Redstate

of that Kennedy line:

"...oppose any foe..."

Democrats have strayed so far from Kennedy on foreign policy it is absurd when they quote him.  If Iraq is Vietnam, Kennedy would be for increasing our troop presence, not surrendering like today's Democrats want the US to do.

Saying that attacks on civilians increased "80%" sounds dreadful, but it is a number without context.  If in all of Iraq, there had been one attack on civilians, the next attack would result in a 100% increase in attacks on civilians.  In order for Emanuel's number to mean anything, we would have to know the data it was basead upon.  And who calculates what is an attack on civilians?  Where does this number come from?  It's just another example of phoniness from the other side of the aisle.

The Dems are so weak in the Iraq and GWOT debate they have to run to the microphones and scream about a false Washington Post story about amnesty In Iraq. None of the democrats thought to take a moment to verify if the story is correct. They thought the best thing to do is run to the microphone and attack the President.

The same can be said about Murtha with Haditha. Instead of trying to verify if a magazine story is true or waiting for the investigation to be completed. He runs on national television and proclaims the marines guilty.

Democratic playbook.

Plan #1  Attack the Republicans and President Bush.

Plan #2  Still working on number #2

Note: The New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek are gospel. Never question any of the articles.

Fox News is biased just ask the United Nations.

Signed

Nancy Pelosi and Harry "Ringside" Ried          

I doubt JFK would recognize the Democratic Party of today. He'd probably be a Republican!

NOT OK to call a Marine no longer serving the Corps as an EX-Marine--As Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled. The proper term is Former Marine.

In Murtha's case, much more so than Oswald, the usually upsetting term EX Marine SHOULD be applied to Murtha.  

We may never know if Oswald did as he was accused. If he did, R.Lee Ermey's explanation of what the Warren Commission said he did says it all. (in Full Metal Jacket) Remember the gun the Commission said he used was a Carcano--nicknamed the Mannlicher (man-liker) by Germans because it was so in-accurate a weapon.

"Oswald got off 3 shots from an Italian Bolt-Action rifle in 30 seconds at a moving target, and scored two hits, including a head shot".  Trust me friends, that's no easy feat with an accurate, modern rifle. Excepting the fact the target was POTUS, Oswald's actions would have been characterized as "one hell of a Marine".

Murtha, OTOH, Is trying to bring down the country as a 5th Columnist inside our Government.  Perhaps he knows he's not as good a shot with a rifle as Oswald, Or Bush might already have been replaced.

I doubt many Marines and Corpsmen, past-present-or future, would fault any Red Stater or even a hippie/commie protestor for calling Murtha an EX-MARINE. As far as I'm concerned, he never was a Real Marine.  If he had been, he would be supporting his brothers-in-arms, instead of giving support and comfort to our enemies.

The Ds aren't so big on that part of the equation either, given their grumbling about some of our allies of convenience.

Somebody needs to ask the left: if the troops are nothing but savages/animals/butchers/nazis/rapers, or brainwashed hayseeds, why do they WANT them back in the country? Why chant "bring them home", when they obviously believe they are nothing but baby killers? If they were honest, they would chant "keep them there", until the evil (the troops, in their eyes) are killed off. Someone needs to throw this at Murtha and Durbin.

The "I support-the-troops-but-not-the-war" has been played out, and it's gettting worse, the facade is fallen. I've been out of the service for years, but I apparently still "look military", so that MUST mean I was: cooking children and eating them, or executiing civilians, raping women in a foreign country, etc. I had enough of the 'baby killer' crap when I was on active duty, and we weren't even at war then. Their own stereotype of "the troops" will come back to haunt them.

before I threw up.

Without commenting on the diary, which I will do later, I have point of clarification.  While some might find this the military equivalent of discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, many of us at RedState will understand the revelance.

JACK MURTHA IS AN EX-MARINE.  He is NOT a former Marine.

Semper Fi!

