• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

People are weird.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. ~Thomas Jefferson

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / An Open Thread

An Open Thread

by John Cole|  January 3, 20061:55 pm| 125 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

Discuss:

Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.

A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News’ “Nightline” program that Iraq “absolutely” was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

“Would you join (the military) today?,” he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

“No,” replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party’s leading spokesmen on military issues.

“And I think you’re saying the average guy out there who’s considering recruitment is justified in saying ‘I don’t want to serve’,” the interviewer continued.

“Exactly right,” said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.

For the war effort, of course.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Campaign Lesson #1- Fling Cadavers Early and Often
Next Post: All Alito, All the Time »

Reader Interactions

125Comments

  1. 1.

    Geek, Esq.

    January 3, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Is it okay to call any service-eligible war cheerleaders who criticize him for this but who themselves have refused to enlist “chickenhawks?”

  2. 2.

    TM Lutas

    January 3, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    I’d be fascinated to hear during what other times he would not have joined the military. Is Iraq the only thing sticking in his craw or is it a general distaste for serving under Republican presidents?

  3. 3.

    Pooh

    January 3, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Geek, doesn’t mean they won’t. Of course, he still has the whole ‘seen the elephant’ thing going for him…

  4. 4.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    TM,

    It matters not to me which it is. I know why I serve (and I joined during the administration of a president I considered to be a dirtbag) and why most of my fellows serve. It makes me question the Congressman’s motivations in serving in the first place that either point would effect that decision.

  5. 5.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    TM Lutas Says:

    I’d be fascinated to hear during what other times he would not have joined the military. Is Iraq the only thing sticking in his craw or is it a general distaste for serving under Republican presidents?

    As he has been in Congress for over 30 years, with at least 4 Republican presidents, I would take door number one.

  6. 6.

    Zifnab

    January 3, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Backdoor drafts, poor equipment for National Guard troops, no clear exit strategy, indefinate tours of duty, and a steady and continuous death toll. Not to mention the possibility that you’ll be ordered to commit acts of torture, then court-marshalled for following those orders by the same guys who issued them.

    Murtha’s saying what many are thinking. I’m just glad he has the balls to step up and voice his concerns and not hide behind “the terrorist are coming to get us” rhetoric to justify abuse of the US Military.

  7. 7.

    Nikki

    January 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    It makes me question the Congressman’s motivations in serving in the first place that either point would effect that decision.

    I honestly don’t get this statement. He is a decorated war vet, a Marine who served in several campaigns, but his motivations for his past service are called into question because he states that he would neither join the military today nor encourage others to enlist? Please explain.

  8. 8.

    Mr Furious

    January 3, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    He sure is going to get pillloried for this statement/stance, and I wish he’d never had to say it, but honestly, does he have a choice?

    He opposes the conduct of the War as currently constituted, and thinks Bush is fucking it, and the armed forces, up. So if someone asks him if he recommends enlisting, the honest answer HAS to be “NO!”

    It’s as simple as that.

    And he didn’t just “serve” in multiple campaigns, he volunteered for them.

  9. 9.

    Perry Como

    January 3, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    He is a decorated war vet, a Marine who served in several campaigns, but his motivations for his past service are called into question because he states that he would neither join the military today nor encourage others to enlist? Please explain.

    It’s obvious that he hates Bush so much that he enlisted 30 years ago so he could build up his military credibility, just so he could attack President Bush in 2006. Democrats are sneaky like that.

  10. 10.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    Backdoor drafts, poor equipment for National Guard troops, no clear exit strategy, indefinate tours of duty, and a steady and continuous death toll.

    Backdoor draft–no such thing–based on a fundamental misunderstanding of stop-loss policy.

    Poor equipment for National Guard–I am National Guard. What equipment am I being shorted?

    No clear exit strategy–That you don’t like the exit strategy doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    Indefinite tours of duty–Some tours were extended early on and hasn’t happened since. Even then, the extended tours were extended for brief and discrete periods of time. No one served more than 18 months continuously in country except by choice.

    Steady and continuous death toll–Well, gee. It’s a war. If what you and the Congressman wish is to insulate the military from fatalities, than the only choice is to not deploy us. Then I’d wonder what we had a military for…

    Starting to wonder if we’re talking about the same things.

  11. 11.

    Brian

    January 3, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    Did he in fact enlist? Or was he drafted? If it was the latter, the question offered to him is irrelevant because he may have not enlisted then either.

  12. 12.

    Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    It’s only a matter of time before the Right calls him an anti-Semite, mark my words.

  13. 13.

    Mike S

    January 3, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    I honestly don’t get this statement. He is a decorated war vet, a Marine who served in several campaigns, but his motivations for his past service are called into question because he states that he would neither join the military today nor encourage others to enlist? Please explain.

    It’s a classic Republican talking point. Remember that Kerry went to Vietnam in order to run for President. Bush avoided service because he suppoted the war and that made him more of a patriot than Kerry..

  14. 14.

    jg

    January 3, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Why is it wrong for him to offer his opinion?

    Why is it hard to grasp that someone who wants the soldiers stateside and done with this war wouldn’t encourage people to join it? Whats the ‘NEWS’ angle here?

  15. 15.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    I honestly don’t get this statement. He is a decorated war vet, a Marine who served in several campaigns, but his motivations for his past service are called into question because he states that he would neither join the military today nor encourage others to enlist? Please explain.

    What’s to explain?

    I’m also a decorated war vet (and a Democrat) so that’s not the issue.

    I question his past motivations in that my motivations and the motivations of my fellow Soldiers (the ones known to me at any rate) would not be altered by makeup of administration nor current events. It’d be foolish to harbor such “scruples” anyway–an enlistment is 8 years and unless your crystal ball is that finely tuned, it’s just like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates.

