Posted on 08/26/2006 11:36:20 AM PDT by IPWGOP
WELCOME BACK, MAX!
|
Now THAT'll get attention!!
Yes but their are on the way the voters see the war in Iraq. The following results are from the National Journal Poll conducted 08/17/06.
When asked if they thought the war in Iraq is part of the greater war on terror 53 percent of the likely voters said YES; only 42 percent said NO and 5 percent were undecided.
When asked if we should withdraw our troops from Iraq only 22 percent of likely voters said YES.
What does that say? Twenty of the 42 percent who think the war in Iraq is not part of the greater war on terror think Cut and Run is a bad policy. Cut and run has only 22 percent support among likely voters.
Those numbers have to scare anyone who is contemplating supporting Murtha. But on the other hand that 22 percent who wants to cut and run is about 55 percent of the Democrats who will vote in the primaries in 2008.
Murtha and perhaps an even larger number of Democrats face a problem with no solution. Cut and Run costs them the moderate Democrats and moderates needed to win. However Stay the Course costs them the liberal base that is needed to win.
What I think is this years big political story is being totally ignored by the media. The Democratic party is split down the middle. And taking either side loses the votes needed to win. Worst of all avoiding the issue will not be allowed by moveon.org. They are demanding that Democrats take a stand on a losing issue.
That is what you call a lose-lose situation.
Excellent post CT, it reflects common sense which the Dem left is happily lacking.
BTTT
Hi kat.....nice to see you posting!
Shouldn't that be "swift-BOOTing?"
In any case isn't "swift-boating" getting the truth out about a candidate? So why is that a bad thing?
Good place to be.
Take a look at posts 15 & 16 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687697/posts
And go here:
http://www.capecod4thetroops.com
Perhaps to show that Ann Coulter is right about Dems using Messengers who can't be disputed because of some life tragedy? In this case a Senator elected only because he lost limbs in Vietnam rather than his positions on issues.
I totally agree with you.
bump
In uniform?
11-17-05: It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
My plan calls to immediately redeploy U.S. troops
12-2-05: Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
1-15-06: Murtha tells 60 Minutes that mounting pressure from constituents in this election year will force Congress to pass his withdrawal plan, or something similar to bring troops home.
Does Murtha think Congress is going to insist upon a major withdrawal from Iraq before election day in November?
"Sure," he says. "Youre gonna see a plan for withdrawal."
5-18-06: EX-marine John Murtha has taken the extraordinary step of accusing U.S. Marines of war crimes before a joint NCIS/Multi-National Forces investigation has been completed of an incident that occurred on November 19, 2005.
5-19-06: BLITZER: The marines say they're still investigating. They don't know what happened yet. The pentagon says the same thing. How do you know what happened?
MURTHA: Wolf, you read the "Time" magazine articles. There are pictures, there are photos. You don't have to talk to the military about the proof.
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," said Murtha, Judge, Jury and Executioner.
____________________________________________________________________________________
In CONgress???
Who is "Kit" Murtha? "He's John Murtha's brother -- a Washington lobbyist whose firm reeled in more than $20 million for its defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill. And the Pennsylvania congressman is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which he also chaired for six years before Democrats lost the House in 1994. "
6-21-06: Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which
The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski.
Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm
_______________________________________________________________________________________
where he's put the full force of his unyielding support of our military into real leadership for our troops and military families for over three decades in Washington.
Oh yes.....I see REAL leadership and support here.
3-19-03: "I'm a little more nervous this time because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons and because there will possibly be fighting in the streets," Murtha said.
"To put it bluntly, it was handled badly," Murtha said of the current situation. "We should have had the allies lined up first before we pursued this. But our troops are there; it's hard to stop the momentum."
(Question: Was 3-19-03 the first day of the OIF which he was already tauting as "handled badly"?)
late 04 or early 05: "A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave Americas foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only Americas judgment but also its perseverance." John Murtha
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05324/609608.stm
11-18-05: "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home." Murtha
3-5-06: MR. SCHIEFFER: Now, I want to make sure I understand. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but you're talking about a Marine, and here you are an ex-Marine -- this is a military man. This is not somebody, some civilian out there at the Pentagon. You're saying you no longer believe what Marine General Peter Pace says when he says he thinks things are going well.
REP. MURTHA: That's exactly right. Why would I believe him
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There's a reason why Congressman Murtha is one of our most trusted voices on national security and America's standing in the world
When did he become "one of our most trusted voices on national security and America's standing in the world" Max? Until November 18, 2005, most of America and 99.9% of the "world" had never heard of this blowhard.
- he speaks his mind, he speaks his heart, and he's willing to speak truth to power."
Depends on what your definition is "is" is...
(couldn't resist...)
Liberals love to mess with definitions when they're caught with their pants down, don't they?
;*) Love your tag!
maybe I should come up a day early and take in the other one first? I'm sure it will be safe for me, all the Pinkos know me already.
I was thinking the exact same thing!!! I still have my sign.....see you there!
And that's not going to change unless they see Murtha defeated and humiliated this November. And he's not going to be defeated unless a lot of us take a stand.
As long as it is on the DemonRAT side, I like it!
So why is that a bad thing?
It's not, unless YOU are the one being "swiftboated" ;*)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.