What did Herseth sign on to do to our troops?

From the Politico:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
Read it all here. And listen to the Murtha interview on NPR

If this is true, it borders on the sinister. And one has to wonder why Congresswoman Herseth would sign on to such a scheme.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Herseth "will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options." What a leader she is! our next senator
Soldier said…
this is why they are called the "Defeatocrats" and Stephie is right there with them stabbing our troops in the back in their hour of need. she's pathetic
VJ said…
"Does it not trouble you people at all that the enemy of this country so often sounds -- policy-wise -- identical to the Democrats?" Rush Limbaugh
Anonymous said…
Herseth and the rest of wacko liberal anti-military left are going to cripple the country so that we can't win...where has this happened before? c'mon stephanie, stand up to those lefty nutjobs! yeah, right
John said…
Jeez, VJ, now you're quoting Rush Limbaugh? Personally I don't listen to any cold, heartless sociopaths that make fun of sick people.
I've been there said…
I can't believe that Stephi won't give our troops everything they need to fight this war!

I remember Defeatocrats telling us that they want our troops to have body armor, and up armored humvees and better helmets.

Now when our troops needs reinforcements, where is our Congresswoman?

I sent this story to everyone in my Guard unit today and had about 50 replies saying that they will never vote for her again. Their families will not vote for her either. Both D's and R's.

Thanks for abandoning our troops, Stephi.
Anonymous said…
With friends like her ...
Anonymous said…
these stories are being circulated to the troops and it is clear to the troops who is preventing the troops from prevailing in their mission...next time she needs help/reinforcements, she can go pound sand
Anonymous said…
What to know what the troops are thinking:

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCW2-GJyYM
Anonymous said…
What qualifications did she have that enabled her to win the seat, other than her last name? The local paper will carry the water for her during crunch time, ie any damaging vote, quote,etc. won't be printed, or will be hidden on page A 99. It's an embarrassment that she represents SD! Doesn't take much to see who she is emulating. Stephanie=little Hilary
FGH said…
anyone who is paying attention knows what a phony Herseth is...she is what is repulsive about politics. she makes my stomach churn. if it were popular, she'd be voting the other way on this resolution. now she's part of the leftwing group that wants to make it impossible to win
Anonymous said…
I vote pro-troop

Bruce
Anonymous said…
If all of this goes the Dems way just listen to them scream when we are losing more and more troops. We have the media standing there watching our troops get shot and killed to film it, but do they help, NO, they wouldn't get the story and film. People are in an outrage about the killing of our service men and women but say nothing to Americans who are filming/reporting it. Now our troops need reinforcements and the Dems say no, no.
Just listen to the scream and blame the other side soon.
Yea, right they support our people...
Question: When is the last time anybody has heard anything POSITIVE being reported on Iraq? Yep war is ugly, but good things are happening except in the media's eyes.
o8ama said…
ooops for stephie...this will hurt the blue dog myth. After her makeover she just looked like jane fonda, now we can expect to see her at the rallies with her.

Don't forget..Republicans voted her into office. They loved her moderate message.
nonnie said…
I always said she won because she was cute and perky, and had a recognizable name. She didn't know the value of a period to end a sentence though! Hope this vote hurts her at the next election.
Anonymous said…
"Herseth and the rest of wacko liberal anti-military left are going to cripple the country so that we can't win..."

It's too late. I'm a Repub. and this is stupid, stupid, stupid. Hello, it's too late and we can't win. This isn't a basketball game and we are down by 5 w/a minute left. Your over simplificiation, fostered by the administration, is the problem. Are boys and girls dying now so we can "win?"

This isn't anti-troop and if your 3 cent brain can't see this then you are the problem. THIS IS AMERICA. Stand up and say what you want but to argue that someone having problems with current administration and its awful and continually destructive policies in Iraq is anti-troop, read, anti-american, read, weak, read, chicken shit is shameless.

Yes, John Thune, I'm talking to you. How was your service time in Bible School you chicken hawk! You are lucky Hagel didn't punch you on the floor the other day.

If some of the "troops" can't see that honest debate is necessary and this golden democracy in the middle east is a failure then too bad for them. It doesn't mean we are spitting on them when they return, this isn't the early 70s. At some level, get over yourself and your overall self-importance artificially constructed by the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Wolfie and Fife to sell this BS scheme. I'm sorry, realize you've been used. You've done your best, done what was asked and should be commended for that and your service, but you were pawns moved about a global board based on lies and half-truths.
DakotaDemocrat said…
Doesn't matter how many of our people we lose, we must "stay the course" to "win"...

