^ god dammit

I get it now. They propose a bill to withdraw troops at the same time that the general proposes it, and the "caring" republicans came up with the idea to withdraw them.

i'd rather they be withdrawn and give the republicans clout than stay in, but that's so sad

11/18/2005 11:40:03 PM

I'm so, so mad I missed the rest of this...

11/18/2005 11:55:59 PM

Quote :

"What I'm disagreeing with is your premise that a call for a withdrawal is equivalent to "letting Iraq go to shit". And you're implicitly implying that calling for "staying the course" is somehow not letting Iraq go to shit."

I'm not implying that.

Quote :

"And I think disregarding the reality and a stupid insistance on continuing without any strategy whatsoever is"

We have no strategy whatsoever, eh? That's news to me.

So these constitutional elections, did they just happen because Condolezza Rice woke up one day and said "hey George, let's have some elections today!"

11/18/2005 11:59:11 PM

Uhm, and those elections did what again in terms of reducing the level of insurgency?

11/19/2005 12:01:50 AM

^

So am I to understand that the military and the Pentagon is doing no strategic planning and setting no milestones for reducing the level of the insurgency?

Did the Generals just wake up one day and say "gee, today would be a great day for an operation Steel Curtain!"

11/19/2005 12:07:14 AM

Wow a whole 3 votes to pull out of Iraq. Triple that number and they could get a big table at TGI Fridays!

11/19/2005 12:18:41 AM

Quote :

"So am I to understand that the military and the Pentagon is doing no strategic planning and setting no milestones for reducing the level of the insurgency? Did the Generals just wake up one day and say "gee, today would be a great day for an operation Steel Curtain!""

They OBVIOUSLY have no working strategy, do they? I mean if the reality is any indication.

11/19/2005 12:21:49 AM

^

OK, so now we've gone from "they don't have any strategy" to "their strategy obviously isn't working" -- as if you're some kind of military strategist.

11/19/2005 12:36:03 AM

^havent you been paying attention, everyone has been an expert on military strategy since this war began.

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 12:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2005 12:37:34 AM

Quote :

"OK, so now we've gone from "they don't have any strategy" to "their strategy obviously isn't working" -- as if you're some kind of military strategist."

I said there was no articulated strategy involving procedures that would enable the public to verify the progress, which I'm sure you saw and understood. But feel free to accuse me of seriously thinking that anyone does anything without any type of thought process going on. I mean it's not like you have a defensible thesis to talk about.

And I was gonna say the Algerian hockey team sucked ass, but hey, I'm not a hockey player. There's no way I could know that.

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 12:49 AM. Reason : ?]

11/19/2005 12:46:17 AM

FUCK FUCK FUCK

THIS STUNT IS SHAMELESS AND IMMORAL

MEN ARE DYING AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO PLAY POLITICS

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

11/19/2005 12:52:51 AM

somehow practicable has come to mean predictable

plz to see http://www.dictionary.com

::sigh::

If only it weren't for the contempt of intellectualism...

Republicans and reading comprehension don't mix.

11/19/2005 3:26:47 AM

poor woodfoot indeed

11/19/2005 5:04:07 AM

All of this big and loud talk from the Democrats and they don't have the balls to back up their real convictions. Typical.

Is it better to keep these insurgents on the defensive in Iraq or should we show the ultimate weakness by leaving a job not finished and allowing Al Qaeda to go back on the offensive in places like here in this country?

Al Qaeda isn't just going to go away if we leave. When you're dealing with an ideology that is fueled by violence as a means to get closer to your God the problem is only going to intensify if we give up.

11/19/2005 9:22:23 AM

^ It was the Republicans that proposed a stupid bill.

11/19/2005 9:33:32 AM

No kidding. Why didn't your heroes man up? They had their chance to shine for peace.

11/19/2005 9:34:25 AM

Because it wasn't the bill they wanted, genius.


I'm going to send a bill to congress demanding that you give GWB a deep, passionate kiss while standing infront of your father.

I mean, you've said on many an occasion that you like the president, haven't you? Well it's time to ante up.

11/19/2005 11:02:03 AM

Wlfpk4Life, are you just trolling or are you really that much of an idiot?

11/19/2005 11:54:43 AM

cowards cut and run, Marines never do

11/19/2005 1:52:14 PM

Quote :

"But feel free to accuse me of seriously thinking that anyone does anything without any type of thought process going on. I mean it's not like you have a defensible thesis to talk about."

Yes, the entire Pentagon is waging the war in Iraq with no thought process. And they are required to articulate their internal strategies to you.

