So if Murtha didn't argue that there was no military solution in Somalia, then there would've been no 9/11. That's f*cking preposterous and about as "Farenheit 9/11-ish" as anything you have ever said. Blind loyalty is indeed blind loyalty I suppose.
"Murtha and those who share his (dare I even say it) cut-and-run approach to military engagements wind up doing significant damage to America's interests around the globe."
This administration's Iraqi boondoggle has already done plenty of "significant damage to America's interests around the globe." There is a marked distinction between "cut-and-run" and cutting your losses. The tough issue here is that Iraq is now everything that the administration was pretending it was before the war, in terms of an actual threat to our national security.
"But a brilliant military tactician? Hardly."
Perhaps not, provided that you concede that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not either. But wait, Murtha isn't pretending to be a miltary tactician, or let's say Commander in Chief, now is he?
What Murtha did, and what he meant do do IMHO is spark an honest debate--the lack thereof being an utter failure on both sides of the aisle leading up to and during the war-about what we're doing--not doing--and what our realistic expectations are--in Iraq.
Still working on an "intelligent" response on the topic.
Side question though... Lots of people these days use "f*cking" instead of spelling out the intended word. If one means "fucking," is it so wrong to actually say it? I mean, is it any less rude to use the actual word than one that is obviously a stand-in?
Don't misread me. Being a sailor, I can string together a stream of curses that would make Captain Krunch blush. I just save my cuss words for the French.
Just say what you mean, Man!!! Unless it is an FCC thing, then we can collectively fall over on our sides and play "humble kitty."
Ok, here's my challenge. If Murtha's not the best person to speak out in favor of bringing troops home, who would be? Or is there no credible argument that can be made for doing it? I understand that your personal position is that they need to stay until the President brings them home, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives that you would at least listen to, even if you in the end disagreed. I simply want to know who those people are and why them as opposed to anyone else.
So if Murtha didn't argue that there was no military solution in Somalia, then there would've been no 9/11.
Wow, good one. While Murtha is not solely responsible for Clinton the cowardly lion's forein policy disaster, it is the same mindset that displayed an image to the world - and Osama - that we are not prepared to deal seriosly with terrorism. Our running with our tail between our legs out of Somalia was the moment that inspired bin Laden to believe that America was a paper tiger, and indeed it did embolden him. Fortunately we have a President who was willing to fight back, but there still remains the yellow-belly wing of the Democratic party - and within the GOP rank and file as well - that will do all they can to weaken our resolve. Thank God this kind was not in charge during World War II, or we'd all be lampshades.
So if Murtha didn't argue that there was no military solution in Somalia, then there would've been no 9/11.
That is not actually what I said, Deuce. What I said was that Murtha's position was rewarded, or at least mirrored, in the Clinton administration's policy, which did affect a withdrawal of American troops from Somalia, which in turn inspired Osama bin Laden to bring his Al Qaeda to the fore, which in turn led to its global terrorist march and the horrible events of 9/11. I was trying to get across that what Murtha wants to be done now is the same thing he wanted done in 1993 that ultimately yielded awful consequences -- and that because he had a poor grasp of the situation then, there is no reason to believe he has a better grasp of the situation now.
This administration's Iraqi boondoggle has already done plenty of "significant damage to America's interests around the globe."
If you mean that our policy in the Mideast has upset our enemies and annoyed some of our pretend allies, then I agree with you.
What Murtha did, and what he meant do do[,] IMHO[,] is spark an honest debate . . .
I disagree. I think what Murtha was doing was following a party directive and launching the latest salvo against the administration for the purposes of 2006 electoral gains. "Honest debate" about terrorism and how to address it has been going on since September 12, 2001, and I find it funny that you consider there to be a lack of debate in light of the fact that your position has not been vindicated, either in practice or at the ballot box.
Mouldy, this one is for you:
I understand that your personal position is that they need to stay [in Iraq] until the President brings them home, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives that you would at least listen to, even if you in the end disagreed. I simply want to know who those people are and why them as opposed to anyone else.
Regarding troops in Iraq: I think that any policy that sets a visible timeline for withdrawal is facially problematic for the precise reasons the president has been saying since the initial invasion: namely, that setting a timeline invites the terrorists to lay low, marshall resources, and wait for the withdrawal before really wreaking havoc. By not giving terrorists dates, you force them to exert themselves, use all their resources, and deal with the stressors of an ongoing conflict. In a war of attrition of this manner, we win.
Regarding withdrawal: while it is obvious that 150,000 troops cannot stay in Iraq in perpetuity, I would like to remind everyone that we still have troops in Germany and Japan. When the vast majority of troops withdraw from Iraq someday (perhaps on a march through Syria), some will stay. We will always have a presence in Iraq and the Middle East. Deal with it.
Regarding credible critics: I don't think that just because someone once wore a military uniform that they are automatically a credible critic of the war. Far from it. What lends a critic credibility is their overall approach to this war from the beginning. If I guy like Joe Lieberman came out and called for withdrawal, I would be more inclined to listen to him because he has demonstrated a fundamental understanding that the threat has to be confronted with military force and other means. Of course, any critic that calls for a timetable-based withdrawal loses credibility for the reasons stated above.
Commenting by HaloScan