It's so funny y'all think we can saunter into a centuries old inferno and just shape them how we wish. You really have no sense of history, nor it seems like you care. Cuz freedom is on the march!
Brad S said…
What's going to happen to all this when Hillary and her Dem Congress end up owning this issue in 2009?

What will ALL OF YOU be saying then?
Anonymous said…
If Hillary wins with a Dem congress to boot, she will bring all the troops home, cut the military, spend money on free health care for all, free daycare, housing for all (free if need be), open borders, etc etc The only thing that might not be free then would be us! After all, she is more for appeasement than protecting our country from those who want to hurt us, just like ole Bill was.
Anonymous said…
Stephanie just runs behind Murth and Pelosi trying to be a good democrat like Jane Fonda. Her little voice crying "me too - me too". How sad!!!
Anonymous said…
Have any of you read what she actually said about this?

http://www.house.gov/herseth/press_021207_iraq.htm

She isn't calling for a reduction in troops. She isn't calling for a reduction in funding. She is agreeing what the MAJORITY (read 62%) of the country feel. The surge is a mistake. We can't trust the Iraqi army to do their part(they haven't at any point up to now). This isn't a new stratagy, it's just more of the same that hasn't gotten us anywhere for two years.

This is an Iraqi civil war. The root causes for this go back hundreds of years, all we are doing there right now is getting in the way of two groups who are intent on killing each other. Is this in our national interest? If so, please tell me how?
Bob Newland said…
The United States has a glorious history of slaughtering people for their own good. Now, on the morning of our chance to redouble these efforts, some in Congress think it's a bad idea.

How do they think we got where we are, anyway? What CAN they be thinking?
I've been there said…
10:59:

Gen Patreaus has asked for more troops, commanders on the ground are asking for more troops and soldiers up and down the line are asking for reinforcements to help them fight the enemy in Baghdad.

Why does Stephanie think she knows better than our soldiers? Does she know better than Gen. Patreaus?

I thought that Defeatocrats wanted our soldiers to have all the tools they need to fight this war.

Now, when they need reinforcements Herseth thinks she knows better than the commanders on the ground.
Anonymous said…
10:59 or Russ Levison or whatever Herseth staffer you are:

does that mean that Stephi was against our intervention in Bosnia?

Does that mean she is against intervention in Darfur?

Before Sadaam came into power there was nobody fighting. He just killed a village or two everytime a group acted out. Pacification by extermination.
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:28 "Pacification by extermination."

Yes, that's how it works. Don't kid yourself.

That's exactly what the Powell doctrine is all
about. Overwhelming force. It's also the reason why
20,000 more soldiers instead of the 75,000 needed
won't work. All you'll do is get more of our kids killed.
Jake said…
Why are we in Iraq? Why should we stay?

"they want to make it impossible to win"

To WIN??? Are you serious? Do any of you read any major news outlets other than Fox? Have you picked up a copy of Foreign Affairs or read any academic works other than Samuel Huntington?

No offense to our troops, but due to the position military commanders and administration officials have put them in - not to mention the millenia old conflicts pre-dating our invading Iraq - "winning", however you want to define it, is not realistic.

Come'on folks. South Park has more intellectual political commentary than most of you. In fact, if you look close enough, you might see yourself relfected on the TV screen ...

Don't just nod and repeat what the Bush Admin tells you to do, THINK!
Colonel Standfast said…
Jake:

I've been there, what you see on the news is worse than what it really is.

Yesterday on CNN they were using coverage from a December 06 car bomb while talking about February violence. So what was that about other sources of news?

Facts:

80% of the violence is limited to 30 miles around Bagdad.

25+ million people live in Iraq.

6-7 million live in and 30 miles around Baghdad.

So 80% of the violence is occuring around 25% of the population.

The other 75% of Iraq is stable and self governing.

14 out of 18 provinces are stable and secure.

3000 new schools opened and refurbished.

240 water purification plants up and running.

4000 reconstruction projects completed.

And no offense to the Council on Foreign Relations and the editors at Foreign Affairs, but they are more interested in doing business in the middle east than working to achieve a stable democratic Iraq.

(War hurts business, just ask France about the 8 billion dollars in oil contracts they lost before we went into Iraq).

