Murtha's Plan for Defeat

[Chuckiechan]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...0826-7089r.htm

The Democrats won't stand up and to defund the troops, they will just micro manage in such a way that they remove the military's wheels, one at a time.

I wonder if Ted Kennedy's "heir apparent" can pull it off?

[MTAtech]

In the wake of September 11, McGovernism -- that is, the reflexive opposition to the use of force by the United States against foreign enemies that has dogged the Democratic Party since Richard Nixon's time.

I don't have to read beyond the opening paragraph to note that this paper distorts the Democratic position. As Sen. Obama stated the other day, “I’m [we’re] not against all wars – just dumb ones.”

But instead of participating in an honest debate of the Iraq debacle, the Republicans want to continue along with the same failed policy that hasn’t worked in the passed and paint anyone that challenges their point of view as either weak or, as House Minority Leader John Boehner, said the other day “terrorist sympathizers.”

Let us not forget that “McGovernism” is named after Sen. George McGovern who honorably defended America as a WWII bomber pilot – hardly someone opposed “to the use of force by the United States against foreign enemies.”

But you are being two-faced too, Chuck. A few days ago you were criticizing Democrats for pushing a non-binding resolution. ‘If they’re against the war, they should cut off funds, you urged.” Now that someone did propose that, you create a topic called ‘Murtha’s plan for defeat.’ To be honest, Murtha is not pushing a total cutoff of funds for the war in Iraq. But he is considering measure to limit the military actions Bush can take against Iran.

[Epidemic]

Where is the audio clip that catches murtha's underhanded pland to subvert the war.

I heard it on the radio yesterday but cant find transcript or the clip itself. Does anyone have it.


Basically it says that he is working on legislation that will hamstring the troops and in a cocky way he indicates that "they" wont be able to function.

[Chuckiechan]

A few days ago you were criticizing Democrats for pushing a non-binding resolution

Correct.

Now they are trying to use the back door to insure dysfunction and failure, and then blame it on Bush rather than stand up and have a honest vote to deny funding.

Typical.

[Epidemic]

I want the murtha sound bite. who has it. It sounded like boasting how he could gut the war effort with out actually even voting on it.

[RADAR1797]

Just click Listen.

[MTAtech]

Treasonous!

Murtha: I think the next step is a supplemental appropriation. And what we're looking at is making sure that the troops have the equipment they need, make sure they have the training they need, make sure they're home at least a year before they're redeployed.

[Chuckiechan]

Bull Crap. It's thinly veiled attempt to torpedo the soldiers by crippling their supply chain and manpower reserves.

Regarding the "Non-binding resolution": We pay these people to make decisions, not give opinions. That's what a "Non-binding resolution" is: An opinion.

Murtha is a white - flag waiving snake.

The overall motive behind the Democrats wanting to surrender is the fact that national security has always been the Republican's strong suit. If they can had the Republicans a defeat, by encouraging the effort in Iraq to collapse - complete with a humiliating withdrawal under fire, the Democrats will have won what they have always wanted: The removal of the "National Security" card from the Republican's deck of cards.

That is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet they won't "Vote the real vote" because even the MSM can't hide that!

[Disley]

Compared to Bush's plan for victory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm

The US invasion plan for Iraq envisaged that only 5,000 US troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, declassified Central Command documents show.

[MTAtech]

I'm really tired of this "Democrats want to surrender and aid the terrorists" right-wing lies, but that's the right-wing mind.

[TOAD6147]

Just for the record, let's be crystal clear who's plan for defeat is really in play here:

posted January 24, 2007 (web only)
Stop the Iran War Before It Starts

Scott Ritter

In April 2001 I was invited to Washington, DC, by a group of Republican Congressmen collectively known as the Theme Team. The subject was Iraq. It seems that the Theme Team, responsible for monitoring the ideological pulse of America, was somewhat perturbed that a self-described Republican and former Marine officer, not to mention a former UN weapons inspector, was trash-talking America's Iraq policy. While this sort of action might have been acceptable during the tenure of a Democratic President like Bill Clinton, it was not part of the grand design when it came to the presidency of George W. Bush.

The conference room was packed with more than seventy Representatives and their staffs. I provided an opening in which I stressed that the case being made against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, centered as it was on the issue of WMD, did not hold water. I chastised the Republican lawmakers with a warning: If they continued to support the policy of confronting Saddam's Iraq over a trumped-up charge, they would not only get America involved in a war it could not win but would end up destroying the credibility of the Republican Party, and turn control of the Congress, and eventually the Presidency, to the Democrats. There were questions asked, and answers given, and in the end most thanked me for what they called an "illuminating" meeting.

Then they proceeded to do nothing.

[Pro America]

I'm really tired of this "Democrats want to surrender and aid the terrorists" right-wing lies, but that's the right-wing mind.

Then why not change your minds and try to appear "American" and not looking like you're backing the wrong side? A friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[Pro America]

I listened to the whole clip of John "Murtha F--ka", and he is so full of it. It is very thinly-veiled, as Chuckiechan so concisely put it, and it is meant to deceive the listener into thinking he is FOR the troops. In fact, he is NOT for the troops: He says he wants them to be fully trained and fully equipped, and then he says he will just choke the funds necessary to make them so. What a snake! I hope he meets just one of these troops in a dark alley. It's so hard to believe he WAS a Marine. (That title has been stripped from that particular vermin called John Murtha.) I wouldn't spit on his carcass if his dead body were on fire.

[Pro America]

If our military could take control for one day and decide who should stay in these United States and who had to leave and go to some Communist country, there wouldn't be a single Democrap left. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

[MTAtech]

If our military could take control for one day and decide who should stay in these United States and who had to leave and go to some Communist country, there wouldn't be a single Democrap left. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

I see, so your in favor of military dictatorship. You couldn't have picked a more ironic user ID considering your fascist point of view.

[Disley]

The overall motive behind the Democrats wanting to surrender is the fact that national security has always been the Republican's strong suit.

I'd like to know, what the invasion of Iraq, had to do with the security of the USA.
Don't give me the moronic line, if we didn't fight Islamofascists in Iraq, we'd be fighting them in the States.
Only an idiot would believe that.

[mad1]

I'd like to know, what the invasion of Iraq, had to do with the security of the USA.
Don't give me the moronic line, if we didn't fight Islamofascists in Iraq, we'd be fighting them in the States.
Only an idiot would believe that.

Since 9/11 has there been a terrorists attack on American soil?

[Gomer]

Since 9/11 has there been a terrorists attack on American soil?

That is an excellent point! We were averaging what, 3-4 attacks a year on American soil before 9/11? Good thing we nipped that in the bud.

Anyway, not that it is entirely relevant, but the anthrax attacks occurred after 9/11.

[Pro America]

I'm sorry, MTA. I was trying to prove a point. I'll hold your hand next time and feed you like a small child.

No, I'm not in favor of a military dictatorship. That's why I love my freedom. I just think it would be nice if all of us supported the people out there putting it on the line for us rather than tearing them down. You kick the butt of someone trying to help you to keep your freedom that you won't stand up for but claim to love and cherish. I won't. I love our military and what they do for us.

[TOAD6147]

Please, let this guy go back to his fleas and bone. The more you try to reason with him, the more he shows his ass and I personally have seen enough!