More "Tolerance" for dissent from the left - Murtha says "screw" Repubs

[fossten]

Friday, Oct. 13, 2006 10:18 a.m. EDT

Rep. Murtha Says 'Screw' Republicans

This story was written by Randy Hall, CNSNews.com

"Screw them," Rep. John Murtha said of Republicans in an email sent to the liberal political group MoveOn.org on Wednesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who is urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, added that he needs its members' help to throw GOP congressmen "out of power - as many of them as possible."

"A year ago when I presented my plan for Iraq, I did it to provide leadership and protect our troops," Murtha stated in his email. "The Republicans have spent their time name-calling while the situation for our troops in Iraq gets worse. They've tried to smear me, other veterans, Democrats, you and anybody who stands up to them.

"Well, let me say one thing right now: screw them," the 16-term congressman declared. "Those gravestones at Arlington cemetery don't say Democrat or Republican on them. We are all patriots.

"As long as Republicans are in charge," Murtha added in his email, "they're just going to keep playing politics instead of doing what needs to be done for the American people.

"And that's why we need to throw them out of power - as many of them as possible," he stated.

"I've never been one to go out front and lead the charge in the elections - but I learned that these Republicans in charge right now couldn't care less about getting out of Iraq," Murtha alleged. "Only a switch of power will change things.


"I'm working hard to turn the mess in Iraq around - but I need more good people in Congress with me," Murtha stated. He referred to "outstanding" candidates that he would like to see elected, such as fellow Pennsylvania Democrats Lois Murphy in the 6th District and Chris Carney in the 10th District, as well as Zack Space, a candidate in Ohio's 18th District race.

"The three candidates who need your support today will fight side-by-side with me in Congress when the time comes to hold George W. Bush's feet to the fire," Murtha stated. "Can I count on you to chip in $25 or more?" he asked.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, MoveOn.org announced in mid-August that it was coming to the defense of Murtha and other Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq.

At that time, MoveOn's Political Action Team accused "Republican operatives" of attacking Murtha and stated in an email there was "no damn way we're going to let them get away with it." The group pledged to "go on offense" against the GOP in the mid-term elections with "a hard-hitting new TV ad about Iraq."

But on Thursday, Bill Pascoe, a spokesman for Murtha's opponent, Republican Diana Irey told Cybercast News Service that "Jack Murtha's recent fundraising solicitation on behalf of the radical leftwing group MoveOn.org shows voters of Pennsylvania's 12th District again just how far out of touch with their mainstream conservative values he's willing to go to curry favor from his new liberal buddies."

"Just as important, his two-word screed about those who would dare disagree with him politically - 'screw them' - is evidence of his hatred for political dissent and his rejection of the notion of honest and fair debate," Pascoe added.

"This email just goes to prove what Diana Irey has been saying for months - if you thought the Jack Murtha of 2006 was the same guy you'd been voting for, for years you don't know Jack - and you can find out more by visiting YouDontKnowJack.org and seeing for yourself."

Bailey told Cybercast News Service: "'Screw them' is what John Murtha has said for 32 years to:


"Iraq War veterans, who have tried unsuccessfully to discuss that conflict with Murtha;
"Honest citizens, who are berated, cursed and threatened by Murtha goons;
"Taxpayers, who have to come up with the money for Murtha's self-serving appropriations 'earmarks;'
"Troops in Iraq, who are unjustly characterized by Murtha for having 'killed innocent civilians in cold blood;'
"Honest politicians, who object to the 'bully-boy' tactics employed by Murtha in getting his way; and
"Anyone who dares to disagree with or vote against John Murtha.
"'Screw them' might well be the epitaph inscribed on Murtha's tombstone," Bailey stated.
"'Screw you, Murtha!' might well be the verdict rendered by the voters of the 12th District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 7," he added. "That will be what those voters will be saying to MoveOn.org as well."

Copyright CNSNews.com. All Rights Reserved

 

[Joeychgo]

Thats ok, Michael Reagan called liberals 'Stupid" on Fox yesterday.

 

[MonsterMark]

Thats ok, Michael Reagan called liberals 'Stupid" on Fox yesterday.

Ya, and Colmes chided him into saying it, basically putting the word in his mouth, so he gave it to him. And you know what, Reagan is right, most liberals are stupid.

 

[fossten]

"I know what it's like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute and then it feels just great." - 1980

"It isn't that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

- Ronald Reagan

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

"Well, let me say one thing right now: screw them," the 16-term congressman declared. "Those gravestones at Arlington cemetery don't say Democrat or Republican on them. We are all patriots.