Unfortunately for the CFR 14 million people voted in the first free and fair elections in 50 years.

I do feel enlightened though because you redirected me to CNN and MSNBC for their excellent coverage of our positive efforts in Iraq. Even if they use December 06 footage to "visually enhance" "reported" violence which supposedly occurred this week.
Anonymous said…
Back on topic people:

Stephi still wants us to abandon our soldiers that are there in the middle of "an unwinnable civil war."

And, while they are there they can fend for themselves, right?

Stephi says: NO REINFORCEMENTS!
Anonymous said…
Stephi is being arrogant and selfish.

She is more worried about policitcal security than national security.

Her actions are subjecting the tactical affairs of the military to the political process.
Anonymous said…
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

— President Abraham Lincoln
Jake said…
Colonel Standfast:

Your facts are very enlightening and I commend you on not lowering yourself to the level of some who support your position in the name of "national defense" or "patriotism". The war in Iraq is not an attempt to save our nation in any way, and suggestions to the otherwise are entirely ignorant.

That being said, and I realize your anecdotal experience of being on the ground was probably very enlightening, I have heard far less optimistic reports from others on the ground in Baghdad.

I also wonder if you have any non-military sources for: "The other 75% of Iraq is stable and self governing. 14 out of 18 provinces are stable and secure."

Are they being self-governed or ruled by some local militia that is as of yet unchallenged? Otherwise, if 75% of the country is fine, shouldn't we just believe Mr. Bush's earlier proclamation of "Mission Accomplished" and go home? (notice I am not advocating this position)

-----

I am not saying that any or all of the major news sources are wonderful, I just saying that when you have people whose major news source is 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh on an afternoon, they're going to have a seriously biased worldview. CNN and MSNBC and the Times and the Post all have their ideological slants too, but compared to Fox and talk radio, they are decidedly less biased.

Through all of my rambling there is a bottomline: I'm not sure the average American gives two shits about the residents of Baghdad and the FACT that they have been tricked into believing the war in Iraq is a national defense issue is what really pisses me off.

Given the false basis for entry, and the fact that I'm tired of having friends, family, and government negatively affected by this war when I see little or no gain to any of the three, I think it is time to leave.

And to anonymous 10:11 am: Abraham Lincoln was referencing a CIVIL WAR in the UNITED STATES, not some distant war in the Middle East. Context is necessary, I'm afraid.
Anonymous said…
American troops are in Iraq because American Democracy sent them there. America must remain in Iraq because democracy does not turn its back on orphans of war.

Colonel Standfast reports about the effects of democracy.

Anon 8:06 am reports about the effects of Democrat strategy.

One statement stands for democracy while the other stands for character assination.

Having served I would have voted for our troops.

Bruce -
scimitar said…
Talk about standing up for our troops:

1) Bush cuts VA funding.

2) Meanwhile, Republicans in the SD House vote NOT to inform troops returning from Iraq that they have testing available for depleted uranium poisoning.

3) Still not enough body armor and armored Humvees for everyone in Iraq/Afganhistan.

We just can't count on Republicans to do the right thing by our troops.
I've been there said…
Scimitar or Mr. DAV rep:

cut the shit. You sound just like the folks at the liberal bastion known as the DAV here in town. Guys that I like, but they are borderline militant liberals. (I'm also a member).

1) I use the Va and those folks have a done a great job, for socialized medicine.

VA cuts are not an excuse for cutting and running in Iraq. VA cuts are not an example of not standing up for troops.

No where in my multiple enlistment contracts did it say that I was entitled to government healthcare. It was also never represented to me by my recruiter that I would have healthcare free of charge from the government.

2) Every soldier is informed by the military during out processing and then again during their post health deployment screening that they can be checked out for depleted uranium posioning.

If that's not happening than Commanders in the SD Guard should be fired, because it's their job and part of the regs.

Further, we don't need a nanny state to hold our hand from cradle to grave. The SD legislature does not need to mandate counseling on an obscure screening process.

Finally, last point about depleted uranium. 99% of it comes from the 40mm gun used in Bradley fighting vehicles. SD Guardsmen don't have Bradley's and were hardly never assigned a mission with Bradley's involved. If they did it still doesn't matter all that much because the dust comes from the impact area where the rounds hit. What are SD Guardsmen doing climbing around in Bradley impact areas?

