraq strategy - I would suggest that anyone who thinks that veterans of the Iraq war are united behind the GOPer Pols and BushCo, go to Google, enter two words - “Iraq veterans - and start scrolling through the pages that come up. Not scientific, but hardly insignificant. Of course, no one expects men on the ground in Iraq to do anything other than give the mission 110% while they’re there. I hate this war, but that’s what I would do if I were in the middle of it, just to keep my sanity. It’s the guys who’ve come back and had time to reflect who are raising questioins about this “Commander in Chief”, as any serious person should.
Cant and rhetoric don’t win wars, incidentally. And, as Murtha pointedly remarked, the word “victory” is NOT a strategy - i.e. hope is not a plan. Partisan pro-warriors with a chip on their shoulder and a self-righteous attitude had better start dealing honestly and taking responsibility for the grim reality they’ve wrought, because most of America is beginning to see you for the shallow, ignorant, wimpering hacks you overwhelmingly tend to be and the very large mess you’ve helped make. The plain truth is that those of us who counseled caution and doubted the Neo-Con case that was being excessively hyped to rush us into war were right and you were wrong - miserably wrong. I don’t expect many on that side to cop to it, because it takes a mature mind to admit mistakes.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
“And let us not forget…the Congresswoman wasn’t expressing her own views on the floor last night…she was expressing the views of a Marine officer.”
Pathetic..laughably pathetic…especially when you know that this particular Marine officer was a guy who spent his time serving in the Iraq war in Florida and is now running for political office in Ohio as part of Jean’s Mean GOPer Machine.
Is the wingnut stuff on this thread the best these clowns floating over here from OSM can come up with ????
November 19th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
So the only ones allowed to oppose the leftist position in Iraq are the ones who actually go into combat? He’s a Joint Service Commendation Medal,
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and Army Commendation Medal winner. He served on the staff of Tommy Franks at CENTCOM at McDill. I may be mistaken, but I think he was an operations officer. Seems to me like a high ranking Marine on Tommy Franks staff for operations at CENTCOM would have a pretty good handle on the Iraq situation.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Reg - I really don’t understand why you feel the need to hurl invective. If you will note, I prefaced my comments with “from what I know” and “I believe”. Therefore, I was obviously stating my opinion based on my life experiences. I have several close family members in the military as well as some very good friends. I read military blogs. I also am acquainted with some civilian contractors there. They have by and large communicated a much different perspective about the realities on the ground there.
I am not a blind follower of the party line. I appreciate rational arguments and have been known to change my mind (although not as often as my husband would like). But I don’t see the point in responding to emotional ranting.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Which I guess I just did…
November 19th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
“I suhgest war supporters carefully review Murtha’s history and his relationship with the brass. More than the GOP is likely ready to recognize, murtha is probably speaking very much on behalf of military commanders who see this war as now counterproductive to their long term vision.”
Marc I suggest that you naysayers take a careful look at your comment. First you say you don’t want a military setting policy like Imperial Rome, then you state that Murtha is probably reflecting the views of the military and that their policy is getting out of Iraq… can’t have it both ways buddy. Most of you on the left of center are upset as hell that a parlimentary trick was pulled, but tough; the dems did it in the senate on other ocassions, it’s called forcing your opponents hand.
The Democratic party of today, pandering to the radical far left and the ANSWER types pulling demonstration after demonstration and the MSM sucking on that teat like there was no tomorrow says they want out, but that is exactly what they don’t want to do.
You may not like what the Repubs did, I’m sure that reg, RLC, MT and others will object like hell to this, but the Repubs called the dem bluff and that is just too damn bad. If the dems didn’t want this to play the way it played all they had to do was shut up and vote. But Noooo! they had to bitch, moan, groan and complain about why they shouldn’t vote no and how a no vote was not in the best interests of the country and how their patriotism was being attacked and how they were tired of the Repubs saying they had no balls AND THEN the voted no. They’re idiots, and that’s precisely why most of America doesn’t trust ‘em.
And for the dumbass’s in here, I’m not saying Murtha isn’t patriotic, I’m saying he is a Democrat, has been one all along and is saying nothing different then he did in September, ‘03. So Marc, you are wrong about Murtha giving us a reflection of the Brass’s thoughts, he’s playing his democrat game and he got called on it.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Actually John, what was pathetic and laughably so was your inane suggestion that Jeanne Schmidtt shouldn’t be held responsible for the views she read into the Congressional Record. And the idea that a guy who served in Centcom in Florida is likely to have a “good handle” on what’s happening on the ground in Iraq three years in is not very convincing, to say the least. Also, to put Murtha forward as representing “the leftist” position is idiotic.
