NationStates Jolt Archive

It's no secret to most that the Democratic party has set their election strategy on the failure of George Bush to prevail in Iraq. But how does this square against the views of Americans? A recent poll (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962), published by Investor's Business Daily would make one believe that, not only do most Americans think a U.S. victory is important in Iraq, they hope that it can be accomplished.

Somewhat to Very Important that we win? 66% says yes 53% of Democrats say yes.

Somewhat to Very Hopeful that we win? 58% says yes. 43% of Democrats say yes.

If this truly reflects how the American public feels about the war...then things are about to backfire on the Democrats, big-time. If people want us to win over there...how are they going to feel about cutting of funding to the troops?

So that brings me to two conclusions. First, 535 Commanders-in-Chief on Capitol Hill should stop passing non-binding resolutions and either shit of get off the pot. If you don't want troops in Iraq -- cut of funding.

Second, fire John Murtha. His plans to re-deploy (retreat) didn't work, so now he wants funding to be re-directed (surrender). He is doing nothing to help troops in Iraq, either by getting them home, or by giving them the tools and funding that they need to win. And win we must.

blah blah blah democrats suck blah blah blah

Are you trying to make up for the absence of Eve Online/Deep Kimchi or what?

I read the article, and it seems biased to the extreme. And in the absence of any kind of evidence to the contrary, I'll have to assume it applies to the poll, too.

blah blah blah democrats suck blah blah blah

Are you trying to make up for the absence of Eve Online/Deep Kimchi or what?

Eve Online is DK? :eek:

I had a hunch, but even so...

In the poll the costs of victory weren't included. People want the US to win but, don't want any more soldiers dead. The public may want both but it can't have both.

Are you trying to make up for the absence of Eve Online/Deep Kimchi or what?

Umm, even when he was around, Myrmidonisia was like him.

Umm, even when he was around, Myrmidonisia was like him.

Myrmidonisia didn't make every single thread about Democrat bashing in the past, but that's what it's seemed like lately. Maybe it's a delayed response to the 2006 elections.

Myrmidonisia didn't make every single thread about Democrat bashing in the past, but that's what it's seemed like lately. Maybe it's a delayed response to the 2006 elections.

Perhaps not democrat, but I seem to recall mostly threads about "liberals" in the zany US sense of the word. Always been pretty one-dimensional that way.

Umm, even when he was around, Myrmidonisia was like him.

No one is as big a Bush sycophant as DK, though.

blah blah blah democrats suck blah blah blah

Are you trying to make up for the absence of Eve Online/Deep Kimchi or what?

No, they don't suck. They don't blow, either. They don't do anything. Didn't you read my challenge to them?

I mean, this election was supposed to be a referendum on either corruption or the war in Iraq. So what do we have, right out of the gate? A minimum wage bill that protects/exempts tuna canneries offshore and John (Abscam) Murtha chairing a committee. Not to mention the meaningless non-binding resolutions about the war. I wished them well on the Wednesday after the election, but they've failed to prove that they are different in any way than the small-minded politicos that they've replaced except one. That is that they are determined to see the U.S. fail in Iraq. Thus the perfidy. That's a neat word, isn't it?

Second, fire John Murtha. His plans to re-deploy (retreat) didn't work, so now he wants funding to be re-directed (surrender). He is doing nothing to help troops in Iraq, either by getting them home, or by giving them the tools and funding that they need to win. And win we must.

So, according to your editorial, Murtha wants the following:
The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment, troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments, combat deployments cannot be longer than a year, and extending tours of duty would be prohibited.

So, do you believe that sending troops to Iraq who are not ready, have not been able to spend a year at home, will have to spend more time in Iraq, and would be subject to arbitrary extensions of tours of duty is more helpful to the troops? Or makes it more difficult for them to get the tools and funding that they need to win?

I am confused by the dissonance between your statements and the editorial that supposedly supports them.

Myrmidonisia didn't make every single thread about Democrat bashing in the past, but that's what it's seemed like lately. Maybe it's a delayed response to the 2006 elections.

Why is every thread that points out a failure in the Dem/Rep thread considered bashing? The new government has had it's chance to show that it stands for something and it's failed. They're no better than the prior bunch of scoundrels.

And I guess this truly has turned into a mutual admiration society, if I'm the only one pointing out the failures of the majority party.

That's from some backwater group. Not from a trustable poll source.

Just because you want to win doesn't mean you're blind enough to not see that we can't. What you want and what is reality sometimes differ. Amazingly enough, some people know that they differ, and go with the reality bit, even though they don't want to.

americans like winning - shocking details at 10!

americans like winning - shocking details at 10!

o.O

*sets up VCR to record at 10*

Do you have any info on who made the poll and how it was done? The linked editorial has no information on that

Why is every thread that points out a failure in the Dem/Rep thread considered bashing? The new government has had it's chance to show that it stands for something and it's failed. They're no better than the prior bunch of scoundrels.

And I guess this truly has turned into a mutual admiration society, if I'm the only one pointing out the failures of the majority party.

Total time Republicans controlled Congress and showed they were incompetent, corrupt bunglers who'd rubber-stamp they're own castration if it'd get them re-elected:

12 years (1994-2006).

Total time Democrats have had control of congress since the Republicans in order to show they're either just as bad or worse:

Six weeks.

No, Myrmy, you're not biased. Not even a little bit :rolleyes: .

Nice try, though.

And Investors Business Daily? Who publishes that? IBD Co. And here (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Txlsp3mFAwoJ:www.accessabc.com/subscriber/102940_1203_SP.pdf+Investors+Business+Daily+published+by&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) is a 2004 report on their circulation.

This magazine's circulation in 2004? 1185. Major news source. :p

I think the main thing about this Iraq debate is that Bush and his point of view have moved away from defending the initial reasoning and the like for the war, and have focused entirely on what will happen if a US withdrawal occurs, that is criticizing their opponents. Supporters of the war know they cannot possibly defend the initial reasoning of Bush. In retrospect now that we know the details their was terrible judgment and decision making that led up to the invasion, and I doubt many, even the most fervent supporters. would try to defend such an argument, as they would inevitably loose.

Instead they must focus on 'Were here now for good or bad, so lets get it right', and while it's true that we shouldn't abandon the Iraqis in this time, it's also important to remember that the US caused their own problems with the insurgency in Iraq by invading.

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

QFT.

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

Part of the problem is that Bush is one person, while the Democrats are a large group of people. It is far easier for one person to act decisively than it is to get hundreds of people to do so, especially when dealing with a heterogenous group like the Democrats.

Not trying to excuse them, just trying to explain.

Part of the problem is that Bush is one person, while the Democrats are a large group of people. It is far easier for one person to act decisively than it is to get hundreds of people to do so, especially when dealing with a heterogenous group like the Democrats.

