Sunday, June 25, 2006

More Murtha Mouth: U.S. More Of A Threat To World Peace Than North Korea And Iran.

Displaying his stubborn will, John Murtha has demonstrated once again that he just cannot keep his mouth from getting himself into trouble. Let's take a look at an article that is reporting more of the Murtha Mouth Syndrome.

From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Here we have a veteran that is being exploited by the far left anti-war crowd, probably in the waning years of his life, making every speech he can an opportunity to do more damage than he has already been able to do. They snagged Cindy for a season, but now they do not need her, at least not for right now. Why not? They have someone right in the House of Representatives to handle the propaganda machine. Someone that can stir the pot on the inside.

Give them all credit, they do know how to strike while the iron is hot. They do know how to get the ball to the open man. Problem is, the open man cannot shoot and cannot score. They are being extremely irresponsible and Murtha is consenting to his exploitation by them, in exchange for help with future (ahem) goals and aspirations.

What are these goals and aspirations? Many can and do speculate on these kinds of things. There are a few theories that can be advanced, two of which may be reasonable to consider.

One - Murtha wants to be House Majority Leader if the Dems win back the House. This is a risky bet, because despite the disillusionment with some at the GOP, that in itself, does not guarantee a Democratic victory. Maybe this was promised to him, after some meeting, some time ago, before he became a household name. They know that their arguments about Iraq have failed so far, mainly due to their lack of credibility on military issues. But if a Vietnam veteran would be more believable and it will carry more credence than those that never
thought about wearing a uniform.

Two - If the Dems win back the White House (especially if it's Hillary), he wants to be Secretary of Defense. Another risky bet. If this is true, he really is upping the ante and betting more than he can afford to do. Maybe this too was promised or at very least alluded to him, in another one of thise meetings, somewhere, at sometime.

But I think that people know irresponsible and much more so than many in the far left think. And Murtha has been highly irresponsible with his mouth. To make a statement like the one above, knowing the media would put this out, does much more harm than a lot of people may realize. I could go into a long rant about this, and this alone. But I can sum it perfectly with one glance, if you will look at this Cox and Forkum cartoon. (HT on this toon: Mark at Eclipse Ramblings)

Don't get me wrong here. I am not being critical of Rep. Murtha's right to speak and speak irresponsibly. I do not advocate silencing anyone, despite how ignorant they sound. But I can and will counter them with what is the reality of the situation, as I see fit. And in this moment I can honestly say that Jack Murtha (like the vast majority of the Congress) must be replaced. Some need replaced for other reasons, but they still need replaced and I believe that Murtha is at the top of the list.

The voters of his district must look at this man's behavior, past and present, and determine if this is the man they want to be representing them. They must make this choice, because otherwise this man will continue to be a loose cannon, as long as he honestly believes that he can and will win this argument. The left has him deluded and in the process, he has deluded himself. But are the voters of the
12th District of Pennsylvania?

Time will tell.

UPDATE 6-26-06 10:55 EDT

From the Opinion Journal (HT:RCP) comes this essay. Read it.


A.C. said...

I think the man is rattled. First the comment about retreating to Okinawa and now this.

One thing is for sure, he's stealing Dean's thunder..

LASunsett said...

Good point AC. As long as they have Murtha, Dean can lay low.

kev said...

You'e being charitable to this moron who apparently has been to speech classes with the dixie chicks. This guy has been in battle, knows what soldiers need, should understand loyalty, but acts and talks like cindy sheehan and most of the hollywood crowd. This is nothing new to him, though, and if anyone cares to look, he's had this attitude for many years. Too bad the ABSCAM prosecutors weren't a bit more aggressive!

LASunsett said...


This is nothing new to him, though, and if anyone cares to look, he's had this attitude for many years.

Thanks for visiting and for your comments you have left. I haven't had much time to answer them all.

But, this guy was not even on the radar before this past year. How the hell he never got voted out before all of this, I will never know. How he dodged the ABSCAM scandal, without getting voted out (at very least), I will never know.

We get the government we deserve, I guess.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Murtha is being exploited by the "left wing". He's old enough and wise enough to know how to handle himself in public. He is doing what I think EVERY American should do, and that is speak for what he believes.
One thing that I found with your post is the way you have made up scenerios (backroom deals) for future goals and aspirations. Propaganda machine? Give me a break, LASunsett! Bush and his crowd are the masters of propaganda! Cheney, AGAIN, said that the insurgents are in their last throes. How long is a "throe",BTW?

You think Murtha's words are dangerous and a threat to our country? What about George's "Bring it on" statement?

You said this, "They know that their arguments about Iraq have failed so far, mainly due to their lack of credibility on military issues." How have our arguments about Iraq failed? Rummy said that this war wouldn't last more than 6 months. Hmmm... Condi has already admitted that "mistakes were made", and exactly how much military experience does Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. have???

You seem to think that speaking out against a war is irresponsible. I think it is one of the most responsible, patriotic things an American can do. Do you honestly think that the "world" doesn't agree with him? Do you think this is something that they haven't said themselves, already? Why do you think that the "world" is not jumping in to fight with us in a matter of fact, the ones that did are leaving in droves.

Murtha isn't making the world more dangerous by telling it like it is, Bush has made the world more dangerous because he has been caught in so many lies, deceptions, cover-ups and incompetence. THAT is what is making the world more dangerous.

Lucky for us, Bush is in his last throes.

LASunsett said...


I don't think Murtha is being exploited by the "left wing". He's old enough and wise enough to know how to handle himself in public. He is doing what I think EVERY American should do, and that is speak for what he believes.

Maybe you are right, in which case I find it more deplorable that he knows what he is doing and chooses to do it anyway. I never said that he shouldn't/couldn't say what he believes in. But, if he chooses to say what he says, he must expect tough scrutiny from me and others that disagree with him.

If you really believe that the U.S. military is more of a threat to world peace than NK or Iran, then I would say you are a very naive person and choose to be so, just like Murtha chooses the bedfellows he chooses.

As far as the mistakes made by the Bush administration, I have been critical of many.

I too, feel like the "bring it on" statement was a faux pas. As well as the aircraft carrier "Mission Accomplished" speech, the total disbanding of the Iraqi Army, and other things.

But in my estimation, there is no excuse for a veteran that has seen combat and knows what it entails, to make stupid and irresponsible remarks, while troops are in the field and under combat conditions. You can defend it if you wish, but it's indefensible in my book.

Thank you for visiting my blog.

M-E said...


"If you really believe that the U.S. military is more of a threat to world peace than NK or Iran, then I would say you are a very naive person and choose to be so, just like Murtha chooses the bedfellows he chooses."

Where did you see in my comment that I said it was the "US Military" that was a threat to world peace? Where in Murtha's comments do you see that? He and I said that our presence in Iraq was the threat. You really need to be sure not to put into my mouth or Murtha's what you "think" you are hearing! I have never, on any blog, made a disparaging remark against our military.

It is BUSH who has made the world more unsafe with his use of our military for political gain. In his small little mind, he thought that going to war with Iraq was going to make him a hero. He didn't even have the guts to tell the truth as to why he sent our troops there. Instead, he used trumped up, cherry picked info on WMD so he can scare Americans into thinking we were about to be hit with a mushroom cloud, so we better act now....without listening to the inspectors who said there was no such immediate threat. He rushed to war without a plan, and now we are all paying for it with the lives of our soldiers and our pocketboook to pay the BILLIONS of dollars to pay for this war...all while the rich are getting tax breaks.

I would say that the one's who are supporting Bush in this war are the naive ones. Because that support is only going to be the cause of more deaths of Americans and Iraqi's because of Bush's lie.Murtha has given his reasons on how to proceed with the war. To pull out and stay in the neighboring countries so they can move in and help when necessary. Our soldiers should not be in the middle of their civil war.

The Republicans are good about saying, "Where is the Democrat's plans?". Then, when they hear it, they say, "How dare they make remarks about the war when we have boots on the ground!" Give me a break!

I don't think it is irresponsible to make a statement regarding the war when we have "boots on the ground". If those same statements weren't made while we were in Viet Nam, we would have lost thousands more young soldiers in that war!

Again, it isn't Murtha's remarks that are dangerous, it's Bush and his policies and lies that are dangerous.


LASunsett said...


Where did you see in my comment that I said it was the "US Military" that was a threat to world peace?

I didn't say that you said anything. That was the crux of Murtha's statement and the crux of the post.

Where in Murtha's comments do you see that? He and I said that our presence in Iraq was the threat. You really need to be sure not to put into my mouth or Murtha's what you "think" you are hearing! I have never, on any blog, made a disparaging remark against our military.

Easy now, ME.

What element of the US do think is present in Iraq? The military.

I never accused you of being anti-military and I apologize if that's the way it came out. I will re-phrase so you are clearer on what I am saying.

