Author Topic: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start  (Read 5054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mucho

  • Guest
Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« on: January 06, 2007, 11:35:06 AM »
Home
The News
The Blog
Eat The Press
Contagious Festival
Becoming Fearless
   Arianna Huffington
01.03.2007
D.C. Notes: Murtha Again Taking the Lead on Iraq (36 comments )
Arriving on the Hill, Melinda and I made a beeline for the office of Rep. Jack Murtha, the man most responsible for the Democrats seizing control of the 110th Congress (other than George Bush, that is).

His office is filled with military memorabilia and reminders of the troops serving in Iraq: a civil war hat worn by his grandfather, who lost an arm in the war; dog tags from a soldier wounded in Iraq; a clock given to him by Missy Hall, whose husband was the first soldier from Murtha's district to lose his life in Iraq.

Murtha recently spoke at Missy's graduation from nursing school, and her Christmas card with her children is prominently displayed on his desk.

As always with Murtha, the first thing he wants to talk about is the state of our troops -- both in Iraq and when they return home wounded (and all-too-often neglected). He's particularly distressed about the way the last Congress cut funding for the treatment of traumatic brain injuries, which have been dubbed "the signature injury of the Iraq war." Murtha is a regular visitor to Washington's Walter Reed hospital, headquarters for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and has seen first-hand the devastation wrought by these kinds of injuries.

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. "The only way you can have a troop surge," he told us, "is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home." He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a "with Bush anything is possible" look, then said: "Money is the only way we can stop it for sure."

To this end, Murtha, the incoming Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is planning to hold wide-ranging hearings, starting January 17th, that will focus on the depleted state of our military readiness , as well as contractor corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal is to turn the spotlight on how drained the military has become, and on how any talk of a troop surge is utterly irresponsible (as well as strategically misguided). "The public," he said repeatedly, "is already ahead of us on all this.

He says he wants to "fence the funding," denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq "as soon as we can."

Murtha's passion for our troops and the families they've left behind is palpable, and has left him energized and ready to, once again, lead the charge on Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-murtha-again-_b_37750.html?view=print

































































































BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2007, 01:00:26 PM »
Does he have the votes to do it this way?


Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2007, 03:03:16 PM »
Does he have the votes to do it this way?



I am not sure what you are asking. He IS the head of the committee that approves the funding so there are legislative manuevers he can use to block & delay . Dems are capable of that little trick of yours as well, you know.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2007, 04:02:33 PM »
Just wondering. Most of the dems elected were centrists and most of the dems rejected were of the moonbat leftist variety. Will be interesting to watch it all play out.


Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2007, 06:09:02 PM »
Just wondering. Most of the dems elected were centrists and most of the dems rejected were of the moonbat leftist variety. Will be interesting to watch it all play out.



People who oppose the war are no longer moonbats. They are now the overwhelming majority and you are the moonbats now.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/18/bush.poll/index.html

And once a war is opposed , rarely makes a comeback. People can admit a mistake once, but not again on the same subject. You have lost.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2007, 06:27:08 PM »
Quote
You have lost.

Don't see how.

I have been saying, along with Mikey, that the american people,  have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice, for years.




Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2007, 06:55:56 PM »
Quote
You have lost.

Don't see how.

I have been saying, along with Mikey, that the american people,  have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice, for years.





Then why do you keep on bothering them with it? Actually, worthwhile sacrifices like WW II were supported and real sacrifices were made. Bullshit wars get bullshit sacrifices. Besides, what sacrifice have you made for your Fuehrer's war? You didnt even have to give up your beloved tax-cuts.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 07:14:40 PM by Mucho »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2007, 07:43:46 PM »
<<I have been saying, along with Mikey, that the american people,  have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice, for years.>>

You're on your own on this one, BT, I never claimed the American people have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice.  Just that they're smart enough to know the difference between what's worthwhile and what's bullshit.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2007, 08:57:23 PM »
Quote
You're on your own on this one, BT, I never claimed the American people have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice.  Just that they're smart enough to know the difference between what's worthwhile and what's bullshit.

Sure you did. Referring to Viet Nam and now Iraq.

