Redstate

...Isn't it quite a bit different to withdraw over the course of 6-12 months than it would be to immediately leave?

This seemed disingenuous of the house leadership, I have to say. I don't think the "rewrite" was really very accurate. Shouting "Get on the choppa!" is a lot different from withdrawing at a first slower pace than it too to enter.

Why do we want to be nationbuilding anyway.

Nothing would make the Iraqi government snap into gear faster than having to do so, or else.

We could still exercise free reign in the country somewhat covertly, without being on the defensive against IEDs, snipers, and suiciders.

And if the democracy did topple.... Which is far from likely as the insurgents are just a bunch of disorganized anarchists (this isn't the North Vietnamese backed by the Red Chinese). But say they did take over. How fast could we depose them?

I highly doubt that part of the reconstruction has been the replacement of Hussein's air defense network.

One great accomplishment of this resolution is establishing a floor. The original resolution for war (or I guess "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq") is the ceiling.

The "Plan" everyone seems so concerned about is the furnishings (let's say, transitional authority, constitutional convention elections, constitutional referendum, general election, UN oversight, EU trade missions, WHO test facilities, let your mind wander, etc.)

Then, if certain elements remain unwilling to settle their differences amicably, we'll let them settle them otherwise.

That's when this resolution can be reintroduced to see if remodeling is in order. I suspect we may never see that happen.

Oddly, Rep. Murtha then voted against a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal. Which was just like his own.

begs the question of why the leadership didn't just allow Murtha's bill to the floor. More Democrats would have voted for it. And they would have been in a better position to claim that Democrats failed to put their money where their mouth is. As it is, the stupidity of Jack Murtha voting against a bill substantively equivalent to his own is overridden by the stupidity of Duncan Hunter standing on the House floor passionately urging the defeat of a bill that was his own. A stunt, quickly forgotten, and nothing more. It was fun talking about it though, wasn't it?

http://www.cnn.com/

It's the big article over there this evening.

Of course the military plans for every contingency... But...

That timing of that information coming out can't be an accident.

There will be a withdrawal plan on the table eventually but it may not have anything to do with congress. I think if the wind blows that way Bush will make sure he keeps control of the pullout by pre-empting any plan with his own.

This thing about Casey and Rumsfeld looks like a weather balloon.

Why am I not surprised to find out that Cynthia McKinney was one of the three who voted "yes" on this?

yes, Murtha's press conference was a publicity stunt, quite obviously so. I was ready to forget about it till the House leadership thought it'd be a good idea to throw another equally forgettable publicity stunt.

But I guess "real" Democrats like me never get credit for coming across the ditch and acknowledging these things. You always turn straight to Kos and Armando. 24/7, Kos and Armando...you guys really need to stop reading that website and go for a bike ride or something.

Murtha's press conference was a publicity stunt, quite obviously so. I was ready to forget about it till the House leadership thought it'd be a good idea to throw another equally forgettable publicity stunt.

How magnanimous of you, willing to overlook a blatant Democrat publicity stunt!  Until, that is, the Republicans called them out on their stunt by forcing a vote on what they were proposing, at which point you felt moved to come here and denounce...  the Republicans!  Bravo, "real" Democrat!

This bizarre standard you put forth -- where Democrats get a free pass to say and do anything until Republicans fight back, at which point it becomes a tainted and dirty case of "playing politics" worthy of condemnation -- doesn't seem to be in effect any longer.  Republicans now seem to be willing to play politics in response to the Democrats doing so, and the usual shrieks of "he's hitting me back!" will no longer dissuade them.

Zarqawi and Bin Laden are probably mudwrestling this very minute to see whether Zarqawi "pulls out" or gets to "stay the course."

she's a "patriot", just like those who write "screw them" when Americans are killed, or rejoice when the 2000th serviceman is killed.

also see link re the cutest little commie in congress's main issue

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47250

Who the heck is McKinney? Don't make me Goodle now, that toolbar is too far away. I never really noticed here.

Far Left Wacko Representative.  Back in Congress after being defeated one term.  From Georgia, as I remember.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/wooten/2005/112005.html

either you're being intentionally obtuse, or the crowd you're used to dealing with is of slightly lower intelligence than the RedState community.

The reason for not voting on the Murtha resolution is because it attempted to appear tough while placating the moonbat faction currently running the Democratic party.  The beauty of the Hunter resolution was that it stripped the Murtha resolution of all sophistry and obfuscation, and presented the essential first principle of that resolution (i.e., immediate withdrawal from Iraq) in stark, clear, and undeniable contrast.  No more "I was deceived by the President"; no more "If I'd known then what I know now".  Hunter laid it all on the line, with the facts currently in evidence.  And it's that kind of clarity that the Left can't withstand, as it unmasks their hypocrisy.

is proof positive of the abject failure of the American Press to do the job it was given Constitutional protection to do.

Oh I see. From her website:

"There are millions of Americans living in hidden places, whose faces and names we never know.  But I have seen children starving in Mississippi; idling their lives away in the ghetto; living without hope or future amid the despair on Indian reservations; with no jobs and little hope.  I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity--but the mines are closed, and the jobs are gone, and no one, neither industry or labor or government, has cared enough to help.  Those conditions will change, those children will live, only if we dissent.  So I dissent, and I know you do, too."


I wish I had said those words first, but I didn't.  Bobby Kennedy did.  But they are just as true today as they were then in 1968.  Ultimately we have to choose what kind of America we want.  Real leadership takes courage.  And what America needs right now is real leadership. . ..Leadership to see what is wrong and then to try and right it.

Okay there's that... Or rather, there's Bobby Kennedy. But what did she DO that was whacko?

"over the course of 6-12 months?"

I'm reading "immediate redeployment."

It says the current deployment would be terminated immediately. Which can't mean physically leaving immediately. Not to be redeployed at the nearest practicable date.

Terminating deployment means you aren't staying. Being redeployed means you are leaving... At the earliest practicable date.

6-12 months is the realistic figure that the other plans have floated, so Murtha's is actually more conservative since it doesn't give a date. It says, emphatically but only, that the planning for withdrawal begin immediately.

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

I write a legal column in the legal organ newspaper in her district, DeKalb County, Ga part of which is the City of Atlanta and it is just very liberal.

The fact that she lost her seat for one term was still a bit of a shock despite the lunacy of her remarks soon after 911.

There is much speculation that the woman that took her seat was intimidated to abandon it 2 yrs later for a futile senate run.

McKinney and her dad associate with radical muslims who contribute to her campaigns.

she is pure marxist

But these are two very different resolutions in the effect that they would have... Although of course neither would have passed.

bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, in the tribal areas along the Afgan border. Perhaps we should redeploy to there. It would be good to nab him since we seem to be having difficulty catching Zarqawi.

As for Zarqawi, I'm surprised some Iraqis don't tell the coalition forces where he's hiding. He has angered so many of them with seemingly indescriminate bombings.

This vote is going to drop like a bomb in the Democrats hard core liberal base 99% of which are for immediate withdrawal (think Cindy Sheehan and the KOS KIDS) they had their chance to vote on what they have been tap dancing around for months but did not want to come right out and say it on record it proves all there bleating was just political BS, now if we could just get the senate to grow a backbone.

"Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

I think we all agree on that last part.  The problem is in the word "practicable."  It's sort of like "ASAP."  Isn't the lack of a published "timetable for withdrawal" one of the big problems some folks find with the President's conduct of the war?  If "redeployed at the earliest practicable date" doesn't mean, in essence, "immediate redeployment," what good is it?  It's just weasel-words.  So let's give it some meaning--it means "redeployment before the Iraq government can defend itself against the internal and external terrorists who want to see it fail."

Also, after authorizing the war in the first place, but trying to pretend they didn't, Congress (Murtha) now wants to take over as Commander-in-Chief and determine what troop movements are appropriate?  They have to cut off funding to do that.

"Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region."

Look, since they're already nearby, why don't we just let the Israelis take care of it?  And I know the Marines can do the difficult immediately, but if 150,000 troops INSIDE Iraq aren't getting the job done, how can even fewer Marines get it done OUTSIDE Iraq?

"Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."

