Murtha has completely lost his mind

[Thiebear]

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!!!

I admit it, you are correct and i am wrong.

Every single instance is a bubble in and of itself.

The 4000 tips provided because of the support means nothing.

Training the Iraqi guards that were first on the scene had nothing to do with it.

The Rangers/Seals/SPec ops that watched the house for weeks: nope they are just crossing guards...

The Jordanian intelligence would have done it themselves

Your a stubborn little guy... (Show me where I said American Troops found him?) I said we trained the Iraqi troops....

[dreamingwolf]

wah wah wah...

Anything other then ad hominem attacks? ...wah wah wah!

I think its funny you bring up ad hominem attacks, you call people dellusional and many other names constantly. Before you get on a high horse how about you act the part instead of just showing your glass jaw.

As too my post, I was just going off of your chomality of not needing boots on the ground to get zarqawi and trying to explain to you that boots on the ground is exactly what got saddam and zarqawi cause it didnt give the luxary of remaining fortified and safe. I also highlighted that one of the great assets we retrieved from the killing of zarqawi was the data in his personal belongings. I know in chomality the republican guard and saddam would have gladly turned it over to us, but I was just trying to shine a glimmer of reality into your chomality that it took boots on the ground to break down saddams regime and replace his security forces with organizations that would share that data with us. I know in chomality this is a little detail that can be over looked, cause in chomality everyone is our friend if we are obsequios to them even saddam.

I know that your not opposed to the war cause you hate greater America, its your obsessive hatred of Bush and Republicans that forces you to attempt to make this war effort a failure by at every turn in every fashion by attempting to humilate the US and underming homeland moral to every ear that will listen to you. Boots on the ground is nothing to you, its a failure of Bush that you savor to taste.

and no I dont think we have generated any more hate, people have a limit to the ammount they can hate you and the people over there that hate us reached that decades ago. sure maybe they holding up signs that you agree with and promote the message over iraq, but they would be holding up signs of something else we do(could be as simple of letting your precious gays hold office or marry) if we werent there. They hate every fabric of our being and way of life, so no I dont think being there has created any new hate just new phrases and hate topics but the level has plateaued long ago.

[smalex41]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201054,00.html

It's pathetic to hear a sitting U.S. congressman say this. He needs to return his medals and check himself in for a full and complete mental evaluation.

What doe this say about our leaders?

[Madman_Mike]

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!!!

What I stated I saw in an early news report on TV. Since then there has been a clamp down on the operational details of how it happened. One report I saw had a spokesman say he "could neither confirm nor deny" that we had eyes on him before the strike. But then there is this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/

"We had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house," Caldwell said. ‘Painstaking intelligence effort’

The spokesman said U.S. and Iraqi intelligence found al-Zarqawi by following his spiritual adviser.

“Through a painstaking intelligence effort, we were able to start tracking him, monitor his movements and establish when he was doing his linkup with al-Zarqawi,” he said. “What everyone needs to understand is the strike last night did not occur in a 24-hour period.”

Caldwell also said U.S. and Iraqi troops carried out 17 raids around Baghdad following al-Zarqawi's killing.

“It truly was a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information gathering, human sources, electronics, signal intelligence that was done over a period of time, many, many weeks,” Caldwell said

Now Chom. Suppose you tell me how we would expect an Iraqi army and Iraqi inteligence UNDER SADDAM to help us find him much less find his books and turn them over to us?

[dreamingwolf]

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).

3 words:

Republican amdimistrations war

[smalex41]

nelms, he makes an ass out of himself with this ****. No need to check himself into anywhere. The public who pays attention already knows he's nuts.

He'll probably be a candidate for president soon !!

[Madman_Mike]

wah wah wah...

Anything other then ad hominem attacks? ...wah wah wah!

Says the master of ad hominem attacks.

[smalex41]

But, unfortunately, this isn't Joe Blow blogger posting rants on the internet. This is a sitting U.S. congressman making these statements. Just more propaganda for the enemy.

Exactly what positive indications have you received from our government in the last several years ? :mad:

[smalex41]

I know. It pisses me off as well. It always helps when a person who is apart of our federal government is questioning publicly what we are up to in Iraq(or anywhere else for that matter). :doh: All it does is . . . just like you said, adds more fuel to the fire of our enemies.