We can debate whether the cause is worthwhile, There is no debate as to when the going gets tough, the vast majority of americans sit on their couch and complain about a lack of freebies.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2007, 11:43:37 PM »
Quote
You're on your own on this one, BT, I never claimed the American people have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice.  Just that they're smart enough to know the difference between what's worthwhile and what's bullshit.

Sure you did. Referring to Viet Nam and now Iraq.

We can debate whether the cause is worthwhile, There is no debate as to when the going gets tough, the vast majority of americans sit on their couch and complain about a lack of freebies.


But YOU are content with your beloved taxcuts, no?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2007, 12:21:50 AM »
Quote
But YOU are content with your beloved taxcuts, no?

I am absolutely pleased with any tax cuts i recieve. I'm also happy when chicken goes on sale. My understanding is you are a high dollar earner. I assume you return any nasty tax break you got back to the treasury?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2007, 12:39:20 AM »
<<Sure you did. [complain that Americans have no stomach for worthwhile sacrifice]  Referring to Viet Nam and now Iraq.>>

For the record, BOTH Viet Nam and Iraq required sacrifices from Americans for causes that were not worthwhile.  WWII demanded sacrifices for a cause that WAS worthwhile.  Americans had no stomach for massive sacrifice for either Viet Nam or Iraq because both causes were based on lies and bullshit and deliberate deception of the American people, which many Americans ultimately came to see right through.  WWII was a truly noble cause in which, correspondingly, the American people were virtually unstinting in their sacrifice.

<<We can debate whether the cause is worthwhile . . . >>

Somewhere else, whenever you're ready.  The issue in this thread is what I said about American's will to sacrifice in worthwhile causes, and you clearly misquoted me.  I did not say what you claim I did.  I would never impugn the willingness of the American people to sacrifice in a worthwhile cause.  There would be no factual or logical basis for any such statement.

<< There is no debate as to when the going gets tough, the vast majority of americans sit on their couch and complain about a lack of freebies. >>

I don't think so at all.  That's complete and utter nonsense.  I believe that in WWII, although late entrants to the fighting, the American people performed magnificently and heroicly on both the home front and the battlefield.  As a causus belli both Viet Nam and Iraq are crocks of shit.  The American people gave them the support they deserved.  They're much smarter than you are, BT.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2007, 12:44:12 AM »
Then educate me. Why was the causus belli just for WWII and not for Viet Nam? There was the america first crowd during WWII, part of the reason we entered late, why were they wrong?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2007, 02:00:52 AM »
<<Then educate me. Why was the causus belli just for WWII and not for Viet Nam? >>

WWII was a war that the U.S. entered late between Nazi Germany and its allies on the one hand and France, Great Britain, the USSR and their allies on the other.  The causus belli was German aggression which would have led to the domination of Eurasia by the Nazis and their takeover of the British and French Empires.  This would have inevitably led to the domination of most of the world by the Nazis which most people generally would tend to view as something very, very bad.  If you don't understand that, I would suggest some basic courses on European history in the 20th Century, but it's a huge topic which is not of much interest today simply because it is so widely understood.  Most Americans would have considered Nazi domination of the planet a bad thing.

Viet Nam was primarily a struggle for national independence from the French Empire, which FDR had supported in principle, having told the Allied European colonial powers (Britain, France, Holland, Belgium) that their colonialism was contrary to the principles of national liberation for which America was fighting in WWII and that consequently the U.S. would not support their postwar efforts to retain their colonies by force.  Although France continued to fight the NLF  (the communist-led National Liberation Front) after the war, a symbolically important battle loss at Dienbienphu convinced the French to pull out in stages, leaving the North in the hands of the NLF and the South in the hands of a puppet government they had hand-picked prior to their departure from their former colonial collaborators, most of whom were Roman Catholics in a predominantly Buddhist country.  In short, what happened was that the French puppet government, having practically zero popular support, with the help of influential RCC and anti-communist pressure groups in the USA, managed to sucker important American politicians into supporting their so-called anti-communist struggle as part of the Cold War.  Elections were to be held two or three years after partition, but the South, with U.S. support, cancelled the elections, which the NLF would have won in a landslide, due to the popularity of Uncle Ho (Ho Chi Minh.)

Thus the real objective of US interference in Viet Nam was to prevent the free elections promised to its people, which in itself was distasteful to many Americans.  The official causus belli was the fake attack on American warships in the Tonkin Gulf, which many Americans knew or suspected from the beginning was faked, much the same way as the "threat" of Saddam's "WMD" was faked years later.