That sounds like an entirely plausible viewpoint to me.

11/19/2005 2:36:23 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the entire Pentagon is waging the war in Iraq with no thought process."

Yeah. Because that's what my argument has been.

Quote :

"And they are required to articulate their internal strategies to you."

You didn't get my sarcastic hockey analogy, did you?

11/19/2005 3:04:04 PM

Quote :

"cowards cut and run, Marines never do"

i'd put money down that that bitch doesn't make it through re-election

and if you gave me good odds, i'd bet she doesn't make it past her fucking primary

sometimes a bitch gotta go down a flight of stairs

11/19/2005 4:18:02 PM

Quote :

"somehow practicable has come to mean predictable"

You're right, the press has misquoted him (do a Google search, predictable is substituted for practicable everywhere).

But you're misquoting him anyway. His resolution reads:

Quote :

"4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is 5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable 6) date."

Which part of "hereby terminated" don't you understand? Once the deployment is "terminated," it's officially done for as a matter of war -- the rest is just the mechanics of withdrawl.

Murtha himself said in his statement:

Quote :

"My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces"

Which part of "immediately" don't you understand?

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 7:10 PM. Reason : foo]

11/19/2005 7:09:52 PM

Quote :

"Yeah. Because that's what my argument has been."

Well, what else can you mean by saying they don't have "any" strategy? Are you saying they do have a strategy, but not when you say they don't?

Quote :

"You didn't get my sarcastic hockey analogy, did you?"

No, I ignored it because I didn't think it was worth addressing. One might argue that the war in Iraq is significantly different than a hockey game, huh?

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 7:13 PM. Reason : foo]

11/19/2005 7:12:48 PM

No, one really might not. If the goal is to fight insurgency and the insurgency is rising, then the strategy isn't working.

11/19/2005 9:10:20 PM

^

So the only goal in Iraq is to fight the insurgency, now? There's nothing like:

* create infrastructure
* create a new government
* provide transitional government

etc, etc, etc -- and of course none of the OTHER goals can possibly distract from the goal of fighting insurgency.

And of course you are in a uniquely qualified position to weight the costs and benefits of what the military is doing, since you are Chief Strategist MathFreak and you know all the variables the Pentagon is considering.

(I think this is solidly keeping with the trend that people who oppose the war tend to believe they know everything about what everybody else knows)

Anyway, the simple admission that you think the war in Iraq -- a complex, nation-building enterprise -- is the same as a simple-minded hockey game is enough to discredit you in this conversation.

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 9:53 PM. Reason : foo]

11/19/2005 9:52:47 PM

You could sum it up much more succinctly. "I, Smoker, have FAITH in the President, and that's enough". You don't seriously think that after you dismissed an opinion of anybody who's not by training a military strategist, I will address your arguments, do you? Of course, according to your logic nobody can't criticize any government official seeing so long as they don't have any formal training in economics or political science. Just because you don't know the first thing about managing people doesn't know noone else does. I don't need to know what exactly my students do. All I need is for them to tell me:

1) What they want to accomplish
2) What is the criterion of success
3) What's the plan
4) What are the benchmarks that will help monitor the progress.

I don't give a shit about specifics. I don't need to know them to see how successful those people are. Likewise, the administration is paid by the public. It's their responsibility to provide the public with some sort of a plan and benchmarks. I am not a military strategist, which is why I AT FIRST will give them benefit of a doubt. Just tell us what you want to accomplish, and promise that you think it's for the best. But then if you screw up and things don't go as planned, explain what the problem is, what's the new plan, what are the new benchmarks etc.

Your strategy is to let people run in circles hoping for the best. Good luck with that.

11/19/2005 10:12:35 PM

^

The administration is accountable to politics; you act like the public is some kind of middle manager who uses PowerPoint to make decisions.

As to the Pentagon, it is accountable to its chain of command and noone else; it is not in the national interest for the military to disclose its plans or strategy, nor is it for the President to do so.

Believe it or not, when you elect someone to be the commander-in-chief of the military, you do entrust them with a certain amount of faith. And when you continually live in a country where the commander-in-chief has the power he does, then you also accept that level of faith, regardless of who the president is.

The President doesn't have to give anyone any information, ever. The Congress can flog itself all it wants over the issue of troops in Iraq, but they ultimately just hold the power of purse. And that is, to put it lightly, a blunt instrument that can be used only with potentially dire consequences.

Finally, I don't care if you address my arguments. That's your business if choose not to.

11/19/2005 10:34:04 PM

Quote :

"The President doesn't have to give anyone any information, ever. "

So says you. We'll see if others agree.