Also, GMR, your suggestion that the Democrats pander to ANSWER is crap…bigtime crap. You should be ashamed to write that stuff. “Even I” thought you were smarter and more dignified than that. I quit reading your comment at that point because it’s clear you’re engaged in some hysterical, hyper-partisan bullshit defense of the indefensible.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
GM.. Am I gonna have to fly out there just to set u right? If so, ur picking up the dinner tab!
I dont care if Republicans — or Democrats– resort to dirty parliamentary tricks now and then. That’s what they do best. What I do care about is when those tricks are employed at the cost of young lives. GM, old boy, go back and check my archives and see that I directly called out Harry Reid for his stunt a few weeks ago. Im being bi-partisan now and doing the same for the sordid little GOP theater last nite. Live with it.
This isn’t about “naysayers.” Far too simplistic a characterization. As is your assertion that Democrats are pandering to ANSWER. Please. No more the case than saying the GOP is in the thrall of the KKK.
There are real, palpable, legitmate, worrisome reasons to question the war. Please note I said to question (and that does include OPPOSE as well). To do so is hardly just the terrain of fringe lefitsts. Murtha is a Democrat but as pro-military as Scoop Jackson, or more so. There are entire strains of conservatives — from paleo-conservatives a la Buchanan to Kissingerians to foreign policy “realists”– who also oppose the war and its conduct. They are not soft on terrorism nor paid off by Michael Moore. They are instead concerned by all or some or a combination of the following factors: that the Iraqi regime cannot be stablizied; that civil war is unavoidable; that we cannot stand up an Iraqi army; that our continued military presence in Iraq generates more terrosists than it kills; that we didnt invade with enough troops; that we cannot maintain proper force levels without a politically radioactive military draft; that a half billion dollar a year deficit will inevitably lead to spiraling interest rates and a sharp recession etc etc.
Any serious student of America, any real patriot, would take these questions under serious consideration– as they all speak to our national security. Maybe, in the end, this patriot would dismiss all these concerns. But he or she would do so after sober reflection, NON-PARTISAN reflection, discussion and debate. They would not dismiss them in a one-line up/down House vote that had the tone and demeanor of beer-driven frat house gang bang.
You have criticized the Democrats/Left/etc for not hearing what you think to have been the legitimate reasons for which Bush went to war. Fair enough. And I agree with you to a certain degree: facile conspiracy theorizing (war-for-oil, war for contracting profit, war for full-spectrum world domination) does little to nothing to explain a series of complex, contradictory reasons which produced the war in Iraq. But you need to apply the same standard across the board. To write off war critics as simply “Democrats” or “naysayers” or ANSWER-wingnuts etc etc is to overlook an entire array of some very important arguments. Some are better than other. Some suck. (Just as is true on the pro-war side).
We will disagree on this but… the “naysayers” about Vietnam, you know, were absolutelty correct. The death of 54,000 Americans and 3 MILLION Vietnamese (by McNamara’s reckoning) produced absolutely nothing. The end result was the same as if we had never sent one soldier. Thirty years later, the United States does great two-way business with the sweat shops run by the Vietnamese Communists. This week, as I write this, Goerge W Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger went off to Communist China (who inititally backed the Vietnamese) and played pattycake with those ossified Stalinists as well. Naysayers? Who are the naysayers here, GM? The McGovern Democrats? Or the Bush Republicans who can’t say Nay to a Chinese regime that butchered 50-70 million people? Let’s get real.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Marc,
You say you are not suggesting conspiracy, but you also say they are conducting secret plans in order to achieve an outcome they deny even wanting to attain.
sounds like a cpnspiracy to me. As for this:
” If the administration position is, as it appears to be, to cut and run as quickly as they can…”
…that is the most outlandish description of the Bush Administrations position ever. We are almost three years into a war which was supposed to take a few months, so if the idea was to cut and run “as quickly as they can” the US would not be in Iraq right now at all, and we sure wouldnt continue to postpone any likely departure like we have.
