Why John Murtha Is Right re Iraq War

I am very much afraid, Parados, that you are in error. I have the Transcript of the speech on my desk.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the likelihood that Anti-Saddam groups would be able to overthrow Saddam but I submit that it would have been HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Do you have hard evidence to show that it would have been likely? If so, would you please provide it. All of my readings have found that the likelihood of Anti-Saddam groups overthrowing Saddam were two--slim and none.

And, I fear you either have forgotten or have not learned your history lessons.

An outside force or forces( USA and allies) came in NOT ONLY AT THE POINT OF A GUN BUT AFTER HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND ESTABLISHED DEMOCRACY IN A COUNTRY WHICH HAD BEEN RULED UNDER A SYSTEM OF EMPEROR WORSHIP.

The point of a gun schtick is weak. When the Iraq legislature is voted on( Dec. 15th) will that be at the point of a gun?

When the Iraqis extend their control from 13 provinces which they now control to 16 provinces, will that be at the point of a ( foreign) gun?

You obviously do not remember that we invaded Germany. We had a lot of guns. We had a denazificatgion program just as we had a debaathification program.

You create an absurd spectacle- A US soldier standing there saying-Be a Democracy or I'll kill you.

The truth is far diffferent- The murderous fringe Muslims are blowing up their own people saying:

"Dont you dare become a democracy.

I suggest you read up on how we brought Democracy to Germany and Japan. You do remember McArthur's "rule" in Japan, do you not?

It's been awhile since we've heard the Japan/Germany rebuild talking point. So very nice to have gatos refresh our memory. Bush yet remains a moron.

clinton was cool. bush sucks. end of story. you can't put a stripe on a turd.

Must I report you too to the moderator, dyslexia?

My name is Mortkat. Please use it. I am sure that you would be upset if I changed your name. It would be easy to do.

May I suggest that you rebut the Germany/Japan "talking point"? If you cannot, I do understand.

I laid it out. You did not rebut it or show why it is not pertinent.

You are aware that General MacArthur ran Japan like a modern Caesar, are you not? If you do not know what happened there, I will be happy to fill you in.

Then perhaps you can look for this section of the speech.



Now look at my statement you said was incorrect.



My statement seems to be a pretty good representation of the reason Clinton gave in his speech.

I read the speech several times.

Here is more that Clinton said:

quote

So we will pursue a LONG TERM STRATEGY to contain Iraq and its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and work TOWARD THE DAY when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.


First, we must be prepared to USE FORCE AGAIN if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR THEIR DELIVERY SYSTEMS, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

THE CREDIBLE THREAT TO USE FORCE, AND WHEN NECESSARY, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, IS THE SUREST WAY TO CONTAIN SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, CURTAIL HIS AGRESSION AND PREVENT ANOTHER GULF WAR...

THE HARD FACT IS THAT S O L O N G A S S A D D A M R E M A I N S I N P O W E R, HE THREATENS THE WELL-BEING OF HIS PEOPLE, THE PEACE OF THE REGION, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD.


I am sure, Parados, that President Bush and his advisors read those words. I am sure that President Bush and his advisors paid special attention of all of what I replicated especially the last paragraph above----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

Now, Parados, I am sure you would not have wanted President Bush to allow Saddam to remain in power so that he could "threaten the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world".

The American people will go to the polls in November 2006. If they think that President Bush has not done the right thing, they will send him a message by defeating Republicans and will give the majority in both Houses back to the Democrats.

What parados or mortkat say is irrelevant to that.

Mortkat


Be our guest and report Dyslexia to the Moderator if you want to further embarrass yourself.

BBB

I will repeat. My name is Mortkat. Yours is BumbleBeeBoogie and dyslexia is not difficult to spell.
It would be well if we concerned ourselves with the substance in posts and leave the childish gossip alone.

Mortkat


You remind me of the character in the TV show "Boston Legal" who runs around all day announcing his name "Denny Craig" to everyone who passes by. He excuses his compulsion to announce his name by claiming to have Mad Cow Disease.

BBB

It seems that Mortogato is so confused that he's now challenging himself to stay on topic. Good luck with that.

Just remember, you're Mortkat this month.

Remind us again Mortkat as to which one of these threatening actions Saddam had done that required the US response of an invasion.

Which one was the threat that required a greater use of force than Clinton had responed with?