Murtha gave up his "Former-Marine" status awhile ago IMO. I'm just not sure what has gone wrong here? Not sure if he's just:

1. A bloated gas bag?
   
   
2. A lefty Kook lying for effect?
   
   
3. Suffering from periods of Senile Dementia?
   
   
4. Battling schizophrenic breaks from reality?

Could be a combination or D all of the above!

How any patriotic American can vote for the party of Kucinich, Pelosi, Murtha, Waters, Kerry, Kennedy etc is simply unbelievable...

He wants to be the next Senate Minority Leader.  To achieve that, he thinks he needs to appeal to the Extreme Left.

The ones who come back and run for office as Democrats are "decorated war heroes who served their country honorably". It's the other 99.9% who are dupes, murderers, rapists, etc.

If Murtha wanted to be Senate Minority Leader, he would have to beat both Casey and Santorum to get a Senate seat, then it's rare for a freshman Senator to be chosen Minority Leader.

I'm wondering something about Murtha. Several Senators and Congressmen have actually visited with the troops in Iraq, including Hillary Clinton, and most of them (including Democrats) have come back favorably impressed. Has Murtha ever gone to Iraq, or is he shooting off his mouth in ignorance?

I thought you were either a Marine or a former Marine -- once a Marine always a Marine, until you pull a Murtha and become a former Marine.

My mistake.

Amazing what not paying enough attention to what you're typing can do.  Good thing people here are willing and Able to call me on it...

But, yes.  House Minority Leader...

If you don't bleed red & gold you will be forgiven by those who do.

...patriotic American...

Been in the San Francisco Bay Area lately?  Or Seattle?  Or Boston?  Or any of a hundred kindred towns?

> Somebody needs to ask the left: if the troops are nothing but savages/animals/butchers/nazis/rapers, or brainwashed hayseeds, why do they WANT them back in the country?

Who has accused the troops of being that? You were in the military, you say, so you may have experienced some of that -- but I've NEVER heard anyone make such accusations (since Vietnam, anyway).

Now, there MAY be some way-extreme anti-war groups out there who have said something along those lines, but I've not heard any of it, and I would caution against treating those folks as The Left.

> The "I support-the-troops-but-not-the-war" has been played out, and it's gettting worse, the facade is fallen.

It's not a facade for some people. I'm not offering an opinion on whether the troops should be in Iraq or not, but it IS possible to want the troops to be safe and at the same time want them to come back home...

I'm not trying to be a hater here (as the kids say), but mightn't you be putting words in people's mouths with the headline, "Democrats Demand Surrender"? Wanting to bring the troops back home sooner rather than later (or even "right away", as some would have it) -- which is what is being fought for -- is not the same thing as "surrender".

I'm not arguing the pros/cons/ramifications of earlier troop withdrawal, I'm just saying that perhaps that headline was a little unfair.

since they've done such a wonderful job with Iraq, starting with the casus belli, right up to the present day.  Let's all run out and join the GOP, hip hip hooray!  Maybe there's still a few commies left we can kill why we're at it.  Wait a minute ... why don't we make terrorists communists?  They sound close enough

I've  visited this conservative site to see  what you folks have to say.

It is pretty much what I hoped not to see: same as the liberal sites: hate, lies, ignorance.......I'm looking for the truth somewhere. Does anyone know where it is?  My father taught me to begin any investigation with the question, who profits? Have any of you asked this simple question?  And I can go a step further and ask:  Would we be in Iraq if Iraq had no oil? I do not believe we would be in Iraq if Iraq had no oil. This may be a worthwhile reason for being in Iraq. I am not educated enough to understand what would happen to our country if we didn't get Iraq's oil. But I can easily see what is happenning to our country in pursuit of that oil. Its destroying us. If we were in Iraq for our safety, which is the reason I hear most, then why haven't we crushed the Taliban out of existence. They attacked us, afterall. By the way, I drive a 1989 Fuel Injected Suburban. I would hate to give it up, but if it means saving just one  life, I would switch to a Ford Focus or something.

You're backsliding.

Didn't Kerry say our guys are over there terrorizing innocent women and chldren in the middle of the night?

...same as the liberal sites...

