Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Remember when I called him Rep Pelosi's "bitch" and some of you came out of your skins?
Newsweek is on your 'approved list" isn't it?
Well read this :
According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, the entire episode had been cooked up by Pelosi and her longtime Pennsylvania pal.
"[Pelosi] was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq - and was aware of [Murtha's] growing antagonism toward the war," he reported.
"The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq 'at the earliest practicable date.'"
The scheme, Fineman said, called for "Pelosi and the other liberals [to] keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, [Murtha] denounced the Iraq war as a 'flawed policy wrapped in an illusion.'"
After Murtha rolled out Act One of their plot, Pelosi played dumb - just as the plan called for.
Asked whether she backed his call for a withdrawal, she told reporters: "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself."
The Washington Post noted: "At her afternoon news conference, Pelosi was meticulous in avoiding any agreement with Murtha's 'very provocative' statement."
"But do you agree with the call for immediate withdrawal?" a reporter asked.
Pelosi replied: "As I said, that was Mr. Murtha's statement."
In fact, Pelosi and Murtha are close allies in the House - so much so that the Pennsylvania Democrat actually managed her campaign to become House Minority Leader.
And it looks like the two of them have been spinning their anti-war schemes for some time now.
When Murtha called the Iraq war "unwinnable" at a May 2004 press conference, Pelosi was standing by his side.
Moments before, she had introduced Murtha to reporters as "one of the most recognized experts on defense in the country."
Before he spoke, the San Francisco Democrat seemed to know exactly what Murtha was going to say, announcing that her defense expert would be delivering a "wake up call for the administration."
Comments
The guy deserves respect.
RESPECT.
How many years has it been since he and his ilk made Pres Bush sign the form????????
But as far as finding any fault with rep Murtha as a soldier I think you would be hard pressed.
I don't think the same could be said for his time in the House.
EVrybody knows that !!! I mean, EVERYBODY knows he was CHOSEN by God to lead this nation..................
sadly....
we've been punked by Yahweh......................
The US desperately needs people to act above the politics, to have their messages heard, without being filtered by political considerations.
Murtha, and I've read everything I can on the man, strikes me as a great American. His actions as a democrat in recent years have continued his commitment to America, to servicemen and women and to the needs of the forces.
Surely his preparedness to speak now, albeit controversially, warrants an impartial response. You don't have to believe or agree with him, but to attack him personally for speaking on an issue of great current importance ??
Ask yourself why.
Spin
Hell , at least I refer to him as Rep Murtha as that is his proper title.
No I think he and rep Pelosi have cooked this up and are now trying to time their actions to gain seats back thru this sort of action as opposed to offering a plan of their own.
Where is the Democrats timetable for withdrawl? Where is their detailed plan? They keep on calling for one to come from the White House - the White House delivered a 35 page version that was able to be released to the public but where is the Democrat plan? They can propose one anytime they want. A detailed one.
However, my main issue with the cut and run crowd - and without a detailed plan that is all you can call theiir idea - is that it emboldens the enemy. It demoralizes the troops - at least the ones I have spoken to.
The Democrats aren't in power, not in the WH or Congress. Why would they come out with a 'shadow policy?' Which by the way you would immediately decry as counterproductive, pointless, and probably treasonous.
Morale must surely be based on fighting a just war with effective leadership, necessary resources and training and a credible objective.
If all the killing of the bad guys is working, how come the attacks are increasing?
This is really about BIG REALITY vs the delusion of invincibility of hard power alone.
Develop your argument about the determination and objectives of the enemy! What is their next step. They are not fighting in Iraq because George is keeping them there. They choose for now to escalate that war because it serves their purpose. When they choose they will attack America again. Will America be ready at home and on all its fronts or will its army be decimated, depleted, exhausted and demoralised from failing in Iraq?
It's time to point to success or change the strategy.
Spin
When Bush finally issues his 2nd declaration of Victory, the troops will follow the same orders, pack up the same gear and return in the same ships and aircraft in about the same manner as proposed by those who see the benefit of reducing the Occupation as soon as possible.
Except there may be less of them still alive, less thanks for them overstaying, and a more hostile environment to leave.
The debate is about more than departure, it is about planning and executing operations designed to restore Iraqi control of their own country and America to a more fitiing role as leader in a civilised world, not as an occupier desparately bogged down in a war dictated by a brutal cancerous enemy.