Then explain the meaning of the word "contain" as Clinton used it here.
Now explain how you "contain" a country by invading it. Working "toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people" was what the Congress and Clinton did by giving aid to Iraqi opposition groups.

Next you can explain how an invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government which was projected to last a few days or weeks is a "long term strategy." It is neither long term or a strategy. It is and was short sighted and doesn't involve much more strategy than hitting someone with a stick just because you are bigger than them.

It appears your ONLY argument Mortkat is to change the meanings of words in the English language.

After Murtha Pullout Call, Editorials Confront War
UPDATE: After Murtha Pullout Call, Editorials Confront War
Aya Kawano
By E&P Staff
Published: November 21, 2005 9:30 PM ET updated frequently
NEW YORK

In the wake of the newly-charged debate over the Iraq war, sparked on Thursday by the call of hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for the beginning of an American withdrawal, would newspapers in their editorials take a strong stand one way or the other? All weekend we posted the results in this space.

While many newspapers have fully backed the war since its start, many others have been critical of how it has been conducted and expressed concerns for future success. Yet few of those papers expressing doubts have advocated even a phased pullout. As recently as Thursday, just hours before Murtha's announcmement, The New York Times, while extremely critical of President Bush, once again came out against withdrawal or any kind timetable for exiting.

Now, will papers often critical of the war finally call for a change in direction? Will papers that have strongly backed the war have a change of heart or affirm that support?

In Friday's debate in Congress, several representatives apologized for shirking their responsibility to raise questions about the war earlier and failing to press their oversight role.

Indeed, E&P Editor Greg Mitchell, in his opinion column on this site, Pressing Issues, has urged newspapers for two years to expand their own oversight role, and also consider urging a change in direction in Iraq (in their editorials) rather than continuing to play shuffleboard on the deck of this Titanic. His three latest columns on this subject can be found at this site in the Columns section.

Here are excerpts from editorials around the nation from the past few days, the latest at the top, to be updated on Monday.

***

Milwaukee (Wi.) Journal-Sentinel, Nov. 20:

If leaving Iraq now would be a mistake, Murtha is surely on the right track. Announcing now a flexible deadline to leave Iraq would give Iraq's own armed forces plenty of time and a strong incentive to gear up and fight on their own. In pushing for such a deadline, Sen. Feingold and others have pointed out that the prospect of leaving Iraq would deprive the Iraqi insurgency of a rallying cry and a propaganda tool.

Putting down a marker now, by announcing a flexible deadline, seems to us the best way ahead in Iraq. But give Murtha credit for energizing the discussion. Give him credit, too, for his distinguished record, his service and his sincerity.

*
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 20:

To be sure, Rep. Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq plays better as a heartfelt expression of frustration than as sound practical advice. The United States has to get out -- but the timing is important. His call for immediate action is simply what happens when the president refuses to give a timetable for withdrawal.

The United States needs to stay long enough for elections to place an Iraqi government in power. But the U.S. presence needs to end shortly thereafter. It is the only sane course.

Those who would seize the patriotic high ground should know their history. As to "cutting and running," this republic would not exist had not Gen. George Washington done so after defeat in the Battle of Long Island in 1776.

On Friday, Republicans sought a quick vote on a withdrawal resolution -- and successfully defeated it. That doesn't change the truth as Rep. Murtha spoke it: U.S. policy in Iraq is flawed and wrapped in illusion.

*
The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Nov. 20:

The president repeats his stay-the-course mantra, but continues to trust the counsel of a national security crew that appears to be recharting that dangerous path anew each day. Murtha's was one of many voices - this page among them - that long ago called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose failures of foresight are largely responsible for the post-Saddam predicament in which our forces are now enmeshed.

We do not agree with Murtha on the immediate removal of troops. A precipitous withdrawal risks the tragic waste of the blood investment we have made in Iraq. But we understand his anger, and the increasing discontent of a nation that sees the course it is told to stay leading nowhere, fast.
*

The Washington Post, Nov. 20:

A serious congressional debate about Iraq is essential at a time when public support for the mission is falling and the danger of failure seems great. Aggressive challenges to the Bush administration's military and political strategy -- even calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, such as that made by

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) on Thursday -- must be part of that democratic discussion. Yet what we've mainly seen during the past two weeks is a shameful exercise in demagoguery and name-calling....

