MR. RUSSERT: The president says, “stay the course,” that within the next six months, Iraq will be secure under the direction of the new prime minister, and to do anything less now would be irresponsible.He gets rolling and jumps from point to point -- mostly freeform financial analysis -- with no end in sight until he suddenly, apparently, thinks of an exit strategy: "I feel very strongly about it."
REP. MURTHA: Well, “stay the course” is “stay and pay.” This is the thing that has worried me right along. We’re spending $8 billion dollars a month, $300 million dollars a day. And to give you some perspective of what that means, Gates said, “I’m going to quit the corporation, or I’m going to—less time with the corporation.” Well, you weigh $30 billion dollars. That’s four months of the cost of this war. This port security, if you want to spend more money, it’d would take 47 years the way we’re spending it. Education, the No Child Left Behind, a couple months of the war would pay for that.
[234 words cut.]
It’s getting worse. That’s why I feel so strongly. All of us know how important it is internationally to win this war. We know how important. We import 20 million barrels of oil a day—we use 20 million barrels of oil. We know how important, international community. But we’re doing it all ourself, and there’s no plan that makes sense. We need to have more international cooperation. We need to redeploy our troops, the periphery. What happened with Zarqawi could have been done from the out—it was done from the outside. Our planes went in from the outside. So there’s no reason in the world that they can’t redeploy the troops. They’ve become the targets, they’re caught in the civil war, and I feel very strongly about it.
Russert bases the interview on a clips from a speech Karl Rove gave in New Hampshire last Monday, and Murtha should have been well prepared to answer this. Rove's remarks are clear: the Democrats want to "cut and run." "They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles." Murtha's response is nothing but babble about how Rove isn't personally fighting the war:
He’s, he’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, “Stay the course.”You know, most Americans are fat. Including Murtha. This kind of personal invective may be hilarious among fellow Rove-haters, but it's frustrating to listen to an answer like that when Rove has articulated exactly the issue Democrats need to address. It's always been the case that the leaders are back home in physical comfort -- though it's an unusually bad week to dredge up that hackneyed observation, since Bush just went to Iraq.
Murtha continues:
That’s not a plan. I mean, this guy—I don’t know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he’s saying.Thanks for the big, fat nonanswer. We know you disagree with him. Murtha goes on for another 210 words, and Russert finally finds a way to break in and tries to remind him that the Democrats need to keep Rove from pinning that disastrous label "cut and run" on them. Russert:
Is it appropriate for the president’s principal political adviser to accuse the Democrats of cutting and running?Does Murtha pick up the cue and do the one thing he most needs to do, which is to portray the Democrats as more responsible on national security?
I think it’s, it’s, it’s a, a name—they just use that. I say “stay and pay.” And what I mean by stay and pay, and I’m talking about the hardship on the families, the hardship on the troops. And there’s no plan, that’s the thing. It’s easy to say that. That’s, that’s an easy—the public is way ahead of this. The public is two-to-one against what we’re doing, and they want a change in direction. That’s the thing I see the most.Notice all the stumbling? "It’s, it’s, it’s a, a name... there’s no plan, that’s the thing. It’s easy to say that. That’s, that’s an easy—the public is way ahead of this." Remember the polls? Americans already disagree with Rove. So why should I -- the most outspoken war critic the Democrats have -- bother to put two coherent sentences together?
Did somebody misprogram him? It sounds as though he was repeating a pep talk someone gave him before the show. It's easy! No, it's not. The polls! You're going into the campaign season, when people are going to start paying attention to the arguments. Are you just going to tell us that we already agree with you?
I'm sure Rove enjoyed that pathetic performance.
पोस्ट्स
१३६ टिप्पण्या:
I saw the interview and thought the same thing. Though I don't agree with Murtha, I was embarrassed for him. Twas a sad interview. I was also very disappointed with Russert, who I do like. Tim tossed softball questions, let Murtha run on, didn't seem well prepared himself and didn't have any counterpoint guest. All in all not up to the usual standard.
I'm sure that Rove did enjoy it . . as did I.
Also probably enjoying . . .
President and Mrs. Bush,
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney,
Secretary Rumsfeld,
Secretary Rice, et al.
Mr. Russert is usually a little more pointed, even though he does tend to lean a little left.
I believe that he probably felt sorry for Congressman Murtha, a man who served his country in the military and politics, but is now uncomfortably not-ready-for-prime time. Shame on the Democrats for using someone painfully and poorly spoken to stand in front for them, as though their argument now has weight because they found one military man to speak out.
As if they even knew what the argument actually is . . .
"not-ready-for-prime time"
That phrase ran through my head too. I don't think he's ever going to be ready either. The Democrats should not push him forward. They're relying on his resume to convey authority, but he simply lacks the ability to speak. This is a mistake they seem to love to make, since they did it with the presidential nomination last time.
The Republicans elected a President who was/is not ready for prime time. I guess that's a mistake "they love to make."
Terry! I was thinking of perspective too.
"... with no end in sight until he suddenly, apparently, thinks of an exit strategy"
Murtha's point, poorly stated: Should anyone use the "cut and run" phrase, who hasn't actually volunteered for military service? In other words, should anyone accuse someone else of cowardice, as the Republicans are doing by implication, if they haven't put themselves on the line?
And after the 5:50 pm comment, about what "they" should do, the lyrics of that Pink Floyd song -- Us and Them -- is running through my head.
(slow song, applicable lyrics, check it out yourself, too long to reprint here...)
Say, after his brief visit to Iraq and that press conference, didn't we hear President Bush talk this week about a massive troop withdrawal? Something about the Iraqis needing to stop the killings themselves in their own country and the US role ending?
"They lack the key ingredient required in war: LEADERSHIP!"
And many people believe our president is failing miserably on this point.
"These core values are missing in the Demcratic party and is why they are failures in Foreign Policy."
Why are the Republicans failing in foreign policy right now across the globe?
Finally, "Did somebody misprogram him?"
I suspect Mr. Murtha, with his political and military experience, was speaking with passion.
I can understand, though, when you are used to the politicos of late adhering to a one-theme "script", where you might suspect all of them of being so easily "programamable."
"Why are the Republicans failing in foreign policy right now across the globe?"
Because foreign policy (and even the war on terrorism) is not a high priority for them. The number one priority for the Republicans is the amassing of wealth. And in this, they are being phenomenally more successful than any other group of individuals in the history of mankind. So by the terms of "their" playbook, they are absolutely winning. Everything else is just planned distraction for the masses.
suspect Mr. Murtha, with his political and military experience, was speaking with passion.
Mary, honey, did you see him? he wasn't speaking with passion, he was speaking something about one astep of word salad.
Seriously, has he seen a physician lately? I suspect a couple of small strokes, or some other cranial accident.
If you think you need to serve in the military to have a worthwhile opinion about completing the mission, you are pretty much disqualifying all women. You're disqualifying all homosexuals and the disabled. It's flat out discriminatory. You are also disqualifying everyone like Bill Clinton who avoided fighting in a war they thought was wrong.You're also privileging the opinions of a lot of people who happened to serve because they were drafted. It's just not a sensible way to do policy. I don't even believe that you actually think like this. I think it's just an expedient rhetorical move that suits what you want now.
Argh. "One step from word salad."
"Take a deep breath. Collect your thoughts. Then write."
Sorry, my earlier post was deleted so I wasn't sure if any would stay up. Perhaps you could use your superior reading skills to look past my ineloquence into the gist of my argument:
When you don't have too many successes to point to yourself, and there are major issues around the globe that need to be dealt with, attack your political opponent and blame your failure on them.
Again, it might win elections, but such divisiveness does not win wars. United we stand...
(and I confess, I'm a bit more passionate on this subject than say, who won American Idol or whatever's currently on the tube)
Ann,
I agree with everything you said-people without military experience have as much right to make policy statements as people with military experience. And I am concerned myself about timetables for withdrawing from Iraq, but I wouldn't go around calling someone a coward for thinking we should set a timetable, because I am not likely to have to fight. (They aren't taking 51 year old epileptics at this point). I give my viewpoints on policy, but would feel some shame at using the word "coward".
