Murtha has completely lost his mind

[Seabee1973]

And here is where you show the double standard that extreme party loyalty will cause.

I think Clinton recieved one deferment for being enrolled at Oxford. I'm not sure of the specifics. After that he went on to become a great Pres. He left a $5 trillion budget surplus that Chimpy has turned into a $10 trillion deficit. You remember Chimpy right? Jumped 500+ places in line to join the champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard then went AWOL. And 'ol Cheney recieved 5 deferments because he "had other priorities". You folks love to support the troops until one of 'em disagrees with Dear Leader.

Why would y'all denegrate Murtha's service to this country because of an expressed viewpoint? Do you really believe that BS talking point about dissention at home hurting the troops? The complete lack of support from the administration does more harm than any opinion ever could. How about someone at the WH coming up with an actionable plan to get our boys the heck out of there? How about defining success or our ultimate goal? Staying the course is not a plan. Ending terrorism is not a plan because terrorism is a tactic. I'm sick and tired of the endless sloganeering from the Reep side. Do something that works. They still haven't restored electricity to Baghdad, for ****'s sake. Stop making excuses for these corporatists and demand that they come up with a plan to end the deaths of our soldiers!

5 trillion surplus. The last time the country had a surplus in the budget was 1830 something and it lasted a matter of hours. Have you personnally talked to trrops? I have a few just got back from a trip withen last few weeks and they see that crap on the news there and it irks them Some of them think they are not wanted when they get back. Baghdad had electricity restored to it years ago get your facts straight

[dreamingwolf]

murtha is a vietnam vet,he has earned the right to say what he says,and i think there is a coverup as well.

normally I wouldnt say someones ideas are retarded just for saying something is a cover up, but your idea is retarded thinking there is a cover up here. I even went back and read this thread trying to figure out what possible topic that was even remotely touched that you would assign a cover up to and came to the conclusion that you have a template of the bold code surrounding "and I think there was a cover up" and you just build text arround that text.

[chomerics]

1. Is not a question. I contend that to kill AMQ, we used boots on the ground. I contend that in all my schooling and training that a way in which to locate, destroy, and verify destruction of a target there was never a troopless option presented.

That is because you were a soldier on the ground. Did you really think you would be involved in remote air strikes? Do you not think BDAs are done from satellite photographs? What do you think the Pentagon does all day, sit back on their ass and wait for information from troops to filter back to Washington? You are acting like having the troops is the ONLY way to strike, and you are wrong. Did we have troops on the ground in Lybia when we attacked in 86? How about all the attacks on Saddam prior to the Gulf invasion? How about all the air attacks that happened prior to having boots on the ground?

You chose a position which is wrong, that we can not attack a country, or even a house without troops. . .well, tell me then, how did we attack Baghdad in Gulf War I?

2. I did not decide the troop array that went into Afghanistan. I did not decide the troop array that went into Tora Bora specifically. I can say that speed was of the essence, and that usually dictates a smaller force. Someone thought the light conventional, special ops focused approach into Afghanistan was the proper way to get UBL prior to his escape across the border into another soveriegn nation that maybe didn't want a large US presence operating in it. And we all know that the American public will not tolerate clandestine and covert operations.

Or maybe, just maybe he was not as high of a priority as Iraq. 100,000 troops vs 14,000 who is the bigger priority? people seem to forget the GWOT was with Al Qaeda, not Iraq. We were after Bin Laden, not Saddam, until Bush pulled the old switcharoo

3. A very vague question. We have had this discussion before. I want our policy to focus primarily on terrorism executed against US targets. If other countries benefit from that, fine. You have cited your studies that characterize all actions against US troops in Iraq as terrorism...I don't agree with. Terrorism has decreased here since 9-11.

We are talking about world wide, not in the US. Do you agree that terrorism has increased world wide since our invasion, yes or no? I asked a simple question, not vague at all. Terrorism, defined as a terrorist act by the US State Department, has either increased or decreased world wide since the invasion. Remember Murtha said worldwide we are more of a threat then Iran having Nukes, so we are sticking with the world wide definition.

4. Please locate my "party one liners" that peg me as a lemming. I have had meaningful debates on this board with many posters. There are plenty of people that spew talking points. I don't spend all day watching the news and reading the internet to find out what said talking points are.