  16. 16.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    It’s a classic Republican talking point. Remember that Kerry went to Vietnam in order to run for President. Bush avoided service because he suppoted the war and that made him more of a patriot than Kerry..

    Except that I’m not a Republican.

  17. 17.

    Gary Sugar

    January 3, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    When he made his ‘out now’ speech, everyone said he was delivering the message that top army brass asked him to deliver. Why couldn’t they find a Republican messenger?

  18. 18.

    Krista

    January 3, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    It’s obvious that he hates Bush so much that he enlisted 30 years ago so he could build up his military credibility, just so he could attack President Bush in 2006. Democrats are sneaky like that.

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! (Wipes eyes). Oh shit…that was priceless.

    RTO Trainer – Is it not possible that his past motivations were just and noble and perfectly fine? He might feel that this war is needless, and that this war has put a lot of patriotic men and women into the ground, and is so disgusted and disillusioned that he feels it is better to not enlist at all? Whatever you want to think of his current motivations, that’s your prerogative. However, I think it’s very likely that his motivations for having joined up and served as long as he has are just as pure as your own.

  19. 19.

    Presu

    January 3, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Murtha has figured that the war was fostered by CIA to sell off covert WMD policy at CIA. The Bush speech, the war, and Rice’s degree were all used by CIA and they sent Plame to do the leaking because she worked out of iraq like Wilson. There were some obvious forced outings.

    Now, Murtha is protesting just like Wilson and Plame.

  20. 20.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    When he made his ‘out now’ speech, everyone said he was delivering the message that top army brass asked him to deliver. Why couldn’t they find a Republican messenger?

    News to me.

    Which “everyone” was saying this?

  21. 21.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    RTO Trainer – Is it not possible that his past motivations were just and noble and perfectly fine? He might feel that this war is needless, and that this war has put a lot of patriotic men and women into the ground, and is so disgusted and disillusioned that he feels it is better to not enlist at all? Whatever you want to think of his current motivations, that’s your prerogative. However, I think it’s very likely that his motivations for having joined up and served as long as he has are just as pure as your own.

    Of course it’s possible. That why I only expressed a question and not a condemnation.

    It’s hard to tell the differences in the current climate I guess.

    If I were willing to condemn without proof that would be a poor reflection on my own “pure motivations,” don’t you think?

  22. 22.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    Zifnab: Backdoor drafts, poor equipment for National Guard troops, no clear exit strategy, indefinate tours of duty, and a steady and continuous death toll. Not to mention the possibility that you’ll be ordered to commit acts of torture, then court-marshalled for following those orders by the same guys who issued them.

    And yet, the rank and file overwhelmingly support our efforts in Iraq, and believe we’re doing good and winning. A majority support Bush.

    In your eyes, they must all be cretinous knuckle draggers. Your animus for the intelligence of those who serve and your praise for anyone who criticizes them shines through.

  23. 23.

    Kevin

    January 3, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Iraq vet here. I don’t agree with the Congressman, in the sense that I still continue to serve and plan on doing so – even though I believe our Iraq policy to be the worst Presidential decision and initiative of my lifetime. But I understand his line of thinking.

    I’m far beyond ever understanding how anything we are doing in Iraq is “defending our country” (and proponents of the current policy can save the lie of ‘fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here’ bullshit). If a young person deciding whether to join the military today faces the likelihood of putting their life on the line for a policy that does nothing to, again, “defend our country”, then of course they might think twice about enlisting.

    I would hope that young people weighing the decision can see the big picture that extends far beyond Iraq: That the war on terror is real, deceptions and incompetence of the current administration notwithstanding, and that our country needs talented and motivated individuals to join the armed forces.

  24. 24.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    And yet, the rank and file overwhelmingly support our efforts in Iraq, and believe we’re doing good and winning. A majority support Bush.

    In your eyes, they must all be cretinous knuckle draggers. Your animus for the intelligence of those who serve and your praise for anyone who criticizes them shines through.

    You should have stopped with the first paragraph.

    You purchase no credibility by intuiting someone’s intent and then condemning them for the characterization you’ve created.

    If you are right, just be patient, the type you excoriate always provide the rope for hanging. Otherwise, you’ll have to presume innocense in the absence of guilt.

  25. 25.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    RTO Trainer writes:

    It makes me question the Congressman’s motivations in serving in the first place that either point would effect that decision.

    It seems to me that nobody made you question his motivations, you did that of your own free will. I think it’s interesting that rather than assume he had honorable motivations, you immediately assumed the worst case scenario. This is an example of partisan hackery at it’s best.

    So it’s not possible that he feels the military is being misused and abused?

    Fascinating. Did you have the same opinion towards Bush when he was making the same claim in 2000, only then whining about Clinton abusing the military by sending them to Kosovo?

  26. 26.

    Zifnab

    January 3, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Poor equipment for National Guard — I am National Guard. What equipment am I being shorted?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5065029
    National Guard Lacks Critical Equipment at Home

    No clear exit strategy—That you don’t like the exit strategy doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10253079/ President makes speech, issues 35-page ‘victory’ plan, no pullout timetable

    These are all I could find on short notice. But I’d be glad to pick through the hundreds of news posts that illuminate exactly how badly the war is being run and where people are suffering.

    The War in Iraq is not being conducted in good faith. Neither is the War on Terra. I see no reason why a sane and rational human being would but his life into the hands of this administration.

  27. 27.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    It’s only a matter of time before the Right calls him an anti-Semite, mark my words.

    well, If he starts spewing anti-semetic nonsense, he’ll deserve it. Until then, I’ll just call him an opportunistic partisan and leave it at that.

  28. 28.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    You purchase no credibility by intuiting someone’s intent and then condemning them for the characterization you’ve created.