A country that isn't already secure and stable can't protect itself.  And how much clout do you think American diplomacy will hve after we've just deserted the field in Iraq?  The Islamic fanatics will be choking on their goat's eyes laughing at us.  

Political diplomacy in the Middle East has never gotten the job done, anyway.  The history of Israel teaches that lesson.

That's why I commented about the press.  She should have been exposed well enough to keep her out of Congress.  If the whole district is comprised of Marxist radical Muslims, maybe nothing the press could say would matter.  But I bet they didn't say it.

Weasel words or not. The difference is in actual military commands. It's like a genie, you've got to be careful what you wish for. Telling them to get out instantly is not impossible... They'd do it if ordered... But would be a ridiculous mess. So no one could vote for that. Well obviously three nutters did. But I think Murtha would have voted for his own wording, don't you?

That's because there's a huge practical difference.

As to any spin, I have nothing to add.

the Atlanta urinal-constipation is pure leftist anti-american propaganda on par with pinchs rag in NYC.

When I moved here in 6/2001, Im sure she was one of the reasons i suddenly had a conservative epiphany and switched parties. I came here after burning out on trial law after my dad died in SC and went into corp law. My girlfriend was editor of the Dekalb newspaper and she let me write legal columns and 4 editorials a year. I was lib dem at first. In a few mopnths I was the conservative voice. And my lib girlfriend still let me write several columns directly rebuttung McKinney columns!

I dont want to accurately describe the population of her constituents on redstate. e-mail me

And that practical difference is the course the President is following now.  Plus, he's taking geo-political consequences into account, not hoping for pie-in-the-sky diplomacy to protect an undeveloped Iraqi democracy.

To be perfectly clear, the earliest "practicable" date for Murtha has everything to do with redeploying safley and setting up his "over the horizon" force.  

The actual earliest "practicable" date is the one that ensures we leave behind a stong and viable democracy in Iraq.

I suspect her appeal in her constituency is largely due to the perception that she is Sticking It To The Man, who is Keeping Them Down. Whether her charges have any substance or are even logically coherent is unlikely to matter, as long as she is Sticking It To  The Man.

I think you just agreed with me.

an TV that ends with The Man himself Sticking It To The Man.

The action provision of Murtha's proposal:

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated

The text of the resolution voted on:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately

It's silly for the Democrats to claim "immediately" isn't what Murtha meant, since Murtha's text says "is terminated" as in present tense, not "shall be terminated". If anything, present tense "is" requires NOW even more forcefully than "immediately" does.

You'd need to do some contorted literary deconstruction about what the meaning of the word "is" is, to claim there's a substantive difference betwen the two.

Brilliant move by the House leadership.  Make the Dems put their money where their mouth is.  Hopefully, the Senate leadership will do the same thing.

We're in Iraq, whether some like it or not.  Re-hashing the run-up to the war is a futile exercise and only benefits the terrorists.  They've studied what happened in Vietnam, although many Americans have forgotten, or never knew the truth about how we "lost" in the first place.

God bless our troops!  I hope they know we support them now.

and flesh tightened like a drum,with what was once a face Nancy Pelosi, minority leader for the sub commitee on plastic surgery was heard to say,"it's a disgrace".  Others are less sure stating they thought she was asking for some Noxema.

over the supposedly major difference on the words "stop immediate deployment".  Would that qualify as sending a signal?  It would most certainly announce that we are finished as committed to fully backing the new Iraq government with withdrawal around the corner.  The next step would be to start calling for that withdrawal, and that call would be immediate.  Practically there's no differnce.  Basically it's a not to slow motion demand for defeat which apart from Kosovo the Democrats seem to have a fascination for.

I guess "real" Democrats like me never get credit for coming across the ditch and acknowledging these things. You always turn straight to Kos and Armando. 24/7, Kos and Armando...you guys really need to stop reading that website and go for a bike ride or something.

Sorry asf6, but it wasn't the GOP who made Markos Zuniga the hero he is to the Democratic faithful.  ManChild Kos, and his MiniMe Armando, are the spark that motivates much of your party.

Don't blame us for your poor choice of friends.

Show me where ONE leading Democrat has taken on the herd mentality dKos creates.  Where ONE leading Democrat has decried the way that DailyKos has been allowed to twist and color the way the Democratic Party does business.

You take the bad with the good.  If your party wants to stand close to ManChild and MiniMe, to draw off the energy DKos creates, then you should steel yourself for guilt by association.

Much as the Democratic Party keeps getting compared to Michael Moore, after he managed to get a seat of honor at your 2004 convention, next to a former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

You are judged by the company you keep.

Kerry [!!] is defending his fellow dims and attempting to blast the Administration by basically saying they were going to vote for immediate withdrawal before they voted against it.

I am still rotf&lmfao@that sorry callow gigilo.

The DNC wants to vote for war until fighting occurs, demand for regime change until it actually happens, talk about the dangers of WMDs until someone actually tries to do womething about it, and support the troops until they are actually in need of support. They want to use intel until the limits and flaws of intel don't serve them, they want to investigate leaks of trivia while counseling the enemy and releasing information on actual intel activities.

In other wordsm the DNC is the perfect party for MSM: full of surprised looks and empty words.

Please sell that at a sourgrapes dimmy site.

Murtha was the new hero, the latest vet to turn and stab serving soldiers in the back, to decide cheap defeat was better than a victory and to hidebehind his former service to betray his country. Murtha was going to be given wall-to-wall treatment by the MSM/DNC propaganda machine. ABC was claiming this old man, who 18 months ago demanded withdrawal and declared defeat, was making a 'new, surprising change' by calling for defeat today. Don't pretend the MSM was not going to fabricate a complete anti-war movement on this, as they tried with that Sheehan liar.

The problem for the lefty hacks of the DNC is that they keep ahving to lie:

Lie about the intel Lie about the mission. Lie about what they said. And lie about what they want.

He asked for an immediate withdrawal, and he, nor his fellow poltroons, had the guts to actually vote for the opportunity. Not that they don't want to cut and run, but because they know if they are seen as the cowards they are they will not have the power they desire.

So the left hacks and defeatists had best get used to this:

Not only will your words come back to haunt you, but your disingenuous claims that you are too cowardly to back up, are going to bite you in the bottoms more and more.

The hacks of the left are not going to do to our troops and to the Iraqis what they did in Vietnam.

We are going to fight until we win and leave when we are finished.

Our nation is not, despite the DNC/MSM work to the contrary, cowardly. We are not the venal convenient memory hacks the lefties hope we will become.

We are still Americans.

congress continues to show it is not a serious part of American democracy.  We are sending people to get killed and the extent of debate congress is capable of is pr gimmicks on both sides - it makes it look like our soldiers are pawns for the clowns in congress.

This has been true for decades. On virtually anything the least bit controversial, the Congress refuses to be held accountable.

They delegate vast authority to the Executive Branch bureaucracies, who turn vague motherhoods like "The Congress is in favor of clean air" into mountains of detailed regulations... which the Congress then disowns and criticizes if they turn out to anger some powerful constituency.

They deliberately pass laws that are so vague they are guaranteed to require interpretation, and then say, "Blame the Courts" when stupid stuff happens.

How many wars have we had now without Congress declaring war? Instead of putting their own names on the dotted line, they "authorize the President" to sign his name on the dotted line.

Same thing with the money. We read that "President authorizes $5 bizillion for flea farming." The Congressmen criticize "the President's budget." Nowhere are they responsible for any of this, even though the Constitution gives the Congress, and only the Congress, the power to spend money.

These guys have figured out how to slough off every responsibility they have; to always make it somebody else's fault. And we have let them get away with it.

Its always a pr trick when the repubulicans stand down the media-crats. you leftists are just sulking because the republicans pulled the plug on the mediacrats strategy to keep Murtha's comments in the news cycle during a slow news week due the thanksgiving break !!

you media crats fool no one anymore and you can handle !

Your criticism of what I'm saying is...I think...that because I didn't come on here and shriek about Murtha, I have no right to shriek about this?

I think my response was better qualified as an "ehhh" than a shriek, but suit yourself. The reason it doesn't matter that I didn't give the same "ehhh" to Murtha's conference was that no one cares what I think. Oh, I'm sorry--I guess you were projecting your expectations of ultra-liberals like Kos onto mainstream Democrats again. Let me revise: because Kos and Armando didn't denounce Murtha, I'm not allowed to shrug my shoulders at the publicity stunt last night. Gotcha.

