Words from John Murtha

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Bold Ruler,
Do me a favor, ok?
Next time you write a piece, tell them that there are many Americans that DO care.
I heard the same kind of crap during Viet Nam. We can't stop now or all those lives would be in vain.
Then, I got a chance to stand in front of the memorial, find ten of my friends names, not counting several others that died later from agent orange and living crippled for the rest of their lives. Ed M. was a colonel. He got blown up by an improvised device. Spent the remainder of his life on fake legs, right arm blown off below the elbow, and a disfigured face with no ear on the right side, and a glass eye on the same side. Interesting fact is that the same people he was training during "Vietnamization" were the ones that did this to him. After his many operations, he became a college professor teaching Asian studies. He also counseled many vets.
Then he founded a program that brought vets back to Viet nam to distribute medical aid...revisit the place where he was blown up.
He spent many years in search of the answer to a question that haunted him.
WHY?

Unfortunately, he died last year at 56 in his shower. His son found him.
Ed's name isn't on the wall.

So, just do me a favor, ok? Tell those that you write your articles for that there are people that DO care about them just as much as i cared about Ed,
and Bill, and Stan, and Joe, and....so many more.

Names on a wall will never replace the lives they cost.
NEVER!

That op-ed was about raising the gas tax 5 cents per gallon and using the billions raised to help soldiers and their families. Before it ran I had to change a paragraph, or rather include one that sort of gave Bush a little credit. Stars and Stripes is owned by DoD and they have freedom but you won't see anything criticizing the administration on their pages.

The americans we polled were willing to do it, but the WH refused to raise the gas tax. It actually got a little ugly with them. One of the many reasons I can't stand them.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by boldruler

That op-ed was about raising the gas tax 5 cents per gallon and using the billions raised to help soldiers and their families. Before it ran I had to change a paragraph, or rather include one that sort of gave Bush a little credit. Stars and Stripes is owned by DoD and they have freedom but you won't see anything criticizing the administration on their pages.

The americans we polled were willing to do it, but the WH refused to raise the gas tax. It actually got a little ugly with them. One of the many reasons I can't stand them.

BR,
You and I are on totally different planets.
Of course I know that "Stars and Stripes" is the propaganda tool for the armed forces. Paid for by the Department of Defense (previously called Dept. of War).
A nickle a gallon to help families???
Get real!
Wouldn't it be better to have those that serve come home and live with their families, support them themselves, rather than be flown back in flag draped coffins that aren't seen on network news, or mangled bodies at Walter Reed?
A nickle a gallon???
Why not just bring them home to be with their families rather than perpetuate the charade? The "real" costs will be huge!
As Murtha said, it's time to re-deploy. And he does care about our military, and so do I.
The question that Murtha asked is "how"?
I continue to ask "why"?

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

BR,
You and I are on totally different planets.
Of course I know that "Stars and Stripes" is the propaganda tool for the armed forces. Paid for by the Department of Defense (previously called Dept. of War).
A nickle a gallon to help families???
Get real!
Wouldn't it be better to have those that serve come home and live with their families, support them themselves, rather than be flown back in flag draped coffins that aren't seen on network news, or mangled bodies at Walter Reed?
A nickle a gallon???
Why not just bring them home to be with their families rather than perpetuate the charade? The "real" costs will be huge!
As Murtha said, it's time to re-deploy. And he does care about our military, and so do I.
The question that Murtha asked is "how"?
I continue to ask "why"?

It wasn't that simple. The op-ed partially had to do with increasing the death benefit, but also had a little to do with trying to put the president in a box of raising the tax or looking like he didn't support the troops. The real point was to get the death benefit raised and it worked.

Send me a private message with your e-mail and I will send it to you . There were numerous political angles to it and I had to fight with some of the lower staffers at the White House over getting it in the paper. The death benefit was raised though and now families can get up to $500K with their policy and the $100K benefit combined.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by boldruler

That op-ed was about raising the gas tax 5 cents per gallon and using the billions raised to help soldiers and their families. Before it ran I had to change a paragraph, or rather include one that sort of gave Bush a little credit. Stars and Stripes is owned by DoD and they have freedom but you won't see anything criticizing the administration on their pages.

The americans we polled were willing to do it, but the WH refused to raise the gas tax. It actually got a little ugly with them. One of the many reasons I can't stand them.