You have answered my questions, and as I said before you have two choices. You did not chose the lemming path, so you are not pegged as a lemming. You chose a good path, which is to debate the issues, something I will gladly do.

You seem to completely contradict yourself here. You chastise the administration(which really means the Pentagon) for not having troops on the ground to get Bin Laden. That we diverted them to Iraq. And then you say that we don't need them in Iraq. So which is it? Do we need troops or do we not to target terrorist leaders?

I used YOUR argument, and it is YOUR contradiction not mine. You stated that we need troops to beat terrorism, and we need them on the ground. You basically said we need "a small group of forces" as your explanation for Tora Bora and allowing Bin Laden to escape.

My contention all along has been that we are exacerbating the situation, not helping it. It is pretty clear for anyone to see, as terrorism has increased exponentially since we invaded Iraq. Remember, the comment which Murtha was called on was about world wide peace, and I agree with him. Our mere presence in Iraq is a deterrent to peace, and we are doing nothing more then providing target practice for terrorists with our troops. I can think of a hell of a lot of other things I would like to spend $500Billion on, and save the lives of young men in the process. Then while we are at it, we can go after the terrorists by infiltrating them, and defeat them from within. Instead of creating entire generations of terrorists, while giving them practice to hone their skills on our troops.

BTW, thanks for the honest answers, it isn't often people will actually debate the issues at hand

[chomerics]

So instead of getting there in half an hour it takes three hours for the planes from the gulf to get there Now Zarqawi is gone again. Maybe its not that we could have use dthe troops to get Zarqawi but the followup raids from the place when we arrested over 100 insurgents from the information we gathered.

You can make that argument for anything, what if we can only get there in 30 min and he is gone in 10? I also contend a tomahawk missle in the gulf is just as fast, if not faster then launching a F-16 from an airstrip, and getting to a target. Even then, when we attack targets like Al Zarqawi, it is when we know he is going to be somewhere at such and such a time. It is not because he is spotted by troops on the gorund, but because of intel filtered to the generals.

[chomerics]

5 trillion surplus. The last time the country had a surplus in the budget was 1830 something and it lasted a matter of hours.

:doh: There was a surplus in Clintons last 3 years as president :doh: Stop getting all your information from right wing hacks, and become informed. . .

[Seabee1973]

That is because you were a soldier on the ground. Did you really think you would be involved in remote air strikes? Do you not think BDAs are done from satellite photographs? What do you think the Pentagon does all day, sit back on their ass and wait for information from troops to filter back to Washington? You are acting like having the troops is the ONLY way to strike, and you are wrong. Did we have troops on the ground in Lybia when we attacked in 86? How about all the attacks on Saddam prior to the Gulf invasion? How about all the air attacks that happened prior to having boots on the ground?

You chose a position which is wrong, that we can not attack a country, or even a house without troops. . .well, tell me then, how did we attack Baghdad in Gulf War I?

Guess what troops are used for? It is verified by troops on the ground that he was in the house. Could you imagine the uproar you would be causing if that was unverified and it killed a bunch of innocent civilians insted of zarqawi? We did not need troops on the ground for Libya.

The attacks during the first Gulf war were not aimed at taking out people it was aimed at strategic buildings.

Or maybe, just maybe he was not as high of a priority as Iraq. 100,000 troops vs 14,000 who is the bigger priority? people seem to forget the GWOT was with Al Qaeda, not Iraq. We were after Bin Laden, not Saddam, until Bush pulled the old switcharoo

The GWOT is on all terrorist not just al-queda

We are talking about world wide, not in the US. Do you agree that terrorism has increased world wide since our invasion, yes or no? I asked a simple question, not vague at all. Terrorism, defined as a terrorist act by the US State Department, has either increased or decreased world wide since the invasion. Remember Murtha said worldwide we are more of a threat then Iran having Nukes, so we are sticking with the world wide definition.

And if Murtha said Terrist should get a free pass on bombings in the US you would believe him.

[LApunkrocker72]

This is absolutely true. There is a real war going on over there vs. the threat of nuclear WMD's from North Korea or Iran.

The situation could change in 3 days, but for now the death and dying is in Iraq and NOT in Iran or North Korea. Valid observation on that point.

You hit the nail right on the head, webnarc

In my opinion, our troops should not even be in Iraq. The current war in Iraq is based on Bush's lies. The Bush administration doesn't care about the American people, they just care about oil and big business.