Instead of Murtha's comments they now have Jean Schmidt calling Murtha a coward.  

but I don't think Democrats refuse to denounce Kos because they're as crazy as he is. I think Democrats refuse to denounce Kos because he's irrelevant. Nevermind what that says about blogs in general, which I enjoy much more for their giving us the ability to discuss these things than their ability to change or create policy.

If you mean the "Kos wing" of the party in general, well...yeah. I wish they'd get less play. I wish some Democrats would quit lionizing publicity hounds like Cindy Sheehan and John Conyers. I wish some Democrats would stop taking every word of Michael Moore's movies as gospel (or even as novel). I wish the party in general would quit catering...no, kowtowing to the gay lobby and the abortion lobby, two special interest groups whose...um...public face I don't really want to be associated with. I wish the party would quit nominating folks from the most liberal parts of New England and California to be our national ledaers.

But, to use the logic of another poster on this thread--until you demand that Chris Shays and Lincoln Chafee resign and run as Democrats, I'm not going to let a few bad apples ruin a good party.

Ahem...yet.

some assumptions about me, my beliefs, and my motives that need to revised. I kind of doubt you actually read my post.

but if your goal is to put the Democrats on record, put them on record on their bill, not on yours. When the bill is proposed by a Republican, it's too easy to squirrel out of it as a "sham." The Washington Post put in today's headline "GOP-engineered" and I imagine that's how the media is going to describe it. If their goal was to put the Democrats on record, they failed.

Let's stop with the word games. In military terms, 6 months IS immediate withdrawal !!

Show me where ONE leading Democrat has taken on the herd mentality dKos creates.  Where ONE leading Democrat has decried the way that DailyKos has been allowed to twist and color the way the Democratic Party does business

Barack Obama wrote a diary on Dkos trying to get them to understand many different points in which they had become shrill about.  I'll see if I can dig it up.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165

I had to restrain myself from reading the 843 comments, knowing they'd be in large part the same old drivel, put a little more politely.

Are a good example of what's wrong with DKos.  

DKos refuses to moderate the Left at all.  So no matter how lunatic left you are they will let you post away.  IMO, that really damages the value of the site.  It's also makes the more moderate people appear extremist because of the lunatic left's comments.

It took us seven years to find Eric Rudolph, and he was right here in the United States. Adolph Eichmann wasn't captured until 1960. We never did find the Zodiac killer.

If this is so easy, maybe you can tell us where Jimmy Hoffa is.

I believe he was explicity speaking about "the lefty hacks of the DNC." Unless you are one of those, it seems you may consider yourself unscathed by his comments.

As for the lefty hacks of the DNC, I thought he scathed them pretty well.

I think the "spineless Republicans" diaries we get here from time to time will seem tame compared to what's gonna happen on Kos and DU. The "Peace Moms" have been strung along for months by craven donks who were only too anxious to tell them what they wanted to hear. Those same donks, who took their money with a smile, then ran the other way when confronted by an actual vote.

Has the phrase "Not One Dime" appeared over there yet?

it shouldn't have been posted in reply to my comment.

is this any more hyperbolic than to suggest that BUSH LIED! to get us into war and that 2000+ of our best and bravest are now dead because of that lie?

If you're going to bemoan the use of hyperbole among elected Congressweenies the appropriate time to so do would have been at a time other than after the Republicans started to hit back, right?

To so do now however just stinks of sour grapes.  Let the battle now be joined.

To be honest, it gives me precisely zero pleasure to say "Let Slip the Dogs of Hyperbole", but I say it nonetheless.  I doubt there is anything this side of The Grand Chasm can say and/or do to match the other side's 2-year head start, but experience tells us that to not answer is idiotic.  Sorry.

and the story line is morphing into "GOP smears Veterans". If there was any winning in this resolution, Jean Schmitt destroyed any vestige.

I responded with what I believe is a relevant observation about the topic:

The DNC's cowardice at all levels, alloyed only by its treachery and lack of integrity.

you are engaging in more than a little wishful thinking.

btw, when I said "forget about it," I didn't mean, overlook, forgive, allow. I meant, literally, not remember it anymore. I think the misreading of those words is causing some confusion with you and other commenters.

How many times do you guys think you can dress up some appeasing weenie in an Army Suit and display him to the public as evidence that Democrats aren't really the party of appeasing weenies?

In between bouts of flashing their medals, Democrats do nothing but call for surrender and appeasement. The only thing missing last night was Murtha saluting and Reporting For Duty.

In case you haven't noticed, the public is past being fooled by this act. When the public wants defeatism, surrender, and appeasement, they'll know right where to go to get it. But until they do, you can tout your media's "polls" until you're blue in the face... you still aren't going to win the elections.

statement is being run all over the news. It's not pretty.

It does not matter what the LMM is saying the KKKids and Mother Sheehan crowd are going to go nuts about this and no matter how they spin it people will know the truth and that is every thing the Dems have been saying about the war is politically motivated.

This is yet another tempest in a teapot that will be over by Monday morning.

Jean Schmidt != GOP Leadership

Yawn.

know when it will be over but I'm sure it will be all over the Sunday talk shows. Not pretty.

thanks for pointing-out incident number 184907e-4827(b):c.5 of our "Media Bias" files.  We were running low on the "missing the forrest for teh trees" category.

is EXACTLY the same.  The instant we pick a date, as opposed to a political condition, as the condition for withdrawal AQ can declare victory and wait us out.  

The Democrats, with the help of liberal Republicans, sold out the people of Southeast Asia in the '60's and '70's and millions of people were murdered at the hands of the Communist regimes that we left in place.  If we leave Iraq before a government is in place, with a police/military infrastructure to effectively defend the country you can expect to see terrorists pouring over the borders from Iran and Syria.

The Democratic Party, John Murtha included, are the Cut & Run party.  The Marine quoted by Jean Schmidt is exactly right, they are cowards.  And the worst part of their cowardice is that the blood that will spilled is that of innocent Iraqis.  

You've already said that - we get it - you don't think it's pretty.  Thanks for your insights on the asthetics of hyperbole.  Feel free to not repeat it again.

While we're on the subject, many of us happen to think suggesting that 2000+ of our soldiers are dead because of a "lie" by the Commander in Chief is not particularly pretty, either.

The difference being that slandar is coming from senior members of the Democrat leadership - not a single back-benching Congressweenie.

So there we are.

the message coveyed by Rep Schmidtt was that "Marines don't cut and run, cowards do."

The only way someone can be offended by that comment is if they approve of a cut and run strategy.  My son is a retired Marine and he wasn't offended in the least, he agreed.

The problem here is that the Democratic party is the home of cut and run.  They have no other policy.  In fact, they are, as a party, cowards.  And anyone who supports conditioning our leaving Iraq on a calendar as opposed to the internal political conditions in the country is a fool and a coward.

As much as would like to agree with you, the spin over at Kos is already about GOP distortion and treachery. And that's how the MSM is reporting it too.

In fact, they are, as a party, cowards.

this is a little over the top? Really. The entire party? Are you only counting Democratic officeholders? Registered Democrats? People who've ever voted Democrat? Let's try to keep it together, okay?

It is easy for you to say you are ignoring the Murtha scam.

The problem is that no one else on the left was going to ignore this. Just like with the Plame non-event, and more recently the Sheehan pose, and even today the 'Bush lied' sham. The DNC has made a bed based on untruths and public promotion of untruths. Let them lie in that bed.

...of the comment the begins with,"The problem for the lefty hacks...", would you vote "yes" on his comment?  What if he left that portion in, and he preceded it with a "Whereas"?  Would that make it better?

From the Howard the duck, avoiding debate while lobbing his declarations of hatred towards Republicans, to Kerry and "I voeted for it before I voted against it", to the adulation of Michael Moore and his phony movie, to the cynical manipulation of "bush lied" to the latest stunt of Murtha making a resolution he voted against, I would say, yes that institutionally the DNC is a party of cowardice and poltroonery.

Oh, I'm sorry--I guess you were projecting your expectations of ultra-liberals like Kos onto mainstream Democrats again.

