"I feel pretty. Oh so pretty. I feel pretty and witty and gay..."
"modern, post-feminist" sez...
;-)
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Murtha attacks Pace on Iraq |
| 2006-03-06 |
| The Pentagon's top general acknowledged Sunday that "anything can happen" in Iraq, but he said things aren't as bad as some say. "I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at." The comments drew criticism that Gen. Peter Pace is glossing over problems in the three-year-old U.S. campaign. "Why would I believe him?" asked Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a major critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. "This administration, including the president, (has) mischaracterized this war for the last two years." Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited political progress such as holding elections and writing a constitution as well as military progress like training Iraqi security forces. "No matter where you look - at their military, their police, their society - things are much better this year than they were last," Pace said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Murtha, responding to Pace in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," said that Iraq has 60 percent unemployment, oil production below prewar levels, and water service to only 30 percent of the population. American troops are doing everything they can militarily but "are caught in a civil war," said Murtha, a former Marine who has called on the administration to bring U.S. troops home. "There's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country," he said of ethnic divisions. "And that's my definition of a civil war." Murtha added: "The rhetoric is so frustrating - when they keep making statements which are very optimistic, and then it turns out to be the opposite. ... And the public has caught on to that, and they're very pessimistic about the outcome." Pace and Murtha spoke as Iraqis continued a stalemate over forming a new government, a delay that has prevented parliament from meeting since it was elected Dec. 15. Pressure mounted Sunday on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to give up his bid for a new term amid anger over the recent surge in sectarian killings that has complicated already snarled negotiations on a new Iraqi government. Pace said the violent firestorm that followed the bombing of a revered Shiite mosque two weeks ago had forced Iraqis to look into "that abyss" and realize "that's not where they want to go." "Anything can happen, I agree," Pace said, then added: "I believe the Iraqi people have shown in the last week to 10 days that they do not want civil war." Ending the insurgency depends not only on military efforts but also on whether the Iraqi government can give the people what they want, Pace said. He said the number of people in the insurgency will drop if people see that the new government can come through with jobs and services. "If you have an opportunity to get a job and feed your family, you're much less likely to accept $100 to go plant a bomb inside a road," Pace said. Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. must stick with the Iraqis. "They're talking about putting their act together," Lugar, R-Ind., said on CBS. "Now, the fact is that they may or may not be successful, but we better hope that they are, because the consequences for our country and the war against terror are very fateful if they are not." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #37 They just can't quit him, Frank. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-03-06 22:06 |
| #36 Marilyn Quayle was tough, her husband was pilloried and ridiculed just as W is by the MSM press. Things have changed. They no longer control the information. When an ambulance=chasing POS pretty boy with little else besides his looks can get the Donk nod....I welcome the challenge. Hell, Mitt Romney could hand him his contingency fee without trying |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-06 21:46 |
| #35 Speaking of John E....or was that Murtha? "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts ... for support > rather than illumination." > - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) |
| Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-03-06 21:21 |
| #34 Heh, V - agreed. Brains, money, bullet-proof helmet... "I feel pretty. Oh so pretty. I feel pretty and witty and gay..." "modern, post-feminist" sez... ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-06 21:16 |
| #33 I always thought Marilyn was the brains of that family anyway. |
| Posted by: Visitor 2006-03-06 21:08 |
| #32 He is prettier, though. But modern, post-feminist women don't choose men just for their looks. We expect brains and competence as well. And poor, dear Mr. Edwards, Esq., isn't quite clever enough to realize it. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-06 21:06 |
#31  |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-06 20:34 |
| #30 a poll in the Washington Post this morning Ah, the poll which the Washington Post wouldn't release the demographics for, until 5pm EST? And still haven't been seen? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-03-06 19:58 |
