+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 38
November 17th, 2005, 11:40 PM #1
Murtha: 'U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can'
U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has been in Congress for 31 years. "It's time for a change in direction."
Murtha warned that other global threats "cannot be ignored."
Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, said he believes all the forces could be redeployed over a six-month period
Murtha took issue with the administration's counter-criticism.
"I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done."
Cheney avoided military service in the 1960s with a series of draft deferments, and Bush served stateside in the National Guard during Vietnamhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
November 18th, 2005, 12:44 AM #2
Big deal. A democrat against the war.
Did he have anything to say about Bill Clinton in Bahrain (~ 200 miles from where Murtha's Marines" are getting shot at) calling the war a mistake!
Yup. A past US president in a foreign country practacally within earshot of the battle telling the Arab world our troops are dying for a mistake. Bubba ought to be shot.
Osama is right. We will fold. At least we will if the democrats get in power again, and Osama & Co will nuke us back into reality.
BTW:I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there
Last edited by Chuckiechan; November 18th, 2005 at 12:47 AM."The barbarians are here and there are no gates!"
November 18th, 2005, 12:59 AM #3
Enough with your stale, conservative rhetoric.
Originally Posted by Chuckiechan
November 18th, 2005, 02:24 AM #4
Brandon, the Democrats haven't been in power since 911.
BTW:Enough with your stale, conservative rhetoric.
Last edited by Chuckiechan; November 18th, 2005 at 02:38 AM."The barbarians are here and there are no gates!"
November 18th, 2005, 02:37 AM #5
The democrats were in power on 9/11? Is that why the Republicans organized the catastrophic events that occurred that day?
Republicans support terror.
November 18th, 2005, 02:39 AM #6
Did JP hyjack your handle?
"The barbarians are here and there are no gates!"
November 18th, 2005, 02:40 AM #7
I'm being facetious because I'm not in the mood to argue with you tonight. I don't think your diet has enough cocoa in it.
November 18th, 2005, 02:55 AM #8
I think I see a trend here. Back when the Iraqis were going to vote to select their representatives, the democrats were all crying that it will never work and we need to get our troops out. Then after the Iraqis wrote their outline for the new constitution and were to vote for it's ratification, the democrats once again wailed that we need to get our troops out and that it would never be ratified. Now it's coming up on December, and another historical vote to make for a permanent Iraqi government. Once again, all the liberals are crawling out from under thier rocks to bash the President and demand that the troops come home. Hmm...
November 18th, 2005, 03:11 AM #9
I wish the Republicans would just crawl back into their toilets and stop with the hate.
Republicans support terror.
November 18th, 2005, 03:26 AM #10
Originally Posted by brandon184
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Uh, Central Oregon
- Blog Entries
Democrats support cowardise!
Last edited by sharder8; November 18th, 2005 at 03:28 AM.
November 18th, 2005, 03:27 AM #11
That didn't even make any sense, silly man.
You're a silly, SILLY man, Harder with an 'S'! You're SILLY!
November 18th, 2005, 08:41 AM #12
Some of you Neo-Con followers crack me up!
This was one Congressman's opinion. Many other Democrats, while they hold his military expertise and experience in high regard, disagree with him. At least they do so without slinging mud at him, as some of you here have.
From yesterday's Hardball (emphasis added) --MATTHEWS: You've got a tough headline here in a piece you wrote for The New York Post today. And I know you don't write headlines, but here it is. Aiding and abetting, you talked about how the people in the United States Senate, most of them Republicans in your party, by the way, this past week, pushed a resolution through.
A non-binding resolution that basically said, let's have a big transition next year.
The message was, as you noted, Senate presses for concrete steps toward withdrawal of troops out of Iraq. The message was, we're getting out. Is that aiding and abetting, even though the Republican party supported that?
MCCAIN: Absolutely not. Nor do I ever questions anyone's motives who disagrees with policies on the war.
One of our most cherished rights is to disagree with the policies of our government. I respect, enormously, the views of other people, or at least their ability to voice their objections ...