I wasn't projecting anything onto anyone.  

I simply pointed out that, like the lunatic fringe, the self-described "real" democrats such as yourself only seem inclined to stir themselves to condemnation of political stunts when it's the Republicans hitting back.

And that these condemnations, whether they come from the fringe or from the "real" democrats, don't seem to be working anymore at dissuading the Republicans from fighting back.  

I think that's a good thing.  I'm not surprised you disagree.

actually. You may disagree with me on this, but I think no front page in the nation would have had the word "Murtha" on it had the GOP leadership not pulled their counter-stunt.

But, whereas, I don't really care either way about this particular debate;

Whereas, I don't like being called a coward or a flip-flopper or an idiot by association with the far left wing of the Democratic Party;

be it resolved that I was angry at being associated with those people.

between Chafee/Shays and the Kos wing of the Democratic Party.  C/S are anomolies in the Republican Party (along with Snowe, etal) that we tolerate and deal with.

Conyers, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and their cohorts ARE the Democratic Party.  They lead the Democrats, they are the people who establish the "policy" of the party and flyover Democrats go along.  I'm tired of hearing how "mainstream" Democrats don't like the wackos but they are unwilling and unable to do anything about it.  Your party is the face of the abortion and gay lobby.  Your party is the face of the cut and run poster people (Sheehan, Moore, McKinney).

The Democratic Party is not a "good" party, they don't have an agenda for the Amercian people that goes beyond BushLied(TM).  Your party made a place of honor for Michael Moore at their convention.  Your party has publicly shut out all pro-life representatives.  Your party has sold out, part and parcel, to the teachers unions who have been complicit in destroying public education in the US.

The Democratic Party is alive ONLY because of the efforts of the NYT and the networks.  If they were held accountable for their policies and the outcomes of 40 years of Democratic rule in congress, the word Democrat would rightly be whispered only in dark rooms.

is that the Democrats don't believe in anything.  If you don't believe in anything you can say anything,unencumbered by  contradictory beliefs,conscience,and least of all principles.  This is not to say that at the moment you shout something  you don't momentarily take it seriously.  But the psych is such that a self deluded Dem mistakes taking himself seriously with what he's shouting, not the same thing.  This is why dems are perpetually outraged, the challange of changing your mind from minute to minute is a tiring thing particularly when your sense of omniscence and self importance are threatened.  What interests me more so is how do all the little Dems ,the voters and bloggers, follow the byzantine maze that's laid out for them.  Don't you think it would occur to them that they're saying something today that is the opposite of what they said yesterday.  Afetr all conservatives are supposed to be the mind numbed robots marching in lock step and taking orders from Rush Limbaugh,and liberals are the owners of that most precious commodity, the open mind.  P S, as G K Chesterton once said, Presumably the value of an open mind is that eventually it will close on something".

Your entire universe is spinning off its axis. I'm not "condemning" the Republican vote. I'm saying it was pointless and unworthy of our attention. Just like Murtha's conference. Once again...an "ehhh", not a shriek.

A few slight or small distinctions you might want to make between your analogies and the hunt for Bin Laden:

1. the hunt for Rudolph, as far as I know, never involved 150,000 military troops on the ground (in Iraq and Afghanistan) nor the entire US and British intelligence agencies focused on hunting down Eric Rudolph.

The hunt for Eric Rudolph probably involved a handful of FBI agents and the occasional local authorities.

2. ditto for Jimmy Hoffa.
   
2. the identity of the Zodiac Killer was never determined or known. There's never been any question about Bin Laden's identity. So that's an odd analogy.

Slight distinctions, all.

Bottom line: we haven't got Bin Laden (yet). He's the most wanted man in the world, and we've failed to get him. Lord knows we're trying. But certainly his elusiveness is a surprise to most of us (not in the excuse making business), and is a hunt we should not just cavalierly disregard.

...who lost her seat largely because she trucked proudly in odious 9-11 conspiracy theories, and her campaign contributor list was revealed to be heavily weighted with Wahhabists and Islamicists.  Denise Majette, the black female Democrat who defeated her in 2002, must have gotten a little talking-to from the Mckinney family (check out Cynthia's dad, Billy McKinney), because she decided to commit political suicide by running for the open GA senate seat in 2004, rather than defending her house seat against a McKinney challenge.  I would have liked to be a fly on the wall in the smoke-filled back room where this "arrangement" was made.  

All 150,000 troops are hunting for bin Laden? They don't have anything else to do?

I'll see your glib blowoff and raise you another cavalier dismissal.

The AJC, a division of Cox Enterprises, has recently been on it's high-horse decrying "corporate welfare" in editorials and "investigative journalism".  The editorial board graciously allowed the governor's office an equal-time response editorial, which contained the following sentence:

"When Cox Enterprises, parent company of the AJC, returns the $6.7 million in Fulton County property tax incentives it received to locate its headquarters in the county, then it will have the credibility to make such judgments."

When the editorial was printed in the paper, guess which sentence was missing?

http://www.gov.state.ga.us/press/2005/press977.shtml

the challange of changing your mind from minute to minute is a tiring thing

It would be for us, but I don't think that's how they do it.

I've written on this before. I'm convinced that part of the liberal "worldview" is a kind of reality suspension in which "Schrodinger's cats" are perceived to exist in this Universe.

Only in some quantum thought-experiment does a single resolution call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Only in some quantum thought-experiment does a welfare program simultaneously provide for people from cradle to grave and turn them into self-reliant citizens.

Many, many of the hair-pulling discussions here and in similar forums are caused by this (to us) seemingly crazy insistence by Democrats that they can have everything both ways... that we need not make a choice between withdrawing and not, we can do both. Their "solutions" always have the properties of Schroedinger's cat... it is both dead and alive at the same time.

The way our minds work, in this Universe the cat must be either dead or alive. It cannot be both. We must either withdraw from Iraq or stay there; we cannot do both at the same time. So it sounds nuts to us when Democrats insist that is exactly what they are doing.

But I'm convinced it does not sound nuts to them. It sounds "nuanced." They would say we are trying to make everything black or white; we must either withdraw or not. But why? Why not have it both ways? To them that seems like the logical way to solve the problem.

Republicans call the Democrats "fiscally irresponsible" and say that cuts in government spending affecting college loans and school lunches are necessary. Then they turn around and want to authorize tax cuts.

Democrats take out the violin and sob about how the Republicans advocate policies that hurt the poor, when the vast majority of them refuse to do anything about their pet pork projects.

Both sides screech at each other over the Iraq war, with a lack of maturity and decorum that I find stunning, even for Congress.

At this point they can all take a long walk off a short bridge. The next election, I am just voting "no".

We had two chances to get bin Laden the easy way,

back in 1996 and again in 2000.  One toggle of a missile launch key, or meet a plane at an undisclosed military airport, was all it would have taken.  But the administration then didn't have the stomach for it.

Most countries only get one Yamamoto Moment, we got two, and demurred both times.  THAT's why we haven't caught bin Laden yet.

Now we have to do it the hard way, with boots on the ground in some of the most remote, alien, and inhospitable terrain in which American soldiers have ever had to fight.  And nitwits back home (see "Yamamoto Moment, demurred", above) chanting "Why haven't you caught him, yet?!?!".

Oh, and are those 150,000 soldiers you mention in Iran or Syria?  Highly likely bin Laden and Zarqawi are.

--furious

I understand that both sides do it.  But it doesn't make it any better.  And there are those who look at this as being something other than what it is, namely a stunt.  Stunts are common inside the Beltway but let's not give them more credence than they deserve.

Mother Sheehan hides behind her son's gravestone to taunt the families of war dead (those who believe their children died for something noble) and to blame the Jews for starting the War.  Then she runs away from a Neil Conan interview on NPR.

John Murtha hides behind his service in Vietnam flog his reprise of the abadonment of Vietnam and to taunt those who would challenge him.  Then he runs away from a "put-up/shut-up" vote on the Floor.

No difference between the two, really.  Jean Schmitt may be closer to the truth than even she realizes.

--furious

Parties are defined by their leadership.  A party that creates a culture where McGovern, Carter, Kennedy, Mondale (who was a political moonbat but an honorable man), Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid, etc. are considered revered leaders is not a serious organization.  The folks who need to get it together are the rank and file Democrats if there are any left.