It's hard to wade through all the profanity at any liberal site to see whether there is any decent discussion buried underneath. Here and at other conservative sites you tend to see much more focus on discussing issues without all the garbage in the way.

And from what I've seen, dissent is more tolerated than at some liberal sites, as long as it doesn't turn into obvious silly trolling or strings of profanities.

to try to pin the Democrats down on their position? We've now had several instances of:

Dem: We need to get the troops out by XX date.

Rep: Let's vote on forcing the troops out by XX.

Dem: That's a cheap political trick.

or

Dem: Bush doesn't have a plan.

Rep: What's the Dem plan?

Dem: (sound of crickets chirping)

I've seen (now multiple) Democrats switch up the last one:

Dem: Bush doesn't have a plan.

Rep: Well, it's "Stay the course", but what's yours?

Dem: We don't need a plan. It's not our war.

(Silence)

Host: Well, but seriously, what is the general plan? Even if you "don't need" one.

Dem: We don't need a plan. It's not our war. BushOilHalliburtonGitmo.

Rep/Host: Um...ROFLCOPTER?

I was thinking specifically of Sen. Durbin, several month ago, who compared the troops in Iraq (not just a few, but troops in Iraq in general) with: the nazis, Stalin's death squads, or Pol-Pot's regime. Then yesterday bemoans the 2500th death as a tradgedy (which it is.) As far as America at large, there always has and will be an anti-military segment, they just may not be as vocal or make the news, but they are there. War or peace, we would see protesters out side the main gate, which is their right. And when I had go places in uniform, stateside, somebody usally had something to say, again not all the time, but enough to let you know they exist, and some probably were 1960's holdovers. Booting ROTC off campus did not start with the Iraq war, neither did banning recruiters. It just didn't get much attention.

they were HOPING we'd hit the 2,500 threshold so they could use that number in this debate?

I know I'm cynical by nature, but creepy as it sounds that's the feeling I got from the Dems.

We have not tried to 'get' Iraq's oil. In fact we have insisted that they set up a system by which the Iraqi people will benefit from their oil.

You should therefore never make that statement again about us doing this for oil, since events have already passed that theory by and you wouldn't want people to think you were stupid and/or ignorant.

Wanting to bring the troops back home sooner rather than later (or even "right away", as some would have it) -- which is what is being fought for -- is not the same thing as "surrender".

Sure it is. It is conceding the struggle to the enemy. Call it 'victory' if you like; no one is falling for it.

The Dem plan you can dance to.

I've got a story, it ain't got no moral.

Let the bad guy win every once in a while.

RIP Billy Preston

You can stuff your casus belli comments.  They only play well at Kos.  

Idiot.

or lose.

right little finger is the ENTER key.  Use it once in a while.

Would we be in Iraq if Iraq had no oil?  So what's your point?  We're there.  Today's issue is not "how do we not get involved", it's "under what circumstances do we pull out".  Your whole "oil" argument is way beyond specious, it's stupid and totally without point.

As has been noted in at least one other comment, we're not taking oil from Iraq.  Interestingly enough, we may well be working with the new government to make Iraqi oil a national treasure of Iraq that is owned by the Iraqi people who would then share in the profits from it's sale.

If all we wanted was oil we would have overrun Baghdad in 1991 and made both Kuwait and Iraq US protectorates.  It's not like somebody could have tossed us out.  Saudi oil wouldn't be all that difficult to appropriate from the Royal Family as long as you've got a couple of hundred thousand very well armed troops in Iraq and Kuwait.  Saudi Arabia would have taken roughly another three or four days.

So, if you want to beat your "blood for oil" horse, do it somewhere else.  You're embarrassing yourself and your family with stupidity of that argument, don't do it here.

I was unaware of Durbin's comments. I'll have to look those up, but if you have a link, that'd be helpful. I HAVE to think that there's a misunderstanding there from his words being taken out of context. Or perhaps he was referring specifically to people involved with Abu Ghraib and so on.