BTW: I'm sure Murtha would make a better president than Bush.

[JimboDaMan]

Would it interest you folks to know that Murtha never said the bit about US being more of a threat than Iran or NK?

Go back and read the Sun-Sentinel article, there's no such quote. The statement is made in a paraphrase. It had to be in order to sound juicy, because what Murtha did was quote a Pew Poll that in many foreign countries people consider the US more dangerous. Those weren't his words, and that wasn't his point. His point had more to do with US worldwide perception by potential allies than who actually represents the threat.

[Thiebear]

Would it interest you folks to know that Murtha never said the bit about US being more of a threat than Iran or NK?

Go back and read the Sun-Sentinel article, there's no such quote.

OK??? Heres the article:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-ctownhall25jun25,1,6870105.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Pull out of Iraq now, congressman urges

Cover-up of Haditha killings wrong, he says

By Elizabeth Baier

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Posted June 25 2006

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by U.S. Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former U.S. Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.

I didnt read "inferred" or this is what I Elizabeth Baier got from his speach?

[Mad Mike]

In the majority of cases, from the ****pit of the plane.

Ever hear of a telephone? Do you actually think the informant went to the next Humvee raised his hands and said "hey Mr. Soldier, I know where Zarqawi is"

Hell no, it is all covert. Secret meetings, things of that nature.

Again, debate the issue. Does our troop presence there do more harm to the GWOT then good? All you need to do is look at the terrorism statistics from when we set foot in Iraq until now, and you will see that our presence there is FUELING the insurgency.

Heres a little fact for you. After getting a tip on SEVERAL possible hideouts US soldiers began scouting them and US soldiers ON THE GROUND actualy SAW HIM drive into the compound. That's how we found him.

Then there is the fact that we would not have any contact with a freindly Iraqi military if we had not gone in and removed Saddam in the first place.

And BTW, Zarqawi was in Bagdad under Saddam. Keep telling yourself that Saddam did not know this even with his history of inviting wanted terrorists to live in Iraq if it make you sleep better in your fantasy land but the last three most wanted terrorists in the world before bin Laden already lived there.

Your entire theorys are based on fantasy. You havent got a clue what you are talking about and those of who understand that find everything you have said in this thread to be simplistic and moronic.

[Thiebear]

Really Bear? Why don;t you tell me how we got him then huh? We got him from an informant, not from American troops. We dropped a bomb on his sorry ass. So tell me again why we need troops to kill him?

What do out troops on the ground there accomplish in terms of the GWOT other then being a big freaking target?

Iraqi Security Forces Are Growing In Size And Strength. As Iraqis see their own countrymen defending them against the terrorists and Saddamists, they are stepping forward with needed intelligence. General Casey reports that the number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 in March 2005 to over 4,700 last month.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060110.html

Chomerics: We had boots on the ground tracking him: We have boots on the ground training those that are going to take over. We were in the house within minutes, got the documents and such and conducted 460ish raids directly after that in which we killed 100+ and captures 700? Of those raides 160ish of them were from Iraqi troops themselves...

Which part of that do you not understand?

[chomerics]

Heres a little fact for you. After getting a tip on SEVERAL possible hideouts US soldiers began scouting them and US soldiers ON THE GROUND actualy SAW HIM drive into the compound. That's how we found him.

Again a OUTRIGHT LIE!!!! Please show me the link that says AMERICAN soldiers saw him get into the house, and please tell me if soldiers saw him, why they would not kill him on the spot? Please try to prove me wrong, I am calling you out saying you are completely full of crap, so if you live in reality prove me wrong.

Then there is the fact that we would not have any contact with a freindly Iraqi military if we had not gone in and removed Saddam in the first place.

Or the fact that terrorists wouldn't BE in Iraq to begin with :doh:

And BTW, Zarqawi was in Bagdad under Saddam. Keep telling yourself that Saddam did not know this even with his history of inviting wanted terrorists to live in Iraq if it make you sleep better in your fantasy land but the last three most wanted terrorists in the world before bin Laden already lived there.

And Atta was in the US under Bush, your point? Was he on the payroll? Was he working with Iraq? Was he even a "guest of Hussen's?" The answer to all would be a resounding NO!!!

Your entire theorys are based on fantasy. You havent got a clue what you are talking about and those of who understand that find everything you have said in this thread to be simplistic and moronic.

