Senate votes to condem Moveon ad

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'll go find article and get back with you Gregg.

all I could find is 4 pages on topic
http://news.google.com/news?q=Rush+...e=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

--with the bulk coming from media matters or those quoting him--I know what MM is famous for--anyone have link of entire context or close to it?
i am curious what was said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ok I read Media matters version and found this on Rush's comments on matter--anyone know which is correct?

In a transcript of Thursday's show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison earlier this month for collecting more than $10,00 in benefits to which he was not entitled.

Macbeth, 23, of Tacoma, Wash., tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement by claiming to have participated in war crimes when in fact he was kicked out of the Army in 2003 after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga.

"He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up," Limbaugh said Thursday. "I was not talking ... about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth."
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
To much of the left and right press give both Lush and O'Reilly to much slack.
I hope our Senate gets back to work this week on important issues.
And Bush's closes advisers should tell him to stay away from microphones.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
ok I read Media matters version and found this on Rush's comments on matter--anyone know which is correct?

In a transcript of Thursday's show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth
Wayne, please follow the link I posted above and you will find the uncut audio clip from Rush's live radio show in which MacBeth's name was only brought into the mix after this puke had already disparaged the names of US soldiers.

While I will readily admit that MediaMatters is hardly an unbiased source, in my mind there is no disputing what Limbaugh said in their recording of his blatant disdain for American soldiers that are opposed to our Administration's Iraq policies.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Gregg 1st can't get transcript off Rushes site as you have to be a member--your link on audio is from Media Matters which is caught daily for chopped-out of context BS--they say it is full transcript yet appears to me it was taken in mid discussion as all radio interviews in full start out with who caller is ect--which this did not--so it wasn't full transcript--

With that being said--before hearing transcripts I had leaned to Rush back tracking--because- he was saying he was referring to one soilder yet on several occasions used the word "they" which leads me to be skeptical of his intent.

anyway back to your question on my thoughts--I certainly think any person in uniform or out of uniform should be able to express their opinion without being called down for it unless they are doing it with sole purpose of undermining military.

As far as military I am sure there are several that have anti war stance and I absolutely see no prob if it doesn't interfere with their job--saw many in VN that had FTA(Fck the Army) on their helmets--but they still did their jobs without question--I see it as no harm no foul.

On the other hand--like the guard unit in Iraq a year or so ago that refused to go on convoy to supply troops in field because they said it was suicide mission--I think at the very least they should be given general discharge on the spot and forfeit all future military benefits.

on the antiwar /codepink groups--I personally think it is almost entirely political agenda and very little if any at to support troops.

My reasoning--saw same group before and then saw how much they cared about troops that returned--also you can't support troops yet ban military recruiters/ROTC at the same time.

They should be smart enough to want recruiters so they are not forced via draft to make sacrifices that those that volunteer do.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
If above answers your question on Rush calling anti war people phoney soilders--Ive got question for you.

Whats your thoughts on Murtha's libel/defamation of character proceeding on calling troops cold blooded killers--
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case


A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.

Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.

From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country.



Update: There is a lot of confusion on the Speech or Debate Clause among Crypt readers, lawmakers, lawyers, public officials and the world at large, so I will try to explain it a little bit.

The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members, senators or staff from arrest for a crime, and I am not suggesting that it does. If a member of Congress were to rob a bank or steal a car, he or she can be arrested and prosecuted for that crime. They have no constitutional privilege shielding them from the law on that front.

In addition, a lawmaker could libel someone if he or she were acting as a private citizen. That is entirely possible. Say I am a car dealer who sells Congressman X a new car, but he is unhappy about his purchase. Congressman X holds a press conference to announce to the world that I am "a damned crook who steals from everyone I sell cars to or have any other dealings with," including my own mother. It is obvious that I can sue Congressman X for libel based on the fact that our interaction had nothing to do with his official duties as a member of Congress, but rather as Private Citizen X. He has no constitutional privilege there.