Yeah, there are people who take their hatred of war beyond the war itself, and put that hatred toward the troops. I can't give numbers, but I feel pretty safe in saying that they don't speak for the majority of people on the left, or even for a majority of anti-war folks. I think it would be equivalent to saying that those extremist churches out there who thank God for Katrina because it wiped out the gays speak for everyone on the right.

The Republicans definitely have their act together more than the Dems, and they are more (but not wholly) capable of speaking with a single mind. In the Dems' defense, though, I'm not sure it's necessaraily a good thing for everyone in a party to share the same opinion.

I'd have to read/hear what he said, and get an idea of the context in which he said it. Paraphrasing and taking things out of context can change the meaning of a few words significantly.

And there are many levels of "winning" -- it doesn't have to be a black-and-white thing. For example, when Dems jab at Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" a long time ago, Reps countered with something to effect that yes, a major victory had been accomplished, but it's just one mission among many. That argument itself suggests that there are many levels of victory, or many issues on which we can achieve victory.

Hence, "victory" is not an all-or-nothing, black-and-white thing.

> Call it 'victory' if you like; no one is falling for it.

No one here, maybe. But half the country is "falling for it" -- and maybe more, these days.

I'm not sure you'll see my reply to tbone, who made a similar argument to yours, so I'll copy it here:

There are many levels of "winning" -- it doesn't have to be a black-and-white thing. For example, when Dems jab at Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" a long time ago, Reps countered with something to effect that yes, a major victory had been accomplished, but it's just one mission among many. That argument itself suggests that there are many levels of victory, or many issues on which we can achieve victory.

Hence, "victory" is not an all-or-nothing, black-and-white thing. Troops can come home without "declaring surrender".

I don't have a link to Durbin, but I remember it was a general statement on the military in Iraq. My point is that, while I believe it IS possible to support the troops and not the war, it is a very fine line that is easy to cross, and seems to blur. This is coupled with a virulent anti-military sentiment already existing before the war, it comes periously close to tarring the entire anti-war movement (unfairly perhaps)as anti-troop. The news coverage of Haditha and Abu Gharib seems to be trying to imply that the entire military is partaking in bad acts, as opposed to a few, and anyone from the service is now a legitimate target. Do you recall the situation at U.C. Berkley, about two months ago, I believe, where the recruiters had to be escorted to safety by the police? I'll look for a link, but you can probably find it faster through the browser than I can.

He was comparing the soldiers in the pictures to Nazi concentration camp guards, Stalin's thugs, and Pol Pot's killers.

To be fair, he wasn't (at this time) talking about all the troops stationed there.

Myhttp://michellemalkin.com/archives/004999.htm mistake, I meant U.C. Sant Cruz, not Berkely

Is what we call Berkely-Light

The hippy ratio is higher and I believe the campus has a patchouli fogger that comes through after sunset.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005096.htm

how Ann Coulter was talking about four women and not every 9/11 widow? I missed where the MSM mentioned that about her.

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/c-log/BPhillips/story/2005/12/05/177835.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080001

I'm guessing we'll agree to disagree but that's okay.

Congrats, BK, you were the only one who got the underlying point: Blaming a group for the actions of a few, be it the military or the anti-war crowd is wrong, and unfair. I find it especially galling since I was opposed to the invasion before it even began (but we are there, and have certain obligations to meet before we can leave).

But Ann made an easy mistake to make.  It was natural from the way the question was asked for her to be in a frame of mind where she assumed everyone knew the scope of what was being talked about.  Problem is that many people watching didn't.  Had she taken a couple of seconds to explicitly state the scope ... the four Jersey Girls, I think she would have been fine.  The comment about them enjoying the husband's death might have even been okay if she had changed the wording a little.  She could have made it more into "sometimes they act as if they enjoy" ... which doesn't pass judgement, it simply critiques behavior.

Yeah, I'll admit that was a bad statement on his part, and if he actually was calling our troops terrorists, that sucks. I don't think he was calling soldiers terrorists, though.