| #29 the return of the Breck Girl, hmmm? That much traveling, he's obviously trying to meet the carpetbagging quota of the angry, brittle Senator from |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-06 19:23 |
| #28 "Edwards is roaming around, with 2008 in mind. His travels to more than 30 states have been organized around his interest in poverty" May Edwards find true poverty by 2008. His ideas are already there... |
| Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-03-06 18:32 |
| #27 ROFL. Just happened to read this WaPo poll, huh? LOL. Wotta Load. Just Curious. Right. Simply Disingenuous is a far more accurate handle for DrollTroll. Murtha is like the carton of Chinese takeout which gets lost behind the big jar of pickles. You rummage around for something else and rediscover it. You can't even remember the last time you brought Chines takeout home... You look inside and, whoa!, it's not just disgusting and unidentifiable, but it's something so vile and corrupt you realize the whole fridge needs to be emptied out and scrubbed down with ammonia. Pace would happily man a brush, methinks. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-06 17:37 |
| #26 “Did Bush exaggerate the intelligence to start the Iraq War and mislead the American people in doing so? I really can’t answer that question because it has never been fully investigated by Congress and probably never will be as long as republicans are in control.” That may sell in the LLL MSM Fever swamp but it doesn’t cut it in real America. Why is Congress (and only a Democrat controlled one) the only body that can competently investigate the intelligence that lead to war? Ever hear of the 9/11 commission, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, or the Butler report? You remind me of the losers after the 2000 election who thought the if they only counted the votes enough times Gore would win Florida. I guess you are hoping that enough moonbats get into congress; they will find that missing memo, file, or photo that will surely shine the light of truth, as you know it. You would think after five years that maybe the truth is staring you in the face and you are too blinded to see it? P.S. Steve I am sorry for feddingthe troll. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-06 17:13 |
| #25 btw-trailing wife: Would you call these statements by Gen. Peter Pace made in the topic post facts or opinions? The Pentagon's top general acknowledged Sunday that "anything can happen" in Iraq, but he said things aren't as bad as some say. "I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at." "No matter where you look - at their military, their police, their society - things are much better this year than they were last," Pace said on NBC's "Meet the Press |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 16:49 |
| #24 trailing wife: I'm always thinking and yes my opinions are based upon the "facts" of what has occured in Iraq. Maybe you cant differentiate the two, but I can. Maybe you need to comprehend what you are reading before YOU speak. Just because you view the "factual" information coming out of Iraq in your support of President Bush doesnt preclude me from reading the exact same information and coming to a very different conclusion. I'll say it once again that I never supported the invasion of Iraq by President Bush, but since we are now there we must finish what we started. That is my opinion based upon the "facts", not other opinions. You may have reached another conclusion, but that is your perogative. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 16:06 |
| #23 Just Curious, your opinions are based on opinions, not facts. (Yes, I mean exactly what I wrote there.) And those opinions are based on feelings, which while facts, are not the kind of facts upon which arguments of this sort can be based. Beyond that, there are plenty of unhinged radicals on the right who dislike Bush as much as the unhinged radicals on the left do. That just proves that the radicals of right and left are exactly the same except for the rhetoric, and both fight against the middle, which twice elected Bush, and looks to elect more Republicans in November. Learn to think, my dear whatever you call yourself these days, and please keep your juvenile and cutesy attempts at cleverness to yourself. You fail to convince, and you even fail to amuse. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-06 15:53 |
| #22 Cyber Sarge, et al: There were enough right wing conservative "conspiratory theorist" against former President & Sen. Clinton during his presidency as to start a cottage industry. Several of these people made small fortunes writing character assasination books based off of bogus lies and false conspiracies on them. So please, lets not go there. Did Bush exxagerate the intelligence to start the Iraq War and mislead the american people in doing so? I really cant answer that question because it has never been fully invesitigated by Congress and probably never will be as long as republicans are in control. Bush is president because of better voter turnout and Kerry winning no southern states. Finally, I think the next dem prez candidate should focus on solutions in Iraq as Edwards suggested. Alan: As I said before I believe there are credible arguments based on the facts that support both viewpoints. The problem is that any argument against Bush on Iraq is illegitimate in your veiw because you are blinded by your partisanship. Frank G.: I'm just stating my opinions, I dont see you doing the same. I believe just as strongly in what I say as what you dont say. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 15:33 |