3) You are lying and I'm calling you on it. In fact such a lie should be the basis for a libel suit.

CENTCOM and CFLCC regulations require that every soldier who leaves the wire to have body armor on.

Additionally, CFLCC in Kuwait has issued every soldier body armor. Not one single soldier who goes to Iraq/Afganistan today lacks body armor.

I challenge you to find one soldier who does not have body armor. If they don't it's their own fault and the fault of thier immediate squad leader.

As for lack of uparmor humvees...its the biggest fattest myth out there. The lack of uparmor comes from two facts: 1) the marines. Some units refuse to use armored vehicles because they can only seat 5 in the humvee at a time.

So if you argument is that not everyone has one that is correct, HOWEVER, becaue not everyone in the unit is on patrol at the same time, they don't need to have a 5-1 ratio for soldier to vehicle. Units rotate soldiers out on patrol and never is every man on patrol and if they are they use armored vehicles from other units.

One last thing could you explain to me why you need to use half truths and non seqiturs to make the argument that Herseth is not a surrender monkey?
Colonel Standfast said…
Jake:

you want sources reported to you other than U.S. military sources regarding the 75% stability figure?

Sure, I will call up the Iraqi census bureau right now and have them email you the info.

And as for your characterization of my service, and for that matter anyone else who has served, as being "antecdotal" get a clue.

As far as the reports you have heard from people "on the ground in Baghdad", well as I said before that is where 80% of the violence is happening. Of course the assessment there is different.

Jake, one other thing: stop relying upon the MSM for so much of your info. It's dissapointing.
Douglas said…
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

— President Abraham Lincoln


Did Lincoln really say or write this or is this another invention of the wingnut right? Seems to me I read that quote was fiction.
Anonymous said…
It deeply saddens me that Ms. Herseth betrayed our troops in voting for a non-binding resolution drafted only to undermine the President of the United States and democracy.

To the citizens of Iraq; I am sorry for the actions of our Congress in not protecting your orphans from a war we brought to you in the name of American democracy.

Bruce Whalen -
Anonymous said…
1031, if that's you bruce you second paragraph makes the anti-war's point. To Iraq's orphans, we are sorry your orphans but it's ok b/c we are bring you american democracy? Crazy. Bruce shave your head like Britney Spears get out of the public eye.
Anonymous said…
She lost my vote now. I've always been leary of her, but gave her the benefit of the doubt. No doubt anymore. Congress shouldn't be dictating strategy of wars.

Stephanie, one question: Who was helped by your vote?

Answer: The terrorists.
Anonymous said…
10:07
Pure baloney. The terrorists are deilghted by our bungled handling of the Iraq war.

They now have a haven where there was none before, and the empathy of millions of Muslims who at one time were highly critical of their tactics.

It is the administration's incompetance in diplomacy and military strategy that has led to the mess we have with the terrorists now.

The best thing we can do is back up and go back to fighting them and stop trying to force a democracy on people who aren't ready for one.

Our troups should start coming home tomorrow.

That is the best way to put the fear of God back into the terrorists. Right now, they are laughing their butts off, not at the American people, but at the incompetant idiots who are presuming to lead them.
jack said…
Um, I see where Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha have endorsed this strategy... I've read it three times and don't see Stephanie Herseth's name mentioned?

She has had different opinions on issues like Iraq from Pelosi and Murtha in the past.

PP -- can you please cite the source that says Herseth supports this?
Anonymous said…
Maybe she signed on at the fundraiser Murtha held for her.
I've been there said…
11:16

While the 9-11 report documented that no operational assistance was given to AQ by Iraq it was also reported, by the 9-11 group that Sadaam offered logistical and financial support for terrorist groups including AQ and Hamaas suicide bombers.

Further, Iraq offerd AQ safe harbor in the sands of the Iraq and helped them build terrorist training camps.

So your bare naked assertion that there was no haven for terrorists in Iraq before is bullshit.

Also, the MSM is finally reporting what it refused to report throughout the Clinton administration: that AQ was in Iraq before 9-11.

Besides, I'm glad that you feel Sadaam's genocide wasn't worth stopping.

The last time a brutal madman dictator put innocent people of a despised religion into mass graves the U.S. kicked their ass.

Finally, the worst thing we can do is leave Iraq to the terrorists. I'm sure that Iraqi families would find your words comforting. If the only stabilizing force in the region were to pull out leaving a vaccum.

11:16: the killing fields of cambodia were a garden compared to what we will see in Iraq if the US pulls out. But of course the MSM will ignore and that will mean it not really happening right?
Anonymous said…
11:16:

I'm jewish and I hate your philosophy.

Your philosphy is why so many jews, 9 million +, were killed in WWII.

Apeasement never works, and never will. The US needs to stand strong for the people of Iraq in their time of need.

We did it in Bosnia and we can do it again. It will take blood and treasure but we must not appease our enemies, regardless of how tough the going gets.

You may think that America does not hold a special place in the world, I suspect you don't want it to, but it does.

America has an obligation to a burgeoning democracy. You say those people don't want democracy and that's total shit!

15 million Iraqi's braved bombs on three seperate occassions to vote for the candidate of their own choice. That was the first free and fair election in Iraq in 50 years.

Get a clue and grow some balls or move to France. Take stephi with you!
scimitar said…
Are you being paid to propagandize, "I've been there"?

As to the genocide, you claim in historical revisionist fashion, that we kicked Saddam's ass for, the gassing of the Kurds happened at a time when we were supporting Saddam. We looked the other way at the time. We also chose not to take Saddam out in Desert Storm - much closer to the gassing.

And if it's genocide you're worried about, millions more have died in Sudan and Rwanda than in Iraq and we don't lift a finger. If it's threat to the US that you're worried about, N. Korea has nukes.

Are you suggesting we're going to win and make Iraq a peaceful place? The Sunnis and Shiites will just forget their 1,000 years of animosity and just get along?

Our allies have all given this project a vote of no confidence. They have either pulled their troops out entirely, or greatly reduced them and limited them to non-combat roles. If 20,000 troops are needed - let somebody else send them.
Anonymous said…
11:16

Why don't you move to Israel, and take your obnoxious, hateful attitude with you? The fact that you are Jewish doesn't make you any smarter or your argument any stronger.

There is absolutely no reason we should sacrifice our democtacy here in order to try to build one there. And if you think there is, you need to revisit your American values.

Nothing I said has anything whatsoever to do with the holocast. What's more likely is that you are willing to let a few carismatic leaders pull the wool over your eyes and talk you into supporting a gung-ho war policy that is damaging to your country, its countrymen, and world peace in general.

Wake up. get your hand off your balls, and give the poor me sob story a rest. I'm irish. So what?
Colonel Standfast said…
10:41:

Your true liberal sneerishness is coming out.

Interesting that it took a guy was brave enough to share his religon with us to do it.

Here's a fact:

Just about every single war that America has fought in has been in order to protect the stability or democracy of another country.

Here's a recap

Spanish American War - Ending spanish agression against the people of Cuba

WWI - Ending German agression against the people of France

WWII - Ending the Holocaust, ending German agression against the people of Europe, ending Japanese agresssion against peaceful island nations of the South Pacific

Vietnam - An attempt to stop Communist agression against the peaceful people of South Vietnam. Their country was taken over by commies and socialism was implemented.

Somolia - An attempt to capture Adid from terroizing the people by using food or the lack thereof as a weapon

Just about every single combat action that America has undertaken since the days of the Founding Fathers has bee to stop hostile forces from taking over pro-democratic forces around the world.
Anonymous said…
10:41

Interesting that you didn't include Iraq.
That's because Iraq was a war of aggression.

It's also interesting that you mentioned Vietnam
but didn't mention the domino theory. What happened to that idea. Another bogey man fear tactic.

And finally, it's interesting that you didn't mention
oil which is the real reason for many of the wars you mentioned.

It's one thing to support and defend democracy and quite another to demand and impose it.

We have become the imperialists we used to struggle against.

And what's so brave about an anonymous person telling us that he's Jewish?

Oh wait...I get it... you mean on THIS website.

Ok, then.
Anonymous said…
Iraq goes without saying.

The removal of a madman who puts people in mass graves is justification enough for war.

As for oil in past wars? I don't beleive oil was an issue in SAW, WWI, WWII, Veitnam, Somolia, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's too bad that Stephi voted against the troops and their families.

She has always said that she supports giving the troops what they need to fight this war.

Now the troops need reinforcement and she is trying to micromanage the war.

She's more worried about political security than national security.
Captain Obvious said…
9:07:

prett soon you will be saying that Haliburton started this war and that black helos fly over your house at night.

go back to your bomb shelter, umm..basement and put your tin foil hat back on.

Besides the world is safer with more democracies and less dictatorship anyways.

I'm sure that the people of Iraq would feel comforted by your lack of spine and willingness to stand up for them when they need the US most.
Anonymous said…
10's 13 and 17.Oil was THE issue in Desert Storm... are you kidding? It was also key in both WW's 1 and 2.

Vietnam was all about feeding the military industrial complex, and Osama and the terrorists are funded by oil money. Panama is about shipping... i.e. oil tankers.

Those who don't understand how and to what degree oil, industry and the corpratocracy drive our nations military decisions are the ones wearing the tin foil hats.

We went into Iraq to get rid of WMDs and Saddam. We did both. Time to go home. We won.

So, you two geniuses, why are we still there?

Oil.
Boiled Owl said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
11:09 (continued)

But listen guys, don't take my word for it.

Read "American Theocracy" by your fellow Republican, Kevin Phillips. And have a splendid Sunday afternoon.
Anonymous said…
News Flash! Representative Herseth sides with a majority of the American People with a vote!

The radicals and 32%ers who think Bush is a good President whine like little babies.

Predictable. Look for this to happen a lot in the next 2 years. Buy stock in Kleenex - the 32%ers will be needing alot of it.
Anonymous said…
that's real leadershp and courage siding with people because that's the way the political wind blows.
GOP Come Home said…
Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.

In the city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the

month of January. That's just one American city,

about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.



When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

B. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.

C. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

D. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost .. an average of 5,800 per year.

E. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bushhas liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured & killed a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Oh yeah Saddam's sons who raped and murded thousands themselves, we killed them too! More you say? More you'll get. More than 103 top ranking terrorists have been killed or captured.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

When considering presidential candidates, remember the time that it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts

But Wait . there's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? What about you?"

For those who don't remember: During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran
Anonymous said…
GOP Come Home: You're taking your own advice and thinking just a little.

There were no combat-related killings in Detroit in January. The death toll in Iraq for January is over 1,000.

We got into WWII after we were attacked by Japan, whose AXIS allies Germany and Italy were doing their best to take over England, all of Europe, and Russia. Hardly comparable to this war of aggression against a country incapable of harming us.

Korean war prevented communists from taking over South Korea - democracy flourishes today. Credit Truman if you wish.

Vietnam became the quagmire after Nixon took over, expanded and micromanaged it.

Bosnia turned out pretty good, and brought peace and stability to that region in short order with no American casualties - under a Democratic President and Democratic commanding general.

Before we give Bush too much credit, he hasn't liberated any countries. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are in civil wars and run by temporary puppet governments that will fall when we leave. Osama Bin Laden is on the loose. Mullah Omar and the Taliban are on the loose. If you think Saddam had to go because he killed his own people then you must fault Bush Sr. for not getting the job done the first time.

How long did it take for Halliburton to generate $5 billion in overcharges?

And by the way, John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum were both long gone from the senate by January 2004. Metzenbaum was dead.
scimitar said…
GOP COME HOME: I see you plagiarized your entire post of 4:56 word-for-word from Urbanlegends.about.com, or from an e-mail you may have received that is posted on that website.

Is this blog now a cut and paste site?
I've been there said…
so how does that change the facts?

cut and paste is what most good arguments are.

Look at lawyers. do you think they write original material all the time.

get a clue scimitar. the poster had a point and obviously you don't like.

but instead of taking it head on you go on with your tinfoil head and black helo arguments.
scimitar said…
Why did you ignore my post of 10:36 that was directed at you, I've Been There?

I'm interested to hear your theory of how Iraq will become a stable and peaceful democracy after 1,000 years of Shiite/Sunni hostilities. Is that puppet government that one poster talked about going to go the distance?

I'm also interested in your response to all of our allies bailing on us.

And usually when people copy something else word for word - like GOP COME HOME did - they don't try to pass it off as their own. GOP COME HOME has just destroyed their credibility and downgraded the War College. People getted kicked out of college for plagiarism. Apparently at the War College they get patted on the back by people like yourself. Are your posts plagiarized too?
I've been there said…
how can there be any credibility beyond an anonymous title, Scimitar?

Pot calling the kettle black, isn't?

Furthermore, you have not refuted GOP's claims yet.

Are they too true for you too attack?

If that poster's claim is wrong let's see you debunk it.

Cutting and pasting is done everyday in courtrooms across South Dakota. And this is not college this is the real world where if somebody wants to cut and past let them.

If you are a scholar sir, please debunk the claim instead of running around making ad hominem attacks on some anon's credibility.

Your failure to refute the facts is condemnation in and of itself.
GOP come home said…
I've been there:

Kudos buddy.

Scimitar:

your damn right I got it off the web.

Now prove the posting wrong or get lost.

I made no claims to orginality or ingenuity. I'm a lame cutter and paster. Good argument fly, bad ones die.

Now again, as the above said, prove it wrong. You can't because its all "too true."
Anonymous said…
Scimitar wants to spend more time arguing about cutting and pasting because he lacks the intellectual capability to make a counter argument to GOP's post.

Why not argue this issue on the merits Scimitar instead of degrading yourself to an argument of, "where did those facts come from.?"

As long the facts are there take it on or risk condeming yourself to a life of intellectual dishonesty.
scimitar said…
I see that "I've Been There" still won't respond to my posts. He'd rather just defend a plagiarizer and ignore the fact that the plagiarized post has already been debunked.

As to GOP COME HOME's plagiarized post, I see one commenter responded to it and debunked it, but nobody will acknowledge that. As to the numbers of casualties in the plagiarized post, they are for January 2004, because the entire stolen e-mail was from 2004. GOP COME HOME either didn't know that or didn't care that he/she was passing off old information as something new. Moreover, Howard Metzenbaum never represented the communist party as the stolen e-mail claims, which GCH would have known if he/she had looked a little farther on the web.

As to anon 1:54, I've posted a number of factual comments on this thread that nobody will respond to. None of my comments were plagiarized from a 2004 e-mail or anywhere else - they are original thoughts. If you have any intellectual capacity yourself, why don't you dust off your brain and debate the issues instead of defending a plagiarizer?
Anonymous said…
GOP's stolen post is nonsense. The bulk of it is chest thumping, as if the fact that we drove our tanks across Iraq constituted victory. The speed at which all that was "accomplished" is not to be lauded, but rather, reviled.

It was basically nothing less than the cowboys riding into a box canyon. And GWBs "mission accomplished" outfit video will disgrace him for decades.

If GOP & I Been There want to rah-rah it, more power to them, but the truth in this little back and forth is, Scimitar is giving them the chance to disown it, back away from the bullshit and get real.

The fact that they won't speaks volumes.

Same old cowboy crap that got us into this mess in the first place. Yeehaaa!
Anonymous said…
This, just because GOP and IBT are being so smug:

Things that make you think a little:

Ok, let's think, shall we?

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.In the city of Detroit there were 35 murders ...

Pure distortion, try adding the total number of people killed in Iraq in January. Either that, or just list the number of cops killed in Detroit.
Pure chicanery. Smoke and mirrors.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us ...

Saddam was our ally for the most part. His soldiers fought us with weapons we provided.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

Count up all the Iraqis, (if you know how) and you'll start closing the gap. You also have to take into account the advances in medicine, then to now, Most of our injured would have been dead in those days.

B. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea...
another mistake. Most people agree that it was.

C. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam...
see above. GWB should have learned from history.

D. Johnson turned Vietnam...
see above.

E. Clinton went to war in Bosnia... he gave it a shot, and missed. He had to worry about the "wag the dog" syndome, due to the fact that the Repub Congress was hounding him about a blow job.

President Bush has liberated two countries, (which?) crushed the Taliban (they are on the uprise in both Iraq and Afg.)

crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot

(as he should have done in Iraq)

next chest thump ...oorah! Big bad George.

..it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno...

But when Reno was done, it was over.

...remember the time that it took Hillary Clinton...

...and how long it took GWB to stop saying "stay the course."

Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick...yawn.

It took less time to take Iraq not really. Neither job has been completed.

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

Our Commander-In-Chief is giving us a HAND JOB!

The Military morale is high!

Of course it is. Who ever said it wasn't.

I'm tired of doing this.

Someone else can do the John Glenn part.
Anonymous said…
If GOP and IBD want to go the cut and paste route, the least they could do is to read what they're stealing, think about it, and accredit (or disclaim) it before putting it up on this blog, thus insulting the intelligence of everyone who posts here (including themselves.)

Cheap crap.

We can't stop 'em, but maybe we can embarass them Scimitar.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long