Really Mike, who is based on Fantasy? The person with a picture inferring a Saddam and 9-11 connection or me? The person who says troops on the ground saw Zarqawi ro me? (I am waiting for a credible link on that one). Who is more based in reality, the person who continues to claim that because Saddam could have possibly in the future had WMDs he was a threat we had to eliminate, even though it increased terrorism around the world, and killed over 2000+ soldiers.

BTW, to back up the claims that terrorism has increased since Iraq, how about these numbers. . .

from 2003-2004

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

How about what the Clerics say themselves. . .

Fadlallah said the roots of terrorism stem from U.S. foreign policy in the region that “leads to a psychological state that opposes the U.S. administration.” He cited America's economic policy and continuing support of Arab elites as another central cause for generating terrorism, whether against the U.S. or Arab regimes.

“In this sense, the occupation of Iraq has increased acts of terrorism against the U.S. and everyone going along with it, including the Iraqis themselves. This is especially the case as many in the Arab and Islamic world consider (ousted Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein and his regime as an associate of the U.S. because he had been a CIA employee since the beginning,” he said.

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1891.cfm

How about what our OWN documents say?

But the documents say, and officials confirm, that some of the rise is traceable to the war in Iraq, where foreign terrorists, a homegrown insurgency and sectarian strife have all contributed to political bloodshed.

More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the U.S. citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq.

The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of U.S., Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.

"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorist trends. The center is part of the U.S. intelligence community.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14390575.htm

Yet, the one who is telling you what the problems are, and why they are problems is the one living in a fantasy world, and the person who STILL claims there was a Saddam connection to 9-11 is based in reality. :doh: :dunce:

Just like you say mike, where there's smoke there's fire, and yes your path is ablaze right now.

[chomerics]

Guess what troops are used for? It is verified by troops on the ground that he was in the house. Could you imagine the uproar you would be causing if that was unverified and it killed a bunch of innocent civilians insted of zarqawi?

And you are telling me the Iraqi military can not do this? Are you serious?

The attacks during the first Gulf war were not aimed at taking out people it was aimed at strategic buildings.

Yet, we used the same tactics, and the bombs do the exact same thing. The argument was that troops were NEEDED to carry out an attack via air, it was not correct, and you just agreed with me above.

The GWOT is on all terrorist not just al-queda

Really? Are you sure? Would you consider Hamas a terrorist orginization? How about a lot of the gorups in Pakistan? And when were Iraqi's part of Al Qaeda? Will you even admit that Iraqi's became terrorists BECAUSE of our invasion, or are you so pigheaded that you can't even concede the smallest point?

And if Murtha said Terrist should get a free pass on bombings in the US you would believe him.

Wow, you are really dillusional aren't you. Try to actually say something that represents my beliefs next time, or stay out of the debate, you are making a fool out of yourself.

[chomerics]

Iraqi Security Forces Are Growing In Size And Strength. As Iraqis see their own countrymen defending them against the terrorists and Saddamists, they are stepping forward with needed intelligence. General Casey reports that the number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 in March 2005 to over 4,700 last month.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060110.html

Chomerics: We had boots on the ground tracking him: We have boots on the ground training those that are going to take over. We were in the house within minutes, got the documents and such and conducted 460ish raids directly after that in which we killed 100+ and captures 700? Of those raides 160ish of them were from Iraqi troops themselves...

Which part of that do you not understand?

Show me where it is AMERICAN boots that saw him go into the building. I agree the Iraqis can give us the EXACT SAME thing the Americans do in terms of support, and especially what has been mentioned in this thread. Things like BDAs, intel and stuff like that.

So tell me AGAIN why we need AMERICAN troops on the ground?

[flashback]

I don't have anything against Murtha, but he seems like a person who has had a belly-full of war, and will object to it on those grounds alone. We need people like that in government, but we also need people like both George Bushes and JFK who will commit troops to a fight they believe in.

A quick note on budget surpluses: Clinton had budget surpluses of $39 billion in 1998, $99 billion in 1999, and $239 billion in 2000. It was projected that in 10 years, the surplus would be $4.56 trillion. Obviously, that figure will never be reached.

[dreamingwolf]

I guess in choms world his miracle F-16s would bomb the building, then comb the wreckage with fly bys, materialize some wreckage scoop, then fly back to the gulf to land on a carrier so we can go through all the intel that was gathered.