Mr. Murtha, like other Democrats who advocate an early pullout, grossly misstates the nature of the conflict in Iraq. In a news conference, he contended that U.S. troops "have become the primary target" and have united Iraqis against them. In fact, far more Iraqis than Americans are being killed by the insurgents; Iraq is divided between a Shiite and Kurdish majority -- whose leaders strongly support a continued U.S. presence -- and a Sunni and Islamic extremist minority that seeks to drive international forces out so that it can try to impose a dictatorship on the rest of the country. As Democrats such as Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) have recognized, a premature American departure from Iraq would not end but greatly escalate what is now a low-grade civil war. It could allow al Qaeda to claim a triumph and establish a base for attacking the United States and its allies in the Middle East....

If there is to be any chance of that war being won, the United States will have to commit its own forces to the fight for years, though perhaps not at current levels. The alternative is to risk a defeat that would be devastating to U.S. security. That's a hard truth to face: It can't be done amid a partisan free-for-all.

*
Asheville(N.C.)Citizen-Times, Nov. 20:

We hope that Rep. Murtha's comments begin a debate that is going to happen sooner rather than later.

First, a decision that could have a large impact on national security should be made in a sober atmosphere, rather than in the heat of a campaign season.

Second, we are very nearly out of corners to turn, at least for a while. Parliamentary elections are set for Dec. 15. Under the new constitution, another election may not happen until 2009. In other words, if this election doesn't work out to our satisfaction, we've got four years to live with it.

In the meantime, violence continues as old scores are settled in a new environment in Iraq. Bombings Friday claimed scores at Shiite mosques. Such violence may increase after a U.S. withdrawal. But it's obvious the U.S. presence isn't preventing it. The heroism and dedication and resilience of American service personnel on the ground in Iraq is beyond question.

In the meantime, Rep. Murtha's concluding comment last week are worth pondering: "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.'&#x2019

That has of course always been the goal. The question on the table now is as simple as it it complex: "When?'&#x2019

*
The Philadelphia Inquirer and other Knight Ridder papers, Nov. 20:

Despite the semantic games and counterfactual bluster, this is the real issue: Bush made the most momentous decision a President can make, sending American sons and daughters to war, without doing as much skeptical research as most Americans put into buying a car.

This White House's reflexive response to constructive criticism is to attack the critic. Last week, the respected Murtha was the target. The congressman, who had supported the war, now urges immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He said that the U.S. presence there had become "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

A Bush team that was happy to plaster the traitor label on decorated Vietnam veterans such as Max Cleland and Sen. John Kerry had no qualms about training its smear guns on Murtha, a former Marine. Press Secretary Scott McClellan accused him of waving the white flag to terrorists.

Administration officials hope their fog machine will obscure Americans' deepening discontent with their incompetence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina. Fewer and fewer seem to be falling for their games.

The Senate should proceed with its long-delayed look into mishandling of prewar intelligence. The topic still matters. What Bush and his team did tragically eroded the standard a president should have to meet before taking the nation to war.

*

Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Nov. 20:

When more and more members of his own party are ready to defy the president in Congress, you know it, too. And when the president can't think of anything to say in response to the growing unease about the war except the same old bluster, you know something's changing.

Americans are waking up. About time.
*

The Chicago Tribune, in a lengthy editorial (part one of a series on the roots of the war), Nov. 20:

Absent new disclosures in future reports, memoirs or other evidence, history's likely verdict is that the president overplayed the weak hand that the intelligence services dealt him. Those agencies had their own nightmares to live down: Prior to the Gulf war, they had underestimated Iraq's progress toward building nuclear bombs.

But there was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's sins. This page stands by an opinion argued here in January 2004:

In putting so much emphasis on weapons, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed. With his support for Palestinian and other terrorists, Hussein was a destabilizing force in the Middle East. His ballistic missiles program, which threatened such U.S. allies as Israel, Kuwait and Turkey, grossly violated the UN's last-chance Resolution 1441?-as did his refusal even to divulge the status of his weapons programs. Worse, with the UN failing to enforce its demands, Hussein freely perpetuated the genocidal slaughter of his people.

Based on Hussein's indisputable record, the president had ample cause to want regime change in Iraq. Put short, the bumper-sticker accusation that "Bush lied?--People died" would be moot today if the president had stuck to known truths.