If you believe that our military presence in Iraq is more dangerous than NK and Iran trying to become a member of the nuclear club, then I say again, I think you are naive. Whether you like Bush or not, whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, you have to believe that this is a pretty irresponsible statement made by Jack, especially since there are troops in the field. It does have an affect on many things, when you have someone like Murtha making the idiotic statements, he is making now on a regular basis.

But you anti-military? Never said it, never believed it. But I do wish you could look at things more from the eyes of the troops that are in the field. And from the enemy's too. If all you hear is Murtha and the others saying to cut and run, that our military is committing atrocities on a daily basis, and that we, the US, are more of a danger to world peace than two oppressive dictatorships, then the troops get discouraged and enemies, encouraged.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

anonymous said:

Murtha isn't making the world more dangerous by telling it like it is, Bush has made the world more dangerous because he has been caught in so many lies, deceptions, cover-ups and incompetence. THAT is what is making the world more dangerous.

Liberals always think if they say enough times that Bush lied, it will make it so. Please restrict your aguments to facts and not fiction and avoid the "truth by repetition" method.

M-E said...

First, let me answer to this comment, "Liberals always think if they say enough times that Bush lied, it will make it so. Please restrict your aguments to facts and not fiction and avoid the "truth by repetition" method."

Republicans often use repetition of a lie and call it truth. If they say it enough times, they call it a fact. For example, "The insurgents are in its last throes.", or "we have photos of the chemical labs used for WMD", or Rumsfelds comment, "we know where the WMD's are". That is a fact. I do stick to the facts and can cite many of Bush's lies for you, which I will do as soon as I have a block of time to do so. If this is what you wish, feel free to ask, and I will oblige. Do you want all of Bush's lies or just a sampling? LOL!

Now, LASunsett. Your "easy now" comment sound like I was going off in an angry way. Not so. I just like to be sure that my comments are clear and I am not accused of saying something that I never said. This is something I see quite often on blogs and want to be sure that the information is correct. You've seen me angry on another French blog, no? LOL! Believe me, you'll know if I'm upset and need to "take it easy"!

Now, the words in the headline of the article you cited said that Murtha said that the US is more of a threat to the world peace than North Korea and Iran, yet I couldn't find that quote in the article. Did you? Or was this just someone making up a headline to fit a skewed view of Murtha's views?

I also don't think I am naive to think that our military in Iraq has made us less safe. In the case of North Korea, I do think they are a threat to us, and having so many resourses tied up in Iraq, not to mention the money spent to have them their has put us at a big disadvantage. Of course, it is Dick Cheney who doesn't think North Korea is much of a threat and said so in a Reuters article. He's was more concerned with the fake WMD threat in Iraq than the real threat we were, and still are, facing with North Korea.

Also, in the case of Iran. If Bush wants to back up his statement about the consequences Iran will have to face, he'd better show that we know what the hell we are doing in Iraq, instead of constant "miscalculations".

What do you think will happen to our troops in Iraq if Iran decides to call our bluff? Our troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks for Iran. They are already in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and we are losing soldiers left and right because of it. Even Condi Rice had said we made big mistakes in Iraq. They really need to get their stories straight.

You say that Murtha's statements are irresponsible and dangerous. In what way has his remarks made it more dangerous. The world already agrees and knows what Murtha is saying is true. It is only the "naive republicans" (since you call me naive, I thought it was OK to return in kind) that are always worried about words that are said about Iraq causing problems for our boots on the ground, and not looking at the FACT that it is this administration who sent them to war on false pretenses (a fact) and withouth the proper equipment (a fact) and not enough men on the ground to begin with (fact). And let's not forget about cutting the benefits of the soldiers (fact) and not being able to get more to inlist so as to raise the age of enlistiment AGAIN (fact) in order to send them to Iraq to get their heads blown off....all because they were sent without a clear mission (fact).

All_I_Can_Stands said...

As for the "insurgents are in the last throes" comment. I am certain the administration underestimated how much the actions and words of the anti-war crowd in the US encouraged the insurgents to stay their course. Hardly could be considered a lie, though.

Same with the WMD intelligence. More countries than the US and more than one administration trusted the intelligence that showed there were WMD and where it was supposed to be. To call trusting such intelligence a lie is 100% a political cheapshot. Now if you call the Clinton Administration and other countries liars you will be consistent, but in my opinion still wrong.

M-E said...

Do you honestly think that a few remarks by some "anti war" Americans are fueling the insurgents? LOL!!!!!! That is too funny! I think the insurgents have plenty of fuel...Bush gave them quite a lot!

Oh, and are you talking about those that believed there was WMD that were given cherry picked information that was peppered with all out scare tactic remarks about mushroom clouds? France sure didn't believe that line of crap, and most of the world didn't, which is obvious by the small number of coaliton of the willing that came to our aid...and are now leaving in droves.

As far as Hillary or anyother Dem that bought that load of garbage that the administration handed out, I think they should hide their heads in shame! Of course, Bush even managed to convince Colin Powell to bring that garbage to the UN, and now he regrets it. Certainly a low point in his career. I know I lost all respect for him after that...especially since he now knows it was a load of crap and still approves of Bush. I guess he's loyal to his friends, not so loyal to his country.

G_in_AL said...

you know LA, the way to tell if someone is full of crap and just trying to be "liked" by the crowd or if they are principled and are simply expressing their view is to look at the forum from which they speak.

When Noam Chomski writes a paper or book about something, crazy or not, he's principled.

When a blow-hard gets up on a stage of young idealistic kids, rants about exactly what they want to hear... not so much.

Just like when these holywood idiots run over to Europe and bash the US.

Principled means you belive it no matter who your audiance is, pandering is when you adjust your rhetoric for the people you're spewing it to.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

A few remarks???? We have a constant and loud drumbeat from the left designed to undermine the war in Iraq. This drumbeat is both supported and facilitated by the mainstream media. If you don't believe in the power of propaganda, then why do you participate in it?

To link the rest of the world refusing to sign on to fighting Iraq with the belief that there were no WMDs is ludicrous. It completely removed the most likely motives for not supporting the coalition: the addiction of Europe to appeasement, the financial motiviation through Oil for Food and Russia selling arms and military consulting to Iraq. There is also the motive of wanting Saddam to succeed in his bid to revenge the US for the first Gulf War. Why wouldn't Russian and China want to see the US distracted and weakened by terrorist attacks using Iraq WMD?

When I said Clinton, I was not referring to Hillary. There are dozens of quotes from before Clinton began his bombing campaign of Democrats in his administration and in Congress claiming Iraq had WMD. To avoid this obvious conflict with the "Bush lied" theory cannot be accidental.

M-E said...


The audience that Murtha was speaking to, if I can recall, was a University. I don't think to label them as "idealistic kids" is fair to them. They are old enough to vote and old enough to go to war, not exactly "kids", in my view.

I also don't think that Murtha only speaks to Universities. He is on many talk shows or news interviews and makes his views very clear in Washington D.C. Hardly what I would call speaking to only one forum! Have you heard Murtha change to another view while speaking in other forums? I haven't heard anything different, so that would mean that he is sticking to his principles. No?

Now, I have heard Bush and Cheney change their views depending on who they are speaking to. A lot of flip-flopping going on with that crowd. Of course, most of Bush's speeches are done in front of a crowd that is carefully screened. Not exactly what you would call honest.

M-E said...

all that I can stands: Why do you think there has been a constant drum beat against the war? It's because the war was started on false pretences. Anti-war demonstrations has nothing to do with how well a war is going on either side. That's just an excuse for those who are for the war use so as not to hear views other than their own. You can't say that you are for freedom, and then say that no one can speak but those who agree with you!

In the beginning of this war, when the insurgents came on to the scene, there was hardly any news coverage of those who were against the war. Did that keep them from fighting? No! You can't blame those who don't believe in this war for the mistakes that Bush and Rumsfeld have made in executing this war. The insurgents are stronger because they didn't think there would be an fact, they wouldn't even admit to the word "insurgent" until recently, or the last year or so. Remember, we were to be greeted with candy and flowers. The war would be over in 6 months....the oil in Iraq was going to pay for this war...Remember all those statements made by Bush and the gang?

Also, it isn't just the "far left" as you say that is anti-war. Many conservatives agree. As a matter of fact, a majority of Americans agree. It is the far right-wing that keeps swallowing Bush's propaganda!

kev said...

m-e--To answer your question, I think there's been a constant drumbeat against the war by the democrats because they've recreated the war. No matter how you spin it, almost every one of them voted for the war. When they sensed that people were getting uneasy about the war, as people do in EVERY war, becaue war is ugly, they fueled that fire. Their agenda is to get back in power and they will do and say whatever they feel is necessary in order to do so. By the way, what is this plan that the democrats have of which you speak. I've been waiting to hear about "the" democrat plan for quite a few years now. kerry kept saying he had a plan, but never produced, and that was actually the closest thing to a plan I've heard from your side. You've actually hit all the democrat talking points, including the class warfare references. If we shouldn't get involved in a civil war, why did saint clinton put us in Bosnia? Whey did he send us to Mogadishu? anonymous, you speak of Bush's propaganda. There has never been a more organized and deadly propaganda machine than the democrat party. Truth never gets in their/your way. If we had more "patriots" such as yourself and those you hold up, we'd either still be paying tribute to the king or queen of England, or we'd be goose-stepping for a bunch of nazis. You have to be blind not to see what clinton's way of dealing with terrorists got us. Now please be a good little parrot and throw some more leftist talking points on us.