The "black book" of zarqawi they recovered from that site supposedly was more valuable than killing him. Im curious how in choms reality that book could have been recovered without ground troops. Also Im curious how in choms reality saddam would have been captured or killed. Saddam wasnt going to leave his fortresses, he had to leave them cause they would have been invaded. His only chance was to go on the lam.

I dont think we can totally blame chom for his dillusions though, we have to go back to clinton to find out where chom gets his beliefs. The conflict chom at the least had the green light to support(he might not have, but atleast his politics would let him support it) was the kosovo conflict. In that affair we bombed a voting society into hating their leadership enough to vote them out, and eventually they captured him and turned him over. Choms right we didnt use ground troops, they were there but they were forced to stand and watch reprisal killings of serbs in kosovo. so ya they werent used.

So, comparing kosovo to iraq you can see given that its a Republican administration issuing the confict and they arent following the same template as the one used by clinton one chom can accept then it is completely wrong on every level. Maybe Im wrong, maybe chom just opposes it purely for political reasons, but from his posts it sounds like he feels the Iraq conflict should have followed the kosovo template. however that would have been impossible, saddam had the reigns wrapped twice arround his fists and there was no way that yoke was comming off. Iraq is and was nothing like Serbia, they could not vote Saddam out and they could not capture him and turn him over. They just werent organized like that.

Probably one of the most usefull weapons we imployed against the serbs was the nets we would drop on their power stations, that basically irritated their people to stop following slobo and they replaced him to get normalcy back in their lives. well the people were already irritated at saddam but were powerless cause of how saddam organized Iraqi control.

[Thiebear]

Show me where it is AMERICAN boots that saw him go into the building. I agree the Iraqis can give us the EXACT SAME thing the Americans do in terms of support, and especially what has been mentioned in this thread. Things like BDAs, intel and stuff like that.

So tell me AGAIN why we need AMERICAN troops on the ground?

I already did:

American Troops were doing 100% of the work, while training the Iraqi's.

Now the American Troops are doing 60% of the work, while training the Iraqi's.

Soon, the American Troops will be doing 0% of the work and everyone will rejoice. but till then.

Don't kid yourself, the troops + the civilians and the #2 guy being stupid helped kill Zardeadi and caption the rest.

[Section106]

...A quick note on budget surpluses: Clinton had budget surpluses of $39 billion in 1998, $99 billion in 1999, and $239 billion in 2000. It was projected that in 10 years, the surplus would be $4.56 trillion. Obviously, that figure will never be reached...

That is true. I didn't add the projected part for the sake of brevity. However, all budgets are projected.

The CBO did an analysis of the fiscal deterioration of the Federal govt at the end of Bush's first term. They found that if Bush would have simply kept the Clinton tax rate the govt would have had a surplus, even with all the spending on Iraq. They also concluded that it was Bush's fiscal policy alone that has caused the deficit.

[Thiebear]

That is true. I didn't add the projected part for the sake of brevity. However, all budgets are projected.

The CBO did an analysis of the fiscal deterioration of the Federal govt at the end of Bush's first term. They found that if Bush would have simply kept the Clinton tax rate the govt would have had a surplus, even with all the spending on Iraq. They also concluded that it was Bush's fiscal policy alone that has caused the deficit.

So your saying 9/11 would not have impacted the Clinton campain.

The Airports would not have shut down in my area... the restaurants/hotels etc. would not have happened. We wouldnt have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq. The companies that were cooking the books would have never been caught. And the recession that was already coming would not have materialized..

those are some rosie glasses we have on don't we? Don't the same analysts say that the tax cuts have brought IN more money?

[chomerics]

I guess in choms world his miracle F-16s would bomb the building, then comb the wreckage with fly bys, materialize some wreckage scoop, then fly back to the gulf to land on a carrier so we can go through all the intel that was gathered.

The "black book" of zarqawi they recovered from that site supposedly was more valuable than killing him. Im curious how in choms reality that book could have been recovered without ground troops. Also Im curious how in choms reality saddam would have been captured or killed. Saddam wasnt going to leave his fortresses, he had to leave them cause they would have been invaded. His only chance was to go on the lam.

Ummm, are you telling me Iraqi's can't find a book? Really?

And when what does Saddam have to do with right here and now? Keep on bringing up straw man arguments which mean nothing to the case at hand. What does Saddam have to do with our troops now? Do you understand that our troops are nothing more then targets and training for the insurgence?