Not trying to excuse them, just trying to explain.

I know that, hence why unlike Myrmy I'm not calling them wasted lumps of useless flesh or whatever insults he enjoys hurling. I do think they need to hurry at least a wee bit though, if only for the sake of the troops.

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

What's wrong with them debating and allowing both sides to express their opinion about legislation? The big problem though is going to continue to be the senate. I would love to have them 'actually do something about it' but you need 60 votes to stop a filibuster and they can't get that right now for their non-binding resolutions let alone something that would cut off funds or do anything else contentious.

oh for fuck's sakes people!

May please remind you that Shrub has managed to give himself a shitload of powers to the point wher the legal framework of this whole mess is in a complete fucking fog?

It's been 6 FUCKING WEEKS. You can't make everything right in 6 weeks.

And you can't just pull out either. Like it or not, you wrecked Iraq, you owe it to them to rebuild the motherfucking thing.


And do you remember you still have Dumbya in power and that the pathetic excuse of a human being still doesn't get it?


grow the fuck up already

And you can't just pull out either. Like it or not, you wrecked Iraq, you owe it to them to rebuild the motherfucking thing.

i know it's an odd thought , but maybe you should take a look at what the actual iraqis say they want.

What's wrong with them debating and allowing both sides to express their opinion about legislation? The big problem though is going to continue to be the senate. I would love to have them 'actually do something about it' but you need 60 votes to stop a filibuster and they can't get that right now for their non-binding resolutions let alone something that would cut off funds or do anything else contentious.

Nothing is wrong with debating the issue. It's just that what they are debating right now won't do anything even if it's passed. What they need to debate are resolutions that stop the President's actions in Iraq, bring our troops home as soon as possible, and leave the Iraqi situation to those who can handle it, if any want to try to handle it. I'd say give it to the U.N., but that would be a case of breaking the cookie jar then telling your sister to clean the mess up.

americans like winning - shocking details at 10!LOL. good one.

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

Hey, guess what. The way the congress is designed... You know how the founding fathers did it?

Was it to be efficient? No.
Was it to make descisions without discussing them? No.
Was it to temper public opinion? Yes!
Was it to be a deliberative, as well as legislative body? Yes!
Is Murtha working on a plan to kill the escalation and slowly draw troops out of Iraq? Yes!
Have the Rethuglicans been the ones preventing the Senate from discussing anti-escalation resolution, and slowing progress? Yes!
Is the non-binding resolution to keep the Rethuglicans from putting the Congress off track until the Dems can get the support together for an unvetoable De-escalation bill? Yes!

Amazing. Politics doesn't fucking happen overnight.

And, to be blunt, Myrm, if "winning" in Iraq is defined the way the President wants to define it, which is to say getting rid of all the insurgents completely, I don't want to "win" because "win"ning would be impossible. As long as there are U.S. troops in Iraq, there will be insurgents. I want to win in Iraq by creating a government that can stand on it's own and letting it sink or swim. Finish training the Iraqi army and let them fight their own fucking holy wars, thanks.

No one is as big a Bush sycophant as DK, though.

UN Abassador was.

i know it's an odd thought , but maybe you should take a look at what the actual iraqis say they want.

Three words: "Yankees go home."

UN Abassador was.

Oh, him.

I forgot all about him. He was an even bigger sycophant than DK was! :eek:

Is the non-binding resolution to keep the Rethuglicans from putting the Congress off track until the Dems can get the support together for an unvetoable De-escalation bill? Yes!

...really? That's what it's for? Oh.

...well now I feel like an idiot, though I must say your biting retort might have been a tad bit too much, for someone who is usually kind of sensible, if you will pardon the pun.

it think it's pointless to try and square the results of one poll to what happened in the elections. you could get a poll that says the majority of Americans believe we should invade the Greenland if you wanted it badly enough.

Oh, him.

I forgot all about him. He was an even bigger sycophant than DK was! :eek:

Ah, yes, Un Abassadorship...the only person to wonder what Dick Cheney's nipples taste like...

Biased though he might be, Myrmy does have a point: right now the Dems aren't doing jack about the Iraqi war. Try watching C-SPAN: it's taking days for them just to debate a non-binding resolution, let alone anything that'll actually affect the President's decisions. They need to step up to the plate and actually do something about it.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating--in order to actually get anything done, you need 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrats can only count on 50 at best, since Lieberman isn't going to vote with the Dems on this. So we need 10 Republicans to cross the aisle, and so far, they've gotten 4-6.

Edit: Myrmidonisia knows this as well as I do, which is why I replied the way I did initially to this thread. He's being disingenuous here.

...really? That's what it's for? Oh.

...well now I feel like an idiot, though I must say your biting retort might have been a tad bit too much, for someone who is usually kind of sensible, if you will pardon the pun.

Yes. Welcome to the game of politics. Sometimes you have to start small to win big. What the Dems are doing is getting a base of Republican moderates together to pass Murtha's budget bill, which will set requirements for troop preperation for the President to have the funds for his escalation (essentially stopping the escalation) and will set terms that require a withdrawal in 2008 for the President to have continuing funds for the war. By bringing this issue up again and again, the Dems put pressure on Moderate Republicans to stand with them or face their constituent's wrath, which gives the Dems the power to pass the bill needed to end this war.

Guess what, Kyronea, politics isn't a pretty or easy game. Nothing is as simple as "just pass the bill". Part of the game is that you have to get the votes. A majority is not enough. The Dems need 2/3 of the votes, if they want to do this. That means brining Republicans over. Hell, to even have a vote in the Senate, they need 60 votes. They have 51. This isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

Kinda Sensible means Kinda Realistic, not Kinda Idealistic, thank you very much.

Edit: And sorry if I come across as angry or accusatory, I just hate the way that the Republicans still control the terms of debate, and the way that the public lets themselves fall prey to populist rhetoric. Governance is no simple or easy thing, and execution is very difficult for a party that controls each house by small margins, and is in direct opposition to the White House. I'd love it if the Dems could do this quickly, because there are good men and women in uniform dying while we have this debate, and I don't like that at all, but the reason that the Congress works the way it does it to isolate policy from public opinion enough that neither populism nor the establishment firmly controls national politics.

UN Abassador was.

Yeah, but he was a retarded 12 year old, so you can't really count him.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating--in order to actually get anything done, you need 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrats can only count on 50 at best, since Lieberman isn't going to vote with the Dems on this. So we need 10 Republicans to cross the aisle, and so far, they've gotten 4-6.

Edit: Myrmidonisia knows this as well as I do, which is why I replied the way I did initially to this thread. He's being disingenuous here.

Well, yes, there is that. I seem to keep forgetting such necessary facts, don't I? You'd think I'd know better.