Spin
1. The situ in Iraq had remained the same for over 20 years. We had no new intel and the rationale for entering into the war where all spin from neo con war mongers. I have read too much prior to that to change my mind. That info is now coming up.
2. I insisted that yes, SH is a bad guy and should eb removed. I always stated that we should state teh real reasons and not all the fake ones that where force fed to the US people and goblled up by the media and drooled over by the political poll whores who where afraid to stand up and show that they knew better but where afraid of the warth of the Rove Slander machine.
3. I WAS CONSTANTLY asking 'WHERE IS THE PLAN?" Everyone was worried about how bad the war would be going into Iraq. Everyone knew we could roll right up to wherever we wanted...it was going to be more of a logistcial supply problem.
4. everyone knew that is was going to be a relatively quick "win" and then a slog fest of creating a new nation and infrastructure that had been mutilated by SH over the years as he exectured the intelligensia at randam. In other words a compeltely different situ than in Afghanistan. As I commented to several marines back at the beginning when we where still building up to teh fever pitch of "let's get SH!" going in should not be the problem but after we are there "bring forth the body bags"
My hope then was that the politicians whom did not have the backbone to call the ROVE spin machine on the inconsitancies for fear of being called unamerican and treasonous would stick it out when the policitcal tides changed and not take polictical advantage of the newly changed poll data which would reflect a downturn in presidential approval rating s as the body bag count increased. I can't beliieve that no one in the WH thought about this!
My biggest issue was WHERE IS THE PLAN to rebuild? Bremer gave new meaning to FUBAR.
Now here is te situ from my take:
Murtha is honorable and acting in th best interests of the men on he ground. he has not asked for immediate withdrawal but a draw down, which, IMHO, may actaully playi into the long term desires of the WH to draw this down prior to elections so that they do not lose seats domestically but at the same tiem don't leave a power vacuum in the cluster fuck they created in Iraq.
Pelosi, the BCW that she is is saying on CNN that "geez, we could be there or 10 Years!" No f'ckn shit bitch! You should have known that when you voted to go in! Instead you going to pull out and then when you collecting your cozy goernment pension in Napa you're going to send my son in to clean up your fuckign mess in 15 years that you're going to leave behind.
there, that's my opinion. Murtha is doing this for the right reasons. Pelosi is a poll whore and only doing this for political advantage. Her, Rove, Wolf, and the other schucks who dont' give a damn about the welfare of the US but only of their party's polling data shoudl all enjoy their tiem in dante's inferno in the afterlife
What part of immediate withdrawl am I misunderstanding?
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
Name: John Patrick Murtha
Job: Congressman for Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District
Age: 73, born in New Martinsville, West Virginia
Education: Left college to join the Marines, but later received a B.A. in Economics at the University of Pittsburgh.
Life and Career Highlights:
* Left college in 1952 to join the Marines, where he served during the Korean War and eventually rose in rank to captain
* After his discharge from active duty, Murtha reenlisted and volunteered to serve in Vietnam in 1966-67, where he won two purple hearts, a Bronze Star with Combat "V" and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
* After a five-year stint in Pennsylvania's House, in 1974 Murtha was elected to the U.S Congress, the first Vietnam combat veteran to win a seat in Congress.
*As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Murtha quickly built a track record of support for the military, voting consistently for money for both active duty soldiers and veterans.
*Breaking ranks with many Democrats, Murtha backed President Reagan's incursions in Central America in the 1980s.
*Among the most fervent backers of the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq, Murtha worked closely with President George H.W. Bush to gain support for the war in Congress.
*In September, 2002, Murtha voiced grave doubts about President George W. Bush's plans for war, complaining that he has not built a proper coalition and estimating the war will cost taxpayers at least $50 billion. He nonetheless voted later to authorize the war With Iraq.
*In May 2004, Murtha joined fellow Democrats in criticizing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. But he stopped short of calling for Rumsfeld to resign, as other Democrats do.
*In the fall of 2005, he led a House effort to pass the so-called McCain Amendment, a measure that would expressly prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of terror suspects
Points 1 to 4, I agree.
Also your comments on Murtha and Pelosi.