Here's my take on it: He was saying that the normal procedures of some of the necessary duties of our troops, such as night raids, may have the unfortunate result of frightening ("terrorizing") Iraqi women and children -- and so if those duties are necessary, it would be better to have Iraqis doing it than Americans.

I'm not a big Kerry fan, and I'm not defending his point of view here. But I do think he made a poorly worded statement whose meaning was easily misunderstood or twisted.

Of course, I don't know the guy, so I could be totally off-base. I have a hard time believing he actually thinks of the troops as terrorists, though.

And, no, I didn't hear about the Berkeley incident.

...about something particular she said on TV, or about the content of her book?

I couldn't agree more.

This is off-topic, sorry. I confess I haven't read Malkin's blog much. Does she allow people to comment on her posts? I couldn't find such a feature on her site.

Just curious. Thanks.

I believe it was the Today show.  That is what started all this mess.  She appeared on the Today show and let out a rant about the Jersey Girls but didn't define the scope or explain exactly what she was talking about and so to many viewers that hadn't read the book or know much about the Jersey Girls, it appeared as if she was painting ALL the 9/11 widows with that brush which got some people's back up.

She doesn't allow comments on her page and it isn't surprising.  You will find that most people whose style tends to push emotional buttons don't allow comments because it just generates noise.  She does publish an email address.

my problem is that statements like his provide great fodder for our enemies. Sure he doesn't believe all our soldiers are terrorists, but what he SAYS can be used to convince our enemies he believes it.

for Dims who keep getting whupped in elections. In real life however, there are only winners and losers.

Let's see how that proposition does in November. We know how it fared in 2004.

I hope I'm able to answer bk,  Robert A. Hahn, mbecker908 here  together, for I'm still learning the computer. To bk, yes you are absolutely right about the profanity. Its use seems to be for effect when simple language isn't judged to be effective  enough. This tactic gives you, the clean talker,  the advantage in sanctioned debate because it robs your opponent of an (illegitimate) tool and weakens his case by revealing his base nature.  Nonetheless, I still see good arguments beneath the ugly cover of curses.  I hope your posters will treat me with respect, though they may disagree with my views. To Robert A Hahn, you too are right, I wouldn't want people to think I am stupid and/or ignorant. So far in my life no one has said that I am stupid or ignorant. Perhaps everyone has just been polite to me all my life. But  Mr Hahn, my question was "Would we be in Iraq if Iraq had no oil?" The obvious answer is no.  Many plans were made based on securing the oil for the markets; without the oil those plans would have been empty of resources to fund them. And so it is that the oil is not available and we are now importing oil from Iran to Iraq through the black market. The result is  that  we are digging deeper and deeper into our own pockets for the money to fund the war plans, meanwhile ignoring other vital plans altogether. As for insisting that they set up a system by which the Iraqi people benefit from their oil, you should have given me some examples where this is the system we have encouraged, and where it has been a success. Right now we have serious problems with Hugo Chaves and Evo Morales nationalizing their countries' resources, especially ongoing operations where the US has interests. Sudan, Nigeria, Liberia,  Saudi Arabia etc. see civil unrest due to the fight over oil assets. Mr Hahn, I should  perhaps temper my suggestion that we went into Iraq only for oil to something  more inclusive of Freedom and Democracy and our national security, although our national security still depends in large measure on a source for fuel. I will stick by my assertion that we would not be in Iraq if Iraq had no oil. To mbecker908, my point is this, when will we begin a serious discussion about the real reasons for our being in Iraq, for how can we begin to extricate ourselves when we will not address the real reasons for being there in the first place. You say my argument is stupid and totally without point. Something in your language sounds angry to me, and I wonder if had you heard my argument before the invasion, you would have given it fair consideration. As for the circumstances for pullout, I cannot imagine how it can be done without great trouble. The notion of pullout, though, is not really an issue. We are currently building bases in Iraq which are not for short term, temporary use, but for long term use. I'm sure you have read the cost and size of our embassy in Iraq. The only way we will leave Iraq any time soon would be for both the House and Senate to cut off war funding. This simply will not happen, even if the Democrats retake both chambers. By the time the democrats retake the whitehouse, if they ever do, the breath of the insurgency may become a mere hoarse whisper.   The Iraqi people will never see their oil become a national treasure any more than we shall see our vast oil and mineral resources distributed like stock dividends to all American citizens. George H.W. Bush did not overrun Bagdad because he believed in the wisdom of his closest advisers. Colin Powell understood the inevitable  occupation that would be required after an invasion. This was seen as unwise and above all, unnecessary.  Kuwait is better off than a protectorate, we will protect them with our life and limb and, unlike a protectorate, will be free from many laws we otherwise insist be followed in return for being rewarded the protectorate status. You must have great knowledge of US military ability for you to say that we could take Saudi Arabia in three or four days so long as we have a couple hundred thousand troops in Kuwait and Iraq, although I am happy you are posting here and are not in charge of our country's foreign policy. I am more than anything not embarrassed  to discuss these matters, and so far noone in my family has called or written to let me know that they are embarrassed by what I say or write. They do, however, wonder how I am able to tolerate the poor arguments and childish insults that those without good reasoning abilities throw around like litter. I repeat, WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ IF IRAQ HAD NO OIL. Here is the bigger point, the US will have to change the Bush Doctrine very soon. The field is full of new players in just these few years since we invaded Iraq. Everyday we see more evidence of their interest in competing with us. The use of force will not be a viable option, unless we are willing to suffer great loss here at home.

