Bring It On!

By SteveIL on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Murtha’s “plan” didn’t count on a possible disclosure.  The Democrats have no “plan” to actually fight terrorism.  Yet, they blame Bush for having no “plan”, which in reality means Bush has no plan they like.

Of course, when I say Democrats have no “plan” to fight terrorism, I mean to actually fight it.  They have all kinds of “plans” for giving up, and Democrats even have “plans” to make sure terrorists can hide behind their “civil rights” when putting their own “plans” into action to slaughter thousands of Americans, as they did on 9/11.  So, it’s not like Democrats don’t have plans, just not any to win or fight.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

The GOP are pinning their hopes on the Democrats defunding the war so they can blame the Dems for the inevitable failure tat lies ahead.  It puts the Dems between I-raq and a hard place.  The really low-brow cons will say that the Dems “don’t have a plan,” but, of course, they don’t control the body that makes the plans.  Murtha was trying to find a way to exert some control.  Joe Biden came up with a possible startgey - remind everyone haow the inept sleazy White House already completely goofed up the non-existant “war on terror” and only compounded that failure with the collapsing of the Iraqi state.  So, we’ll see how this alls plays out.  At least these guys are trying something, whilst the sleazy, stupid, lying, anti-American cons play politics with the lives of our troops.

JMJ    

By Charlie on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

You are so right, if Murtha had any plans to disclose his plan regarding war funding he would have had something written about it and then published maybe via the internet.  Oh, wiat that’s what he did.  Damn! Maybe that non-disclosure is your usually inept hot air.

 You are right however that Bush does have a plan to increase corporate profits at the expense of our national security and the bill of rights.  What I don’t understand is why so called conservatives like yourself buy into the plan.  It almost seems like he could release “How I Did It.”  And you guys (the hardcore 30 percent or so) would tap dance around how it wasn’t what it seemed.  Give it a rest already.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

The sleazy cons are just looking for a way to blame the Dems for the failure of the Iraq war.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Um, yeh. No questionable ethics or political ineptitude on the part of Murtha at all. Er, well…didjall actually read the article? Guess not.

By Paul Watson on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Craig,

I have read the article. Which questionable ethics are you referring to? There’s certainly political ineptitude, but very little mention of ethics. On the other hand, there is no politician with any length of service who hasn’t evidenced signs of political ineptitude. No one’s perfect, not even Murtha.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Paul, The questionable ethics part has been around his neck since his days as an unindicted co-conspirator some decades back but he’s added to the list of questions about his ethics since then. The ethics part isn’t a part of this story, it’s just something he can’t escape…being that his ethics are so, well, questionable.

Of course, no one’s perfect, not even me. :^)

But…ineptitude of this magnitude deserves mention.

By Charlie on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear.  Yes, it was a bonehead move to post the info on antiwar website.  But, the measure itself is a good move.  Aspeaking as a guy that went to Iraq with no body armor and no a general lack of supplies.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

Charlie,

I certainly would not say that they aren’t good ideas — fully equipped/armed/protected, fully trained on the equipment they’ll be using in the theater, fully rested etc. — but using statute to enforce optimal conditions in the midst of an ongoing war as a smokescreen for deliberately hindering the President’s constitutional handling of a war that he’s authorized to conduct is not the sort of behavior that I commend. There are still a few of us that believe that what would very likely become of Iraq if we were to do what Murtha wants us to do would be very bad for Iraq, for the ME, and for American interests. In short, we wish to accomplish the objectives that we’ve already accomplished — Removing Saddam and assuring that Iraq doesn’t have WMD — without leaving behind the kind of thing that happened in Vietnam when we defunded that (millions murdered/displaced bordering on genocide) and/or a regional war and/or become another welcoming sponsor for terrorists (by “another”, I mean as a replacement for Afghanistan).

In short, I want our troops to have all the rest they need and the absolute best of every available piece of equipment before going into battle and, frankly, I don’t understand why we haven’t got that and shame on any and all who are responsible for the fact that we don’t but we’re at war now, a war that I don’t think we should accept defeat in and trying to enact legislation with the intent purpose of making sure we are defeated in Iraq is not the sort of behavior that I intend ever to praise, either here at Bring it On! or anywhere else, for that matter. 

By christopher Radulich on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

There is only one thing that will change by us staying there. More Americans and more Iraqis will die. In the end they will do what they are going to do. Our military intervention has an abysmal record of spreading democracy. Ah, you say Germany and Japan. Perhaps if we kill 70-80% of the 18 - 28 yr olds, destroy all the cities and infrastructure, and commit 400,000 troops for  4 - 10 years it might work. Well you say what about the Phillippines. That took 46 years to grant them independence.

By Jersey McJones on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

Craig, Murtha’s ethics and Democrat inepitude are not what I see at the center of this.  It was the sleazy GOP that curbed the plan by forcing the bullshit “support the troops” issue to the fore.  The Dems got played.  If you want to talk about “questionable ethics,” start with Sen’s Gregg and McConnell.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

Jersey,

Questionable ethics go wherever Murtha goes. Same goes for any pol with questionable ethics. I’ll admit that there’s nothing criminal or even ethically wrong with what Murtha did in this story so it’s not at the center of it. However, I don’t see how you can call this anything other than politically inept. Even his friend, House Speaker Pelosi, distances herself from his blunder.

Anyway, you see it differently than I. No great surprise there.

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

By the way, this was about Murtha’s ineptitude, not Democrat ineptitude.

By Charlie on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

Craig,

 This debate has been danced around from day one of the Iraq debacle.  But, the sad fact is that failed states and mass bloodshed are the predictable results of wars of this nature.  We have to leave eventually and when we do anything we touched will be destroyed as illegitimate. 

The commanders already admit that the war occupation is not militarily winnable.  At least the Murtha plan is doing something tangible rather than symbolic.
 

By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

Charlie,

I don’t know which commanders you mean that “admit” that the occupation is militarily unwinnable. If by that you mean that the thing can’t be won by military action alone, I thoroughly agree. If you mean that there is no way to win using any combination of military action, including Petraeus’s counterinsurgency plans, and negotiations with various parties and political haggling then I’d say that there’s at least one commander that disagrees with you. His name is General Petraeus and he happens to be the commander that counts at the moment.