As for the iraqi army being too weak right now, DUH. Thats half the reason we are still there now, and thats the whole reason behind the withdrawal plan submitted to Rumsfeld. Its a phased withdrawal, with qualifiers at each stage, and each stage is only 2,000 troops at a time.
THAT IS NOTHING LIKE CUTTING AND RUNNING.
Back to Rumsfeld’s plan he got from Casey and Abizaid…which you clearly havent even glanced at, instead you jumped at the chance to mischaracterize it. Like I said before: disingenious or uninformed.
The plan submitted called for a SLOW and DELIBERATE withdrawal, incrementally. With qualifiers.
Nothing like cut and run.
Not even close.
Anyway, you close by saying that iraqi will explode after the US leaves, which is possible. But its not the virtual guarantee you make it sound like. Obviously, Iraq does have a long way to go. I’ll grant you that because you are right, although your exaggerate the impotence of the new Iraqi army and you drastically lowball their chances of success.
But they arent ready yet, which explains the phased, qualified withdrawal.
Marc, your whole argument is centered around a SECRET plan (which isnt secret) to CUT AND RUN (which isnt even remotely being suggested by anyone involved in the planning or execution of this war).
November 19th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
I must confess to grammatical amusement upon seeing “dumbass’s” apostrophized as a possessive–akin to calling someone “stoopid”. It’s also interesting seeing GM hurl ad hominem invectives, though I confess it kind of distracts me from any argument he was attempting. Oh well, carry on…
November 19th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
P.S. To my regular commenters: I am going to impose a Zero Tolerance Death Penalty level of scrutiny on those who flippantly insult, demean or mock “new” commenters who might be coming in from OSM or anywhere else. As usual, feel free to excoriate the ideas of your opponents — but NOT their persons. After weeks of public panty-wetting by some about how horribly fascistic and intolerant OSM would be (hardly the case), it would be doubly absurd for liberals on this site to start attacking readers from that site, merely because they are or are assumed to be OSM readers.
Show basic respect and courtesy or take it over to KoS.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Marc
Props for maintaining law and order and even-handedness.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Quickrob…
Go back and read my publicly avialble material. You are wrong. My entire view of this matter is NOT shaped by the notion of a secret plan. On the contrary — it’s shaped by one hundred years of public American foreign policy. The US like all great powers has “interests,” not friends. There is no evidence available to me that this administration (nor previous Democratic admins) give two whits about the state of democracy in the Middle East. Billions in foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq in the 1980’s etc seem to indicate quite the contrary.
After the events of 9/11 the Bush admin, among other considerations, found it might be strategically convenient to overthrow Saddam and change the entire balance of power in teh region. Whatever one thinks of that, establishement of democracy was not primary. This apart from teh fact that no one in history has yet devised the formula by which any power can neatly export democrcay to occupied nations.
My point is, that the US interest in Iraq is primarily a US interest. At the point when that war becomes untenable politically (something we are quickly approaching) I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the Bush admin or its successor will toss the interests of the Iraqi people right over the side.
That’s what we did in Vietnam– though there we painted ourselves into a corner with no choice. If you are to believe that Democracy is Job One for Republicans, then you’re gonna have to do some heavy acrobatics to explain what Bush and Arnie were doing in Beijing this week kissing the arses of the longest-standing and bloodiet communist dictatorship on the globe?????!?!?!?
November 19th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
“neck deep in a war for our survival”
Pshaw. We’re in no such thing so let’s get the prespective in focus here.
“And for the dumbass’s in here”
Uh huh.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Marc,
A few points. First off, Arnie was kissing ass in China, Bush isnt and won’t. He spent the whole trip before getting to china doing things that would piss the chinese off, like praise taiwan and tell china to be more like taiwan, like tell china to stop oppressing religious people, like stand shoulder to shoulder with koizumi and make statements about the US-Japan alliance and it’s strategic importance in Asia…etc.
Arnie was Bush isnt.
As for 100 years of foreign policy. You’re right.
But then came 2001. IA pessimist could be excused for not expecting change, but its a whole new world.
And as for what you claim “we did” in Vietnam. It was not “we”, it was a fractured nation then, and bailing out on Vietnam was a decision without dissenters.
And as for “neatly” exporting democracy…no one said it would be neat, and it’s easy enough so I’ll throw in Japan…South Korea.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
correction : “was hardly a decision”, not “was a decision”
November 19th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Marc, I gotta go. Its been real! Nice site, you’ll see me around
-Rob
November 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Amen!