The only chance for the Democratic Party to remain relevent is to:
Win the Peace...
They have to accept that we will win the conflict. We have to. There will be winners and losers. No ties. They have to gut that one out, and start supporting the conflict - to end it quicker. It is a loser for them.
Concurrently, they can start presenting viable ideas for the 'lasting peace that follows'. New international structures. Modern implementations of a United Nations - like the UN was an improvement over the League of Nations.
If they abdicate on 'winning the peace' they will be in the doghouse for another thirty/forty years - note the Republican isolationists of the 1930's and where that policy got them...
These schlumps can't just go out there and tell the American public to quit in a conflict we must win. They are fighting the last war.
There will be a winner.
There will be a loser.
"He looks and acts sober, but the incoherent arguments makes him sound drunk. Reading the transcript reinforces the impression of an angry guy in a bar who the bartender has just cut off."
Funny, this came up in a recent Volokh.com discussion regarding Slate's "bushisms." The general agreement was that it's easy to make someone appear stupid when you read their conversational words on a transcript (not fininshing sentences before connecting to a new point, etc.) I don't think anyone alleged that Bush was drinking again though... (nice try to link all the Dems to Kennedy though)
For the record Ann,
most of those in the current administration with no military background are neither disabled nor homosexual. I agree that military service is not a prerequisite for the presidency, but after 3 years in and more storm clouds on the horizon, I think it's fair game to question whether the current administration is deferring to the knowledge of the men with actual know-how to get the job done.
Starting with Colin Powell, I think there's a long list of those men who have been disrespected by this administration who believed they knew better how things play out in wartime. Karl Rove can win elections; can he help us win the war(s)?
I'm surprised that nobody has commented yet on two amazing parts of the Murtha rant.
1. REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. So we move our 130k troops to Okinawa and just bomb terrorists out of houses from 20k feet as we hunt them down with predators?
2. like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.” Again amazing. Clinton with bad advice from Albright, sent a tiny force into Somalia, refused to give it armored vehicles or gun ships because that would be too "destabilizing" and then after our dead are dragged through the street by the natives, we cut and run, without even the false claim that we accomplished anything. We couldn't even get the bodies back without having to borrow the use of APC's from the Paki's.
Come to think of it, that has been the hallmark of Democrat foreign policy and use of the military since Johnson. Bombs from 20k feet (cruise missiles)
And Charlie,
Don't me honey, sugarcheeks. That reeks of disrespecting someone's opinion because of their gender.
If your argument is strong enough to stand alone (which I doubt), why do you need to cheapen it with such tactics?
"They oppose it because Bush is the leader."
Did it ever cross your God-loving mind that people object to the way this thing is playing itself out?
Murtha is an old appropriator. Somebody who knew the generals but has no concept of what to do with that military he is happy to fund. If you've ever read "Once An Eagle" you will recognize the type. I have yet to read a reasonable discussion of the alternatives Bush faced after 9/11. Paul Wolfowitz, in the much maligned interview with Sam Tannenhaus explained the problems with the sanctions. If 9/11 had not happened, Saddam would still be in power. Murtha has no sense of strategy and his Democratic colleagues are no better. The more they appear on TV, the better they show how little is really there.
Say, how about the Republican's foreign policy approach to North Korea? Iran?
Anybody concerned with that, or are we waiting for Mr. Rove to convince us that our approach is working, polls say stay the course?
Using the quotes noted by Drill Sgt. to recognize some of Murtha's incoherent brilliance:
1. REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming.
Paraphrasing from Black Five Congressman Murtha just recommended a 12 hour sortie to blindly bomb a Terror Turd that moves domiciles every 12 hours. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Also, how many times do your bombers have to refuel. Will China and Iran complain about crossing their airspace? Real tough questions. Murtha must be a real military genius!!!
2. like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.”
Did Murtha read Osama bin Laden's after action report on our 'direction change' in Somalia? I don't remember it as being flattering - or as being a deterrent to 9/11. Something about weak horses and paper tigers. Could be wrong. Let me do the research - oh, there it is!!!
Every time I see this schlep I sing 'Brave Sir Murtha' to the tune of Monty Pythons 'Brave Sir Richard'. I can just hear the valiant squire on the coconuts. Was he this incompetent militarily when he was leading Marines?
"Cutting and running, or however you want to phrase it, has nothing to do with cowardice. "
Lets try the experiment: Ask people what personality trait they most associate with cutting and running.
All the evidence to date strongly indicates that not only do the Democrats have no possible idea as to how to win the war, it suggests the Democrats aren't even interested in fighting the war. Murtha might be naturally inarticulate, but really now, has any Democrat anywhere made an even slightly more articulate, reasoned case for how changing the policy toward terrorists helps America win this war? Any Democrats anywhere? No.
They've an endless list of carps, caterwauling and complaints, with not one remotely comprehensible idea as to how to better fight the war and defeat the terrorists. Their complaints are, at best, disingenuous.
And, in light of the self-evident fact that both Democrats and terrorists agree that the US should cut and run from Iraq, their complaints about folks like me doubting their patriotism are equally disingeneous.
mary, sweetums, there are retired military who oppose the war. There are retired military who don't oppose the war. And the military who are actually fighting it don't oppose it either.
So there ya go.
The administration supports the war so it should come as no surprise that they don't agree with those who oppose it.
It has nothing to do with being disrespectful and there's certainly no more legitimacy to be given to retired military who oppose the war than to those who don't.
That's just wishful thinking, my dear.
Ann,
Though you're right about voting and veterans, I'll offer up a couple of thoughts.
1. It's really terrible that the nation's best colleges and universities are so anti-military by reflex. The country would be far better off if there was ROTC at all schools and some encouragement or at least not universal condemnation for those who join. Our elites, lawyers, doctors, journalists, have far too little exposure to the military overall. Up until the 60's or so, 3/4 of the Congress were veterans. 3/4!! now it's likely 1/4 and dropping. I'd love for there to be a requirement for Congress that mandated national service of some kind.
2. On that topic, one of my favorite little books is a piece of science fiction, "Starship Troopers". A much better book and a very bad movie. Skipping all the plot, one of the interesting side plots was the fact that suffrage was extended only to veterans of national service. All volunteer. The national service was not only military, but also things like testing ebola vaccines, emptying bed pans, testing vacuum suits on the moon etc. You signed up, took a battery of tests, were assigned a job, and you could quit at any time, but never were allowed back. The moral rationale for veterans suffrage was not that they were smarter than anybody else, but rather that "they had demonstrated that they were willing to subordinate personal interest in favor of the common good. Not a bad idea for voters or for that matter Congresspersons. Won't ever happen, but makes a nice thought project.
Should anyone use the "cut and run" phrase, who hasn't actually volunteered for military service? In other words, should anyone accuse someone else of cowardice, as the Republicans are doing by implication, if they haven't put themselves on the line?
QuietNorth, that's an exceptionally lame argument. I'm not sure that "cut & run" is cowardice, per se. I am sure that it is stupid, since cut & run is the policy that emboldened Al Qaida to attack the U.S. repeatedly in the first place; and it's what encouraged Saddam Hussein to fight international sanctions for over a decade. It comes back to basic human nature, which people on your side of the aisle are positive is infinitely malleable. In generaly, if you back down in a fight, you have been punked, and when you are dealing with mean, opportunistic predators, if you have been punked once, you will continue to get punked over and over again.
In short, Iraq in 2001 probably had little to do with Al Qaida. The U.S. led coalition's failure to wipe out Hussein's regime in 1991 had everything to do Al Qaida. Most of us in the West live in Kant's world, and imagine the rest of the world to be exactly the same, or at worst, as Rousseau posited the natural man. In reality, it's Hobbesian out there, and acting all christian socialist amongst Hobbesian rabble will only get you mugged.
