Cheney Picks a Fight With a Marine

The draft dodger who not all that many years ago admitted that he "(didn't) know a blankety-blank thing about defense" will come to regret picking a fight with the Marine he called in to help him understand military matters.

Will he? This doesn't seem to be the case, at least as far as I can tell from the initial reactions of Murtha's fellow Democrats. Cheney is correct on one point, and one point only--his and Bush's opposition do, for the most part, lack "backbones." Instead of agreeing with Murtha's point that this is a complete mess that we should start getting out of ASAP and trying to push this debate, we see Democrats distancing themselves from Murtha on the grounds that they don't agree with his specific proposal of a six-month deadline. Of course six months is negotiable; what is nonnegotiable is the fact that we should start acting on this NOW. Unfortunately, that won't happen as long as the Democrats continue treating Murtha and others with the spine to push for withdrawal like little children who say inappropriate and embarassing things at the dinner table.

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 1:27pm

It is no coincidence those who talk the toughest have sacrificed the least. The best way to avoid war is to let those who have actucally fought in one decide if it's necessary. Kind of like some of the yahoos who post talking about weak libs and democrats. Obviously John Murtha is a weak willed sissy democrat. He couldn't possibly have the courage it takes to continue to send others to their death. He barely had enough to courage to protect those who stayed behind when they were called to serve.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 1:31pm

You LIBS are so weak...B.J. Clinton not only was a draft dodger but protested our country from another country...yet he sent men into battle himself...If anyone qualifies as pukes its you anti-american asshole libs..So bring it on you shit for brains nitwits

Posted by at 11/18/2005 @ 1:42pm

You LIBS are so weak...B.J. Clinton not only was a draft dodger but protested our country from another country...yet he sent men into battle himself...If anyone qualifies as pukes its you anti-american asshole libs..So bring it on you shit for brains nitwits

?????

What the hell is this? Another weak-kneed attempt to divert attention from the topic? Oh of course it is.... That's the favorite tactic of the right.... Too bad Dickie-boy isn't a veteran.

Posted by christiandem at 11/18/2005 @ 1:55pm

You LIBS are so weak...B.J. Clinton not only was a draft dodger but protested our country from another country...yet he sent men into battle himself...If anyone qualifies as pukes its you anti-american asshole libs..So bring it on you shit for brains nitwits

?????

What the hell is this? Another weak-kneed attempt to divert attention from the topic? Oh of course it is.... That's the favorite tactic of the right.... Too bad Dickie-boy isn't a veteran.

Posted by christiandem at 11/18/2005 @ 1:56pm

Sorry for the double post. Guess it was necessary

Posted by christiandem at 11/18/2005 @ 1:56pm

Typically blunt, Murtha said this week: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring (the troops) home."

To whoever wrote the following: You LIBS are so weak...B.J. Clinton not only was a draft dodger but protested our country from another country...yet he sent men into battle himself...If anyone qualifies as pukes its you anti-american asshole libs..So bring it on you shit for brains nitwits -- Forget the ad hominem attacks and actually address the point. What CAN we now accomplish militarily that would make it worth staying, and how are we going to di it?

Posted by llallred at 11/18/2005 @ 1:58pm

When a hawk like Murtha is calling for withdrawal you know the tide is turning.

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 2:03pm

"You LIBS are so weak...B.J. Clinton not only was a draft dodger but protested our country from another country...yet he sent men into battle himself...If anyone qualifies as pukes its you anti-american asshole libs..So bring it on you shit for brains nitwits Posted by 11/18/2005 @ 1:42pm"

Wow didn't even leave a name.

Was the war that Clinton dodged the one GW Bush fought in? How about Cheney? So the strategy, when you have no valid defense, is to swear a lot and don't identify yourself. You forgot to mention that cowardly lib John Murtha. Since the discussion is about Murtha and Cheney why not compare them? Is it because it's impossible to deny the lib, in this instance, has demonstrated far more courage in his life than the neocon? No need to respond I think I can respond for you. how's this?

You libs suck. Cheney isn't a coward. He got those 5 deferments honestly and was really mad he couldn't participate in Vietnam. He just had an obligation to the nation to go to college so he could help kill others later in life. Bring it on you shit faced, wine and cheese eating eating hippies, CLinton sucks, Bush rules anyone who doesn't think so is an idiot.

There, I saved you the troube of responding. Truth is you have already showed your true self so no need to bother. Us Libs really don't care what someone like you think of us.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 2:08pm

It seems that Dick Cheney would turn on his own mother if she disagreed with him. Such a sad, sad little man.

Posted by k330k at 11/18/2005 @ 2:09pm

I think it will be revealed, eventually, that Cheney was the president, and Bush was the cheerleader.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/18/2005 @ 2:17pm

I'm no fan of Cheney's....but I do have a problem with Mr Nichols' amnesia.

All of a sudden (since the Kerry nomination) it's become a "good attack" to go after those that "never served in the military" as a first "assault" before any criticism.

Yet in 1992 and 1996, there were TWO war veterans, both who served heroically in combat, running for President and I seriously doubt Mr Nichols use of the "who had never served in the military and who had failed during his political career to gain much respect from those who wore the uniform" line found much light of day?

Posted by Mask at 11/18/2005 @ 2:18pm

All of a sudden (since the Kerry nomination) it's become a "good attack" to go after those that "never served in the military" as a first "assault" before any criticism.

I do believe Mr. Nichols was simply using this fact that Cheney had never served to highlight the credibility problem he faced when first appointed Sec. of Defense. I doubt Mr. Nichols would ever have the nerve to proclaim that someone who lacks military experience is automatically unqualified to be President or VP, or even to make decisions that send troops into harms way. But how can one dispute his claim that a veteran with the decorated military history of Rep. Murtha certainly holds the moral high ground over a lame-o like Cheney on this debate?

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 2:46pm

You make a good point MASK.

But those on the left won't allow the simple logic of your statement get in the way of their hatred.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 2:46pm

The nameless one was formerly known as Bushrules.

Here's a link that talks about why Chaney would want to continue this war.

click here

Posted by zhong at 11/18/2005 @ 2:46pm

Please everyone - this blog flows much better if you ignore the Nameless one - a.k.a. Bushrules, Bushrules*, Bushrules>

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 2:50pm

MASK does not make a good point (at least not this time). In the context of Cheney attempting to smear an ex-Marine whose opinion on such matters should be held in the highest esteem as a result of his long history of both fighting with and supporting the military, Cheney's lack of expertise relative to Murtha's is entirely relevant. In the context of a presidential campaign, whether or not this candidate or that candidate served in the military is less relevant (although not completely irrelevant, I will concede).

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 2:53pm

There are differances Mask between the 92/96 elections and now.

now we are at war. Those who put us there have used tactics to stifle dissent for the war by calling out their patriotism and generally insinuating they are cowardly if they disagree. When someone says you are a coward and unpatriotic if you disagree it is more than acceptable, in fact it's necessary, to defend ones position. It is the Bush Cheney approach that makes this debate relevant now even if it wasn't a decade ago. In 92 it was "the economy stupid" idea that was relevant. Military service had very little bearing on the campaign agendas. It is a very differant world today. Thanks in large part to those who chose not to serve when they had the chance. To summarize it's Bush and Cheney who made it relevant today.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 2:54pm

"But those on the left won't allow the simple logic of your statement get in the way of their hatred."

If the logic was logical it would help. No offense intended to Mask it was a valid point that can be debated. I just think there are some flaws in the logic Mask used. If Mask wishes to clarify I'd be happy to see it.

By the way does anyone else find it ironic that someone on the right would talk about not letting logic get in the way of their hatred? Read that well thought out post by the unnamed Bushrules to see true illogical hatred.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 3:02pm

The last time I checked the Constitution, the President was the Commander-in-Chief, not a Congressman. As much as I have admired Murtha (I worked on some Military programs in which he kept a close working relationship with us), it simply is not his role to determine what is the best use of our troops. That is why even field commanders must take orders from those up the chain of command who have a better view of all the facts (macro vs micro).