What is truly amazing about this entire debate is that - for the second time in my lifetime - the country is in the middle of a ground war, with no end in sight, that a majority of it’s citizens don’t believe was essential to our national security, has been badly strategized - partly of necessity because it is a war waged for a political purpose rather than defense and don’t trust the people who got us into it. Unless one has a cavalier attitude to war - which I believe is despicable - it’s hard for me to figure out on what basis one gives a pass to such “leaders”. Any war that was being fought for clear reasons of our national security and defense - the poorly-managed but clearly justified attempt to take out bin Laden and the Taliban is a case in point - and that has a clear set of goals that appear attainable without bleeding our military to the bone would not divide the nation so sharply and guys like Rep. Murtha would be solidly on board. All of the blame that the Partisan Pro-Warriors try to lay at the feet of “The Left”, “The Democrats” or, god forbid, kooks like Answer should be directed at their Fearless Leaders. They brought us to this impasse. I can’t stand Republicans and I’ve found Bush to be pathetic since I first laid eyes on him and heard him open his mouth, but I was solidly behind our government after 9/11 and supported every effort to take out bin Laden (to the point of being pissed when the effort turned out to be chickenshit). What Bush did by Bogarting his way into an invasion of Iraq was despicable and we will be paying for it with blood, treasure and poisoned politics for many years. Blaming Congressional Democrats at this juncture for anything other than not having the prescience or backbone to speak out in greater numbers when it might have made a difference, is an absurd abdication of responsibility. Marc’s dissection of the situation in his previous comment was right on. Patriotism can take many forms and encompass many views but it’s not about providing a last refuge for scoundrels who’ve done an enormous disservice to this country.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
(The “Amen” was for Marc)
November 19th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Quickrob, a quick welcome and hello from a regular reader and non-brilliant semi-contributor. Great to have you–come back again!
November 19th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Oh yeah, Bush is really all about pissing off the Chinese…like he doesn’t need them to bail out his deficits. I’m also certain that his commitment to freedom will include tightening our trade policies to take Chinese workers’ rights into consideration - thus alienating not only one of our largest debt holders but also that other Red State, Arkansas, where Walmart is HQed. It’s useful to recognize the difference between rhetoric and reality. I guarantee you that the ChiCom leaders are real clear on the nature of political double-talk, being even more expert at it than Jr. Bush.
CNN: “While saluting Taiwan’s progress and urging China to take more steps, Bush stresses that the United States is not changing its official policy that there is one China — including Taiwan — or its position that there should be no unilateral attempt to change the status quo by either side, AP reported…
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Wednesday agreements between the U.S. and China outnumbered the differences.”
November 19th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Well Bush did his damndest to get into it with China before 9-11 with the plane mishap and defending Taiwan. It was easy to tell the kind of bungler he was then. We’ve had plenty of proof since, and I subtract Afghanistan from that. That was the obvious response to 9-11. It still needs work and is on life support right now.
November 19th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
I can’t believe that some people are dumb enough to believe the bushista “victory” bullshit
can anybody here define “VICTORY” in Iraq ???
The Colonel form Ohio isn’t a Marine. He’s a national Guard Hack who has never been in combat. As Mr Murtha says, he “one of those guys who has never been there”. Mr. Murtha was talking about COMBAT. Kinda nice that a man who has managed to avoid ALL COMBAT for 30 years can call a decorated COMBAT VETEREN a coward
and reg, anything rummy says can be classified as “DonSense”. Rummy now claims to have written a memo in October of 2001 about all of the potential probles. The memo reads exactly like the list I made at the same time. But if Rummy knew what all of the mistakes were in October of 2001, how could he manage to make those SAME mistakes in 3003 ??? what’s up with that ???
and to “Too Many Steves”: that’s right, just keep chugging that Koolaid. When this is over and done, you’re gonna wonder what the fuck you were thinking
November 19th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Marc: I am going to impose a Zero Tolerance Death Penalty level of scrutiny on those who flippantly insult, demean or mock “new†commenters who might be coming in from OSM or anywhere else.
Okay…you’re the Blogmeister…and it’s good to see you’re still demonstrating complete independence from the muckier aspects of OSM and not adopting the Charles Johnson/LGF rules of debate. As you know, I am an intemperate asshole and need a reminder for periodic restraint.