"As long as Republicans are in charge," Murtha added in his email, "they're just going to keep playing politics instead of doing what needs to be done for the American people.

"And that's why we need to throw them out of power - as many of them as possible," he stated.

"I've never been one to go out front and lead the charge in the elections - but I learned that these Republicans in charge right now couldn't care less about getting out of Iraq," Murtha alleged. "Only a switch of power will change things.

:Beer :Beer :headbang: :gr_hail: :wave :bow:

 

[fossten]

I think we've seen by Johnny's 'outburst' (fart) that we've thorougly debunked the 'tolerant liberal' claim once and for all.

*owned*

 

[Calabrio]

So what, precisely does Johnny agree with in that statement.

"As long as Republicans are in charge," Murtha added in his email, "they're just going to keep playing politics instead of doing what needs to be done for the American people."

Could Murtha, or Johnny, explain how remaining committed to an increasingly unpopular war is "playing politics." How gambling on your parties majority in the Congress in order to remain committed to a cause is "playing politics."

See, I would say that the party that supports a war when the poll numbers are behind it, only to then adopt a cut and run strategy when the popularity falls would be the people who were "playing politics."

I would say the people who misrepresent the events in Iraq and lie about the leadership, ultimately threatening our national security and the missions of the troops, are the one playing politics.

Murtha is playing politics. He is trying to rally the kook base of the Democrat party because he's hoping to be Speaker of the House in 2008.

"I've never been one to go out front and lead the charge in the elections - but I learned that these Republicans in charge right now couldn't care less about getting out of Iraq," Murtha alleged. "Only a switch of power will change things.

The Republicans in power don't care about finishing a war which is losing popularity? Is he stupid or lying?

 

[fossten]

So what, precisely does Johnny agree with in that statement.



Could Murtha, or Johnny, explain how remaining committed to an increasingly unpopular war is "playing politics." How gambling on your parties majority in the Congress in order to remain committed to a cause is "playing politics."

See, I would say that the party that supports a war when the poll numbers are behind it, only to then adopt a cut and run strategy when the popularity falls would be the people who were "playing politics."

I would say the people who misrepresent the events in Iraq and lie about the leadership, ultimately threatening our national security and the missions of the troops, are the one playing politics.

Murtha is playing politics. He is trying to rally the kook base of the Democrat party because he's hoping to be Speaker of the House in 2008.




The Republicans in power don't care about finishing a war which is losing popularity? Is he stupid or lying?

Now that is analysis worthy of an *owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Now that is analysis worthy of an *owned*

Yep, pile on enough "labels" and stuff enough words in their mouths to build your strawman, you can "own" about anything.

 

[Calabrio]

Yep, pile on enough "labels" and stuff enough words in their mouths to build your strawman, you can "own" about anything.

Try replying to me, not Fossten's response to my post.

If you want to contribute, if you want to make your point more clear, please do so.

 

[fossten]

Hmm, Calabrio, it smells like troll barf in here. I think you've squeezed Johnny too hard, and now he's mentally hurling.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

FINE, seems I have to spell everything out for your little minds to comprehend:

Could Murtha, or Johnny, explain how remaining committed to an increasingly unpopular war is "playing politics." How gambling on your parties majority in the Congress in order to remain committed to a cause is "playing politics."

See, I would say that the party that supports a war when the poll numbers are behind it, only to then adopt a cut and run strategy when the popularity falls would be the people who were "playing politics."

I would say the people who misrepresent the events in Iraq and lie about the leadership, ultimately threatening our national security and the missions of the troops, are the one playing politics.

Murtha is playing politics. He is trying to rally the kook base of the Democrat party because he's hoping to be Speaker of the House in 2008.

The Republicans in power don't care about finishing a war which is losing popularity? Is he stupid or lying?

You've incorrectly LABELED the Iraq war as "increasingly unpopular" in order to support your lame assertion that "staying the course" (another label) is somehow more noble and smarter than "cut and run" (yet another label).

1) The Iraq war was just plain stupid and unfounded to begin with. The war in Afghanistan was not finished, and resources were diverted away from it (resulting in deteriation there). If "staying the couse" in Iraq is so good, WHY didn't we "stay the course" in Afghanistan and finish THAT war first before going into Iraq?? I won't even touch on the fact there were MUCH bigger threats to US security than Iraq that we should've been worried about. Or that the BuSh administration ignored calls for more troops early on which would've at least given us a chance for earlier success.

2) "Staying the course" is NOT a successfull strategy. We've been "staying the course" for years now and no progress has been made other than to fill caskets. Yet you and the other shrubbies insist this is the best plan.