But what Murtha did was comment on an incident involving Wuterich and other Marines at a press conference and in a follow-up TV interview. These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war. The courts have found that such press-related activities are a normal part of the duties of a member of Congress, and are therefore covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha did not have to be on the floor of the House making a speech in order to enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. My apologies to the commenters who believe otherwise, but you are incorrect on that front. Read up on the case of former Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) and his comments about a mosque near his home, and you'll see what I'm saying.

Update 2 - To those who commented that the Ballenger was dismissed on grounds other than Speech or Debate, you are right. I cited the Ballenger case as an example of how courts have ruled that a member giving a press conference or answering questions in a TV interview is considered within the scope of official duties of a lawmaker, not as an example of the Speech or Debate Clause. I should have made that clearer in my earlier comments.

In addition, Murtha said what he said about Haditha using information he received from Defense Dept. officials as the then ranking member of the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This information was gleaned from his contacts inside the Pentagon, contacts he has made as a member of Congress for the last 35 years (Murtha was elected to the House in 1972).

Therefore. his comments are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, and he cannot be charged with defaming Wuterich or anyone else. I am not saying Murtha is correct in what he said about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. I do not know whether his statement was accurate or not, and it would probably have been better if he'd never made ir. But Murtha clearly had the right to say it, and hopefully this decision will be overturned on appeal.

One final note -- Wuterich may end up standing trial soon over his role in the death of 17 Iraqi civilians in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident in Haditha. If he were to go on trial and be found guilty of some crime in that case, then this lawsuit against Murtha would go away as well. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel, as any first year law or journalism student knows. I am not saying it will happen, and Wuterich is innocent of any wrongdoing as far as I know. But if it does happen, his legal action against Murtha would disappear. And my guess is that Wuterich's fate will likely be decided before this lawsuit is resolved.

So, to restate what I said before, this is a very bad ruling by a judge who is clearly unfamiliar with how the Speech or Debate Clause works. I hope the decision is appealed by the Justice Dept. (which has represented Murtha in this lawsuit) or the House general counsel's office and overturned. It is a legally unsound precedent and should be reversed as soon as possible.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Wayne, I appreciate your thoughts on these matters and agree with you regarding the Murtha libel suit.

Rush apperas to be caught with his pants down in his ordeal and it will be interesting to see how far he goes to defend his comment.

I am also interested on what you think of the points made in the article by the men from the 82nd.
. . . . . while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a ?time-sensitive target acquisition mission? on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse ? namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
I think that the points made about who the enemy really is and the difficulty in combating these various factions on different fronts are very enlightened.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. ?Lucky? Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ?We need security, not free food.?

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are ? an army of occupation ? and force our withdrawal.
 

roc612

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 1, 2006
167
0
0
Does anyone here remember when GWB "our fearless leader" said he was going to be a uniter and not a divider.
I am almost fifty I cannot remember when this great nation has been more divided!I guess thats another indicie he has failed at
As Sponge said why did the Democrats not have supporters up in arms when Max Cleland and John Kerry were smeared.
I give the republicans credit for getting this country to focus on a non- issue(like an ad from a little outfit called moveon.org)
In the meantime over 3600 US soldiers have sacrificied their lives and over 26,000 have been wounded.Over a million innocent Iraqi's are dead and over 4 million refugee's have fled their homes.
The middle east has been in disarray for well over 5000 years and this admin pompously thought we could "fix" it .The democratic weaklings keep funding it and the budget deficit keeps climbing. When foreign countries stop buying our debt we could be(most likely will be ) in alot of trouble.It will make this current mortgage crisis we are in :sadwave: look like a pimple on your -ss
General buttkisser thinks we "Could " be out of Iraq in as littlle as ten years.If wasnt so sad it would be a good joke.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
It is now being reported that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his ?phony soldiers? remark.

Just what we need . . . . . .
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Gregg 1st I would be curious to know if this from the men of the 82nd or from a few hand picked--I would have to see article in full--who is being quoted--and where it originated.

From what you have in print--I would agree on 1st paragraph. On the part you had in bold--

Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal

I strongly disagree--

We removed Saddam and his regime--enabled free elections for all Iraqi's--

--that gave Iraqi's opportunity to control their own destiny--

If they decide that their destiny is to continue to fight among themselves--all the planning and support our troops give will have limited effect--
In the end it will be up to Iraqi's to determine their fate--hopefully we can aid to keep outside forces from interferring.