I am counting Democratic officeholders because they don't have the couraage to speak out against a party leadership that has no platform aside from a constant expansion of "rights" that creates new categories of "victims" they can use as a power base.  Oh, let's not forget that BushLied(TM).

I am counting registered Democrats because they tolerate these people who are daily making a mockery of the party that FDR and Truman built.  And they don't have the initiative to find people who can develop a platorm that goes beyond victims and BushLied(TM).

I'm not counting people who've ever voted Democratic, because large numbers of them have seen the futility of dealing with the party leadership and now vote Republican.

Let me reinterate.  The Democratic Party, as an institution, are cowards.  They believe in nothing beyond their right to exercise the power of the government because they can.

On a personal level, look at Congressman Murtha.  He is a former Marine who served honorably in VietNam, unlike the last standard bearer of the Democratic party.  He is also one of just a handfull of votes in favor of reinstating the draft, even though every active duty military leader is opposed to it.  He is on record calling for a pullout from Iraq in 2004.  While he may personally be a brave man, he has bought into the cowardice of the institutional party lock, stock and barrel.  He is part of the herd running for the exits.  I feel bad for him but he made made the bed in which he lies.

I completely agree.  They don't call Republicans the "Stupid Party" for nothing.

a set of contingency plans, none of which are timeline based for a withdrawal.  If you look, you will find they are operationally based (if this happens, we do "A"...) as opposed to "six months from now we can...".

They are similar to the war plans that are available if Iran attacks Israel.  Or Germany attacks France.  Oh, not that one.

than your simplistic assessment of the situation in Pakistan as it pertains to Bin Laden.

"Bottom line: we haven't got Bin Laden (yet). He's the most wanted man in the world, and we've failed to get him. Lord knows we're trying. But certainly his elusiveness is a surprise to most of us (not in the excuse making business), and is a hunt we should not just cavalierly disregard."

Bin Laden enjoys the protection of the tribal leaders in the autonomous tribal region of northwestern Pakistan.  President Mushariff's control over the radical Islamists in Pakistan is tentative at best, and unfortunately, that control is non-existent in the tribal region.  Forceably removing Bin Laden from the tribal region while under the protection of the tribal leaders would most assuredly spark a civil war within Pakistan.  Pakistan's military and intelligence service are rife with radical Islamists, and President Mushariff's victory over these extremists is not assured.  That is especially true should he allow the 'tribal code of protection' to be broken.

I'm sure you are aware that Pakistan is a nuclear power with a sizeable nuclear arsenal.  I submit one very important question for your consideration:

Which scenario would you consider to pose the greatest risk to US national security, the security of western Europe and to the security of the entire Middle East?  a) Allowing Bin Laden to remain confined to the autonomous tribal region of Pakistan.  b) Pakistan's sizeable nuclear arsenal falling under the control of radical Islamists should President Mushariff's regime fail.

He would be the frist guy screaming, if the Murtha cut and run amendment was passed, "what part of TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY" don't you understand"???????   Lets impeach Bush cuz the choppers arent flying now.

Pathetic.  Clintonesque parsing of language.

I have to admit, it was fun watching all the libs backtracking.  If you were so sure this was the right course of action, say so.  Vote for it.  But stop the whining when you are called on it.  I hope the Repub leadership takes the right lesson on this- The Dems are full of BS.  Keep exposing them for all to see.

is under Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands.  Every one knows that.

Jean Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward.  She relayed a message from an active duty Marine who did.  He's earned the right to, by the way.  Typical misrepresentations by the left.

Schmidt just relayed the message of a member of Ohio's legislature, who is also a reserve USMC officer.

and nano-thoughts.  Don't know about the transfer of quantum physics to the human mind,or more specificaly the fairly reliable workings of the brain whose actions are reasonably both predictable and uniform.  As a metaphor it leaves out exogenous influences and even a neurophysical explanation would have to address components of brain mass.  Not at all to exclude the differnces and internal factors of minds but rather to broaden on your remarks;  You omit the eternal question of Power, personally held or vicarious, the turning towards government as an object of veneration, the adoption of both goverment and a political creed as an alter ego, even a article of faith,the moral ennui that exists  in a vacuous,secularized culture evermore wallowing in ignorance and cut off from the it's own Western traditions of learning and wisdom.  This leads in many to a fanaticsm  as in multiple ways they see their ideas,so strongly connected to the state,criticized.  It becomes, in a word,an ideology and one founded in controls and centralization with uniformity demanded if not surrendered.  I feel that signs of madness do appear and an alternate and hyper-flexible  meta reality are defense mechanisms.  I rush to add that I do not believe this is always true and for many of the politicians it's pure ruthlessness.  Sorry for taking up so much time, back to my one liners.

you would be wrong.  Asf6 seems to believe (in good faith, perhaps, but wrongly nonetheless) that voting on the Murtha resolution would have put the Democrats "on record".  It absolutely would not.  It would have only served as one more talking point to placate their moonbat fringe; one more "I voted against the resolution before I voted for it"; one more "if I'd known then what I know now"; one more "the President deceived"; and in so doing, would have only led to more dissolution of the will of the American people through a thousand nuanced cuts (not their concern mind you -- national security be damned as long as it plays politically).

The brilliance of Hunter was in stripping away all the BS and calling the Dems on the carpet based on what they know today (and not what they claimed to have been denied klnowledge of 2 years ago).  It worked, and they caved.

And if either of you are waiting for the WaPo to endorse GOP strategy, I submit you'll have a lot of time on your hands.

Finally, I don't know of anyone that calls "Republicans the 'Stupid Party'" other than Dims; if they're so stupid, you might want to ask yourself why they've been kicking your tail for the last 12 years?  

I agree with everything you said.

I'm not for a moment under the impression that Bin Laden is at all easy to get to. Nor do I think there is a simple or simplistic means of capturing or killing him.

I was only taking issue with an earlier poster's odd analogy of the hunt for Bin Laden to that of Eric Rudolph or the Zodiac Killer. Or, um, Jimmy Hoffa's body.

Struck me a complete apples and oranges comparison.

Furious, I think you're probably right that there were earlier opportunities to get Bin Laden. Then again, as a later poster suggests, these opportunities are not as "simplistic" as they appear in hindsight.

In line with that hindsight look, I'd add the time we had Bin Laden surrounded in Tora Bora to your list of times we had a chance to take him out and either couldn't or didn't.

That too was an unfortunate missed opportunity. But again, that's a hindsight look.

Also, I have a question on a comment you made:

"Oh, and are those 150,000 soldiers you mention in Iran or Syria?  Highly likely bin Laden and Zarqawi are."

I thought Bin Laden and Zarqawi were in the tribal areas of Pakistan and/or Afghanistan?

"rbdwiggins" in this diary suggest that's where he is - "the autonomous tribal region of northwestern Pakistan"

But you're suggesting that it's "highly likely" they are in Iran or Syria.

Do you know something that "rbdwiggins" doesn't? Perhaps we should clarify where we all think Bin Laden is "highly likely" to be.

Options include: Pakistan, Afghanistan, the border of Pakistan/Afghanistan, Iran and Syria

Personally, I have no idea.

I would think there are two reasons people wouldn't vote for the GOP resolution who would have voted for Murtha's resolution.  First off, you're not likely to vote for something of such seriousness which was drafted simply as a political maneuver against you.  

And secondly, Murtha's resolution contained much of substance that the GOP version didn't.  Voting for this resolution would be like deciding to build a foundation for a house without committing yourself to building the entire structure.  Yeah, let's resolve to stop deploying troops to Iraq without deciding what to do with the troops which are already deployed.  And if you claim  the GOP resolution implies that troops be brought home immediately, then the two are very different because it's likely not "practicable" to withdraw all troops immediately.  Plus, the GOP resolution doesn't provide a means of guarding against  an all out civil war that "(a) quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines" would.

Really, regardless of how you want to spin it, if the GOP congressmen wanted to see which Dem's agreed with Murtha's resolution they should have just put it to a vote.  They're probably afraid the Dem's would rally around it and in doing so develop a unified position on the war which would be popular with the puplic.

