murtha...somebody explain this pantload to me...

[gardenweasel]

anybody still wondering why the military voted for the g.o.p in 2004 at the rate of 70%...and the dems at 17 %?...

murtha`s only response on this issue is therapy for terrorists, brickbats for troops & blame americans first. ...


wouldn`t it be wonderful if murtha would mention the bulk of the time our troops distribute candy, medical care, books, toys, schools, water, electricity, protecting iraqi oil facilities from destruction by jihadists trying to take iraq back to the stone age instead of forward to freedom, productivity, and peaceful lawful existence.....


the u.s.a.is the only country in the entire world, that is expected to fight war with some kind of "gentlemens rules", while north korea is openly running "camp 22", which experiments on north korean civilians who have been outspoken critics of north korea

......to china, with their openly worst human rights violations in the history of man, to islamic terrorists who kill tennis players for wearing shorts, who kill innocent woman men and children on a daily basis, behead, hang headless corpses of americans from bridges, etc, etc, etc, to iran's president who has 80,000 homicide bombers ready to kill any who resist iran's nuclear weapon capabilities(so they can wipe israel off the sace of the earth)......

and yet, the focus?

15 "innocent" iraqi's, from the living hell of haditha, who may, or may not have been killed by a very few marines......

which brings up another point....since haditha is "bad guy country" and an obvious "no go" zone for western jounalists, who did the interviews and where did n.b.c. get the footage from? ....

it almost had to be from terrorist collaberators or the terrorists themselves.....

how else could they have gotten it?...




btw..they finally gave up on hoffa...waste of time..my buddy in new jersey sits right above hoffa at giants` games...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Isn't Michelle Malkin a peach AR? She and Krauthammer are two of my favs--Michelle is a little more spirited and Kraut more subdued.

---and back on topic--the liberal press has already won this one despite what ever the investigation turns up. They will wail about the atrocity if found quilty or about the cover-up if found innocent.

so who are the winners and losers in this situation regardless of outcome.

Losers
Our troops and their families
The image of the U.S.
Americans that support both the above.

The winners
Terrorist
Countries that support terrorist and are anti U.S.
Liberals

---any doubt we are fighting this war against 2 fronts--I don't think so.

Remember when they had big issue of GI that shot terrorist in building with imbedded reporter--story ran forever--How many know the outcome of investigation? Would have thought the verdict would have been more important than the hype to media seeking the truth--apparently not.

 

[StevieD]

Bill O'Reilly, 30 May 2006:
> |
> | But Iraq should be a lesson learned. We cannot ever again put
> | American boots on the ground in a hostile Arab country. Iraq
> | was an optional war. There will always be or there were other
> | ways, I should say, of removing Saddam

 

[djv]

There are no excuses if true. And I give the press some credit for sitting on this story for over 4 months. It's hard to believe this. Bush said first he new of any of this was when he saw it in the Times. So was it a cover up?

 

[StevieD]

CT, GW, etc. do you even have a clue as to why we are supposed to be there.

The following are not my words but the words of the Commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq. I ssume he would be one of your guys and not a "gutless liberal."

"The order from Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, came as the U.S. military investigated whether U.S. Marines might have intentionally killed unarmed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19.

The killings, in which victims included women and children, followed a bomb attack on a military convoy that killed a Marine.

"As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies," Chiarelli said. "The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many."

 

[smurphy]

Remember when they had big issue of GI that shot terrorist in building with imbedded reporter--story ran forever--How many know the outcome of investigation? Would have thought the verdict would have been more important than the hype to media seeking the truth--apparently not.

I don't know what news coverage you were watching regarding that one, but all I heard everywhere was benefit of the doubt and support for that marine - FROM THE LEFT AS WELL AS RIGHT. The only reason that was a story was because it was on video. Virtually everyone on all programs was defending the marine though. There was not any presumption of guilt whatsoever.

This current situation apparently is much different.

 

[gardenweasel]

stevie...i`m going to have "cauliflower fingers" if i have to go back and repost the rationale for removing saddam....not to mention causing potentially injurious flashbacks for kosar and smurph(whom i disagree with constantly..but respect....i wouldn`t wish a conniption on these fine albit misguided fellows)......


if you want,you can dig up some of the comments of dems like hillary and kerry who voted to give authority for the war...

there were good reasons...was it smart in hindsight?...history will decide...

was it smart for murtha to denigrate our troops before the investigation has ended?....a slamdunk NO!!!!

off topic..palestinian boy pissing on the statue of liberty..