That's very interesting, BR! And why am I not suprised that when suggested that Americans sacrifice a little bit for their boys and girls overseas, the WH refused. But then, they could have asked the American public to do anything after 9/11 and what was their suggestion, "Go shopping." Thanks. Thanks a lot. But I guess it's hard for a bunch of rich men to fathom having to sacrifice anything. Not like most of them ever served or anything.

I don't own a car, so big help I'd be, but I'd have been happy to pay it. (I pay more in my electric bill every month so that an amount of kilowatts equal to what I use in a month has to be purchased from alternative power sources, like wind. I think it comes out to an extra $2-$5 a month)

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's very interesting, BR! And why am I not suprised that when suggested that Americans sacrifice a little bit for their boys and girls overseas, the WH refused. But then, they could have asked the American public to do anything after 9/11 and what was their suggestion, "Go shopping." Thanks. Thanks a lot. But I guess it's hard for a bunch of rich men to fathom having to sacrifice anything. Not like most of them ever served or anything.

I don't own a car, so big help I'd be, but I'd have been happy to pay it. (I pay more in my electric bill every month so that an amount of kilowatts equal to what I use in a month has to be purchased from alternative power sources, like wind. I think it comes out to an extra $2-$5 a month)

The line they basically inserted into my op-ed was. "Whether we like it or not, we are a nation at war, and as President Bush has pointed out "War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice".

Put my name on it, but they had to put their sentence in. I still laugh because they never asked for any sacrifice from anyone except the soldiers families.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by boldruler

The line they basically inserted into my op-ed was. "Whether we like it or not, we are a nation at war, and as President Bush has pointed out "War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice".

Put my name on it, but they had to put their sentence in. I still laugh because they never asked for any sacrifice from anyone except the soldiers families.

Oh my God. And the man still won in '04. I just don't understand anything about this world.

Have you seen McCain's recent bending-over on Bush's "I'll ignore the torture ban if I feel like it" stuff? And people think he's the best hope for the Republicans? If that flippy-floppy McCain is the best the 'Publicans can do... but then McCain has a habit of bending over for Bush, so why am I surprised?

For all of his "maverick" image he tries to cultivate, McCain has the same problem Gore and Kerry did-- he obviously wants the Presidency too much. I start to smell eau de desperate on him...

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh my God. And the man still won in '04. I just don't understand anything about this world.

Have you seen McCain's recent bending-over on Bush's "I'll ignore the torture ban if I feel like it" stuff? And people think he's the best hope for the Republicans? If that flippy-floppy McCain is the best the 'Publicans can do... but then McCain has a habit of bending over for Bush, so why am I surprised?

For all of his "maverick" image he tries to cultivate, McCain has the same problem Gore and Kerry did-- he obviously wants the Presidency too much. I start to smell eau de desperate on him...

McCain knows what he is doing. I have met him and he is a good man. You have to play the game or you go nowhere. I would vote for him over Hillary, but not Mark Warner. McCain is a Teddy Roosevelt type. I believe what businesses said about Roosevelt was, "We bought him, but he wouldn't stay bought". That is McCain, he will play the game and then be a much different guy if elected.

If McCain gets the nomination, which I don't think he will, he will win easily. Right now I think Rudy Giuliani is the likely Republican nominee. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is convinced it will be Guiliani v Clinton, and most think she can't beat him. The DLC is secretly hoping for George Allen, who has a shot if the right wing wackos have their way in the primaries. Giuliani though has somehow found a way to become the rightwing wackos guy. With his views on social issues I just can't believe it, but social issues have really taken a backseat to terrorism with the rightwing nuts.

I guess American lives are more important than Iraqi lives.

Folks like it or not, we made a decision, it is a mess. If we leave, huge numbers of innocent folks will die. We are being asked by leaders on both sides to stay because they know what will happen if we leave. You see cameras of people shouting at us to leave, but the people who have access to information know what will happen if we leave.

It has turned into Sunni v. Shiite. This is where the vast majority of deaths are occurring now. And BTW, we are still in Afghanistan also. Should we leave?

Our troops are doing what I consider the ultimate in altruism. We are preventing people from being slaughtered whole sale. And these are people that do not even realize it. The troops will never get the credit they deserve. They are saving innocent people that quite possibly hate them.

Originally Posted by pgardn

I guess American lives are more important than Iraqi lives.

Folks like it or not, we made a decision, it is a mess. If we leave, huge numbers of innocent folks will die. We are being asked by leaders on both sides to stay because they know what will happen if we leave. You see cameras of people shouting at us to leave, but the people who have access to information know what will happen if we leave.