It becomes, in a word,an ideology and one founded in controls and centralization with uniformity demanded if not surrendered

More than an ideology, it becomes a cult. It scares me how much liberalism, when it pervades a society, resembles Islam. It is "the community to which everyone submits." Well, probably not everyone; but those who don't actually submit learn to hide it by going through the motions, at least in public. That the coming epic clash between a secular/liberal Europe and Islam might be an encounter between two fundamentally similar organisms says something about homo sapiens that I did not want to know.

They want a revamped Vietnam disaster. That way the US will 'never' get involved in a war again because they will have a firm and consistent history of failure to point to (regardless of its source).

Not what happened at all

What difference does that make? They do this all the time. They make up a story that intersects the truth, that happened in the vicinity of the truth, but is not the truth. Then they repeat it over and over and over again, while their media does the same. A month later, the vast majority of people – who weren't watching at the time and never hear otherwise – believes their self-serving lie. They have the creation of these "lies that everyone knows" down to a science now.

"Jean Schmidt called Murtha a coward." Hear it. Breathe it. Live it.

Those evil [deleted]s. They even managed to make Schmidt apologize and withdraw her remarks. So unfair, when all she did was pass along a message.

as I recall, the "Stupid Party" label came about because the R's have a long history of seemingly thinking that the NYT and the networks will use what they say or do in good faith.  Oops.

They also have a history of Senators popping up and contradicting the leadership at prcisely the wrong time.  Etc.

With respect to who calls... I'm pretty sure I've heard the comment from at least Hugh Hewett and Michelle Malkin.

With respect to the Duncan amendment, I have no problem with the way it was done.  I do think it could have been more effective to vote on Murtha but I'll take what I can get.  With respect to WaPo and NYT, the are the enemy pure and simple.  I know better than to expect anything but the DNC from them (or the networks).

in a corn field in Nebraska.  And a garbage dump in NJ.  And part of a footing in a building in downtown Chicago.

why, precisely, "it's likely not 'practicable' to withdraw all troops immediately"?  Rep. Murtha sure seems to think it is.  Did you read the rest of his resolution and view his press conference?  It was clearly his belief (that is, before he, the Dems, and their MSM lackeys were called to put those beliefs on record) that US forces have become the problem and not the solution, and should be redeployed as soon as possible (i.e., "practicable" -- look it up).  If you want to fool yourself into believing that the GOP resolution assumed the existence of some magical teleport capability to withdraw the troops sooner than the Murtha resolution, that's your right -- just don't try to convince us of such lunacy.  The Hunter resolution stripped the Murtha resolution to it's essence, providing clarity vice the Dems' desire for political cover.

As for your concerns of civil war breaking out, which scenario do you believe contains the greater likelihood of this occurring: 1) continued US presence in Iraq, or 2) all-out withdrawal from Iraq?  Be serious.  And WRT to your support for a quick reaction, over-the-horizon force, what precisely are the criteria which would justify, in the mind of the Dems, their re-insertion ?  Remember now, according to Rep Murtha and his supporters of yesterday, the military is the cause of the problem, not the solution.

I jumped to conclusions based on your "Stupid Party" comment without doing my research.  I've since run across a number of your comments on this thread and others, and have no lingering misperceptions as to which side of the fence you're on.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

You are confusing Zarqawi with Zawahiri.  Zawahiri is bin Laden's #2, and is probably close to BL in Pakistan, but some of the al-Oa'eda are in Iran, doing whatever that terrorists do.  Zarqawi has been operating mostly in western Iraq, and probably spends most of his time in Syria.

if the GOP congressmen wanted to see which Dem's agreed with Murtha's resolution they should have just put it to a vote.

Ah, the newest Talking Point™ at work - that the House did not vote on Murtha's proposal.  They, in fact, did precisely that.

Simply, the House GOP stripped Murtha's proposed resolution of all it's weasel words and put the foundation of the proposal - that it's time for the troops to leave Iraq immediately - to a vote.  It got nine votes (3 who actually voted for it and 6 whom I speculate wanted to but didn't have the stones).

As has already been pointed-out ad nauseum on this and other sites, there is absolutely, positively, not a single substantive difference between Murtha's proposal and what was voted on.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.

Good luck pushing that one on the great unwashed.

is the place to redeploy this: They're probably afraid the Dems would rally around it and in doing so develop a unified position on the war which would be popular with the public Well if that's so, why don't the Dems insist on voting on Murtha's original resolution? Beats me.

 A connected question for anybody who knows. Is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, the one used to sell ARVN down the river, still applicable? It was invoked during Iran/Contra IIRC. If we were to leave Iraq under Murtha's conditions, or anybody else's, would this law figure in subsequent events? It stinks of a set-up to me.

resolution. They have the msm. They dont need c-span.

Remember the rally at FDRs statute to oppose the Bush soc sec initiative?

This time they could rally at statutes or graves of

Dr. Spock

Paul Wellstone

Abbie Hoffman

or

McGovern, Jane Fonda, Jimmy Carter or Michael Moore's houses

or

Cynthia McKinny's office

They could all bring skulls with flowers in the eye sockets.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/wooten/2005/112005.html

If you want to be that dishonest with yourself who am I to argue with you?  Keep calling me a liar.  I'm sure that makes you feel like a man.

But why even care what Schmidt said if House Speaker Dennis Hastert called Murtha a coward?

Why I'm sure she wasn't trying to imply that Murtha was a coward at all.  I don't know how anyone would have thought that?

Interesting how you guy could equate Durbin's comments to mean that he was talking about soldiers but this was just an innocent letter.

But why mess with Schmidt? Wouldn't telling people that Speaker Hastert called Murtha a coward have more impact? Why not do that instead?

your fantasies are your own business.

The worst she could be accused of doing was relaying a message, a well deserved timely message, to Murtha.

And no she's not in the same class as Durbin because she didn't equate Murtha to a Nazi.

of the available intelligence, we all have credible arguments here at RS.  Al Qaeda's leadership scattered following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

It is uncertain whether Bin Laden was actually in Tora Bora during 'Operation Anaconda', or had fled to the tribal region of Pakistan before the 101rst Airborne seized control.  Consensus lends crediblity toward the latter, and places Mullah Omar with Bin Laden in that region of Pakistan.

Note: The military effort by US combat forces to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan was substantially different from the incomprehensible refusal of the Clinton administration to accept Bin Laden when ostensibly handed to them on a silver platter by the Sudanese government.  Especially given Al Qaeda's complicity in the tragic events surrounding Somalia and "Black Hawk Down."  I suspect that Clinton's refusal to accept Bin Laden is the only logical conclusion when one embraces the failed policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, and seeks to confront terrorism in the judiciary, rather than combat it directly on the battlefield (State sponsors of terrorism).

The majority of Al Qaeda's leadership took refuge in Iran where they enjoy the protection of the Mullahs, as does much of Bin Laden's family.  Zawahiri, Bin Laden's deputy, is most likely in Pakistan with, or within close proximity to, Bin Laden.

Zarqawi is Jordanian by birth, but has been conducting terrorist operations from within Iraq, and with Saddam's approval, since the mid-nineties.  'Operation Steele Curtain' has been successful in recent weeks choking off a sustantial portion of the flow of foreign fighters, weapons and cash from the border region of Syria into Iraq.  I suspect this has also placed strict limitations on Zarqawi's ability to freely move about the region.

Streiff currently has an excellent, in-depth post on the foreign fighter aspect of the insurgency in Iraq on the front page.  Follow at least some, if not all, of the links he provides in that post.  They're definitely worth the time, and you'll be a little better educated regarding some of these complex issues.  It's a given that MSM will not endeavor to insure you're able to make an informed decision based on the facts.  But many of us that participate in the discussions and post here at Redstate will do our best to do just that.

cowardice. I am surprised that they haven't patented it as a political business practice.

I think.

I was a dem till 6/2001

and was a county chair in the late 80's

and I watched the party change over time or was in denial about their decadence

I was not a Reagan fan at the time, but considered that the USSR was evil was conventional wisdom

and was very put off and appalled to see so many dems laugh at Reagan's statement

and I saw the party get more hostile to people of faith

BUTTT the main thing I saw that consumed the party was ENVY that really hated America at one level

and so I think that they just dont consider our country special and so is not worth fighting for

I agree, rbdwiggins.