    But isn’t that just exactly what you did towards Murtha?

  29. 29.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    It’s a classic Republican talking point. Remember that Kerry went to Vietnam in order to run for President. Bush avoided service because he suppoted the war and that made him more of a patriot than Kerry..

    and Clinton went to oxford because he thought he would join the RAF.

  30. 30.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Strike that last comment. I lost the thread. :(

  31. 31.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    well, If he starts spewing anti-semetic nonsense, he’ll deserve it. Until then, I’ll just call him an opportunistic partisan and leave it at that.

    If it be partisan to demand we do the right thing, then partisan I shall be.

  32. 32.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    When he made his ‘out now’ speech, everyone said he was delivering the message that top army brass asked him to deliver. Why couldn’t they find a Republican messenger?

    well, because Murtha also said that no one in the military actually said those things to him, but ‘he could tell’ that’s what they were thinking.

    heh.

  33. 33.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Kevin, good luck in your future service. Two of my step kids were in the military in the 90’s. One Natl Guard and the othe Army (which panged this 3 generation Marine family :P ). The boy who served in the army for 8 years decided against reupping because he saw Bush coming a mile away. It didn’t make him a coward, he just could not support going to Iraq (which is almost legendary in this family that we knew if Bush was elected, when he even first started making noises about running, that he go to war in Iraq). It wasn’t that he was afraid. He was in the army when we could have gone to war in the Balkans, or Rwanda or he could have wound up in Somalia. He did spend a long time in Korea.

    Murtha said what he felt was right, whether someone agrees with him or not is something else. Brian, if you don’t know whether Murtha volunteered or was drafted, perhaps you could use this newfangled internet tool called Google. :)

  34. 34.

    Krista

    January 3, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Of course it’s possible. That why I only expressed a question and not a condemnation.

    It’s hard to tell the differences in the current climate I guess.

    If I were willing to condemn without proof that would be a poor reflection on my own “pure motivations,” don’t you think?

    True. However, indicating that you are questioning someone’s motives is usually a way to imply that you believe the person’s motives are not pure, so I’m sure you’ll forgive those who believed that that is what you were doing. :)

  35. 35.

    Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Wow, I can already tell “moflicky” is going to be an awesome addition to the comments section.

  36. 36.

    Jack Roy

    January 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Okay, I don’t want to get in to a lot of the “when is criticizing a war acceptably patriotic” stuff here, but did it seem to anyone else that the story John linked to is full of suspicious quotes? I can’t be the only one who finds lines of the form:

    Congressman X said today that he “absolutely” believes [reporter’s paraphrase].

    Anyone else?

  37. 37.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    But isn’t that just exactly what you did towards Murtha?

    Of course it isn’t. I offered no condemnation of the Congressman, only expressed a question.

  38. 38.

    Jack Roy

    January 3, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Grr. Finds such lines suspicious, I mean.

  39. 39.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Kevin,

    I would hope that young people weighing the decision can see the big picture that extends far beyond Iraq: That the war on terror is real, deceptions and incompetence of the current administration notwithstanding, and that our country needs talented and motivated individuals to join the armed forces.

    Well said, and I thank you for your service.

    While I disagree with your sentiments visa vis the war, I respect your principled viewpoint and appreciate your ability to see the forest for the trees.

  40. 40.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    You should have stopped with the first paragraph.

    RTO, point taken. sometime (most?) i can’t help myself.

  41. 41.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    RTO, point taken. sometime (most?) i can’t help myself.

    No sweat. I’m all about the civil discourse. :)

  42. 42.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    Wow, I can already tell “moflicky” is going to be an awesome addition to the comments section.

    I’ll try to behave.

  43. 43.

    Kimmitt

    January 3, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    That the war on terror is real, deceptions and incompetence of the current administration notwithstanding, and that our country needs talented and motivated individuals to join the armed forces.

    With all due respect, what is the point of joining an organization which is headed by an individual who is personally committed to worsening the US security situation? The US armed forces do need talented and motivated individuals to join it, and I hope that any person considering doing so will look past the disastrous GWOT/SAIE/Whatever It Is This Week to the other necessary roles which the armed forces continue play and will play once we get this fascist moron out of office.

  44. 44.

    KC

    January 3, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    I kind of wish Murtha would not have said this. I understand where he’s coming from, but the GOP is just going to use this statement to tear the Dems a new one.

  45. 45.

    srv

    January 3, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    With all due respect, what is the point of joining an organization which is headed by an individual who is personally committed to worsening the US security situation? The US armed forces do need talented and motivated individuals to join it, and I hope that any person considering doing so will look past the disastrous GWOT/SAIE/Whatever It Is This Week to the other necessary roles which the armed forces continue play and will play once we get this fascist moron out of office.

    Kimmitt, imagine how bad things would be now if the average joe/jane was of the Abu Ghraib variety.

    Bush has a far, far better military than he deserves or should take credit for.

  46. 46.

    srv

    January 3, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Kimmitt, I guess your first question was not rhetorical, I didn’t get past it to the last part.

  47. 47.

    Andrew

    January 3, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    moflicky blabbers:

    And yet, the rank and file overwhelmingly support our efforts in Iraq, and believe we’re doing good and winning. A majority support Bush.

    Overwhelming?

    Of the “professional core” of the active duty military, “a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.”

    When only half your own military thinks you’re doing right, you’ve done wrong.

  48. 48.

    Pooh

    January 3, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Damn, beat me to the link Andrew. Of course, Military Times is just a leftist propaganda rag.

  49. 49.

    pmm

    January 3, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I would assume that it is in the national interest that the armed forces meet–or exceed–their recruitment goals, regardless of who is in office or what conflict is currently underway. To argue otherwise is enormously short-sighted.

    That being said, Rep Murtha answered a weird question awkwardly, and I doubt his statements could actually impact recruitment.

