Murtha and Moran Owned by Army Sgt.

[Sarge]

Ummm, Sarge, aren't youu overestimating the numbers just a weeee bit? Even if you put 80% you'd be seriously stretching credibility, but 98% is just a complete joke.

OK, 90%. No one I've run into on a day to day basis appreciates him running his yap. That goes for officers and enlisted

[Burgold]

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of proof. Still, this guy did a good job of humiliating the two Congressman and Moran especially handled the situation very poorly. I don't know that it says anything in the larger picture. All my experience has been in military hospitals... for the record, most of those guys want to go back to, but there is a lot of bitterness and anger too.

[Prosperity]

The moral of the troops is very high? Good then we don't have to worry about Murtha or other reps being too much of a burden for the morale

[Mad Mike]

Enough of this righty ball washing, I really wish you guys could find something better to do then chest thump and ball wash each other.

Here's what you saw, a statement by a military man who was upset at Moran and Murtha. It wasn't a question, but a statement about how he felt. It was also posted on Malkin's web site and she's looking for traffic because she's whoring for her book. She wants to be the next Ann Coultier, and she's been pimping herself out for a while.

You see, people look at things like this and they use it as proof that they are 100% right, and everyone else is wrong. Well, the world doesn't work that way, and 90% of the time there is a lot of grey area in between. I can give you countless excerpts of soldiers from Iraq who have a contrary opinion to this soldier, so who is right? Do I believe half the people on this board who pump righty propaganda all day? Why should I if they believe the crap spewed on hate radio?

Why am I not surprised? An ad hominem argument posted by our resident defeatist.

[Mad Mike]

The moral of the troops is very high? Good then we don't have to worry about Murtha or other reps being too much of a burden for the morale

I'm so sick of this "I have the right to say whatever I want" crap. Sure, you have the right. But do you ever take responsibility for the results? It is a burden on morale to say we cannot win, that's why those soldiers were speaking up. It is also a boost to the morale of our enemys who blow up innocent children just to get people like Murtha to say what they do.

Just because you have the right to say something, it does not absolve you from responsibility for what you say.

[Thiebear]

As said before 150k troops are going to have differening opinions but:

You'd think they'd treat them better in both returning troops and visits etc. and have better answers than "Thats not a question."

[Prosperity]

I'm so sick of this "I have the right to say whatever I want" crap. Sure, you have the right. But do you ever take responsibility for the results? It is a burden on morale to say we cannot win, that's why those soldiers were speaking up. It is also a boost to the morale of our enemys who blow up innocent children just to get people like Murtha to say what they do.

Just because you have the right to say something, it does not absolve you from responsibility for what you say.

The result is that he represents who his constituents elected. If he is being truthful than he is doing that. Congress is a forum of discussion for ALL Americans indirectly. His constituents elected him to do exactly what he is doing.

If the morale is still very high even after Murtha said x y and z then how do you explain that his job to represent his constituents causes too much damage?

[Zguy28]

Lets just face it, they got owned by an ordinary Joe. That's all the thread was about, not somebody's soapbox.

[Destino]

Lets just face it, they got owned by an ordinary Joe. That's all the thread was about, not somebody's soapbox.

Actually this thread is entirely about one guy getting on a soapbox.

[Destino]

I'm so sick of this "I have the right to say whatever I want" crap. Sure, you have the right. But do you ever take responsibility for the results? It is a burden on morale to say we cannot win, that's why those soldiers were speaking up. It is also a boost to the morale of our enemys who blow up innocent children just to get people like Murtha to say what they do.

Just because you have the right to say something, it does not absolve you from responsibility for what you say.

You are crying about people taking responsibility for what in your opinion has ever so dreadful consequences. But if morale is as high as the original post claims it to be....then there is nothing to take responsiblity for is there?

You did however You hit the nail on the head with your second line "Sure, you have the right." I'm glad you accept that MM. What a leftist writes often pisses off people on the right (like you) and what righties write pisses of leftists. Both groups of wingnuts always think the other sides is bad.

[grdpounder]

You know if your told enough times that morale is low than after awhile you start to beleive it. Now I've been in Iraq since Oct (3rd time) and I can tell you that I am around some of the most motivated, professional young men and women I have seen in my 24 years of service. Of course we would like to be home drinking beer, curling up with loved ones, and sleeping in our own beds, but we have a job to do and 90% of us are proud to be here doing it. Now some of you can talk with the two or three folks you know in the service that are not proud of their service in Iraq, but I talk with at least 100 soldiers a day and most of them are proud to be here and would return again if need be. :2cents:

[nelms]

You know if your told enough times that morale is low than after awhile you start to beleive it. Now I've been in Iraq since Oct (3rd time) and I can tell you that I am around some of the most motivated, professional young men and women I have seen in my 24 years of service. Of course we would like to be home drinking beer, curling up with loved ones, and sleeping in our own beds, but we have a job to do and 90% of us are proud to be here doing it. Now some of you can talk with the two or three folks you know in the service that are not proud of their service in Iraq, but I talk with at least 100 soldiers a day and most of them are proud to be here and would return again if need be. :2cents:

Some of us appreciate what you are doing in Iraq. And I'll take your word over a left wing defeatist who claims to have a couple of friends over there.