Charge the a**hole with "TREASON" !!

[Air Force Cane]

Sure, let's just have Chom and Murtha run our foreign and defense policy.

we can have our F-16s based in Okinawa, and then we would only have to refuel them TWELVE times for a roundtrip bombing run over Iraq.

The 15 minutes our planes could then loiter over Iraq is more than enough time to find individual terrorists.

sounds great!!

[smalex41]

Exactly. Our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. I mean, what was the purpose of these comments? What was he trying to accomplish? Everyone already knows his opposition to the war.

I don't think the "dumb ass" has a clue about what he's said.

[smalex41]

When Murtha first began to rant about the war, my late father made the comment that he was nothing but "an old liberal fart that needed to blow away in a stiff wind"

Thank you Congressman Murtha for making statements like these that prove my dad right

Leave him alone and he will come home "wagging his tail behind him" !! :laugh:

[Windy City Skins fan]

Folks, don't know if this was already posted, but the South Florida Sun-Sentinel made an error in reporting Rep. John Murtha’s comment about American presence being the most dangerous to world peace.

The statements he made were not his directly; he was citing some poll. The paper is printing a retraction.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-ctownhall25jun25,0,7119684.story

[webnarc]

Charge the a**hole with "TREASON" !!

Are you satisfied that the statement was made? Please provide your source.

NOTE: I'm not saying that he didn't say it, I just don't buy into a paraphrase article from Fox news or Thiebears sig saying which calls the man an idiot without the direct quote.

This may be the perfect example of truthiness.

[webnarc]

Folks, don't know if this was already posted, but the South Florida Sun-Sentinel made an error in reporting Rep. John Murtha’s comment about American presence being the most dangerous to world peace.

The statements he made were not his directly; he was citing some poll. The paper is printing a retraction.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-ctownhall25jun25,0,7119684.story

Wow. Thank you for posting this.

How's that tail between the legs haters?

[chomerics]

What I stated I saw in an early news report on TV. Since then there has been a clamp down on the operational details of how it happened. One report I saw had a spokesman say he "could neither confirm nor deny" that we had eyes on him before the strike. But then there is this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/

Now Chom. Suppose you tell me how we would expect an Iraqi army and Iraqi inteligence UNDER SADDAM to help us find him much less find his books and turn them over to us?

Again, you said US TROOPS on the ground were HOW we cought him. You stated explicitly that US troops saw him go into a compound, and you lied. Nowhere did it say US troops "saw him go into a compound", it said INTEL, noe "They Saw", you lied it is as simple as that, and you were called on it.

Gotta go for a while, I'll hit this later tonight.

[Madman_Mike]

Again, you said US TROOPS on the ground were HOW we cought him. You stated explicitly that US troops saw him go into a compound, and you lied. Nowhere did it say US troops "saw him go into a compound", it said INTEL, noe "They Saw", you lied it is as simple as that, and you were called on it.

Gotta go for a while, I'll hit this later tonight.

So I'm telling you that is what I saw reported on the news and you are straight up calling me a liar? You little piss-ant MF. Boy you are some piece of work. You sit at home safe with your bong in hand and talk to people the way you do knowing they cant touch you huh? Because here's a tip boy, you NEVER want to talk to me that way in person.

[webnarc]

So I'm telling you that is what I saw reported on the news and you are straight up calling me a liar? You little piss-ant MF. Boy you are some piece of work. You sit at home safe with your bong in hand and talk to people the way you do knowing they cant touch you huh? Because here's a tip boy, you NEVER want to talk to me that way in person.

You are slandering him with this statement. You have broken the law.

Good move!

[Windy City Skins fan]

Wow. Thank you for posting this.

QUOTE]

You're welcome. I'm glad I saw it.

It just takes a little research to check for context. I wish the on-air pundits who lambasted the Veteran had done the same. Sometimes, we latch onto a quote or stat like a bulldog because it works for us without doing a little homework...unfortunately happens on BOTH sides of the aisle and that just taints true debate.

[Thiebear]

Many people around the world consider the American presence in Iraq dangerous to world peace, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Murtha cited a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea

I agree: Murtha didnt state it: He cited a poll that stated it.

