Mark, how is what Newt said:
"2. The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and "pull back" from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as opposed to occupiers (this position is outlined in today's WSJ as the official policy)."

different than what Murtha said?
"My (Murtha’s) plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq "

It is exactly the same.

Nooo barney, our ideas are defeatist and stupid, theirs salvage their tattered dreams. Its really just them STILL not being able to admit Iraq was a mistake, and then doing whatever they can to not admit they have lost. Even if that includes losing, and then calling it a win. Thats all they need, they don't need substance or logic or anything, in fact, I'll bet we could just pull out of Iraq and if Bush would just tell them it was secure when we left, but a week later erupted into chaos, they would be fine with it. We just need to manipulate and take advantage of them the way their leaders do, by patronizing both their pride and religion.

That way we could just simply subdue them and get them working for us, instead of spending all our time fending off their insane spur of the moment outrages about creationism or gay marriage or whatever the priests use to raise money. We just need to treat them like children, and create their world FOR them.

I think it is you Mark and your like, not the Left, that is mistaken on this position. You are fond of the often used and quite mistaken "cut and run" idea because it sounds cowardly and impractical and that just shows your distorted and unbalanced view of the Left. I will give you this, It's a tune that sounds good the the Base. The Left's position has been as it always has and that is, a drawing down and a redeployment of forces from the region to 1. instill a sense of urgency in the Iraqi government to quit the posturing for political gain and get down to running the business of their own country and 2. more appropriately apply our forces in the war on terror. Currently they are stalled. Trading shots with insurgent/terrorists in this limited fashion is getting us nowhere. Militarily speak we are in the worst possible position at the moment. Sitting ducks and fighting on the sqirmish level. There has been no advancement in this area for over a year. This isnt only the view of the Left Mark, it's also the view of a great many, current and former, military officals. They are asking for more autonomy and new dirrection in this war or have'nt you been paying attention. I for one ,like them, am tired of following Captain Ahab on his little sidetracked quest!!!

Gee Mark, I don't know too many "lefties" that place much hope on any disgraced congressmen -- especially Newt Gingrich.

As for the situation in Iraq: to say that the U.S. has "lost" or is "losing" simply assumes that the purpose(s) of the invasion were "as advertised" by the Bush administration.

I take issue with that assumption -- I think that our real objectives in Iraq are probably being met (except for the oil infrastucture, which they keep blowing up) and that the administration has no reason, other than manipulating domestic politics, to do anything different.

Removing Saddam was a "real" objective -- the rest our "rationale" for war was just neocon propaganda.

Salve,

Where on earth do you get your ideas from? You do realise that Iraq produces 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, aren't you? The terrorists do attack the distribution system, but their attacks are pinpricks.

Like talking to a brick wall, at times...

Salv,
I missed the part where Gingrich was "disgraced" can you point me to this?

And also, can you point to the part of the UN resolutions or the Iraqi Freedom Act written by neocons.
thank you,

Mark,

You proudly continue to defend a terribly flawed president and his policy while more and more soldiers die and become maimed.

You put your pride above the soldiers lives...that's very said. The soldiers number one mission at this point is to not get killed or seriously wounded as the can do nothing to help solve the thousand years old divisions that exist in this tribal land.

Barney, Steve, Jeff,

As we are all aware, we have already begun the draw down of us forces...and the increasing "step back" of US forces in Iraq. You guys on the left have been harping about a plan or the lack thereof...but we've been following a carefully laid out plan since 2003...

The difference between a Gingrich and a Murtha is that Gingrich is still confident of absolute victory, while Murtha is arguing for a redeployment because he thinks we can't win.

muirgeo,

You should talk to more of the soldiers, you'll find out just how absurd your views are.

Sorry, lefties, but yet another one of your hopes have been dashed.

Posted by Mark Noonan at April 14, 2006 11:45 AM

No Mark....what has been dashed are the hopes of 42 more of our soldiers and their families just this April alone. More and more retired proud generals are coming out to defend the soldiers against the ineptness of this administration and it's policies. And you continue to remain an apologist for an administration full of chicken-hawks who order our soldiers to their death out of shear pigheadedness and ignorance. Man I feel sorry fr you and all the penance you are building up.

The difference between a Gingrich and a Murtha is that Gingrich is still confident of absolute victory

What exactly would be absolute victory?
I'm curious because I'm going to take a shot in the dark at saying I'm sure Mark believes in 'absolute victory' and I'm just wondering what that would be.