Tim,
Not only are Democrats (Liberals) not presenting workable solutions to the war,
They arn't even providing concepts and ideas to build a lasting peace.
They are going to abdicate the peace process to BusHitler and the NeoCons... Then they will do their minority party thang for a couple/three decades.
"That's just wishful thinking, my dear."
Wow syl, with all that military expertise on board, plus the presidency, control of both Congress and the House, and unlimited funding (when it can be accounted for), you Republicans sure have been having back luck, huh?
Ah, wishful thinking. Something some of you are verrrrrry well acquainted with, I see. Just around the corner, my friends...
I admit to feeling a certain amount of resistance to outspoken critics of the war effort, so take that into account. But I thought Murtha's performance was embarrassing. I've never seen a "Meet the Press" guest take the first question and spew everything he could think of in one giant, jumbled dump:
This is what comes from watching too much Simon Cowell.
What would Frank Lloyd Wright who said "form follows function" say about your worship of style and performance above content?
No is saying that you have to have served in order to debate, discuss, argue war. But people correctly say that if your background includes repeatedly running away from your opportunity and duty to serve at a time when the country was at war, that you have disqualified yourself from calling people unpatriotic, and smearing vets yourself. And that your own background indicates that you are not qualified to LEAD or DIRECT the military. Argue, discuss, debate. But not lead or direct.
And people also correctly say that if you are young enough and fit enough to serve, and if our country is engaged in a difficult fight, and if our country's armed forces could use more hands, than you should not be asking what your country can do for you by telling other people to go to war on your behalf, but that you should be asking yourself what you can do for your country, by
volunteering in that fight.
Happy to have clarified that for you Ann. You are correct to observe that your commenters are much smarter than you and have a great deal to offer you.
" It comes back to basic human nature, which people on your side of the aisle are positive is infinitely malleable."
Al Maviva;
You don't know what my side of the isle is. I wasn't arguing for a team here, or even for whether we should have a timetable for getting out of Iraq or not. (I am not sure. I don't think any of us know for sure what would do more good or harm. Knowing being different than believing) I am concerned about the tactic of implying that people are cowards as a campaign strategy or substitute for rational argument.
If you think you need to serve in the military to have a worthwhile opinion about completing the mission, you are pretty much disqualifying ... homosexuals
Professor, you are either an idiot or drinking too heavily tonight.
Mary: You comment on making judgments from the transcript, however, I watched it live, and I linked to video. The transcript is provided for convenience. I think he seemed more incoherent live. The transcript was relatively forgiving by comparison.
And it's not like Bushisms, which are taken out of context. You've got the entire context here. My assumption was that Murtha just isn't very bright.
My post is mostly about how he isn't the man who should be thrust forward by the Democrats and how the Democrats need to seriously engage with the real problem, which is that they seem irresponsible about national security.
If I'm just a supporter for the other side, why am I offering them advice? Do you think I'm just trying to mislead them?? Fine. Let them continue on their merry way, with Murtha as the spokesman. They will be murtha'd in the election.
Joe,
Only one thing I can guarantee you:
keep up this attitude that one-half of this country is the enemy and you need to attack and defeat them, and we will lose this war.
Mary and Jacques:
If American Military Veterans had voted for Senator Kerry you would have a new President.
They didn’t.
By a margin of 70% Bush to 30% Kerry.
They have no confidence in Clinton, Kerry, or Murtha.
Don’t put words in their mouths or call them stupid either. They know who they are voting for. They even have a better understanding of the current conflict than the all sensing Congressman Murtha.
By the way, my signature line for emails during the Clinton Presidency was:
‘I survived the Clinton legacy!!!’
Sorry Ann, I have reasons to doubt you.
Fine, let "us" be murtha'd in the election. That will provide more opportunity for "them" to demonstrate their successes, and just how bright "they" are, eh?
"Don’t put words in their mouths or call them stupid either."
Don't put words in my mouth calling veterans stupid. That's a cheap tactic that might win elections, but won't win wars.
I should spell it out though, before I go...
"...Divided We Fall."
Boghie, not only is it exceedingly clear Mary and others like her are far more invested in their argument that Bush (and those who voted for him) and his administration is illegitimate/stupid/corrupt/evil/all of the above than they are in winning the war, it exceedingly clear they want our enemies to win so they can be proved right. Else they'd offer up something more useful than a list of complaints reminiscent of student-takeover of college administration buildings in the '60's. I'm old enough to remember when Democrats were patriots - but those days are long gone.
Boghie,
beyond veterans, active duty military appear to support the war in Iraq, as evidenced by both polls and amazingly high reup rates.
If I'm just a supporter for the other side, why am I offering them advice?
Ann, you are a concern troll. Everything about your blog, the targets of your posts, who you criticize and who you do not, who links to you and who does not. Everything, right down to your blogroll and your own admission that you wanted to be the Conservative Blog Diva says that you are not a progressive Democrat.
So yeah, when you tell Democrats how to behave it rings as phony as it does when it comes from Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, David Brooks, and David Broder.
Ann Althouse: Concern Troll.
Mary,
Why did Active Duty, Reserve, and Retired Military vote overwhelmingly for President Bush?
Why do you think they voted 70% to reelect Bush?
Why?
Just asking...
Mary complains about "divided we fall," yet her requisites for "unity" are to surrender to our enemies.
No thanks. Like Lincoln holding the Union together against the best efforts of the Confederacy and the Copperhead, the rest of us are strong enough to win this war and keep the domestic fifth column at minority status.
Tim,
There are a few Democrat patriots. Lieberman for one, my wife, a serving NG Colonel for another.
And of course our hostess, though Quxxo, will dispute that I'm sure.
"If the number one priority for Republicans is the amassing of wealth, what's the number one priority for Democrats?"
Johnny,
IMHO the number one priority for the Democrats is merely to someday return to power, so they can use the trappings of power for their own purposes. But it's a too simplistic, and unfocused message to appeal to enough voters. As of right now, the Democrats are amateurs, while the Republicans have proven themselves to be professionals, in the gaining and use of power for their priorities.
You should be (as am I) in awe of how focused and successful the Republicans are in accomplishing their number one priority. They are really, really, amazing. There has never been such a wholesale transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Unfortunately, it's not meant to benefit you or me. But yes, ultimately, it's all about money, and not about the million other things that occupy the chattering masses. The Republicans have successfully figured out that if you keep everyone at each other's throats, and throw a few small bones to enough dogs, the coffers of the world will open to you. It's a very good strategy, and it works.
Mary: "Mary said...Sorry Ann, I have reasons to doubt you. Fine, let "us" be murtha'd in the election. That will provide more opportunity for "them" to demonstrate their successes, and just how bright "they" are, eh?"
If that's an argument based on choice of pronouns, I challenge you to find anyplace where I've ever said "we" or "us" to refer to Republicans.
I don't identify with either party, but I am registered as a Democrat and have been since 1972. I can count the Republicans I've voted for -- for any office -- on one hand -- in over 3 decades of voting. If I fail to say "we" referring to Democrats, it's because they have excluded people like me.
Mark:
Here is my definition of winning the war... Suprisingly, it is in a post called 'Winning the War on Terror...'.
Surf the references as well...
Does it mean we have won the war on terror. Nope, that is why I used the word 'winning'.
Mark: How would you win the War on Terror? With stern looks from a continent away...
Ann,
I am sorry if I contributed to sending the discussion away from your point. I am just bugged by the "cut and run" phrase. So, let me ask this question:
Which person of any party do you think would best be able to articulate a timetable for withdrawal position? (Republicans may have some pro-timetable people soon enough)
Mark said "...A challenge to all Bush supporters: can you define what "winning the war" means?
And, relatedly, is there any point at all at which you would concede that "victory" is unachievable?
If there's such a point, where does it lie?