November 19th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Jeeezus…I thought I was pissed at the Beltway GOPer Gang yesterday…but now they’ve gone beyond the pale. Their Senate leaders blocked a vote on a resolution by the New Jersey delegation honoring Bruce Springsteen on the 30th anniversary of “Born To Run”.
Why does the right-wing hate America ?
November 19th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
GM.. Am I gonna have to fly out there just to set u right? If so, ur picking up the dinner tab!
You damn betcha you will, and I will pick up the dinner tab and I’ll mix one hell of a margarita and I’ll take you to the best Redfish surf fishing you’ve ever had andI’ll convince you that you are, er, uh, ahem, “mistaken.”
November 19th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
“Why does the right-wing hate America?”
Reg, you are so full of vitriol and crap I think a years production of ex-lax wouldn’t clean you out. Why does the left wing hate reason, let alone America?
November 19th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
GM, pot, meet reg, kettle.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Whoa nellie. A heated day in Congress. Those stuffed suits in Washington have a pulse(!) Shocked, simply shocked. Seriously, I AM SHOCKED.
I actually thought the whole episode was quite healthy. Mr. Murtha puts his proposal out there and the Dem’s think the former Marine’s medals are gonna prop it up. Where was this policy/platform by patroitism played out before? Oh, yeah, as Senator Kerry’s primary reason for running for President. Just like Kerry, Congressman Murtha (and the Democrats) should expect that if they’re going to ‘throw hard inside’ that the Republicans are going to come back with some ‘chin music’ of their own.
Ahh, that democracy thing…gotta love it.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
It will not make any difference for the next three years what Murtha says, what the press says, what those who want to keep their Washington job say, or what those who want Bush’s job say.
We will be in Iraq as long as it takes Iraq to support their new democracy, or 3 more years, which ever occurs first. This is what Iraq wants, this is what the military wants, and this is what Bush will do regardless of what anyone wants, because he is convinced it is the only thing to do for the ‘long term’ security of the USA.
So, until 2008, let’s talk about something that is going to make any difference until then.
November 19th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
“Why does the left wing hate reason” Oh brother where art thou. You wouldn’t know reason if it piled up on top on you like driven snow.
November 20th, 2005 at 5:23 am
“Most of you on the left of center are upset as hell that a parlimentary trick was pulled, but tough; the dems did it in the senate on other ocassions, it’s called forcing your opponents hand.”
No, it’s called playing games, Roper. We don’t (over)pay the assholes who make up Congress to play games. We pay them to do their fucking job, which is to craft and pass actual meaningful legislation, not to waste their time on symbolic acts cynically designed to advance their careers by making their co-workers look bad. Imagine a business run this way, with cliques spending company time trying to sully each other’s reputations in order to advance themselves rather than trying to work together to get things done. Such a company would be almost as bankrupt as our politics.
For some reason your post reminded me of the time I was almost arrested. A cop driving by spotted me in an alley munching on a dead body I had just finished killing and having sex with. As the officer was getting ready to slap the cuffs on I realized something: Jeffrey Dahmer did it too! When I pointed that out to the officer he relented, said, “Alright then, move along,” and let me go. Thank Nikki for my quick thinking! Anyway, I don’t know why that crazy non sequitur came to mind. Isn’t it just weird how the mind works?
November 20th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Boy, talk about your Night Stalker.
November 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I think Reg was right. The Democrats should have treated this bogus resolution with the contempt it deserved and voted “Present”. That is about what it deserved. I’m not sure which blog I saw this on but someone referred to this as the war’s “Terry Schaivo” momemt. The policy is dead and nothing can revive it. But the GOP refuses to see it and so goes through these extreme contortions to keep it on life support. But everyone knows it is doomed.
How do I know. It is reported that the White House has set up a “War Room” on Iraq. To examine options to successfully extricate us from that mess? No, it is designed to counter criticisms with effective “Messages” to put the critics like Murtha, on the defensive. And whom is running this operation? None other than Turdblossum himself - Karl Rove. You really got to loves these guys!
November 20th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
“War Room” to trash critics. Makes sense to me. It’s the only kind of war most of these guys know how to fight.
November 20th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
“Reg, you are so full of vitriol and crap I think a years production of ex-lax wouldn’t clean you out. Why does the left wing hate reason, let alone America? ”
That comment was a bit of “Bruce” irony. Since you upped the ante, maybe you can explain what “reason” drives geeks like Frist and Santorum to turn a resolution honoring one of America’s best-loved musicians into a partisan issue. Talk about vitriol and crap.