Both Viet Nam and Iraq were sparked by manufactured causes, and in both cases the American people were lied into war by deceptive and manipulative politicians.  Although many Americans are ignorant, belligerent, racist ass-holes ready to kill and torture brown-skinned or dark-skinned people for no good reason and believe everything their government tells them because of their sheer stupidity, many Americans are good, smart, decent people who can sense when their government is lying to them, have no real desire to kill people just because of their race or religion and will rightfully resist any call to sacrifice in a cause which, whatever their government tells them, they realize is a crock of shit.  Even the moron racist ass-holes at some point when the government's lies become more and more apparent, finally start to realize that they have been had, and begin to waver in their support of a campaign which they had been led to think would be a cakewalk.  Since it is from these moronic ass-holes that most of the government's troops will come when the smarter half realizes that the cause is no good, these guys are the first to see the real results of the government policies coming home in coffins and wheelchairs, and this could be considered a part of the Great American Awakening, when the entire nation slowly comes to realize that, once again, their leaders have turned out to be a bunch of lying bags of shit with nothing left to offer and no more promises that anyone is ready to believe in, not even the morons.  This is when the plutocracy that really rules the country comes to the conclusion that the plug has to be pulled come hell or high water.  The game is up.


There was the america first crowd during WWII, part of the reason we entered late, why were they wrong?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Maybe not quite de-funding, but unfunding is a nice start
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2007, 02:28:05 AM »
<<There was the america first crowd during WWII, part of the reason we entered late, why were they wrong?>>

Well, they were pretty much of a mixed bag.  Some of them remembered the lies of British propaganda from WWI, which got America into that war.  (German armies raping nuns, bayonetting babies, etc.)  All the propaganda stories of German WWI soldiers were pure bullshit concocted by the British to get America into the war on their side, assisted by various American war financiers, including J.P. Morgan, who had billions invested in British loans and stood to lose every cent if Britain were defeated.  So there was distrust of British influence and of "international banking" influence.   U.S. involvement in the war could only benefit the British and French and their maintenance of their unjust empires.  War could only benefit the "international bankers" (a.k.a. "the Jews," in some circles) who had again loaned huge sums, now at risk, to Great Britain, and furthermore had an added incentive in this war to see that Germany would lose the war.

There was also a strong American tradition of noninvolvement in foreign struggles.  Europe, the decadent "old world" was an example of everything that America had wanted to escape from: religious hatred and persecution, dictatorships, rule of kings (and the wars they entailed), the class system, oligarchies - - nothing good could come of involvement in the quarrels of these people, they were all more or less equally bad and thankfully an ocean separated them from the U.S.A. so there was less reason than ever to care about what those morons were doing to each other.  Europeans were evil, they were born evil, they would die evil and whatever they did to one another, however regrettable it might be, was to be expected and was inevitable.

Some America Firsters, like Lindbergh, one of the founders, saw the pro-war movement as primarily inspired by the Jews for selfish reasons of self-protection and felt that the Nazis represented "The Wave of the Future," the title of a book that either he or his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, had written to extol the virtues of Nazi Germany and its leader Adolf Hitler.  This segment of America First saw the Jews pretty well the same way that Adolf Hitler saw them, as a parasitic race of evil-doers who lived only to exploit and cheat the straight-talking hard-working "Aryan" races and were a spreading cancer which really needed to be excised the sooner the better.  Henry Ford, like Lindbergh a great admirer of Hitler and the senior Nazi leadership (and a campaign contributor as well) had similar thoughts on the issue and even paid to distribute The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (faked "minutes" of purported  meetings of Jewish world leaders to plot world domination) in Germany as he had done in the U.S.A.

Other America Firsters like Col. Thompson of the Chicago Tribune were anti-British AND anti-Semitic.  Thompson, I believe, because of his Irish background.  Many other America Firsters were Irish-American.  To America Firsters like these, (as to many French Canadians) Hitler was a double blessing, one who would take care of BOTH the English and the Jews at the same time.  Going to war against Hitler would have been, for these guys, an act of major insanity.

So who were America First?  A pretty mixed bag.  Mostly, IMHO, bad guys.