LASunsett said...


You've seen me angry on another French blog, no? LOL! Believe me, you'll know if I'm upset and need to "take it easy"!

Yes I have. And it ain't pretty. ;)

In fact, there was one time, you and I were pretty much on the same side of the argument. But we are not, on this one.

Yes, our recouces are stretched a bit thin, right now. Not as much as many would like to think, but definitely thinner than if we had not gone into Iraq. But take a good look at a map of Iran and you will see that it is bordered on the east by Afghanistan and on the west by Iraq. Do you think that was an accident?

You have a right to your opinion, Murtha has the right to his. But, as one who knows a little bit about military science, I think you are wrong on this issue. I doubt we can reconcile on this topic, but thank you for your comments and reading PYY. You are always welcome here, whether you agree or disagree :)

Now if only Ms Miami will pipe in, we can have a tag team match. I am sure she is on your side. ;)

All_I_Can_Stands said...


A soldier has a constant drain on his/her morale from the very nature of war. The need for that morale to be boosted, increased is a fact. Though I don't view the "insurgents" (hate that word)as soldiers, they too face the same need for a good influence on their morale to counter morale drain.

The constant drumbeat against the war (that includes both legitimate complaints as well as trumped up bogus propoganda from people who have never seen a war they liked) combines with the void of good that our soldiers are doing on a regular basis to improve the lives of the people of Iraq. The constant skewing of facts, drumming of false charges that the administration lied, did this, didn't do that as with all propaganda eventually begins to wear down public support. Basically, there are very few countries / cultures today that can retain long term support for war. Some of the more savage and baser cultures can, but even without help support always goes down over time. With the combined efforts of the left and the MSM, support for the war goes faster.

The lowering of public support (whether by legitimate or manufactured means) is by default a morale boost for the enemy.

When the enemy reads our own newspapers virtually siding with them (the flurry of criticism, the barrage of national security leaks making bogus claims of illegalities, outrage over the slighest discomfort the enemy is given vs. near silence over our boys being mutilated and tortured) and sees thousands of people marching in the streets in protest to the war, don't try to tell me it does not help them find courage to fight another day. We have had several operations to root them out and several have resulted in the enemy being piled up like cordwood. That is enough to make most despair. Then they read a copy of the New York Times and they decide to continue a little longer.

LASunsett said...


Excellent points on that last rebuttal, sir. In fact this has been a good exchange of views and ideas, thanks to all of you.

ME-you too, even though I disagree with you on this one, you helped make this an enjoyable debate. Ms Miami and SF do too when they come here. Maybe you and Ms Miami will someday get your own blogs and I will come argue with you, there. ;)

M-E said...

AICS: I think there are very few insurgents sitting around reading the New York Times.In fact, I doubt if many of them can even read or speak English. What spurs them to go a little longer is the fact that they can see how well their efforts are with the casualties they are causing. The roadside bombs have been very effective. They are also enjoying success with kidnappings and with their snipers. They are fueled by the fact that they are seeing success in their efforts to kill our soldiers, it has nothing to do with what they are reading in the NYT!

"When the enemy reads our own newspapers virtually siding with them (the flurry of criticism, the barrage of national security leaks making bogus claims of illegalities, outrage over the slighest discomfort the enemy is given vs. near silence over our boys being mutilated and tortured) and sees thousands of people marching in the streets in protest to the war, don't try to tell me it does not help them find courage to fight another day."

Ok, now when was it that you saw on tv or the MSM, film of thousands of protesters in the streets protesting against the war? This is almost NEVER shown on MSM! At least I haven't seen it in a very very long time. Other than the few short months of film with Cindy Sheehan protesting in Texas, not much of that in the news. And there weren't thousands of people protesting the war, just a few hundred. Most of the anti-war demonstrations that I saw on MSM was when Bush was visiting other countries. That isn't the "far left's" side doing the protesting!
Barrage of national security leaks? Do you mean like when one of our CIA opporative (Plame)who was outed by the Bush administration? What are these leaks you are talking about? The leaks about the illegal NSA wiretapping? THAT'S helping the enemy to fight on??? LOL!

As far as the "near silence" over the torturing of our soldiers...I have to wonder if someone on the left made comments about that situation, we would surely be pegged as using the soldiers deaths as fodder for our anti-war feelings and we would be insensitive to the families of those soldiers. Yet, if the right says something about them, it's respect for the troops? Did you ever think that the MSM is not reporting this because there is an investigation going on as to how they were kidnapped and why they were left stranded by the rest of the team? Could that look bad for the President, that there weren't enough troops that were needed for support? I can't see how the MSM is supposed to be liberal...I see nothing but Bush propaganda on the MSM.

"We have had several operations to root them out and several have resulted in the enemy being piled up like cordwood. That is enough to make most despair."

Excuse me, but where is your proof of these operations that have resulted in the enemy being piled up like cordwood? Is this something you have just made up? How about some facts on that. I do know that the Iraqi civilians are dying in droves. Could this be that pile of "cordwood" you are talking about? That certainly is enough to make most despair! Believe me, if our operations were so successful, Bush would be sure to get it on the news. I haven't even seen anything like that on Fox know, that "fair and balanced" newsshow. LOL!

Really, this whole "liberals" are causing the insurgents to fight harder argument is bogus and has been used time and time again. It just doesn't stick because it's ridiculous.

M-E said...

LASunsett: Thanks for allowing me on your blog today. The debate has been fun...even if I don't agree with you on this one. :) Your bloggers are very polite and fun to debate with.

Get my own blog? Not on your life! LOL!

AICS...I love your blog name. Popeye is one of my very favorites! Now keep eating that spinach so we can debate more later. :D

LASunsett said...


I think there are very few insurgents sitting around reading the New York Times.

You'd be surprised what they read when they can get their hands on something. The upper echelon leaders are educated, that's why they have the effect they do over the masses of uneducated. They have translators. And let's not forget Al-Jazeera, they report every negative piece and highlight it, as much as Greta highlights the Aruba case.

BTW, I won't be around much tomorrow but hope to have a post or two up. I will be busy for a couple of days. But you can still find an argument with someone, I am sure. ;)

Gene said...

The article puzzled me. One of the leading critics of the Iraq War gives a speech about the war...and the article is only ten paragraphs long. And then I find that the passage you find outrageous, "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon" isn't presented as a QUOTE from Murtha. It isn't in quotation marks.

And it doesn't sound like something Murtha (or anyone else) would say. You would say, "THE American presence in Iraq is...". There's no noun marker. The fact the reporter only directly quotes Murtha twice is also odd.

So I took the bull by the horns and emailed Elizabeth Baier at the Sun-Sentinal and asked her what, exactly, Murtha said. Did he said, "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran...". If so, why not quote him directly? And what did he say before and after making that statement. It seems like a shoddy piece of reporting, so I went straight to the source to get some answers. I await her reply.

All_I_Can_Stands said...


I don't have the links for the successful operations at this time. This was last year when they were cleaning up the Sunni Triangle as well as clearing up a hotbed near Syria. These are the operations I claim resulted in significant deaths on the enemy side.

I was being funny when I named the NYT specifically. However, if you were a leader in the insurgency what would you do to inspire your troops? It is quite easy to rally them by pointing to the undermining of the war and point out how the US resolve is weakening. They would be cheering and beating their chests and giving each other high fives(at least the Arabic equivalent). If you lead the insurgency wouldn't you use the anti-war movement and all the Bush bashing broo-haha to rally your fighters and psych them up? Next thing you are going to tell me is they have scrupples about engaging in such activity.

chancuff said...

Were I in Sun-Sentinel's shoes, I'd sit quiet as a mouse, hoping this will all blow over without much more fuss. Elizabeth Baier quotes Murtha several times in her Breaking World News (Brit Hume of Fox News as well as the Wall Street Joural have taken Baier's ball and run with it) claims of what Murtha said in Miami. When direct quotes are used, it's often the case the reporter has recorded the event, in order to make certain their quotes are accurate. What initially drew my attention was her lack of quotes for what she claims Murtha said in her first paragraph.,0,7119684.story

Shortly after reading the Sun Sentinel story, I googlenews'ed "Murtha Miami Iran Nuclear"
Among the dozens of hits quoting Ms. Baier indexed within a few hours of the Sun Sentinel's earth shaking expose' of Murtha's talk, I found another article published by the Miami Herald.