KSI: Yes, yes, I get the idea now, thank you.

So, according to your editorial, Murtha wants the following:


So, do you believe that sending troops to Iraq who are not ready, have not been able to spend a year at home, will have to spend more time in Iraq, and would be subject to arbitrary extensions of tours of duty is more helpful to the troops? Or makes it more difficult for them to get the tools and funding that they need to win?

I am confused by the dissonance between your statements and the editorial that supposedly supports them.

First, I suspect that "fully ready" (scare quotes are from the article) means something other than troops that are ready to deploy. Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready. Spending a year at home, or a year deployed are both wonderful things, but neither is guaranteed when one _volunteers_ to be a soldier/sailor/Marine... Abscam Murtha's conditions are overly restrictive, but like many things liberal and Democratic, they sound "nice", so we should embrace them.

First, I suspect that "fully ready" (scare quotes are from the article) means something other than troops that are ready to deploy. Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready. Spending a year at home, or a year deployed are both wonderful things, but neither is guaranteed when one _volunteers_ to be a soldier/sailor/Marine... Abscam Murtha's conditions are overly restrictive, but like many things liberal and Democratic, they sound "nice", so we should embrace them.

Then what should we do, Myrmy? Waste more troops? Send more American soldiers to die in the desert? Look, I'd like a stable Iraq as much as the next guy, but it is too late to prevent it from falling apart. It's already fallen to pieces and become a nesting ground for terrorist recruitment. Had we entered Iraq properly, we might have been able to avoid this. Maybe Iraq might have turned out quite decently and Bush would be considered a vaguely decent President. But because Bush isn't we're stuck with a problem that is simply too late to solve. We can't do it. No one can now. All we can do is save American lives by pulling out now, unless you've got some kind of miracle solution that will save everyone.

First, I suspect that "fully ready" (scare quotes are from the article) means something other than troops that are ready to deploy. Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready. Spending a year at home, or a year deployed are both wonderful things, but neither is guaranteed when one _volunteers_ to be a soldier/sailor/Marine... Abscam Murtha's conditions are overly restrictive, but like many things liberal and Democratic, they sound "nice", so we should embrace them.

It means sending them with adequate protective gear, like the humvee kits they are supposed to have, or hell the trucks they're supposed to have. It means sending our soldiers off with adequate body armor. It means not sending our troops knowing they will not be adequately defended.

To be totally blunt, Murtha's restrictions are intended to stop the escalation, but they are also things that we should do if we are sending soldiers into harm's way. The fact that we are not doing them is just one more reason that this administration is a total fuck-up from the ground up.

It means sending them with adequate protective gear, like the humvee kits they are supposed to have, or hell the trucks they're supposed to have. It means sending our soldiers off with adequate body armor. It means not sending our troops knowing they will not be adequately defended.

To be totally blunt, Murtha's restrictions are intended to stop the escalation, but they are also things that we should do if we are sending soldiers into harm's way. The fact that we are not doing them is just one more reason that this administration is a total fuck-up from the ground up.

There's also a requirement in there that soldiers have time to train on the equipment they'll be using over there. Seems to me that anyone who doesn't support the legislation wants to send untrained soldiers into a war zone.

It means sending them with adequate protective gear, like the humvee kits they are supposed to have, or hell the trucks their supposed to have. It means sending our soldiers off with adequate body armor. It means not sending our troops knowing they will not be adequately defended.

To be totally blunt, Murtha's restrictions are intended to stop the escalation, but they are also things that we should do if we are sending soldiers into harm's way. The fact that we are not doing them is just one more reason that this administration is a total fuck-up from the ground up.
I've looked through the Thomas Locator and I've not been able to find the text of Abscam Murtha's redirection policy. Since you have obviously acquainted yourself with the facts, why don't you share with the rest of us? More likely, the requirements are for training that is not reasonable or possible, don't you think?

I've looked through the Thomas Locator and I've not been able to find the text of Abscam Murtha's redirection policy. Since you have obviously acquainted yourself with the facts, why don't you share with the rest of us? More likely, the requirements are for training that is not reasonable or possible, don't you think?By the way, the Abscam Murtha thing is beneath you. He was never charged, and refused the bribe that was offered him.

There's also a requirement in there that soldiers have time to train on the equipment they'll be using over there. Seems to me that anyone who doesn't support the legislation wants to send untrained soldiers into a war zone.

Again, I can't find the text. I'm going to put up some drywall, so you have time to find that reference.

By the way, the Abscam Murtha thing is beneath you. He was never charged, and refused the bribe that was offered him.

What's he talking about anyway, with this Abscam Murtha thing?

What's he talking about anyway, with this Abscam Murtha thing?

Abscam was a sting done by the FBI in the late 70s, early 80s, and they stung a number of Congresscritters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam). He testified against two fellow Congressmen, and was never indicted or even accused of misconduct, except by those with an agenda, like our friend Myrmidonisia here.

Again, I can't find the text. I'm going to put up some drywall, so you have time to find that reference.

And all you've put up is a miniscule poll conducted by a magazine that has fewer subscribers than Bass Saxophone Afficionado. You want to wade into the forums and swing your partisan crap around, sonny, you better bring stronger stuff.

"Abscam" Murtha? Good God, how far back do you have to go for those "witty" sobriquets? Tell you what, when folks routinely append the words "Coke Fiend" or "Deserter" or "Drunk" to Bush's name, then you can start digging THAT far back to tag guys like John Murtha.

Again, I can't find the text. I'm going to put up some drywall, so you have time to find that reference.

From what I can tell, the amendment hasn't been attached to the legislation yet, which would explain the difficulty in finding it.

What's he talking about anyway, with this Abscam Murtha thing?

A congressional scandal older than you are, of which Murtha could only be said to be tangentially involved, and that would be overstating it.

From what I can tell, the amendment hasn't been attached to the legislation yet, which would explain the difficulty in finding it.

It hasn't yet, so it won't be on Thomas. The bill still has to come before committee, which should happen fairly soon.

A congressional scandal older than you are, of which Murtha could only be said to be tangentially involved, and that would be overstating it.

I must question how you know my age. :confused:

Nazz: Oh, I see now. Interesting...no wonder some people seem to despise Murtha so much...

Abscam was a sting done by the FBI in the late 70s, early 80s, and they stung a number of Congresscritters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam). He testified against two fellow Congressmen, and was never indicted or even accused of misconduct, except by those with an agenda, like our friend Myrmidonisia here.
Let's be complete. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury. His ethical defense was built around statements like these.

"I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point."

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

Despite testifying against colleagues, a pal of his on the ethics committee saved his butt. Rep Don Bailey later changed his mind and published a letter (http://www.politicspa.com/FEATURES/baileylttomurtha.htm) on the matter.