I have reservations aboutyour hope of success if the invasion had been done right, and this all hinges on how the follow up was done. Military action alone , even with much greater numbers (there would always have been some limit but lets say twice the personnel), would always have risked if not ensured an insurgent action and some wider reaction against the occvupation. The supporters though would have increased as many people now sitting on the fence would have acknowledged an effective powerful operation.
Now, even given that the operation, as I expect you would have wanted it, succeeded in removing SH and establishing a relatively stable Iraq, wider international unrest and suspicion as to the US intentions and possible future action (more pre-emptive strikes) would have existed. Terrorist responses to that would then have been even more likely in places other than a highly controlled Iraq.
What I am saying is that the US has to build its Soft Power and its basis for respect as a model democracy and international player if it is ever going to reduce terrorism.
I don't see much progress on this front.
Spin (the real spin)
MCSF: what part of immediate withrawal don't you understand?
Good question. I honestly don't know your mind.
But Murhta is too experienced to be suggesting "cut and run" so I don't think people should put those words in his mouth.
To me immediate withdrawal means commencing that phase which will firstly mean commitment and planning and then phased implementation. It does not mean continuing to "stay the course" or putting immeasurable conditions on when the troops will be brought back home, as the WH insists.
As the operation is announced and the first of the troops withdrawn with a plan for the rest to be prgressively brought back, the US would be seen to be withdrawing.
No-one realsitically expects "cut and run" as there are`allied forces there who need to be consulted and involved, and protection of non-military people etc. Accusing Murtha and others of not realising this is an old trick of Bush's, which deserves contempt.
A bit of respect for your opponents wouldn't go astray!
I thought that was conventional military wisdom.
Spin
WASHINGTON - Arab nations are acutely suspicious of the Bush administration’s “democracy” agenda in the Middle East and believe the US invasion of Iraq has made the region less secure, said a poll released on Friday.
The poll, conducted in six Arab countries in October, found 78 percent of respondents thought there was more terrorism because of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, with four out of five saying the war had brought less peace to the region.
Asked which countries posed the biggest threat to their nations, a majority chose Israel and the United States.
“The one fascinating outcome of this study is that the respondents view the United States and its policies through the prism of Iraq and Israel,” said Professor Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, who conducted the poll with Zogby International in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
Rather than being a model to inspire Arab nations to adopt democratic goals, Telhami said respondents felt the opposite was true of the United States, whose human rights image has been tarnished by scandals involving abuse by US forces of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and at a US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Bush administration has made spreading democracy in the Middle East a centerpiece of its foreign policy. The State Department in July appointed a special envoy, Karen Hughes, to improve the US image abroad, especially in Islamic nations. However, during her trips to the Middle East, Hughes has come face to face with Muslim anger over the US-led invasion in Iraq.
In the new poll, 69 percent of those surveyed doubted that spreading democracy was the real US objective. Oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region and weakening the Muslim world were seen as US goals.
”America’s presence in Iraq is seen as a negative. It is scaring people about American intentions and having the opposite intended impact on Arab public opinion,” Telhami told Reuters.
Asked what their biggest concerns were about Iraq, a third feared the country would split up because of sectarian divisions, while 23 percent worried the United States would dominate the country after the transfer of power and 27 percent fretted that instability would spill over into the region.
More than half -- 58 percent -- said Iraq was less democratic than before the war and three of four said Iraqis were worse off.
Asked which countries they would like to be the superpower, the most popular choice was France with 21 percent, followed by China with 13 percent, Pakistan and Germany tied with 10 percent, Britain with 7 percent, the United States with 6 percent and finally Russia with 5 percent,
France, which opposed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, was also seen as the country where people had the most freedom and its President Jacques Chirac, was the leader most admired by respondents. Others included, by late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The poll was taken before an outbreak of riots in France by disaffected youths, many of them Muslims of North African ethnicity, which provoked Muslim criticism of conditions for minorities in France.
Israeli President Ariel Sharon, US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were the most disliked by those polled.
On Iran, most of the respondents said the US adversary should have the right to a nuclear program and international pressure should cease while 21 percent said it should be pressured to stop its nuclear ambitions.
The most popular television network for international news was Al Jazeera, favored by 45 percent.
Interviewers polled 800 people each from Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia; 500 each were questioned in Jordan and Lebanon and 217 were interviewed in the United Arab Emirates.