You will notice, this writer totally missed Murtha's "shot heard around the world" (technorati now has 400+ hits for what Ms. Baier claims Murtha said.)

On the unlikely chance Ms. Baier did *not* quote Murtha from a recording she made at the event ... I've written the Florida International University Public Relations folks asking them to preserve their audio/video recording of this event they sponsored for Murtha to speak at.

I've sent inquiries to the entire editorial boards of the Sun Sentinel, Wall Street Journal, Arizona Sun Star and Miami Herald, as well as Knight Ridder, asking them to pursue any recording of this event, in pursuit of the real news story, Elizabeth Baier.

It shouldn't take more than a day, or three, for Ms Baier to experience personally, that the world of journalism is flat. Whether you like or despise John Murtha is no longer the story. The real story is ... just how far has mainstream media sunk? Is Jerry Springer Journalism the new standard for reporters?

Here's what should strike patriotic Americans as most disturbing ... If Murtha never said anything like this ... If America's Conservative Talking Heads plastering this "Murtha fiction" all over the internet (including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal) of something Murtha never said ... then who's to blame for this story achieving such prominence that our enemies will have no trouble finding it, and get the comfort these stories provide them? Certainly not John Murtha.

Hold your breath and hope that this aid to our enemies isn't solely due to America's media "dittoheads", including bloggers.

Keep in mind there are only two stories written by reporters who were actually in Miami last Saturday, where Murtha spoke. One used Mutha's outrageous comments as her opening paragraph, and the other, at a competing Newspaper in Florida, never mentioned them at all.

I spent a few hours on the phone with a friend of mine who is editor for a news site. I'm letting him run with this ball. You can follow how this story develops at:


LASunsett said...

Gene and Chancuff,

If it turns out this was never said, I will certainly note it and post a retraction of sorts. The gist of my post does not altogether revolve around just this one particular thing, although it was certainly a catalyst in writing a second post on Murtha.

What does Murtha say? He may deny or spin it, if asked. But if someone has those recordings and can provide them, that would be the one thing that could settle it.

Note my opening paragraph. When I read something in the print media, this is how I like to open my posts. So snd so is reporting.....

If I hear it on radio or see it on TV with my own ears and eyes, that's different.

Keep me posted on this. I do want to be accurate. Opinions may vary, but facts cannot.

Gene said...

I didn't hear anything back from the reporter yet. I'm not sure that her intent, if she had any intent, was to make Murtha look bad. It's just a strange way to present some very controversial information. Not directly quoting him raises a big red flag. And, frankly, if Murtha actually said that, it warrants a much more involved piece. It's like they treated it as a roundup of a school board meeting. It's bizarre.

And if I'm an editor reading this story over, the first question I ask is, "Did he really say this?", and my second is, "Why didn't you quote him directly?".

superfrenchie said...

All_I_Can_Stands: //Same with the WMD intelligence. More countries than the US and more than one administration trusted the intelligence that showed there were WMD and where it was supposed to be.//

Perhaps some countries. But the one you hear the most is "even the French and the German believed there were WMDs." That is incorrect and nothing more than US government propaganda. Both made clear, publicly, before the war, that they had doubts.

M-E said...

Chancuf: I'm glad you commented on the "non quote" by Murtha that headed this story. I mentioned this also in a previous comment. I think we need to be very concerned what is being written and said in the media. This "swiftboating" of politians is getting to the point of being ridiculous and undermines the entire journalistic community, IMO.

ATICS: "Next thing you are going to tell me is they have scrupples about engaging in such activity."

Again, I see that when a person on the right doesn't agree with someone on the left, they make up ridiculous remarks like the one above. My point was, and still is, that the insurgents have plenty to fuel their hatred towards America because of what Bush has done. They don't need to read the NYT or anyother newspaper to help with their cause. You may be forgetting that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, this isn't just about hating America anymore, it's about a power grab...and our guys are in the middle of it thanks to George Bush and his incompetent planning. He's doin' a heckuvajob!

"I don't have the links for the successful operations at this time. This was last year when they were cleaning up the Sunni Triangle as well as clearing up a hotbed near Syria. These are the operations I claim resulted in significant deaths on the enemy side."

Well, you wonder why the MSM isn't reporting on all those successes...maybe because it is very old news! At the present, the news isn't so good is it? Declaring a state of emergency in Baghdad isn't exactly a success story, but it is the truth. You can't and shouldn't want to silence the news. I seem to remember, it was Fox, I think, who sent out a reporter to Iraq to bring home the good news stories. Well, she came home with nothing, because it was too unsafe to go anywhere. There was no good news to report. That was at least four months ago, and I haven't heard a word yet.

You can't stop the majority of Americans who are against this war from speaking out. This bogus excuse that it is hurting national security has been used over and over again. Now Bush is going after the NYT for treason. This is becoming more like a Stalinist state than ever before. There have also been reports today that Bush told one of his own Senators, I think it is Specter, that he has the right to overrule ANY law if he deems it necessary because of National Security. He thinks he is King...or a dictator, and that is not going to fly. The media doesn't like being stifled and they won't.

It's funny how the Bush supporters talk about fighting for freedom, yet, they want to stifle the freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, and the freedom to protest. The only thing this administration is worried about is flag burning and gays.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

It's funny how the Bush supporters talk about fighting for freedom, yet, they want to stifle the freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, and the freedom to protest.

I am not sure where you are getting this concept from. I am not proposing that we round people up and throw them in jail for protesting. However, people need to be reminded that there are significant consequensces of their protests on the morale of our troops whether directly or indirectly.

As for the NYT, this is a clear case of a national security breach. There needs to be criminal charges. This has nothing to do with free speech. It is purely an attempt to sabotage any successful effort to stop or decrease terrorist activities.

There is no difference between this and if they had printed plans for D-Day. Or if they were to obtain and print the president's itinerary. Or if they obtained and printed blueprints for the Trident subs during the height of the Cold War. If you think any on that list falls under free speech, it would explain your comments. It is not free speech, it is aiding and abetting the enemy.

M-E said...

AICS: "However, people need to be reminded that there are significant consequensces of their protests on the morale of our troops whether directly or indirectly."

So, you are saying that you don't want to round up protesters, but they are causing (according to the extreme right wingers) serious consequences by their action. So, if all the anti-war citizens keep silent...Bush will be touting how there is no dissent. The serious consequenses of protests are in your own mind. Soldiers are getting killed in Iraq because Bush sent them in without a plan, ill-equipped and now have them smack in the middle of a civil war because of his poor planning...or should I say "no planning". And again, when was the last time you saw a war protest of thousands of people in the streets? What news station are you watching? Now, since there haven't been any, have you seen the insurgents easing up on their fighting? NO? I didn't think your argument doesn't hold water.

"As for the NYT, this is a clear case of a national security breach. There needs to be criminal charges. This has nothing to do with free speech. It is purely an attempt to sabotage any successful effort to stop or decrease terrorist activities."

That is pure and simple hyperbole! For one thing, it was Bush and Tenet themselves who said in public that they were looking into the financial records of terrorists after 9/11. It was also discussed during the 9/11 commission. If Bush wants to worry about giving information to the terrorists, he should shut his own big trap.

There was nothing in that story that gave away national secrets. It's amazing how Bush can say with a straight face that leaking is a crime, when HE himself has leaked information to the press when it supported him politically. Again, as I said before, leaking the name of a CIA agent is ok, but don't print a story about something that was already known to everyone. And if you are so sure that insurgents are reading the New York Times, they would have seen that information that was made public in the 9/11 hearings. Total hypocricy on the part of Bush and his gang.

Aiding and abeting the enemy? LOL! Give me a break! Let's see how far he gets with this one.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Thank you for proving me correct on the hypocrisy of the Plame affair vs. a real security issue. Plame was not covert (or Fitzgerald would have prosecuted for it instead of this lame perjury), yet the media and many liberals blew enough hot air about it to fill many a Goodyear blimp. When there is a real security breach they are silent. Sorry, the hypocrisy is on the left on this one.

The attempt at making a point that Bush had already discussed going after financial info is very different from printing how they actually do it. During the Cold War we knew about the Trident subs. That is a far cry from printing blueprints or their locations.

M-E said...

ATICS: Sorry, you're going to have to get your news from a place other than Fox, she was covert. In fact, if you read the Newsweek article of February 2006, the headline of the story is: Valerie Plame: She was Covert. Here is the reason that Libby was not indicted for espionage; "Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

Although, who ever gave the name to Libby (probably Cheney, IMO, since he was Libby's boss) did know she was covert. And if they didn't know she was covert, doesn't that make you wonder how stupid they are, that with all their clearances, they were too lazy or too stupid to find that out? Or, was it crazy like a Fox?

So, before you start calling my statements hypocricy, you might want to check your facts...not the ones you get on Fox News or the right wing blogs, the real facts.

In fact, if you dug a little deeper you will find that her covert status was such that she had a more dangerous job because she would not have been protected by the US if she was caught in her job while overseas.