I was just confused by "Ferious" asserting that it was "highly likely" that Bin Laden was in Syria or Iran.

The "highly likely" assertion suggested Furious had some inside information (which perhaps Furious does) as opposed to merely interpreting various published intelligence reports like the rest of us.

I think that they just dont consider our country special and so is not worth fighting for

That's my sense, too. I don't think it's cowardice so much as the moral bankruptcy that comes free with secular humanism. The Islamofascists have as much right to rule the world as we do. If they are willing to pursue that, then who are we to stand in their way? We're at least as evil as they are.

It's reminiscent of that animal-rights activist who went up into the forest last year to be eaten by bears. The bears have to eat too, and besides he's part of the Cancer On The Planet, so why not? It took a lot of guts to do that. I'll bet his last several minutes were really, really painful. So it isn't cowardice. It's insanity.

Part of the insanity is that he talked his girlfriend into coming with him, just as our liberals try to talk us into coming with them. Too bad about her, by the way.

Honestly I don't much care about her.  I thought it was a cheap shot but she isn't my Congresscritter.  

But do you really think she wasn't accusing Murtha and his ilk of being cowards?  When that was read did you not first think of Murtha?

Perhaps leaving out the word practicable in the GOP's draft was accidental.  I'm sure that care wasn't put into drafting it, since the composers didn't believe what they were writing, but that's largely the point.  Of course, an immediate withdraw of the troops would be not be practicable, since we'd be fired on during on our retreat.  This may be a matter of semantics, but since it was left out, you have to assume there was a reason.

I believe Murtha is advocating a force to remain in Iraq to prevent all out civil war.  This likely does not require the number of troops that we currently have in Iraq.  Nor does it require many activities we engage in now in Iraq, such as the missions in Fallujah and Tal Afar.

Admittedly, Murtha's resolution needs clarification and elaboration on many points.  That's why I think if the GOP took it seriously they would have called voted a vote on it, which would have opened up discussion based on his resolution, not the GOP's dumbed down version of it.

This is one of those times when your best move is to just take your lumps and move on. Stipulate to the fact that we got you guys good last night, go off in a corner and sulk for a couple of days, and then come back loaded for bear on something else.

Your mother was right: picking at it will only make it worse.

I just can't see any other reason why the GOP would not have called Murtha's resolution to a vote, if their intent was to find out who agreed with him.  Maybe you have a better idea than me.  I admit, it is only speculation on my part.

and point out that Timothy Treadwell is actually not such a great example. I haven't seen the movie, but I read a book about him, and IIRC, he managed to trick himself into believing bears were essentially anthropomorphic, had personalities, etc. For some reason having to do with the salmon run in that area, the bears were usually very well-fed and relatively sedate when he interacted with them, so they couldn't be bothered to get up and knock his head off. Well, until the last time. Oops. It is a shame about the girl; she just got taken in by his "bear whisperer" act.

Robert "My beating by refugees is a symbol of the hatred and fury of this filthy war" Fisk is probably a better example. (The hateful, furious, and filthy war he's referring to is, of course, the one in Afghanistan, which Everybody Supported.)

it's probably hard to defend yourself when everyone's packing up and leaving at the same time.

I think the events of yesterday were meaningless.  There is a real world that goes on outside of Washington.

see how vacuous that is and how duncan hunters resolution did distill the debate down to the crux of the matter

or do you think the delta portion would get more votes than 3

do the dems really want to discuss the last time they forced such a withdrawal, saigon pictures and all with the helicopter boarders being covered

and then the part they always leave out

the slaughteder millions

and then maybe some hearings with vitnamese amputees and oprphans

see we did debate this in 2004

just cause cnn takes a poll doesn't mean we throw out the last election

when has the murtha - we are the enemy of our enemies who are shooting at us and so we should surrender so we wont fuel attcaks and leave one delta 747 at a time - strategy

produced a better result than

actually fighting the enemy until the free people we liberated - from a nation invading terrorist harbouring mass murdering ceasefire violating dictator  - can raise up an army to finish the job

Did our d-day landing fuel the battle of the bulge

were we, "the enemy in eurpope" like murtha says we are the "enemy in iraq"

we debated what murtha proposed without all the over the horizon bilge

we were over the horizon before 911

WE ARE AT WAR

WRITE THAT ON YOUR ARM

still believe those polls that the US wants to bug out for another glorious vietnam watergate moment

heck, even bob woodwards with us on this one

btw

im not wedded to delta

we could use the french airline

From Murtha's resolution:

"Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action"

If the Republican Congressmen disagreed with these figures or statements, they should have opened up the floor for debate on them or simply ignored them.

Also, although Murtha called for a cease of our current military action, his resolution does declare that a quick-response force be set up which presumably would guard against a conventional civil war.  And that America continue to "pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."  Both of these were left out of the GOP drafted resolution.

His belief is that the Iraqi people would be better off if we adopted his strategy.  If you disagree with him that's fine, but don't claim that he or I don't care what happens to Iraq.

you don't believe that a quick response force would prevent the escalation of the current sectarian violence into a conventional cival war, and so this idea doesn't add anything of substance to the resolution.  That doesn't mean the 400 congressmen who voted against the GOP's resolution feel the same way.

when has surrender ever won a war?

so its a mess with 150,000 in opposition for instant response

but we win with a slower over the horizon response as kofi does oil for food 2

why have not the dems all met on the cap steps and endorsed murthas whole sad resolution

pelosi, on cavuto endorsed none of it before there was going to be a vote

and withdrawal is the condition predicate to the over the horizon force

the same kind of force we had in saudi on 911

remeber 911

wanna prevent another

over the horizon didnt work did it

funny how our girls werent content to live in the communist paradise the dems helped create over there

vietnam is much closer to laos than the us

btw

did you know that Iraq has had a massive repatriation since we liberated the country

and that the economy is booming

what do you think about wootens column below

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/wooten/2005/112005.html

then run on murthas great plan

take it to the people

we love 49 states

conversation you are having with yourself. I had hoped you had seen my post and were replying to same since you sent the transcript of your singular dialogue in the space reserved for a reply to my post

but, i have paralyzed many a witness before the jury retired

I always take a lot of magazines to read while awaiting a verdict

but in instances like the present, i rarely finish reading boondocks

before the baliff beckons

outside of Washington, and the demagoguery of the Democrats with their BushLied meme is making that world exponentially more dangerous for Americans (in general) and our soldiers (specifically).  Which is why the vote on the Hunter resolution was not just important, but essential -- to put the Dems on record on the vital issue of our continued and continuing presence in Iraq given today's intelligence, today's knowledge regarding WMD, and today's understanding of the difficulty of the mission.

Listen, I just finished watching Rep Murtha on MTP, and he seems like a honorable man seeking a solution to a difficult situation.  The interview was essentially soft-balled (no mention of the Hunter resolution), and he repeated the current "we were misled" Dem mantra (though, to his credit, conceded upon cross that he did not feel the administraton deliberately misled anyone).  But if you believe his resolution called for anything less than immediate withdrawal, you're kidding yourself.  And that's a course of action that few Dems are ready to sign their name to, though they would've loved to play that tune in the MSM for a week or two (to sate their extreme Left base).  The Hunter resolution brilliantly preempted that round of BS, and in so doing improved the rhetorical and political landscape immeasurably.

"we debated what murtha proposed without all the over the horizon bilge"

My point has always been that the GOP resolution is substantively different than Murtha's.  Just because you don't think an idea has merit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

don't believe what they voted on Friday is equivalent to Murtha's resolution.  So you can't deterine what people thought of Murtha's resolution based on the vote on Friday.  It was meaningless and a waste of time IMO.

resolution, as written by him. They dont need a vote in the house to do that. Pelosi refused to endorse it on cavuto.

a vast majority of Dem Congressmen would support the resolution.  I'm not sure even I would support the resolution.  Though I think it makes logical sense if it's assumptions are true:

1. Many of our current activities in Iraq are doing more harm then good.
   
   
2. Our presence as it is now is not welcome by a majority of Iraqis.
   
   
3. A combination of a quick response team and continued diplomatic efforts could keep the country stable to a degree that it is today.