 

Things were pretty close in 2004 , if I remember correctly. I'm not saying Dems will win this time, and I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong to bring the troops home early, but you seem to be discounting that at least half the country disagrees with what you're saying.

The real world is not black-and-white.

Yeah, it wasn't the best thing he could have said.

I am SO sick and tired of having to apologize for the United States acting in its own self-interest as a people and a nation.

Would we be in Iraq today if it was not for oil? Probably not! There, are you happy? However before you get too euphoric with that answer remember that without OIL Iraq would be a third world "nation" of goatherders and shopowners welling trinkets and threatening no one. HOWEVER over the last century, OIL has made Iraq (and Iran) RICH third world nations, striving to gain WMDs, and holding the world hostage!

Sorry, but like it or not OIL is the engine that drives the world economy, and you don't have to just take MY word for it. Ask any world leader, or for that matter, ask your own neighbor, assuming you have one!

By the way, you might have noticed that I use capitalization, commas, paragraph breaks, etc...makes it easier to read what I write than what you put out...(but I snark enough)

The same leftists who scream about the US involvement in Iraq (ITS ALL ABOUT OIL!) think we should unilaterally send troops into the bloodbath in Somolia, Rwanda, Darfur, (the hits just keep coming)...there, while no "national interest" is involved, compassion for the poor, and our obligation to "do something" takes precedent...never mind that our soldiers would die for nothing...and never mind that the USA has liberated over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq!  They don't count because IT WAS ALL ABOUT OIL!

More rant...to come later!

But not for the reason you think.  Iraq likely wouldn't have been able to develop WMD technologies if it wasn't for access to oil revenues.  They used it to purchase technology from Germany and France, and those purchases probably would have restarted behind the scenes if sanctions and containment ended.  And it should be clear that one of al Qaeda's goals was the ending of sanctions and containment of Iraq, not so much for the benefit of Saddam and Iraq (though I would rule out Saddam providing difficult to trace funding to al Qaeda to help them continue their attacks), but to embarass and humiliate the US and to get us out of the way.

I don't believe that half the country disagrees with what I'm saying. Why should I? Because of the MSM's "polls?" Those aren't real. It's just the media. It's pretend, like a movie. They do those to make themselves and their fellow Democrats feel good. Wo-wo-wo feel good. Until the day after the election, when they find out once again that the polls were BS.

Look, you can believe what you want, and you can believe that everyone in the country agrees with your point of view. That doesn't mean you're right, though, and if pushed, I don't think you could back your views with anything but anecdotes.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I am saying that you seem to be ignoring, purposefully or otherwise, the wide divergence of viewpoints and opinions that Americans can have. Inside your particular community (whether that's a neighborhood, a blog, or just your friends and family), people may think as you do -- but there's a world outside all that in which people aren't always going to share your opinions.