And, really, you need to stop making me laugh with the comparison to the Trident sub incident! NYT story doesn't even compare...if it did, Bush would have already had them arrested and thrown in the brink. I don't see any arrest warrants and the chances that the administration will even attempt it is doubtful. Bush is just throwing up a lot of smoke to cover up his mistakes, and his misdeeds.

You keep living in your dream land and continue listening to Fox. I'm sure you'll hear plenty about the horrors of flag, when was the last time you saw people burning flags in the streets? Must have been during those immaginary thousand man anti-war protests,you know, the ones you've never seen on tv and are hurting the moral of our troops.

Gene said...

Turns out Murtha didn't say what he allegedly said. The paper will be printing a correction tomorrow.

LASunsett said...

Thanks Gene,

Leave me the link when they do, and I too will post a correction.

But I still stand by my opinion that he has been irresponsible in some of his statements in the past. Unlike M-E, I know that the enemy can and does get more encouragement when our elected officials call for immediate withdrawal, because we are a dismal failure in Iraq.

I know too many people that have been there and seen first hand that all is not gloom and doom, like the Murtha's of the world claim. It's not all red roses for sure, but there is a lot of exaggeration going on, all for political purposes.

All_I_Can_Stands said...


Wasn't it Newsweek that published the story about flushing a Koran down the toilet and got some people killed over a false story? Pretty tough calling Fox News untrustworthy and quoting Newsweek in the same breath. Who did Newsweek even get their info from - Joe Wilson? There is no proof that she is covert and while I will admit there is not proof she was not, the burden of proof is that she is.

Even if she was still classified as covert having been 5 years off the field (not overseas - having had a baby in that timeframe), it is still hypocritical to denounce the Plame story and then give the NYT a pass.

if it did, Bush would have already had them arrested and thrown in the brink.

As I have said before, one of Bush's faults is the softness which his administration has when dealing with crime by liberals - case in point Sandy Berger. While I will be disappointed if Gonzales does not go after the NYT, I will not be surprised.

As for the laughter at the Trident sub analogy, I also laugh at points made by others. Laughter is not, however, a substitute for a logical point. Also, simply saying they are not equivalent does not make it so. They were both classified secrets used by the US against the enemy. The revealing of each would weaken its effectiveness. They are equivalent whether you admit it or not.

On a side note, you liberals and your Fox News cliche. I watch about 1 hour per week at most of Fox News and mostly to Brit Hume or Neil Cavuto while I am falling asleep. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

M-E said...

AICT: For one thing, the Newsweek article hadn't been refuted. As a matter of fact, if you would have been more careful in reading my post, you would have seen the reason given for Fitzgerald not charging Libby with outing an agent. If you will look at other publications from other news magazines or newspapers, and even in Wikapedia you will see the same information.

Here is how other CIA agents felt, including George Tenent about how Bush handled this. You can google that three page statement if you like. Facts.

"On 20 July 2005, eleven former CIA officers backed Valerie Plame in a three page statement and characterized the leak of her identity as damaging "national security and threaten[ing] the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering."

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the eleven said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

Former DCI George Tenet told a Senator that he was "furious" with the Bush Administration about the leak in 2003.[152] And Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame's in the late 1980's, heavily criticized the Bush Administration's handling of the leak: "This is wrong and this is shameful. Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson."

Regarding her covert status:

"Plame worked for the CIA for 20 years, and her status, according to the New York Times, was "non-official cover." (5 October 2003). U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Plame was working undercover shortly after it had been revealed by Robert Novak.[187] Senator Charles Schumer asked the FBI to investigate the leak because the CIA had identified Plame's status as covert.

According to Larry C Johnson, a former CIA agent, "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

I would say, that you should still be careful to claim that my facts aren't correct or that I'm using poor references. I think US Intellegence Agents, and CIA agents and information that came from Senate investigations, are pretty good sources.

Softness about dealing with crime with the liberals? That's pretty funny, especially since he said that he would remove anyone in his office who had anything to do with the Plame outing, then backing down when the finger started pointing to Libby and Rove. How about how the administration has handled the crime with Abramoff, DeLay, and the rest of those crooks? Yeah, he's really the head.

Yup, sounds like you get your info from Brit Hume and Cavuto. I certainly wouldn't call those unbiased opinions! LOL!

M-E said...

LaSunsett: Ok, lets be real clear on what Murtha said. You say that his statements are irresponsible. What he said was, that we should pull about 100,000 of our troops from Iraq and put them in periphiel countries, such as Kuwait. Now, I wouldn't call that a "cut and run" (a phrase you right wingers love to use). He doesn't believe we should have permanant bases there. I wouldn't call that irresponsible...unless you also feel that General George Casey is irresponsible in making a public speech to the Pentagon last week and said this..“I’m confident that we will be able to take reductions over the course of this year.”

Now, that sounds a lot like a time table to me. It sounds like he wants to pull out troops....hmmm, cut and run? Irresponsible? Maybe there should be headlines like, GENERAL GEORGE CASEY IS FUELING THE INSURGENTS WITH TALK OF PULL OUT.

As a matter of fact, the Republican Congress had come up with a plan that is almost identical to the one that they are bad mouthing Murtha over! It involves removing troops and putting them in neighboring countries. Hmmm...I wonder where they got that idea from?

I would have to end this by saying that unlike LASunsett, I don't think there is an exaggeration about the news coming out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, it is the Republican view that all those soldiers killed are just a number. You know, those coffins, draped in flags that we aren't allowed to see? Nothing but a number...I'm sure their families appreciated that remark. I guess if you don't have your ass on the line, it's ok to stay the course, eh???

All_I_Can_Stands said...


ou can google that three page statement if you like. Facts.

Sorry, statements do not equal facts. I am not a bit surprised that some in the CIA backed her story true or not. The CIA is in very bad need of reform. It is quite an unusual time we live in where people are willing to lie, reveal national security secrets and a host of other ills simply for a political agenda.

Since I still have not seen a trustworthy source on the covert status of Plame, I still claim the burden of proof is not met. Why was Libby refused verification of her "covert" status by Fitzgerald for his defense if this is such public knowledge? Sorry, but although I have seen her covert status stated as fact many, many times; I have yet to see concrete proof of it. Liberals tend to state things over and over again until the public simply accepts an unproven thing as fact. I think this falls into that category.

And no, I don't recall Hume or Cavuto ever saying anything on the subject.

M-E said...

AICS: I guess if you want to stick your head in the sand you can. I would say that when George Tenet, who was her boss and head of the CIA, backs her up...and there are US Intellegence Agents who are tesitfying under oath before the Senate, their statements are facts.

You just don't want to accept it because you would rather follow the words of a two-bit journalist who gets his talking points from Karl Rove.

The reason that Libby wasn't allowed to use this information on her status in his trial is, if it went into court, information about what her activities were and who she was in contact with while she was working in her capacity as a spy, this with could come out in trial. This would jeapordize National know, the National Security that Bush keeps claiming he's trying to protect. It would compromise those that she had contact with. If you look into why Fitzgeral disallowed it, you would have read that...facts, just facts.

If you want concrete proof, try looking up some of this information in the transcripts from the Senate hearings. It's safe, it was run by the majority of Republicans, so you should be able to trust it. And all these sources were under oath. Not like Cheney and Bush who refused to testify under oath in the 9/11 hearings.

So,you keep sticking your head in the sand, and stick with the ever shrinking minority of people in the US who think that King George could be trusted, and who know that Iraq was a big mistake. You keep spouting those Republican talking points. I kinda enjoy the show!!!

Regarding your remark about liberals having to state things over and over again....LOL! How about this quote from King George,
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." according to you, George Bush is a liberal...or just a guy who repeats his lies over and over again so people like you will believe it and call it fact! LOL!

I'm enjoying this way too much!

All_I_Can_Stands said...


So far the only source of your claim that she was covert are you and Newsweek. You are claiming what others have said about it without backing it up. I do admit her CIA friends did back her up. I don't recall anything on anyone saying under oath that she was, so I would be interested in reading that. Of course the willingness of one to lie under oath seems to be getting more common these days. That would still not be proof.

It is interesting that you equate demanding proof to hiding my head in the sand. I guess it would be more honorably to robotically accept everything you say as gospel truth? What a strange way you think.

Nice try on the Bush quote. It doesn't quite work in logic. If all A's do B and C does B that must make B an A. Besides, I doubt if Bush was talking about stating an untruth over and over again until it sinks in. Actually teaching is a repetitive process. This process is hijaacked by those who repeat false statements over and over again until believed.

Kind of like you keep telling yourself over and over again that you are making a slam-dunk argument doesn't make it so, yet you believe it. LOL

LASunsett said...



Murtha started this a year ago. One full year before any general felt comfortable saying this. That's one year the jihadists have had more encouragement from a U.S Congressman.