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6246/1251/1600/liberty Risala 25 May 2006.jpg

the bad .....i think we just decided to send these palestinian jackholes more aid...

the good...ironically, the arab youth is pissing on something made in france....reminiscent of the carswarming,carburning paris intafada that seems to be cranking up again...


i think most americans are just to tired after their 9 hours at work and 4 hours of commuting to go out and riot....... (just doing their bit to keep providing u.s. funding to the rest of the damn planet...).....

i'd love to see this printed in the l.a.times, n.y. times, or any other msm paper....

without comment....just let everybody see it...and form their own opinions...

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain .....

 

[StevieD]

Gw, Even your boy O,Reilly seems to think, in hindsight of course, that there were better ways of removing Saddam. I don't want to have my fingers calloused by telling you I don't care what Kerry or Hillary said. For the record they voted to give the President the AUTHORITY... as a last resort. It was the Shrub who sent the boots in. Not enough as it turns out but of course you wouldn't want to blame either him or Rummy for that because a Democrat voted to give him authority. What a joker.

 

[gardenweasel]

remember..it was bill clinton that made "regime change" in iraq official u.s. policy....

stevie...you may well be right...and iraq ends badly....but,the jury`s still out....


of course your position is easily defended because we`ll never know what additional mayhem saddam may have caused....and his track record was easily the worst in the middle east.....

so,say we`d left him in place...would ahmadinnerjacket have become a shrinking violet?....he admitted that their nuclear program had been underway more than 5 years ago...

would saddam have let his neighbor go nuclear and do nothing?...

iran/iraq....pay me now or pay me later....

we`ll have to deal with them....or just lay pandora`s box wide open....

see the next panel....

 

[gardenweasel]

""The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,


“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” (Emphasis added)"""


these are clinton`s words....hard to think of any Bush administration words more forceful, unqualified or expressive of the grave and growing danger posed by the iraqi regime......

yet, i hear no criticism of the clinton administration`s misuse of intelligence...

was bill a liar?

:shrug:

 

[kosar]

(sigh)- for the 130th time, 'regime change' does not necessarily mean full-blown invasion, occupation, reconstruction, shoving a new political system down their throat....etc...etc...

Did that ever occur to you, Weasel?

 

[gardenweasel]

read it slowly,kosar...


“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, """""""the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction.""""""" If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face """"a far greater threat in the future."""" Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people.

""""And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” (Emphasis added)""""""

clear as a fooking bell...

wtf do you think he meant?.....how was he going to be removed?......the kurds?.....he murdered anyone that opposed him....you say the terrorists weren`t in iraq....why?...because he was a bigger monster than they are....

read it again...

""If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” (Emphasis added)"""


was clinton lying?.....was he(and are you)hypocrites?


how were you going to remove him,kosar?....wish him out of power?

you`d do what clinton did...leave it for the next administration...

 

[neverteaseit]

Thats it lets persecute the Marines before the facts are all on the table. I truly find it hard to believe they just shot and killed innocent women and children. I guess most back home think all soldiers have orders to shoot and kill anything that moves which is very very way off base. Most of the time we take more shots at us then we send back.

The military is very well aware and trying its best to avoid civilian casualties. It does look into the interest of the iraqi people before engaging anyone. When an incident does occur the military does an investigation into what occured and makes sure all rules of engagement were followed to the T. It also looks into civilian casualties when they occured.

Now before we hang these guys for something that may or may not have occured and since most here never stepped foot in a combat zone ( Those that have I salute u!) let the investigation take its course before coming down on these guys. The marines go thru hell in Iraq day in and day out. They have my upmost respect. Those of u who say there isn't a war going on well I got a solution for ya. Head on over to Iraq and head to the al anbar region (Marine controlled) and see how long it takes for u to realize their is a dam war going the **** on. Every day, every night 24/7 its a war. But of course watching or reading the news makes us experts on this subject as usual.

It very well could be that something happened or occured.. I dont know nor will I say it didnt. I hope it didn't though. It is way too hard to get away with it today. But undertsand the insurgents constantly do things to make it look like American soldiers killed innocent civilians. It happens everyday. The best way for the insurgents to win this is to turn the people against one another. Look at the effects it has here in our country were we sit cozy in the comfort of our home, front page news, water cooler chat etc. . Now imagine the effects it has in Iraq. More fuel to the fire.

Sometimes I wished I had stayed in Iraq fighting for people who truly want freedom and democracy and are willing to stand up for it day in and day. Instead of being surrounded by a bunch of people who have had most handed to them on a platter and do nothing but complain. Never had to struggle to eat, clothe themselves or have been repressed. Call it what u want, complain all u want its the American way.

But if anything wait until all the facts come out before u label these guys killers or compare them to the massacres that occured in vietnam.

 

[gardenweasel]

milosevic got more due process than the haditha soldiers are getting...

saddam`s getting more due process than murtha`s given them...

everybody sits by for rwanda and darfur....but the minute u.s. marines make one mistake,smear,smear,smear....


americans that are risking their lives deserve better..

the facts will determine guilt or innocence...not speculation...