Let's be complete. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury. His ethical defense was built around statements like these.

"I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point."

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

Despite testifying against colleagues, a pal of his on the ethics committee saved his butt. Rep Don Bailey later changed his mind and published a letter (http://www.politicspa.com/FEATURES/baileylttomurtha.htm) on the matter.
According to the article, it looks like he was only interested for the investment opportunities and jobs it would bring to his district.

i know it's an odd thought , but maybe you should take a look at what the actual iraqis say they want.


it's not only about the Iraqis. The frail balance in that area has been disturbed severely as well.

I must question how you know my age. :confused:

Nazz: Oh, I see now. Interesting...no wonder some people seem to despise Murtha so much...

Apologies -- Abscam is what, 25 years old? I figured that'd be a safe range to make that comment, given the average Netizen's age. I am sorry if it offended you.

According to the article, it looks like he was only interested for the investment opportunities and jobs it would bring to his district.

Don't confuse him with the truth. He gets all tetchy.

Apologies -- Abscam is what, 25 years old? I figured that'd be a safe range to make that comment, given the average Netizen's age. I am sorry if it offended you.

Actually, no, you didn't. You were bang on, actually, as I turn twenty in late March. It just confused me a little as at first I thought you were collecting information on me for perverted purposes. I've had someone do it to me before, so excuse my paranoia.

According to the article, it looks like he was only interested for the investment opportunities and jobs it would bring to his district.
You bet. /sarcasm.

And all you've put up is a miniscule poll conducted by a magazine that has fewer subscribers than Bass Saxophone Afficionado. You want to wade into the forums and swing your partisan crap around, sonny, you better bring stronger stuff.

"Abscam" Murtha? Good God, how far back do you have to go for those "witty" sobriquets? Tell you what, when folks routinely append the words "Coke Fiend" or "Deserter" or "Drunk" to Bush's name, then you can start digging THAT far back to tag guys like John Murtha.
I hold grudges for a long time. I still resent that Oliver North was offered immunity in the Iran-Contra dealings, just to testify for Congress. That immunity, granted in a fit of 'get-Reagan' fever, ruined any chance of convicting him. I still turn off the radio or TV if I hear he's going to be on.

Nothing worse than a Marine officer, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, breaking laws and then profiting from that notoriety.

You bet. /sarcasm.

Do you have proof that he was not interested for the reasons I mentioned?

Do you have proof that he was not interested for the reasons I mentioned?
Of course not. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the federal grand jury. By definition, there's not enough evidence to indict him. But, much like the case of Richard Nixon, who was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate grand jury, there's more than enough suspicion to cloud his character. And character is what's important.

Don Bailey's statement that "...that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution." doesn't do much to assuage my distrust and contempt of someone that takes advantage of a public trust to benefit themselves.

Of course not. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the federal grand jury. By definition, there's not enough evidence to indict him. But, much like the case of Richard Nixon, who was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate grand jury, there's more than enough suspicion to cloud his character. And character is what's important.

Don Bailey's statement that "...that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution." doesn't do much to assuage my distrust and contempt of someone that takes advantage of a public trust to benefit themselves.

Ah, okay, so you only suspect him and thus condemn him for something that certain evidence suggests he did not do and refuse to consider anything he has to say because of it. Yeah, no bias there, folks. :rolleyes:

Ah, okay, so you only suspect him and thus condemn him for something that certain evidence suggests he did not do and refuse to consider anything he has to say because of it. Yeah, no bias there, folks. :rolleyes:
Not quite right. You should have stated it this way. "...thus condemn him for actions that failed to bring an indictment..."

When you get right down to it, character makes all the difference in the world. Murtha is lacking in the positive kind. And don't forget, not all bias is bad.

Now, unless we have something else to discuss, the tedium factor is pretty high, so this thread is ended.

Then what should we do, Myrmy? Waste more troops? Send more American soldiers to die in the desert? Look, I'd like a stable Iraq as much as the next guy, but it is too late to prevent it from falling apart. It's already fallen to pieces and become a nesting ground for terrorist recruitment. Had we entered Iraq properly, we might have been able to avoid this. Maybe Iraq might have turned out quite decently and Bush would be considered a vaguely decent President. But because Bush isn't we're stuck with a problem that is simply too late to solve. We can't do it. No one can now. All we can do is save American lives by pulling out now, unless you've got some kind of miracle solution that will save everyone.

Missed this one. Sorry you don't see the value in liberty. There actually is a miracle that will carry the day in Iraq, but we're not ready for it. It's called perseverance. It's the kind of thought that prevailed in the American Revolution, the First and Second World wars, the Cold war, and in any number of other situations that couldn't be solved in the space of a sound bite. But that's what we seem to want. Instant solutions to centuries-old problems.

The trouble is it won't ever work. The easy way, that is. The closest example that I can think of, and it's not all that good, is post WW2 Japan. It took a number of years, but the result was pretty good.

Now, unless we have something else to discuss, the tedium factor is pretty high, so this thread is ended.

Thus allowing yourself the last word...no surprise there...

Thus allowing yourself the last word...no surprise there...

Ah, but I have no power of enforcement. I just figured everyone was about 'did not'd, did too'd' out.

Missed this one. Sorry you don't see the value in liberty. There actually is a miracle that will carry the day in Iraq, but we're not ready for it. It's called perseverance. It's the kind of thought that prevailed in the American Revolution, the First and Second World wars, the Cold war, and in any number of other situations that couldn't be solved in the space of a sound bite. But that's what we seem to want. Instant solutions to centuries-old problems.

The trouble is it won't ever work. The easy way, that is. The closest example that I can think of, and it's not all that good, is post WW2 Japan. It took a number of years, but the result was pretty good.

You know what, at first I was going to refuse to dignify this with a response, since you trotted out the old "you hate freedom" line, but I'm going to reply to it anyway because I'm too stubborn for my own good.

Your perserverance won't work. It's not going to work because this is not like post WWII Japan, or post WWII Germany, or anywhere else we've tried to rebuild. We smashed their infrastructure then wonder why their economy has failed. We only warred against their government yet their civilian population has suffered ten times as much agony as anyone in the Hussein government ever did. Iraq is war-torn, with everyone fighting each other due to hatreds we seem to be incapable of understanding. It's a civil war, caused by us, continued by us, against us, and so on. It's a war that should never have occurred, that will cause the U.S. far more grief than it could have ever saved it. It's claimed the lives of thousands of our soldiers and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's a war that we cannot win now.