As far as articles projection of conditions in Iraq--that would depend on which parts of Iraq--I see the doom and gloom ones too, but also see the positive ones reported which your article omitted completely--saw news clip last night on area where Iraq'i children were returning to school and for 1st time they all had books and teachers were in very good spirits with their new school and especially to the fact the curriculum (spl) would no longer be dictated to them.

So while I acknowledge all things are not peachy--I do see hope in some areas.

some bright spots on todays news

Civilian killings in Iraq plunge in September:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Civilian deaths from violence across Iraq fell by 50 percent in September from the previous month to the lowest level recorded this year, government data showed on Monday.

Information provided by the Health, Interior and Defense Ministries showed that 884 civilians were in September, down from 1,773 in August.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071001/ts_nm/iraq_civilians_dc;_ylt=AgX26KMpAOeCR0A_BRUfhppZ.3QA

Saudi cleric issues warning over militants --
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's leading cleric said on Monday Saudis should not join jihad outside the kingdom, in a warning over Saudis going to fight U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

Interior Minister Prince Nayef told Saudi clerics earlier this year they should do more to stop youth going to Iraq. Al-Sheikh has warned against fighting abroad before, but this time the call was more direct.

Saudi Arabia has been embarrassed by the idea that Saudis have become fodder for suicide bomb attacks against civilians in Iraq and fear that militants could return to Saudi Arabia to wage their jihad against the Saudi government.

Al Qaeda-allied militants launched a violent campaign against the authorities in 2003, targeting government offices, foreign residents and energy-sector installations.

The government cracked down on charity funding, for fear that money is making its way to al Qaeda militants abroad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071001/ts_nm/saudi_militants_dc;_ylt=Apk1_kmXPZPdgqggJocIk2FZ.3QA
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I'll be back later with a retort to being called out, which is fine, enjoy the ratta-tat-tat. Wanted to make a quick comment to Wayne regarding Rush's new comment that he was referring only to the one soldier. I have seen the transcript, and I have listened to it on two separate radio telecasts, and his comment was a plural one in retort to a caller - about "The Phoney Soldiers." It was quite plural, and clearly dealt with more than one person, and was made to try to drive a point home about those not falling in line with the party line.

I think this is pretty much a freedom of speech thing, like the Move-On ad was, and can certainly be made out to be a problematic statement from someone who always makes this very situation a big deal. I don't think Move-On deserved legislative time and attention, nor do I think Rush's does. But I do think it's reprehensible, and very much the party line of conservative war supporters. It's quite simply wrong, and not what freedom is supposed to be about, IMO.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Gregg 1st I would be curious to know if this from the men of the 82nd or from a few hand picked--I would have to see article in full--who is being quoted--and where it originated.
Wayne, I posted the full article as it was printed in the New York Times on August 19, 2007. Here it is again:

The War as We Saw It
By: Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Samdmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
New York Times: August 19, 2007
Baghdad, Iraq

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the ?battle space? remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers? expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a ?time-sensitive target acquisition mission? on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse ? namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington?s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made ? de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government ? places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict ? as we do now ? will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. ?Lucky? Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ?We need security, not free food.?

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are ? an army of occupation ? and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Thanks Gregg--I wonder how many of the 182nd would agree with person/s interviewed?

If you like I can find articles to the contrary to put up--but again it would be by a few which could be cherry picked--and would prove no more than yours on validity.

IMO the best non-biased facts would be reinlistment rates which have been very good--
heres an odd fact--reinlistment rates since war began have all been higher than 1999--inspirational how trying times brings out best in many.

--on the phoney soilders--have checked further and read all rushes explaination in print (from conservative media) and while they make some good points still does not justify in my mind his continued use of word they if he was referring to one indivdual.

however can't see his BS even if 100% correct by liberal media near the epic proportions of Murtha or Moveon.

--believe if not started by Media Matters right after Oreilly exposed them they might have gotten more acknowledgement--however as they stand they have little credibilty with most of public.