I dont think we can totally blame chom for his dillusions though, we have to go back to clinton to find out where chom gets his beliefs. The conflict chom at the least had the green light to support(he might not have, but atleast his politics would let him support it) was the kosovo conflict. In that affair we bombed a voting society into hating their leadership enough to vote them out, and eventually they captured him and turned him over. Choms right we didnt use ground troops, they were there but they were forced to stand and watch reprisal killings of serbs in kosovo. so ya they werent used.

So, comparing kosovo to iraq you can see given that its a Republican administration issuing the confict and they arent following the same template as the one used by clinton one chom can accept then it is completely wrong on every level. Maybe Im wrong, maybe chom just opposes it purely for political reasons, but from his posts it sounds like he feels the Iraq conflict should have followed the kosovo template. however that would have been impossible, saddam had the reigns wrapped twice arround his fists and there was no way that yoke was comming off. Iraq is and was nothing like Serbia, they could not vote Saddam out and they could not capture him and turn him over. They just werent organized like that.

How about this Wolf, Iraq should not have happened!!! It should have followed no template, and only because of a naive public believed the propaganda being shoved down their throats, did it happen. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or the GWOT until we started creating terrorists there. We have made them far FAR faster then we have killed them, and it has been an utter forign policy catastrophy.

Now, do we continue down the same path, or FINALLY give our soldiers a break? You seem to think only AMERICAN soldiers can do the work, well, I seem to think that we should let Iraq govern their OWN country. Their people want us out, our people want us out, it is time we got out. We have put these soldiers through enough paind and hardship, lets get them out of there before we lose another 500 young men and women.

What does our presence in Iraq do? Do you agree that it has created more hatred towards the US? Do you agree that terrorism has INCREASED since the invasion?

What do you have to back it up? Anything other then ad hominem attacks? Any links, or are you just as lost as the leader of our country when it comes to the actual facts in this war?

[chomerics]

I already did:

American Troops were doing 100% of the work, while training the Iraqi's.

Now the American Troops are doing 60% of the work, while training the Iraqi's.

Soon, the American Troops will be doing 0% of the work and everyone will rejoice. but till then.

Don't kid yourself, the troops + the civilians and the #2 guy being stupid helped kill Zardeadi and caption the rest.

Show me WHERE AMERICAN troops on the gorund got Zarqawi!!! I called YOU on it, I called Mike on it and I called everyone else on it. You have YET to show me where AMERICAN ground troops got Zarqawi!!!

The premise Redskins Diehard stood behind and said there is absolutely NO way around it, 100% we have to have boots on the ground. Well, in one sense I agree, but we don't need AMERICAN boots. Then Mike said AMERICAN troops found and klilled Zarqawi, to which I called BS. Then YOU said the same thing to which I called BS. Now, you come back here a THIRD time with nothing to add to the conversation that backs up your initial premise, and instead just say you are right. :doh:

American troops on the ground did NOT get Zarqawi, and if they did I would like to see the link. . .Please!!!

[chomerics]

So your saying 9/11 would not have impacted the Clinton campain.

No Bear, read and comprehend. He said EVEN IF the Iraq war was to go on, the budget STILL would have been balanced if not for the tax cut. Go back and re-read it, that is what he said. . . and he would be correct :doh: Don;t let the truth get involved in your attempt to project someone's opinion based on facts though, it is after all, all you have left as a tool in your arsenal.

[redman]

Does anyone have a rational explanation for Murtha saying all of these things besides simply saying, "He's lost it"? I have yet to hear one, but I wondered, for example whether his district had changed demographically such that he needed to pander to a new voting base. (And yes, it's a weird way to pander but still).

[Thiebear]

No Bear, read and comprehend. He said EVEN IF the Iraq war was to go on, the budget STILL would have been balanced if not for the tax cut. Go back and re-read it, that is what he said. . . and he would be correct :doh: Don;t let the truth get involved in your attempt to project someone's opinion based on facts though, it is after all, all you have left as a tool in your arsenal.

So you left out 9/11, the airports/planes, restaurants/depression global crossing/Enron and countless other company crashes/Dow drop....

and I misread?

nice.

[Air Force Cane]

Redman-

perhaps the fact that LAST WEEK he announced he is running for Majority Leader after the dems win the election has something to do with it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198941,00.html

"Murtha to announce run for House Leadership"