Breaking News
Health Care Reform Passes House Of Representatives

To Paraphrase John Murtha

December 2nd, 2005 15 Comments

I like that. I like when keyboard jockeys who aren’t fit to sniff a jockstrap of any servicemember call a veteran congressman who’s a ranking member of a defense committee “underinformed” but instead prefer to believe the disconnected prouncements of an ostracized senator.

Posted in Right Wing Media |
« The Republican Party’s Continued Love of Racism
The Case for Leaving Iraq »
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

15 Responses to “To Paraphrase John Murtha”

  1. proteinwisdom says:
    December 2, 2005 at 2:12 am

    You’re right, Oliver, I am a jackass.

  2. dugger1 says:
    December 2, 2005 at 8:12 am

    Well I believe Murtha is misinformed and that his call for a precipitous exit from Iraq would be disastrous on a number of fronts. In fact, it seems that the sane mainstream of both parties disagree with Murtha and agree with Goldstein et al. Murtha’s past service does not inoculate him from being (a) a crass partisan and/or (b) an out-of-touch buffoon.

    Dugger

  3. elrod says:
    December 2, 2005 at 9:12 am

    Frank,
    All of this Macchievallan crap about Dems calling for a pullout so they can “take credit” for it makes no sense. Bush won’t draw down the troops, period. Other than standard troop rotation stuff and pre-arranged post-election redeployment, Bush won’t draw the troop level down significantly at all. Any Democrat knows that. Bush will sink or swim with the Iraq adventure all the way through. His Annapolis speech only confirms it. I guarantee there will be approximately 138,000 troops in Iraq in November 2006. Why? Because the situation will demand it. A trained Iraqi army is not necessarily the ticket to a stable Iraq. If the political situation isn’t worked out to the satisfaction of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds, a trained Iraqi army will only lead to civil war. Do you think the political situation will be sufficiently settled by November 2006? I don’t.

  4. Dugger says:
    December 2, 2005 at 9:12 am

    Elrod

    “I guarantee there will be approximately 138,000 troops in Iraq in November 2006.”

    Believe you are wrong here. One year from now, expect the number to be around 100,000 and dropping. I could see an ongoing strategy of replacing American divisons with combat/morale ready Iraqi divisions. The replaced American divisions would got to the rear and then phase out (return to the states). My guess is that within three years, we will be down to 25,000 or less.

    This is regardless of the political instability. I believe there will eventually be political instability but it will not so quickly resurface. There will be a “decent interval” permitting us to withdraw. Over time, however, things may revert to something near what you have described.

    Dugger

  5. Frank_D says:
    December 2, 2005 at 9:12 am

    1) The only person who has “ostracized” Joe Lieberman is Oliver. As far as I know, he is still the Senator from Connecticut.

    2) To call Murtha “underinformed” is being diplomatic: I think he is a political hack. And before you toss a “Vietnam hero” grenade, I have three words: Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

    3) Murtha is either deflecting attention from his own developing scandal, or was thrown up in a Democratic scheme — “look, we’ve got a Marine hero who agrees with us” — to make Bush look worse than ever.As the blog you referred to said, “[T]he Democrats realize the only way to do this is to frame the troop draw down as a defeat for the administration or, at the very least, as a cave-in to their pressures.”

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 2, 2005 at 11:12 am

    I could see an ongoing strategy of replacing American divisons with combat/morale ready Iraqi divisions. The replaced American divisions would got to the rear and then phase out (return to the states). My guess is that within three years, we will be down to 25,000 or less.

    At that point, will we be done “fighting the terrists,” or will we have simply handed off the job to someone else? If we stop fighting them over there, will we then have to start fighting them here? Will Iraq cease to be the “central front” in the war on terror?

    See, I was just coming around to the idea that we’re fighting for a noble cause in Iraq, and now you’re telling me that we’re just going to up and quit.