Mark, what is absolute victory? And just fyi, "The situation on the ground will tell us when we can draw down" there is NO TIMETABLE for pulling out. A plan for pulling out would only let our enemies sit there and wait for us to leave. Then again, Rumsfeld said it certainly wouldn't take over 6 weeks, so if you mean that plan, then no, we aren't anywhere near the plan, the plan has failed miserably time and time again.

The idea that things have gone according to plan is utterly ridiculous, and shows how your pride and refusal to show good sportsmanship corrupts your principles, and shows you have little actual word. You aren't stupid, and I don't believe you are evil, but unless you get checks from the GOP, I don't see why you would make such outrageos statements.

Bane,

Newt was ousted by his own party after his public image became unsavory. Over the course of his stay as speaker he had over 80 ethics charges filed on him, most of them dismissed, but along with adultery and several other personal misgivings, he was driven out of Washington for being both hypocritical and extremist.

Mark, “As we are all aware, we have already begun the draw down of us forces..”

What a load of crap. I can only recall three cases where forces were withdrawn:
**After “Mission Accomplished” than we had to send them back.
**Prior to the last two elections, we sent over additional soldiers to add security for each of the elections, and than they were recalled as planned.

Are going to get down to the

Steve,
Thanks, but I'm sure Salvelinus must have had something based on reality in mind when he posted "disgraced" something beyond your private fantasies. I suggest you let him answer the question; your answer is just an embarrassment.

Bane,
what are you talking about...'based on reality in mind'???

not to keep this end of the debate going, but are you saying Newt's 5 year extramarital affair was just in Steve's 'private fantasies'?

trying to defend the indefensible, now that's just an embarrassment

Oh good, another barking moonbat.
I thought you progressives preach that the personal life has nothing to do with their job.

Why not let Salvelinus speak for himself. I asked a serious question and you two are spouting Kos talking points.

I thought you progressives preach that the personal life has nothing to do with their job.

preach...good word, seems to be the only thing a con understands...

personal life...no, hypocrisy ...yes....and conservatives wanted Newt gone...progressives would have loved to see him stay (hope he runs in '08)

And Salv can speak for himself, nothing stoping him, but when I see someone write something so ignorant as to wondering how Newt was disgraced...well I can't let that go, thought I was helping you, bringing you up to date on political history.

Opie,
Typical, when you don't have a salient argument start parsing words. Next you're going to give me the dictionary definition of disgrace. Tedious and predictable.

hey...bane's got one of those books that say what all these squiggly lines mean...and he can use it...next thing you know he'll try to pass himself off as liberal to look smarter

so what't isn't salient about Newt having an affair, cons loosing seats and the party wanting him gone?

how did I 'parse' anything anyone has written?
a great man once said.."that word, you keep saying it, I do not think it means what you think it means"

so more attempts at smarter then you are insults or can you show that Newt wasn't disgrased and quite office for another reason which is why we should care about what he says?

please don't waste time correcting "quite" when it should be quit

sorry 'bout that

What't isn't salient about loosing seats?

Well, no one can accuse you of trying to look smarter.

uh oh, i typed too fast, misspelled a word and you caught me....That's it, the Progressive movement is dead everyone, a conservative with spell check caught a spelling error...never answered the question, but he did catch a spelling error...

Wow,

I can see I’m outmatched here, your masterful use of the language; the eloquence of the argument, the sophistry with which you decimate me with your rapier wit; flayed by the hoary lingua of the verbal iconoclast.

The effortless way you brush aside facts, reason, civility, altruism and logic and get right to the heart of the matter, with pomposity and indolence. Quoting Inigo Montoya, why didn’t I think of that?

Whatever they are paying you to administer your domain at that drive-thru window is hardly sufficient, you are assuredly a philistine worthy of extolment.

so, can't or won't answer the question?

Opus,
That is so typical of a rightie. I've posted this before.

The debate on this site:
Dem: Bush/the GOP did xyz
Rep: Your an idiot
Dem: No really... it is right here
Rep: You are a moron
Dem: Really, here are the facts.
Rep: You are just bashing the President.
Dem: What are you talking about, I gave you facts
Rep: Clinton did worse.

It is amazing how it goes this way when they are caught being wrong.

Bane, So what if Opus answered for Salvenus. What is the difference? Maybe Salv doesn't check this site non-stop. Maybe he is working.
Can't you debate Opus?

Oh crap... I hope I didn't mis-spell anything here. Wouldn't want the Neocon spelling police to catch me.

Cripes, another barking moonbat.
Isn't Barney and Friends on?

careful sick....bane's calling you a moonbat...that's con for 'please don't point out I have no clue what everyone's talking about'

oh man I hope I spelled everthing correctly, Bane can you let me know?

careful sick....bane's calling you a moonbat...that's con for 'please don't point out I have no clue what everyone's talking about'

oh man I hope I spelled everthing correctly, Bane can you let me know?