Maybe, again, at the beginning, had we done it properly, it could have been won. But it's too late for that. All we'll do is waste more American lives and more American tax dollars and more resources in a war that will never be won. You might call it cutting and running, and frankly I don't give a damn what you call it. But right now, we need to take our troops out of there, our civilians out of there, anyone in there that should not be there and let them resolve it themselves. A vast majority of Iraqis want us out of there. The world wants us out of there. Want to "spread democracy"? Prove it by taking the troops out when the country you're occupying wants you to. Iraq is a mess, and one we cannot fix. Not now, not ten years from now, not twenty or thirty or forty. And I, for one, do not want my country stuck there for that long.

Hell, we even risk the security of our own homeland by having most of our military there. Think about it. What if some nation actually DID pose a threat to us like Iraq was claimed to be? What if China or Russia went nuts and decided to invade? How would we fight them off when most of our military is half-way around the world? What would we fight with? Nukes?! Yeah, this is paranoid, but then so was invading Iraq and wasting our resources there, so I wouldn't be surprised if you or other neocons leapt onto this logic and started espousing it, since it fits your doctrine perfectly.

In short, let's get the hell out of there. Now.

Ah, but I have no power of enforcement. I just figured everyone was about 'did not'd, did too'd' out.

The Murtha thing was just a side issue. You never came up with a response to "the Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to make anything happen" part of the original discussion. Kind of hard to blame the Dems for not doing anything when the Republicans are being obstructionist, right? Whatever happened to the Republicans constantly calling for an "upperdown" vote on all legislation? Funny how the complaints disappear when they're in the minority, ain't it?

Maybe, again, at the beginning, had we done it properly, it could have been won. But it's too late for that.

What does 'done it properly' consist of? If you tell me that, will it be obvious why 'it's too late for that'?

What does 'done it properly' consist of? If you tell me that, will it be obvious why 'it's too late for that'?

Pretty damned simple, really:

A larger number of troops at the beginning, preferably several hundred thousand to try to seriously outnumber and overwhelm the Iraqi troops.
A larger force of armor and air power.
Additional naval backup.
A better strategy for taking down the Iraqi troops quickly with minimal damage to cities and infrastructure.
A plan for any sort of post-conflict Iraq other than "we will be greeted as liberators."
Serious diplomatic action to garner more support from the world.
Protection of infrastructure from sabotage after defeat of Iraqi forces, other than just the oil fields.
A large number of resources devoted to immediately building back up any destroyed infrastructure, restoring the economy, schools, hospitals, and society as a whole.

Instead, we got idiocy and poor tactics from beginning up till now. We executed it poorly and now we've paid for it. Anything that could have been done to salvage the peace and prevent the anarchy that would erupt has been lost. Now that it's already erupted and in full sway, we can't stop it. You have to stop this kind of thing before it starts or else it cannot be ended except by burning itself out, and right now all we're doing is continously adding fuel to the fire.

Again, I also point out that the Iraqis want us to leave. Let me make it clear to you in plain English:
The Iraqis, whom we are trying to spread democracy to, by a large majority, want us to leave, thus they are using democracy to tell us to go away. Thus, we should listen to them, or else we're lying about the democracy thing too.

Missed this one. Sorry you don't see the value in liberty. There actually is a miracle that will carry the day in Iraq, but we're not ready for it. It's called perseverance. It's the kind of thought that prevailed in the American Revolution, the First and Second World wars, the Cold war, and in any number of other situations that couldn't be solved in the space of a sound bite. But that's what we seem to want. Instant solutions to centuries-old problems.

The trouble is it won't ever work. The easy way, that is. The closest example that I can think of, and it's not all that good, is post WW2 Japan. It took a number of years, but the result was pretty good.

'Kay...

1) Cut the "You hate freedom" bullshit. It's nonsense, and you fucking know it. It makes you look like a petulant partisan (although your title managed that on it's own, I suppose), and makes everything else you say utterly invalid.

2) Perserverance be damned, nothing we do is going to end the civil war that is going on, short of taking up Roman tactics and killing one in every ten people and replacing them with a soldier, now. Let's be completely clear: the Iraqi people are engaged in a civil war. They cannot put aside their partisan differences and come to the table together. Our duty, as invaders, was to rebuild their government, give them the rebuild the damage we did, and then leave. We have done so. We, the people, did not sign on to stand in the middle of a Civil War between millenia-old religious rivals. We do not need to have innocent U.S. soldiers killed for a war that we aren't a part of. I don't give a fuck if the Shia or the Sunni extremists win control of Iraq. Both of them sponsor terror groups. The moderates of Iraq might have had the ability to take control when we first invaded, if the President had listened to his rivals, but they are now dependant on the radicals for resources and protection. We have, in short, created the situation that existed in Afghanistan prior to our invasion, but with the added tension of different religious groups.

Give me one good reason to bother staying in Iraq? There is no good reason, because no matter what we do, the Iraqi people are going to have this civil war. Without Saddam to hold them together in tyrrany, the three religious groups in Iraq are fragmented. "Liberty"? What liberty is there in creating a Shiia extremist state like Iran? What liberty is there in creating a Sunni extremist state like Saudi Arabia? Those are the options we have left in Iraq. Either way one of the groups is going to create a version of Sharia law once they demolish the government that depends on us to prop it up.

Train Iraq's army, and let the people have their civil war. Nothing we do will make a difference. It's just a matter of how many Americans end up getting killed in the process.

Missed this one. Sorry you don't see the value in liberty. There actually is a miracle that will carry the day in Iraq, but we're not ready for it. It's called perseverance. It's the kind of thought that prevailed in the American Revolution, the First and Second World wars, the Cold war, and in any number of other situations that couldn't be solved in the space of a sound bite. But that's what we seem to want. Instant solutions to centuries-old problems.

The trouble is it won't ever work. The easy way, that is. The closest example that I can think of, and it's not all that good, is post WW2 Japan. It took a number of years, but the result was pretty good.

That's it boys, just keep pounding sand down this rathole. The liberty fairies will protect you.

I hold grudges for a long time. I still resent that Oliver North was offered immunity in the Iran-Contra dealings, just to testify for Congress. That immunity, granted in a fit of 'get-Reagan' fever, ruined any chance of convicting him. I still turn off the radio or TV if I hear he's going to be on.

Nothing worse than a Marine officer, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, breaking laws and then profiting from that notoriety.

Comparing John Murtha to Oliver North is rather like comparing a wart to leprosy.

Comparing John Murtha to Oliver North is rather like comparing a wart to leprosy.

Or a combination of the Ebola and the flesh-eating viruses.

It's no secret to most that the Democratic party has set their election strategy on the failure of George Bush to prevail in Iraq. But how does this square against the views of Americans? A recent poll (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962), published by Investor's Business Daily would make one believe that, not only do most Americans think a U.S. victory is important in Iraq, they hope that it can be accomplished.
As crap as the poll is, it doesnt prevent 'one' from employing such things as critical reasoning skills, so I dont think it's accurate to state the poll would make one reach such a conclusion.