 

[djv]

So folks here still believe the Iraq people wanted us to come and blow the hell out of there country on false info. What we save them for if there still getting shot. By whom ever.

 

[kosar]

So folks here still believe the Iraq people wanted us to come and blow the hell out of there country on false info. What we save them for if there still getting shot. By whom ever.

Sadly, yes.

 

[gardenweasel]

:wtf: :thinking:

on a lighter note....where does seaweed go to look for a job?....

the "kelp" wanted adds.... :142smilie... :142crying ... :lol:... :yawn:... :142squint... :s2:

 

[Chadman]

so who are the winners and losers in this situation regardless of outcome.

Losers
Our troops and their families
The image of the U.S.
Americans that support both the above.

The winners
Terrorist
Countries that support terrorist and are anti U.S.
Liberals

---any doubt we are fighting this war against 2 fronts--I don't think so.

In my opinion, this is a load of crap. In any frikkin' way you slice it. #1: America stands for something. It stands for not killing innocent people like old guys in wheel chairs and young kids. It's what sets us apart from the terrorists, and why people (at least in the PRE-BUSH DAYS) used to admire this country (and hopefully still do). It's what keeps other countries on our side and believing that our way of life and looking at it is the best way to live.

There are a lot of people in this world who don't think we should be in Iraq in the first or last place. And many of them live in the U.S. And when we see things like this, it undermines our efforts and casts doubt on what we are doing. Like Kosar so aptly footnoted...if it is true. We don't yet know, but John Kline definitely said it was explained to his committee that way and is a very disturbing story. A Bush-supporting Republican. But what do we see here from Conservative Bush supporters? More of the unpatriotic references to anyone coming out against this, and saying it's really no big deal if it did happen. It's war and all. People who have been briefed on this, people in positions to know, have said it's a terrible thing. And Wayne ASSesses that liberals WIN from this atrocity (if it happened). In short, in my opinion, that is a dumbarse comment.

Now I don't know what to think about this, until we learn more. At first listen, I thought that I could understand marines freaking out in combat when one of their own was blown up and seeking whatever they were seeking. And I still can understand that to a degree. I am honestly amazed that we have seen not much of this during the war. I'm saddened - every day - that our men and women have to live with this and make these decisions that no person should have to make.

Right now, I don't agree with your scorecard, Wayne. I'd offer up half of America (with no evidence, of course) that definitely do not think your bullet points are correct (conservatives and Bush supporters). And I would offer up Bush and the people who convinced him what to do as the people to blame for this - if it happened. The people doing it - if it happened as reported - have to be held accountable, because that is what we as civilized people do. Again, it is what sets us apart from those we are "fighting".

I'm sick and tired of this BS labeling you and your buddies do around here. Liberals win when bad things that soldiers may have done become public. Americans and the believers of democracy and freedom ALL lose when this kind of thing happens - if it happened. Funny how you can say that liberals win when something bad happened in this elective war, when many of us were against it happening in the first place. The day we invaded Iraq, under Dubbya, I considered us all losers in a sense. We didn't want the winners and losers in Iraq - the country that didn't attack us and was being completely held in check. Most of us wanted the winners and losers to come out of Afghanistan, where the person responsible for our dead was hanging out. And Bush failed miserably in that mission. By his own agenda, and the decisions the people who made them for him made.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Here is link to Aljezeera---Read it for a week or so and report back which side it talking points mirror.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Plain and simple--We the U.S. are at war in Iraq
What % of conservatives do you think hope we fail
What % of liberals?
If you say none--you are naive--you could see the gleem in the posts when some here thought civil war was imminent.

You can read threads here daily--and glad to Neverteaseit contributing -as it shows once again those making the sacrifices are not the ones doing the whining.

There are atrocities that occur and will continue to occur. Just saw last night where 6 soilders and a sailor are prob going to indicted for murdering a civlian in diff situation. If guilty they need to be punished --but it was handled through channels as everything else.
Constant harping and dragging out these incidents by media does not help our war efforts--but again who cause does it help?

It is almost amusing how the press likes to emphasis words like "wheel chair" for drama.

Really gets the emotion running with the fanny pack crew--however I am here to tell you if you getting fire and encounter someone in wheel chair with hands under blanket--it has entirely diff consequences and meaning to a soilder.

Terrorist only course to victory is not miltarily--Its apparent and documented in their writings who they are counting on for any chance of victory.

 

[StevieD]

Typical Conservative Bull. You know who loses when this kind of crap is covered up. We all do. America wins when this crap is reported, ivestigated and prosecuted. The terrorists already know it happened. This is not news to them. By the way Wayne, your argument on this one is not with the liberals. It is with the military itself because they disagree with you.