So, as much as Murtha is a respected Veteran and Congressman, he is simply wrong in this instance.

Posted by love liberty at 11/18/2005 @ 3:03pm

I would rather not read the post you refer to, ZAK, which is why the nameless one and all other incarnations of the same poster are on my ignore list (& I encourage everyone else to put them there immediately). Unfortunately, it never fails that someone copies and pastes the post into their own, and I am subjected to it nonetheless. I'm not blaming you particularly...it's a trap that many have fallen into.

Anyway, good point--does anyone else find it ironic that someone on the right would talk about not letting logic get in the way of their hatred?--unfortunately, logic has largely been banished from the dishonest rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle lately. Kudos to Rep. Murtha for attempting to bring back what is quickly becoming a lost art.

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 3:09pm

With all due repsect Love Liberty last I checked it was the role of congress to authorize war. The president has to report to congrees on the war. Congress also has to authorize spending for war. Commander-in-chief means Bush gets to decide how to fight. Number of troops, strategy, field commanders, equipment ect are under Bush control. When to start and stop a war is a totally differant matter subject to approval by congress. We are not talking about the best way to use the troups we are talking about whether to us them at all.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 3:10pm

Point taken Live Easy I will Work harder to avoid said traps.

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 3:12pm

Live Easy and Zakquiet -

Great responses to what is really an altogether off-topic retort - a hypothetical hypocracy based on a SUSPICION of what Nichols would have had to say in 1992 or 1996 (but, of course, not what he really said) - mmm, ok, but I don't really see that as the slam-dunk point USAPRIDE seems to think it is. When Cheney accuses a man with Murtha's resume as losing his backbone, Cheney made the topic relevant - end of story. If Clinton had accused Bush or Dole about not having a backbone when it came to issues of national defense and foreign policy, and Nichols did not hold Clinto's history against him, then you might have a point Mask - but I am not sure it ever came up like that.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 3:13pm

As a Congressman, it IS Murtha's role to contribute to the debate over what is the best use of our troops, as he clearly stated during his press conference. This is a matter of having a debate that this country sorely needs to have vs. using any means to sqelch that debate. Simply saying Murtha is wrong and dismissing his opinion is not helpful.

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 3:16pm

LL:

Nice try, but Murtha is not trying to tell Bush where to position troops, where to strike, where to defend, and the like. Just because Bush is CIC and received from Congress an authorization for force does not give Bush a blank check to continue the war indefintely on his sole initiative - c'mon you know that. Check out Article I, Section 8.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 3:24pm

Excerpt from Murtha's speech [house.gov]:

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out."

Posted by LIVE EASY at 11/18/2005 @ 3:26pm

The vice president's response is typical of this administration. Just because Clinton was guilty of the same crap doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right.

Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/18/2005 @ 3:41pm

OK you foolish weaklings...You call your LIB representatives and tell them to vote YES to pullout of Iraq at 7pm. I FUCKING DARE YOU TO VOTE YES...MAKE MY DAY YOU UN-AMERICAN ASSHOLES>>>BRING IT ON NOW

Posted by at 11/18/2005 @ 3:48pm

Posted by zakquiet at 11/18/2005 @ 4:12pm

Looks like there is going to be a House vote on troop pullout tonight. Should be interesting to see which way some of the Dems (and Reps to some extent) vote. Nancy Pelosi - it's decision time. Put up or shut up as far as I am concerned.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 4:13pm

No one likes to defend Frankenstein's monster, but Cheney's Frontiers of Freedom speech took place two days before Murtha's comments.

Posted by sdonahoe at 11/18/2005 @ 4:30pm

I do not believe that Cheney, nor Bush for that matter, have any capacity to regret much less give a damn who they run over-- as Cheney/Bush with their corporate buddies, pile up a massive body count on their around-the-world frat boy drunken road trip. As long as the party continues to rake in the money, Bush/Cheney will say or do anything no matter how sick. That is until the good guys step up to shut them down. And here come the cops…

Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 4:58pm

I do not believe that Cheney, nor Bush for that matter, have any capacity to regret much less give a damn who they run over as Cheney/Bush with their corporate buddies pile up a body count on their around-the-world frat boy drunken road trip. As long as the party continues to rake in the money, Bush/Cheney will say or do anything no matter how sick. That is until the good guys step up to shut it down. And it looks like here come the cops…

Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 5:05pm

Cheney just has no shame! He's mean and certainly not as smart as he thinks he is. He is one digusting traitor and should be tried and convicted. Perhaps the pace maker removed his soul...

Posted by TrueAmerican at 11/18/2005 @ 5:14pm

SDONAHOE - It looks like you are right.

Mr. Nichols how do you explain this timeline given you wrote that Cheney's comments were "in response" to Murthas's. I agree with a criticism of Cheney's comments in general, but why stretch it to make it seem as if he was responding directly to Murtha's comments if they came in a speech two days prior?

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 5:23pm

Apologies for the double post(s), 5:05, 4:58, as they disapeared initially for some reason, and Just now popped up!(?) Couldn't tell if I really pressed the submit button or not. Kinda reminded me of voting...

Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 5:25pm

OK you foolish weaklings...

Hey look everyone...its the unknown blogger!. Kinda like the "unknown comic" and almost as funny!. Hey "unknown"....why don't you slink back under your rock you pitiable fleck of dog-snot. No name, no-brain, no intelligent thoughts. Go away maggot....poof (hey...it's gone now! First no name, now no posts!)

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2005 @ 5:26pm

It sounded like Dick was calling everyone out that didn't agree w/him about staying the course war. He probably didn't know Jack was in the crowd?

Posted by Bushfools at 11/18/2005 @ 5:36pm

Mask, your point about 1992 and 1996 seems to me to be about something else entirely. Clinton was attacked for being a "draft dodger" in 1992 while the issue was not even raised in 1996. What exactly does this have to do with the fact that now, in the midst of a war, we have men who are going after Rep. Murtha and calling him a "coward" because he says our policy in Iraq is failing?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Murtha was called a "coward" by men who have never gone into combat. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:43pm

What exactly is a coward? Someone who is critical of a policy that clearly is failing? I fail to understand how that makes any sense. They figure that calling him names will silence him. Well, apparently that won't work.

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:44pm

Rio Bravo, what do you mean by run away? This is not a playground. It is not cowardly to try and determine how to protect our men and women in harm's way, much less our own country. Has it occurred to you that perhaps Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism not a stanch in the pipeline? Run away? What on earth are you talking about?

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:46pm

Johnny

Cheney has not attacked Murtha, a buddy of his, but Murtha is worng on this issue.

For those who say how dare anyone attack this Marine vet, firstly no one attacking him per se, just disagreeing. Here is what one ground commander thinks of it:

A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the congressman who usually backs the Pentagon.

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

HMAN23

You are right, tonights vote is put up or shut up. It will be interesting, as a political move its a good one. Reps, in my opinion, have put the DEMS in an awkward position by making them state publicly and on the record what they are for.

Finally REPS are shooting back at DEMS and taking some of the political initiative away from them. We are going to see just how powerful or impotent those polls really are. A brilliant move, poltically.

Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 5:46pm

"You LIBS are so weak..." Anyone who reads Lucianne.com knows that the ever shrinking supporters of Bush can only attack those who hate this war - they have no ammo. Can you believe they're still talking about Clinton? I guess it makes sense when George Bush couldn't even get a blow job without fucking it all up! It's amazing to me the blindness of the right - Bush makes Regan look like... Clinton!