3) "Cut and run" is NOT a strategy that is being recommended by Murtha and the Dems. The GOAL is to get the flock out of Iraq, but the PLAN on getting to that GOAL is to either send more troops in to take Bagdad once and for all (better late than never), OR to re-deploy the troops to the Iraq boarders where we can monitor how the Iraqi forces take over, and be prepared to step back in if they need us. The Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq. If we never give them a chance to walk on their own two feet, we'll be holding their hands FOREVER. Unfortunately, the BuSh administration seems to be satisfied to do just that. Endlessly sending other's childeren to their deaths seems to have no weight on the BuSh administration's concience.

 

[MonsterMark]

3) "Cut and run" is NOT a strategy that is being recommended by Murtha and the Dems. The GOAL is to get the flock out of Iraq, but the PLAN on getting to that GOAL is to either send more troops in to take Bagdad once and for all (better late than never), OR to re-deploy the troops to the Iraq boarders where we can monitor how the Iraqi forces take over, and be prepared to step back in if they need us.

Guess you haven't read Murthas plan. He wants to 're-deploy' to.....to..... Okinawa. That must be in Kuwait, right?

 

[fossten]

FINE, seems I have to spell everything out for your little minds to comprehend:



You've incorrectly LABELED the Iraq war as "increasingly unpopular" in order to support your lame assertion that "staying the course" (another label) is somehow more noble and smarter than "cut and run" (yet another label).

He hasn't incorrectly labeled anything. Look at the polls which you are so fond of. Clearly the war is increasingly unpopular, and just you saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

1) The Iraq war was just plain stupid and unfounded to begin with. The war in Afghanistan was not finished, and resources were diverted away from it (resulting in deteriation there). If "staying the couse" in Iraq is so good, WHY didn't we "stay the course" in Afghanistan and finish THAT war first before going into Iraq?? I won't even touch on the fact there were MUCH bigger threats to US security than Iraq that we should've been worried about. Or that the BuSh administration ignored calls for more troops early on which would've at least given us a chance for earlier success.

Now that your unfounded talking point rant is finished, Mr. Johnny, would you please explain why, if you were privy to national security information back in 2002 regarding the threat of Iraq, you didn't tell everybody that we should have attacked Iran or NK at the time, assuming those are the 'MUCH bigger threats' you are referring to. Obviously, in your self-righteous arrogance, you assume using hindsight and faulty information that you would be much better at waging a war than our generals. Let me now take a moment to sarcastically bow in your general direction...there. Narcissistic much? Methinks yes.

2) "Staying the course" is NOT a successfull strategy. We've been "staying the course" for years now and no progress has been made other than to fill caskets. Yet you and the other shrubbies insist this is the best plan.

In light of Johnny's barfy outburst, I suggest we unconditionally surrender in Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and VietNam.

3) "Cut and run" is NOT a strategy that is being recommended by Murtha and the Dems. The GOAL is to get the flock out of Iraq, but the PLAN on getting to that GOAL is to either send more troops in to take Bagdad once and for all (better late than never), OR to re-deploy the troops to the Iraq boarders where we can monitor how the Iraqi forces take over, and be prepared to step back in if they need us. The Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq. If we never give them a chance to walk on their own two feet, we'll be holding their hands FOREVER. Unfortunately, the BuSh administration seems to be satisfied to do just that. Endlessly sending other's childeren to their deaths seems to have no weight on the BuSh administration's concience.

Wrong. Murtha advocates all but unconditional surrender in Iraq, a date certain to FULLY withdraw, and a "redeployment" to Okinawa, which is conveniently only 8,000 miles away. What a military mind he is.

DEMOCRATS = CUT AND RUN

 

[MonsterMark]

and a "redeployment" to Okinawa, which is conveniently only 8,000 miles away. What a military mind he is.

I guess he wants to stage in Oki for an attack on Vietnam. F'in Viet...Naamm Man, he must have some unfinished business in Naamm. Or maybe he is mad he didn't get a crack at WWII. Ya, that must be it.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

FINALLY, a momentary lapse of reason, and a glimmer of hope...........

Posted on Mon, Oct. 16, 2006

Panel revising Iraq policy
Pulling troops, inviting foes on table
By Doyle McManus
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON – A commission backed by President Bush that is exploring U.S. options in Iraq intends to propose significant changes in the administration’s strategy by early next year, members say.

Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: Withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.

While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker has agreed on one principle.

“It’s not going to be ‘stay the course,’ ” one participant said. “The bottom line is, (current U.S. policy) isn’t working. ... There’s got to be another way.”

