Bush tries to cool tempers over Iraq

Reuters ^ | 11/20/5 | Steve Holland

[Let's Roll]

Unbelievably, he still doesn't get it. I mean, making nice to these a__holes has been such a raging success in the past, hasn't it?

They always respond positively and never see it as a sign of weakness, do they?

Mr. President, let them stew in this mess of their own making, but above all let them really fear you instead of just saying they do.

[Let's Roll]

There's a difference between slamming these people and rolling over as usual. This useless sucking up has to stop.

[DoughtyOne]

Quoting Murtha:

"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.

See second paragraph

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DVAQ6O3.html


"Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas."

See next to last paragraph

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1525055/posts?page=39#39

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

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.  (emphasis his)

Find all this near the bottom of Murtha's own web page.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

Wish I could agree with you Willy, but there's no way I can respect this guy after what he has said.

Our troops are the enemy?
Terrorism started in 2003?
Immediate redeployment?
Diplomatic remedy?
Time to bring them home, now?

Where did you get the idea that he was not asking for immediate withdrawel?

This guy has lost it.  Our troops are NOT the enemy.  If he can't respect them, I cannot respect him.  The terrorist campaign stated on 09/11/2001.  I shouldn't have to remind Murtha of that, and the fact that I obviously need to displays a mental lapse which calls into question his abilty to think cogently.

The call for immediate redeployment and handing over the situation completely to the Iraqis, with us only supporting a diplomatic remedy, is a complete surrender to terrorism IMO.  We leave when the Iraqi govenment and our military leaders say so, not one moment sooner.  The Iraqi government, voted for by the people, and just weeks from formal installation has asked us to stay for a while longer.  Murtha has disgraced himself with his comments.

As a general rule, I appreciate the issues you raise on this forum.  Can't always agree.  You take care bud.

[Willie Green]

Put yourself in the shoes of our military on the ground.
Don't you think a vote of confidence by the house just might make you feel a little more comfortable in what you are doing?

I think they'd be more "comfortable" if we gave them the actual support they need to accomplish their mission rather than just sitting around, passing resolutions that say "Attaboy".

[stocksthatgoup]

Take no prisoners

[listenhillary]

I'd be more comfortable if the Democrats stopped rooting for the terrorists to win.

I'd be more comfortable if our MSM would actually report how drastically life has improved for the Iraqi's.

I'd be more comfortable if the Democrats didn't provide terrorist recruiting sound bites that get worldwide distribution.

I'd be more comfortable if our MSM wasn't actively attempting to bring down our president in time of war by reporting bogus Koran flushing stories and reporting where our secret prisons are.

[tanknetter]

"I know that the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way. I disagree with his position," Bush said.

The above is what the President wanted to get into the press. The rest is just packaging - a catalyst/trojan horse designed to make sure the real message gets out.

Regardless of anything else, if the President and GOP can frame the issue as them wanting to complete the mission while the Dems want to cut 'n run "immediately", the President wins.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your premise regarding when the terrorism began. The reason I gave 09/11/2001 as a start date, is that we didn't have any hard plans to invade Iraq prior to that. Thus 09/11/2005 became the catalyst and the opening shot of the War on Terrorism. And to clarify for Congressman Murtha, we didn't make it.

[Willie Green]

Our troops are the enemy?

Your words, not Murtha's.

Terrorism started in 2003?

Yes. That's the year that we won, Saddam lost and the insurgency started.
If you want to put on your "I-am-a-dummy-and-don't-understand-what-he's-saying" T-shirt, go right ahead.

Immediate redeployment?

Yes, "redeployment" reflects that there IS a plan more than a simple "pullout" or "withdrawel".

Diplomatic remedy?

Yes. The Iraqis have a government.
It's time for them to start governing.

Time to bring them home, now?

Either that, or supply them with the troops necessary to END the insurgency.
And everybody knows Dubya made the political decision not to do that.

[listenhillary]

They don't come any more patriotic than this guy.

GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1524953/posts

[listenhillary]

Our troops could use less support if this is Murtha's definition.