Posted by jabelson at 11/18/2005 @ 5:47pm

Love Liberty, what alternative do you offer to Rep. Murtha's proposal? Do you think we should remain in Iraq and simply stay the course? If so, why? What benefits are clearly coming from this?

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:49pm

It is interesting that Dick Cheney is the one challenging the truthfulness of the administrations opponents. Has anyone noticed lately how many lies the Veep is being caught up in? I wish I had the televisions here so I could yell; "Let's go to the videotape!"

WMDs. The insurgency being in its "last throes." Saddam-Ossama linked. Mushroom clouds and forty five minute deliveries of nuclear payloads. Stockpiles of biological weapons that, even if lying dormant for several years are still viable. The Congress had access to the same intelligence as the White House.

The list goes on.

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:52pm

Oh, and now we don't even put oil CEOs under oath when testifying before the senate so they can lie about meeting with Cheney and then not be held in contempt of Congress. I love what the GOP is doing for America!

Posted by hhemwm at 11/18/2005 @ 5:53pm

Bring on the vote!! It will be glorious. Either way.

They vote to being them home now. Democracy at its finest

They vote NOT to bring them home now. Sends a message to jihadists that we are committed to victory. And should send a message to the bring them home crowd.

Prediction: Vote on strict party lines, with many DEMS abstaining.

Proposal to bring them home right now. FAILS

Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 5:57pm

HHEMWM

Do you know what the definition of a lie is?

Posted by CPT at 11/18/2005 @ 6:00pm

The last time I checked the Constitution

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/18/2005 @ 3:03pm

The last time you checked the constitution the congress didn't have the power to tax.

Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:08pm

The vice president's response is typical of this administration. Just because Clinton was guilty of the same crap doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right

Posted by SWEETDADDY 11/18/2005 @ 3:41pm

Correct! It takes many more wrongs than two to make a "right". Isn't that true wingnuts?

There's one other thing we need to mention for this thread. Clinton didn't go around calling people cowards when they didn't support "His War" in Bosnia and those "Pinprick" strikes in Iraq to draw attention away from The Hummer.

And I'm not talking about the truck.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:17pm

I can not find anywhere anything quoted (truthfully) where V.P. of the U.S. Richard Cheney directly criticized Jack Murtha his long time friend?

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/18/2005 @ 5:27pm

When the grim reeper comes to your door he will be dressed as a clown so that you will think the uzi he is carrying is nothing more than a water pistol.

Remember to put on a happy face!

Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:29pm

Prediction: Vote on strict party lines, with many DEMS abstaining.

Proposal to bring them home right now. FAILS

Posted by CPT 11/18/2005 @ 5:57pm

You're right!

That will give the Republicans more time to figure out how to repackage the proposal as their idea.

Do I see the cousin of the Department of Homeland security in the mist?

Posted by Will C. at 11/18/2005 @ 6:41pm

god bless the military - they have been screwed by THOSE who claim to support them the most yet again, the flag waiving two faced uber hawks who stand to profit most from big petro-defense contracts with companies in which THEY hold largely untaxed stock. THEY are those whose children remain safe and privilidged while those children of the commen folk whose faith in country and leaders, whose opportunities for self advancement through non military service has dried up over the years. THEY have decieved them to offer themselves up to return in body bags or limbless and or traumatized. and if, if only it had not been based on self serving lies, if we really had gone to war based upon legitimate reasons (the all elusive truth), then all sacrifices, in blood and resources and prestige and prayors would have been worth it. but alas, for the second time in a half century our military has been thrown into a meat grinder of a quagmire based on lies and unenlightened self interest, patriotism and naive faith in "king" and THOSE entrusted with judgement and our best interest have sacrificed THEIR less fortunate constituent's sons and daughters to advance THEIR own narrowly defined profit. and perhaps a hundred thousand of "those people" or more have also suffered the ultimate penalty for being in the way of our leaders' reckless disregard for human life, common sense and that most essential commodity of all, truth.

noble military of our great republic, you have been made agents of lying murderers yet again, of those who would remake our republic into an empire. heaven bless you and bring you home. heaven grant you and all of us a few honest men and women to lead us once again, regardless of the party from which they come.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2005 @ 7:25pm

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

Apparently, the mercs still need to murder more innocents, torture more suspects and manufacture more terrorists before their work is done. USA, USA, USA!

Posted by writer1957 at 11/18/2005 @ 7:25pm

CPT,

I think you're right about the GOP broadsides acting as a coagulating agent for their anemic positions on Iraq. The monitoring equipment is hooked-up to the patient and over the next several weeks the polls will reveal whose side is winning.

On a more serious note, you referred to one of the ground commanders as saying his job isn't finished yet. That speaks to the heart of my concern. As a civilian, I believe the president's goals in Iraq are unclear. For a guy who came into office saying goals should be measurable (and I agree with that), he has been murky at best about our goals in Iraq. For example, I don't know how he defines "victory." I wonder how this cloudiness is read by the troops and the commanders in theater. Are they clear as to what their mission is over there? I ask in all sincerity and look forward to your response.

Posted by seattlescribe at 11/18/2005 @ 8:19pm

God you LIBS are dense...You know there will be victory when the Iraqi govt stands up and can defend itself.

Posted by at 11/18/2005 @ 8:46pm

Talk about dense and thick-headed.

How can you libs still be talking about W's plans in Iraq not being clear. He's only been saying it for 3 years now.

You all are like a 10 year old with selective hearing when it comes to anything you disagree with.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/18/2005 @ 9:12pm

Yep, the Repubs on this board just can't handle that they hypocritically support a draft-dodging administration when they berated Clinton for that. Just goes to show that they have no center, no core, no backbone -- they just choose to overlook things like this whenever it's convenient, and it exposes them for the frauds they are.

Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/18/2005 @ 9:58pm

USAPRIDE--

Ok, I haven't been paying attention. What exactly are the clear and often articulated plans for Iraq? In particular, what exactly are the metrics (to borrow one of Rumsfeld's words) that will allow for our troups to leave?

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 11/18/2005 @ 10:05pm

CPT:

I agree with you that this measure is a pretty shrewd move by republicans - although as I am hearing Murtha describe it, it is not quite the resolution he was calling for. I also appreciate the respect that many on the other side of the aisle are giving Murtha during the debate, and I think some of the posters here that question the patriotism of those who are against the Iraq policy should take notice.

Although I favor an immediate withdrawal personally, I think your prediction of the vote is pretty spot-on. Some Dems will vote for it, others against it claiming they want a "timeline," and others because they will be scared to appear "soft." I will be shocked if there are 75 yea votes.

Of course by putting the measure in such absolute terms, republicans will say that "stay the course" is the will of Congress - which in my view would be pure spin.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 10:35pm

CPT:

I was way way off.

I just watched about 3 hours of the debate at the House and was struck by a few things:

1. Advocating for a withdrawl of our troops somehow emboldens the insurgents, yet somehow our policies of torture go unmentioned as having any effect.

2. Many said we are making great progress in Iraq, yet 80% of Iraqis want us out and 45% believe attacks on U.S. soldiers are justified.

3. Vietnam was mentioned almost as much as Iraq, yet many seem to have not learned anything from Vietnam.

4. Al Queda was mentioned throughout, yet there was no discussion of efforts to find Osama bin Laden.

5. Spreading democracy was mentioned throughout, yet that was not why we were told war was necessary - it was about WMD that were not there and a threat against the U.S. that was non-existent.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/18/2005 @ 11:43pm

I say all those that wish to stay in Iraq and fight 'til the death-- enlist yourselves in the Iraqi army. Stop asking others to fight your battles.