Somewhat to Very Important that we win? 66% says yes 53% of Democrats say yes.

Somewhat to Very Hopeful that we win? 58% says yes. 43% of Democrats say yes.
What utterly bunk and absurdly flawed questions.

If this truly reflects how the American public feels about the war...then things are about to backfire on the Democrats, big-time. If people want us to win over there...how are they going to feel about cutting of funding to the troops?
Some people beat strawmen, some argue non-sequitor fallacies, but why be half-arsed about it? Perhaps two fallacies really are better than one.

So that brings me to two conclusions. First, 535 Commanders-in-Chief on Capitol Hill should stop passing non-binding resolutions and either shit of get off the pot. If you don't want troops in Iraq -- cut of funding.
But if people want the US to win over there....how would they feel about cutting off funding to the troops?:rolleyes:

Second, fire John Murtha. His plans to re-deploy (retreat) didn't work, so now he wants funding to be re-directed (surrender). He is doing nothing to help troops in Iraq, either by getting them home, or by giving them the tools and funding that they need to win. And win we must.
How lame.
That is that they are determined to see the U.S. fail in Iraq. Thus the perfidy. That's a neat word, isn't it?
Yeah 'perfidy' is a neat word just as 'baseless accusation' is a neat phrase.

Why is every thread that points out a failure in the Dem/Rep thread considered bashing?
You'd have to ask the relevent considerers.

The new government has had it's chance to show that it stands for something and it's failed. They're no better than the prior bunch of scoundrels.
I disagree, failure to improve things or to prevent negative things is not as bad as causing and initiating the trouble at issue.

And I guess this truly has turned into a mutual admiration society, if I'm the only one pointing out the failures of the majority party.
Ignoring the fact that instead of pointing out failures, you appear to be making unsupported accusations that you completely fail to substantiate, a 'mutual admiration society' usually requires some form or other of admiration, something not to be conflated with countering transparent and rather lame attempts at smeer-based propaganda.

and I doubt many, even the most fervent supporters. would try to defend such an argument, as they would inevitably loose.
That's a reasonable point of view, which is probably why it fails when applied to the utterly unreasoned.

First, I suspect that "fully ready" (scare quotes are from the article) means something other than troops that are ready to deploy.
Based on what, the fact that it would be convinient to your arguments, or the propagandist author's unexplained use of scare quotes?

Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready.
I'm not fully certain this is the case, and that does mean that I am not certain it is the case.

Spending a year at home, or a year deployed are both wonderful things, but neither is guaranteed when one _volunteers_ to be a soldier/sailor/Marine...
Which is not the same as neither being desirable, necessary or best practise.

Abscam Murtha's conditions are overly restrictive, but like many things liberal and Democratic, they sound "nice", so we should embrace them.
Perhaps they are overly restrictive, but where are we told we should embrace them?

I've looked through the Thomas Locator and I've not been able to find the text of Abscam Murtha's redirection policy. Since you have obviously acquainted yourself with the facts, why don't you share with the rest of us? More likely, the requirements are for training that is not reasonable or possible, don't you think?
You make positive assertions and accusations and your only response to counter-arguments/points is that you dont know what you are talking about, so counter-arguers should acquaint you with the facts and in the meantime take your (admittedly uninformed) word for it that they are wrong...:rolleyes:

Missed this one. Sorry you don't see the value in liberty.
I missed something too, specifically any good reason to conclude from Kyronea's comments that he/she doesnt value liberty....I confess that I suspect that's because there is no such reason....

There actually is a miracle that will carry the day in Iraq, but we're not ready for it. It's called perseverance.
Perserverance is not a miracle, nor can it achieve the impossible.

It's the kind of thought that prevailed in the American Revolution, the First and Second World wars, the Cold war, and in any number of other situations that couldn't be solved in the space of a sound bite.
Yeah, because there was nothing persistant about the Germans, those quiters.

But that's what we seem to want. Instant solutions to centuries-old problems.
Nothing wrong with wanting it, what is wrong is refusing to reconcile what you want with reality, and desperately vomiting-up catchy sounding soundbites, absurd and failed analogies, baseless accusations, and inane polemics doesnt improve a failure a recognise reality, as much as you might wish otherwise.

The trouble is it won't ever work. The easy way, that is. The closest example that I can think of, and it's not all that good, is post WW2 Japan. It took a number of years, but the result was pretty good.
Flogging a dead horse on the presumption that persaverance is some miraculous way of bringing it back from the dead wont ever work either.

blah blah blah democrats suck blah blah blah

Are you trying to make up for the absence of Eve Online/Deep Kimchi or what?

Oh no, Idiot Online is back and so are his puppets. Hooray for....Oh just F it.

Why is every thread that points out a failure in the Dem/Rep thread considered bashing? The new government has had it's chance to show that it stands for something and it's failed. They're no better than the prior bunch of scoundrels.

And I guess this truly has turned into a mutual admiration society, if I'm the only one pointing out the failures of the majority party.

Don't you remember then finishing their 100 hour agenda in oh say 47 hours? Apparently they've done something. Did you want them to get the troops out in the first 30 days they held power? I think you're being a little too unrealistic.

Oh no, Idiot Online is back and so are his puppets. Hooray for....Oh just F it.
...did you just call Nazz a puppet of Eve Online? Because that's just ridiculous.

Also, Myrmi, I see you've yet to respond. I suppose I should consider the argument conceded, then?

Don't you remember then finishing their 100 hour agenda in oh say 47 hours? Apparently they've done something. Did you want them to get the troops out in the first 30 days they held power? I think you're being a little too unrealistic.

And he's doing it deliberately, as further shown by his refusal to discuss the fact that to get anything done in the Senate, you need 60 votes, and that the Republican Senators who were bitching last year about the obstructionist Democrats (who weren't all that obstructionist) are keeping votes even on non-binding resolutions from coming to the floor.

First, I suspect that "fully ready" (scare quotes are from the article) means something other than troops that are ready to deploy. Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready. Spending a year at home, or a year deployed are both wonderful things, but neither is guaranteed when one _volunteers_ to be a soldier/sailor/Marine... Abscam Murtha's conditions are overly restrictive, but like many things liberal and Democratic, they sound "nice", so we should embrace them.

It's nice that you suspect something, but suspicion is not good enough when we are discussing the readiness of troops. If you have some sort of proof or source that further explains Murtha's position, or what he means when he says "fully ready", I would be happy to look at it. Until then, all we have are your suspicions, and considering the partisan nature of your posts in this thread, I think your suspicions are somewhat suspect.

And when you say "Sending troops that are not "fully ready" will not mean that we will send troops that are not ready," I would like to know what you mean. To me, that sentence contradicts itself.