The "NO" Vote - Peterson, Murtha Screw Our Soldiers
http://www.seamuspress.com/archives/rep_john_murtha/

[Tempest]

I'm really tired of liberal moonbats. In conservative 3rd party clothing.

[DoughtyOne]

Our troops are the enemy?

Your words, not Murtha's.

That was a direct quote.

Terrorism started in 2003?

Yes. That's the year that we won, Saddam lost and the insurgency started.
If you want to put on your "I-am-a-dummy-and-don't-understand-what-he's-saying" T-shirt, go right ahead.

We had no plans to enter Iraq until after 09/11/2001.  I would just like to go on the record stating the events of 09/11/20001 were acts of terrorism.  Subsequent to them, we formulated a plan to enter Iraq and executed that plan.

Immediate redeployment?

Yes, "redeployment" reflects that there IS a plan more than a simple "pullout" or "withdrawel".

And I quote from the Congressman's own web site.  "BRING THEM HOME NOW"  What is your definition of the word now?

Diplomatic remedy?

Yes. The Iraqis have a government.  It's time for them to start governing.

The Iraqi government is governing.  It's has been not been an easy task drafting a Constitution that was acceptable to all parties.  Individual office holders haven't even been voted into office yet.  That takes place on the 15th of December 2005.

The Iraqi armed forces have grown from a very paultry number a year ago.  Today about 1/3rd of Iraqs security can be provided by domestic forces.  If we leave today, they will be over-run in short order.  What will that achieve?

Time to bring them home, now?Either that, or supply them with the troops necessary to END the insurgency.  And everybody knows Dubya made the political decision not to do that.

Even Israel hasn't been able to stop terrorism perpetrated against it.  If the Iraqis government wants us there, our military leaders want us there, our Commander in Chief wants us there, our troops want to be there and keep reinlisting to stay, that's good enough for me.

[Willie Green]

GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha

LOL! And we're supposed to believe that the "ethics probe" isn't politically motivated?

Sheeeesh.... that one's so transparent that it's obvious that the amateurs are in charge.

[bert]

.....Why make nice-nice with traitors?....

The President has clean hands. He has many others including me who can raise continuous hell with the pisspoor American Rats


My fax machine has tried umpteen times to send the congressman a fax but it is always busy. He is getting his cumuppance I think.

[Willie Green]

I would just like to go on the record stating the events of 09/11/20001 were acts of terrorism.

So what size T-shirt do you wear, large or extra-large?

[listenhillary]

Could be a good reason he was chosen to be Pelosi's mouth piece.

They're saying it already.
"See! Anyone who questions this administration is attacked!" "This ethics investigation is politically motivated."

Convenient.

[listenhillary]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7UHODPfnNcIJ:construct.haifa.ac.il/~danielp/soc/sims.htm+Murtha+ethically+challenged&hl=en

In some more extreme--and definitely ethically questionable--situations, such actions are designed to reward some large-scale campaign contributors in the home district. A case in point is the Maxi Cube cargo handling system. Funds for testing the Maxi Cube cargo handling system were written into the fiscal 1989 defense budget during the final Senate-House Appropriations conference at the request of Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania. The $10 million item was specifically targeted for a Philadelphia businessman (and contributor to Murtha's campaign) who was to manufacture the truck in Murtha's home district. The only problem was that the U.S. Army had clearly said that it had "no known requirement" for the handler. In response, Murtha was reported to be "mad as hell" at the "nitpicking" by the army. He pushed ahead anyway and used his position on the Appropriations committee to freeze a series of military budgeting requests until he got his pet project approved.

And Murtha is not alone. Rep. Les Aspin of Wisconsin got the Defense Appropriations committee to include $249 million to continue making a certain ten-ton truck (in Wisconsin, naturally) that the army was trying to phase out. It, too, was unneeded, but Aspin wanted the project for his home district. Is this legal? Yes? Is it ethical? That depends upon your point of view (Morgan, 1989). Clearly, Murtha and Aspin thought it was appropriate, given the realities of today's private and public organizations.