    I’m more tired of the fetishization of biography that enables reporters to write easy hooks for their stories–an argument for or against something should stand alone on its merits, not based on appeals to authority.

  50. 50.

    StupidityRules

    January 3, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Andrew said:

    Overwhelming?

    Of the “professional core” of the active duty military, “a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.”

    When only half your own military thinks you’re doing right, you’ve done wrong.

    Well if 50.7% gives you a mandate then I’ll guess 54% is overwhelming….

  51. 51.

    srv

    January 3, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    I have a question about the military times poll. According to the results, respondents age:

    13) Age:
    19 0%
    20 0%
    21 1%
    22 1%
    23 2%
    24 2%
    …

    Above 22 years adds up to 100%. So no 18, 19 or 20 year olds were polled? And those under 25 represent

  52. 52.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    I agree we need a strong and viable military. I am not suggesting that the reasons recruitment is down is because most people are chickenhawks. However, the fact that recruitment is down is because fewer people are interested in volunteering when the chance that they could be sent to fight this kind of war.

    With an all volunteer force, perhaps this shows that the military should be used for situations where it is the only option. Iraq obviously did not meet this critea for a whole lot of potential recruits. Use the soldiers we have wisely.

  53. 53.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    January 3, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    srv,
    The poll, I believe, was geared toward officers – which makes the 54 percent mark that more striking.

  54. 54.

    Lines

    January 3, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    pmm says:

    That being said, Rep Murtha answered a weird question awkwardly, and I doubt his statements could actually impact recruitment.

    So if Republicans use it relentlessly to “tear the Democrats a new one” and that in turn has an effect on recruitment, whos fault will it be?

    Since no one outside of politics and political blogging will have heard of Murtha’s statement, wouldn’t using it against him actually have an effect on that which you are accusing him? (that made little to no sense, but I’m sick and can’t think straight)

  55. 55.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Andrew blathered: Overwhelming?

    Of the “professional core” of the active duty military, “a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.”

    When only half your own military thinks you’re doing right, you’ve done wrong.

    speaking of blathering.

    did you read my post? you quoted it, so I assume you did.
    now read your reply. there’s not a single thing I said that is inconsistant with what you said.

    Let me know if you need me to help decifer the english bits.

  56. 56.

    Zifnab

    January 3, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Since no one outside of politics and political blogging will have heard of Murtha’s statement, wouldn’t using it against him actually have an effect on that which you are accusing him? (that made little to no sense, but I’m sick and can’t think straight)

    I don’t know about that. I’m sure “Joe Shmoe on the street” potential military recruit isn’t intimately familar with Murtha, but you don’t have to know his name to know that “even a former Vietnam Vet wouldn’t join this war.” I’m sure his statement won’t help military recruitment, but I still have to question whether that’s a bad thing.

  57. 57.

    Lines

    January 3, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    Zifnab:

    what I’m trying to say is that even “a former Vietnam Vet wouldn’t join this war” isn’t going to trickle down to the average 18 year old potential recruit unless its smashed down their throat with a 20lb Republican Media Hammer. Without the Republican outrage, this comment will never be heard by those that might recruit, right? So then would the fault be Murtha’s, or would it be the outraged Republican talking heads that won’t shut up about it?

  58. 58.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    these sound like pretty good numbers to me.

    6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

    Yes 56%No 26%No opinion 7%Decline 11%

    7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

    Very likely to succeed 31%Somewhat likely to succeed 42%Not very likely to succeed 17%Not at all likely to succeed 3%No opinion/no answer 6%

    10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
    Approve 54%Disapprove 25%No opinion 9%Decline to answer 12%

    Of those who chose to answer the last question, 68% approved. any politician in the country would give their right nutt for those numbers.

  59. 59.

    Lines

    January 3, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Cite, please, otherwise your stats have as much credibility as you, and so far you havn’t earned a plug nickle.

  60. 60.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    The poll was linked earlier, by Andrew. I was including the stats he ommitted, speaking of credibility or the lack thereof.

    here you go

  61. 61.

    Oh,Boy.Stupidity!

    January 3, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Lines: there was poll Nov 2004 re: Iraq. Pro war won 52-48.

    But you guys still wanna win the war, right? I mean, surely Murtha’s words inspire victory and such. Surely, I shouldn’t call Murtha’s patriotism into question, because gosh, since the House voted 401-3 to NOT withdrawal immediately, Murtha’s words won’t have any sort of negative effect on the soldiers still in Iraq. Nah, nothing like that.

    You guys are pathetic. But then again, I expect nothing less from the political side of the spectrum that thinks Sweden should be our economic model.

  62. 62.

    Perry Como

    January 3, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Of those who chose to answer the last question, 68% approved.

    That’s freakin’ brilliant.

  63. 63.

    Lines

    January 3, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Actually, where is your cite for that 68%? You seem to be ignoring something.

    Oh, and Stupidity!? You’re still ugly.

  64. 64.

    Oh,Boy.Stupidity!

    January 3, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    I’m sure his statement won’t help military recruitment, but I still have to question whether that’s a bad thing.

    And having less soldiers fight Al-Qaeda would be a good thing? For who, you idiot?! You people are morons, seriously. We may disagree about health care or minimum wage laws and such, but a Congressman encouraging recruits not to sign up in a time of war is despicable.

    A majority of Dems voted for the war in Iraq and went for it for the same reasons Bush did. Stop playing politics with this. Murtha, intentionally or not, is hurting the US military, therefore by default he is helping Al-Qaeda, the main enemy in Iraq.

    And you guys wonder the Dems are perceived weak on national defense. You ARE weak on national defense.

  65. 65.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Here are some more revealing numbers.

    8) If you had to decide today, would you re-enlist or — if an officer — extend your commitment?