Could you also explain why volunteering for the armed forces makes it okay for the government to unilaterally change the contract they made with their troops. To me, that seems a bit autocratic.

And you never answered my other post about the methodology of the poll you provided.

Thanks.

And he's doing it deliberately, as further shown by his refusal to discuss the fact that to get anything done in the Senate, you need 60 votes, and that the Republican Senators who were bitching last year about the obstructionist Democrats (who weren't all that obstructionist) are keeping votes even on non-binding resolutions from coming to the floor.

That's because people like Myrm have a set range of opinions that they hold that they never budge from, and only try to convince others of their opinions rather than debate the facts. They ignore anything that doesn't conform to their opinions. Case in point, the Abscam Murtha bit he was rambling on about.

In fact it's probably why we've scared him away, because he knows he doesn't have an answer to our arguments because we're the ones using facts when he's just using opinions.

This poll is hardly representative of how the American Public feels about the fiasco in Iraq. The readership of your poll's source is mostly Republican, almost entirely conservative, and wealthy. For such people, victory is necessary from a business perspective. That's a lot of oil to lose control of.

On the other hand, I think the public, and the Democrats, understand that a victory in Iraq is desirable for other reasons. However, a wise person knows to turn back to shore when he's in the water over his head and he can't swim. The very notion that we can foist our cultural, governmental and philosophical ideologies off on a nation that is so diametrically different from us is absurd. The Iraqis, ultimately, are going to have to work their issues out on their own. It's just time to stop spending American lives on the impossible.

It's no secret to most that the Democratic party has set their election strategy on the failure of George Bush to prevail in Iraq. But how does this square against the views of Americans? A recent poll (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962), published by Investor's Business Daily would make one believe that, not only do most Americans think a U.S. victory is important in Iraq, they hope that it can be accomplished.

That's because people like Myrm have a set range of opinions that they hold that they never budge from, and only try to convince others of their opinions rather than debate the facts. They ignore anything that doesn't conform to their opinions. Case in point, the Abscam Murtha bit he was rambling on about.

In fact it's probably why we've scared him away, because he knows he doesn't have an answer to our arguments because we're the ones using facts when he's just using opinions.
Guys, you flatter me. You must think I am just like you, in that I have little else to do, but that's not the case. Every once in a while, more important things come to the fore -- I know that's hard to get a handle on, but that's the way things are for us responsible types.

Now, as to the discussion, just about everything that is starting to come up again is old business. We've done debated it to death. The fact are in and we've made our judgments. Mine is that Bush was only marginally justified in invading Iraq and he did handle it wrong. We quit fighting and started peacekeeping way too early. But now we are there, and has been said before, "You broke it, you fix it". We owe the Iraqis a lot of fixing. [I believe they are more of a Republic than a democracy over there, so I don't think we are obligated to leave until the government asks.]

But facts are facts and he has to decide what the next course of action should be. The Democratic Congress can either help, hinder, or stop this war by cutting off funding. It may not pass the Senate, but I don't think the resolution needs to be the affirmative sort, i.e. I think the House can just fail to pass a spending bill.

George Bush risked his political career on the decision to invade Iraq and I'd like to see the House Democrats play for the same stakes. If they are truly opposed to this war and do not want to see the soldiers and Marines in Iraq, then they need to do something besides pass a non-binding resolution. Senate be damned, the House can still pass legislation. At least that gives us the idea of what they are committed to doing.

Now, I'm sure this isn't what you wanted from me, but that's all there is. We probably need to table this until the Murtha amendment(?) is attached to whatever bill it's headed for. Then we can see just how serious the Democrats are about tying up the troop movements that have always been a DoD responsibility.

Let me get back to trying to save the company from giving the Spanish far more than they bought. Damned salesmen!@#@$@!!!

I know I'm coming late to this little party, but since when did the "Commander in Chief" become a dictator whose words are not to be questioned? The GOP sat in the back seat and tried to drive when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, that was okay then, but now? And as was said just a few posts back, it was the Republicans who were so angry about filibusters by the Democrats that they threatened eliminating that as an option in the Senate, but now?

Bush's war in Iraq has failed. It is time for some radical solutions to be implemented, starting with the removal of our troops. If we want, we can help the Iraqis rebuild by lending them money, but otherwise, we should remove ourselves as quickly as possible from the crossfire. And anyway, the war was all about removing the man who threatened Bush's daddy's life. That mission has been accomplished, so our work is done.

I know I'm coming late to this little party, but since when did the "Commander in Chief" become a dictator whose words are not to be questioned?
That is really a good question. If the country declares war, then there's very little doubt about what the national priorities should be. In that case, the CiC should be given the ability to carry out a war as he sees fit. The problem is that we don't declare war anymore. And that is wrong.

Certainly for an operation as large as this Iraq war, the Senate should have voted yes or no on a declaration of war. Maybe the weight that a declaration carries would have made Senators decide differently. Maybe they would still have backpedaled from their votes, I don't know. But when you are discussing the commitment of most of our armed forces, a declaration of war is probably the right thing.

The precedent is there, isn't it? Didn't Thomas Jefferson have Congress declare war on pirates? Maybe not. Looks like they passed the same sort of resolution that was passed to "authorize" the war in Iraq.

What I find hilarious is that the President can start a nuclear war without asking anyone's permission.

For any Senator or Congressman who thinks the President is not "in charge" of the US nuclear arsenal, and for those who think that Congress is somehow in the line of the nuclear chain of command, think again.

All he has to do is open that little case that is carried near him at all times. And he can nuke anyone he wants to, anywhere.

What I find hilarious is that the President can start a nuclear war without asking anyone's permission.

For any Senator or Congressman who thinks the President is not "in charge" of the US nuclear arsenal, and for those who think that Congress is somehow in the line of the nuclear chain of command, think again.

All he has to do is open that little case that is carried near him at all times. And he can nuke anyone he wants to, anywhere.

Doesn't he at least have to convince the secret service agent who holds the other key? Not much of a hurdle, but still. It precludes the President just waking up one day and desciding to eliminate belgium because they fucked up his waffles.

That is really a good question. If the country declares war, then there's very little doubt about what the national priorities should be. In that case, the CiC should be given the ability to carry out a war as he sees fit. The problem is that we don't declare war anymore. And that is wrong.

No he shouldn't. The President is the weakest branch of the Federal government. He is the enforcer of Congressional policy. He is subject to oversight. He is not a dictator, he is not the sole power, in fact, he's really only powerful when it comes to international relations, and even there, the Congress has the power of oversight.

The President can carry out a war as he sees fit, but he will answer to the Congress when he fucks up. That is the nature of the Federal system. GWB has fucked up time and time again, and it is far past time that he begin to answer to the Congress.