Easy. It means our enemies are defeated, unable to wage war against us. Victory is unachievable once our enemies defeat us.
I suppose these pass as "insightful questions" amongst the Left. Pathetic.
To "the Drill Sgt." yes, of course, some Democrats are patriots, including my wife. That said, when the security candidate in the Democratic primary cannot poll above 2 percent in a field of eleven and is the first (or second) to bow out, patriotic Democrats are as endangered as dodo birds...
Mark,
Iraq is a large part of the war on terror, so your question is in error.
That said, Democrats and Terrorist agree that the US should leave Iraq.
Oh how I hope and pray Murtha runs for President in 2008!!!
Just to see the RNC use this Meet the Press video in their campaign ads would make it worth contributing to the RNC!!
Mary, you have spewed out criticisms, but no solutions.
What is your solution to the Iraq "problem"? What should the U.S. do now?
I guess it depends what the meaning of "unable to wage war against us" means.
Moron.
Mark,
I'll give you a couple of examples:
1. By his own admission, he (Bush) is ten times the terrorist that Osama ever was - Sheehan on Michael Moore's www site
http://michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=578
2. The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Clinton's most invited guest was Arafat. Now we learn from the State Department that Arafat directly order the execution of US Embassy officials in 1973. So much for being tough on Terror.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67234.htm
3. REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. Drive by bombings of Iraq. That will certainly make them love us.
"Mary complains about "divided we fall," yet her requisites for "unity" are to surrender to our enemies."
Words in my mouth again...
Iraq is currently the biggest part of the war on terror, notwithstanding your erroneous assertion "excluding Iraq which is completely separate from the War on Terror;" Democrats are unwilling to fight the war on terror in Iraq (and in fact are more than happy to surrender Iraq to the terrorists); the Democrats have no ideas or plans as how to fight the war on terror in Iraq or anywhere else.
Democrats sure run fast to mommie's skirts! He called me a bad name! boo hoo.
Mark, you asked a question on defining a win in the War on Terror
1. You obviously did not read the post I provided…
2. You did not address anything in my post…
3. You seem fixed around the intelligence…
Here are a couple of thoughts.
We could not attack Iran for even better reasons than you give for not attacking Iraq. They had not even blown off UN resolutions or treaties at that point. Additionally, Iran is on the periphery of the problem. Controlling Iran has no effect on Saudi Arabia and Syria.
We could not attack Syria. While Syria, like Iran, is a state sponsor of terror they had yet to break agreements and had not invaded another sovereign nation for thirty years or so. Additionally, Syria is on the periphery of the problem. Controlling Syria has no effect on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
We could not attack Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not violate UN sanctions. Saudi Arabia did not rant and rave every day about killing Americans. Saudi Arabia did not send a hit squad to kill a former President. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is on the periphery of the problem. Controlling Saudi Arabia has no effect on Iran and Syria.
So, Iraq developed WMD, used WMD, attacked neighboring countries, blew off UN resolutions, bribed away sanctions, and tried to have a former President assassinated. And, as an additional bonus, they sit astride Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Whoopie, a day trip takes us anywhere in the Terror Turd world!!!
On cracking down on radical Islamic fanatics I will defer to the previous administration. The previous administration had eight years on which to crack down on Islamic fanatics without controlling any territory. Show me the successes.
How much can you send to a land-locked Afghanistan. I had a Liberal Marine friend of mine tell me he would have parachuted 40,000 special forces into Afghanistan. I asked him how he would do such a thing. Kind of hard. We don’t have 40,000 jump certified soldiers in our military. We don’t have that kind of airlift capability. And, we could not supply those soldiers once we dump them in. Again, Afghanistan is land locked. And, what if Osama traipses off into Iran, Iraq, or Sudan. Then we get into that abstraction thing again… Maybe send in a crack team of suicide Seal Team guys to assassinate him. Heard that brilliant idea before…
So we have a blocking force dead center in the Crescent of Terror. We can move left, we can move right, and we can move to the south. Guess what, when we coerce the UN into sanctioning Iran over their nuclear duplicity the sanctions will hold. There won’t be any oil going through borders defended by Marines and soldiers whose leadership remembers the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Just turn that tanker around buddy – I remember you from way back…
Mary,
Good to see you active again...
Think about my question...
Why do active duty and retired military vote Republican by huge margins if they want Democratic strategies and priorities?
By a 70% - 75% margin.
That is not rounding error or statistical noise.
Why?
Geez, give Murtha a break. It's just what you'd expect from the owner of the Johnstown Car Wash -- soap suds and hot wax.
Mark,
We lost an average of 300 military personnel a day in World War II.
Your 1000 kia's per day is a staw man - even though you caveated it.
So, let us use the WWII number (even though we know the Germans had better tactics and weapons in WWII than our current adversaries). We would then instigate Total War. It may come to that anyway. Hope not. That is one solid reason for strong action early in the heart of the Crescent of Terror.
These bubbas are after us, we didn't chase them down. To get to 300 per day there would have to be a lot of civilian involvement. Like German and Japanese munitions and armaments manufacturing. Thus carpet bombing cities would be acceptable - eh...
Sitting around, wailing about the Hitler breaking League of Nation and armistice agreements in the 1930s’ did not save a single life. Had France stopped the aggression on the Rhine we may not have had to fight a total war with Germany or ally with the Soviet Union.
Dithering for a few years limited our options.
We then had exactly one option...
"If I fail to say "we" referring to Democrats, it's because they have excluded people like me."
Excluded? Seems there's a lot of that going around lately, though the Dems are not the party that first comes to mind... (Next thing you'll tell us you're being harassed just because you're a woman.)
Now if I was of a different ilk, I might just accuse you of a bit of flip-flopping here. It's not the lack of the use "we". It's the continual partisan pandering here and inability to place any responsibility with the administration currently in power. You're just not credible as a non-partisan.
"This is a mistake they seem to love to make, since they did it with the presidential nomination last time."
"Why do active duty and retired military vote Republican by huge margins if they want Democratic strategies and priorities?"
Words in my mouth again...
I said nothing about how anyone votes. (Though to answer your question, follow the money.)
I said there were legitimate criticisms and advice from active military leaders that were ignored by the administration, who believed they "knew better." In retrospect, much of this criticism about logistics and strategy might have proved helpful had these true military leaders been listened to.
(You are still talking about winning elections, not wars, btw)
1. Eight long years went into the international pressure routine. I don't remember any victories. I do remember many terror strikes.
Please prove the statement:
“Overall, the Iraq debacle strengthened Islamic radicals in all neighboring countries, primarily Iran.”
Especially regarding Iran. If anything, Iran is moving a bit slower on the terror front than before. Maybe we have a few Farsi speaking spies - with a border sharing nation available for recruitment. Now, we can send assets into Iran using the full border. I'm certain Iran's Mullahs are thouroughly enjoying our presence and our radio and television signals.
2. Again, how many troops would you air drop into Afghanistan in October 2001? We probably shot our wad – to use an impolite French term. There simply are not that many jump certified Marines and soldiers available. Plus, those jumpers are not heavily armed. Not a good plan. Rumsfeld’s plan was the best available. And, we ran the Taliban out of power. Now, they have to run and hide. And, they take awesome losses when they meet us in dark alleys.
3. The UN sanctions against Iraq were about to be lifted in 2003. They were no longer supported by France, Russia, China, or Germany. Once the sanctions were lifted oil wealth would flow into Saddam’s coffers. What was he going to do with it – build baby milk factories. The coalition was done. It was bribed. And oil is thicker than blood for the French.
And, without UN sanctions we would not be able to enforce the No-Fly zones...
Mary,
I was just asking why millions of people with military experience voted for George Bush - and tend to vote strongly Republican. You trot out tens of people who made their names in the anti-war crowd or the Carter Administration or the Clinton Administration. Those folks are deviations from the norm. That really makes most of your Murtha arguments straw men. There aren't many Murtha's out there. He is a deviant from the norm.