M-E you are grasping here. The reason that the Dems are campaigning so hard for this pullout is clear. They keep the pressure up, knowing fully good and well that we are going to pull out soon, anyway. Then when they do pull out, they can say in their campaign speeches in 2008, see how the Dems fought for and made Bush pullout. Murtha wants to be Sec'y of Defense if a Dem wins back the WH and wants Majority leader if the win back the House.

I have been involved in more than one campaign before, I know how these strategists think.

LASunsett said...


You really have it in for Fox don't you? Do you know that Fox's evening news shows beat CNN's and MSNBC's combined, almost 2:1, consistently? There is a reason for that, it's not because they are spewing out GOP talking points on a daily basis, like the others do the Dems.

I am an independent, mix my ticket quite frequently. But I want to hear both sides of the coin and Fox does a better job of doing that. I am not the only one that believes it. The proof is in the ratings.

kev said...

Leftists absolutely hate FoxNews because it isn't under leftist domination and control as is the mainstream media, and please, m-e, don't tell me that the msm isn't left-leaning and even shilling for the democrats. Regarding your posting of the quote that cia agents shouldn't be used as political footballs, I absolutely agree, and my reply to them would be, "Then don't offer yourselves as political footballs." Many agents and appointees in the cia have been entrenched for years, and they are as political there as people are anywhere. Many are the product of former liberal policy, the policy of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, and maybe the evil will go away. This current cia is just now getting back to doing the work the cia was meant to do when it was created, and many of them don't like it. Regarding your 7:11 PM post, you are deluded. The leftists in this country are certainly aiding the enemy, whether by design, or inadvertently, and it's been pointed out by terrorist leaders. They've pointed to our leaving Vietnam because of pressure from within, and our tucking our tails and running from Mogadishu prematurely. (Don't ask me where my evidence is, it's out there and easy to find if you really want it. You find it. Besides, I've noticed that you don't always let facts get in the way of your talking points.) The terrorists (I trust you don't mind my referring to them as such) know they can't beat us militarily, so all they have to do is draw it out and wait for the leftist machine to do its work. If we're forced to give a timetable for our withdrawl (I believe the dems are now referring to this as "redeployment," because quitting, surrendering, abandoning, running away, you get the idea, are all reprehensible) all the terrorists have to do is wait for that date.

M-E said...

LASunsett: Fox News get its high ratings the same way that the circus freak shows get customers. C'mon, do you honestly think people with any form of IQ actually believe the crap that comes out of O'Reilly's mouth? He's a joke, and that's why people watch them.That's why they get the ratings. Hell, I watch them too, it's good for a laugh!!! But then again, you guys also like that pill popping hypocrit, Rush Limbaugh, too. Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess.

I'm not a particular fan of CNN or MSNBC, as a matter of fact. The only show I watch anymore on MSNBC, and the only one that gets any ratings, is Keith Olberman, because I think he's funny and I love the way he rips on O'Reilly. I'm not looking at those stations for news either. I watch BBC when I want to get any real information. I also read about 6 different newspapers, lots of news magazines, and read plenty of books regarding the war and politics. I read all sides of the story and I still come out knowing that this war was a mistake from the beginning. I knew Bush was lying everytime he opened his mouth about not rushing into war without the facts of WMD. I can see a railroad job when it's happening. You guys can't see it even after the train wreck. You have your heads in the sand and are saying, "What train wreck? I don't see anything wrong!".

You keep telling me that Murtha wants to be Secretary of Defense...where did you hear this? Was there a quote from him stating this information? The same for the remark that he wants to be leader of the House...yet, I don't remember seeing him say that. Where is your source on this? Could it be that you have decided this is true, therefore it is fact? I'll hold back on my comments on those last two questions until you show me the proof that this is true and this is why he is making these speeches. I like dealing in facts, not rumor or Republican talking points. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have someone as Secretary of Defense who has actually been in a war, and knows enough not to send our military into a war without the proper equipment or planning. So, if he is Secretary of Defense, good for us!

Murtha is not the only one who started more than a year ago in asking that the troops be pulled out of Iraq and I applaud them for this! It was obvious to even those who supported this war in the beginning that Bush had failed miserably. Just think of how many of our soldiers would be alive today or have all their limbs if Bush had listened to them back then! But of course, we must stay the course!! To hell with those soldiers, right? Sorry, LA, you have to do better than trying to spread rumors about anyone on the democratic party that speaks for what our party believes. The favorite game of Republicans is to "swiftboat" their opponents. If they can't find a good argument, the best thing to do is try and destroy the reputation of the person giving the message. Particularly if he has a strong military career, something that is lacking in Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfield. It's such a shame you have to resort to such tactics when you have no defense.

You really need to get over this "your hurting the troops by speaking out against the war or talking of a pull out" routine. Why don't you face the fact that we are having difficulty(to say the least) in Iraq because of the failed policies of Bush. Because Rummmy hasn't a clue as to what he is doing? Or maybe because Dick Cheney is still telling everyone that the insurgents are in their last thoes, AGAIN, and a day or so later we hear about Baghdad being in a state of emergency!

Also, if I recall, it is the new Iraqi government that has also called for a pull out timetable. seems to me that anyone can call for a pull out other than the Dems, eh?

Well, now that I know that you think Fox News is "fair and balanced" (hard to say that without laughing), I know where you get your talking points.

M-E said...

AICS: You are soooo funny!So, a direct quote from someone who is actually a part of the agency that Plame is in is not good enough. Seeing the quote from Tenet (you know, the guy who got the medal of honor from your buddy Bush). And it's not good enough to have someone who swore under oath...I guess unless you hear it from God himself or Brit Hume,it must be a lie! Very sad, very sad...and you wonder why I say you have your head buried in the sand.

Regarding Bush's quote...when Bush lies and actually calls his repetative statements propaganda in a quote, it's a teaching process. I see. Let's look at the definition of the word propaganda,

// The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.//

Notice the term "reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine". Not speaking of facts, but reflecting their own views...over and over and over again, and calling it fact.

Wait a minute! I got that definition of the can you believe a dictionary?!? Was it a right leaning dictionary or a liberal dictionary??? LOL!

Propaganda and Bush go together like ...hmmmm, Abramoff and Scandal, Limbaugh and drugs, or Cheney and buckshot. You get the idea, don't ya?

Really, AICS, I'm wasting my time debating with someone who doesn't know fact from fiction or just pulls his facts out of thin air. Kinda like the journalist (I'll use that term lightly) from the Miami Sentinal who wrote that story without telling the whole story. Why am I not surprised that this story is the source of this thread. Who needs facts, when you have sensationalized fiction?

Don't leave your head in the sand for too long, I don't think it's good for your health.

M-E said...

Kev: Ah yes, he MSM is overrun with liberals! Give me a break! Have you bothered to look and see who owns these stations??? Poor baby, another one who doesn't want to take the time to dig deep and find some information! That must be a republican thing, not looking for information...cherry picking information, hmm...cherry picking, where have I heard that term? Could it be it came from one of your own republicans who worked for Colin Powell and just testified that the reason the CIA did the cherry picking was because, how did he put it? "Three words, The Vice President", who put pressure on them to find only the information that would back their plans for war?

Plame didn't get outed because she wasn't careful or blew her own cover. I think the remark that she made herself a political football is ridiculous, at best. Are you telling me she didn't care about all the work that she had done or didn't care if she put her own collegues in harms way? I think you should re-think that statement, Kev.

She was outed by one of our the White House! Because they found it necessary to use her to try and discredit her husband who had found information that the statement about Yellow Cake was wrong and the White House didn't want to accept that. After all, isn't it more important to make sure everyone believed in the mushroom cloud? How can they do that if they know the REAL let's out an agent,no big deal, eh?

So, because OBL or other terrorists say that we failed in Viet Nam, we are going to show them by going into pre-emptive war and strike someone who had nothing to do with 9/11? Now, since it wasn't the WMD that our guys are dying for, it must be the fact that we wanted to get rid of SH and give them a new democratic government....ummm, we did that. And that new government WANTS us out and has already said just last week that they want a timetable for withdrawal.

Exactly what facts did I get wrong, Kev? The ones that you pull out of your rear end? You seem to know the terrorist plans very well! Are you friends with any of them by any chance? LOL! Besides, Kev, since you want to know a few facts. The insurgents who are fighting in Iraq are a mixture of tribes that are fighting for a power grab. A civil war, dear. I know, I know, hard for you guys to admit. A Democrat said that this would lead to civil war and we were right. Cheney said we get candy and flowers...where are those damned flowers anyway??? OH!!! In the cemetaries of our dead soldiers!!! That's probably what Cheney meant, right?

So, when you start showing me some facts in your comments, I would refrain from calling me delusional. You may think that personal attacks could cover the fact that you have nothing to say that has any basis, but it really should be below someone who claims to be an expert on terrorism.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Notice the term "reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine". Not speaking of facts, but reflecting their own views...over and over and over again, and calling it fact.