    Yes 70% – No 19% – Don’t know/no answer 11%

    18) People in the military today are supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment.

    Strongly agree 11% – Agree 47% – Disagree 30% – Strongly disagree 9% – No opinion/no answer 3%

    19) The civilian leadership of the Department of Defense has my best interests at heart.

    Strongly agree 5% – Agree 35% – Disagree 33% – Strongly disagree 17% – No opinion/no answer 10%

    20) President George W. Bush has my best interests at heart.

    Strongly agree 19% – Agree 39% – Disagree 18% – Strongly disagree 11% – No opinion/no answer 12%

    21) The senior military leadership has my best interests at heart.

    Strongly agree 16% – Agree 48% – Disagree 20% – Strongly Disagree 8% – No opinion/no answer 7%

    22) Congress has my best interests at heart.

    Strongly agree 2% – Agree 29% – Disagree 40% – Strongly disagree 17% – No opinion/no answer 11%

    oooh. those congressional numbers don’t sound too good. I wonder who they’re listening to? Maybe it’s those who would advise young people not to join the military (or re-inlist)?

    nah. it’s probably republicans they’re listening to. I can’t understand why anyone would think democrats don’t support the troops.

  66. 66.

    Oh,Boy.Stupidity!

    January 3, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Oh, and Stupidity!? You’re still ugly.

    Nice comeback. Very witty. I bet you even laugh at your own jokes, don’t you?

  67. 67.

    pmm

    January 3, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    Lines, you’re hair-trigger needs to be calibrated:

    So if Republicans use it relentlessly to “tear the Democrats a new one” and that in turn has an effect on recruitment, whos fault will it be?

    If Rep Murtha is castigated for his comment, it will be because it was a bad answer to a bad question. I doubt either Rep Murtha’s original comment, nor any response to it will actually have potential soldiers announcing that they were going to join, but some Pennsylvania congressman talked them out of it.

    As for the Army Times poll, I’d take it with a grain of salt, regardless of one’s political inclinations. Being a mail-in poll of Army Times‘ subsubscribers is hardly representative of the armed forces. That might be why the demographic sample is so odd.

    However, the Army Times (as well as the Marine/Navy/Air Force Times) are interesting, insofar as they are produced by an independent news organization that is definitely pro-military but not simply an adjunct of the Armed Forces themselves.

  68. 68.

    pmm

    January 3, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    I definitely think polling 17-20 year old soldiers would be interesting, since they would’ve actually enlisted post-OIF.

  69. 69.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 5:54 pm

    moflicky…the libertarian ennui attempt at snark has a very short life span with me, but I’ll try to point something out to you. Congress is, you know, that place where the REPUBLICANS control both the House and the Senate unless you somehow got stuck in 1994.

    Just to get technical..Murtha made his remark after this poll was taken. I’m thinking they are more concerned with the cuts in Veteran funding and the lolly gaggin about Defense Spending Bills. Again, with that REPUBLICAN majoiry in both houses.

  70. 70.

    Lines

    January 3, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    pmm: Sorry, I reread my post and yours, you didn’t make the accusation, it was made above by someone else.

    To the other jackasses: Who are we at war with? Terror is not a country, it is not something you can go to war with, kind of like the War on Poverty (have we won that one yet?) or the war on Drugs.

    mof: Your little quip about Congresscritters hurting moral would be cute, except look who’s in power. If Congress is hurting the military, its the Republican’s fault, not the Democrats who are so far in the minority they have little effect on military matters.

  71. 71.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    Lines,

    Actually, where is your cite for that 68%? You seem to be ignoring something.

    I know that public schooling has failed you, so let I’ll type really slow and work it out for you.

    I said:

    Of those who chose to answer the last question, 68% approved. any politician in the country would give their right nutt for those numbers.

    the poll said:

    Approve 54% – Disapprove 25% – No opinion 9% – Decline to answer 12%

    54 / (54 + 24) = 68 and change. thus, 68% of those who chose to answer the question approve. you could call those ‘likely voters’ if it helps you understand better.

    You’re still ugly.

    no doubt, but I can’t myself prettier. what’s your excuse for being stupid?

  72. 72.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    the poll said:

    Approve 54% – Disapprove 25% – No opinion 9% – Decline to answer 12%

    54 / (54 + 24) = 68 and change. thus, 68% of those who chose to answer the question approve. you could call those ‘likely voters’ if it helps you understand better.

    So I’m doing the math, 54 + 25 + 9 + 12….hmmmm….that equals..wait a minute…100. So I’m trying to figure out where you are finding 68 in there..is it adding 54 and 24? doesn’t that like equal 78? I’m blonde, what do I know.

  73. 73.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    capelza and lines,

    Well, since the target audience was the military, I was speaking of the lion’s share of quotes coming out of congress, and how the relative nature of left and right sides of those arguments might effect troop morale.

    but then, I could be wrong. The troops might just look at “congress” as one big monolyth without being able to discern who is saying what and when.

    Or maybe they like being constantly told they’re losing a war they know they aren’t.

  74. 74.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    capelza,

    yes. you are correct.

    to achieve a percentage, divide 54 (number who answered in the affirmative) by 78 (total number (relatively) who answered the question at all (minus the no-answer/no opinion). Like I said – consider it 68% of likely voters.

    really, this is simple math, stuff I learned in, like, the 6th grade. And I went to a city school.

    oh, and btw, I’m blond too.

  75. 75.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    Sounds like your new math needs a recall….I think it is pretty plain that when the poll says 54% approve and the other 46% either disappreove or have no opinion that 54% approve.

    Did you miss the little percentage signs behind all the numbers? Just asking..