It has turned into Sunni v. Shiite. This is where the vast majority of deaths are occurring now. And BTW, we are still in Afghanistan also. Should we leave?

Our troops are doing what I consider the ultimate in altruism. We are preventing people from being slaughtered whole sale. And these are people that do not even realize it. The troops will never get the credit they deserve. They are saving innocent people that quite possibly hate them.

It has turned Sunni v Shiite and it is not the business of America. Let them have their Civil War and figure out who they are as a nation. America lost 600,000 men (2% of the population at the time- equivalent to 6 million today) to figure out what it was. You can't tell countries what they will be, they have to figure it out themselves.

As for Afghanistan, we should stay there, in fact we should have never gone to Iraq and we should have put all our resources into Afghanistan. It would be much more of a success had we. The problem is the idiot neocons and their friends couldn't make the money off that war. FACE IT, the Iraq war was planned long before 9-11, some feel it was planned in the mid 90's after the first Iraq war, back when we had a competent Bush as President, not his son.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by boldruler

It has turned Sunni v Shiite and it is not the business of America. Let them have their Civil War and figure out who they are as a nation. America lost 600,000 men (2% of the population at the time- equivalent to 6 million today) to figure out what it was. You can't tell countries what they will be, they have to figure it out themselves.

As for Afghanistan, we should stay there, in fact we should have never gone to Iraq and we should have put all our resources into Afghanistan. It would be much more of a success had we. The problem is the idiot neocons and their friends couldn't make the money off that war. FACE IT, the Iraq war was planned long before 9-11, some feel it was planned in the mid 90's after the first Iraq war, back when we had a competent Bush as President, not his son.

I agree with you about Afghanistan and that Iraq was planned long before 9-11; 9-11 just provided a convenient excuse (and a way to dupe most of America into believe Hussein has anything to do with it. I find it funny how so many Americans will say they don't trust politicians, and then blindly accept everything those politicians tell them).

But I have to respectfully disagree on McCain-- I can't get behind anyone who is willing to accept the absolute gutting of the torture legislation that he pushed to pass. Torture is not acceptable under any circumstances and to me a man who is willing to play the game until he's in office on torture is a man who will continue to play the game once he's in office. I don't buy the whole "different man once in office" thing. TR was considered a lunatic by his own party BEFORE he was President. He didn't play along; they made him VP to shut him up. Plus, McCain is a social conservative, regardless of what he tries to imply.

Did you see the TIME cover story on Teddy Roosevelt? Very entertaining reading.

I don't think Giuliani will make it past the primaries, unless he does an about-face on his social liberalism (and I wouldn't be surprised to see him do just that). AND-- I think if the Dems would grow some cojones and bring out all the assorted dirt on Giuliani prior to 9-11, he might well have trouble in the general election. Buddy-buddy with Kerik, marched in parades with his mistress, announced his marital separation to the press BEFORE he'd mentioned it to his wife, his own son won't speak to him, putting his buddies into six-figure positions overseeing the dispensation of the 9-11 money (later forced to back down on that)-- there's plenty of ethical problems with Mr. G, but I don't think the Dems have the backbone to play as dirty as the Republicans have played the past few elections (and very successfully, I must add). They say the only reason Schumer beat D'amato in '98 is he was willing to climb down in the gutter with D'amato.

For the record, I couldn't care less about politicians dalliances, but dude, say something to your wife BEFORE you go to the media... tacky! And lots of Americans do seem more interested in politicians sex lives than in their policy decisions, don't they?

(Though it was very satisfying to see Livingstone brought down by Larry Flynt. I do enjoy seeing hypocrites brought down.)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by boldruler

It has turned Sunni v Shiite and it is not the business of America. Let them have their Civil War and figure out who they are as a nation. America lost 600,000 men (2% of the population at the time- equivalent to 6 million today) to figure out what it was. You can't tell countries what they will be, they have to figure it out themselves.

As for Afghanistan, we should stay there, in fact we should have never gone to Iraq and we should have put all our resources into Afghanistan. It would be much more of a success had we. The problem is the idiot neocons and their friends couldn't make the money off that war. FACE IT, the Iraq war was planned long before 9-11, some feel it was planned in the mid 90's after the first Iraq war, back when we had a competent Bush as President, not his son.

it's 'turned' sunni vs shiite?? yeah, it sure has, for over a thousand years it's been sunni vs shiite. ever since the days of mohammed when islam was born. that's how old those two sects are.