Dems seem confused about Iraq

JaJae · 02-18-2007, 03:45 PM

Recently Murtha has stated our troops are living in palaces and have everything they need:
Murtha Touts New Way to Stop Troop 'Surge' in Iraq -- 02/16/2007

He did not elaborate but went on to talk about services enjoyed by U.S. troops in Iraq but denied to many Iraqis.

"Let's take, for instance, Saddam Hussein's palace - that's where our troops are living," Murtha said.

"They have everything they need."
...
"They have all the things that you need and we provide for our troops"

Yet here we have Clinton saying our troops still don't have the basics:

YouTube Video

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

After almost four years, longer than when we were in WWII, our troops still don't have all the body armor, and other vehicles and the other equipment they need. It's a disgrace!

So which is it? Is Murtha talking out of his butt implying the troops have too much to serve his political purpose of overspending. Or is Hillary talking out her butt to help initiate her Iraq pullout in June?

The Dems definitely are no longer reading the same talking points page...

RMNIXON · 02-18-2007, 05:12 PM

Whatever works at the moment. I don't want to blame even Hillary for Murtha's stupid remarks. But if you don't think taking cheap shots at the military is beneath him you just got off the shuttle from another planet. I think the man is seriously demented. I am not joking!

Nonphixion · 02-18-2007, 07:16 PM

They are not talking about living spaces as a collective. Each one is talking about a wholly different case.

In these videos Murtha is highlighting the best of the best in terms of possible living conditions (as Saddam had over 40 palaces throughout Iraq). And conversely Hillary highlights the majority condition of poorly appointed living quarters.

RMNIXON · 02-18-2007, 07:38 PM

He is making the claim that some are spoiled compared to the conditions of many Iraqi's. That is why they are angry at us. And this in a speech to the anti-war Moveoncrongress.com. There is no other purpose in the remark period. You explain to me what this has to do with proper funding and equipment for the troops or funding the surge? Just because not every single soldier lives and works out of a tent? Some of them probably in Iraq away from family most of the time since the start?

He wants to cut and run. He calls it "turn this over to Iraqi's" but that is what it is. He knows this crowd.

ballz2wallz · 02-18-2007, 07:49 PM

Slow bleed.

kinggovernor · 02-19-2007, 10:07 AM

this is why they can't be trusted with making foreign policy decisions

SoFlaJDM · 02-19-2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

this is why they can't be trusted with making foreign policy decisions

kinggovernor · 02-19-2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

hillary clinton bends and sways with the lastest opinion polls

they still have no plan for the war on terror, other than a slow bleed. Which is worse than a surge

goldenponderbob · 02-19-2007, 10:51 AM

After I release a bit of anger here, I'm going to look up what Truman
used to call the "do nothing congress" of his era.

Do these bozos have any idea what they were elected to do?

If Bush had never fired a shot against Iraq, Hussein would
still be in charge, we'd be debating the "no fly zone" and
whether sanctions and inspections would ever work. And
the dems would be having one hell of a time planning his
overthrow (Bush not Hussein).

Can anyone explain what progress we have made in that
hellhole nation since Nov?

All in The house are up for job renewal every two years, I
think it's time to throw out the lot of them next time.

I'm planning to vote to throw out my rep. and I don't care
who she's running against.

Oh, wait, we can't do anything yet, we STILL have to decide
whether it's a "civil war" or an "all out civil war"?

goldenponderbob

Donkey® · 02-19-2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

hillary clinton bends and sways with the lastest opinion polls

they still have no plan for the war on terror, other than a slow bleed. Which is worse than a surge

Pulling out works just fine for me.

ballz2wallz · 02-19-2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Pulling out works just fine for me.

But not for the Iraqis or the Americans

This war is bigger than just Donkey

kinggovernor · 02-19-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Pulling out works just fine for me.

but not for the rest of the planet

Pro Street · 02-19-2007, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

hillary clinton bends and sways with the lastest opinion polls

they still have no plan for the war on terror, other than a slow bleed. Which is worse than a surge

are you calling this recent escalation a surge? To me it seems more like a tiny trickle

Donkey® · 02-19-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But not for the Iraqis or the Americans

This war is bigger than just Donkey

Donkey is an American. A majority of Americans think like Donkey. Therefore...it WOULD be good for Americans. As far as the Iraqis go...oh well...they should have overthrew Saddam themselves if they wanted to be in a better position than they are today. They didn't. So be it.

Donkey® · 02-19-2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

but not for the rest of the planet

Say what? Iraq has nothing to do with the planet's situation.

kinggovernor · 02-19-2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Donkey is an American. A majority of Americans think like Donkey. Therefore...it WOULD be good for Americans. As far as the Iraqis go...oh well...they should have overthrew Saddam themselves if they wanted to be in a better position than they are today. They didn't. So be it.

A majority of Americans think something "X" then "X" WOULD be good for Americans?????????????? Really think about that.

So you would be fine with place where terrorists are allowed free reign?

kinggovernor · 02-19-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Say what? Iraq has nothing to do with the planet's situation.

Did Afghanistan's Taliban government have no affect on the rest of the planet?

Donkey® · 02-19-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

A majority of Americans think something "X" then "X" WOULD be good for Americans?????????????? Really think about that.

So you would be fine with place where terrorists are allowed free reign?

They didn't have "free reign" in Iraq when Saddam was in power.

Donkey® · 02-19-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Did Afghanistan's Taliban government have no affect on the rest of the planet?

Um...no...they didn't.

DosEquis · 02-19-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

but not for the rest of the planet

Personally i say fuck the rest of the planet and if they feel it is so important they should help. Just like that Australia PM who bitched about Obama saying he would just take troops out creating a world security risk. Send some more if there is such a dire consequence for failure. These "allies" in groups of 1,400 is laughable.

If failure is such a disaster and they are so concerned, they should also send more soldiers. Maybe the Australian PM should move the decimal point over to 14,000 instead of 1,400.