*
The Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Nov. 19:

The White House is making a huge mistake in attempting to demonize those who disagree with Bush administration policy on the Iraq war ?- including new critic Rep. John Murtha, R- Pa., who said Thursday that "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home."

The administration should face it: There is growing concern, in Congress and the nation, about the way the war is not going....We have not stopped Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from killing our troops and murdering Iraqi civilians at will. We have not caught Osama bin Laden four years after 9/11.

We also have not stopped being Americans whose representatives have a right to disagree with each other, and the White House.
*

Boston Herald, Nov. 19:

Now we have no reason to question the sincerity of Murtha's change of heart. Vietnam did indeed leave scars on the psyche of a generation - Murtha's generation - that simply won't go away. But did we learn nothing from that tragic war about pulling the rug out from under our own troops, about denigrating the job they have been given and about setting a timetable for surrender?

And while Murtha's timing might have made sense to him, as he prepared to face the losses of his constituents, it couldn't have been worse on the ground in Iraq with elections scheduled next month.
*

Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Nov. 18:

Withdrawal would make America neither less safe nor more. That's not Murtha's point. His concern, which so many supporters of the war miss to their dishonor, is for the troops. The lesson of Vietnam is that America's very first duty, a sacred duty, is to never, ever put troops unnecessarily in harm's way. Murtha strongly supported sending the troops to Iraq, but he says now we have a duty to bring them home.

In his reflection of that duty, if not in his call for immediate withdrawal, he is so right and so refreshing to hear. If not today, then as soon as humanly possible, our troops need to come home. Most Americans now believe that, too.

*

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 18:

The dream of transforming Iraq from a cruel and repressive tyranny into a shining model of Western-style democracy was admittedly a beautiful thing. But like many a beautiful thing, it may also have been unattainable, particularly after our bungling of the post-war occupation.

Now we are left to accomplish what we can, in the time we have, with the resources we have, and then deal with the consequences, which will be significant. Our alliances and our reputation are in tatters; our military is showing signs of strain and our enemies are emboldened.

The good news is, we've recovered from a lot worse. But it didn't have to be this hard.

*
Houston Chronicle, Nov. 17:

President Bush's approval ratings have paralleled falling public support for the war, emboldening Democrats and some Republicans to speak out against current policy. Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Wednesday called for the start of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in the near future. Murtha is a Vietnam veteran, a respected advocate for the nation's armed services and an expert on military affairs. His decision to sponsor a resolution calling for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq is an indication that mainstream support for the war, in Washington and outside the capital, is fading fast.

If Iraqis cannot take over the responsibility for their defense within a specified period, ongoing American involvement will only delay the inevitable fragmentation of the country into semi-independent ethnic and religious entities.

Forestalling that outcome is not a goal worthy of the continuing sacrifice of the lives of U.S. soldiers and and billions of dollars that could be better spent on Americans' needs.

*
Boston Globe, Nov. 17:

Few politicians are calling for an abrupt withdrawal, but, as Republican Senator John Warner said, its time to let the Iraqi government "establish for themselves a formal democracy." The Iraqis will be holding parliamentary elections Dec. 15. Once a government is established, the administration needs to set a timetable for withdrawal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525247

Who's Mean Jean's Marine;Why Does He Think Murtha's A Coward
Who Is Mean Jean's Marine? And Why Does He Think Murtha's A Coward?
By Max Blumenthal
11.21.2005

On Friday, freshman Republican Rep. "Mean Jean" Schmidt mounted one of the fiercest, most personal assaults Congress has witnessed since Preston Brooks caned Charles Sumner to a bloody pulp in 1856. The target of Schmidt's attack was Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam vet who had just introduced a resolution calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq within 6 months (which included several measures designed to ensure regional stability upon pullout).

"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course," Schmidt declared from her lectern. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

By employing Bubp, a Marine reservist, as her surrogate attack dog, Schmidt sought to give the impression that the military rank-and-file overwhelmingly deplored Murtha's resolution. Murtha may have been a Marine a long, long time ago, but he doesn't understand the harsh realities of the post-9/11 world. But that tough-talking paragon of the modern warrior, Colonel Danny Bubp, whoever he is, sure as hell does. Or so Schmidt would have us believe.

