Will Murtha continue to lie?

Monday, December 12, 2005
This is the question the Captain asks after analyzing new poll data on Iraq. It seems that 80% of the Iraqis do not want us to leave right this damn minute after all. It is more like 26%, the majority want us to wait until Iraqis are able to defend themselves. Imagine that.

What is more it seems the Iraqis are a lot more optimistic about their future than a lot of Americans are about our own.

Go figure. It is almost as if certain people have been deliberately giving the American people the wrong impression about the true state of affairs in Iraq.

They begin voting today. I pray for their safety.

25 comments:

Jamie Irons said...

Terrye,

It has always seemed odd to me that since Bush=Hitler, we are refighting the Vietnam War...

But more seriously, events "on the ground" in Iraq seem to be going swimmingly (forgive the mixed metaphor!), so the NYT-Democrat spin machine is going to have to find a new line of attack. Perhaps some scandal about the voting machines in the Sunni Triangle malfunctioning, or a repeated insistence that "every Sunni vote" be counted. Something along those lines...

Jamie Irons

terrye said...

jamie:

Hey, I bet the same people who made our voting machines made the Iraqi ones as well and so you know it is rigged.

stolen election... stolen election.....

Maybe the Iraqis don't want to live in unending misery just to make these naysayers happy. Maybe they want to create a decent society for their children.

I have no illusions about the long road ahead in Iraq and I am sure there will still be bad news...but nothing is ever perfect. Especially in the Middle East. These events need to be taken in the context of place and history.


This is not Switzerland we are talking about here.

chuck said...

since Bush=Hitler

By gum, you're right. It should be Bush=LBJ or maybe Bush=JFK. I don't know why we don't see that more often.

markg8 said...

How about Bush = Nixon?

Seneca the Younger said...

If Al Gore == Nixon, we wouldn't be going through a lot of this nonsense.

markg8 said...

Say Al Gore became president in 2001. Do you really think he would have listened to the likes of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle after 9/11 and invaded Iraq? And if he did do you really think anybody here wouldn't be screaming "impeach him!"

terrye said...

mark:

How about Bush=Lincoln

Clinton=Taft

Syl said...

Murtha has been quoting a poll commissioned by the british military. There is no data available on it at all...it's secret. And it was conducted by a university in Iraq...not a professional polling organization.

Their dishonesty is sickening.

terrye said...

Well mark considering the fact that in September 2002 Gore was saying it was time we dealt with Saddam once and for all on our own terms I would say he might well have followed through on the Iraqi Liberation Act. He was quite the hawk back when it was politically the thing for him to be.

Besides, slam ducnk Tenet got his job because of Al Gore..there is no reason to believe the information Gore got from Tenet would have been any different than the information Bush got from Tenet.

Unless of course you are a partisan Democrat who refuses to face reality.

Knucklehead said...

Say Al Gore became president in 2001.

Yeeshh! Talk about making one's skin crawl! There's no need to terrorize the children, Mark.

Do you really think he would have listened to the likes of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle after 9/11 and invaded Iraq?

There's no good reason to believe Gore would have listened to anyone intelligent or interested in prtoecting the US or the world. He might have listened to the likes of Maddie Albright, or Richard Clarke, or James Wilson, or Wesley Clark, or...

Whether or not he would have decided to create a system perturbation in the Arab-Islamic world or not is now a moot point. My best guess is he'd still be fiddling around demanding that the Taliban behave themselves. I seriously doubt he would have dealt with the likes of scum like Saddam.

And if he did do you really think anybody here wouldn't be screaming "impeach him!"

There's a good chance we'd be feverishly discussing how the country should go about getting a stark-raving lunatic out of the oval office. I wouldn't doubt that. There's no chance he'd have won re-election though. Gore is a nutball. He couldn't even deal with the mental stress of losing an election. 9/11/01 would have sent him into a fetal-curl and left him sucking his thumb in the White House basement.

chuck said...

How about Bush = Nixon?

Nah, Nixon was the leave Vietnam candidate. On the other hand, if Gore had been elected he wouldn't have needed to invade as everyone would have been paralyzed by boredom.

Al Gore == Medusa

Peter UK said...

"Say Al Gore became president in 2001"

He didn't,they aren't.

Syl said...

mark

What you don't comprehend is that there was a year and a half between 9/11 and Iraq. There was democratic discussion. There was action in Congress. There was an election in the fall of 2002.

There was another election in 2004.

We went to war with the full consent of the people.

We are still at war, with the consent of the people.

It's fine to discuss, but not fine to go over the line with rhetoric.

You lost, buddy.

terrye said...

Syl:

Say it ain't so is their freaking motto. Fifty Godamn years from now they will all be in nursing homes...medicated and muttering Bush is Hitler, no blood for oil.....hell no I won't go I won't fight for Exxon Oil.

markg8 said...

50 years from now the words "bush" and "cheney" will be common epithets in this country.

Before we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora in 12/01 Rumsfeld had already ordered Franks to get to work on a "fresh" invasion plan for Iraq. I'm too tired to correct all this revionist history. I'm going to bed.

