Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Oct 1, 2006.
The silence of the right is deafening on this one. So much for the ridiculous claim that Republicans are better on defense, huh?
Bush has mismanaged the army and wasted billions on privatizing support services for he and Cheneys cronies multi billion dollar welfare checks. And there are thousands of servicemen returning that have little hope for compensation for their injuries.
I'd agree that Bush has mismanaged the post war effort. The argument for privatizing aspects of the military is a matter of personal opinion. I actually don't have a big a problem with it in general. Ther may be some specifics about it I'd probably dislike, but privatization has proven to be efficient in most cases when government is involved. That aside, Dems do destroy defense. Dems historically slash defense budgets. GW increased defense spending from the moment he entered office. My brother is a disabled veteran. He served his time under Bush sr, during the first gulf war, but was never deployed to the ME. Anyhow, he only use the VA if he had to during the 90's under Clinton. The services, budget, and care were aweful. When GW entered office, that all changed as the funding increased dramatically. The Army has been exceptional since my brother was honorably discharged in '93.
I agree on the corporate crap though. The no bid deals are comical. I don't believe they went to war to make money for the Haliburtons of the world as some think, but I do think that once they went to war, they cherry picked who recieved the support contracts. What else do you expect them to do, not give their multimillion dollar donators the deal? Techinically, they held bids. Halliburton won the bid by donating the most money to the RNC. :bricks:
I'd really like to see some evidence of the claim that the military is better served under rapes vs dums. Currently, the state is one of disrepair. There is really bad health care for returning vets. I wonder what the Republicant plan is for those affected by this war.
I'd sure like to see it. For that matter, Id like to see the dums seize this issue.
Since when did the VA get any good? I know the hospital on Huntington Ave in Jamaica Plain still looks just as dumpy as it always has.
The military cleary recieves a higher amount of funding under the GOP than it does under the Democratic leadership. Furthermore, funding for the VA has risen dramatically since GW took office. I know this because my brother is a disabled vet, and he and his buds always talk about the changes in the military since GW took over.
What surprises me about the Dems, is their relative inability to make ground in national politics. One would think that with the piss poor job the GOP has done over the last 6 years that the Dems would take over. Their problem has been unity and organization. Basically, they have niether. I know what the GOP platform is, it's terrorism & security. The proverbial "tape" that is holding their meek performance together. It's the only thing they got, but it's something. For the Dems however, there is nothing of substance, only criticisms. I think the liberals in the Democratic party are overshadowing the sensible voices. Clinton was a moderate, it's why he won, and generally served well as a president. The current loons, Dean, Murtha, Pelosi, Hillary, Kerry, etc....are not only lefty liberals, which scare people more than neo-cons, but they are out of touch with each other to boot. What is the DNC's message? What are they for? No one can ever tell me. With spending out of control, illegals invading us like never before, an unpopular war, global opinion at an all-time low, and numerous other problems bandying about, how can the Dems not gain ground?
I think it speaks volumes about how low our two party system has become.
Real World, not to make a major issue out of your point, but you have to admit that VA spending should increase as a result of the needs since 2001. Obviously, there would be a serious problem if funding didn't increase during this time. That hardly means that one party is better on defense than the other. In fact, it could easily be argued that efficiency (if thats the measure) is at an all time low considering the current spending and what the army has received in return. Where did all the money really go???
Oh, that and calling Murtha a liberal loony is really damaging to your credibility. Murtha is a conservative Dem. Look at his record. He has been a hawk on military issues, without question.
Bush has increased the defense budget since day 1. He increased more in his first couple of years than Clinton did in his entire 8 years. Remember what Reagan did for the defense budget. This isn't merely a VA thing, this is overall military spending. Arguing efficiency is an entirely different monster. I don't know any government that has been efficient, and therefore I'm not sure what we could possibly compare inefficiency to. Kinda sad isn't it?
As for Murtha, I'm not to keen on his voting record, so you're probably right about his not being a true lib, but he's got the loony liberal tag from me for his rants about our soldiers being murderers. Reminded me of Kerry saying vietnam vets were war criminals. Basically, when it comes to the war, which is the only time you see Murtha in the news, he is standing next to, and sounding like, the loony left. That's not to say that only liberals oppose the war, or that those who oppose it don't have a valid reason to. It simply means that the manner by which they express that opposition, is extreme. IMO.
Murtha equated soldiers to murderers? When?? Where?
You had better come up with a quote, because this sounds like a blatant lie to me. Why would you need to stoop this low to get your point across? Are you that uncomfortable with his military record and the fact that he has seen more combat than the entire White House staff combined, and yet has a very strong opinion on this paticular "war" of choice? Seems to me that you are really reaching.
Link please, where did Murtha say anything like that? Thats both obscene and absurd.
Also, just because Bush has thrown money to his cronies in the defense industry doesn't mean thats doing squat for the men and women with inadequate armor. We lost seven yesterday, were you aware of that?
Well, for one, I don't lie. Two, I wouldn't even doctor something to fit my view. I want facts to base my opinions on. Anyone that needs to twist truths, post lies, or present something in a disengenuous light, is no friend of mine. Here is what bothered me about Murtha, it was in relation to the Haditha deaths.
