Murtha: Stability In Iraq Doesn’t Mean Anything

Ken McCracken • November 21, 2007

Murtha, talking about Iraq in the summer of 2006:

Our military is now considered occupiers by most Iraqis.
Iraq is now in a civil war and our military is caught in the middle.
All of us want stability in Iraq.
But this goal cannot be achieved by mere words alone, nor by slogans or broad policy statements.
The key word is “How.”
How do we give Iraq a chance at stability?
How do we bring stability and security to the Region?

Murtha speaking about Iraq now that stability has been brought to the country:

“Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things,” said Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of Appropriations defense subcommittee. “We can’t win militarily.”
The Pennsylvania Democrat conceded violence was down dramatically and some normalcy restored on Iraq’s streets, but he said U.S. victory remains unattainable as long as Baghdad fails to pass national reconciliation laws.
“To change the political law, it doesn’t seem to me you need the military stability,” Mr. Murtha told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Way to move the goal posts, Jack.
By the way, that wasn’t the most bizarre part of Murtha’s speech. Get a load of this statement below about families who “claim” to support the troops but haven’t had their taxes raised yet to prove how much they support the troops.

Can tax hikes really be the Democrat solution to everything?

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array Scrapiron

Murtha is past the senile stage and into the babbling baby stage, again.
2Hotel9

Yes, spark, and those goalposts have remained quite static. Imagine that.
2Hotel9

will, I just gots one thing to say to that stupid assed line of crap. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Bat One

Bush has no concept of fiscal responsibility. He just charges his wars on the national credit card. Why pay for his wars now when we can make our children and grandchildren pay for them?

Will,

Even for you, this is an extraordinarily stupid comment to make, and it astounds me that you would make a point of demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

Try this: name a war which was paid for out of then-current revenues. The American Revolution? Hardly. That war, and the Civil War, and the Spanish American War, and World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam War, were all “financed” in one way or another, paid for by those who paid federal taxes long after the conflicts ended.

Please note too, that both World Wars, the Korean War and Vietnam were all undertaken and financed by Democrat presidents. During World War II, FDR and the Democrat-controlled Congress ran federal deficits that were over 100% of GDP. And that doesn’t include the various “war bonds” and other financial sacrifices imposed on the American people. Nor does any of this cover the expenses incurred in the Cold War… also financed.

You can argue with the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. You would be wrong, both morally and strategically, but you would at least have a moderately defensible position. And you can argue that the war in Iraq has been mishandled. You’d probably not get much argument about that at all, though how and where to fix the blame is another question entirely… one likely well beyond your limited cognitive capacity.

But to argue that the war (it was just Iraq you’re squawking about, right?) ought not to have been financed, or to imply that this is the first such in American history, only demonstrates your own lack of qualification to discuss the subject rationally in the first place.
Will

Can tax hikes really be the Democrat solution to everything?

Bush has no concept of fiscal responsibility. He just charges his wars on the national credit card. Why pay for his wars now when we can make our children and grandchildren pay for them?
2Hotel9

The “Lucy Syndrome” is all the Democrat Party has. Keep changing definitions, altering the requirements of success in any given situation, redefining the meaning of “is”.
gonzo

maybe he needs some more pork for his ceo buds to ease his pain
halatbis

Murtha and Obey–Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, or are they the Bobbsey twins? Gad, life must be bleak for people like them.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

will,

Even with the war our defense outlays are less as a percetage of GDP than the average for the Cold War era. Find an argument that’s harder to disprove.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Way to move the goal posts, Jack.

I believe the ‘democracy’ goalpost came from the lips of Jr., did it not?

SayAnythingBlog.com

Murtha: Stability In Iraq Doesn’t Mean Anything

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments