• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Murtha's Second Act

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Human Events
by Robert Novak
Jun 22, 2006

On NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha repeated his call for "redeploying" U.S. troops from Iraq with something new -- and disturbing to fellow Democrats. Asked by moderator Tim Russert about sites for redeployment, Murtha replied: "We can go to Okinawa. ... We can redeploy there almost instantly."

When Russert expressed doubt about "a timely response" from Okinawa to meet a Middle East crisis . . .(Murtha said) . . ."Well, it -- you know, they -- when I say Okinawa, I, I'm saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And -- and -- when they don't know we're coming." . . .

. . . Jack Murtha proves there are second acts in American politics. I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House . . . the FBI named (Murtha) as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik . . .

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15690
 

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Voegelin said:
Human Events
by Robert Novak
Jun 22, 2006

On NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha repeated his call for "redeploying" U.S. troops from Iraq with something new -- and disturbing to fellow Democrats. Asked by moderator Tim Russert about sites for redeployment, Murtha replied: "We can go to Okinawa. ... We can redeploy there almost instantly."

When Russert expressed doubt about "a timely response" from Okinawa to meet a Middle East crisis . . .(Murtha said) . . ."Well, it -- you know, they -- when I say Okinawa, I, I'm saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And -- and -- when they don't know we're coming." . . .
It sounds like for Murtha, the cheese may have slipped off the cracker

. . . Jack Murtha proves there are second acts in American politics. I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House . . . the FBI named (Murtha) as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik .
. . Democrats find it very easy to forgive other Democrats, and it's not like he drove his car off a bridge and left his passenger to die or anything.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Doctrine1st said:
Let me understand this, Robert (I officially outed Plame) Novak is criticizing someone for offensives they haven't been indicted for?
Since when must one be indicted in order to be subject to criticism. Let's see, Bush hasn't been indicted yet he certainly hasn't been immune to criticism

Talk about cheese falling off the cracker.
For Murtha, I would say so. I suspect that this reminiscence of his ABSCAM involvement by his Democratic peers may be the real reason he backed off campaigning for the Speaker position.
 
Upvote 0

Smoke Screen

America Can Do Better!
Jul 10, 2005
2,053
100
55
Near Seattle
✟25,227.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Let's make this an interesting thread. Here's the transcript from Meet The Press. I'll include the link at the end of the Murtha-related portion of the transcript.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: This morning: the most outspoken Democratic critic of the president’s handling of the war responds. An exclusive interview with Congressman John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then, how can the chief executives of the big oil companies explain the skyrocketing prices at the pump? This morning, they try. With us: John Hofmeister, president, Shell Oil Company; James Mulva, chairman and CEO, ConocoPhillips Corporation; and David O’Reilly, chairman and CEO, Chevron Corporation. Together only on MEET THE PRESS.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But first, Iraq. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman John Murtha.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA): Nice to be back, Tim.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: The president says, “stay the course,” that within the next six months, Iraq will be secure under the direction of the new prime minister, and to do anything less now would be irresponsible.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, “stay the course” is “stay and pay.” This is the thing that has worried me right along. We’re spending $8 billion dollars a month, $300 million dollars a day. And to give you some perspective of what that means, Gates said, “I’m going to quit the corporation, or I’m going to—less time with the corporation.” Well, you weigh $30 billion dollars. That’s four months of the cost of this war. This port security, if you want to spend more money, it’d would take 47 years the way we’re spending it. Education, the No Child Left Behind, a couple months of the war would pay for that. Whose going to, whose going to pay for this down the road? Our children and grandchildren are paying for this war. And then you have the, the, the emotional strain, the, the, the people who are being hurt.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the floor the other day, you may have heard this, one fellow says, “We’re fighting this war.” We’re not fighting this war. One percent of the American people, these young men and women are fighting this war, with heavy packs, with 70 pounds of equipment, with helmets on in 130 degrees. That’s who’s fighting this war. And they say “stay the course.” There’s no plan. You open up this plan for victory, there’s no plan there. It’s just “stay the course.” That doesn’t solve any problem.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It’s worse today than it was six months ago when I spoke out initially. When I spoke out, the garbage wasn’t being collected, oil production below pre-war level—all those things indicated to me we weren’t winning this, and it’s the same today, if not worse. Anbar Province. There’s not one project been done in Anbar Province. Two million people live there. They have no water at all, no oil production, they have no electricity at all in that province where is the heartland of the defense. The first six months we went in there, no—there—not a shot was fired, so it shows you how it’s changed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It’s getting worse. That’s why I feel so strongly. All of us know how important it is internationally to win this war. We know how important. We import 20 million barrels of oil a day—we use 20 million barrels of oil. We know how important, international community. But we’re doing it all ourself, and there’s no plan that makes sense. We need to have more international cooperation. We need to redeploy our troops, the periphery. What happened with Zarqawi could have been done from the out—it was done from the outside. Our planes went in from the outside. So there’s no reason in the world that they can’t redeploy the troops. They’ve become the targets, they’re caught in the civil war, and I feel very strongly about it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: You sure do, Congressman, but so does the White House. Karl Rove, the principal political adviser to the president, went to New Hampshire on Monday, and he talked about Democrats who voted for the war and who have now changed their opinion. Here’s what he had to say, and I’ll give you a chance to respond.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Videotape, June 12, 2006):[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. ROVE: Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles. They are wrong, and profoundly wrong, in their approach.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](End of videotape)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Cutting and running.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: He’s, he’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, “Stay the course.” That’s not a plan. I mean, this guy—I don’t know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he’s saying.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, let’s, let’s—give me, give you an example. When we went to Beirut, I, I said to President Reagan, “Get out.” Now, the other day we were doing a debate, and they said, “Well, Beirut was a different situation. We cut and run.” We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, “We have to, we have to change direction. Even with tax cuts. When we had a tax cut under Reagan, we then had a tax increase because he had to change direction. We need to change direction. We can’t win a war like this.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This guy’s sitting back there criticizing—political criticism, getting paid by the public taxpayer, and he’s saying to us, “We’re, we’re winning this war, and they’re running.” We got to change direction, that’s what we have to do. You can’t, you can’t sit there in the air conditioned office and tell these troops they’re carrying 70 pounds on their back inside these armored vessels and hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says “stay the course.” Yeah, it’s easy to say that from Washington, D.C.[/FONT]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/
 
Upvote 0

Smoke Screen

America Can Do Better!
Jul 10, 2005
2,053
100
55
Near Seattle
✟25,227.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Continued:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Is it appropriate for the president’s principal political adviser to accuse the Democrats of cutting and running?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I think it’s, it’s, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]it’s a, a name—they just use that. I say “stay and pay.” And what I mean by stay and pay, and I’m talking about the hardship on the families, the hardship on the troops. And there’s no plan, that’s the thing. It’s easy to say that. That’s, that’s an easy—the public is way ahead of this. The public is two-to-one against what we’re doing, and they want a change in direction. That’s the thing I see the most.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: But in 2004, you had a view that was much different than you had now, and this is what you wrote in your book: “A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance.” Aren’t you now advocating that?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. That’s what I said then. And I think in the early stages, you have to judge that. But there comes a time when you got to change direction. There comes a time when you have to say to yourself, “OK, we’ve done everything we could do, we can’t win this militarily.” That’s why—and I talk to the military leaders, I talk to the troops, I go to the hospitals all the time.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So there’s two reasons that I felt it was absolutely essential we change direction. One is the troops themselves and what they’re going through and the fact that 42 percent of them don’t even know what the mission is. And, and the second thing is the long-term stability of this country, our inability to prevent another war because we don’t have the resources. A $50 billion dollar backlog of equipment shortages and so forth. You just have—at some point you just have to change direction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And if you’re not winning, if you’re losing, and that’s what’s happening. We’re, we’re—when I say losing, we’re, we’re losing ground over there and, and we have inadequate forces. We went in, the first place, we didn’t have any reason to go in. We didn’t have a threat to our national security. That’s been proven. Second, we went—inadequate forces to get it under control in a transition to peace. Third, the third thing was, no exit strategy.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I, I’m convinced, though, Tim, I believe this, I believe the president’s sounding tough, but the president’s also saying it’s now up to the Iraqis. You watch what I’m saying. He’s saying—and the vice-president and the president of Iraq, 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. And the vice-president, president of Iraq said, “We want a time table to get out.” That’s what we need and the president knows that and that’s what he’s going to come up with.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: You expect a significant American troop withdrawal by the midterm elections?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I expect a significant troop withdrawal. They’re trying to find a way to do this. The trouble is it keeps getting worse and they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. You just have—at some point you got to reassess it like Reagan did in, in Beirut, like, like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, “OK, it’s time to change direction.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove invoked your name in New Hampshire. Let me show you that comment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Videotape, June 12, 2006):[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. ROVE: I want you to think about the consequences of their proposed course of action. If Murtha had his way, American troops would’ve been gone by the end of April and we wouldn’t have gotten Zarqawi.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](End videotape)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: They—Let me tell you, they built Zarqawi up. They have 1,000 foreign fighters. This is a civil war, and we did it from the outside, anyway. The good thing about what—when we got Zarqawi, it was Iraqi intelligence that came to the Iraqis that came to the United States. And then from outside the country, from the periphery of the country they went and bombed where Zarqawi was. So there, there was progress from that standpoint. But to say that it wouldn’t have happened is absolutely a political statement.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: You did say, however, in ‘05, “Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.” The fact is the capture of—or the killing of Zarqawi was a military accomplishment. So the military could do more.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, it was a military accomplishment from outside the country. We, we bombed, we bombed it. The, the information came from the Iraqis to the Iraqis to the U.S., and then we bombed where he was. And it—so it came from the outside.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I’ll tell you, here, here’s the problem we have in, in this kind of a war. First, first of all you’ve got our troops in the green zone. President says, “OK, I’m going in. And it was nice to see a democratic country—a democratic organization in operation.” It’s in the green zone. It’s a fortress. They’re not out in, in the public. They’re—they cannot go outside the—when I first went to Iraq, you could drive any place. As a matter of fact, when I found the 44,000 body armor shortages I was out in the division in the field. When I went to Anbar—but now you can’t go outside the green zone. So, so—the, the government’s inside the green zone. So they’re, they’re where Saddam Hussein was.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then, then let’s take the prison situation. We, we pass in the House and the Senate a veto-proof legislation that they shouldn’t veto and then the president says, “Well, we’re going to continue the same policy.” Now what does that say? We’re fighting a war of ideals and ideas. It’s no longer a military war. We have won the military war against their, their enemy. We toppled Saddam Hussein. The military’s done everything that they can do. And so it’s time for us to redeploy. And Iraqi—only Iraqis can settle this.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: You say redeploy. Again, Mr. Rove challenges that comment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let’s listen and give you again a chance to respond to the White House.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Videotape, Monday):[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. ROVE: Congressman Murtha said, “Let’s redeploy them immediately to another country in the Middle East. Let’s get out of Iraq and go to another country.” My question is, what country would take us? What country would say after the United States cut and run from Iraq, what country in the Middle East would say, “Yeah. Paint a big target on our back and then you’ll cut and run on us.” What country would say that? What country would accept our troops?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](End videotape)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: What’s your response?[/FONT]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/
 
Upvote 0

Smoke Screen

America Can Do Better!
Jul 10, 2005
2,053
100
55
Near Seattle
✟25,227.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Continued:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Who?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Big debate on the House floor this week, and then Congress, the House, voted for a resolution supporting the president. Forty-two Democrats crossed over and voted for the president. Joe Klein in today’s Time magazine writes this, “How is it possible - with 2,500 U.S. soldiers dead, no discernible progress on the ground and a solid majority of the public now agreeing that the war in Iraq was a mistake - for the Democrats to seem so bollixed about the war and for the president to seem so confident? A good part of it is flawed strategy. Democrats keep hoping that the elections can be framed as a referendum on the Bush policy, and Republicans keep reminding the public that elections are a choice, not a referendum.” Do you agree with that?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: No, I, I agree with that. I think we have to have a policy. That’s why I’ve been so adamant about this particular issue. And you see 150 people voted against this resolution. A year ago, it would have been a lot less that that. Six months ago, it would have been a lot less than that. So, so Democrats are starting to come around, and some Republicans. Twelve Republicans came to me after, after this vote and said to me, “Well, you know, I couldn’t vote for it, but I understand what you’re saying.” One very conservative Republican said, “We can’t afford to carry on this war. It’s killing us financially.” And, of course, I say not only financially but the troops are bearing this heavy burden.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: But if the Republicans are capable of showing a contrast between the parties—in 2002, successfully; in 2004, successfully; the Republicans perceived, they hope, as the stronger party on national security—will that work in 2006? The Democrats will be portrayed as cut-and-run and the Republicans as the party of strength?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, I think the public would have to be portrayed as cut-and-run if you talk about the Democrats being portrayed—every place I go, people understand what I’m saying. The public has been away ahead. For instance, when I came to Congress in ‘74, I remember distinctly the public—they said we, we’d only win a few seats, we had a two-to-one majority at that time. We won all five of the special elections that year, we lost—we—when Vice President Ford’s seat—only had it for two years, but we won that seat. Then in, in ‘94, when the public turned against the Congress, we thought we’d lose 18, we lost 52 seats.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So, you know, it, it’s easy to them to try to spin the fact that it’s not going to happen. And I think we do have to have legitimate proposals. I think we have to talk about a lot of things besides the war itself, but the war has such a ramification, such—the debt itself is $8.4 trillion dollars. How we going to pay for this? Obviously, we’re going to have to adjust taxes from the higher level, there’s no question about it if you’re going to—unless you want your children and grandchildren paying for this. So we—a lot of problems we have to face. It’s an individual thing. Some areas it’s not as popular as others, but in the long run, a lot of people have changed their mind. It’s changed dramatically from the way it was today, and I think most—well, two thirds of the Democrats agree with my position now.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Do you think there’s a possibility—or do you ever have pause and say to yourself, “You know, maybe this might work a few years from now and we may have a democratic state in Iraq”?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I, I would hope that, but I don’t see it happening. I measure it this way—when, when they say to me that progress has been made, I say give me the facts. Incidents have increased, doubled in, in the last six months. Oil production below pre-war level, electricity below pre-war level. Every single measurement that I use is either below pre-war level or is going backward. IEDs have gone up substantially. The number of insurgents have increased.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, got to keep in mind, we’ve got 130,000 troops in Iraq and, and yet these things have happened. Now, why have they happened with our troops there? Because we’ve become the enemy. We have to change our policy, we have to change direction. We all want the same thing, we want something to happen, we want a democratic government, but that’s not happening the way we’re doing, so we got to do it differently. Internationally, diplomacy is the key and we got to restore confidence. Our credibility is in the tank, as you well know. The whole world looks at us like, like we’re, we’re the bad guys. And some of the thing—it’s ideas and ideals, and unfortunately, we’ve lowered our standards with some of the statements this administration makes below the standards the United States usually has.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned if we got out you could leave behind complete chaos, which could become a real haven for international terrorists, another Afghanistan pre-September 11?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I think—I think it’s the opposite. I—I think right now, we—we’re inciting, we’re recruiting, we’re recruiting terrorists in Iraq. We’re allowing them to train in Iraq. We’re allowing—when we do things like—we, we go into Fallujah, which, which they considered a military victory. We put 300,000 people outside their home.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, why? Why do we do it? Because we use overwhelming force in, in order to comply with the military structures that we have. I agree with that. We have to do that to protect Americans. But that makes enemies. And when you use military force to make enemies, you inadvertently pay people. And to give you an example, we—last year, we spent $5 million dollars; the year before last, $5 million dollars in consultation—or consolation payments. Last year it was $20 million dollars. That means we killed that many more people. Every time you kill an Iraqi, even though it’s inadvertent, you make an enemy, and the way the military has to operate.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bush said, when he first ran for office, “We’re not going to do nation-building.” That’s what we’re in to, and we’re not successful at it. The military is not successful at nation-buildings, particularly in an insurgence. Now, let me make it clear: 1,000 insurgents, that’s all. There were only 200 there three years ago. Two hundred. And now, they think, in the insurgency itself, it could—foreign fighters, foreign fighters, 1,000, maybe 15,000 insurgents. We’re there, and there’s 15,000 insurgents. Went from 200 to 15,000. That’s the problem. We’re not, we’re not, we’re not making progress. That’s the problem.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Smoke Screen

America Can Do Better!
Jul 10, 2005
2,053
100
55
Near Seattle
✟25,227.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Continued:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, who voted for the war, gave a speech this week and he said this: “Let me say it plainly: It’s not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict’s execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake ... to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do you believe any Democrat who seeks the nomination for president in 2008, who voted for the war in Iraq, should publicly say not just the war’s been mismanaged, “I was wrong to vote for the war.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Yeah, it’s obvious. It was a mistake. And I’ve said this from the very start. I mean, you had no weapons of mass destruction, you had no connection with al-Qaeda, there was no danger to our national security. We don’t put young people in harm’s way unless we have a threat to our national security.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I’m in a hospital, young woman’s standing there beside her wound—badly wounded husband, and she says he’s been in Iraq twice, and he enlisted to fight for America, not for Iraq. We want stability; it’s an international problem. But, but we, we, we can’t achieve it in the direction they’re going. These, these comments they make about cutting and running, so forth and so on, that doesn’t, that doesn’t solve the problem. What is their plan? They have no plan. And we’re, we’re recruiting terrorists against us, Tim. That’s the problem.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: They say their plan is, when the Iraqis stand up, we stand down. That, if given time, the Iraqis will produce enough of a military and security force to secure their country, put down the insurrection, and allow the Americans to go home.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I, I believe when we redeploy, that will happen. I believe there’s only 1,000 foreign fighters, 1,000 in al-Qaeda. Might be more foreign fighters, but 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe they will get rid of them. Just like Zarqawi. It didn’t come from us; it came from the Iraqis. The Iraqis know who these people are, and they’ll get rid of them. I think there’ll be less chaos than there is when, when we’re there. Because we’re the ones that are forcing—they’re recruiting people. They’re—when a person’s willing to kill themselves, why? Because we’re there. Eighty percent of the people want us out. The president, vice president of Iraq said, “Give us a timetable to get out.” They know how important it is.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Internationally, who have we held responsible for this thing and accountable? Have we held secretary of defense accountable? Have we held anybody in the White House accountable? They promote people who’re responsible for us going to war, rather than hold them accountable. That’s the first stage. And the second stage: Admit you made a mistake. President’s admitted he made a few mistakes. It’s more than that. We went to war on the wrong assumptions. We made a terrible mistake, and we need to talk to the international community, get their help, just like in the first Gulf War, where they paid $60 billion dollars, they had 160,000 troops involved in that, and we went to the border. Bush One said, “I’m not going to Iraq because I don’t want to occupy it, I don’t, I don’t want to rehabilitate it. It would cost too much money and too many lives.” And he was right. And a lot of right-wingers said, “Oh, no, we should’ve gone in.” Well, they found out what it’s like to go in now.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: You stunned a lot of your colleagues with a letter on June 9. It said this: “If we prevail, as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I’ve decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader. I would appreciate your consideration and vote and look forward to speaking to you personally about my decision.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A few days later, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, put out this statement. “In the spirit of unity to achieve our goal of winning a Democratic majority in November, Congressman John Murtha has informed me that he will suspend his campaign for Majority Leader until after we win a Democratic majority of the House.” Was your announcement of candidacy too premature?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, it wasn’t premature because in this business you have to make sure you get your foot in the door. You have to make sure you make a statement, because if you don’t, other people may be running and other people will, will be committed. For instance, I—even as, as early as I was, two good friends of mine said, “Gee, I already committed myself.” So overwhelmingly, people hadn’t committed themselves. But if I’d have waited too long, they would have been committed. And, and I realized, when I talked to the members, every—on—when—the news media, that’s all they asked them. They couldn’t concentrate on anything else. So I, I think it was only—it wasn’t premature, it was essential that I make notice that I was going to run. And there’s a lot of problems, not only involved in the war but in medicine, in, in immigration, all these kind of things we got to talk about and focus the country, and I’m willing to do that. I think, I think we need that kind of talk.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: But one of the primary opponents you would have is Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Is his position on the war one of the reasons you would challenge him?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Well, it was one of the reasons. And, and for a long time, he said withdrawal would be a disaster. Now, he’s come around substantially in, in that position. But you know, I, I feel very confident in, in running for this position. I think I can help lead the Democratic position in a lot of different issues. And the war has so many ramifications, and the public is focused. That’s the number one issue of all the polls that I’ve seen. So there’s a lot of reasons to run, but I think this is one of them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Some Democrats have pointed out that you were just one of four Democrats to vote against lobbying reform, that your position on abortion is much different than the vast majority of the Democratic caucus. Are you out of sync with your caucus on some issues?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: I am. There’s no question about it. I’m, I’m much more conservative than, than most of the Democrats in my party. But I take a position I believe in, and I’ve always done that. When somebody comes to Congress, I tell them, “Look, you’ve got, you got to learn a subject, you’ve got to study a subject till you become an expert, and then you’ve got to keep your word.” And that’s what I try to do, and that’s the way I’ll try to lead.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MR. RUSSERT: Congressman John Murtha, we thank you for coming in and sharing your views. And happy Father’s Day.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REP. MURTHA: Nice to be. Thank you very much, Tim.[/FONT]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13296235/
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,009
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
MachZer0 said:
Since when must one be indicted in order to be subject to criticism. Let's see, Bush hasn't been indicted yet he certainly hasn't been immune to criticism.
You're missing the point there MachZero. Novak who wasn't indicted but surely did out Plame in his news article, is in the same boat he accuses Murtha. An unindicted co-conspirator.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Doctrine1st said:
You're missing the point there MachZero. Novak who wasn't indicted but surely did out Plame in his news article, is in the same boat he accuses Murtha.
While Novak published Plame's name, he was in no way part of a conspiracy. More importantly, he was not named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator as was Murtha. Also, the criticism about Murtha regards his cut and run philosophy on Iraq while the rest of the story relates Murtha's history, or first act.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Doctrine1st said:
...and by the way, Novak's accusations of conspiracy are pure tripe.
He didn't make any conspiracy accusations. He pointed out that federal prosecutors designated Murtha an unindicted co-conspirator.
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,009
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
MachZer0 said:
While Novak published Plame's name, he was in no way part of a conspiracy. More importantly, he was not named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator as was Murtha. Also, the criticism about Murtha regards his cut and run philosophy on Iraq while the rest of the story relates Murtha's history, or first act.
Novak's role is pretty significant. Moreover, Murtha is not talking about cutting and running, he seems to be talking about redeployment to force the twiddily wink playing Government of Iraq who seems to be more concerned with the secterian battles then standing as one, to take a stand.
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
MachZer0 said:
He didn't make any conspiracy accusations. He pointed out that federal prosecutors designated Murtha an unindicted co-conspirator.

Correct. Novak made no conspiracy charge.

But I will.

Murtha should have been charged with conspiracy.

He was offered a bribe by a "sheik" he thought was a foreign national, knew others had taken bribes from this foreign national, did not report any of this to the FBI and agreed to meet the foreign national for further talks. One thing which saved him from a conspiracy rap is his ratting out his fellow Democrats (who were convicted).

He may have been saved by the FBI closing down the operation too. Wonder what he would have done the next time he met this "sheik". Perhaps the undercover agent didn't offer him enough money the first time. Or perhaps Murtha wanted something other than money . . . .

I suspect we are going to learn a lot more about Representative Murtha in the near futher.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Voegelin said:
Correct. Novak made no conspiracy charge.

But I will.

Murtha should have been charged with conspiracy.

He was offered a bribe by a "sheik" he thought was a foreign national, knew others had taken bribes from this foreign national, did not report any of this to the FBI and agreed to meet the foreign national for further talks. One thing which saved him from a conspiracy rap is his ratting out his fellow Democrats (who were convicted).

He may have been saved by the FBI closing down the operation too. Wonder what he would have done the next time he met this "sheik". Perhaps the undercover agent didn't offer him enough money the first time. Or perhaps Murtha wanted something other than money . . . .

I suspect we are going to learn a lot more about Representative Murtha in the near futher.
If he had ratted out Republicans, he would be viable for the Speaker position if the Democrats regained control of the House. However, he ratted out Democrats, so he will have to be content where he is.
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
MachZer0 said:
If he had ratted out Republicans, he would be viable for the Speaker position if the Democrats regained control of the House. However, he ratted out Democrats, so he will have to be content where he is.

Makes you wonder, don't it? Murtha had a good record as a Marine. Got in the House, very quickly was in with the top leadership (remember this is when Democrats had a 2 to 1 majority, it was difficult for a newbie to rise up). Then he ratted out his fellow Democrats and skated. Not doing much for years that we know of.

Until now. Now he pops up and makes bizarre statements which discredit the antiwar movement and his party.

Think COINTELPRO is back?

I do. Maybe not Murtha but somebody else. Somebodies else. The KOS/Code Pink/ A.N.S.W.E.R./Murtha movement has wrecked any serious opposition to current American policy.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟101,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Voegelin said:
Makes you wonder, don't it? Murtha had a good record as a Marine.
I understand that Murtha's military record is unclear since he, just like Kerry, has refused to sign to release his records.
 
Upvote 0