A quick glance at Bubp's background reveals him to a low-level right-wing operative who has spent more time in the past ten years engaged in symbolic Christian right crusades than he has battling terrorist evil-doers. And throughout his career, Bubp's destiny has been inextricably linked with Schmidt's. Bubp may be a Marine, but his view of Murtha as a "coward" is colored by naked political ambition. He is nothing more than cheap camouflage cover for the GOP's latest Swift-Boat campaign.

March 1999 marked the beginning of a brilliant career. It was then that Bubp became pro-bono legal counsel for Adams County for the Ten Commandments, an ad-hoc Ohio group formed to keep 10 Commandments monuments displayed in local public schools after the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding their removal. Bubp was assisted by a Who's Who of Christian right leaders, including James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Judge Roy Moore and Jay Sekulow. The campaign was organized primarily by Rev. Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, who was once detained for threating Bill Clinton's afterlife at the National Cathedral. (Read my profile of Schenck for the Washington Monthly for the full story on this, and many more bizarre stunts).

When the monuments' removal seemed imminent by 2003, Bubp nevertheless declared, "We've already won." Thanks to Schenck, he was able to help distribute 600 yard signs reading "We Stand For The Ten Commandments" throughout Adams County. And the devoted network of activists formed during the 8-year-long struggle would toil on his behalf when he ran for the Ohio legislature in 2004.

Bubp was elected despite a successful legal maneuver by his former primary challenger to unseal his divorce file. Bubp fought tooth-and-nail to keep these records in the dark because, according to the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists, "the file does contain sensitive tax and personal information he'd just as soon keep private." Whatever information emerged was overlooked by a local press focused on national races.

During the campaign, Bubp still found time to help his friend, Schmidt, who was struggling to counter the momentum of her Democratic challenger, Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett. At a Schmidt rally falsely billed as an event to honor war veterans, Bubp appeared in full Marine battle dress uniform to attack Hackett for criticizing his "Commander in Chief." " "I served for eight years under a president who loathed the military," Bubp said, referring to Clinton. "But we never said a word about it."

Now in the Ohio legislature, and back in his usual three-piece suit, Bubp has teamed up once again with Schmidt, this time to save the Pledge of Allegiance from "liberal activist judges." Bubp is the author of the Pledge Protection Act, which would ensure that public schoolchildren include the phrase "under God" in their daily recitation of the pledge, no matter what the comsymp one-worlders at the ACLU do. This month, at Bubp's behest, Schmidt introduced the bill in Congress.

"I am firmly convinced that our forefathers would believe it evil for anyone to try to strike the name of God from all things public," Bubp declared in an editorial promoting the bill. Not only does Bubp understand the psychology of cowards, he has special insight into the religious beliefs of "our forefathers."

Bubp and Schmidt were honored this month by the Rev. Rob Schenck with the "Ten Commandments Leadership Award." Presented with personalized 10 Commandments plaques by a man who once attempted to hand an aborted fetus to Bill Clinton, they became decorated veterans of the right's culture war.

But in assailing the character of John Murtha, who was honored for actual combat experience with the Purple Heart, Bubp and Schmidt were unfaithful to the words inscribed on the monuments they so revere. So for them, here is a reminder: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Time to Leave
Time to Leave
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Monday 21 November 2005

Not long ago wise heads offered some advice to those of us who had argued since 2003 that the Iraq war was sold on false pretenses: give it up. The 2004 election, they said, showed that we would never convince the American people. They suggested that we stop talking about how we got into Iraq and focus instead on what to do next.

It turns out that the wise heads were wrong. A solid majority of Americans now believe that we were misled into war. And it is only now, when the public has realized the truth about the past, that serious discussions about where we are and where we're going are able to get a hearing.

Representative John Murtha's speech calling for a quick departure from Iraq was full of passion, but it was also serious and specific in a way rarely seen on the other side of the debate. President Bush and his apologists speak in vague generalities about staying the course and finishing the job. But Mr. Murtha spoke of mounting casualties and lagging recruiting, the rising frequency of insurgent attacks, stagnant oil production and lack of clean water.

Mr. Murtha - a much-decorated veteran who cares deeply about America's fighting men and women - argued that our presence in Iraq is making things worse, not better. Meanwhile, the war is destroying the military he loves. And that's why he wants us out as soon as possible.