| #21 you can change your nym, but your tripe remains the same JC |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-06 15:00 |
| #20 Just Curious, Maybe there are millions who believe the "Bush Lied" conspiracy, but that number is not increasing. Sure there will always be a solid left or right fringe that believes what they believe. I think it would be real hard for any Senator or Congressman to declare Bush Lied now and then defend that later in a national or local campaign. In order to defend that statement they would have to rely on fringe websites, statements, theories, and MOST Americans simply don't subscribe to that, if they did Kerry would be President today. Also once a candidate drinks from that fever swamp they have to take all the baggage that comes with it. I am talking about the rants about: Haliburton, Diebold, Carlyle group, Industrial-Military complex, Downing Street Memo, Forged Niger Docs, National Guard Docs, etc. The right simply doesn't have that many conspiracy theorists running around, they are a distinct minority, and easily dimissed. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-06 14:52 |
| #19 Cyber S, my apologies, my comment in 9 should have been directed at JustCurious. So, JC, why don't you check out the difference between real, true facts and the kind of "fake but accurate" facts so beloved by the Murtha's of Invention? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-03-06 14:40 |
| #18 anon: thats pretty funny, however on Edwards currently: "Edwards is roaming around, with 2008 in mind. His travels to more than 30 states have been organized around his interest in poverty. His Senate term ended nine weeks after the election. While his wife, Elizabeth, continues to recover from breast cancer, he is directing the new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina." |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 13:58 |
| #17 doesn't Edwards have another class action suit to make millions off of? |
| Posted by: anon 2006-03-06 13:51 |
| #16 CyberSarge: Say what you will but there are millions of people that believe it. Sure they mostly occupy the far left, but there are just as many unhinged on the right who call anyone who opposes Bush on the Iraq "moonbats and treasonous traitors". I agree dems will have to come to the center to take back the congress in 2006 and I believe they will. I listened to former Sen. and v.p candidate John Edwards this weekend and I like his approach. He said he voted for the War at the time based on the intelligence, but knowing what he knows now he says it was a mistake. But he believes that that is the past. What we need to do is concentrate on solutions to finishing what we have started in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 13:49 |
| #15 "a major issue for President Bush as to whether he hyped the intelligence or lied to the American public in the lead up to the Iraqi War." It's only an issue with the true-blue koolaid drinkers on the far left. The have tried DESPEARTELY to make this case of over the past 5 years but nothing has or will ever become of this. Hindsight is 20/20 but no "rational" person doubts that President Bush went into Iraq with anything other than the noblest of intentions. But then you aren’t one of them if you think that Bush is Hitler and invaded simply to make money, a name for him self, or because he was drunk with power. I only hope that the Dhimicrats stick to the same game plan this year about “Bush Lied” because it won’t help them a bit. They will need the vote from the center and the right to regain control in congress and I doubt that there are too many right or center right voters that believe the Bush Lied fairytale. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-06 13:05 |
| #14 Cyber Sarge & ltop: Cyber Sarge, I have heard both sides offer legitimate arguments as to their positions on Iraq. I have also heard both sides hype-up their rhetoric. It all depends on your point of view and which side you support. As a matter of fact, it has become a major issue for President Bush as to whether he hyped the intelligence or lied to the American public in the lead up to the Iraqi War. Personally, I was against going to war against Iraq, but now that we are there we must finish what we started. I dont think the U.S. should be there indefinitely as most republicans do. If the Iraqi people care that much about their freedom and democracy then they should be willing to fight for it without U.S. assistance. Ltop: you are in denial about declining american public support for the Iraq War and President Bush. Several polls point to a sharp decline. here is a sample: Majority of Americans Believe