--is evident its not what was said but who said it that was their objective--
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Wayne, you continue to avoid commenting on the substance of what these soldiers' are saying about our continued presence in Iraq. I believe that these men are well spoken and offer a unique perspective. I will grant you that their opinions parallel mine which is obviously why I am asking for your response.

Since the onset of this regrettable occupation, I have stated that our government had no business intervening in what has clearly become a civil war. Your point has been that we needed to intervene due to the terrorist threat. Am I glad that Saddam is no longer in power? Of course I am but I remain unconvinced that the cost of American soldiers' lives, not to mention the trillions of dollars spent, will never be justified and that we will someday be forced to acknowledge that this was an excersize in futility.

I respect your point of view which is the reason that I direct these questions to you. Is this not an unwinnable war similar to our efforts to combat the communist threat in Vietnam? Will any non-Arab army ever be able to impose their will on this segment of the world?

I think not and I believe that deep down inside you also know that we have no prayer in this foolish attempt to change the thought process of a society that has been in existence, literally since the birth of civilization.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
I am not avoiding the opinion of these 7 men Gregg--I am trying to point out their report comes from a very small # of soilders in Iraq and would depend a lot on area they are stationed.

The crux of the matter is for every one op ed article by NYT and others on subject I can put up 20 like one below--from the 82nd airborne website.

As with life in general--there are 2 ways to look at adversities--half full or half empty

Personally IMO I have no doubt most of the 82nd as well as rest of troops in Iraq are the half full crowd you see below

Commitment pays off for Paratroopers in Adhamiya


BAGHDAD ? Staff Sgt. Shane Glowcheski is normally a man of few words. Out on patrol, the platoon sergeant with the 82nd Airborne Division is all business, dark sunglasses and an unreadable expression on his face.


Sgt. 1st Class John Duggins (left), a platoon sergeant with Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, and Loneoak, Texas native Pfc. Tommy Shumpert, a squad automatic weapon gunner, patrol through the streets of the Graya?at neighborhood in Baghdad?s Adhamiyah District Sept. 7. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Mike Pryor, 2nd BCT, 82nd Abn. Div. Public Affairs)


But on a recent afternoon, as he described the renovations his unit was helping to make on a girls? school in the northern section of Baghdad?s Adhamiyah District, Glowcheski?s poker face suddenly lit up with enthusiasm.

?We got marble floors. We got computers. We got art work up on the walls. We?ve even got gardens. It?s Beverly Hills!? boasted the Rapid City, S.D., native.

Glowcheski and the rest of his platoon from Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, have good reason to feel proud about their achievements. With the new Iraqi school year just around the corner, the platoon has six school renovation projects on the verge of completion. Even so, when his deployment began eight months ago, he never imagined he would care so much about a flower garden at a girls? school, Glowcheski said.

?We?ve done stuff I never thought we would do, let alone be excited about,? said Glowcheski.

Early this year, the 2-319th ?Black Falcons? became one of the first units to push into Baghdad as part of the ?surge,? an influx of thousands of troops into Baghdad neighborhoods to improve security and give the government breathing room to get on its feet. They know they are making an impact on this community, one they think will be sustainable. And, in some surprising ways, the community is making a lasting impact on them.

?If you?re only here for six months, you can just say, ?OK, let me just do my time and go home.? But 15 months? It?s a commitment. We?re going to have guys who have lived in Iraq longer than they?ve been in the Army,? said Fayetteville, N.C., native 1st Lt. Larry Pitts, Battery B?s commander.

?It?s hard for the Soldiers and it?s hard for their families back home, but in the long run, with this 15-month, stable operation ? not moving around from sector to sector ? we?ve been able to provide exactly what the surge was intended to do: security and transition,? Pitts said.

Stabilizing the security situation was the first priority when the Black Falcons moved into the northern portion of Adhamiyah in February and established their headquarters at Coalition Outpost War Eagle, a joint U.S.-Iraqi Army compound straddling the east bank of the Tigris River. The immediate task was to clear the area of hardcore insurgent cells responsible for attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces. The first few months were a blur of constant foot patrols and nighttime raids, Pitts said.