Posted by Bushfools at 11/19/2005 @ 12:37am

HMAN23, Don't sweat it, CPT was way off in proclaiming the "brilliance" of House Republicans. This will only blow up in their miserable faces. They are not voting on Murtha's bill but the bullshit one put up by Duncan Hunter: which basically calls for turning the lights out and folding up shop immediately. Apparently Rep. Schmidt (she's the snake who narrowly beat Paul Hackett in OH) read a letter that basically called Murtha a coward. Another republican blunder we can use to bury them with. Their arrogance is matched only by their stupidity.

Posted by Oustbush at 11/19/2005 @ 01:17am

HHEM....my point was that NOW it seems the immediate attack on Cheney et al is FIRST "who didn't even serve in the military"...

yet Mr Nichols I am SURE would not have tolerated that from conservatives about Clinton (especially during Haiti or Bosnia) and would probably have written an article about how unfair it is to attack a President (or Vice-Pres) on their lack of military service.

No doubt if the next President is a Democrat (and a non-veteran), that "magically" military service will once AGAIN be "off-limits" for attack by their opponents.

Posted by Mask at 11/19/2005 @ 08:11am

the military is not to be trusted with the strategic aims of the war. our system provides for civilian government oversight of the war and its aims. remember Truman firing McArthur when the latter wanted to invade China.

in the cuban missile crisis too the joint chiefs of staff argued for war, but the cooler head of president Kennedy prevailed and the crisis was averted without blood shed. for a truly nightmarish what if scenario, imagine Bush being president during that missile crisis.

the troops in Iraq are parotting the government line, one that they have been spoonfed, the military not being a place for reasoned debate.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/19/2005 @ 09:02am

God you LIBS are dense...You know there will be victory when the Iraqi govt stands up and can defend itself.

Posted by unknown asswipe(11/18/2005 @ 8:46pm

Its been what...three years. What does Iraq have? One battalion of 800 that can operate independently. Per our OWN assessment (it was a WH spokesperson I saw on the news the other day...don't recall the name) the entire rest of the 200,000 military is unfit to do so.

So OK, it takes us like what....8 weeks to turn a high school kid into a soldier. A bit longer to make officers (say like what...2-3 years minimum?) and they can't get doodly-squat out of a pre-existing (partially trained?) force in three years.

Talk about a pipe dream....geez. Wake up wing-nuts cause it ain't gonna happen!

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/19/2005 @ 09:19am

The sad reality of current times is that due to the horrific consequences of the Bush foreign policy (war/ Bushadmin. most hated gvt in the world), we haven't had enough time or energy to assess/fight the damage being done here domestically: the environment, economy, education, etc.

Posted by Oustbush at 11/19/2005 @ 11:26am

OK you foolish weaklings...You call your LIB representatives and tell them to vote YES to pullout of Iraq at 7pm. I FUCKING DARE YOU TO VOTE YES...MAKE MY DAY YOU UN-AMERICAN ASSHOLES>>>BRING IT ON NOW

Aw, what an intelligent response. I wonder why individuals who really have nothing to add to an intellectual discussion resort to name calling? In as much as America was not being threatened by Iraq, and it was America who invaded their country....I guess the American thing to do would be to continue killing, destroying and forcing unacceptable policies on a country that does not deserve this treatment. Because we disagree on this topic does not make us unAmerican....the ability to have discourse on a variety of topics is one of the things that makes America great. It is unfortunate that individuals such as yourself can not think of anything to dialogue about, outside of calling the "opposing" side names. Tell me, why indeed are we in Iraq, and why should be remain?

Posted by lbair at 11/19/2005 @ 12:44pm

LL:

Posted by HMAN23 11/18/2005 @ 3:24pm

Sorry HMAN and Zero, but you are incorrect. Murtha's resolution deals specifically with tactical use of the military and foreign policy, which is reserved to the President and not Congress.

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy

The Murtha Resolution was correctly defeated because it would usurp the Constitution. The Republican Resolution was a "non binding" resolution to express the sentiments of Congress, an entirely appropriate role for Congress.

So many of you on this site constantly harp for an immediate withdrawl; you claim that the majority of Americans support that change; yet last night you could only get three votes to express that sentiment. Not even Kucinich voted for it.

I recommend reading the info I posted on KVH's blog giving the transcript of police recorded tapings of Jihadists in Europe and the goals of Al Qaeda and their similar organizations. Perhaps any who actually seek the truth may consider that information objectively (but I'm not going to hold my breath).

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 1:05pm

So the resolution offered by Murtha was unconstitutional, says LL. What if the original resolution authorizing war to take whatever diplomatic and military actions he deemed necessary was, let's be kind, inaccurate?

First, the resolution based its authorization on the idea that it was necessary to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". This was based on intelligence filtered, badly, to members of Congress. Based on faulty premises, how can this resolution have any teeth?

Second, Congress resolved that "acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Again, it should be clear to all (I realize it is not, but some of us are just beyond help) that this statement is baseless. How can attacking a country unconnected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 be considered consistent with the resolution?

At what point can there be disolution of a resoltion?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 1:47pm

If we are recommending reading, I will not be so brazen as to recommend my own writings. Rather, I direct your attention to the Resolution of 10/1/02.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 1:50pm

Darn typing! 10/11/02!

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 1:51pm

Darn darn typing!

At what point can there be dissolution of a resolution?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 2:18pm

Oustbush:

I got your drift after I had made my initial posts yesterday. At first, I was under the impression that they were debating Murtha's resolution - not the one put up by Hunter. Pure politics and meaningless.

LL - Maybe you are correct that Murtha's resolution would not have been binding, but if Congress did want to put a stop to the war, there is a mechanism for it. On the issue of "immediacy," I speak only for myself but I am guilty of misspeaking and semantics - when I say "immediate" I do not mean complete withdrawal within 24 hours; I understand it is a process that will require some amount of time. What I mean by immediate is that we immediately begin the process. Given how resounding the defeat of Hunter's bill was, I suspect many were thinking along the same lines. Given some of your rhetoric lately, I recommend you read some of the respectful comments that many of the republicans had about Murtha, even though they disagree with his position - the honest ones were not questioning his patriotism.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/19/2005 @ 2:18pm

Schmidt's speech on Murtha was atrocious and every Republican should be embarrassed.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/19/2005 @ 2:21pm

HMAN,

Please do not interpret that I have anything but respect for Murtha. As I noted yesterday, when I was an executive with a large Defense Contractor, I had a number of interface dealings with Murtha. Indeed, he is and has been a staunch proponent of a strong defense and our military personnel.

I just disagree with him that his proposal is the best path. I believe we are very close with the upcoming December elections in Iraq to setting up our phased withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, the MSM has been highlighting that very fact that the Pentagon has drawn up initial withdrawal plans should the election go well.

We probably will incorporate some of Murtha's suggestions; but it is imperative that the President be the final decision maker on strategy and deployment and not Congress. Congress can pull the plug if they feel the President is not making decisions in the best interests of National Security, the deployed troops, and the American people.

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 2:45pm

I recommend reading the info I posted on KVH's blog giving the transcript of police recorded tapings of Jihadists in Europe and the goals of Al Qaeda and their similar organizations. Perhaps any who actually seek the truth may consider that information objectively (but I'm not going to hold my breath).

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 1:05pm

The genius of you Republicans is inexhaustible. Two militants in Italy discuss terrorist bombings and you think that justifies a war that it is estimated will cost us $1 trillion (so far, not including the new dingbat plan to spend $500 million over the next five years on military expenditures in the Sahara Desert), resulted in about 16,000 American casualties, and killed somewhere between 30,000 to 100,000+ innocent Iraqis who had nothing to do with terrorism . . . additionally giving Americans a reputation as mass murderers and users of weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

Anyone who isn't a Republican lunatic is insightful enough to realize that the above two terrorists (whose only crime so far revealed is that of discussing terrorist acts) were apprehended by simple police work, not by invading a country completely unrelated to these two people and destroying America's founding principles and reputation in the process.