  76. 76.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    capelza,

    this is simple statistics. If 22% don’t answer the question, you can throw them out.

    as for the percent sign…. ah forget it. ask your kid when he/she gets into the 6th grade.

  77. 77.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    ohhhhh…condescension….I see where you trying to go. Spin, spin, spin. This wasn’t an election, it was a poll of how the military feels. Like I said, 54% approve, the rest don’t or have no opinion. Having no opinion or desire to answer is just as valid as those who answered yeah or nay. Really it shows that a substantial chunk of the military is apolitical or chooses to keep their opinions to themselves. Their not likely voters, just folks being asked a question. You once again assume.

  78. 78.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    talk about spin.

    how about 24% disapprove, and 76% approve or don’t have an opinion.

  79. 79.

    skip

    January 3, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Where is the “Soldier of Fortune” poll”? Let the voice of Blackwater be heard throughout the land!

  80. 80.

    Perry Como

    January 3, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    really, this is simple math, stuff I learned in, like, the 6th grade. And I went to a city school.

    I learned how to manipulate statistics in a 200 level poli-sci course (iirc), but I had forgotten all about that technique. Thanks for the reminder. Another tool in the troll box.

    As to:

    this is simple statistics. If 22% don’t answer the question, you can throw them out.

    Not really.

  81. 81.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    Really, moflicky, you are again reaching. Me, I’m going strictly by what the poll says. I do not assume anything about the ones who chose to not give an opinion. You, on the other habd, seem desperate to either discount them or, now, count them “approving” but silently…seems to me that 54% approve is pretty freaking obvious.

  82. 82.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    January 3, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    19) The civilian leadership of the Department of Defense has my best interests at heart.

    Strongly agree 5% – Agree 35% – Disagree 33% – Strongly disagree 17% – No opinion/no answer 10%

    Rummy – still not making friends.

  83. 83.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    Let’s take a break and enjoy the work of a really gifted George W. Bush impersonator. I think we could all use a good laugh here.

    http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/imposterbushmerryfckingchristmasnov2905.wmv

  84. 84.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    capelza,

    Me, I’m going strictly by what the poll says. I do not assume anything about the ones who chose to not give an opinion

    but you did. you included them in the disaproved total.

    I’m only going to argue statistics and polling methodogies with you this one more time. Do with it what you will after that.

    What I said was patently true, and mathmatically provable. I could have used a common technique of applying the same pro-con percentages to the undecideds and have an even larger percentage pro-bush. I didn’t do that.

    You lumped the undecided into the disapprove total, not me. I left them out of both counts and recalculated.

    it’s not spin if it’s true.

  85. 85.

    Andrew

    January 3, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    talk about spin.

    how about 24% disapprove, and 76% approve or don’t have an opinion.

    Fine. New republican talking point: Only one quarter of soldiers think mission is a really bad idea. Let’s run with that. After all, that quarter is probably gay and hates America.

  86. 86.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    Paddy,

    I saw that, he’s definitly got him down pat. the jokes were lame though. the real speeches are funnier.

    a much better bit on that show was the tits for tots with Carmen Electra.

  87. 87.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    Andrew,

    Fine. New republican talking point: Only one quarter of soldiers think mission is a really bad idea.

    hell, you can’t even get 75% of democrats to agree it was a bad idea or what to do about it now, and you expect 100% support in the military?

    I can live with that.

  88. 88.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    No…moflicky, I said 54% of those asked said they approved, the rest either disapproved OR had no opinion OR didn’t want to answer. You are the one who said 68% approved based on (thank you Perry Como) some pretty shady manipulation of figures. Go back and show me where I said they all disapproved. I was not doing any such manipulation.

    Though, now that YOU mention it, I guess they don’t techincally approve…thanks!

  89. 89.

    neil

    January 3, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    For the war effort, of course.

    A change in civilian leadership is the only thing that can salvage the war effort, and the integrity of our armed forces, in the short term.

    Also, don’t shoot the messenger. He’s not instructing young kids not to enlist, he’s explaining why the John Murthas of our generation are not going into the military.

  90. 90.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    You might want to look at this a different way. 35 Iraqi war veterans are running for Congress this year.

    All are running as Democrats.

    I suspect that while they’re in the service our military people don’t really care to be seen as showing disapproval of the feller warming the CIC chair.

    But once they get out …

  91. 91.

    Brian

    January 3, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    Did everyone have a nice Kwanzaa?

    Shirley Q. Liquor did.

  92. 92.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    Paddy O’Shea…this is true somewhat at least. My husband was in the Marines, Vietnam, etc. A liberal in most things (some that even are to the left of me). He admitted to me that he and his buds supported Nixon in 1972. With something of a caveat, though…the slogan around the camp was “Vote for Nixon in ’72, why change Dicks in the middle of a screw”.

  93. 93.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 7:28 pm

    You might want to look at this a different way. 35 Iraqi war veterans are running for Congress this year.

    so, all the republicans re-enlisted? I’m ok with that.

  94. 94.

    moflicky

    January 3, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    I thought I heard my bullshit meter go off.

    You might want to look at this a different way. 35 Iraqi war veterans are running for Congress this year.

    All are running as Democrats.

    not according to this

    I googled for this, and I also found a reference around dec 17th that says 10 democrat Iraq war vets are running. and one republican.

    Most of those were recruited by the DCCC. And, for good reason – they know they have a real problem with being trusted with national security.

    Still, a pretty impressive number, 10, so i’m just wondering why you felt it necessary to make up the 35 number.

  95. 95.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    Hmmm.

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348971

    There have been 2 wars with Iraq, you know.

  96. 96.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Try this. I dyslexed.

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348791

  97. 97.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    Actually it is 36 Dems…which you should know as a “long time reader of Balloon Juice” as it was a topic not that long ago.