And regarding the election, I'm not talking about polls put out by the "vast liberal media". I'm talking simply about number of votes.

The first thing I am going to do in this post is to punctuate your run-on sentence.

[note: a paragraph (ENTER key) should have started here]To mbecker908, my point is this, when will we begin a serious discussion about the real reasons for our being in Iraq, for how can we begin to extricate ourselves when we will not address the real reasons for being there in the first place. You say my argument is stupid and totally without point.

Something in your language sounds angry to me, and I wonder if had you heard my argument before the invasion, you would have given it fair consideration.

As for the circumstances for pullout, I cannot imagine how it can be done without great trouble.

The notion of pullout, though, is not really an issue. We are currently building bases in Iraq which are not for short term, temporary use, but for long term use. I'm sure you have read the cost and size of our embassy in Iraq. The only way we will leave Iraq any time soon would be for both the House and Senate to cut off war funding. This simply will not happen, even if the Democrats retake both chambers. By the time the democrats retake the whitehouse [sic], if they ever do, the breath of the insurgency may become a mere hoarse whisper.  

The Iraqi people will never see their oil become a national treasure any more than we shall see our vast oil and mineral resources distributed like stock dividends to all American citizens.

George H.W. Bush did not overrun Bagdad [sic] because he believed in the wisdom of his closest advisers. Colin Powell understood the inevitable  occupation that would be required after an invasion. This was seen as unwise and above all, unnecessary.  

Kuwait is better off than a protectorate, we will protect them with our life and limb and, unlike a protectorate, will be free from many laws we otherwise insist be followed in return for being rewarded the protectorate status.

You must have great knowledge of US military ability for you to say that we could take Saudi Arabia in three or four days so long as we have a couple hundred thousand troops in Kuwait and Iraq, although I am happy you are posting here and are not in charge of our country's foreign policy.

I am more than anything not embarrassed  to discuss these matters, and so far noone [sic] in my family has called or written to let me know that they are embarrassed by what I say or write. They do, however, wonder how I am able to tolerate the poor arguments and childish insults that those without good reasoning abilities throw around like litter.

I repeat, WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ IF IRAQ HAD NO OIL.

There, see how much easier it is to figure out what you are trying to say...

Now, as to your "points", in no particular order:

...what you meant to say, then, at minimum, you aren't being clear.

you can believe that everyone in the country agrees with your point of view. That doesn't mean you're right, though,

You're not making any sense. Nowhere have I suggested such a thing. I merely note that the "withdraw from Iraq" position has been offered by Democrats, and it has been rejected by voters. It was just rejected again, by a large margin, by the people's elected representatives in Congress. You keep offering this position up as though it is a viable proposal. It's a loser, but Democrats refuse to hear it. So I guess they'll just have to keep losing.

statement.

The treasonous Senator from Vietnam has made a career out of accusing the US military of war crimes.  That was a well thought out statement on his part.  Please note he's never retracted it.  Kerry absolutely thinks our troops are terrorists.  He is also of the opinion that all that is bad with the world is the US's fault.  Remember his "global test"?

He's also yet to publically release his military records.  I wonder why?

In the Washington Times.  This particular link refers to Durbin being rebuked on Senate floor for his remarks.  They are contained in the article.

The comment was in reference to Gitmo not AG.  Durbin insisted he would not apologize for his remarks for over a week before the storm finally caught up with him.  His apology had all the veracity of Charlie Manson telling the judge he felt bad for all of those people that got killed by his "children".

There is no misunderstanding AT ALL about what Durbin said or what he meant.  

> Nowhere have I suggested such a thing.

In your previous message, you said this: "I don't believe that half the country disagrees with what I'm saying." Combined with the headline of that message -- "It says so here" -- the implication is 1) that most people agree with you, and 2) all that matters is what you believe. Unless, of course, I've misread what you've written...