11/19/2005 10:37:48 PM

Quote :

"WHO IS THE US CONGRESS LISTENING TO? Last night the House of Representatives, despite much posturing for the cameras, voted 403-to-3 to CONTINUE the war in Iraq. This despite overwhelming opposition to the war among the American people and th growing awareness that the government lied to the people to trick us into that war. With that vote, the House showed that they support lying the nation into a war. With that vote, the House showed that they know the elections are rigged and they no longer need fear the wrath of the voters."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/


Oh, and around 3/4 of Americans want troops withdrawn immediately:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10112386/site/newsweek/#survey

Quote :

"Should U.S. troops begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? * 22872 responses 74% Yes"

So, 3/4 of Americans want troops out immediately, and the House of Representatives votes 99% in opposition to that same idea. In a similar vein, 85%+ of Americans want illegal immigration stopped, and Congress does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop it. Who does Congress represent again? Not the people. It has to be someone else. Oh, right, the "special interests." The people with boatloads of money...aka the elite.

11/21/2005 9:17:04 AM

Jean Schmidt=liar.

Quote :

"Schmidt gaffe fallout lingers By Michael Collins Post Washington Bureau Zoom Post file photo Jean Schmidt ADVERTISEMENT WASHINGTON - Congresswoman Jean Schmidt said last week that she was just the messenger when she implied that a Democratic congressman is a coward for urging the United States to pull out of Iraq. But the man Schmidt said asked her to deliver the message says his remarks were taken out of context. State Rep. Dan Bubp, an attorney and colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, never asked Schmidt to relay a message to anyone in Congress on his behalf, his spokeswoman, Karen Tabor, said Monday. Bubp did have a phone conversation with Schmidt about the war in Iraq, but the congresswoman misrepresented his remarks during her speech on the House floor, Tabor said."

Jean Schmidt's video

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/schmidt.320.240.mov.html

11/22/2005 12:24:23 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: And I still want to know how Murtha's view of "practicable" is any different from "immediate," but that's more a question for Gamecat at this point."

Ask and ye shall receive:

Quote :

"BLITZER: He didn't advocate an immediate withdrawal. He said over the next six months, and then to keep the troops in neighboring states like Kuwait, Qatar, over the horizon, to go back in if necessary. "WALLACE: Well, look, you've had him on your air for a lot of the last five days and I think he's probably articulated his position much more clearly than I can do. We disagree with the. . . . "BLITZER: That's what he articulated the first day when he made his long statement. "WALLACE: Well, I'm not sure what you want to debate me on, Wolf. "BLITZER: I'm not debating. I'm just saying he didn't call for an immediate withdrawal. "WALLACE: Well, what he is advocating differs from current White House policy. And, frankly, I only saw two other Democrats, Democratic colleagues of Congressman Murtha's side with his position. But this is a healthy debate to have. "BLITZER: I want to be precise on this, Nicolle, because words matter. "WALLACE: Absolutely. "BLITZER: The resolution that was in the Congress used the words 'immediate withdrawal.' And there were three Democrats who voted for that. Congressman Murtha talks about a six-month phased withdrawal and then keeping troops in the region, which is significantly different."

11/23/2005 4:09:57 PM

^

So when Murtha himself said in his press release that his plan called "to immediately redeploy" troops, he didn't actually mean he wanted to immediately redeploy them. He actually wanted to non-immediately redeploy them.

And when his own resolution said that the deployment was "hereby terminated" upon its enaction, he didn't actually mean that it was "hereby" terminated, but rather it was ... not-hereby terminated.

OK, so now we've established the Murtha is just full of shit. But who can blame the Republicans for bringing the resolution they did before congress, based on the man's own words? It certainly sounds like a difference of semantics to me.

Show me where in his resolution (which I quoted above) it mentions anything about a "six-month phased withdrawl."

11/23/2005 8:28:54 PM

Quote :

" um, holy shit "

perhaps we didnt need the um

11/23/2005 8:30:00 PM

i really, really hate pulling out.

11/24/2005 2:37:34 AM

Colin Powell calls the attacks on Murtha "disgraceful".

Quote :

"To attack him the way he was attacked, accusing him of being a Michael Moore, was disgraceful and was not worthy," a Powell told the New York Post's Deborah Orin, who described him as "livid." "Jack Murtha is great friend of mine," Powell declared. "He's a great patriot. "I don't agree with his position," the former top Bush diplomat said. "But he has started a debate which is a good debate to have as to how long we should be there. "

11/25/2005 11:11:45 AM