But he would've if'n he could've!

Good apparently some bad guys were killed. That's a good thing.

Thanks for the gratuitous slap at Congressman Murtha. Really classes up the 'discussion'.

Biting satire.

Not.

Arthur, can I let you in on a little secret? I don't much care what you think.

Murtha is a proven defeatist, and I'm sorry if I appropriated both some of his words and his tone to highlight that point.

I hear this Internet has other sites on it. If you don't like what I have to say, or how I say it, you can always troll elsewhere.

Does anyone care what Artie thinks? No one here that I can see - except for a couple trolls here and there ....

CY-

Talk about thin skin. Only those who agree with everything your write are allowed to post here? Murtha is a realist. A decorated veteran and (despite this recent Swift Boating) an expert on the military respected by both sides of the aisle.

You really are a Republican. Sort of like our president 'mixing with the people'. Always a hand picked cross section of the true believers.

Actually many folks here care what I think.

Explains why they are so eager to cricitize me when I don't buy into your views.

And some even agree there may be a reasonable alternative to the cant you too often slip into.

Cheers.

A.S. take Fat Bastard with you. It is beyond imagination why those two spew their pathetic, whinning, leftist "lets all hold hands"... "Oh just give them a big hug". DROOL. AND YES MURTHAS is a whinning defeatist thats why the left loves him. I have been out of town and I was told by a good friend of mine that F.B. keeps referring to me as a biggot and racist. Well fellas, I just say what I feel. I hold absolutly no animosity towards any person of color. So color is not an issue when I post my remarks. Even though F.B. trys to make it that way. I have a video clip from CSPAN of a former Army Seargent who had served in Afghanistan making a comment to his home state elected officials (one of them I think is Murtha)about "How none of his home state elected officials came to welcome them home". I was wondering how to attach the clip.

AS, you might find the below article interesting. (It's about Murtha.)

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2006/01/18/182751.html

Today, in this day and age, would you consider General Benedict Arnold a military expert worthy of a valued opinion on military matters? He once fought courageously for the colonies during the little spat with England about taxes and such. To most of us, he went on to totally dishonor his courageous service by betraying those he once served. Because of that betrayal, people no lnoger honored his service; go figure...

Already read it Old One.

That's why I describe the attacks on Murtha as 'Swift Boating'.

Inaccurate. Invented.

Most Americans don't find Murtha's comments at all a betrayal.

Rather they point out some difficult and painful truths this administration is jumping through endless hoops to ignore. Lousy reasons for invading Iraq. Lack of coherent strategy for the occupation. Lack of resources to rebuild. And on and on.

Sorry. Murtha is not a traitor or a coward. He is a political liability to the president. Not quite the same thing.

"He is a political liability..."

You've got that part correct. However, his liability lies with his own party, not the president. Haven't you noticed, the population is not biting on the "withdraw over the horizon" strategy from the left? Yes, we want our troops home, but we want victory, not merely "withdrawal".

Entirely possible the administration will declare victory sometime late this summer or early fall, bring the boys home and leave it to the Iraqis to deal with the mess.

Perfect timing for the 2006 elections.

That's the most likely 'victory' scenario.

And what is your definition of victory in Iraq, Artie? Cut and run ... er, uh ...redeploy with Murtha and Pelosi and the rest of the defeatists in the Party?

Well... the gratuitous slap at Jack Murtha was a little silly.

Now you may call the man a "defeatist" (where did I hear that term before... oh yes, something the chekists called any Soviet soldier not sufficiently aggressive. But I digress.

Thing is, this attempt to swift-boat Jack Murtha is really, really a bad idea.

Jack Murtha is a Marine. Not only is he a Marine, but he's a former DI. He is a mustang, which is an officer who came up through the enlisted ranks.

Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines. And Marines... well, they're crazy.

I wouldn't want any Marines pissed off at me.

The swiftboating of Jack Murtha will be considered an attack on Their Beloved Corps.

And Marines don't take that very well.

(If a Marine unit gets ambushed, Marine doctrine is to either left face or right face and assault directly into the teeth of the ambush. They're all either crazy or posessed of the Biggest Effin' Balls in the Known Universe. Either way, they're some BAD mofos.)

Nope, I wouldn't want a bunch of Marines mad at me.

Oh, and Spy-- regarding "victory in Iraq," most of us who opposed this war are asking the same thing of the Administration.

Democracy? Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice, but he's hated by the American right (one of whom wants him killed-- but you guys already know how batshit crazy Reverend Robertson is).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected President of Iran; but the American right hates him too. (Hmmm... since he was democratically elected, his is the legitimate voice of the people, so I guess y'all hate Iran kind of in general. Cool.)

So, if "democratic elections" in Iraq present us with President Muqtada Al-Sadr, will that be considered "victory?"

Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines.

And how recently have you spoken with any Marines?

I've since heard him referred to as an "ex-Marine" by one Marine I personally know. Another won't talk about him, and gritted his teeth the last time he spit out his name.

I get the general feeling that Marines now (from General Pace on down) regard him with the a slightly higher degree of respect than they would afford another brave, battle-tested officer from an earlier war by the name of Benedict Arnold.

Murtha was a good Marine in his day, but he has since put politics above proud history of a Corps that does not run. He will not be foregiven easily.