By the way, follow what money. How is the guy who served his four years in the Army but now works at Dell Computers gaining by voting Republican - obviously supporting the Military Industrial Complex or something...
Finally,
Can we just be allowed to win in the theaters of conflict known as Iraq and Afghanistan before we study everybodies criticisms and advice.
Then we can all jump on the poor sod that had to make decisions with partial information, in a time of war, and with short time horizons.
By the way, everybody 'knows' better. And the chow hall food sucks. And it sucks to have duty. And the admin pukes screwed up my pay again. And...
I think Murtha is positioning himself as a peacemaker or dealmaker in November, when he expects Bush to draw down the troops anyways for election purposes. He hopes that it will look like his 'passionate" diatribe made the big meanie president do it. I think he's a little unbalanced, to say the least. Change direction like in Somalia and Beirut? You mean turn around and run away?
Rove will eat him for breakfast.
"They oppose it because Bush is the leader."
Mary: "Did it ever cross your God-loving mind that people object to the way this thing is playing itself out?"
In a word? No. Because they were objecting before it ever had a chance to play out. Those in opposition have been in opposition almost from day one. (If not sooner.)
Back to Murtha.
He is a fool...
And a fool is forever...
I cannot find any respectable person knowledgeable in military logistics or tactics that:
1. Prefers striking a target from thousands of miles away. Talking ten hours of travel. Tens of times refueling. Against a target that moves every 12 hours. I absolutely guarantee that anyone wearing a uniform would rather call in a quick strike by a plane supplied a few miles away. With boots on the ground lighting up the correct house – not forcing the pilot to guess at the proper target. Murtha’s flat earth society logistics and tactics would make the Iranian Hostage Rescue attempt seem the epitome of brilliance in comparison.
2. Prefers giving up hard earned grown, local intelligence, and nearby assets. Maybe Murtha is remembering the wondrous days of taking a hill and giving it back. Great strategy. Maybe Bush should get some Whiz Kids at the White House to set up the logistics, tactics, and targets. Maybe even the UN!!!
Sorry to say this, but…
Murtha sounds like a fool because he is a fool.
" You trot out tens of people who made their names in the anti-war crowd or the Carter Administration or the Clinton Administration. "
Words in my mouth...
In fact, I didn't name any names.
It's not just hippies, cowards and Dems who refused to blindly cheerlead though and were ignored:
Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni
Sec. of State Colin Powell
Hell, even Tom Clancy(!) back in 2004; maybe you'll feel better hearing it from him, as he's an eloquent writer and all:
---------
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a “casus belli,” or suitable provocation.
“It troubles me greatly to say that, because I’ve met President Bush,” Clancy said. “He’s a good guy. ... I think he’s well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes.”
While the 57-year-old Clancy is tall and thin, with bony arms and round, sunken eyes, the 60-year-old Zinni has the short, stocky build of an ex-Marine. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-2003.
But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price.
“He’s a bad guy. He’s a terrible guy and he should go,” Zinni said. “But I don’t think it’s worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded — some of them terribly — $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered.”
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he “almost came to blows” with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
“He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops,” Clancy said. “And I said, ‘Look ..., he’s supposed to think that way!’ And Perle didn’t agree with me on that. People like that worry me.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053682
I'm a stoopid NeoCon.
Back in the 80's and 90's I voted pretty much Democratic. Actually, voted for Jesse Jackson in 88...
But the Democratic Party thinks I am a right wing wingnut. They must not have studied the definition of NeoCon. If they did than they would realize they have a chance with me. But, I am slowly edging rightward on the dial as the world doesn't end, the poor don't die on my doorstep, my retirement isn't appropriated by the government, and that I can now save money for purchases that used to go into taxes for well intentioned governemnt run programs. Please, help me!!!
Here is an idea for Mary and Mark.
Stop arguing about decisions made years ago. Start thinking about defining and building the structures for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Soon even the Palestinians will be on board. So the time will soon be ripe for a 'Secretary of Peace' or something.
Do you want to give Bush and the Republicans that feather too.
Mary: "In retrospect, much of this criticism about logistics and strategy might have proved helpful had these true military leaders been listened to."
This is beautiful.
Don't you even see it?
What a clever way to arrange to ignore any military opinion that you don't like.
Mary,
Are you actually stating anything...
Anything at all...
You challenge posts, but then claim you said nothing when challenged...
Misread you...
Sorry.
I'll go on the record though!!!
Who cares about Clancy's opinion?
Powell's opinion has weight.
I thought Zinni was a goober when he was CENTCOM. Lots of generals were promoted during the Clinton era that I really didn't respect all that much. Don't know what Zinni ever really did. He ran around the Middle East setting up Peace Accords that failed miserably. Clinking soda glasses with Arafat is a memory...
You can bring up the other seven generals in your next post.
Mary, there are hundreds of active duty generals and admirals in the armed forces. There are in excess of 7,000 retired generals and admirals. Find me 1% who will go on the record like Zinni. You can find eight – all you need is seventy more! But, (whispering) if they speak truth to power maybe their pensions will be transferred to Halliburton, eh…
kcom: "One of the reasons we used a smaller force was to avoid making the same mistakes the Soviets made."
Among many reasons.
What people (willfully?) miss in large force/small force conversation is that the question of a larger force with it's advantages and disadvantages, vs. a smaller force with it's advantages and disadvantages is a question for war college students to spend several decades hashing out.
Not that we ordinary sods can't have valid and informed opinions or fun discussions about it... I'm not claiming that no one not professionally studying war can have a valid opinion, only that the issue is one that really is that involved and that complicated.
Which means that anyone who claims that some other plan is *obviously* better than the plans implemented has revealed themselves to be an idiot and a tool.
There's nothing obvious about it. Either plan has and always had known strengths and weaknesses. And there was no perfect world to implement them in even if there had been a plan that was correct in all respects. Add this to the military truism that no plan survives contact with the enemy (they get a vote too) and no one with half a clue expects perfection.
Saying "hey, look at this... this would have never happened had Bush listened to the *true* military leaders" just because one plan's strengths are the other plan's weaknesses... well, duh. It works the *other* way around *too*.
Krugman's timely, once again. This morning's lede:
"In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It's clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats' patriotism."
----
boghie:
Is this a pissing match for you? Feel free to "win". Celebrate even.
"Here is an idea for Mary and Mark.
Stop arguing about decisions made years ago. Start thinking about defining and building the structures for a lasting peace in the Middle East."
Point is, I don't think it's America's job to "define and build". It might be our job to "assist" allies in building their own societies, and definitely "rebuild" infrastructure, but the people in those countries have to do the defining, and the heavy lifting, themselves.
Here's some advice for you, now:
Stop trying to smear everyone who isn't in lockstep. Realize that "your side" needs to work for unity for the good of the country, which includes listening to honest critiques of your performance. Convince us that you have a plan, and then demonstrate to us that everything is working according to plan. And in the future, please look before you leap.
"There is no way to reconcile cutting and running - on the cusp of success - with victory"
Joe makes a fine point. We're constantly hearing from the left that the president has no plan. All right, Murtha. Offer us a plan and tell us why it will work.
They won't, of course, because if they did it would immediately come under attack. It's much harder to formulate a 'plan' and defend it than to rail against someone else's plan (or lack of same).
The assumption on the left is that the public is stupid enough not to know this. But everyone has encountered situations like this in office, church, or family politics.The strategically safest thing for Joe Public to do, in most cases, is to acknowledge the doubts of the loudmouth. And that's what we see in Bush's lousy polls.
But – surprise! – at the same time, the majority does not REALLY want to put the loudmouth in charge. And usually, they don't. This, of course, is perplexing as hell to the loudmouth, who rationalizes by considering this majority a bunch of idiots. As you might expect, said attitude doesn't help his chances, either.