MATTHEWS: ... so you don't like this headline, aiding and abetting?
MCCAIN: I think it's outrageous.
November 18th, 2005, 08:46 AM #13Originally Posted by Chuckiechan
November 18th, 2005, 08:50 AM #14But the talk of Washington was Jack Murtha, 73, a blunt former Marine drill instructor who served a combat tour in Vietnam and retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve after 37 years of service.
The ranking Democrat on the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his work on military issues over three decades in Congress. "When he talks, I listen," said Representative John M. McHugh, a New York Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
In recent months, though, Mr. Murtha has voiced concerns raised by constituents and from his own conversations with troops and commanders about problems like shortages of body armor and other equipment. His district in southwestern Pennsylvania has lost 13 service members in Iraq. Aides said Mr. Murtha had mulled over his proposal for weeks and decided to announce it before lawmakers left this weekend for the Thanksgiving Day recess. He presented his proposal to a closed meeting of House Democrats, who gave him a standing ovation. Mr. Murtha then held a news conference, where, fighting back tears, he said it was Congress's moral duty to intervene on behalf of the troops.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," said Mr. Murtha, who visited Iraq in late August. "We have become a catalyst for the violence."
If approved by the House and Senate, Mr. Murtha's resolution would force the president to withdraw United States troops "at the earliest practicable date," which he said could be six months. Under his plan, the Pentagon would retain a quick-reaction force in the region, as well as marines within a few sailing days.
When asked about Mr. Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Murtha replied sarcastically: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
November 18th, 2005, 09:36 AM #15Originally Posted by Chuckiechan
Being critical of the war is not a leftist position, as some would like to portray it. In a recent Newsweek poll, 65% disapproved (30% approved) of the way GWB is handling the war in Iraq.
In this poll 63% disapproved, when asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
Congressman John Murtha is voicing a mainstream view.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 18th, 2005, 10:21 AM #16
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
from your poll MTA
We see that most people wish to remain longer with only 20% wanting to withdraw now.
They do not address the reason for not agreeing with Bush's handling of the war. this leaves open a whole can of worms. Should the troops be more aggressive and troops strength increased? Should we leave now? Should we use nukes? should we torture more?
I disagree with the way Bush was handling the war myself. I think we should have gotten more aggressive in the beginning and slowly rolled out the velvet glove Bush did it 180 degrees out of phase with what I think was the right way to do it. i also feel that bush should have used more troops taken from S Korea and Germany. I think if a bullet flys from a mosque a 2000lb bomb should return (and then a blistering campaign of news should indicate to the iraqis that if you shoot from your holy structures you risk having your holy structure destroyed. That would be the first 1.5 to 2 years of the campaign.
November 18th, 2005, 10:35 AM #17
52% either want to withdraw now or within 12 months. Even I don't favor withdrawing tommorrow, I think troop withdrawl should be planned (like the invasion should have been.)Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
November 18th, 2005, 10:46 AM #18
I think a timetable for withdrawal should be announced. If, as many have stated, this only causes terrorists to lay low until we're gone, all the better. That idle period would enable us and the Iraqis to get their security forces in better shape.
We should be focused much more on Iraqi troop readiness. We should be taking Iraqi troops and recruits out of country if necessary for this. They could rotate in and out of Iraq for various training cycles, depending on their specialty.
November 18th, 2005, 10:50 AM #19
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
Actually I believe a withdrawl announcement would actually step up the violence at least as the date drew closer. In an attempt to show that they chased us out. These are political savy terrorists. If they can chase us out they win big time.
November 18th, 2005, 11:03 AM #20
None of us can predict with certainty, but I think setting a date will calm anyone fighting because they think America is trying to conquer their country.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By pphalan in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 05:39 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 102Last Post: January 25th, 2005, 02:31 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 35Last Post: November 18th, 2003, 03:19 PM
By shahani in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 11Last Post: June 26th, 2003, 02:26 PM
By Cruez in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 9Last Post: March 28th, 2003, 04:23 PM