What has he said since then? When he was asked about it?

[Redskins Diehard]

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?

Do you even have any idea what I did and did not do? Do you realize that I have planned, participated in, and AAR'd more than one combat operation? Do you think that I have had access to the very best imagery our country has to offer, and still had to go out and verify exactly what it is we were looking at? I have no first hand knowledge of what goes on in the Pentagon on a daily basis. I do know that my boss was asking for reports all the time, because his boss was asking for reports, because his boss was asking(do we need to follow this all the way to the Pentagon). Now my commander from Afghanistan did work in J3-OIF in the Pentagon, he shared with me a little of what it was like. While nobody was "sitting on their ass" all day, they were waiting on reports from the people that were there.

You cite several examples of aerial bombardment. How many key leaders did we kill in Libya? How about how many times did we kill Saddam in the decapitation strike? How about how many of the cruise missiles we launched into Afghanistan actually killed Bin Laden in 98? How did the fight from the air approach work in killing Milosevic? You have cited several cases where we were NOT succesfull in eliminating a leadership target with air strikes alone.

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?

Your first sentence here actually highlights your complete misunderstanding of how things work. It is easy to attack a country without people there. It is far more difficult to kill a specific person. Your claim, which was wrong, was not that we could attack a country without people on the ground...it was that we could kill Zarqawi.

So you tell me then, in our attack on Baghdad in Gulf War I, did we kill Saddam Hussein?

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

Or maybe, just maybe, it was a very different situation. Maybe someone chose speed and agility over mass in Afghanistan. Maybe there was a neighboring country that said "we will help...but you will not conduct combat operations within our borders". Maybe we decided to go with a Special Ops package vs. a conventional approach(how did that work for the Soviets). Please tell me how you would use our mechanized forces in the mountains of Afghanistan, I would be interested to hear that.

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.

Of note, I disagree with the State Departments classification of a category of attacks that they classify as terrorism. I have stated this before, the last time you pulled up the charts.

I am glad Murtha is concerned about the world. In this case I am concerned about the place where my family and friends live. If other people's family and friends are protected also, great...as a Soldier they were not my concern.

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.

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.

It is not my contradiction. I said a decision was made to use a smaller contingent of forces. I never claimed to agree with it. What I can recognize, is that GEN Franks and the Special Ops community that made that decision were probably a little more qualified than I am.

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.

Your contention here, that I responded to was that we could do everything we are doing, without troops. That is wrong...very wrong.

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

Believe it or not I try to provide honest answers whenever I post. I realize that there are people that I may agree with on an issue, but disagree with their delivery. There are also people that I disagree with on an issue but can appreciate their delivery.

I did not ask your qualifications to be a *******, I did it because you are presenting ideas that are different than everything I have been taught, trained upon, and participated in. I challenge you to find me one respectable military mind that will say we could have gotten any leadership targets without boots on the ground.

[Section106]

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?

I'm not saying that 9/11 would have impacted the Clinton campaign. Quite frankly I don't know what you mean. I do know that had the Supreme Court not intervened into the 2000 election on behalf of Georgie Boy that we would most definately NOT be in Iraq. I have never said anywhere on this board that I'm against the Afghan war. As a matter of fact, I'm irate as hell that Bushco decided to go for its neo-con dream instead of actually bringing OBL to justice.

I'd also posit that had Gore been in office we would've prevented or at least minimized some of the damage and loss of life on 9/11. I make this statement given the emphasis the Clinton administration placed on AQ and the sad performance and down right apathy demonstrated by Bushco. If you remember, Bush downgraded the terrorism Czar from a cabinet level position, put off any meetings with Richard Clark, pawned the terrorism job off on Cheney who then proceeded to hold ZERO meetings on terrorism, made the missle defense shield his major defense initiative, ignored the PDB that warned of a terrorist attack, etc... Condi Rice was actually scheduled to make a policy speech about the missle defense shield on 9/11. These guys were, are, and continue to be clueless.

As far as Enron, I assume that is what you're refering to, 'ol Kenny boy was Bush's best campaign contributor. Did you know that during Bush's Supreme Court case (you of course know that it was Bush that brought the suit) that he and his legal team flew on the Enron private jet to all the hearings? Moreover, I don't know that Enron and the corporate scandals of a few years ago have anything to do with what I wrote other than it is the Republicans that are closely tied to these corrupt CEOs and corporations.