Your guys are going down and you are in some combination of denial and hysteria. And it’s of your sides’ making. Totally. That’s the Big Story on who’s full of vitriol and crap these days.
Period.
November 20th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Reg, good try at changing the landscape. I’m not talking about the stupidity of Frist or Santorum on The Boss… I’m talking about you. and you alone bud.
You and a couple of others here persistently and consistently dump ad hominems on anyone to the right of center that you’ve lost all perspective. As I said, a years production of ex-lax wouldn’t be enough. So, expect the ad hominems back from time to time, it’s all I have left to toss since your arguments don’t make any sense.
November 20th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Well your problem Roper is you can’t handle ideas with critical thinking so you ridicule and insult people. When pushed you create a massive essay meant to skewer a critic of your ideas. Sound familiar? In your case you embarrassed yourself in front of the top climate scientists in the world. Ad hominem you say? Let er rip, so what? Make sense of that. Maybe another parodypost that fails like the rest of your arguments?
November 20th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
You and a couple of others here persistently and consistently dump ad hominems on anyone to the right of center that you’ve lost all perspective.
Yes and your side’s comments always adhere to Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Let’s knock this off. Reg was not addressing you nor anything you wrote. Pot kettle black
November 20th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
“it’s all I have left to toss…”
Speaks for itself…
November 20th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Whatever the Republicans’ motivations, they have effectively shown that the Democrats don’t really stand for any definite, coherent position. If they want withdrawal, they should in fact want immediate, unconditional withdrawal and they should have voted for the Republican proposal. The Republicans have put their finger on the Democrats’ hypocrisy: “we don’t like what’s going on in Iraq, so let’s dither and debate and talk about withdrawing in a year (or two or three or who knows . . .), or maybe withdrawing when there’s an effective Iraqi army or when NATO or the UN or the Arab League can come take our place (in other words, never), or maybe we’ll just make noises about withdrawing since the elections are coming up next year, but as soon as they’re over we’ll go back to demanding that 50,000 more soldiers be sent . . .”
One could go on and on. The Republicans may be bastards, but they have a plan, and wrong as it is, they’re sticking to it. The Democrats just mouth meaningless phrases that never add up to anything.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
“If they want withdrawal, they should in fact want immediate, unconditional withdrawal and they should have voted for the Republican proposal.”
That strikes me as pure sophistry…arbitrary and tangential to any serious discussion of how we move forward from this Bush-inflicted morass. Damn near everyone - outside of the neocon crowd - wants an exit strategy, but to reduce it to a single option of “immediate, unconditional withdrawal” is both irresponsible and politically unfeasible, here and there. Murtha doesn’t propose this and he’s probably put forward the most radical withdrawal plan to date. Evenif we do leave Iraq, we can still impact some of the internal factors in the country by strategizing an exit and not simply disappearing overnight from the midst of chaos we’ve, in essence, created.
The “Republican proposal” was simply a ploy to subvert and circumscribe a debate that they fear. It was the pettiest of politics applied to the most serious issue facing the country. And the idea that “the Republicans may be bastards but they have a plan” is a half-truth. (I’ll let you guess which half is true.) The congressinal GOPers have rhetoric and a growing sea of doubts about their own leadership at BushCo HQ knowing what they’re doing. “Stay the course” isn’t a plan. Most military strategists who have a serious grasp of the situatioin in Iraq will affirm that fact.
November 20th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
GM - you’ve left four comments on this thread. One was dishonest partisan hackery, two were ad hominem attacks on another poster and the other was off-topic.
Where on earth do you get off criticising another commenter for the tone or comment of his comments?
The reason you get criticised here is because you only ever post the same dishonest, hackish talking points. If you start posting intelligent, reasonable comments that don’t start by insulting the people who are likely to read them, then you’ll get civilized discourse.
Until then, piss off with the whining.
November 20th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
I honestly do not understand what Marc or any other Dem is mad about. The resolution stated exactly what Congressman Murtha said he wanted.
The House and Senate leadership praised him for it. Supposedly a couple dozen congressman agreed with him. Yet for some reason only 3 of them voted for it.
So are you really mad at the Republicans for calling the bluff or are you mad at the Democratic Congressmen who didnt have the courage of their convictions?