> You keep offering this position up as though it is a viable proposal.

No, if you'll go back and read over the discussion, what I've been arguing is that withdrawal does not equal surrender; I have not argued the pros and cons of that proposal.

In response to that argument, for some reason, you offered up the 2004 election results, shifting the focus from whether "withdrawal = surrender" to whether people will "buy it". So I went with it and offered up the fact that the 2004 election was pretty close, and so regardless of the election results, there are a bunch of people out there who really don't agree with you.

You seemed not to believe both that such a thing could be true or that it mattered, and that suggestions to the contrary were just the result of the vast liberal media. I questioned that, and in response, you called me "deaf and dumb" and shifted the focus of the argument to whether any sort of withdrawal proposal could pass -- which was something I specifically said in the first place that I was not arguing.

Does that clear things up?

With enough nuance Kerry could turn a victory into a defeat, but probably not the other way around.

Well, you're entitled to your view, of course. I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with it, though. The idea that Kerry actually thinks the troops are terrorists is just silly.

As for retracting his statement, that just supports the idea that his words were taken out of context and twisted -- i.e., that he had nothing to retract. If he actually meant what people are saying he meant, he would be ostracized from the rest of the Dem party; no one would want to be associated with him.

> "The treasonous Senator from Vietnam has made a career out of accusing the US military of war crimes."

Are you referring to the infamous and oft-paraphrased statement he made in the days of Vietnam? That, too, was taken out of context. I'm guessing you've read the whole thing, right?

> He is also of the opinion that all that is bad with the world is the US's fault.

Come on, you're clearly putting words in his mouth here. He might have some concerns about some of our country's international behavior (and he's not alone in that view), but he certainly doesn't blame all the world's ills on our country.

Again, I'm not saying he's a great guy or anything, but I do think his words are being twisted, pusposefully or not.

How does that relate to the "withdrawal != surrender" thing?

read the whole thing.  John Kerry is a traitor.  Not because of his lies about US troops conduct in Vietnam, but because of his trip to Paris to meet with the NVA in 1971 when he was still an officer in the US Naval Reserve.

Kerry is a disgrace to everything that is American.  He should be either serving a life sentence in Leavenworth or dangling from the end of a rope (which I would happily purchase).  Since neither of those things is likely to happen because of a lack of will on the part of any US administration, I will have to settle for outliving the sob.  I look forward to making a visit to his grave.  If his wife pays for an eternal flame at the site, I will put it out.

OK... Judging by those comments, I'm guessing any arguments I make to you on this issue are going to fall on deaf ears, because it seems to be an overly emotional topic for you.

That's not a slight. I'm just guessing that you have some connection with the military or something else that makes this a personal issue for you -- making it difficult to leave the emotion out of the debate.

We're a Marine Corps family, most of our friends and all of the people we trust are vets.

There is nothing you can say about Kerry that will cause any palpatations in my heart (favorably at least) other than:

1. Did you hear, Kerry's been indicted for treason?
   
   
2. I hear Kerry died.

Please note, I am not suggesting someone should target him.  A short, fatal illness would work fine for me.

BTW, Kerry is the only person I know who stirs those feelings.  While there are more than enough around (Murtha for example) whose opinion I have no use for, Kerry is special.

just to help you put out the flame!

Yes, I remember that now. However, although Durbin's comments were overly extreme, they were clearly directed at the Gitmo soldiers and the interrogation tactics apparently being used -- not at the military as a whole. Actually, I don't think the comments were even directed at the soldiers so much as the administration that may have instructed those soldiers to use such methods. Durbin could have stated that more clearly, though.

I think it's too easy to overreact whenever the military and something bad are mentioned in the same sentence -- easy to jump to the comclusion that someone is insulting the military, when often the focus of the attack is on the administration directing those soldiers.

I guess the way I see it is, outside of membership in an extremist anti-war group, why would anyone hate the military? What reason would Durbin, for example, have for trashing soldiers? Even looking at it from a purely self-serving point of view, it would be political suicide. It doesn't make sense.