As to your last point here is a good site and article:

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

The early returns on the effects of the tax cuts have not been good.

• The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
  

• The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
  

• The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
  

[Section106]

I for one am not denigrating his service. I am saying his plan stinks. I am saying he is handling this poorly.

I was one of those troops that dissension at home bothered. And I wasn't alone. There is nothing like sweating your ****s off trying to complete a mission, trying to help the Iraqi people out, trying to do your duty only to hear that people think you are wasting your time, not providing any tangible benefit to the Iraqi people, and creating more terrorists.

I expect the WH to provide the endstate, I expect the Pentagon to come up with the plan.

Sorry for not replying earlier -

I'm sorry that the "dissention" at home hurt you. However, I don't think that Murtha is blaming the troops. What he is saying is its folly to keep troops in harm's way w/o a clear plan for success. Murtha is decidedly pro-troops.

And I have great respect and gratitude for those that serve our country. In fact, I'm married to a 100% disabled veteran.

You have to understand, though that the tenor of the nation has changed against this war. The administration is at fault. They have changed the rationale for war about twenty times and offered no real signs of progress. Of course Halliburton and Lockeed Martin are turning record profits but that isn't really what the American people thought this war was about. And there's the rub my friend - What is this war really about? No one seems to know. Do you know? We see generals contradict the administration and vice versa. The American people don't have confidence in the war or its prosecution to date.

But I haven't heard anyone blame the troops. I know I haven't. I want all the troops home like yesterday.

One more thing, the idea that a Congressman doesn't have the right to comment or critize the administration and its policies is ridiculous. It is Congress' job to provide oversight. Murtha is actually doing his duty.

[JimboDaMan]

I agree: Murtha didnt state it: He cited a poll that stated it.

What has he said since then? When he was asked about it?

Does it not bother you in the slightest to be so easily and wilfully misled? People howl like wolves about a false quote and, when shown the falsehood, are not in the least angry about the deception. Its simply brushed off with the attitude that even if he didn't SAY it he really MEANT it.

As I said earlier, there was no such quote from Murtha even in the original, false Sun-Sentinel article. We should all know by now that a provocative paraphrase not backed up by a direct quote is almost always BS.

[chomerics]

So I'm telling you that is what I saw reported on the news and you are straight up calling me a liar? You little piss-ant MF.

Yes, I am calling you a LIAR, because you have FAILED to show your source. You have, yet AGAIN shown your true colors Mike, you L-I-E-D.

Here is your direct quote. . .

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.

You were called on it, and you could not come up with ANY proof to back up your claims of a "fact". I challenged you to back up your assertion, and instead of showing me them, you called me a piss ant muther f***er? Maybe, just MAYBE people like yourself won't come out so quick and blatently LIE about what happened next time, but then again, your dense enough to try the same tactic over and over again.

BTW, where did you hear the "fact" (which really has another definition in your world) that US soldiers ON THE GROUND actually SAW HIM drive into the compound? Did the voices in your head tell you? Are they the same voices that tell you "in your gut" Saddam was behnd 9-11 :doh:

Man, you can't even admit you made something up, then you resort to threats and violence because you lack not only the intelligence, but also the FACTS to back up your POV. You try to ridicule any semblance of a debate, then when people actually call you on your ludicrous claims, you resort to things like calling people piss ant muther fu***rs. What a joke. :doh:

Boy you are some piece of work. You sit at home safe with your bong in hand and talk to people the way you do knowing they cant touch you huh? Because here's a tip boy, you NEVER want to talk to me that way in person.

What, I never want to call you a liar to your face? Why, what are you going to do, bleed on me? :laugh: I call them as I see them Mike, you are a liar simple as that. If you "were just paraphrasing" what you saw in the news, why the caps Mike? huh? Did you think you could intimidate me with your CAPITOL letters? Just admit you lied to try and make a point while jumping on the bandwagon to attack me. It isn't that hard to admit a mistake, but unfortunately for you, your blunt wit had led you astray . . . yet again :doh: