home

Murtha vs. Lieberman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 10:25:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From Big Tent Democrat

Murtha:

Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that [Iraq is] heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability.

Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

That's not defeatism. That's our duty.

Lieberman:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. . . . The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

. . . It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said.

< Lieberman: Not A Democrat | Why Dems Have Been Losing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Murtha vs. Lieberman | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#1)
    by JSN on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    I am unable to think of anything President Bush has daid about Iraq that has turned out to be true. We have not undermined the credibilty of President Bush he did it without any help from us.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    Murtha has gone Copperhead. For those of you who don't get the reference, grab this book.

    Copperheads (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anonymous Hero on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:16:29 AM EST
    I think you are mistaken. It is, in fact, Lieberman who has gone "copperhead" on us.

    Parent
    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    what is that plan of Murtha's? deployment to Japan to combat Middle Eastern terrorism seems to be about it. a quote indicating the dems are fighting a war on two fronts which fails to mention the actual war we are involved in is so typical of the mindset.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said. Well, maybe Joe can tell us why Bush keeps doing it, and why Joe supports Bush doing it:
    WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /U.S. Newswire/
    9/28/2006 5:07:00 PM
    "If George Bush is so confident that his national security policies are working, he should release the entire National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism and let the American people decide for themselves. The fact that he won't speaks volumes about how the failure of his policies has made the American people less safe. "George Bush has no credibility left on national security... It's time to be tough and smart so we can change course and give Americans the real security they deserve." A Congressional Analysis Tallies the Cost of Bush's Failed Policies: U.S Taxpayers Pay $2 Billion per Week The Intelligence Community Rejects Bush's Failed Iraq Policy. Military Experts Reject Bush's Failed Iraq Policy. Anonymous Republicans Reject Bush's Failed Iraq Policy. Iraqis Resent Bush's Failed Iraq Policy.
    Somebody should remind Joe to wash the stains out of his blue dress...

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    what is that plan of Murtha's? The hole is deep enough, so we should quit digging.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 05:40:11 PM EST
    James Robertson, No, it's 2006 and they've become informed, and have used their free and critical American minds, just as many Americans did regarding Vietnam, the most recent and comparable foreign military disaster.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#7)
    by TKindlon on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    Colonel Murtha is a combat veteran who, unlike Joe Lieberman and the rest of the chickenhawks, sycophants and profiteers behind this war, knows when it's time to abandon a "plan" (term used advisedly) that's not working. Especially when we're squandering $2 Billion a week making enemies faster than we can kill them. Note to Mr. Anonymous: First, if you weren't such a pathetic coward you'd put your name next to your comments. Second, (and I've been reading your mindless drivel for a few days now)assuming you're at least 17 years old, which is doubtful, I strongly urge you to get your Mom's permission to join the army, immediately, before it's too late for you to go get killed or maimed in this "war" that you seem to think is such a brilliant idea (more than a few Generals would emphatically disagree with your position, but compared to you and Karl Rove what do they know, eh?). If you do get blown away--even if Tony Snow says you were "just a number"--I'm sure your death will be celebrated with a nice funeral in your home town. Unless it conflicts with the Super Bowl, of course, in which case nobody but your immediate family will even notice. If you're not killed, but if you're just badly wounded it will probably surprise and amaze you you when Col. Murtha, unlike Joe Lieberman, stops by Walter Reed to visit. Combat helps develop a sense of irony, and that would come in handy when the Col popped into your room to see how you were feeling. Col. Murtha actually respects soldiers and Marines which is why he does those hospital visits, quietly, without fanfare. If you do join the army, and then if you do actually survive combat intact, perhaps you will have a little more respect for the real life experience, and resultant wisdom--and compassion--of Colonel Murtha. Of course if you join, if you're wounded, if you survive, if you're disabled or have PTSD, please don't look to the VA for help. It can't help you because it's broke. Bush needed the money to pay his Halliburton bill. OK, I'll stop being coy: Guys like you make me want to puke. Sincerely, Terry Kindlon (SGT, USMC, RET)

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 08:22:20 PM EST
    to James Robertson: Holy Cow, James. Please tell me you aren't seriously trying to equate OUR CIVIL WAR with the debacle in Iraq??!! You tell these readers to read a book about Copperheads. I can't suggest strongly enough to you that you should go back and reread it when you are sober or when you've got a tutor who can spend some time with you!! Now, if you really believe that Iraq can be the 51st state of THIS Union, then I can give you a couple points, but no more than that, because ( and this may surprise you ) Iraq was not already a state in our Union! Plus, they did not secede from our Union!! The differences are so immense I now think that you may have been joking and I fell for it. The Copperheads felt we had spent so much American blood, both North and South, that if the seceeding states wished to leave that much, then we should just let them. The north was in revolt too. Conscription riots in New York to Cincinnati. It's a miracle that Lincoln held it all together. The Copperheads felt that their beliefs would save what was left of the Union. So, there was some patriotism even in them. Today, Iraq is a war we were lied into. Iraq did not secede from our Union, James. We can't even get them to form a real union. You do know that don't you??? Let me finish with this. James, to follow the point of view that you espoused in your comment is to say that each and every time our leaders want to fight a war with our kids against another country, that when the public realizes that the war is wrong and as in this case ( grotesqly immoral ) we are just "Copperheads" like those of OUR Civil War era! Let me tell you, James, thank goodness for those who stand up to an incompetent government and let them know we are not going to be their cannon fodder when the cause is unjust or a lie! These, throughout history, have always been the Americans who made this country great, whether they be soldiers or those who don't want soldiers lives wasted needlessly.If you don't hold your government accountable then there is but small difference between that unnaccountable government and the political environment that gave rise to the European facism of the early and mid 20th century. James, you might want to read " MEIN KAMPF". It was written by a fellow who advocated lots of the same "fear and smear" tactics of the Neocon gone wild crowd that infests our government today. Thank goodness you can vote in November to start the cleansing process. Just read that book and see if you don't think that would be the wisest thing to do.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    This debate is over. Iraq was, is and always will be a textbook U.S. foreign policy debacle...similar to Vietnam. The great majority of the U.S. public already recognizes this. So the debate should now turn to prosecuting the criminal actions of those who launched this mess and those who enabled it, from both political parties.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    From the post:

    The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

    This is the second time this has been quoted, but it  needs to be done daily. Why? Because Murtha has no strategy, all he has are complaints. That's fine. But when he does that he removes his experience from the discussion and reduces himself to the level of any middle school student parroting the words of his far left teacher.

    Re: Murtha vs. Lieberman (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    You might want to try actually clicking and reading the links in other comments first, Jim.

    Murtha:

    Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

    "Real Security Act of 2006" (S. 3875)
    introduced by Sens. Reid, Durbin, September 7, 2006.

    Bush Is Alone In Clinging to a Failed Iraq Strategy
    DEMOCRATS' NATIONAL SECURITY PLAN WOULD MAKE AMERICA MORE SECURE

    Democrats' Real Security Act of 2006 Offers Vision for Changing Course from Bush's Failed Iraq Policies. The Real Security Act would:

    -- Change course to a strategy for success in Iraq and refocus our resources on destroying Al Qaeda and tracking, hunting and killing terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

    -- Increase the size of the military, double the Special Forces and properly fund equipment.

    -- Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

    -- By 2010, secure loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

    -- Implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

    EXPERTS ARE REJECTING BUSH REPUBLICAN NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES AS FAILURES

    btw, there is still time for you to pretend you were onto them the whole time. Fake it if you need to.

    Murtha vs. Lieberman | 12 comments (12 topical)