LOVE LIBERTY, none of your professed rationales make the least bit of sense. I suspect that you and your war-loving compatriot's real objective is mass murder, pure and simple, stirred in with a sickly prejudicial attitude toward Arabs and muslims. Bush certainly has a thinly disguised appetite for it.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 3:17pm

So many of you on this site constantly harp for an immediate withdrawl; you claim that the majority of Americans support that change; yet last night you could only get three votes to express that sentiment. Not even Kucinich voted for it.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 1:05pm

All it did was display more of the same from the Republicans- rather than demanding some kind of rudimentary plan from their utterly incompetent President to disentangle America from the Republican's stupid, murderous war as an alternative to his blindly moronic, repeated proclamations of progress where there is, in reality, nothing but deterioration, they piddle around with Congressional votes designed to serve their personal self-interest. It's no wonder that the President they produced is implicated in treasonous acts.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 3:34pm

Let's call this one "Operation Enduring Republican Stupidity". [tinyurl.com]

What's next? Quarter a platoon of American soldiers in every building in every Arab and Muslim country to make sure no one in the building hates us?

The psyche of the American war-worshipper is unconditionally committed to murder and destruction and just doesn't have enough brains to envision the end result of it's aggression. It's a psychopathic impulse immune to reason.

Now, the Sahara Desert is the newest sponge designated to absorb America's wealth while we reduce medicaid and assistance to America's poorest children. The Charles Manson-like Republicans can only conceive of attacking until those thay have designated as "enemies", rightly or wrongly, swear eternal subservience. Their objectives are insane and counterprductive. Why don't we just pour America's lifeblood into the Mariannas Trench? The Republicans are more of a danger to America than Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 3:50pm

Redbird, you should rename yourself Ostrich. The global jihadist movement to muslim domination is real, even many leftist scholars acknowledge that reality.

But you want to deny what is happening purely because of your Bush hatred.

Try reading a range of scholars left - moderate including Juan Cole, Bernard Lewis and N.S. Rajaram.

Your comments place you not only outside of the mainstream, but outside of history and current world events. The issue of the jihadists and the re-establishment of the Khalifa is neither a conservative nor a liberal/progressive issue. It is a threat recognized by most experts and many world governments as the most serious threat today to mankind.

Yes, I believe Ostrich may be apropo.

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 4:35pm

Redbird, you should rename yourself Ostrich. The global jihadist movement to muslim domination is real, even many leftist scholars acknowledge that reality.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 4:35pm

RIGHT ON! LET'S TOPPLE THESE MUSLIM OPPRESSORS WHO ARE INVADING OUR LANDS, MURDERING OUR CHILDREN, ABUSING OUR WOMEN, DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY, WREAKING CATASTROPHIC ECONOMIC DAMAGE.

Hmmm. Somehow that sounds backwards.

"even many leftist scholars acknowledge that reality"? This only illustrates that lefty and righty psychopaths have a common psychopathology. Many of the losers from which Bush's ideas originated are former communists. If you had more diligently read my posts you would have seen that I have been for some time saying that the current Republican regime is a mixture of fascism and communism. The propaganda and ideology is merely an accoutrement for a psyche that lusts to impose blood and misery on others.

Why don't you change your moniker to PREFER PRIVILEGE? Isn't it just great to be a citizen of the superpower that imposes disaster on others? And you get to watch it on TV.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 6:17pm

Sorry HMAN and Zero, but you are incorrect. Murtha's resolution deals specifically with tactical use of the military and foreign policy, which is reserved to the President and not Congress.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 1:05pm

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

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region. If your cut and paste is correct

Murtha's resolution is for a strategic redeployment of troops, not tactical. And congress as a coequal branch of government and holder of the purse strings is perfectly within its right to pass any law it wishes, to include the Murtha resolution. If the president wishes to veto that legislation, it is his prerogative to do so. But if he signs the legislation or his veto is overridden then he is bound by that law. If he chooses not to follow that law, he will be replaced by someone who will. Also, the Senate has the enumerated power of ratifying treaties which gives one half of Congress a big say in how foreign policy is conducted.

Nice try

Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 7:46pm

As usual Will C you show a complete lack of understanding of constitutional law and the separation of powers between the president and congress.

According to your explanation, congress could override the president on even where to deploy the troops. I would challenge you to cite even one constitutional scholar that agrees with your view. Never has happened and never will unless the constitution is changed. You can only have one Commander-in-Chief, not 535.

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 8:38pm

Frank,

As usual, the reason we have been ignoring your question is because it is a non sequitur.

Please cite one request to the Pentagon that has been refused by the field troops

Cite one request by a field commander for additional troops that has been denied

The plan has been stated over and over again, you just disagree with it.

I understand your concern for your son, but your anger continues to be misguided and consumed by your hatred of Bush.

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 8:42pm

Sorry HMAN and Zero, but you are incorrect. Murtha's resolution deals specifically with tactical use of the military and foreign policy, which is reserved to the President and not Congress.

Posted by WILL C. 11/19/2005 @ 7:46pm

LOVE LIBERTY doesn't give a damn about the constitution. He's the loyal party cadre loyal to every insane tyrant- "just tell us which direction to march".

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 8:47pm

Redbird,

I don't usually waste this much time on ignorant people who refuse to understand current events or even world history; however, I have taught for many years and I understand tortured souls like yourself who have difficulty assimilating facts.

You ought to expand your reading beyond the usual suspects whose only focus is Bush hatred and do a little studying of the belief system of the current Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations and some history into Islam.

This is not about racial or ethnic prejudice. It is about understanding people who are committing violence against much of the world including their own people.

Your ignorance is truly betrayed when you slur noted historians than most at the nation respect. I cited people that I have fundamental differences with as to political philosophy, yet I acknowledge their credibility and authority on this subject.

So either it is ignorance, or you have an unbalanced mind much like the jihadists.

Posted by love liberty at 11/19/2005 @ 8:49pm

Sorry HMAN and Zero, but you are incorrect. Murtha's resolution deals specifically with tactical use of the military and foreign policy, which is reserved to the President and not Congress.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 8:38pm

Congress can cut off funds for anything it chooses. You have no idea what you're talking about. Congress hasn't done that because the reprehensible Republicans fear the political fallout from finally admitting that the whole enterprise was stupid from it's conception. So, for that reason, Americans will keep dying in Iraq, not to protect America but to protect the careers of Republicans who don't deserve their seats in Congress and are one of the worst things that ever happened to America in it's history. If the founding fathers could see these monkeys in Congress now they would rue the day that they created our nation.

Additionally, it's pretty dishonest to call that "the Murtha Resolution" when it is no such thing. It was a jackanape political stunt written by Republicans and then called by them "the Murtha Resolution". More lies from Republicans. How laughable- you're on here arguing that "Murtha's resolution" is unconstitutional when it wasn't written by Murtha and isn't "unconstitutional".

Enough of this remedial logic tutoring for one day- I have things to do.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 9:29pm

Hello Wingers!! Who is the sorry-ass of yours who is too big a coward to even post a psuedonym? You are all a bunch of parsing, psuedo-intellectual frauds; wallowing in self-deluded sanctimony that has no value to this country or world. You are also frightened pussys, because the "empire" which you thought that you had attained, never really existed after all. It never happened ladies! It's almost over! The fattest lady is about to sing, and you can all return to the TV set and your gameboys, and obscurity. But hey, don't worry! When I see you in line at the grocery store, I won't trip you, I'll just slap you "upside of the head"

Posted by bloppy at 11/19/2005 @ 9:45pm

Redbird,

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/19/2005 @ 8:49pm

Anyone, who says as you do, that ANY but the most politically and ideologically extreme, culturally and socially baseless Muslims have as an ambition to establish an Islamic caliphate over Europe and America, then they belong in the tinfoil hat crowd with you.