November 20th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
“….maybe you can explain what ‘reason’ drives geeks like Frist and Santorum to turn a resolution honoring one of America’s best-loved musicians into a partisan issue….”
No kidding. (G.M. I know you pronounced it stupid. Thank you for that.)
I mean, look. The Senate passes the most astonishing array of these ridiculous little resolutions every week.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d109:200:./list/bss/d109SE.lst:o&items=100&
They honor, say, the University of Michigan softball team for winning an NCAA championship…and…..the former Wisconsin governor because the guy managed to make it to 80….and … some earnest fellow named Timothy S. Wineman for his 35 glorious years of service as an assistant clerk in the Senate. Disbursing Office (!!!!). And there was Frist’s own recent resolution commending a college women’s basketball coach (from his his home state of Tennessee) “for three decades of excellence as a proven leader, motivated teacher, and established champion.”
Okay, fine.
But when New Jersey’s senators tried to introduce another one of these all but pro forma resolution thingys, this time honoring the 30th anniversary of “Born to Run,—arguably one of the best and most hope-filled albums in the history of American rock and roll—” Frist, Santorum and the rest of the Republican leadership—in all seriousness—refused to allow the resolution to even REACH the Senate floor, much less be passed…because The Boss vocally supported John Kerry against George Bush in the last presidential election.
In the greater scheme of things, of course, this is an essentially trivial and irrelevant moment — except that when you yank that little move apart and have a good hard look at what it implies…..it ain’t pretty. Not at all.
November 20th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
“The resolution stated exactly what Congressman Murtha said he wanted.” A lie. Period.
Murtha’s resolution said what he wanted. The distinction is elementary and anyone who doesn’t get it is, frankly, brain dead or wearing absurdly partisan blinders. Why is it necessary to frame this with obviously false statements ?
November 21st, 2005 at 7:20 am
“….maybe you can explain what ‘reason’ drives geeks like Frist and Santorum to turn a resolution honoring one of America’s best-loved musicians into a partisan issue….â€
There should be an independent investigation into how adult children end up in in positions of influence in the two major political parties. Nothing like adding needless division to a country divided over serious issues like……oh I don’t know…..maybe WAR
Without putting General Murtha in the same category as these to light weights, I hope we can all agree, the way he announced his change in support of the Iraq war was also divisive. Rather than working behind the scenes to make a change in direction, he calls a news conference and stands in front of not one, not two, but six American flags, and lays a very large egg.
The response he got from both warring sides was predictable, and expected from this planned politically event. More war on the war.
The truly sad part of divisionist behavior is General Murtha’s plan, now that the details are known, has some good ideas that ought to get serious consideration, but less likely now.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:28 am
I want to add I would like to vote for the uniter RoseDog to replace both Frisk and Sanitorium……oh damn, wrong party, I think.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:57 am
how bout instead of calling me a liar Reg you can explain exactly what the difference is between the resolution and Congressman Murthas stated position.
I am a registered Democrat btw. I have only voted for 2 republicans in my life. You guess which two
November 21st, 2005 at 8:45 am
Murtha’s resolution (after the preamble rationale):
I) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
2) Congress assembled,
3) That:
4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines
9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy.
The GOP version:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Murtha’s resolution calls for a negotiable (but actual) future date, backed with quick strike forces and diplomatic efforts. The GOP version calls for immediate, unconditional withdrawal.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:20 am
So there Ugly. Is that the same thing? Or the same rhetorical flimflamery that bamboozled you in the last two elections? I think the latter. Change your party affiliation.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:26 am
“how bout instead of calling me a liar Reg you can explain exactly what the difference is between the resolution and Congressman Murthas stated position.”
You could try reading the two resolutions for starters…if there was no difference in either explicit content or intent between the two, kinda makes you wonder why the second one even existed in the first place.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:46 am
November 20, 2005
REPUBLICANS DEMAND VOTE ON DROWNING OF KITTENS
Latest Attempt to Embarrass House Democrats
In a ploy designed to put House Democrats on the spot, Republicans in the House of Representatives today insisted upon a floor vote on a new resolution banning the drowning of kittens.
http://www.Borowitzreport.com
November 21st, 2005 at 10:53 am
“…if there was no difference in either explicit content or intent between the two, kinda makes you wonder why the second one even existed in the first place. …”
Exactly.
BTW, pretty funny, lurker. I went over and read the whole thing. Worth it. ( Even loved the last line about China and the Harry Potter movie.)