  7. JD says:
    December 2, 2005 at 11:12 am

    So, you have ostracized Sen. Lieberman, therefore, what he has just personally witnessed is invalid, because you say it to be?

    Give me a break.

  8. Dugger says:
    December 2, 2005 at 12:12 pm

    Quaker,
    If you are asking my position, as opposed to what I think the Admin’s is, I don’t regard Iraq as ‘the’ central front for the WOT. ‘A’ front, though. And no we will not be done fighting the Ts. That war started well before Iraq and will go on afterward. And in my opinion, we are in effect fighting the war here now and will have to for a long time. The nature of terrorism, you know.

    And who says we should quit in Iraq, other than Murtha, Pelosi and Feingold? The Admin plan has always been to turn over the effort to the Iraqis when they are ready. My personal opinion is that they can be made to be combat ready – relative short term-, but that long term, they will revert and Iraq will revert. Which I hope is dead wrong. My position is not the same as Bush and the Neocons, but I also don’t buy the hate-filled, paranoid theories of the left concerning these folks. They were and are well-intentioned IMO.

    Dugger

  9. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 2, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    I don t regard Iraq as  the central front for the WOT.

    You’re saying the commander-in-chief is wrong? Don’t you realize this only emboldens the terrists?

    The Admin plan has always been to turn over the effort to the Iraqis when they are ready.

    No it hasn’t. The plan was to be “welcomed with sweets and flowers.” When that didn’t pan out, we started improvising.

    Nevertheless, the justification for continuing the fight–directly from George Bush’s mouth–has been to defeat the terrorists and deny them a base of operations so they won’t attack us again on our soil.

    The future you describe doesn’t seem to address any of those concerns.

  10. dugger1 says:
    December 2, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    Quaker

    “No it hasn t. The plan was to be  welcomed with sweets and flowers. When that didn t pan out, we started improvising.”

    ?????
    Nobody anyplace has ever said that our plan re the war was to “welcomed with sweets and flowers.” That is nonsensical.

    “Nevertheless, the justification for continuing the fight directly from George Bush s mouth has been to defeat the terrorists and deny them a base of operations so they won t attack us again on our soil.”

    Say what? We have the same justification as when it started, modified by the reality that we are there. And yes I believe Iraq remains a component of the WOT. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where Bush said the only reason we stay the course in Iraq is the above.

    And since I differ somewhat from Bush and the neocons, why should my scenario be the same as his?

    Dugger

  11. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 2, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    since I differ somewhat from Bush and the neocons, why should my scenario be the same as his?

    It shouldn’t.

    I just like making you say so.

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 2, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where Bush said the only reason we stay the course in Iraq is the above.

    Not “only.”

    But here’s what he said on Tuesday:

    The whole objective is to achieve a victory against the terrorists. The terrorists have made it very clear that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. See, they want us to leave before we’ve achieved our mission. You know why? Because they want a safe haven. They want to be able to plot and plan attacks.

    This country must never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. And a victory in Iraq will deny the terrorists their stated goal.

  13. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 2, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    More:

    I think “sweets and flowers” was Ahmed Chalabi’s construction. Administration insiders were saying we’d be “greeted as liberators” and wouldn’t need to sustain a large force.

    MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don t think it s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

    Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

    Now, I can t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there s no doubt about the outcome. There s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

    MR. RUSSERT: The army s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don t think is accurate. I think that s an overstatement.

  14. begoniabuzzkill says:
    December 4, 2005 at 11:12 am

    Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed.

    Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/04/ixportal.html

  15. frameone says:
    December 4, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    “I could see an ongoing strategy of replacing American divisons with combat/morale ready Iraqi divisions. The replaced American divisions would got to the rear and then phase out (return to the states). My guess is that within three years, we will be down to 25,000 or less.”

    You better hope this isn’t what happens, dugger because you’ve just plainly and publicly announced our timetable for withdrawal! My god, you’ve compromised the whole mission!