I am quite confident that my limited knowledge of Islamic culture and belief is world's greater in depth than yours. I know enough about it, for example, to know that you got that khalifa garbage from two-bit zionist propagandists, among which would be counted Bernard Lewis, regardless of his erudition. Knowledge has never been known to produce an honest man, in and of itself.

I'll bet you've never had a conversation with a Muslim in your life. I've had dozens and I've read most of the Quran. I know you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting such laughable nonsense as the "threat of having a caliphate established over us by the world-dominating Muslims". It's quite clear that your "knowledge" results from reading things written from one singular perspective: kill the Muslims and Arabs.

That's all for tonight. Stew in your own hatred of other human beings.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/19/2005 @ 9:49pm

LL,

What recourse does a congressperson of conscience (let's imagine there might be one) have against a resolution that has been violated by the president? As I posted earlier today, the errors in the intelligence presented to Congress, on which they based their votes, now puts significant portions of the resolution into the dustbin. Is there no basis for an addendum, a retraction, a substitution, or is this country founded on such absurd principles that once a dumb decision is made we are just stuck with it? Surely the perfection that was and is our original constitution allows for the country to overcome an "Oops, my bad!" moment by a misguided president.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/19/2005 @ 10:03pm

Hey wingers, since I strayed off-topic (in the heat of the moment), I will submit this addendum to my last post. Dick Cheney is the biggest, fattest, cardio-vascular compromised pussy wimp to ever attain a position of importance in the government,"with apologies to Denny Hastert". His general idiocy and delusional thinking negate any potential "positive" impact that he has given to the big picture. I submit: Dick cheney's public service is an extreme oxymoron.

Best to all,

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 11/19/2005 @ 10:05pm

Oh Liberty, Liberty, Liberty

What are we going to do with you?

Rather than go waste time quoting constitutional scholars, let's just go to the constitution.

Article One, Section Eight

Clause 11: To declare War , grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies , but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ; Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States , reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; I've highlighted the parts of our national charter relevant to this discussion. The crazy thing about having a power to do something is that you also have the power to undo that same thing. I think clause 14 pretty much answers your question. That ballsy "Use of Force" resolution that you guys got congress to pass was the rule that allowed the armed forces, at the discretion of the president, to go to war in Iraq. If Congress now wishes to change the rule of that deployment, I really can't see anything that is in Article One or Article Two that would prevent the Congress from doing that. But if it exists perhaps you, being a strict constructionist, could point it out for us.

Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 10:14pm

Sorry

Hit submit before I was ready

Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 10:14pm

Oh Liberty, Liberty, Liberty

What are we going to do with you?

Rather than go waste time quoting constitutional scholars, let's just go to the constitution.

Article One, Section Eight

Clause 11: To declare War , grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies , but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States , reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I've highlighted the parts of our national charter relevant to this discussion. The crazy thing about having a power to do something is that you also have the power to undo that same thing.

I think clause 14 pretty much answers your question. That ballsy "Use of Force" resolution that you guys got congress to pass was the rule that allowed the armed forces, at the discretion of the president, to go to war in Iraq. If Congress now wishes to change the rule of that deployment, I really can't see anything that is in Article One or Article Two that would prevent the Congress from doing that.

But if it exists perhaps you, being a strict constructionist, could point it out for us.

Posted by Will C. at 11/19/2005 @ 10:16pm

Don't know if RESE has "gotten to THIS one" yet or not...

But I read a GREAT counter to the "no airliner hit the Pentagon" Conspiracy Theory....the question becomes...

Well, what happened to American Flight 77 and its crew and passenger?

They never have an answer to that one. Supposedly AA-77 "didn't hit" the Pentagon (same "physics/structural engineering/thermodynamic" "reasons" as many of the other 9/11 Conspiracies...but ....where are the crew and passenger?

If the flight "didn't exist"...then all those names on the manifest and crew registry MUST be fake?

If the flight was "destroyed by CIA Black Ops F-117s", then there would be SOME wreckage "unaccounted for" somewhere between Boston and LA?

Or were the crew and passengers taken to the Secret Underground Bunker in Area 51 where the comotose JFK and Jim Morrison are kept in suspended animation (built from "Roswell crash technology")?

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2005 @ 08:52am

Cheney, the chickenhawk who needed five deferments to avoid serving in the military, attacking Murtha and his medals for valor ? That's such a laugh! Oh yeah...how about the illegitimate (stolen election) president whose dad used his many connections to get little George Bush into the National Guard to avoid Vietnam? Who are these cowards to criticize John Murtha?

Posted by philbq at 11/20/2005 @ 09:58am

Rumsfeld is lying on Face the Nation as I type. He says he was in Australia and, therefore, is unaware of the Murtha announcement and responses. Oh, that's right, Australia is a long way away and news doesn't travel as fast as we might hope. He also said that there is no doubt we will be scaling back our troop levels. Then he specified: we were at 138k, then went up to 160k for the vote on the constitution, and we are now at 159k at which level we will remain through the December 15 vote. After that we will probably go back to 138k and will pull out as Iraqi troops are trained to replace US troops. Breath holding will not begin.

He blamed the violence in Iraq on Saddam. He said that we could have put more troops into Iraq but he didn't want the US to seem like we were smothering the Iraqis with military security.

And he did a lot of smiling. But I can imagine that a trip to Australia might make me smile. Do these guys understand yet that we live in an age of videoconferencing?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/20/2005 @ 10:52am

Oh Liberty, Liberty, Liberty

Posted by WILL C. 11/19/2005 @ 10:16pm

He's thinking, he's thinking! Expert knowledge takes time to explain. He's probably cutting up the Constitution with a pair kindergarten scissors and gluing it back together the way it should have been written if only political geniuses like him had been around to give guidance to the founders of our country. America would have been so-o-o-o much better if he had written the Constitution.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 10:56am

Cheney, the chickenhawk who needed five deferments to avoid serving in the military, attacking Murtha and his medals for valor ? That's such a laugh! Oh yeah...how about the illegitimate (stolen election) president whose dad used his many connections to get little George Bush into the National Guard to avoid Vietnam? Who are these cowards to criticize John Murtha?

Posted by PHILBQ 11/20/2005 @ 09:58am

They and the party that spawned them are utterly undeserving of public office. America is realizing that, now.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/20/2005 @ 10:58am

Mask

re: conspiracy theories. Actually, the "X-files" crowd has some interestintg points (re: the physics of the towers, etc) Regarding the missing plane(s) - Remember, that was a day when there was some odd "Air Command" operation and all radar in the US was involved. For conspiracy types, the thought of a plane or two being disappeared from radar, etc is a small thing. I must admit, I am indeed curious about the extreme lack of wreckage in PA and at the Pentagon, as well as the "energy anomalies" in NY. (Basic physics seems to have been violated. Photos show people looking out of the hole...when the heat was supposedly SOO intense it melted through earthquake-grade reinforced columns - even though most of the jet fule would have exploded in the outer periphery. Int he case of the Pentagon, the crash seems to have violated geometry!)

To quell these sorts of rumors the "powers" should just ante up the various security cam tapes they took. Should be enought to quell such rumors if indeed there is notheing to hide?

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/20/2005 @ 1:02pm

He's thinking, he's thinking! Expert knowledge takes time to explain.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/20/2005 @ 10:56am

And we sit here waiting with breathless anticipation.

:)

Posted by Will C. at 11/20/2005 @ 7:41pm

LEFTOFCENTER have you discussed this with ILP by any chance? I've read some conspiracy theories that are credible but they mainly involve the fact that Bush and company knew the attacks were coming and how but not exactly when.Their reason for not doing anything was they needed a reason to go to war.After 9/11 the whole country was ready to take up arms.I have not come across one that implies the attacks or some of them were not even real.How do would you explain the phone call that became so famous from the Pa. plane? The wife of the caller was interviewed on one of the major networks that I know of and she seemed legit.

Posted by BusyHands at 11/20/2005 @ 8:03pm

MURTHA FOR PRESIDENT He has experience,foreign relations knowledge,diplomacy and honesty.He's admired by all of the Democratic Party and a lot of the Republicans.Can anyone think of another Dem who could pull the party together? We have to find someone good because the Republicans have McCain and he's going to be hard to beat--he's got all the above qualities too.

Posted by BusyHands at 11/20/2005 @ 8:35pm

Busy & ILP

No, I really haven't discussed the "paranoia" logics with many because, well, it really does start to sound very weird. However, I did look at a few things Rese said and there are points buried amongst the masses of "the sky is falling" stuff. (Sorry Rese....had to put you on "ignore" due sheerly to volume) Any truth to any of them though speaks very darkly at the highest levels....I suppose the real point being is, how far would they be willing to go to sell their agenda? Pretty far I'd guess.

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/20/2005 @ 9:15pm

For Will C.

You are at least consistent in having no apparent understanding of the Constitution. Regarding the sections you cite, let me have the Mr. Hamilton explain his creation:

The Federalist No. 74

Posted by love liberty at 11/20/2005 @ 9:47pm

TO DANCALL and all other rightwing fanatics:

If a school or any other organization refuses to allow military recruiters on campus, that is their right. After all, there are men's country clubs and women's only societies. So get a clue! As for O'Reilly and his famed stupidity:

Bill O'Reilly is WHITE TRASH. I could care less how many millions the Faux News Channel pays him. He is the biggest piece of garbage to ever disgrace the airwaves and cable T.V. I have no idea why anyone would listen to scum and slime like Sean Hannity, O'Reilly, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, bimbos and witches like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and of course Six Deferrement "I had other priorities than to serve my country" because I have a yellow streak a mile long down my back due to cowardice Dick Cheney. It seems that you chickenhawks will not cease in your relentless attacks of others who actually had the guts and the courage to serve our great nation in combat when needed. People like Jack Murtha and Max Cleland are to be honored for the Heroes that they are and the service to our great nation that they gave. It's time for honest liberals to make the following stand that they will no longer tolerate being swift-boated and smeared by Godless and gutless cowards in the Republican Party. This stand must be taken for the GOP could care less about the troops. That completely explains why a Republican President and a Republican Secretary of War sent soldiers to their deaths in Iraq with no body armor and few armored humvees. Wake up people! The GOP will doom this country unless people of goodwill and good character stand and fight against the lunatic and destructive policies that the modern Republican Party stands for.............

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/20/2005 @ 9:53pm

There is a power struggle going on in the White House between the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal who oppose any restrictions and the Condi Rice/Andrew Card wing who do not want the U.S. seen as a rogue outlaw state who practices torture on detainees. The fact that this power struggle exists is proof of the weakness of the current executive: George Bush the Lesser. He is a lightweight, as his advisors know too well. When crisis hits. he's usually riding his bike. Compare him to JFK during the Cuban missile crisis...no way. That would be comparing a boy to a man.

Posted by philbq at 11/20/2005 @ 11:52pm

Love Liberty, Alexander Hamilton died two hundred years ago, and I doubt any thinking he had on the matter of the executive would have remained frozen in place had he been confronted with the singular vacuity and self-centered authoritarian crap that this country has been saddled with for the last five years.

Posted by Legba at 11/21/2005 @ 12:19am

FRANKGRITS,

There is nothing to it but to do it.............Lord knows that the GOP will not hesitate to put the smear screws to anyone who disagrees with their cowardly practices and their continued hiding behind the troops when in reality they could care less about the troops in the first place.............Support the troop rallies are the biggest form of hypocrisy ever devised. Those rallies held by rightwing fanatics are merely we blindly support the President and his rightwing insane policies right or wrong and nothing will change that, no matter how many brave soldiers we throw to the lions............I think it is time for Sean Hannity to put another yellow ribbon on his tree so he can show how "patriotic" he is...........

Posted by POSEIDON at 11/21/2005 @ 12:26am

Check out that crap being thrown at Jack Murtha. The same people who always complain about how veterans got spat on following the Vietnam war certainly don't have a problem shovelling shit onto veterans when some veterans break with the party line.

Posted by Legba at 11/21/2005 @ 12:39am

Reese where do you get all the information you posted above? I've read before that Bush knew of the attack but didn't read that he knew so many details.What I read was the info came in bits and pieces but anyone in counter intelligence should have been able to put the pieces together.They all claimed the problem was interdepartmental pissing contests.The master minds couldn't pull it together.Cheney and Bush needed the attacks to be able to go to war and begin their big profit making tour.They were out to make a lot of people very very rich.Two years ago when I first read this it seemed so impossible and I really didn't give it much more thought but with what's been happening lately and what little info you can find on the businesses profiting it is starting to sound credible to me.

Posted by BusyHands at 11/21/2005 @ 02:39am

The Federalist No. 74

The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive New York Packet Tuesday, March 25, 1788 [Alexander Hamilton]

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/20/2005 @ 9:47pm |

Liberty!

I can breathe again!

It's amusing that you quote the federalist papers to attempt rescue your argument. If only they carried the force of law. What a shame. They don't.

I can do you one better. Let's go the document which actually does carry force of law. Again the US Constitution:

Article Two

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

You seem to really enjoy stating the obvious. No one is arguing that POTUS isn't the CINC. It's one of his enumerated powers. To use a transportation analogy the president has the power to drive the truck. But the Congress is the trucking company. It's the difference between positive control and procedural control, a subtle difference and obviously beyond your grasp.

Yes my dear liberty, it is true that the president has command of the army in wartime. But it is the congress that authorizes the use of the military and the scope of that use. The framers intended the legislature to be the primary body with extensive powers and the executive secondary with limited powers to protect us from the tyranny of the executive. They had fresh memories of King George: third, not forty third.

Now of course we must revisit Article One, Section Eight, Clause 14. Let's refresh our memories shall we.

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

As I'm sure that you are unaware of it, the concepts of governing and regulating include a pesky little component called Jurisdiction. Liberty, even you must have watched the occasional crime drama. If so then you are aware that law enforcement can only operate within its jurisdiction. It's the same with the military. And who defines jurisdiction? Correct, the legislature. The use of force resolution granted the president and the armed forces jurisdiction in Iraq. But like legislatures everywhere, the Congress is perfectly free to change the scope and nature of that jurisdiction unless there is some specific constitutional provision that limits that power, denies that power or tranfers that power to another authority.

As Article One, Section Eight, Clause 18 clearly states.

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but this Clause states that the Congress can pass whatever legislation it needs to carry out its enumerated powers and I'm guessing that that includes changing the jurisdictional authority of the military in Iraq.

So this is the second time I'm asking you this. If my assessment is incorrect, then please use your strict constructionist powers to point to the relevant passages of the US Constitution that either directly or through implication prove me wrong, suggest that I'm wrong, hint at it, become visible after a few evangelic incantations and a bong hit with Satan.

I can take it. Trust me.

But you won't be able to do that will you.

From your last post it seems that you took your ball and went home.

:(

Posted by Will C. at 11/21/2005 @ 03:58am

Will C. -- "Love Liberty" is just a rightwing goon: he doesn't engage in debate, he just throws out hail-baked pronouncements(Often Bush misinformation) and ridiculous hyperbole "(You're just a socialist who hates America"). He's not a serious thinker who attempts to be fair and balanced; he's just a propagandist. But you are right: Congress ultimately has power over the executive branch and should: no one man should have total power. And Bush is the reason why.

Posted by philbq at 11/21/2005 @ 07:13am

Why would an entity be given the party to authorize something without the authority to rescind its original order? If we want to go to the framers' intent, we can be certain that what they did not want was a king with absolute control. This is what LL wants (in this case, since he likes the king).