?In the beginning, the most important thing was to make the people feel secure,? said Staff Sgt. Antonio Alvarado, a squad leader from Edcouch, Texas.

The aggressive stance the battalion took early on allowed it to dismantle the major explosively-formed penetrator, improvised explosive device and weapons smuggling cells in the area, said Capt. Andrew Woodward, of Baltimore, the battalion?s assistant intelligence officer. By removing the major threats to the area?s security forces, the battalion freed up more combat power for other tasks, Woodward said.

The improved security situation left the Black Falcons with what was, in many ways, an even more difficult challenge: rebuilding the local community?s shattered political and economic infrastructure. As spring turned into summer, the battalion?s officers found themselves struggling with purchase requests and work contracts, instead of operation orders. Nineteen-year-old artillerymen were suddenly acting as social workers. For many of the paratroopers in the battalion, this was uncharted territory.

?I?ve been trained how to do things like enter and clear a room, react to contact, give first aid to a casualty, but there?s no way to train someone how to build a school, or get the Iraqi government to pave a road. You just have to figure it out,? said Warner Robbins, Ga., native Capt. Joe Miller, a military transition team advisor attached to the Black Falcons.

Still, the paratroopers approached their new mission as professionals, Glowcheski said.

?Regardless of the task you get, you want to make sure you do the best job possible,? he said. To get the job done, the paratroopers had to overcome some initial distrust from Adhamiyah residents.

?In the beginning, we didn?t believe them, because there have been a lot of promises made by the Coalition Forces,? said Gahenyah Sinshehab, the headmistress at a local school who has worked closely with the Black Falcons on improvement projects.

But Gahenyah was eventually won over by the commitment she saw from the paratroopers. With each of Battery B?s school renovation projects, for example, the paratroopers were involved in every step, inspecting the sites on a regular basis with the contractors to make sure the work was on track. During a visit to one of the schools recently, Pitts checked every classroom. At one point, he stood in a doorway, poking chunks of loose plaster out of the wall with a massive, gloved finger.

?Is this first class? This is not what I call first class,? Pitts told the contactor, as the plaster dropped to the ground. Before he left, he made the contractor promise to fix the problems.

That same level of commitment has been displayed in projects ranging from the creation of a new water pumping station, to the rehabilitation of a local park, to hiring contractors to suck up the rivers of waste water that flooded the streets, and more. More than 35 projects have been completed so far and more than $3 million paid out to local workers, said Wichita, Kan., native 1st Lt. Brook Carrier, the assistant civil-military operations officer for the battalion.

The projects have had a ripple effect, Pitts said.

?It?s provided the community a sense of pride, it?s put people back to work, the markets are busy thanks to the new income. There have been a lot of benefits,? he said.

In time, the people were won over.

?People didn?t trust the U.S. Soldiers, at first, but now there is a bond,? Gahenyah said. ?Now, we don?t want them to go.?

One of the most unexpected benefits, at least for some of the paratroopers, has been the personal stake they developed in making the area better.

?You try not to put a personal touch on it, but eventually it wears on you. You see the kids, and you see their faces ? how happy they are. It?s a good feeling,? said Pitts.

As the projects go forward, the paratroopers have noticed a new sense of optimism in the community.

?I don?t think you can change people over night, but we?ve definitely made an impression,? said Pvt. Todd Thomas, of Hillsboro, Ohio, a radio operator with Battery B. ?There?s definitely a new sense of pride.?

Even for an old-school paratrooper like Glowcheski, that?s something to feel good about.

?Our area is really going somewhere,? Glowcheski said. ?A lot of people didn?t believe in us, but now they are seeing it with their own eyes.?

http://www.bragg.army.mil/82DV/commitment.html
 

Tenzing

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 14, 2002
274
0
0
55
Austin, Texas
2 full pages of spirited debate

2 full pages of spirited debate

wow...Tenzing takes the cake. Unquestionably, hands down, without a doubt, the biggest idiot on MJ's.

... and this loser can't come up with anything better than that? Sigh. The leftists that post here can't even come up with witty ad hominem attacks anymore.

Did you even bother to read this thread, or "were you high on meth again?" and decided to randomly post something that was only going to make you look like a jerk?

