Monday, December 12, 2005

Will Murtha continue to lie?

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.


Jamie Irons said...


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

Unknown said...


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.

Charlie Martin said...

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

Unknown said...


How about Bush=Lincoln


Syl said...

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

Their dishonesty is sickening.

Unknown 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.

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

Syl said...


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.

Unknown said...


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.

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 'til May or something.

Unknown said...


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.