REP. JOHN MURTHA, D-PA.: There was no Ã¢â¬â there was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
Now, what bothered me about it is that he had no proof. He read Time magazine and went ape shet in the press, saying the soldiers murdered in in cold blood. What ever happened to due process? Investigating and concluding appropriately? This guy read an article and slapped the guilty sign on them. Unacceptable from a person of congress, and worse off, a former Marine. Here is his rationale:
BLITZER: He was responding in part to you, because you've suggested this week that there in effect was a massacre.
MURTHA: Well there was. There's no question about it. I know, in talking to a number of people, and the information, I've never given you bad information yet. I talked to about it, in the context of the fact that these troops are under such tremendous pressure and that's what happens when they're under tremendous pressure. When this thing's all over, you're going to see exactly what I've said to be true. That, there was an IED attack, it killed one marine, and then they overreacted and killed a number of civilians without anybody firing at them. That's what you're going to find out.
But my whole point is, I -- I understand what happened. I don't excuse what happened, but I understand it because the pressure. Going out every day, they miss an IED explosive device, they find IEDs, somebody gets killed with an IED. They don't know who the enemy is, the pressure is tremendous. So when you find something like that, you're going to find these people cracking. And that's what happened to this --
BLITZER: The marines say they're still investigating. They don't know what happened yet. The pentagon says the same thing. How do you know what happened?
MURTHA: Wolf, you read the "Time" magazine articles. There are pictures, there are photos. You don't have to talk to the military about the proof. But you will see when the investigation is done that this was an overreaction by our troops, and this is the type thing that hurts us so badly. We're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. Abu Ghraib was another example where they had inadequate forces, untrained people, undisciplined people in a prison. Had one person in a prison who had a court order against him, he couldn't see his family. He told the army that, and they still put him in a prison. So here we are with troops untrained, inadequate forces. They go out every day and there's tremendous stress and this is the kind of things that happens.
BLITZER: Congressman John Murtha, thanks very much for joining us.
Now, the guy may very well be right in the end. We don't know yet. The soldiers very well may be guilty, but, they also may not be. For this clown to stand up and pronounce they killed in cold blood i.e. murdered innocent civilians, cuz he "talked" to someone and read Time, is shameful. Here we are arguing about giving terrorists due process, which I am for, yet, this idiot seems to feel our own soldiers don't deserve the same.
Valid point. But the bottom line is that Repubs have historically been pro-defense, and have always budgeted more dollars for the DOD. I know when GW took office, it was one of th first things he did. He raised the pay rate for soldiers, increased the budget dramatically, and set forth to moderize the military. Not that Dems despise military spending, it's just that they have a different agenda for federal dollars. The GOP like to start wars with our money, and Dems like to give it to the lazy. No matter how you slice it, in the end, it's inefficiently spent.
First RW...you gotta admit that your over the top claim that Murtha equated soldiers to murderers is just that. Out in way right field. You and I both know that he has an inside track on military affairs and knows much much more about whats happening on the ground than you, me, Bush, and Time magazine. You know that he is respected within the rank and file, regardless of what your gung ho chickenhawks on the right have told you.
Your choice of wording is misleading and sneaky. Due process...sure. No problem. That will be taken care of through courts martial, I guess. But there is ample evidence of cover up. Why should we be surprised? Tillmans death was covered up. Cover up is an unfortunate necessity if we want to win hearts and minds. In spite of cover ups, the US has lost the benefit of the doubt (read credibility) dfue to piss poor leadership: inadequate planning and a consequential fiasco, not to mention a series of proven lies that got us here in the first place.
But if it turns out that these Marines did crack and there really was a massacre of innocents, which I hope to God was not the case, are you going to admit that your insistence on demonizing a career military man like Murtha was as big a mistaken assumption as his jumping to a conclusion based on evidence he has from being close to those in the know??
Also, dont even try to bring this around to "liberals want due process for terrorists, why cant they ask for it for troops" crapola. You are smarter than that. Thats cheap and sleazy and you know it.
I'm not out to right field on this. The man spoke outside of his means. He said it himself that he read Time magazine and came to these conclusions. He's responsible for his words. You can't excuse what he said, how he said it, and that he said it to further his personal disdain for the war, despite the unfair harm it may have caused to the soldiers. Vets accross the land were upset over his remarks.
Fine RW. We'll see how that plays out. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the actual content of the article? Have any?
Content of which article?
ahem...the point of the thread article.
You really ought to keep up on current events efore making pompous incorrect claims
This is from last May beofe charges were brought, and BTW no charges have been proven as of this date.
There is your quote to condemn Marines before charges have been brought is a propanganda coup for our enemies and places our troops in greater danger, Disgraceful by Murtha.
Listen chuckles, if you want to contribute a thought on topic...do so. Otherwise, Ive already been through this with RealWorld.
So you think Murtha is a disgrace. Got it.
After RW corrected you you still insisted he didn't equate MArines with Murderers, I posted an explict quote where he called Marines "cold blooded" killers.
You are pretty dense, aren't you?
According to the report you cited,
No wonder the Bush administration takes americans for idiots. Just look at their staunch supporters.
Again, I hope its not true as I said and you ignored, but if it is true, then you are again proven wrong and Murtha is right and these particular Marines are in fact cold blooded killers. Thats not to say all are...but there are bad seeds in every crowd.
Now, again, do you have a point on topic or would you continue to like to be ignorant of the threads point?
Ever hear about innnocent until proven guilty?
Guess for socialist it doesn't apply to the brave men and women who defend us huh, cause for you it's all about the attempt to gain partisan advantage. Throw some marines under the bus, doesn't bother you at all.
Separate names with a comma.