    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=6409

  98. 98.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    You might want to look at this a different way. 35 Iraqi war veterans are running for Congress this year.

    All are running as Democrats.

    I suspect that while they’re in the service our military people don’t really care to be seen as showing disapproval of the feller warming the CIC chair.

    But once they get out …

    A view from the inside:

    The military is supposed to be apolitical. Almost universally this is tactily approved of, understood and abided by [clearly we are talking about national politics and not internal politics and there are significant differences even then at the flag rank levels, but that’s because you start getting into policy….]

    IMO, based ont eh sliver of military people I know and the behavior i have observed, those of us who are Democrats join with an intent to go on to run with the military credential on the resume. Republicans tend to value business experience more in this kind of pre-politics developmeent.

    I am not throwing stones here. Its a factor in my own motivations for joining. Far from the only factor, but one of them.

  99. 99.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    Either way it is a whole lot more than the 10 that set off Moflicky’s bullshit meter.

    Then again, maybe he just needs an underwear change.

  100. 100.

    capelza

    January 3, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    Paddy, my comment was all aimed at moflicky, not you. I realised I wasn’t clear about that after I posted.

  101. 101.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    RTO Trainer: My motivation for joining the military was decidedly different from yours. After being thrown out of a very exclusive (and expensive) private college, I called my mother in hopes of arranging a return to the comforts of home. She was OK with that, but she also informed me that my father would probably kill me if I should so much as show up at the door.

    So I joined the Navy. I got very good at cleaning things.

  102. 102.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    capelza: Ahh, that’s OK, I wasn’t mad. I get that kind of thing all the time here.

    It’s all these 3rd tier academics. For blog flies they’re teddibly precise and fussy.

  103. 103.

    daveb

    January 3, 2006 at 8:32 pm

    IMO, based ont eh sliver of military people I know and the behavior i have observed, those of us who are Democrats join with an intent to go on to run with the military credential on the resume

    Really? Wow, you obviously travelled in much classier sections of the military than I did over five years.

    Most I knew wanted money for school, flight training for Delta, or just to get outta nowheresville.

  104. 104.

    Blue Shark

    January 3, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    Ask yourself…who are we fighting in Iraq?

    …96% of them are Iraqis who don’t want us there.

    …These are not the terrorists. What do you want our military to achieve?…the death of all Iraquis who don’t want us there?

    …The war was lost by Abu Ghraib. Now the US service deaths are just senseless.

    …My God. Bring the troops home.

  105. 105.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    Blue Shark: What? Are you kidding? That would mean cutting and running! And that is BAD!

    Better we let the Iraqis work out their frustrations by shooting at us.

    It’s good therapy for them.

  106. 106.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 3, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    Uh Oh!

    Raw Story: New York Times Plans New Splash On NSA Surveillance.

    The Bushies ain’t gonna like that!

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NYT_sources_Times_plans_new_splash_0103.html

  107. 107.

    Zifnab

    January 3, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    The military is supposed to be apolitical. Almost universally this is tactily approved of, understood and abided by

    Funny you should say that, because as near as the Bush/Gore race in 2000 I remember a big outcry rose out of Republicans who demanded that the military vote be recounted. Apparently, Republicans were under the impression that the US Military was far more right wing than left wing. Maybe they were just wrong. I don’t know.

  108. 108.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    January 3, 2006 at 10:21 pm

    The military is supposed to be apolitical.

    Which makes Bush’s tactic of bashing Democrats while speaking at military installations all the more contemptible.

  109. 109.

    Pb

    January 3, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    Why bash Murtha? I’m sure George W. Bush would agree, especially considering our current national guard policies…

  110. 110.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 11:05 pm

    Not so different, Paddy, just didn’t include that one point.

    For myself, I had just finished a degree in history at a reasonably priced state university and….

    Moving in with Mom and Dad was not something my pride would allow, but I was engaged to a girl (that I ended up not marrying) and didn’t want to leave Oklahoma and the job I had looked like it might go somewhere someday (wishful thinking) so I joined the National Guard for that little bit of extra income each month that made the differnce between moving home or staying independent.

    None of this mentions nor precludes patriotism, a desire to be part of something larger, a need to return to my nation and community (the state mission of the Guard appealed to this Eagle Scout in particular), and the firm conviction that there are some people in this imperfect world that just need to be killed.

    Not long ago when my Mom asked why I’d volunteered for another tour, I told her it was her fault and Dad’s too. Dad was a cop. Mom was a teacher. How can I possibly go through my life and contribute less to society than they did? I also like to think that as an Army NCO, my job is a little bit of both those professions; cop and teacher.

    It was 11 1/2 years ago that I first enlisted. In a few more months I’ll be back overseas and I’ll renew my enlistment for another 6 years.

  111. 111.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 11:08 pm

    Which makes Bush’s tactic of bashing Democrats while speaking at military installations all the more contemptible.

    Yeah. You’ve misunderstood that.

    Soldiers are as political as anyone. The Army, however, is not. Do you see the distinction? It’s about civilian control of the military and 230 years of not having ruling Juntas in this country. Speaches don’t even factor in.

  112. 112.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    Still, a pretty impressive number, 10, so i’m just wondering why you felt it necessary to make up the 35 number.

    Uhh, try to get more recent reporting before you go around calling people names.

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348791

    More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.

    Frankly, I think it’s a good thing. The Republican Party has a serious problem right now with their credibility on issues relating to national security after this GWOT debacle. Time for Democrats to take advantage of that.

  113. 113.

    The Other Steve

    January 3, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    RTO Trainer writes:

    Yeah. You’ve misunderstood that.

    you’ve been spinning for a while trying to dig yourself out of this hole you’re in. Maybe it’s time you stopped digging?