I don't claim to be an expert on the state of mind of the Iraqi people or on military strategy, but I respect Rep. Murtha's opinion on the mater, and would like to see substantive debate in Congress on HIS resolution.

As for Vietnam, which has nothing to do with my original point, I agree it was a horrible war, which is why we should have learned from our past and not put ourselves in another quagmire.  The dificulty of the problem is why we should encourage creative ideas such as Murtha's, and not instead make an example out of him.  

Are you certain things would have turned out better if we continued our course in Vietnam?

a US loss in terms of deterrance generally, emboldening of the terrorists, effect on non-terrorist sympathizing muslims that will resign them selves to submission to the islamo-facists, the effect of a second betrayal of the vast majority of the Iraqi poeple  who will then lose to the hordes of terrorists that will; pour in to help the baathists dead enders

ie another vietnam

AMERICA MUST PREVAIL

we cannot run

it boggles the mind that libs cant see this

murtha whined opn the floor of the house about the dead and injured

our enemies would rightly conclude that we are weak and will run when we shed blood

rome fell

the lesson you cite from vietnam is non-sensical

we did not put ourselves in this

911 happened becuase we put ourselves in a murtha mode for 10 years or more

saddams defiance happened

we could not allow him to undermine our deterrant and our word after 911

murtha has inferred the president lied

and murtha is ONE OLD VET

ONEEEEEEEEEE

we had a debate last year in which almost ALLLLLLLLLLL elected vets supported the war and STILLLLLLLLLL do

murtha is an old fool that means well and is being used by the kook left leadership

being nice to him means endangering the troops and america

he has no more right to set the debate agenda than anyone else

his only claim is that the msm put him on tv

when the dem congress cut off funds to the south vetnamese, the south was on a clear path to victory

the libs thought the commies were our moral suoperios

and avert their eyes from the slaugter they wrought

you are too smart to buy the argument of fools

Well what do you think happens after parlimentary elections when it is likely the Iraqi government asks us to leave?  To quote a prominant member of the SCIRI, Dr. Ali al-Adad (translated by Juan Cole):

"There is no disagreement on the stance toward American soldiers. All Iraqi forces, Shiite, Sunni and Kurds, want a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops"

"The political forces that will participate in the forthcoming [December 15 parliamentary] election, and in particular the [United Iraqi] Alliance's slate that includes 17 movements and parties, the majority of whom are Shiites, agreed that the first demand on their political program is getting foreign troops out of Iraq"

Due we pretend we know what's best for Iraq and refuse to leave when we ask them?  If all Iraqi forces believe we need to set a timetable for withdraw, why is setting such a timetable such a contriversial subject for the administration?

I've always enjoyed being accused of things that are false.  They are usually easily shown and resolved.

What I hate, really hate, is being accused of being wrong when I am wrong.  Oooooo I hate that.  :>)

CN

in none of the quotes you cited did anyone suggest that US troops are no longer needed and should be immediatley withdrawn, withdrawn within 6 months, before the Iraqi security forces are capable of preventing the enemy from removing the elected government

or

that any plan be publicly announced to the enemy

We know what is best for the USA which lost lives in 1991 due to action taken from Iraqi soil and we lost lives all thru the 90's up to 911 from the actions of the same genre of terrorists that have been harboured in Iraq for 10 years and who are trying to defeat us now so as to prevent the establishment of freedom in the land they launch their caliphate restoration war from.

We will act in our interests and the Iraqis will act with common sense. The government does not want to fall to the baathists and zarqawi.

Publicly announced withdrawals

UNRELATED TO THE ACHEIVEMENT OF NECESSARY GOALS

are ipso facto surrender

and even worse when its done based on whining about death and injury grief we can no longer bear

that would invite the barbarians

see rome

and france

and chamberlain

see MURTHA!!!!!!!!!!! oh yes, he said it

I want the plumber to leave my house

it is top priority

Im tired of him being here

and so are all the kids, my wife and the dog

but ther leak is not fixed

1. If we announce that we will pull out based on a "calendar" timetable it doesn't matter whether we publish the calendar.  The terrorists will claim (and rightly so) victory.  The American left in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, will have handed the US Military another loss.
   
2. With respect to the Marines who will be the "quick response" team, just exactly where will you plan on basing them?  Iraq?  Jordan?  Saudi?  Kuwait?

Murtha's proposal is ridiculous on it's face because it's unworkable.  Just who are we going to engage in diplomacy with?  What will be the point of it?

This is just more Democrat cowardice in operation.  The party doesn't know the limits of shame.

I don't consider Iraq per se a priority.

I think we made sure there were no WMDs and no state sponsorship of Al Qaeda, removed Hussein who had in fact attempted one documented terrorist attack on the ocassion of the elder Geroge Bush's visit to Kuwait.

We tried to help the country back onto it's feet, and to a large degree succeeded.

I don't think it is worth a given number of our soldiers per week.

Some things are.

But this isn't, in my opinion, at this date.

...I've been against any too-hasty withdrawal for a long time.

I don't think it's too hasty anymore.

I think we can all be proud of the overall accomplishment.

It's like shaving.

To stop before you hit bone is not a half measure.

There's no cut and run to it. It's just a question of what is being purchased at the current price.... There has been no Tet Offensive or Chosin and never will be. We can sustain this level of casualties forever. Given the chance that we might have to, I think that we should not. We can support the Iraqis from afar as needed. The Iraqi insurgency doesn't scare me, but then neither does Al Qaeda, so the whole "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" doesn't work for me.

I was pretty taken aback by the Murtha move. And the original wording. I jumped in on this thread because I do think instantaneous withdrawal would be stupid. I had never even considered immediate withdrawal before, that I can recall.

I'm mad that anyone is talking about that. I think we should shift gears, not strip gears.

As to the rest of your comment, you are jumping to a lot of conclusions just because I don't have carbon-copy positions.

I say through a big tickertape parade, call it a victory, and rewind to "Mission Accomplished."

What I want to do is snatch victory from the jaws of a stagnant plan and eroding support.

Vietnam took a lot more years and far worse setbacks than I think we would ever have in Iraq. It's the Democrats like Clinton that are hawking this war precisely because the longer it drags on the more it hurts the status quo.

As for the worries that Iraqis will follow us back to the USA to fight us... Umm, exactly how much worse did the Vietnamese get it from us, how much worse straits were we in, leaving... And how many followed us here to fight? Zero?

(By the way the vietcong fought with what we would now call terrorist attacks... Taking out about an officer a week or something with grenades tossed from motor bikes.)

I think the insurgency in Iraq (Al Qaeda if you insist) is pathetic, and it is a shame to waste American lives on that.

to see what happens after the parliamentary elections take place.  My guess is that the new parliament will come to the conclusion it is better off that they do their own plumbing, or at least only call the plumber in in case of an emergency.  We will see.

wants us out of Iraq under a condition that allows our enemies to say we "lost".  This will of necessity not allow the foreign deployment of the US military ever again.

The Democrats plan, and Murtha's plan is built from the cold bricks of pure cowardice.

I thought Stratfor was thinking that was a good possibility.

we're fighting a war against Islamo-fascism, not just against Islamic terrorists in Iraq?  Iraq is just one front in the war.  Do you really think that we could leave now and not be simply turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda, or not be creating a situation where another dictator as bad as Saddam would quickly take over?

Do you think Joe Leiberman is just stupid?  He was your Vice-Presidential candidate a few years ago.

"The Iraqi insurgency doesn't scare me, but then neither does Al Qaeda"

Pretty brave of you.  What gives you such confidence that you have nothing to fear?  Do you think if we leave Iraq immediately, as Jack Murtha suggests, that Al Qaeda would suddenly decide they don't really want to end our lives as we know them?  What do you think will have changed since 9/11/2001?  

The answer is "nothing" will have changed, except we'll have reinforced our enemy's belief that we don't have the fortitude to finish a fight.

Whether you recognize it or not, this is a fight to the death.

"We can support the Iraqis from afar as needed."

Right.  Just like we supported West Germany for 50 years after WWII.  But we didn't support them from afar, did we?  Let's put the Iraqis into a position of strength before we try that, though.

"There's no cut and run to it."

Then what is it?

Has never been my candidate for anything.

And never will be.