A person is NOT democratically elected if there are no opposing candidates for office, FB. By your formula even Saddam was 'democratically' elected.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He is just a stooge of the Mullahs. It was the Mullahs who put him in his current position, and they can take that away just as quickly.

Hugo Chavez was not and is not a popular candidate. He was the only person running, and he received only 45% from the general public. That is a total of just 45% of the entire population qualified to vote.

You call that democracy?

George W. Bush received 30.4% of the vote as a percentage of the entire population eligible to vote.

He received 42% of the vote as a percentage of registered voters.

He received 48% of the of the voters who actually cast ballots.

Numbers are funny things.

Curiously enough, CY, I have a couple of friends that are Marines; and I can tell you-- they don't like it.

In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."

Mind, my friend is only a retired Master Sergeant. I'm sure that doesn't make him Marine enough to make your cut.

U Spy-- Actually, according to other sources, Mr. Chavez won by 56%, and is considerably more popular than you would want to admit. (I originally incorporated a link, but it was rejected by CY's software.) So, you'll forgive me, I'm sure, for being somewhat less respectful of your assertion.

As regards the way the Iranian's version of democracy is designed-- the United States don't get a vote on it.

The Brits got a Queen and a parliament; we got the (frankly brilliant) tri-partite design; they got mullahs with major power.

Regardless, so long as free and fair elections are held, democracy exists.

The Iranian people went to the polls and Ahmadinejad won.

Which brings us to our potentially presidential "radical Shiite." Does your vision of victory in Iraq allow for President Muqtada Al-Sadr?

And you are so blind as to not see the difference? George W. Bush had opponents for his election to the office. That is democracy. Saddam, Chavez and Ahmadinejad did not have opponents. That is NOT democracy.

Do you really believe that people are so ignorant as to buy the numbers tripe and other nonsense from you and FB?

Are you so deluded that you deny the facts on the ground?

You insist that there was no democratic process because you don't like the result.

Such astonishing hubris.

Curiously enough, CY, I have a couple of friends that are Marines; and I can tell you-- they don't like it.

In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."

FB, I have no doubt that your friends might not like President Bush, and might perhaps think Murtha the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you remind me of the case where the crestfallen liberal Pauline Kael's famous comment, "How could Nixon have won, I don't know anyone who voted for him."

Considering the circles you run in, I'm not surprised you've found the counterpoint to the majority.

That's a bare majority, CY.

Only the delusional consider a 51% majority a "mandate."

51% to 48%, 286 to 252, 62 million to 59 million... whatever. It was not in doubt.

Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?

Didn't I say the retired Sergeant Major regretted his vote for the Dear Leader?

Yep, Mr. Bush had a bare majority among most Americans; he had a bigger majority among active-duty military folk.

That was two years ago.

And even then, it weren't no "mandate," regardless of how you fine folks try to spin it.

Just in case you have some problems, Fat Bastard, in understanding how elections work in this country ... a so-called mandate is not required for becoming President.

Reagan over Carter? No THAT was a mandate.

You seem to have some trouble measuring time too ... The election of 2004 was NOT two years ago - it was less than 15 months ago. Big F^&%$*g difference. Furthermore, the unbelievably high reenlistment numbers would tend to suggest that not much has changed in military support for their CIC.

Back to your rabbit hole, FB.

Spy? Finish that logic class yet?

I agree Mr. Bush won 2004 (oh, and fine, it was less than 15 months ago. Really, you pick the silliest things about which to become pedantic.) Since that puts him at the Right Hand of God... well, anyway, my point was never that the man didn't win. My point was that it was not the huge ringing victory that some would want to paint it.

It was a near run thing; a few thousand votes in Ohio would have pushed it the other way. Only a fool think that such a slim majority would give him a "mandate." Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America."

Oh, and it's a rathole, despite Mrs. B's best efforts.

Ah, you poor, humorless fellow. Is the international terrorist threat so frightening that you just have to lash out so?

No one wrote here or anywhere else that the results of the 2004 election presented a 'mandate.' You just use the fact that it was not a mandate to belittle the wishes of the majority of American citizens and the choices made by this President.

You may pontificate all you wish about your half-vast knowledge when it comes to logic and the appeal to authority or popularity, but a democracy still depends upon popularity as reflected in polls and at the ballot box. The established Law of the land is the legal authority.

"Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America.""

Our folks have governed in accordance with their responsibilities. You do not appear to support the presidency of George W. Bush just because you chose not to vote for him. Get over it, lazy one. He will be in office for another three years.

Maybe you should move to Canada or somewhere if you are so disgusted with the way the American public voted this man into office. No one is forcing you to stay here.

Being critical is fine; having no solutions or new courses of action make you a gadfly like Artie.

CY wrote:

Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?

What has that got to do with anything?

I can't argue with you there, Spy. He (most likely) will be in the Oval Office for three more years.

Is there room in your mindset for a loyal opposition? Or is everyone who disagrees with this Administration's policies an "enemy of America?"

(And yes, I know, you didn't use that phrase; but it's a handy one that encapsulates the contempt that you and others like you feel for anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader.)

By the way-- if you didn't write it, it doesn't describe the way your beloved Leader governs?

Ah, such hubris!

By the way-- since Evo Morales has been sworn in as the new President of Bolivia, will you also claim that he was not democratically elected? And
that were no other candidates in the election?

Nope!

How's that for a quick answer, FB?