The margin of error was 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent in all of the countries, except for the United Arab Emirates where it was plus or minus 6.8 percent.
Spin
The Khaleej Times is published in Dubai and Sharjah and is on my regular reading list. When in the ME it is one of my regular hard copy dailies. Its correspondents include many leading US figures.
Spin
Gen. Pace Criticizes Sen. Murtha Remark
Jan 05 5:24 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON
A Democratic congressman's remarks about the military are damaging to troop morale and to the Army's efforts to rebound from a recruiting slump, the nation's top general said Thursday.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon news conference to comment on remarks by Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., a Marine Corps veteran who has become a leading voice in Congress advocating an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Pace was asked specifically about an ABC News interview this week in which Murtha, 73, said if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join.
"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."
Pace called the news conference to discuss his weeklong trip to Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. He said he found good troop morale and a "quiet confidence" that U.S. efforts in Iraq were on the right track. He added that Murtha's comments were among the first things he heard about upon returning Tuesday.
Military officers usually are reluctant to get drawn into political debates, but Pace said Murtha's remarks about recruiting are relevant to his responsibilities as Joint Chiefs chairman.
Pace praised the congressman's record but criticized his remarks.
"When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States _ when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year- olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message," Pace said.
Aides at Murtha's Johnstown, Pa., office did not immediately return a call for comment.
Pace also predicted that the Saddam Hussein loyalists and other Iraqis who comprise the great bulk of the insurgency will increasingly give up, now that Iraq has approved its own constitution and held elections.
Pace said he believes the violence, which flared anew Thursday on one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months, will abate as more Iraqis become convinced that the December elections will produce a representative government that will improve their lives.
"As they see their own government providing a way ahead that all of their citizens can understand as progress for their country, ... those who are fighting against the government right now who are Iraqis will more and more lay down their arms and decide to become part of the future of Iraq and not the past," Pace said.
In describing the continuing violence, Pace pointedly referred to terrorists and the al-Qaida network, rather than the anti-government Iraqis who are believed to comprise more than 90 percent of the insurgency.
"I do believe that over the course of the coming year that violence will subside," he said.
What to do?
Shoot the messenger of course!
Could it be that the troops may also be questionning their purpose, their success, how well the Pentagon is looking after them, and how many more will die before the situation turns around?
Aren't the troops told in their training that there will always be some back home who question a war, but that is democracy which is what they're fighting for?
Quig, from what I've read, Murtha has worked a lot harder than most at the things that buiild morale.
The belief that you're fighting for a just cause has to be in there somewhere. So, if you're not? ?
Spin
Sadly, one of Bush & Cheney's puppets....... but what is one to expect from those two assholes.... 'opps, forgot Rumesfield.... that makes it 3 assholes.......
forgot to add this for the NSA "folks" reading this......... Have a nice day !
[Edited on 6/1/2006 by Murph]
Here it is:
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.... Absolutely not - once again your hatred is blurring the fact that reenlistment is at very high numbers. Guys and gals are re enlisting WHILE in theatre knowing that they will return. Why do they do it? Because they believe in the cause.
Sorry you can't understand that. See above
Murph - you are so out of line.
This administration ranks right up there with the Grant and Harding ones......Where's Chester A. Arthur when you need him ???????
again to those "nice folks" at NSA....... have a nice day !
Just because he is the Chairman of the JCS?
Does that make all JCS members political?
Why is Rep Murtha such a "warrior" when he speaks out but an acting General is just a stooge for the Administration?
I think they are both just doing their jobs - Rep Murtha is a politician doing what they do best and the General is doing what he should be doing.
I guess it is guilt by association......
Sadly, in my eyes..... Bush, Cheney, and Rumesfield taint everyone.........
Politics play a role in everything in Washington..... including the JCS. Presidents aren't fond of others having a differing view than theirs. Some Presidents can tolerate and respect that.... others believe that it is "my way or the highway"...... and by all accounts, the latter is the Bush way.
Can't wait till they try to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts from the first Adam's administration...... or put us Americans who do not approve of their handling of the war under "Double Secret Probation"......
again, to the fine folks at NSA....... have a nice day...... and is that your white "cable repair" van parked across the street from my house ???????