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic or crass, but Murtha's... "replies" seemed very disjointed and non-sequitor... Is there a possibility that he is experiencing the first signs of senility?
If "cut and run" is an offensive phrase implying cowardice, substitute "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
Murtha's sorties from a distance takes the butter out of the guns and butter strategy. Very un-Democratic to oppose the building of schools and hospitals, providing medical service, establishing infrastructure, etc. He wants to carpet bomb the people a la WW2 and not win their hearts and minds. Now that we have the technology, it is not morally acceptable to carpet bomb innocent civilians.
I'm a Democrat and I'm very disappointed with my party, and keep electing the Other Guys to national office because my guys don't have a clue!
just watched it... shoo, that was painful.
Murtha was always respected in Pennsylvania, but after hearing a couple long clips of his continuous rambling on Drudge's radio program, it makes me wonder.
Was he merely nervous, or was he hypomanic?
I think that Murtha's incoherence is tactical cover for how bad the substance was.
Murtha:
1. There’s not one project been done in Anbar Province. (google anbar province reconstruction for refutation)
2. They have no water at all. (Laughable hyperbole or they'd be dead by now)
3. The first six months we went in there, no—there—not a shot was fired. (Just not true, more hyperbole)
4. We know how important, international community. But we’re doing it all ourself... (Flat out insulting to both the legitimate, indigenous, Iraqi government and our coalition partners)
5. What happened with Zarqawi could have been done from the out—it was done from the outside. (The intelligence exploitation that netted so many follow on raids could not have been done from outside and the number of false strikes would have ballooned)
6. They’ve become the targets, they’re caught in the civil war, and I feel very strongly about it.(Manifestly, the Iraqi government forces and civilians have become the targets as our forces kill too many on the other side to have a sustained campaign against).
This is just a quick analysis of Murtha's substantive weaknesses in argument limited a priori to those from his first answer. It's an embarrassment of riches. The bad presentation covers a worse argument. I respect Murtha's service but have little respect for his current conduct. It has the effect of objectively endangering our national interest and the men and women currently in uniform. Murtha's prior heroism (and he was one) properly merits politeness while we say how badly he's failing in his current role as Congressman.
**Raise your hand if you're being paid to shill for this administration and are using this blog as a tool.**
I realize that Democrats deride claims of being a former Democrat, but maybe someone can clarify for me (voted for Clinton & Gore) one thing:
Other than being against the current administrations war effort, do they actually believe Murtha's advice on fighting terror? Is Somalia the Democrats blueprint for success in the Middle East?
Is Mary a Rovian plant, meant to discredit Democrats? Is Murtha?
Don't me honey, sugarcheeks. That reeks of disrespecting someone's opinion because of their gender.
No, dear, I'm expressing disrespect of your opinion because it's childish and silly. Being a cryptosoutherner, I tend to call all children "honey".
Wow syl, with all that military expertise on board, plus the presidency, control of both Congress and the House, and unlimited funding (when it can be accounted for), you Republicans sure have been having back luck, huh?
Mary, honestly, the problem with this whole argument is that you keep asserting, as if axiomatic, that Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures. They haven't. 2500 fatailities and just short of 2000 KIA in the Iraqi campaign is a nearly incomparable military success, and will be in military histories with Zama. We're a year or more ahead of the original turnover to the Japanese government, as we didn't write their constitution for them; Iraq's level of violence is high, but less than South Africa, which is just thuggery, not an active insurgency. Similarly in Afghanistan: we did in weeks with a few thousand special forces what the USSR couldn't do with millions over ten years. (Why? because we were actually doing something the Afghans wanted.)
If you're going to have any traction at all in this, youre going to need to start with a little more well-informed and nuanced position than "everythign is failing."
Sorry Ann, I have reasons to doubt you.
Mary, hon, that's called an "assertion". Ann offered "evidence" --- she linked to the video and offered you the chance to look for yourself.
**Raise your hand if you're being paid to shill for this administration and are using this blog as a tool.**
No, sweetie, that one isn't going to work either.
Ordinary soldiers fighting in a war have no more knowledge of the larger picture of a conflict than those not fighting. Yes, they may see the horrors of war close-up, but so what, that does not make them experts in global policy, nor does it make them experts in strategic military planning. Ike never saw combat in his life, yet he became a 5 star general.
Besides, "combat experience" does not necessarily lead to effective political leadership. Take President Daldier of France, a veteran of 4 years in the trenches, he became the great polticial appeaser to Hitler another experienced combat veteran.
Murtha's problem is that he cares too much for the average soldier. So much so that he doesn't want the soldiers to fight - he cares more about the soldiers than actually winning. At some point this gets ridiculous. The soldiers are there to fight for the people and the governemnt, the people and the government are not there to make sure the soldiers get good health care.
Political bravery and combat bravery are two different things. As I noted with Daldier above, one does not equal the other.
George Washington's greatest impact on history was not his bravery in combat during the French and Indian War, it was is political character in stepping down from power after the revolutionary wasr was over.
"But I'll never vote for another Democrat for as long as I live because of what they've done the past couple years. Never."
I feel the same way, and wrote the party and told them why. Doesn't matter. With earmarks and gerrymandered districts, their lives are okay. Why be saddled with actually governing?
(Murtha may be in trouble now, though. Irey for Congress )
I know the Democrats must think of Somalia as a great success story, since before the Iraq invasion, they said they wished for "a million Mogadishus," which, when you actually extrapolate the numbers, would have been very rough on the Iraqis.
What is somewhere between interesting and disconcerting is that the Administration has repeatedly said exactly what its plan is, and has pursued it fairly consistently. And yet, we have most of the MSM, a lot of the Democratic party, and a large number of the American People asking what the plan is. The answer to that is to just listen to the President, et al.
1. Install a representative government in Iraq.
2. Recruit and train up the Iraqi security forces and give them responsibility for their own security.
3. As #2 progresses, move American assets first to (a) a backup position, and then (b) withdraw them as #2 allows.
#1 is relatively complete. #2 has made significant strides, and #3 is moving along, with 3(a) showing significant progress, and 3(b) just starting.
It was really not a coincidence that Iraqi security forces arrived on the scene of Zarqawi's "safe house" first after it was bombed. They are much more on the front lines these days than our troops are.
But recruting and training up a quarter million+ Iraqi security forces did not, and could not, happen over night. It takes years, and that is what we have spent doing it - years. It is not complete, by any means, but the light at the end of the tunnel is visible now. There are now significant numbers of Iraqi units that now operate with minimal American backup, and a lot of the country is now under both de jure and de facto Iraqi government control.
That is what they want and that is what we want. The Iraqis know what it will take to get the Americans to leave. We have made it clear to them, if not the MSM, Murtha, etc., and that is that they can take care of their own security. That is a good part of why, IMHO, after terrorists bomb a recruiting line, the line will be just as long the next day. That is a big part of why they are willing to join the police and the military, despite repeated threats by terrorists.
One question I have had with so many Democrats now advocating some form of cut and run is whether this is mostly opportunistic posturing, given that the Administration is actually starting to do just that - not from a position of weakness though, but rather, from a position of strength, doing so because enough of their mission has been accomplished, that slightly fewer troops are necessary, and this is likely to accelerate a lot over the next year.
So, is the reason for all this renewed call to cut and run, really a preemptive strike against the Administration being vindicated about their Iraqi policy? And an attempt to portray the expected drawdown of forces through success, as a result of the actions of those advocating cutting and running?
Why aren't the mainstream media and the Democrats more visibly embarrassed when their talking points match those of the enemy? The enemy states in its own interoffice messages that America's presence is hurting the terrorists' efforts and recruiting, and their number one tactic is to get Reuters, NY Times and Newsweek to push stories of American "atrocities" and the failing war of GW Bush.
I'm still waiting for the upcoming video of Zwahiri lamenting the "culture of corruption" in the GOP.
You people are pathetic. You've already lost this one. You might as well move on to the next battle, which will probably be with Iran and North Korea, simultaneosly, with a two-day excursion to Syria and Somalia.