In a related story, my local paper's online question of the day is "Is it unpatriotic to question or criticize the president's actions?" Currently about 40 pecent say "ja vohl!"

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/21/2005 @ 10:27am

For Will C.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/20/2005 @ 9:47pm

1. As Will C. pointed out, The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. That's the best you could come up with after staying up all night searching for a get out of jail free card?

2. Hamilton was speaking to the executive (the President) having sole command authority over the state militias ("when called into the service of the United States"). It doesn't speak at all to the power of Congress to delineate the limits or ending of a war. This is what you describe as reasonable intelligence? You can't even read a brief passage and understand it. Either that or you're exercising the Republican talent of employing a crude, lying trick.

3. It's about time for you to admit that you were wrong in your claim that it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass a resolution, binding or non-binding, to begin a withdrawal from Iraq. You're just hanging on with silly posts like this because you can't admit that you're wrong. Uttering insults regarding the intelligence of those who are obviously correct isn't helping your case.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/21/2005 @ 11:57am

The Republicans don't want to send more troops to Iraq because that would be an admission that the Iraq invasion was a stupid mistake from the very beginning.

The Republicans don't want to withdraw from Iraq because that would be an admission that the Iraq invasion was a stupid mistake from the very beginning.

The Republicans see the best course as continuing to occupy Iraq with an inadequate force and the inevitable continual deaths of our servicemen and servicewomen. That's their best shot at holding on to the White House in 2008. It's not about American troops. It's all about Republicans.

Getting the Lowdown on Iraq By SALLY B. DONNELLY Posted Sunday, Nov. 20, 2005

"We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat. Link [tinyurl.com]

Posted by fromredbird at 11/21/2005 @ 12:09pm

Yes, exactly right, Redbird. They don't give a damn about the grunts in the field, they never have. They don't respect the ones over there, they don't respect the ones who come home, they don't respect the ones who live on the street, having never recovered from the sort of shell shock the Vietnam debacle engendered, they don't respect the ones who are ill from exposure to depleted uranium weapons.

And then they have the nerve to stand up on the floor of the congress, and insult decorated veterans.

They should all be in prison, and I hope they rot there, and I hope they burn in hell when that time comes around also.

Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/21/2005 @ 12:18pm

By the way, anybody notice that the "democrats" had a chance to show some spine on this thing, and they ran out on the antiwar movement as usual? I hope people remember this stuff during the off year elections. It really is way past time we organized some independent poltical presence in this country.

Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/21/2005 @ 12:38pm

By the way, anybody notice that the "democrats" had a chance to show some spine on this thing, and they ran out on the antiwar movement as usual? I hope people remember this stuff during the off year elections. It really is way past time we organized some independent poltical presence in this country.

Posted by SWEETDADDY 11/21/2005 @ 12:38am

I'm noticing plenty. The best path, however, is to support the progressives in the Democratic Party. I'm utterly fed up with the Republican collaborators in the Democratic Party, like Bush's favorite Democrat: "This is a debate worthy of our country," he said. "It's an important debate. It does not have to be a partisan issue. Fine Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman share the view that we must prevail in Iraq."link [tinyurl.com].

Posted by fromredbird at 11/21/2005 @ 12:56pm

What, that again? WHICH progressives in the "democratic" party? What was the vote the other day? 406 to 3, or some damn thing? As long as all we have backing us is a splinter sect, we might as well go out and figure out what non-voters are doing with their time. I really do believe we have arrived at a point in history where it's time to do some footwork, and figure out how to pull together the latent opposition that's out there. There are now more non-voters than voters in this country, that's got to be about something. Let's make it our business to find out what's going on with those people who stay home, using what leverage we have among those sections of the public who don't- who also have some energy.

I mean, I keep hearing about this "progressive" wing of the "democratic" party, which has done nothing but beat tactical retreats that have become retreat for retreat's sake, rather than retreat as part of a strategy for renewed attack. Tell me that's wrong.

Posted by Sweetdaddy at 11/21/2005 @ 1:03pm

You didn't miss this on the front page, did you?

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now. Editors, The Nation [thenation.com]

That gives them until next year's campaign but I'm definitely keeping track of the stragglers. So far, I like Russ Feingold as a Presidential candidate more than anyone else I'm seeing in the Democratic Party. Dennis Kucinich could be in the cabinet.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/21/2005 @ 1:07pm

Why should they vote for that Republican resolution? There's a reason why the Republicans didn't let Murtha's resolution come up for a vote. They twisted it into something unworkable and then went to the news media claiming it was "Murtha's resolution".

130 Democrats voted against the "Iraq Use of Force" resolution when 65-70% of Americans supported it. That's progressive enough for me.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/21/2005 @ 1:12pm

DICK & BUSH belong together, forgive the innapropriate analogy, but these two idiots and other prophelatic's in this administration have given it to US good, and now LIE and blame honest heros to cover up for their sins, sins that a diseased religious right help'd to spread. The only backbone that we should respect is that of those young troops that are having their's broken, too soon, and for all the wrong reasons, in a land that is now a haven for terrorism..TO HELL WITH YOU chaney & georgie, YOU MANIACS. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.

Posted by November at 11/21/2005 @ 1:15pm

I have had enough of this administration attacking anyone who dissents from their thought process (if any serious thoughts are present). I think it is time for both sides to come up with a strategy for bringing the troops home or at least rotating them with more regularity. I admit that it would be hard for the Iraqi people to handle security for their own country but we as Americans need to see that we have caused some of their internal strife. It is time for a serious discussion on both sides of the aisle to a timetable for resolution. I don't have the answers but I vote for those who I hope do. It is time for all of us Blue or Red people to call on our elected officials to format a plan for the Iraqi / Afghani conflict. I urge all to write their elected officials, lets not just keep going blindly into the night.

The vote the other night was a sham and any reasonable person should realize this. How can a vote of that magnitude be arranged without there being strong discussion?

Posted by Rundgren at 11/21/2005 @ 1:56pm

With all due respect, I humbly submit this evaluation of this debate: You're all missing the point. The Republicans will never, NEVER remove the troops from Iraq, unless they are being sent to invade Syria or Iran. Conservatives (and this includes a sad majority of Democrats too) REQUIRE a war, phony or otherwise, to be raging at all times. Can you imagine the panic that set in amongst when the Soviet Union collapsed, depriving them of the phantom enemy that justified imperial adventures in Korea, Vietnam, and piles of guana like Granada? I mourn the men and women who perished in those wars, as any sane person would, but they died to keep the money rolling in for the defense contractors. As an added bonus, the constant state of war kept the American public pleasantly compliant, outside of groups of college students that the American aristocracy could easily discredit as "elitist intellectuals", owing to Americans inate fear of intelligence. War is what the rightwingers DO, it is their modus operandi. Do the math... add up all the years since the American Revolution that American troops have not been engaged in some sort of offensive military action. Not much, is it? Iraq is just the latest installment of the Great American military soap opera. Peace is bad business, and the conservative bloc has seen to it that we experience it as little as possible. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever fight, but it should be for real reasons, for real convictions. To hear Mr. Cheney question our motives for disagreeing with him makes one wonder how strong his convictions are. He believed SO much in "freedom", and hated Communism SO much, that he bravely conspired to battle the enemy amongst the diehard Marxists in the coffeeshops of Wyoming.... while ignorant kids from the inner cities and podunk towns who wouldn't know the difference between a Marxist and a Marx Brother killed and died for some vague notion, with no real impetus to fight other than the safety of their comrades-in-arms and a desire to get home alive. Very brave of you, indeed, Mr. Vice President. War is the great shadow that conservatives hide their heinous actions in. It's about time someone turned on the light.

Posted by Robespierre at 11/21/2005 @ 2:08pm