I'd add that the war is also destroying America's moral authority. When Mr. Bush speaks of human rights, the world thinks of Abu Ghraib. (In his speech, Mr. Murtha pointed out the obvious: torture at Abu Ghraib helped fuel the insurgency.) When administration officials talk of spreading freedom, the world thinks about the reality that much of Iraq is now ruled by theocrats and their militias.

Some administration officials accused Mr. Murtha of undermining the troops and giving comfort to the enemy. But that sort of thing no longer works, now that the administration has lost the public's trust.

Instead, defenders of our current policy have had to make a substantive argument: we can't leave Iraq now, because a civil war will break out after we're gone. One is tempted to say that they should have thought about that possibility back when they were cheerleading us into this war. But the real question is this: When, exactly, would be a good time to leave Iraq?

The fact is that we're not going to stay in Iraq until we achieve victory, whatever that means in this context. At most, we'll stay until the American military can take no more.

Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices - higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft - that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's.

So the question isn't whether things will be ugly after American forces leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all the time we realistically have.

Pessimists think that Iraq will fall into chaos whenever we leave. If so, we're better off leaving sooner rather than later. As a Marine officer quoted by James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly puts it, "We can lose in Iraq and destroy our Army, or we can just lose."

And there's a good case to be made that our departure will actually improve matters. As Mr. Murtha pointed out in his speech, the insurgency derives much of its support from the perception that it's resisting a foreign occupier. Once we're gone, the odds are that Iraqis, who don't have a tradition of religious extremism, will turn on fanatical foreigners like Zarqawi.

The only way to justify staying in Iraq is to make the case that stretching the U.S. army to its breaking point will buy time for something good to happen. I don't think you can make that case convincingly. So Mr. Murtha is right: it's time to leave.

Zarqawi and Bush
Zarqawi and Bush seem made for each other. They feed off each other's quests. Zarquawi would not be successful without Bush's stubborness.

BBB

The Blumenthal piece is is wonderful, B. thanks. And don't it just figure.

Parados- It is clear that you are selective when you view my post.

Do you deny that Clinton said, in his speech of Dec, 16th, 1998-

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD."

or perhaps, you subsribe to the doubtful principles laid out by the unfortunate Neville Chamberlain who, according to William L,. Shirer in his classic- The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, was viewed by Hitler as a man who would sacrifice the Czechs rather than go to war.

Winston Churchill. of course, viewed this capitulation at Munich as disasterous and commented:
"We have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat...All the counties of Mittel Europa and the Danube Valley, one after another will be drawn in the vast system of Nazi Politics,,,radiating from Berlin....And do not suppose that this is the end. It is only the beginning>'

What part of "The hard fact is that as long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region and THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD" don't you understand, Parados?

You are, I hope familiar with the Oil For Food Scandal. It has been documented by the Washington Post that "beneficiaries of Hussein's largess( bribes) received oil allocations pegged to their level of opposition to sanctions"

I am sure that you realize that without these bribes the sanctions may have possibly included the use of force by the UN. The fact that Russia's stance was heavily influenced by the receipt of 19 BILLION in oil contracts and France by its acceptance of 4.4 Billion in Oil contracts MAY have had a great deal to do with the eventual stance of the UN.

The bottom line, Parados, is that the American People will decide, at the ballot box in November whether you are correct or I am correct.

I predict that, despite the objections of the left wing,who, if truth be told, are furious about the loss of power they held until 1994 when Bill Clinton lost the House and Senate for the Democrats( never to be returned) the Republicans will continue to hold the Majority in the House and the Senate.

You may, of course, strongly voice your oppostion when that occurs.

link

Not much new there really.....'leave when our national forces are rebuilt', duh. I bet the Iraqi factions don't tell us to go until they are 100% sure they have assurance that we'll come back if needed.

Murtha was on CNN last night about his stance which is in a nutshell....US out of Iraq, we can do no further good there. Let them handle all their problems and by our immediate pullout they will have the incentive to do so.

He offered no ideas of the aftermath of such actions, I don't think he understands what Iraq is facing and it's effects on the US.

BBB
Why is Mortkat so obsessive-compulsive about Bill Clinton? He tries to insert Clinton into all of his posts. Is it possible he's jealous that he didn't get to poke Monica?

BBB