[Destino]

You know if your told enough times that morale is low than after awhile you start to beleive it. Now I've been in Iraq since Oct (3rd time) and I can tell you that I am around some of the most motivated, professional young men and women I have seen in my 24 years of service. Of course we would like to be home drinking beer, curling up with loved ones, and sleeping in our own beds, but we have a job to do and 90% of us are proud to be here doing it. Now some of you can talk with the two or three folks you know in the service that are not proud of their service in Iraq, but I talk with at least 100 soldiers a day and most of them are proud to be here and would return again if need be. :2cents:

Glad to hear it! The vast majority of people living in america are behind you.

[Air Force Cane]

Destino- you asked a question about how to tell what the deal is. I answered your question by pointing you to a site where you can read all kinds of military blogs. if you could take that chip off your shoulder you would see that...

back to the main point- once again- if morale was so low in the military- why are REENLISTMENTS of military units that have been in combat over 100%? Why is it that military polls show majority backing for the Iraq war- when THE MILITARY is the one that actually fights and dies?!!

because the overwhelming majority of those serving today are doing it for patriotic reasons- and we believe in our mission and our cause. just because some old broken down liberals don't understand doesn't mean it is not happening.

[Zguy28]

You know if your told enough times that morale is low than after awhile you start to beleive it. Now I've been in Iraq since Oct (3rd time) and I can tell you that I am around some of the most motivated, professional young men and women I have seen in my 24 years of service. Of course we would like to be home drinking beer, curling up with loved ones, and sleeping in our own beds, but we have a job to do and 90% of us are proud to be here doing it. Now some of you can talk with the two or three folks you know in the service that are not proud of their service in Iraq, but I talk with at least 100 soldiers a day and most of them are proud to be here and would return again if need be. :2cents:

Great post!:applause: We are proud of you.

Semper Fi...carry on.

[Predicto]

Some of us appreciate what you are doing in Iraq. And I'll take your word over a left wing defeatist who claims to have a couple of friends over there.

And we liberals deeply appreciate your service too, even if we suspect that our Commander in Chief was less than candid with us in sending you there in the first place.

And I'll even do it without lobbing gratuitous and repetitive insults at conservatives who disagree with me.

Thank you to all of our servicemen and women.

[nelms]

And we liberals deeply appreciate your service too, even if we suspect that our Commander in Chief was less than candid with us in sending you there in the first place.

And I'll even do it without lobbing gratuitous and repetitive insults at conservatives who disagree with me.

Thank you to all of our servicemen and women.

It's not an insult if it's true.

[Destino]

And we liberals deeply appreciate your service too, even if we suspect that our Commander in Chief was less than candid with us in sending you there in the first place.

And I'll even do it without lobbing gratuitous and repetitive insults at conservatives who disagree with me.

Thank you to all of our servicemen and women.

It's funny who exactly it is that is busy telling our soldiers americans aren't proud of them. Then they pretend to be worried about morale. lol

If your a soldier and you are reading this the vast majority of the country supports you. The few lunatics that don't are fringe idiots not worth worrying about. Come home safe.

[Zguy28]

And we liberals deeply appreciate your service too, even if we suspect that our Commander in Chief was less than candid with us in sending you there in the first place.

You know I'm tired of the old "Bush lied" line. I dug this out of my news archives from 2004. Enjoy it. I'm sure somebody will come back with some scathing elitist unsound argument full of sarcasm and angst.

*********************

Townhall.com: The 'Bush Lied' folks can't be taken seriously Jul 19, 2004

by Michael Barone

Official reports issued the last two weeks have conclusively refuted those who have been arguing that "BUSH LIED" about the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs. The first report was that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee has been rent by partisan divisions over the last year, but the report was unanimous.

One prime conclusion of the report is that American intelligence organizations, like those of every other major country, did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ongoing WMD programs. That intelligence seems to have been mistaken. But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs, and his refusal to account for their disposal, what intelligence evidence could have convinced a reasonable analyst that he no longer had them?

As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon -- a frequent Bush critic -- puts it, "It would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents."

So Bush was justified in relying on the intelligence. And "the committee did not fund any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

So much for the wild charges that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson's statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger -- it quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment.

The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence." It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa.