It's despicable to see those arguing with Mary engage in the sexist namecalling for fun. Ann, you despise that attitude on leftist blogs. Do you think it's fine here?
>**Raise your hand if you're being paid to shill for this administration and are using this blog as a tool.**
Raise your hand if you're being paid by George Soros to shill against this administration and this country and are using this blog as a tool.
On second thought, don't bother. You're probably doing it pro bono.
Mary is a troll, but a fairly soft-spoken one, and therefore not easily recognized. She's right about the sexist references, they are insulting. But, otherwise, stop feeding the troll.
Seneca, I think comparing the Iraq war to Zama is a little much.... Zama made Rome a world power. We are already a world power.
The best historical comparison for Iraq is the war that we should have fought in the 1930s, but didn't.
Jacques Off said What would Frank Lloyd Wright who said "form follows function" say about your worship of style and performance above content?
I try to not listen to such advice when it comes from a man who specialized in building un-live-able houses, and un-sit-able chairs. Not to mention too-short ceilings and cabinets. I suppose if the function was "architect's ego gratification" the form followed, but otherwise, Wright's form has to be taken with a grain of salt; beautiful, but not exactly utilitarian.
Mary said "In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right.
Wow. Pardon me while I suffocate under a tidal wave of irony for a second.
Joel Said Democrats new found reliance on prior military service, curiously lacking during the Clinton Administration, is irrelevant once the President actually takes office, because for better or worse the President is serving as Commander in chief.
Ahh, the Coulter meme. The reason Coulter is hated for saying this, is she’s right. Don’t question Mother Sheehan, Colonel Murtha, or the New Jersey Girls. They have double secret moral authority. (By that standard, I have triple secret moral authority, having been in 3 combat zones, including GWI. Respect mah autori-tay!)
Bruce,
I suspect we'll be under 100k in troop strength in country by 1 Oct. A Fiscal year date aligned with the election cycle.
I think we'll be at 40k (Division plus supports) by say 1 July 07.
I hope we have 10k of troops in Kuwait for the forseeable future after we pull out of Iraq, which I suspect will be in 2008.
However, since Donald hasn't made me a USD, my opinions don't constitute a timeline or plans for troop reductions. :)
It is cowards like John Murtha, Kennedy, and Kerry
Both Murtha and Kerry are decorated combat veterans. It takes some bit of courage (and good luck) to achieve that. I don't think they can be classified as cowards.
> Both Murtha and Kerry are decorated combat veterans.
And Benedict Arnold was a Revolutionary War Hero. A real one. But he was still a traitor.
I merely point out they are not cowards. Publicity hounds, perhaps. Political opportunitsts, maybe (what politician isn't?).
You disagree with their point(s) of view. That's fine. Calling them cowards does nothing to bolster your claim(s).
benedict Arnold was also the chief reason for our victory at the battle of Saratoga. Kerry and Murtha don't even belong on the same planet.
However, Murtha and Kerry are not traitors in the same way Arnold was. Kerry may be a leftist and Murtha may be a fool, but niether are traitors.
Personally, my favorite Murtha bit is the Clinton-like almost acceptance of a bribe in an FBI sting.
Unindicted co-conspirator; video of FBI sting shows Murtha saying "I'm not interested in taking [the classic Abscam bribe] at this time."
The ethics committee voted no action, and the lead counsel resigned in protest.
The new Republic - http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060626&s=crowley062606
Or look at the paper copy - it just gets better.
I haven't called them cowards, and frankly I don't care about their own personal moral failings. I do care that they are traitors who would sooner see Americans murdered by the thousand than to see George W. Bush's policies bear fruit.
It's not that they are cowards. It's that they have no principles. They are cynical, hypocritical narcissists. They defend terrorists with the same level of seriousness as defending a bike lane. On every issue, they only see the Potemkin facade of a potential bumper sticker.
And yes, they do hate this country. They will immediately scream "how dare you question my patriotism," but they bad-mouth America and its history at every opportunity.
However, just to answer your assertion, having been in the military does not in any way prove, one way or another, that you are not a coward.
Interesting, the complaint about sexism over the sarcastic, condescending use of "endearment" words.
Never, ever done that yourself, eh, Mary?
Think carefully before answering ... .
I think the statement that they hate this country goes too far. Maybe they disagree with the current direction of things (Who doesn't about some things? Are you happy with the growth of the size of government and the explosion in debt under the current administration? I'm not) -- but I don't see hatred coming into it at all. You apparently do, however.
Both Murtha and Kerry did a little more than just be in the military. IMO, decorate war veterans, a group that includes these two, were and are courageous. I don't believe you lose courage once you have it.
What is all this about Bush not having a plan for Iraq. He does have a plan. The plan is to build up the government of Iraq and its armed forces so that it can succeed in defeating the insurgency and become a stable democracy. This is the strategic plan that Bush has outlined over and over again, and then people like Murtha cry that there is no plan or like Reid and Pelosi, they repeat Bush's plan and then say Bush has no plan.
If you look at April, 2003 when Sadadm was toppled, to today. There has been an over all progression to achieving the goal of this strategic plan.
Under Bush's plan, troop withdrawl is a byproduct of success of the plan. If you decide on troop withdrawl as the plan, then whether Iraq becomes a stable democracy is meaningless as long as the troops are withdrawn.
Madisonman, I think you can be courageous on the bettlefield, but a political coward. Kerry is a typical political coward, which is evident by his consistent changing of positions.
Hillary, on the other hand, has recently shown some guts in standing up to the money people on the left. (she would still be a disaster for the country, however).
It appears that his idea to redeploy to Okinawa is really not all that viable. For one, we are currently working with the Japanese govt. to redeploy assets from Okinawa to Guam.
Just as importantly though, it is approximately 4900 air miles from there to Iraq, much of it over countries such as China and Iran which may not be happy with us flying over them. It is approximately 6600 miles if we don't fly over those two countries, but limit ourselves to flying over "allies" such as India and Thailand. But it is only 5500 miles from Baghdad to Maine (US), and that only requires a couple of minutes over Syria, with the rest over NATO countries and water.
I guess we probably should figure out how many miles from Guam to Baghdad, as that is more reasonable, given the situation with Japan, than Okinowa, but it already is shorter to just bring the troops home.
Yes, nobody is allowed to vote unless they have come up, independently, with their own plan for stabilizing Iraq.
My, how disingenuous.
So, sunshine, what's your clever plan we've all been waiting for while Bush has created TWO new democratic nations out of two of the worst dictatorships in the world?
I'm sure it will work. Now that the job is pretty much finished.
Seems to me there's a huge difference between "not very bright" and "moron."
Disingenuous? Moi?
Ann wrote:
I'm sure Rove enjoyed that pathetic performance.
I believe the phrase is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. :) I don't think it takes a strategic Brainiac to figure out that just chanting 'Republicans are mean doody heads who will rape your kitten' won't take back control of Congress. I know this is going to angry up some of the left-wing commentators, but Professor Althouse isn't standing for Congress and presenting a platform to the electorate. The Democrats are - and good luck finding a plank that isn't changing faster than a nympho's knickers at Spring Break.
1. I don't think it's helpful to call various politicos "cowards." Frankly, I think it takes a lot of nerve to go around saying things that encourage the enemy.
2. I think it's ridiculous that anyone is interested in my ideas of how to win the war. I haven't studied military strategy. I don't have any ideas of my own about how to do brain surgery either. I have to defer to experts.
3. I didn't put the point about Murtha's intelligence in the the original post, and I don't like to have to say it. I brought it up in the comments when I was pushed. I think it's a real shame that the Democrats have decided to push this man forward. Watching that interview, I thought it was quite obvious that he could not carry the weight that they've put on him. It was not a pretty sight. I feel sorry for him, but I think he's a pawn, being used because of his military service and the tiresome notion that he is beyond criticism because of it.