Iraq Civil War is Likely: Washington Post-ABC News Poll Finds Sharp Decline in Optimism About Iraq War By Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 6, 2006; 10:45 AM An overwhelming majority of the public believes fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war and half says the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that 80 percent believe that recent sectarian violence made civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict was "very likely" to occur. Expectations for an all-out sectarian war in Iraq extended beyond party lines. More than seven in 10 Republicans and eight in 10 Democrats and political independents believe civil war was likely. In the face of the continuing violence, fully half--52 percent--of those surveyed says the United States should begin withdrawing forces. But only one in six favors immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 12:44 |
| #13 "...and believe that civil war there is inevitable" Of course it is inevitable...Chris Matthews and Wolf Blister have been saying it for 2 weeks now. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-03-06 12:38 |
| #12 Alan & JC, What I was saying that when LLL/Dem has the stage all to themselves they rant about all things and all ways with reckless abandonment. When they have to share the stage with another opposing opinion (person) they tone their rhetoric down. They have to because they donÂ’t have facts to support their position and the other person comes loaded with them. Think of the last time Hillary, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Conyers, et al had to share the stage/interview with an equal on the Republican side? They canÂ’t because their LLL moonbat talking points are dissected right before their eyes and they look (because they are) stupid. Murtha isnÂ’t qualified to oppose Pace in a face-to-face, therefore they have to appear different shows. I donÂ’t think Murtha or any other LLL moonbat has the balls (except Hillary) to call Gen Pace a liar to their face. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-06 11:52 |
| #11 Heck, I want our troops out of Iraq as well. However, at the right time. And specifically NOT at the behest and on the schedule of covert hostiles like Murtha/Just Curious (my ass). |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-03-06 11:51 |
| #10 In your (wet) dreams, "Just Curious" / Cassini / Left Angle / etc. etc. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-06 11:34 |
| #9 CyberS, I think you need to check those "facts" that Murtha uses. Powerline tears them apart like the tissue paper they are. One side uses facts, the other doesn't. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-03-06 11:08 |
| #8 Cyber Sarge: I believe that there are facts, figures and live persons on both sides of the issue that are credible. In the article used for this post Murtha and Pace are both issuing opinions based upon facts. Its all a matter of perception and right now according to the latest polls I have been reading President Bush is losing the that battle badly. The majority of americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq and believe that civil war there is inevitable. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 10:45 |
| #7 Not blows, but I suspect that Murtha (like other Kool Aid Drinkers) tender their anger or outrightt sing another tune when faced with facts, figures, or a live person to deal with. Sure they are all piss and vineger when they don't have an opposing opinion, but when confronted with their own wild claims they quickly retreat. I have seen howling Howard, Billary, and any of the LLL Dhimis change (or "clearify") their statements when confronted with facts. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-06 10:22 |
| #6 I doubt that seriously. I just read a poll in the Washington Post this morning in which a majority of americans want the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and up to 80% think a civil war is going to break out in Iraq. btw: "blows" can be verbal as well as physical. |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 10:09 |
| #5 Did .com say anything about blows? Nope - Pace would enviscerate his arguments and hot air, and Murtha knows it. PA's my home state but I'm ashamed of this Denethor. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-06 09:55 |
| #4 .Com Do you honestly think that if Gen. Pace and Rep. Murtha were in the same room being interviewed and expressing opposing viewpoints about Iraq and each individuals rhetoric, that they would actually come to blows? |
| Posted by: Just Curious 2006-03-06 09:49 |
| #3 Can we have that Ozzie hunch-back guy as Moderator? Heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-06 02:22 |
| #2 Put them in the same room alone. Two enter one leaves. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-03-06 02:20 |
| #1 Why doesn't someone put them on the same program so Murtha can call Pace a liar to his face? That's precisely what he's doing - from a safe distance. I think Pace might look forward to ending this asshole's Cut & Run treason campaign. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-06 01:54 |