All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH LIED" theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges last year with the way they're downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep inside the paper this year.

Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has argued that George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any president since Harry Truman transformed our foreign policy in response to the threat of aggressive communism.

But there is one big difference. In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press. This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. They have charged that "BUSH LIED" even when he relied on the same intelligence as they did; they have headlined wild and spurious charges by the likes of Joseph Wilson; they have embraced the wild-eyed propaganda of the likes of Michael Moore.

They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world. Are they entitled to be taken seriously?

Michael Barone is the Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report.

Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate

[grdpounder]

First I want to say thanks for the kind words, but I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if our leadership (The administration or Congress) say things like we (soldiers) have low morale, we are losing the fight, etc it will erode the countries will to fight and in the end cause such things to come true in the military. Vietnam is a great example of this. Now everybody has freedom of speech but if you are in a position of leadership you need to think about the consuqunces (sp) of your actions before you open your mouth and history should be a great lesson here and I would think that the Congressman would know this well, Vietnam was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost at home. Think of it this way if Joe Gibbs had someone running around behind him telling the players there was no way they can come from behind to win a game, pretty soon some of them will believe it and it will probably come true. Not sure if that made sense but its the best analogy I can come up with. :2cents:

[Zguy28]

Makes perfect sense.

[Destino]

First I want to say thanks for the kind words, but I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if our leadership (The administration or Congress) say things like we (soldiers) have low morale, we are losing the fight, etc it will erode the countries will to fight and in the end cause such things to come true in the military. Vietnam is a great example of this. Now everybody has freedom of speech but if you are in a position of leadership you need to think about the consuqunces (sp) of your actions before you open your mouth and history should be a great lesson here and I would think that the Congressman would know this well, Vietnam was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost at home. Think of it this way if Joe Gibbs had someone running around behind him telling the players there was no way they can come from behind to win a game, pretty soon some of them will believe it and it will probably come true. Not sure if that made sense but its the best analogy I can come up with. :2cents:

Don't worry about the analogy it makes sense. I do however have a question. Why do people still fault the home front during the Vietnam war now that the Guld of Tonkin incident seems to be accepted as fiction? Should people support a war built on dishonesty?

Please do NOT read into this question as I am NOT attempting to link this to the war in Iraq. This question is specifically about Vietnam.

[chomerics]

Why am I not surprised? An ad hominem argument posted by our resident defeatist.

I see you left off the coward comment THIS time. . . and yet you still follow to the drumbeat of the right wing noise machine without even a modicum of decency in your arguments, why am I not suprised. Such valuable insight from the man who still argues that Saddam Hussen was working with Al Qaeda :doh:

I also see the irony of your post goes RIGHT over your head as well. :laugh: The funny part is you don't even see it.

[chomerics]

You know I'm tired of the old "Bush lied" line. I dug this out of my news archives from 2004. Enjoy it. I'm sure somebody will come back with some scathing elitist unsound argument full of sarcasm and angst.

If you weren't so wrong, you would be taken seriously. The "Bush Lied" comments are not about the intellegence (well most of them) but Bush's words leading up to the invasion. Don't you remember the "We all want a peaceful solution"? How about the "We want the weapons inspectors to go into Iraq and force Saddam to disarm". The entire vote was NOT for war, but to give Bush the backing of America. Then when the got the cooperation of Saddam, and they couldn't get the vote in the UN, they decided to invade Iraq any way. That is how "Bush Lied", not because of his humongous blunder in interperting the intel (well actally fixing the intel around the facts, we know that one too) They played politics with our soldiers, and that is about the most disgusting thing I have ever seen a president do.

Unfortunately there are FAR FAR to many people in this country who put their party BEFORE our country. If this was Clinton, would you still feel the same way about the war? Maybe there are a handful in the US, but the vast and overwelming majority would be calling him a traitorist scumbag if he did this. I just have to point this outt to people every now and then, especially when BS is used for a defense.

[grdpounder]

Don't worry about the analogy it makes sense. I do however have a question. Why do people still fault the home front during the Vietnam war now that the Guld of Tonkin incident seems to be accepted as fiction? Should people support a war built on dishonesty?

Please do NOT read into this question as I am NOT attempting to link this to the war in Iraq. This question is specifically about Vietnam.

Because, this is just my opinon the home front was at fault. They quit on our soldiers. Correct me if I am wrong but the reality of the Gulf of Tomkin incident was not exsposed till after the war. They way the troops were treated on their return as second class citizens in some cases speaks volumes. This war is very personal to me, my uncle lost his leg in Vietnam and I can still remember the torment my mother went through trying to find out his condition. I can still remember visiting the VA hospital in Philadelphia, they were just building Veterans Stadium. This is why I think the Congressman a Vietnam Vet himself should know better.

Ed