So now nobody can hold a view unless it is false. You are going under the assumption that these things Bush is saying over and over again are false. This is your right to spout such things but don't expect me to agree with you unless you support it.

Your silly exercise in giving the definition of the word propoganda also assumes that all propoganda is bad. In a war of ideas, everything is a view and in order to convince others of your view you must get repetitive. Your underlying notion that propoganda is always bad would mean that your propoganda is bad as well.

Really, AICS, I'm wasting my time debating with someone who doesn't know fact from fiction or just pulls his facts out of thin air.

And I am wasting my time continuing to ask you to support your statements and paraphrased quotes. Instead of you coughing them up you provide me with liberal mouthpieces like NewsWeek. So basically I am only getting your interpretation of what you have read of interpretations of liberal writers of what they think are the facts. Hardly anything to take to the bank. Either provide something solid or move on.

M-E said...

AICS:Here ya go, Bush's lies...I mean propaganda, I mean...teaching process,in action.

In the State of the Union Address, and on many,many speeches given while trying to sell his (I mean re-educate the public) about Social Security. This is what Bush said.

//Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."//

Now this is the truth. This truth can be found in MANY sources,including the Social Security Office, itself.

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05"

My source, the BBC. I suppose you think that is a liberal news station also?

OK, regarding withdrawal. Now this quote is from Bush, is that acceptable?

//President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet." //

"June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the letter, made public on Sunday, June 19.


June 2006: When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-president’s request. Then in an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 20, Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, called for a significant reduction in US troops this year, with most leaving next year. “We envisage the US troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007,” wrote Dr. Al-Rubbaie. Al-Rubaie said that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people. you believe that guy? Or is he not on your list of sources to believe, too?

So, unless you approve, it's not solid proof? I guess the Iraq Vice President or President have no right to ask for withdrawal? After all, didn't Bush say that he would let them make that decision? Or did he lie about that, too?

You just can't face the facts. Pure and simple. They aren't my words, AICS, they are the words of the Iraqi government.

It could be that I can't find any quotes from the Fox News because they can't report what they don't want people to hear, the truth.

It hurts doesn't it? The truth, that is. Now lift that head out of the sand and you will see a whole new world opened up to you!

All_I_Can_Stands said...


Wow, do you stretch things. You have leaped from a request for a timeline to a demand to get out and NOW.

Then you bring up social security in your frantic efforts to attempt to find a lie. If there were so many lies on topic why do you feel the need to go off topic? The Dems were screaming about Social Security before Bush came in office. Then when Bush wants to privatize it suddenly the Dems claim SS is just fine. Please.

On a side note, are you asking me with a serious face if the BBC is liberal?

I would again point out that statements like "truth hurts" and "get your head out of the sand" may make you feel better but they do not constitute a reasoned point. In fact they come across as insecurity on your part. Just my opinion.

M-E said...

AICS: Oh I see! You want specific lies on specific subjects!!! It's never good enough for you is it? LOL! You just let me hear what subject you want to discuss and I'll get the lie for you. I think my information about the Iraqi government and what they have asked for and the fact that they are angry because they are being ignored by Bush was just fine. Gee, where is your comment on that? Those silly little facts just keep getting in your way, don't they?

Now, didn't you or Kev or somebody here, you all sound alike, say that if we give a timeline, all the terrorists have to do is sit and wait until we leave? So, the quote I gave you was in regard to that. The fact is, the Iraq government wants a timeline. Of course, since it is easily verified that this is something that the Iraqi government asked for and actually said, you seem to want to ignore that information because it doesn't fit what you want to hear. I pointed out the lie that Bush said he will listen to the Iraq government and what they want. Obviously, it's not what he wants to do, is it?

Ummm...did Murtha say he wants to pull all our troops out now and send them home? Don't think so dear, did you actually read anything in that funny little article that this thread is about? He said he wanted to pull out 100,000 of our troops (sound's exactly what the Iraq government wants!), and move them into neighboring countries...not send them home. Gee, the truth is so hard for you guys! It's easier to make up some "cut and run" bullet phrase to make people believe Bush's propaganda. Kinda like this article in the Miami Sentinal, putting out something that wasn't said, and then attacking Murtha for saying it! You tricky little guys!!! I guess being deceitful is ok if it helps to bolster your views.

It seems to me that nothing constitutes a reasoned point in your eyes, unless it is something that you agree with. That's not debate, dear. That's just a bunch of right wingers patting each other on the back saying "good job".

Now, I have yet to hear anything from your side that constitutes a reasonable debate. Other than, "I don't like your sources", I haven't seen anything from you! Other than your opinions, not backed by fact or information that could be seen. Why not show me a picture of an insurgent reading the NYT! LOL!

So far, Fox News and Brit Hume is the only source of news you seem to like. Sorry, can't get any real facts from them, they haven't anything to back them up. Just a lot of hot air and falsehoods.

Now, you get that list to me, so I can be sure to post the correct lie. There are plenty, believe me!

Social Security didn't need or should not be privatized. The Dems never called for that, that was the Bush brainiac's idea. It didn't fly did it? In fact, the more speeches he gave about it, the worst his polls dropped. Hmmm.... He's already done wonders with the health care problem hasn't he...and the national debt...and our international relations...and our gas prices (remember that picture of him holding hands with the Sheik?? LOL!) Yea, that guy has connections doesn't he? Oh, and lets not forget all the good he's done for our troops and their health care benefits (slashed), and the fact that he can't seem to keep those recruitment numbers up. Raising the age will help..again. If this keeps up, my grandfather can join!

On the good side, however, Bush and Co. has done wonders for Halliburton stock! Those lucky ducks!!!!

Ok, I'm done for awhile, you guys keep coming up with the same old recycled stuff. I have yet to see any information from you refuting my facts, only your own opinions about how you don't believe anything that you don't agree with, even if there are transcripts to back it up.

Have you taken the time, BTW to google that letter that I cited in my last comment from the Iraqi government? Or do I have to do that for you too? Nah, do your own work for a change. Yawn! I'm bored with this.

Oh, I almost forgot. Propaganda is the repeating of someone views in order to sway the public to their views. Everything is not a view, dear. This must be where you Bush followers are confused.

Here, a definition of FACT

#1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

3. Something believed to be true or real.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: like when Abramoff was arrested for illegal lobbying, or someone who outs a CIA agent for political gain.

Hope this helps you in your future comments. BTW, if I were insecure, I would take all my information from Fox News so I won't have to think for myself. I'm not only very secure, but I'm very careful not to say anything without backing it up, like I've heard on this blog. Just my opinion.

You guys enjoy each others company, I've certainly had fun with you! Have a nice day.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

I too am done. I will leave your last post for all to see the contortionist stretching you did from what I said. It should be obvious to all but you.

I also thought it was fun. Have a good one.

kev said...

Good God, you even hit on the old Haliburton refrain! All the propaganda near and dear to the left. Your "facts" are all in your head, pal, and you're only entertaining yourself. You are not engaging in a conversation here, or even a debate (LOL). All you're doing is insisting that everything you say is right, while all we say is wrong. What a novel approach! Well, I'm not disappointed. You lefties are all alike! By the way, just for nothing, you're rattling on extensively about the evils of Bush, but you haven't mentioned this democrat "plan," other than cut and run...I'm sorry, "redeployment back home." You talk of the terrorists (although you can't use that awful label) having plenty of fuel to hate America because of Bush. Why did they hate America before? Certainly not because of clinton, or gore, or the peanut farmer. So I guess it has to be Bush. Besides apologizing for the TERRORISTS, have you no common sense? saint clinton tried appeasement and it didn't work. Just out of morbid curiosity, at what point do you guys (on the left) get pissed off and say enough is enough? Was Bosnia an example of that? I know I lived in fear that Bosnia was developing nuclear weapons to be used against us! Or was it the aspirin factory that clinton nailed just in the nick of time? How about the very innovative idea of selling missile technology to China, certainly not currently an ally, who probably sold it to N. Korea? We may soon be getting a close-up look at how that technology works! One more thing before I go, you say Bush is only worried about gays and flag-burning, but it is always you guys on the left who bring those subjects up.

M-E said...

Kev: Sorry, I can't resist replying to your moronic comment. Let's start with the fact that AGAIN you were not able to refute anything I wrote previously about how the Iraqi government feels about the Amreicans being in Iraq and the fact that Bush has lied about listening to what that government decides. No facts coming from you on that one...easier just to ignore them, eh?

You say that the only thing I did was insist what I say is right and what you say is wrong, yet, I have put down sources and quotes and I have answered to everyone of your and AICS's remarks. The only things I got from you guys were attacks with no basis of fact.

True, it's tough for me to engage in a conversation with someone like you who only knows how to insult and not capable of coming up with anything other than news about Clinton. That's funny, since I thought Bush was President now. And to be clear, at least when we went to war in Bosnia, we had UN backing, support of the rest of the world, and we won that war with almost no casualties. Hmmm....not quite the same with Bush's war is it?

You don't like talking about Haliburton because you know that they have made plenty of money from this war thanks to Cheney. Who, by the way, if you want to actually find some real facts, you can see that he is still collecting on his blind trust with that company and his stocks are soaring. Gee, I wonder why they got all the contracts.

Actually, maybe you are incapable of reading, but I did mention on numerous posts what Murtha's plan was. You just don't want to listen. As, if you would bother to get your facts straight, I never mentioned that I had any loyalty for terrorists. Of course, this is just a little game you guys play when you don't have anything to say to defend your incompetent comments. Just like in the article above, you say what you believe are my feelings or words and even though it is nothing that I have ever said, you attack me for those words or feelings. That's just called deceitful, something that people like are seem to excel in. There was never a mention from me that I ever apologized for terrorists. Too bad you have to resort to lies to try and make your case. Very Bushlike, don't you think?'s the democrats that bring up flag burning and gays??? Interesting, since it is the republicans who are wasting time in Congress trying to pass a law against it. Oooops! They failed again.They also want to waste some more on taking away gay rights, guns, abortion...all the while we are fighting a war in Iraq and drowning in national debt. But, at least we know that in the future, those nasty gays won't be able to get married! I feel safer already. Sorry, dear, that's a republican theme. They are the ones bringing it up in the news everyday.

Again, I proved that you are incapable of having a real discussion. At least AICS wasn't as rude and insulting as you are. I'm sure you won't mind when I treat you in kind, eh?

And while you are worried about China, you might want to think about that picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam after giving them the chemicals weapons to kill all those Kurds. And you might want to worry a little about our port security that has been handed over to the Saudi's. Unlike you, I can actually admit when any Democrat has failed...unlike the sheeple who follow Bush.

Ok, now I really have to go to work. I've wasted enough time on your brain dead comments. You just tell Bush to keep telling those terrorists to "bring it on", that was a real success wasn't it?

You just keep trying to pull that head out of your ass so you can actually read the news. Maybe you can come up with some real information that is backed with something besides your immaginary scenerios. Oh, and I suggest you try not to wrap yourself up in a flag too tight, that bill didn't pass and you know how we liberals are running around burning them. I wouldn't want to see you get hurt. LOL!!!!

kev said...

Okay, m-e has convinced me with his preponderance of evidence and facts. I'm going to wrap myself in my flag, then burn it, contribute some money to code pink, and pay for somebody's abortion. And he's (or she, sorry) right about murtha. Not only should he be secretary of defense, but he should be president! cindy sheehan should be vice-president, or the other way around. Until I began reading his enlightening posts, I was merely one of you, a sheeple of Bush and Limbaugh. But now I'm one of him. I used to hate terrorists, I mean insurgents (I'm new at this), but now I can focus on hating myself and all of you right-wing tools of..of..HALIBURTON! LOL!

LASunsett said...

Gee, I have never had this many comments on one post, ever. I was hoping for 100.

I do not know if things are about to get overly heated or not. But, maybe we better shut this thread down. The goals and objectives of this blog do not include devolving the arguments into mean-spirited arguments. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but I only ask that it be respectful.

I understand we are all passionate and have own own set of values and belief systems. So, I ask all that comment here, to please remember that on the other end of this line, is a real person with real feelings.

At the same time I also ask that people not wear their heart on their sleeves and realize that this is just politics. Most of my regulars here are regulars because there are some very intelligent people, that happen to be some very nice people. Some of the issues we debate are serious business, but it's not worth getting hurt over.

Just for the record here, I don't think anyone has crossed any lines yet. But I think that it's starting to get close. And if we allow ourselves to become too overly consumed by the passions that we humans are predisposed to have, it ceases to be fun.

I appreciate all that have come and will come in the future. I want this to be a place that all can state their view and not be treated like idiots, by those that disagree with us. We can all call the subject matter into question, without calling the person into question.

Thank you for arguing here at PYY. I value everyone's contribution here.

Am I wrong here?

All_I_Can_Stands said...


Shucks, I was just about to really lay into M-E. Just kidding :)

We are in agreement about the tone of the debate. It is much more enjoyable when it is simply intellectual point against intellectual point. Often the sender may see his point as more intellectual than the receiver does.

Regardless of point of view, all posters here exhibit a good intellect and make good points.

Now if everybody can make a similar statement followed by a few responses to other's statements we just might break 100. :)

kev said...

LASunsett--You are not wrong. Patience is a virtue I must strive for every day.

LASunsett said...

Kev and AICS,

Just so you know something about M-E. I was on the French blog with her, on the same side of the argument against a guest blogger that just opened up and railed out the most ridiculous post about the American military. I'll have you know that she unleashed a can of verbal whoopass on him.

It wasn't pretty.

chancuff said...

This story has taken so many twists and turns, if you blink, you'll miss the next turn.

New developments are being being tracked at this news site:

A notable development: The original Sun-Sentinel's article written by Elizabeth Baier, has been removed from their site and replaced with Ms. Baier's revised story.

If any of you bookmarked Sun-Sentinel's original article that has made them famous for their "the shot heard around the world", check your bookmarked page now. The significance of this is rather overwhelming. This weeks' hysteria, and subsequent retractions and corrections is over something that no longer exists.

Scroll up and you will find that another poster here, cut and pasted the address to this original article.

Interesting to note, it retains the original publication date June 25, 2006, and The Sun-Sentinel did not note this story is a revision.

Cliff Hancuff
The World of Journalism is Flat, Too

chancuff said...

The saga continues ...

This may help everyone understand my contempt for today's Republican Party.

This is the origination of this Lincoln "quote":

that ran in INSIGHT magazine

which is part of News World Communications (see bottom of page in link above) a wholly owned political mouthpiece of the Unification Church, the "Moonies".

I wrote Diana Irey offering her documented proof of what Lincoln never said, CCing all her campaign staff on, first on July 14th, and again on August 4th.

I wrote her, and her staff, repeatedly warning them of the consequences of their inaction. If you'd like verification, write her campaign manager of record (Bill Pascoe, former Press Secretary of the RNC, is calling the shots behind the scenes) at and ask him about my repeated warnings.

If you choose to write, use this as the Subject Line "It's showtime.". He'll know exactly what that means.

When all these efforts failed, I contacted with this very same evidence. Brooks Jackson was able to see what Ms. Irey, and her entire campaign staff refused to.

He published this, last Friday:
(note the video clip in the top right corner)

I would like to tell you there's quite some honor to Bill Pascoe's "within hours" response here:

In conclusion, it warrants mentioning how this "Moonie" Lincoln quote came into common use, without any questions to its authenticity.

Use Google to do a search for this quote. Go back 10-15 pages and you'll find the older dates of its use. You'll discover it was the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who brought this fiction to life within weeks of Dr. Waller's article.

You will find Larry Bailey of has dusted off this Moonie quote and is using it for his "gimme' your money" scheme, all over the net, including this gem written the chairman of Bailey's PAC, in which it is used twice, for emphasis:

It's no accident that Diana Irey was boons-swaggled into using it.

Bill Pascoe and Kelli Phiel, the folks Robert Novak refers to as her "handlers" in this article:

"Irey, who looks quite young, is a bit green, but her handlers see her as great raw material."

I'll give a dollar to anyone who can decipher the grammar, syntax, period occurring in the middle of the sentence, and random capitalization that occurs in the last sentence of this article.

If you are unfamiliar with who Pascoe and Phiel are, let me introduce you.

Pascoe is the gent who hung tough with Jack Ryan, even after Dennis Hastert rightfully withdrew all GOP support for him in 2004, when Ryan was exposed for insisting his wife go to sex clubs with him and have sex in public.

"Jack Ryan is in the race to stay," said Bill Pascoe, Ryan's spokesman.",1,933334.story

Pascoe also the one who called Alan Keyes and convinced him to move from Maryland to Illinois, to replace Ryan. I'll let you Google that and for Kelli Phiel's history working with Pascoe in the 2004 election.

I wish I could tell you that I've not written Diana Irey repeatedly about her "handlers" past, but I cannot make that claim.

Buzz Patterson used this "Moonie" quote at a chapter heading in his book, Reckless Disregard. If you own a copy, check page 65. He was not the only retired military man to adopt this Republican operatives invention. Ollie North was too:

Least you wonder about my interest in all this ...

My family settled in what is now the 12th District of Pennsylvania in 1820, and have lived there ever since.

My great, great grandfather, after whom I am named in honor of, served in Lincoln’s Union Army. He made the supreme sacrifice for our country on March 23, 1862, serving Stonewall Jackson he only defeat in the Civil war.

Lincoln was, to borrow a title, “A Uniter”

When some goofball Republican operative abuses the reputation of our greatest Republican president, in a Moonie publication no less, for the expressed purpose of political gain for today’s Republican Party … it troubles me.

I suspect it will trouble you, too.

Cliff Hancuff
The World of Journalism Is Flat, Too