Craig, I don't think the Democrats have to run for anything. They can run against the status quo in Washington. A nice series of images...George Bush reading My Little Goat, Mission Accomplished, Bring 'em on, You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie, the explosion of the National Debt, the gross expansion in Federal power and the bloating size of the Federal Government, DeLay indicted, Scooter indicted, what's-his-name from San Diego convicted, $320+ billion spent in Iraq -- compared to pre-War laughably bad guesstimates....
And then the words Had Enough? I think it would be very effective.
The Iraq War war points Murtha scatter shot are serious, life and death matters not to be evaluated like an evaluation of a debating society. So you didn't care for his manner or his organizational skills - you were witnessing a Profile in Courage.
To respond to Patrick H.- Apparently the Bush DHS is stupid enough to inform the terrorists. Didn't they devise a color-coded system which let the terrorists know when we were really, really worried and had our full staffs working ?
If I were the one pulling troops out, I would see no problem leaving out a particular timetable.
The "ideas about Iraq" that I have are certainly not a military plan. They are things like this:
1. We need to win.
2. Bush is currently President and charged with the responsibility to handle the situation.
3. He is making decisions relying on expert advisors.
4. Supporting what we are doing in Iraq under Bush's leadership helps the effort.
5. Encouraging the enemy to think we'll give up is very harmful.
6. People who are running for office and looking for traction ought to be viewed with great skepticism.
I voted for Bush as the lesser of 2 evils. I for one would be willing to vote for a Democrat I trusted on National Security. However, the only one I trust, won't either be a Democrat or elected fairly soon (Lieberman). Until Democrats convince me and many others like me that they have a spine, are willing to take actions based on principle and conviction, then stick to it in the face of adversity, they won't win elections.
We're in a war, GWOT, and if you are a Democrat, you seem to be saying we're in a different war in Iraq that doesn't impact our fight against terror except negatively.
Being against Bush and the GOP will get you points in polls, but in the absence of a plan on both that doesn't result in the collapse in our credibility around the world, you won't win elections. Murtha was out of his league and hurt the Democrats as their spokesman on Iraq. If he continues in that role, I expect the GOP will pick up net seats in 06. He'll be shreaded by GOP surrogates like McCain. McCain will do it without calling him a coward, but will lay out the gutlessness of the position for soccer moms to see.
McCain said it well as the war started, which he didn't favor ATT. "We're in it, we've got to win it!"
Madison Man wrote:
Craig, I don't think the Democrats have to run for anything. They can run against the status quo in Washington.
With all due respect, if the Democrats really think they're going to take back Congress without standing FOR something they're doomed. All the attitudnal polling I've seen strongly suggests that a good chunk of the electorate don't see the Democrats as "against" the status quo, but a huge part of the problem of politics as usual. As I heard one pollster put it on the PBS News Hour recently, the Democrats only solid advantage is they're marginally less distrusted than the GOP! Again, it's easy in politics to say what you're against. The challenge for the Democrats is going to be presenting a coherent, consistent and principled statement of what the party stands for.
MadisonMan,
The Dems have lost consistently on that platform! The only dem to win in the last 20 years was the guy who ran on fixing the economy after Bush the Elder reneged on his no new taxes pledge.
Building on what Craig said, there are a lot of alternatives to the status quo. Most of the alternatives in any scenario are worse that what the GOP is doing now. The Dems have to have the courage of their convictions to pick alternatives on various topics and explain to the people why what they propose is better than status quo. That will win them votes. However, the chance of them doing that with their rapid left biting at ankles is slim at best.
You don't have to be an expert to understand the grand strategy in Iraq. The details may be complex but the grand strategy is simple - establish a legitimate government and a capable Iraqi police force and army and stay in Iraq until this mission is complete.
Unlike Vietnam, there is no capable enemy posing any strategic threat. There is no superpower on the other side that can do us real harm or seriously set back this goal. Thus, all we need is time. The major difficulty in Iraq is not the insurgency or Al Qaeda, it is American public opinion, which ultimately translates into Congressional support. If we pull out to early, the war will be lost and we will get Hitler and another war. If we stay long enough to make sure the Iraqi government can stand up (as we did with Germany and Japan) we are victorious.
Bush still has this majority, and will have it for the next few years despite the loony left. However, we cannot be sure that the next President will have the same political courage as Bush. We need to win this war by 2009.
The current war is being fought today because the settlement to the 1991 war was a failure. Lets make sure we win now so we dont have to fight gulf war III.
Madison Man, I really, really, really hope the Democrat leadership in Washington is really entranced by your idea, and runs with it. I hope they dump every single last dollar they raise into that ad campaign; I hope they buy as much airtime as they can afford in Red and Blue states alike; I hope they run on that until two year olds utter it as their first words.
Then those of us who want to win the war will crush the ever-so-pathetic Democrats in November and, once we've relegated the seditious Copperheads to extreme minority status, we can get on with winning the war without the terrorist-supporting carping at which your side is so competent.
Ann, you seem to have a moonbat problem on this blog. Too many commenters confuse perjoratives with arguments.
Which President Bush's opponents have done for six years.
Which is why they keep losing.
Few of the anti-Bush commenters on this blog are any more able to articulate a case against the war or the President's leadership than Murtha is.
Why am I not surprised?
Andrew: I registered in Wisconsin 1984 and believe I registered to a party at that time, but I could be wrong. I've registered over the years in three other states, originally in New Jersey in 1972. I could be wrong about whether I had to provide a party identification in each of those states. In any event, there is no question that I would have chosen Democrat.
The only people the democrats have to convince that they offer a change -- without actually offering one -- are the independent voters who feel queasy about the goings-on in DC. Repeat ad nauseum Had Enough?
That probably won't sway some writers here at althouse who think things in DC are going just swimmingly right now, thank you very much.
One thing every democrat should also say: "If I am elected, I will work with President Bush to balance the budget so your children do not have suffer for our lack of fiscal restraint". How could a republican counter that? By pointing to the (cough) wonderful fiscal stewardship under the current administration?
Y.g. your totally wrong. Bush's plan has always been the same; i.e. that we will stay there until the Iraqi government is able to fend for itself. Althouse is arguing that she supports this plan (at lease at the current cost structure) and will leave it up to the experts (Bush and the Pentagon) as to when this plan is complete so we can pull out of Iraq.
In contrast, Kerry's position was all over the place. You never really knew what to expect because he would not really commit to anything. Today, the Democrats do not want to leave when-to-pull-out to the experts, instead the Democrats want to tell the experts when to pull out. Instead of General Casey, we have General Murtha and General Levin and General Kerry, and General Pelosi, etc.... These are not experts, they are politicians who read polls.
I'd also like to note in passing that Russert's Meet the Press deserves an Emmy for the most pompously martial theme music of all time.
leave it up to the experts (Bush and the Pentagon) as to when this plan is complete so we can pull out of Iraq.
Hasn't Bush also stated that he thinks a subsequent President will control the withdrawal from Iraq? As in we'll be there at least 2+ more years?
"......Hasn't Bush also stated that he thinks a subsequent President will control the withdrawal from Iraq? As in we'll be there at least 2+ more years?..."
I think that is right. It is possible that the next President may decide these things. I would support a small presence in Iraq for the next 50 years, if that is possible. However, I would hope that the fighting will end in the next few years. The next President will decide this future.
Bush's first six years of reckless spending guarantees that a tax raise is inevitable. How I long for the prudent fiscal policies of Clinton.
But I could be wrong -- I thought Doyle would have to raise taxes too, to clean up after the reckless spending of Thompson and McCallum, fueled by bloating the size of the government, and that didn't happen.
I guess I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to fiscal policy.
MadisonMan,
You can't always count on the economy being bad enough long enough to help a Democrat. Tax cuts and jillions of new (illegal) consumers seem to reducing the Bush deficit earlier than expected.
deficit reduction progress
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा