John Murtha! You've got to love him. I mean, yes he's the ultimate losers loser; yes he's dhimmified to the point where even Bin Laden would be embarrassed; but best of all, the moonbat constituency on the US Democrat left think he's the man who "speaks truth to power."
So when he philosophically concludes that American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, I say three cheers for him! And the crowd agreed with him so he must be calling it right, yes?
It sets up a good result for the GOP in November this year. How about Murtha in 08?
more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran
how many countries have these two invaded in the last decade? how many wars have they started. on mere pedantics he is right. what lies in the future for us is anybodies guess. but if the voice of the right gets louder, then its possible that countries that feel threatened may actually opt for a pre-emptive strike, as legalised by the US.
the then you have to ask, whose the bigger threat? the hungry fox or the cornered snake?
Posted by: daytripper | June 27, 2006 at 01:08 PM
Quite right DT. North Korea and Iran wouldn't be exploring nuclear technology if the US hadn't got it first. One might as well blame the USSR for going nuclear in the 1950s.
Posted by: Adrian | June 27, 2006 at 03:41 PM
Gee whiz... didn't take the "Blame USA" crowd any time at all to jump on that post David!
And I see they're still relying on that stale and showorn material. Time to recycle that bilge boys!
Here's something a wise man said in 2004. Let's see if you can guess who said it:"A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance."
Give up? It was Congressman Murtha, in his book.
The loon has also held up Somalia and Lebanon as two examples of where America did "cut and run" as precedence for his "redeployment" from Iraq. Don't have to remind anyone other than the two bedwetting lefties above what followed our pullouts in Lebanon and Somalia.
Murth is Cindy Sheehan in a suit. And about the same level of intellect.
He seemed to think we could "redeploy" to Okinawa (that's Japan for the two bedwetters above) and still be able to send our planes in to do instant strikes on terrorists.
I'm sure once more of your bedwetting leftists get in on the action on this thread they will accuse Karl Rove of creating this warped transformation in Murtha. Or maybe Donald Rumsfeld piped some noxious gas into Murtha's office.
Either way, Murtha may be the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP this fall.
Posted by: Mike's America | June 27, 2006 at 04:32 PM
actually, its funny you should say that, because the only people to receive anthrax in 2001 were the main opposition to the patriot act. so maybe your onto something.
Posted by: daytripper | June 27, 2006 at 07:00 PM
My my and I always thought Vietnam was the pullout of the century.
I agree with Mike that pulling out today or tomorrow is a bad idea - not just for America but for the whole world. I don't mind America's foreign policy being in disarray but the people of Iraq deserve something better than a civil war at the end of all this. My conclusion is that the troops have gotta wait there 20 years until all the terrorists are killed so that Iraq can become an Islamic republic like its neighbours.
Posted by: Adrian | June 27, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Adrian: You are agreeing with me? Was the water supply in your neighborhood secretly contaminated with mind control drugs by Karl Rove?
Posted by: Mike's America | June 27, 2006 at 07:49 PM
Mike,
I agree that Murtha is the gift that keeps giving!!! God bless him. Cindy in drag.
Posted by: David Vance | June 27, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Keep him out there front and center I say.
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | June 27, 2006 at 08:48 PM
Mike,
I agreed with you but you didn't spot the catch namely that Iraq can either disintegrate, become an oil-rich American colony like Texas or thirdly become a free Islamic state. I think the third is the most desirable at the moment.
Posted by: Adrian | June 28, 2006 at 04:58 AM
I resemble that remark!
Posted by: ch in tx | June 28, 2006 at 05:35 AM
I didn't mean you, Ch! You're no Saddam Houston!!!
Posted by: Adrian | June 28, 2006 at 05:39 AM
I vote for 'oil-rich American colony like Texas.' Most desirable most definitely!
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | June 28, 2006 at 05:44 AM
Monica,
Do the Iraqis get to vote too? As far as I know the only choice they're getting at the moment is between Sunni puppets and Shia puppets and with a couple of Kurds thrown in as mascots and one or two women in burkas as cheerleaders...all following a constitution that was dictated to them.
Well not dictated exactly but we all know what would have happened if they had settled upon any other constitution by mistake.
Posted by: Adrian | June 28, 2006 at 05:51 AM
12 million of them voted last time Adrian. Too bad none of your commie pals were on the ballot, but I'm sure your comrades down at headquarters are working on it.
Yeah, I guess it was too much to think we actually agreed on something. I'll tell Karl Rove to up your dose.
Posted by: Mike's America | June 28, 2006 at 06:25 AM
Mike,
12 million voted last time because the American-funded terrorists told the Sunnis to participate. No wonder America's taking the credit for the so-called success of the election.
I was going to say that I'd tell Karl Rove to up yours but I realise that was punworthy of me.
Posted by: Adrian | June 28, 2006 at 06:48 AM