  114. 114.

    p.lukasiak

    January 3, 2006 at 11:19 pm

    two things about the poll…

    first off, its real significance is reflected in the trend (support by respondents is WAY down from last year’s poll).

    secondly, the idea that you can somehow disregard the opinions of people who MAIL IN their responses simply because they answer either ‘no opinion” or “declined to answer” is kinda…no make that REALLY stupid. This is especially true of those who “declined to answer”, given the military culture that discourages criticism of its leadership. No one has ever been punished for praising leadership, so its pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of those who “declined to answer” were not favorably disposed toward the present Iraq policy.

  115. 115.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 11:25 pm

    Before the Democrats can take advantage of that, they have to come up with an alternative.

  116. 116.

    RTO Trainer

    January 3, 2006 at 11:28 pm

    This is especially true of those who “declined to answer”, given the military culture that discourages criticism of its leadership. No one has ever been punished for praising leadership, so its pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of those who “declined to answer” were not favorably disposed toward the present Iraq policy.

    I don’t suppose you can cite cases of those who have been punished for criticism of the leadership?

    Heck, I’m an NCO. Criticism is part of my job description.

  117. 117.

    Andrew

    January 4, 2006 at 12:02 am

    I don’t suppose you can cite cases of those who have been punished for criticism of the leadership?

    Some guy named Shinseki comes to mind.

  118. 118.

    RTO Trainer

    January 4, 2006 at 12:21 am

    Some guy named Shinseki comes to mind.

    I’ve heard of him. What is it you think happened to him?

  119. 119.

    RTO Trainer

    January 4, 2006 at 2:00 am

    you’ve been spinning for a while trying to dig yourself out of this hole you’re in. Maybe it’s time you stopped digging?

    ???

    If you say so I guess.

  120. 120.

    moflicky

    January 4, 2006 at 6:56 am

    Either way it is a whole lot more than the 10 that set off Moflicky’s bullshit meter.

    Then again, maybe he just needs an underwear change.

    I figured an article only two weeks old would be sufficient. I should have known better.

    at any rate, at least one is running as a republican, so my bullshit meter wasn’t going off for nothing.

  121. 121.

    BIRDZILLA

    January 4, 2006 at 10:38 am

    They dont need the old chicken donkey anyway so he can get a life and stop is mindless clucking

  122. 122.

    Jorge

    January 4, 2006 at 10:39 am

    I’m curious about something…

    Murtha offered an alternative based on his understanding of the war. He believes that continued presence of US troops after achieving the initial mission of toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq had no WMD capabilities is actually causing more problems than creating solutions. That it antagonizes local insurgents and draws the attention of foreign terrorists who are mainly interested in killing US troops and disrupting the US.

    Murtha suggests an over the border deployment that allows for air strikes and surgical military strikes on terrorist targets. Ultimately, Murtha believes that the US military cannot force an end to the internal problems in Iraq and that we’ve just become another player in a civil war.

    Now, Murtha’s alternative might not be pleasing to those who support the current strategy. But that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t offered an alternative. So why all the “the left has proposed no alternatives” talk?

    Again, folks on the right might disagree with this conclusion. But it is a plan and it offers a clear alternative to the Bush doctrine. Calling it cutting and running by liberal doves – especially when it is proposed by someone who supported the war when many on the left didn’t – is a simplistic talking point meant to elicit and emotional response and stifle what is a complicated debate. Why not actually have a real debate about whether the initial goal of the war has been achieved and if a continued US presence is necessary or helpful? Isn’t the best thing overall to have an adult conversation instead of this constant chant of “Democrats are weak on defense” mantra? And if the answer is that the “Democrats are weak on defense” mantra weakens Dems in elections then it seems pretty obvious about which side is playing politics with this war.

  123. 123.

    RTO Trainer

    January 4, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Jorge,

    Maybe 1975 is longer ago that it seems to me.

    The last time this country assured an ally that we were leaving, but we’d be back if needed, we reneged.

    You will not persuade me, that once disengaged in Iraq, that teh political leadership would be willing to renegage and more than the were willing in Vietnam in 1975.

    My estimation of the alternative presented is that it is a smokescreen, to allow political cover for those who are nto willing to put their name to full withdrawl.

    That is, of course, just my opinion, and it does not change, as you have pointed out, that this is an alternative that has been presented, which I discounted in previous remark. It seems to me to have died, as far as serious consideration, of neglect.

    It’d be easier to remember this alternative if even Congressman Murtha who proposed it were actively fighting for it.

  124. 124.

    Mac Buckets

    January 4, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    The only salient facts are that Murtha isn’t a soldier anymore. He’s a Democrat politician. Of course he will say anything he can, regardless of the effect on the war effort, to get his side a political advantage, and he’ll do it by playing his only real card, the “I was a soldier, so I know what’s best for the military” card. That’s what politicians do, and Murtha has proven his appetite for this type of tactic at least twice. I can’t say that he’s been terribly effective, either, so I can’t get worked up about “We Can’t Win, So Let’s Retreat, Part Deux.”

  125. 125.

    HH

    January 6, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Murtha makes it clear he opposes a slow withdrawal and reiterates that he wants to do so immediately… shooting down the Dem talking points of a couple months ago.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Winter Wren - North of Quebec City (part 2 of 3) - Cap Tourmente and on the way to Tadoussac 2
Image by Winter Wren (5/13/25)

Recent Comments

  • Manyakitty on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 1:52am)
  • Old Man Yelling at Clouds on Monday Morning Open Thread: Another Suggestion (May 14, 2025 @ 1:36am)
  • Jay on News of the Weird Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 1:35am)
  • Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom on War for Ukraine Day 1,174: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours of the Night (May 14, 2025 @ 1:19am)
  • AlaskaReader on War for Ukraine Day 1,174: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours of the Night (May 14, 2025 @ 12:47am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!