Certainly for an operation as large as this Iraq war, the Senate should have voted yes or no on a declaration of war. Maybe the weight that a declaration carries would have made Senators decide differently. Maybe they would still have backpedaled from their votes, I don't know. But when you are discussing the commitment of most of our armed forces, a declaration of war is probably the right thing.

The President should have brought a resolution before the Senate for authorization of war, but he was clever. He's made it very difficult to actually end his war there, because the authorization of force for Iraq is only one resolution that the Dems have to untangle.

The precedent is there, isn't it? Didn't Thomas Jefferson have Congress declare war on pirates? Maybe not. Looks like they passed the same sort of resolution that was passed to "authorize" the war in Iraq.

The action against Pirates during Jefferson's term was a tiny action that is only even relevant because it didn't match with the ideology he preached is hardly equivalent to the disaster in Iraq.

Doesn't he at least have to convince the secret service agent who holds the other key? Not much of a hurdle, but still. It precludes the President just waking up one day and desciding to eliminate belgium because they fucked up his waffles.

No.

This was such a point of concern during the Watergate scandal, that Kissinger gave an illegal order to the DoD, saying that if the order to launch nukes came down, they should ignore it.

Kissinger exceeded his authority, and his order was illegal. Nixon could have started WW III with no interference.

Withdraw to Kurdistan.

No he shouldn't. The President is the weakest branch of the Federal government. He is the enforcer of Congressional policy. He is subject to oversight. He is not a dictator, he is not the sole power, in fact, he's really only powerful when it comes to international relations, and even there, the Congress has the power of oversight.

The President can carry out a war as he sees fit, but he will answer to the Congress when he fucks up. That is the nature of the Federal system. GWB has fucked up time and time again, and it is far past time that he begin to answer to the Congress.

Bad analysis. The Federalist #74 expands on the Commander in Chief provision by explaining that we can't have but one CiC. The other 535 that think they need to help make these decisions are just as wrong as you are.

Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.
When things go wrong, the CiC answers to the electorate. And he answers in an election, not a public opinion poll.

Bad analysis. The Federalist #74 expands on the Commander in Chief provision by explaining that we can't have but one CiC. The other 535 that think they need to help make these decisions are just as wrong as you are.

When things go wrong, the CiC answers to the electorate. And he answers in an election, not a public opinion poll.

So, in short, you want Bush to have free reign of fucking up Iraq for the next 2 years without being questioned.

Of course, if the current president was a Democrat, you'd want his steps questioned at all points.

The same doesn't happen to me. I believe congress, and the people, have the right and the obligation to question any president when they think he's not doing his job right. And people like me are what stands between democracy and the authoritarian dystopia you seem to want.

So, in short, you want Bush to have free reign of fucking up Iraq for the next 2 years without being questioned.

Of course, if the current president was a Democrat, you'd want his steps questioned at all points.

The same doesn't happen to me. I believe congress, and the people, have the right and the obligation to question any president when they think he's not doing his job right. And people like me are what stands between democracy and the authoritarian dystopia you seem to want.
Reread what Hamilton said. Then re-read the part I wrote about declaring war. War _does_ imply national unity and it should be expressed through a declaration to that effect.

Now, I've got work to do, I'll try to catch up with this at lunch.

Who doesn't want to win the war? The desire to win or the importance of winning is independent of whether you can win or not. I'm sure everyone would love to win the war in Iraq, if winning is defined as, say, Iraq becoming a prosperous and stable democracy. And, of course, it's very important to win in Iraq, since otherwise it will a) descend further into civil war or b) become an insane theocratic terrorist-sponsoring state. However, most people have realised that Osama bin Laden is going to show up outside the US Capitol wearing a "Support the Troops" T-shirt, renounce terrorism and throw baskets of flowers and kittens into the crowd before Iraq is fixed.

Reread what Hamilton said. Then re-read the part I wrote about declaring war. War _does_ imply national unity and it should be expressed through a declaration to that effect.

Now, I've got work to do, I'll try to catch up with this at lunch.

Ah, you're one of those "if the country is at a war, it turns into a dictatorship" types. :rolleyes:

the way this poll's questions were formulated is biased to the maximum, not to mention that its circulation makes it irrelevant ( too small of a sample to be representative).

In order for the poll to be accurate an representative, the questions should have been directly about the current situation in Iraq, maybe as follows:

1. Do you believe that we should continue the war in Iraq?
2. Do you support sending more troops in Iraq?

These questions would have been a lot more relevant IMHO.

Bad analysis. The Federalist #74 expands on the Commander in Chief provision by explaining that we can't have but one CiC. The other 535 that think they need to help make these decisions are just as wrong as you are.

When things go wrong, the CiC answers to the electorate. And he answers in an election, not a public opinion poll.

Last time I checked, Federalist 74 wasn't law. The Constitution is.

Let's be complete. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury. His ethical defense was built around statements like these.

"I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point."

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

Despite testifying against colleagues, a pal of his on the ethics committee saved his butt. Rep Don Bailey later changed his mind and published a letter (http://www.politicspa.com/FEATURES/baileylttomurtha.htm) on the matter.

So you're smearing a decorated war veteran and representative of the people who was not only not found guilty of committing any crime, hell he wasn't even indicted? Dare you lecture anyone on ethics or good sense!

You bet. /sarcasm.

Because you have some inside information you'd like to share? Or do you want to admit you are projecting and drawing from nothing more than conjecture? Damn hack you are! HACK!

That's because people like Myrm have a set range of opinions that they hold that they never budge from, and only try to convince others of their opinions rather than debate the facts. They ignore anything that doesn't conform to their opinions. Case in point, the Abscam Murtha bit he was rambling on about.

In fact it's probably why we've scared him away, because he knows he doesn't have an answer to our arguments because we're the ones using facts when he's just using opinions.

No, people like him 'debate" by trying to convince you that you're stupid.

...did you just call Nazz a puppet of Eve Online? Because that's just ridiculous.

Also, Myrmi, I see you've yet to respond. I suppose I should consider the argument conceded, then?

No, I know full well Nazz is not a puppet of EO, come on now. Nazz actually has the ability to reason.

Ah, you're one of those "if the country is at a war, it turns into a dictatorship" types. :rolleyes:
Whatever you say. It's clearly an either/or proposition.

Last time I checked, Federalist 74 wasn't law. The Constitution is.
Absolutely correct, but the Federalist papers are used frequently by those who interpret the Constitution.

The papers that I've just started reading, and which are far more disorganized, are the Anti-Federalist papers. Kind of a nice counterpoint to what the majority view was at the Constitutional convention.

No, people like him 'debate" by trying to convince you that you're stupid.
Nope, my tactic is to shout louder and then tip the board over -- wait that's chess.

And I don't see the need to debate like lawyers, persuasion is far more practical. The fact that I stink at it, doesn't make it any less fun.