For your information, these kind of posts don't make it so people take you seriously, but alas, I'm sure you are all too used to people ignoring/ laughing at you irl everytime you open your butt cheeks, er mouth; sorry, it's difficult to make out what sounds are emanating from your general direction.

Have a nice day.

:stfu:
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
WOW!!! I even spelled out that the ideas I was about to express were simple in nature, and you low-life liberals still weren't able to suss out what I wrote.

Um, I was talking to you. If the shoe fits...

I'm not sure what part of this is so un-simple that you were not able therefore to comprehend it. The Senate of the United States of America's purpose is to do those things that get us closer to being a more perfect nation. Simple. Easy. If that means coming right out and calling a spade, a spade, so be it. Sorry. Randomly making pointless assertions about what it is you "know" about me are off-base (this isn't an argument about/involving me, even tho I know the left, that is to say, persons such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, every dictator in Africa's history, etc, tend to do at each turn of a "debate" they have injected themselves into), and therefore I shall dismiss them, out of hand.

Huh? This is a forum for discussing whatever it is I feel is relevant. Why on god's green earth would I need your blessing to post? It's amazing, but not really shocking as you freedom-haters do it all the time, that you should find it necessary to spout off on what it is I should or should not be writing about. I'm sure you're a nice guy, Chadman, but please, for future reference, I'll be the one to judge (hi The Judge) what it is I should be writing about. Thanks, tho. Also, I'm sorta tired so I don't understand the last part of this paragraph, sorry.

If you'd like, and I see you do like, you can take me out of context, but it doesn't get us any closer to speaking about the core issue of the Senates' repudiation of these ridiculous comments by Moveon.org. Also I noted in the post you quote that you'd be puerile, and indeed you have been. Tenzing 1, Low-life, predictable Liberals - 0

Okay, well my answer is I cannot speak for anyone besides myself. I have no idea of the context of the snippet you posted. I'm not the biggest Rush fan, and don't tune in to his show. His brand of conservatism differs somewhat from mine. I'm very willing to accept that you know more about what he intended to say that I ever will. Oh, and I wasn't fired up atall. Moveon.org got a sweetheart deal, violating NYT's stated purpose to be a media outlet, reporting news, and not a panderer to any particular ideolgy. That's all I posted about. Moveon.org's ad was anti-American, and nowhere in it was the question posited, "Is Gen. Petreaus betraying us?" It was written up as fact. My assertion, and that of 89 percent of the American public who speak English, is that the Congress we have now is the most ineffectual, sleaze ball, ignorant, and downright un-American, EVER!

I've been here for years. First post was in 2002, I believe; thanks tho :spotting:

These pixxing matches really don't do anyone any good. The thing that bugs me the most is when people just rant with namecalling of others and labeling all things the same with a broad paintbrush and don't deal with specifics. You seem to be a pretty sharp guy(I assume you're a guy), but then dissolve into flagrant names...I guess that is fine for some, just not for me. I think namecalling and broad stroke commentary shows weakness of message and an inability to fairly discuss real issues - not that that is your ultimate goal, I guess. Plenty of liberal posters here that do the same thing - works both ways, to be sure.

Individual comments to your post:

I am able to "suss out what you wrote," I just don't happen to agree with most of it. Punctuating your commentary with "low life" to the liberal outlook is really cool, though. I guess that somehow makes you feel taller, Napoleon.

I don't think individuals will ever be able to completely come together to make our country perfect. Especially two distinctly different groups that essentially position themselves to avoid looking bad to their constituents most of the time. The senate is pretty evenly divided, which in the sense of what this country is about (IMO) is a good thing - meaning the entire country as a whole is at least partially represented. I don't think it would be a good thing if either side had a big majority all the time. That's what makes our country unique, and strong. Not one-sided thinking, good for half of the people. Which is what you essentially are asserting - the conservative side is great and the liberal side is low life and should be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with the other. Would that be fair if it was asserted the other way? Of course not.