November 21st, 2005 at 3:32 pm
I am sorry they look pretty damned similar to me.
I have no plans to change my party affiliation at this time Mark. Perhaps you will consider changing yours?
I wonder whatever happened to the big tent my party used to live under.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:57 pm
I don’t need to. I vote for the candidates we support. Should the big tent accept fallacious shilling for the Republicans?
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:21 am
Throughout all of this, I see that this country is as divided as it was over Vietnam. I see the nightly body counts, eerily reminiscent of the nightly news then. But these are not just numbers. They are someones family member, and from both of the main political parties. Yes, I am a Democrat (now), who never voted a straight ticket. I learned long ago that the Republican party did not truly represent me, but those of power and money. I disagree with the far left and the far right. Still, I served my country willingly, as I felt it my duty. But there is no more grave decision that our political leaders can make than going to war. When you put the lives of our best on the line, it had better be unconditionally for the right reason. The war in Afghanistan fits this description, the war in Iraq did not. As someone who reads extensively from more than the local fishwrapper, “I” was able to determine that there was no justification for our invasion of Iraq. The argument that “I was wrong, but so was everyone else” by the President doesn’t hold water. If I knew before we invaded Iraq that there were no WMD’s, how is it that our political “leaders” did not? And I am talking about BOTH parties! If our leaders would quit working on their next election long enough to do the peoples work, we would actually have a country that works. As it is, this is one big dysfunctional family! As an American,I’m disgusted with the just about every one of those leaders. No one is going to get everything they want in this country from a political party, but do we get what we need from our leaders? OK, have at it. You may disagree with me on some of this, but as Americans, we had better figure out how “WE” are going to fix this country.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:37 am
Well to do that you can’t have annointed leadership who refuse to acknowledge any criticism. I didn’t make this mess. I said this would happen and it did. Jamming heads in the sand isn’t leadership. It’s denial and that’s what I see in Republicans and the people who vote for them.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:15 am
Ugly: “I have no plans to change my party affiliation at this time Mark. Perhaps you will consider changing yours?
“I wonder whatever happened to the big tent my party used to live under.”
Oh, for… Not another one of these “I didn’t change, they changed” neo-whatevers.
Please do us a favor and go cry on Paul Berman’s shoulders.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management/positioning:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans -
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.
They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
I believe the coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god”’s most favored people will pay dearly one day.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
[...] Why are guys like Marc Cooper so livid? [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Just to let you know that I think the website is great and I wish you all of the best for the future. http://cheapest-valium.vidanal.com
January 31st, 2006 at 11:22 am
I am impressed with this page…setup really nice. Doesn’t take forever to load pics, like mine… Very impressive.. http://lincoln.ziarc.com
May 20th, 2006 at 11:20 am
how to win blackjack…
cooperations stagecoach puckering bleak eaters:spruced!knapsack slot machines http://slot-machines.4all-casino.com/ …
May 25th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Kim…
Lookks like your page was heavily hit by spam…
May 25th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Kim…
Lookks like your page was heavily hit by spam…
July 12th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
A Sort Of Homecoming Ringtone…
Claude Monet Ringtone Claude Monet Ringtone Lil One Ringtone Lil One Ringtone Hate Every Beautiful Day Ringtone Hate Every Beautiful Day Ringtone Jesus He Loves Me Ringtone Jesus He Loves Me Ringtone Tu Amor Ringtone Tu Amor Ringtone Unbreak My Heart R…
July 25th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?qwv
August 1st, 2006 at 8:41 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
December 7th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)
November 15th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Sursauter casinos chile encima estrategias gesto dedebajo igualar preferencial internet poker exo”tico golpecito martingala casquillo jotas broadway los mejores poker promociones estacas pushka cantidad.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
quick payday loan…
Ãœber quick payday loan geld einsatz…
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 am
As a summary of first national bank credit card counting ladies pair prepaid credit card in canada cheating crown string grip tipping tap bad credit history credit card card wheel clubs?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:20 am
play backgammon online…
Perhaps free backgammon online card game casino…
December 30th, 2007 at 2:57 am
download metro pcs ringtones…
Also info motorola mp3 remember ringtones download metro pcs ringtones…
January 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Indeed online poker anfänger fold pool house championship soittoäänet puhelimeen overplay risk empirepoker cripple soittoäänet puhelimeen rank free support fish blackjack combinations?