Steve mentioned,
"...Newt was ousted by his own party after his public image became unsavory. Over the course of his stay as speaker he had over 80 ethics charges filed on him, most of them dismissed, but along with adultery and several other personal misgivings, he was driven out of Washington for being both hypocritical and extremist..."

Interesting, isn't it, that when a disgraced, convicted perjurer and proven adulterer, Bill Clinton was being hoisted on his own patard, the overwhelming mass of leftist apologists rushed in to state that it all a big to-do about nothing. It was his personal life, and had nothing to do with his capacity as an elected leader. He shouldn't be punished or impeached, because it was all about his personal life. Those nasty Repubs were just out to get him. They were being vindictive. He, too had a bunch of ethics charges filed against him and/or his administration. Most of them, too, were tossed out. But, despite "several other personal misgivings," Bill Clinton remains adored by the Democrats, and still is considered a leader in the party. He is accorded a position of great honor...

Yet, less than 10 years later, they seem to find validity in the argument that personal ethics issues are grounds for trashing a politician and calling him to the carpet. I guess it's because this time around, it's a well-known Repub Conservative...

At least the Republicrats had the gonads to tell Newt Gingrich that he had too much baggage and had to go. We can't say the same about Bill Clinton and his Demublican cronies, can we?

Hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy of the highest magnitude...

Salv,
I missed the part where Gingrich was "disgraced" can you point me to this? - Bane

I merely answered his question dbogdan. I suppose you would rather say "what unfortunate circumstances forced Gingrich out of office...", but its really just semantics. He would have loved to remain at his position, he was repremanded and ousted by his own followers, so I would say its gotta be a bit discouraging in the least. I didn't say Clinton was better, I answered his question. But I think in order to be hypocritical, you need to be guilty of that which you accuse, which was Newt, not Clinton. Newt was going after Clinton for adultery, something he himself was currently doing, thats hypocitical. Not bringing it up later because someone asks about it. I wouldn't dare make Bane's statements from my POV

"I missed the part where Clinton was disgraced, could you point that out to me?"

Clinton was disgraces, I know that, I accept that, and I'm over it. I don't pretend it didn't happen or vigorously try to rewrite the history, a la YOU.

All of you on the left continue to rant on how the President is "terribly flawed" and "incompetent". I would like you to state some facts to back up your claims. Not opinions, but facts. Not polls, facts. And keep things in historical perspective. Like: while we have had about 1750 combat deaths in three years in Iraq (an average of about 1.6 per day), we had 6,900 combat deaths in 25 days at Iwo Jima (an average of about 275 a day) and nearly 1500 on 6 June 1944.

Facts like these:

The Liberation of Iraq was done quicker and with the lowest loss of US and civilian life than any major military engagement in history.

50,000,000 formerly oppressed Iraqis and Afghans now free to determine their own destiny.

Saddam will never again be allowed to develop and use WMD, nor will he be able to supply them to his terrorist allies.

Innocent Iraqis are not being murdered by Saddam and his henchmen at the rate of 100,000 - 200,000 per year.

75% of Al Qaeda leadership killed or captured.

Libya has renounced WMD and has allowed UN inspectors in to certify the dismantling of their WMD programs.

Other nations in the Middle East inching towards representative democracy.

5,000,000 new jobs created since March 2003.

More people employed than any other time in US history.

Lower average unemployment rate than in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.

Low interest rates.

Low rate of inflation.

Sustained GDP Growth rate for the past three years.

Tax cuts for all American taxpayers (even providing refunds for those who don't pay taxes) which have resulted in the "rich" paying an even greater share of the tax burden. This shift of the tax burden has relieved the low income and middle income earners of much of the thier tax burden.

Now let me list some facts that I'm sure you'd like to claim as faults:

Katrina response: While you would set the bar at zero deaths and a Federal response before Katrina had passed the French Quarter, the fact is that more federal assets were on the ground in a shorter period of time than with the three 2004 hurricanes that struck Florida. It is also a fact that it took the National Guard 5 days to deploy to Florida for Hurricane Andrew in 1992, while 30,000 National Guard troops were deployed to LA, MS, and AL within three days for Katrina. You'll also point to the thousands stranded at the Superdome for days. But if the Mayor had used the 2,000 buses he had at his disposal prior to the hurricane striking, they would have been out danger.

muirgeo,

44 - and because I honor them (and know them as I was once one of them), I will keep supporting the effort to victory. You would disgustingly make their sacrifice in vain by pulling them out and handing the defeated enemy a victory.