When the panel was formed in March, some administration officials hoped it would produce a bipartisan endorsement of existing policy. But as sectarian violence in Iraq has worsened, more Republicans in Congress – and privately some administration officials – have become enthusiastic about alternatives.

The Baker panel, called the Iraq Study Group, was formed in response to a proposal by members of Congress, but Baker sought and won Bush’s endorsement. Other members include former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who also served as co-chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; former Rep. Leon Panetta, a California Democrat who was President Clinton’s chief of staff; and former CIA Director Robert Gates.

In its most recent closed-door meetings, the commission focused on two options drafted by experts outside the government.

One, titled “Stability First,” called for continuing to try to stabilize Baghdad, boosting efforts to entice insurgents into politics, and bringing Iran and Syria into plans to end the fighting.

The other, called “Redeploy and Contain,” went further. It called for a gradual, phased withdrawal of U.S. troops to bases outside Iraq where they would be available principally for strikes against terrorist organizations anywhere in the region.

The experts also prepared an option called “Stay the Course, Redefine the Mission,” and an alternative urging a quick U.S. withdrawal, but the panel appeared less interested in those plans, participants said.

Baker and other commission members declined to confirm the substance of the options and emphasized that the panel had made no decisions. But Baker signaled the thrust of the panel’s deliberations in several television interviews last week.

“Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run,’  ” Baker said.

The former secretary of state also said he favored reaching out to Iran and Syria. “I personally believe in talking to your enemies,” he said. “Neither the Syrians nor the Iranians want a chaotic Iraq . . . so maybe there is some potential for getting something other than opposition from those countries.”

Bringing Iran and Syria into negotiations would require significant changes in U.S. policy.

“To bring them in, we need to stop emphasizing things like democracy and start emphasizing things like stability and territorial integrity,” said James Dobbins, a former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. “We need to stop talking about regime change. It’s unreasonable to think you can stabilize Iraq and destabilize Iran and Syria at the same time.”

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Posted on Mon, Oct. 16, 2006

Panel revising Iraq policy
Pulling troops, inviting foes on table
By Doyle McManus
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON – A commission backed by President Bush that is exploring U.S. options in Iraq intends to propose significant changes in the administration’s strategy by early next year, members say.

Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: Withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.

While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker has agreed on one principle.

“It’s not going to be ‘stay the course,’ ” one participant said. “The bottom line is, (current U.S. policy) isn’t working. ... There’s got to be another way.”

When the panel was formed in March, some administration officials hoped it would produce a bipartisan endorsement of existing policy. But as sectarian violence in Iraq has worsened, more Republicans in Congress – and privately some administration officials – have become enthusiastic about alternatives.

The Baker panel, called the Iraq Study Group, was formed in response to a proposal by members of Congress, but Baker sought and won Bush’s endorsement. Other members include former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who also served as co-chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; former Rep. Leon Panetta, a California Democrat who was President Clinton’s chief of staff; and former CIA Director Robert Gates.

In its most recent closed-door meetings, the commission focused on two options drafted by experts outside the government.

One, titled “Stability First,” called for continuing to try to stabilize Baghdad, boosting efforts to entice insurgents into politics, and bringing Iran and Syria into plans to end the fighting.

The other, called “Redeploy and Contain,” went further. It called for a gradual, phased withdrawal of U.S. troops to bases outside Iraq where they would be available principally for strikes against terrorist organizations anywhere in the region.

The experts also prepared an option called “Stay the Course, Redefine the Mission,” and an alternative urging a quick U.S. withdrawal, but the panel appeared less interested in those plans, participants said.

Baker and other commission members declined to confirm the substance of the options and emphasized that the panel had made no decisions. But Baker signaled the thrust of the panel’s deliberations in several television interviews last week.

“Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run,’  ” Baker said.

The former secretary of state also said he favored reaching out to Iran and Syria. “I personally believe in talking to your enemies,” he said. “Neither the Syrians nor the Iranians want a chaotic Iraq . . . so maybe there is some potential for getting something other than opposition from those countries.”

Bringing Iran and Syria into negotiations would require significant changes in U.S. policy.

“To bring them in, we need to stop emphasizing things like democracy and start emphasizing things like stability and territorial integrity,” said James Dobbins, a former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. “We need to stop talking about regime change. It’s unreasonable to think you can stabilize Iraq and destabilize Iran and Syria at the same time.”

*owned*

Exactly what is being owned here? A bunch of appeasers are speaking out, big whoop. Baker and his group are wrong. I'm not surprised.

Note that the members mentioned are all "former" something or other. This isn't any official thing - it's just a panel spouting their opinion.