In my opinion, you totally missed my point about your right to post on the subject. In fact, I said specifically that it was fine that you did, I just didn't think you had to do it to prove that point, as the liberal leaners completely agree with that. Further illustrating my above point, you blast me as being a freedom-hater, which is irony at it's finest. My opinion is different from yours, which is a product of freedom - the right to have and express different opinions. I think we know which countries offer up the one opinion is right ideal - and those are the very countries your side tries to label liberals with. Again, irony at its finest. you wrap up that comment with on offhand remark of being too tired to understand what the last part of my point was - which pretty much sums up the whole point, speaking of still "not getting it." Maybe I should also use small words?

I think it's pretty self-serving for you to say I took you out of context, although you might have a bit of a point about the peurility. I do like to have my fun, no doubt. The exact quote I was contexting was: "But I'm too smart to ever think you low-lifes will stop." Now, it would seem to me that you are labeling yourself as being too smart for something, and spent some of your post commenting about how you have to use small words for liberals and how we can't understand the most simple of comments. Is that a stretch to say what I did? Seems to me to be pretty dead on.

As for the Rush/Move-On thing, we can debate on that moving forward. I obviously have a different opinion on those than you do, I think, so we can continue that in other posts.

My welcoming you to the forum was more a comment about posting here in the Political forum, which I had not noticed for the time I'd been here. You probably have, it was not a big deal. I do enjoy a good give and take, and I respect people who are passionate about these matters, one side or the other, and am glad to have the chance to barb back and forth. I find I learn more from people with differing opinons than those with the same opinions. At least if I don't dismiss them because they have a different opinion than I do. That would make me, um, stupider, wouldn't it?
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
... and this loser can't come up with anything better than that? Sigh. The leftists that post here can't even come up with witty ad hominem attacks anymore.

Did you even bother to read this thread, or "were you high on meth again?" and decided to randomly post something that was only going to make you look like a jerk?

For your information, these kind of posts don't make it so people take you seriously, but alas, I'm sure you are all too used to people ignoring/ laughing at you irl everytime you open your butt cheeks, er mouth; sorry, it's difficult to make out what sounds are emanating from your general direction.

Have a nice day.

:stfu:


No Tenzing, I engage plenty of people on this board in meaningful discourse and I will continue to do so. I just don't waste my time on idiots. Sorry you are so miserable...and so embarrassingly stupid.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Of all of the dumb ass nonsense you have posted on this site, I think this is my favorite. Truly some enlightened stuff. You are a quite the deep thinker. Btw, you do know what an "ad hominem" argument is right? It's fvcking hilarious that you use that term in a thread that you call people low lifes for being liberal, ask me if I was high on meth, make mention of my butt cheeks (what is the fascination with you rigthy types and mens butts, anyway?) Then to top off it off with ironies of all ironies, you have Penn tell me to shut the **** up. You know how much he hates you flag waving, god fearing, "patriotic" republican types, right?

"....liberals hate America, they hate freedoms, they hate people who use freedoms, they hate people who try to end disfranchisement (here, or abroad), they hate people want to increase the amount of here-to-fore non-extant freedoms.
Period.
Liberals are anti-American and are instead pro-whatever-is-anti-American.
Rush Limbaugh being horribly misquoted, and then having a bunch of America-hating liberals spout off some sort of rancid party-line BS, (the content of said BS clearly indicating they don't hate the msg, per se, although that is inferred) indicating precisely that it is an offense for an adult male to have the gall, the out-and-out Gall, to use his freedoms in the manner he best sees fit...
America will win, in the end, and you liberals won't know what hit you.
Have a nice day."
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Hmm I see Hilliary and Obama signed petition denouncing Rush--that will make good fodder for conservatives when they tie in many of Media Matters employees back to former linton employees--and there are several.

Heres your prob jabbers on issue of Moveon ad and Rush's comment

Everyone knows these liberal media history of supporting the code pinko's far left anti war--anti troop movement--

Then you have the far left liberal congress doing same--

Reid--we've already lost
Murtha --cold blooded killers
Kerry-stay in school
Durbin-comparing our troops to Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge,
ect ect ect

--and it is absolutely :142smilie that you have the above trying to chastise Rush for being anti military when he has documented history of adamantly supporting the war and troops.


Liberals--the gift that just keep giving. :)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top