Syl said...

I call BS, Mark.

Before we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora in 12/01

Nobody knew for sure whether bin laden was there or long gone. The press and Geraldo sure thought he was there. That should give you a hint.

Rumsfeld had already ordered Franks to get to work on a "fresh" invasion plan for Iraq.

So? It's only proof there was a PLAN. They should wait until the Democratic process says 'yeah, go ahead' to make a plan? You're nuts.

I'm too tired to correct all this revionist history.

Yeah, sure. You can't 'correct' it because it's right. Hope you have a long winter's nap...like 'til May or something.

terrye said...

mark:

I doubt that mark, we do not know for sure whether Bin Laden was there or not [it is a big place]..but the larger point was that Clinton had 6 chances to get that bastard before 9/11 ever happened and failed to act.

He failed to act mark... that is a fact. There is no doubt about it.

Albright, Berger, Clarke all of them were aware of where Bin Laden was on numerous occasions after he declared war on the US.

Clinton was too busy getting a blow job to bother with AlQaida.

So I don't think Bush is the one who will be in trouble in the legacy department.

Peter UK said...

"Before we had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora".

That is so assinine as to be beyond risible...cornered at Tora Bora is like being cornered in the Badlands National Park.
You just have to get out more Mook...it's really, really big out here.

markg8 said...

Just keep reading your own propaganda folks. That's all you need to know right? Osama was up there, he even bragged about it in his msg to the Iraqi people just before the invasion and there were only a few passes out to Pakistan. Our people on the scene were damn sure of it and instead of sending in the 10th Mountian Div. or our special forces we sent Afghan guerillas of dubius loyalties who have a well known propensity to let bad guys get away.

Peter UK said...

Mook the Tora Bora is a mountain range those lumpy things you can see on the horizon in the picture are Verrry ,Verrry Biiig!

Peter UK said...

"guerillas of dubius loyalties who have a well known propensity to let bad guys get away." Not the Yellow Elephant crowd?

markg8 said...

Read your own article dimwit.

"Al-Qaeda pays a lot of money to the people there, so they protect them,"
said one local.

What part of that don't you understand? Very few people and even fewer up in those mountain passes. You don't send locals who have been bought and paid for to finish them off. Only one way out, back to Pakistan and we let 'em go. Just like Bush never bombed Zarqawi and his band of idiots in the Kurdish north in the year leading up to the Iraq invasion. Gotta keep enough of the boogeymen alive to scare the kids.

Peter UK said...

Mook,
Look st the hills they are far bigger than the giant puppets,who are your friends.
You see, if you hadn't had a Yellow Streak down your back,you might have joined the Army and learned that Mountains are BIG,that that kind of terrain can eat up troops.

I wish you weren't so ignorant,then it wouldn't have to be explained that Afghanistan is LANDLOCKED,there is no way that a Division could be supplied there.
Driving through Pakistan would have been politically unacceptable and telegraph troop movements.
So what to do? If you had not been such a craven little twerp of a draft dodger you might have known that to paraphrase the song,"If you ain't got the troops you want Honey use the ones you're with".

Finding people in BIG places is hard,finding bin Laden is harder that finding someone in San Francisco for example

markg8 said...

Peety to use a popular and approved term around here you're an idiot. Al Qaeda didn't have helicopters, armed drones or any of the other weapons we had at our disposal. There were US mountain troops ready and waiting for the call to board those choppers that never came. The set up was there, we could have put men in those passes and sent troops up the mountain and hammer would have met anvil with gunships overhead. Simple enough for you?

But seeing as you're a firm believer in using locals to do all the fighting chickenhawk let's have it your way and let the Iraqis quell the insurgency hmmmm?

Peter UK said...

"Al Qaeda didn't have helicopters, drones or any of the other weapons we had at our disposal."

"Our" Mook,what happened to not in our name?

So Mook you are going to move a division by helicopter in high mountains and land them in valleys.

Absolutely military genius Von Mook,do you know how many helicopters it would take?

Helicopters do no function well at high altitude,but more importantly, the are very vulnerable to elevated fire.

How many drones and controllers do you think there are? Don't answer that they might have to shoot you.

"There were US mountain troops ready and waiting for the call to board those choppers that never came."

Now remembering Mook that these are Very High mountains,higher than the mountain troops train in,are you going to send them in before they are acclimatised.I realise that this is a difficult concept for you but it is hard to function at high altitude,you would concede advantage to AQ who had been there for a long time.

"The set up was there, we could have put men in those passes and sent troops up the mountain and hammer would have met anvil with gunships overhead"

For a draft dodger you certainly have the jargon down pat,but Mook,do have any idea how many passes there are and,this is interesting,they are not next to each other..you see this is a mountain range and it is Very Big.

"Simple enough for you?"

Oh course you are Mook very simple indeed.

"But seeing as you're a firm believer in using locals to do all the fighting chickenhawk let's have it your way and let the Iraqis quell the insurgency"

But we are, Mook we are.

Jeeesh!Forty nine and still wearing diapers!