PDA

View Full Version : Murtha in 08!


Bootlegged
06-26-2006, 06:19 AM
He rocks.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 06:27 AM
He'd get my vote if he ran.

banyon
06-26-2006, 07:43 AM
too unphotogenic to win that brainless 10% who pick based on the "guy they'd rather date"

KC Jones
06-26-2006, 07:56 AM
too unphotogenic to win that brainless 10% who pick based on the "guy they'd rather date"

:hmmm: - talking about gays or chicks? sexist or homophobe? :D

Seriously, I consider the 'beer vote' to be larger than 10%. I'm an elitist bastard who considers the vast majority of Americans to be poorly educated simpletons who end up voting for the guy they 'like'.

The charisma vote:

Reagan > Carter
Reagan > Mondale
Bush > Dukakis
Clinton > Bush
Clinton > Dole
Bush II > Gore
Bush II > Kerry

???? > ????

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:30 AM
Murtha, the guys that wants to redeploy the troops to Japan from Iraq..... tell me what good they would do in Japan?!

banyon
06-26-2006, 08:32 AM
:hmmm: - talking about gays or chicks? sexist or homophobe? :D

Seriously, I consider the 'beer vote' to be larger than 10%. I'm an elitist bastard who considers the vast majority of Americans to be poorly educated simpletons who end up voting for the guy they 'like'.

The charisma vote:

Reagan > Carter
Reagan > Mondale
Bush > Dukakis
Clinton > Bush
Clinton > Dole
Bush II > Gore
Bush II > Kerry

???? > ????

That's why I wanted Edwards on the top of the ticket last time. He's got more charisma in his little finger than Kerry ever had.

Logical
06-26-2006, 08:35 AM
Murtha, the guys that wants to redeploy the troops to Japan from Iraq..... tell me what good they would do in Japan?!

Actually you should read the quote instead of the Blogs. He wants to redeploy to Kuwait and Okinawa. Ever hear of North Korea?

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 08:50 AM
That's why I wanted Edwards on the top of the ticket last time. He's got more charisma in his little finger than Kerry ever had.

Edwards is an empty headed face man.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:12 AM
Actually you should read the quote instead of the Blogs. He wants to redeploy to Kuwait and Okinawa. Ever hear of North Korea?

We already have a crapload of troops in Japan and and South Korea....

tell me how redeploying troops fighting in Iraq to Japan will help win the war in Iraq????!!!

A war with N. Korea will involve bombing for weeks before we send in ground troops.... Also, a war with N. Korea will involve all the countries in the "6 party talks" so it won't just be on us

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:14 AM
That's why I wanted Edwards on the top of the ticket last time. He's got more charisma in his little finger than Kerry ever had.

lol Edwards is a joke... he didnt even finish his first term as a senator! He needs to go back to his law practice... he will never be President

banyon
06-26-2006, 09:29 AM
Edwards is an empty headed face man.

Have you seen our president?

Cochise
06-26-2006, 09:37 AM
I can't believe he would say those things about America being the greatest threat to international security - bigger than North Korea? Bigger than Iran? Bigger than Al Queda?

That kind of thing might be an applause line in Haight-Ashbury, but he's doing a good job of making himself look kooky elsewhere.

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 09:40 AM
Edwards is an empty headed face man.That's pretty much what we need. Presidents are just figureheads anyway, like the monarchy in England. Very rarely are the policies for which they are known actually their own ideas. Presidents who buck the system and defy their "handlers" tend to get assassinated. A president needs to have charisma and public appeal, he doesn't need to be an intellectual giant. Just hopefully he won't be an intellectual buffoon, like we currently have.

jiveturkey
06-26-2006, 09:56 AM
tell me how redeploying troops fighting in Iraq to Japan will help win the war in Iraq????!!!You should probably be asking this question to General Casey.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 09:57 AM
That's pretty much what we need. Presidents are just figureheads anyway, like the monarchy in England. Very rarely are the policies for which they are known actually their own ideas. Presidents who buck the system and defy their "handlers" tend to get assassinated. A president needs to have charisma and public appeal, he doesn't need to be an intellectual giant. Just hopefully he won't be an intellectual buffoon, like we currently have.

So, if the president is a figurehead, why does it really matter if he is a buffoon? :spock:

patteeu
06-26-2006, 11:31 AM
Actually you should read the quote instead of the Blogs. He wants to redeploy to Kuwait and Okinawa. Ever hear of North Korea?

Don't tell me you think his redeployment plan is based on his view of North Korea. That's pure (and generous) speculation on your part.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 11:38 AM
Have you seen our president?
Gotta admit Bush is empty headed...even when Che-ney is channeling his body. Edwards only has a good-looking face. Gotta admit he's a cutie. But why replace one empty head with another empty head just 'cause it looks good. Makes no sense to me! :shrug:

Besides...he's too short! :(

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 11:46 AM
That's pretty much what we need. Presidents are just figureheads anyway, like the monarchy in England. Very rarely are the policies for which they are known actually their own ideas. Presidents who buck the system and defy their "handlers" tend to get assassinated. A president needs to have charisma and public appeal, he doesn't need to be an intellectual giant. Just hopefully he won't be an intellectual buffoon, like we currently have.
I agree that whoever is president is a figurehead for elitist interests
I agree that leaders that won't play ball with power elites also get assassinated.
I agree a president need not be an intellectual giant. A good executive can always surround himself with intellectual talent as well as capable people and should. That's part of being a good executive private and public. However, he shouldn't be unintelligent either.

However, I actually think rationality is a quality that is more important than being an intellectual giant. Afterall, history is full of brilliant psychopaths. If that intellect is not applied toward the greatest good for the greatest number than it's worthless.

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 02:04 PM
I agree that whoever is president is a figurehead for elitist interests
I agree that leaders that won't play ball with power elites also get assassinated.
I agree a president need not be an intellectual giant. A good executive can always surround himself with intellectual talent as well as capable people and should. That's part of being a good executive private and public. However, he shouldn't be unintelligent either.

However, I actually think rationality is a quality that is more important than being an intellectual giant. Afterall, history is full of brilliant psychopaths. If that intellect is not applied toward the greatest good for the greatest number than it's worthless.
I agree. And that's one of the main reasons I think Bush has been such a failure. Whether it is him making irrational decisions, or his handlers foisting irrational choices upon him, that irrationality has gone by largely unchecked.

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 02:07 PM
Don't tell me you think his redeployment plan is based on his view of North Korea. That's pure (and generous) speculation on your part.
I'd say the fact that he includes Okinawa as one of his redeployment points, coupled with the fact that the man is a decorated war veteran, suggests that the situation in North Korea was at least a consideration on his part. I daresay that it's pure speculation on your part that it wasn't.

patteeu
06-26-2006, 02:40 PM
I'd say the fact that he includes Okinawa as one of his redeployment points, coupled with the fact that the man is a decorated war veteran, suggests that the situation in North Korea was at least a consideration on his part. I daresay that it's pure speculation on your part that it wasn't.

I'm basing my view on what Murtha actually said. You and Logical are making assumptions about what was left unsaid. You've been doing this with Murtha's redeployment plan from the very beginning as I recall. Wouldn't you find it a bit refreshing if Murtha could actually say something that stood on it's own instead of requiring creative reinterpretation to avoid sounding either uselessly vague or completely absurd?

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 03:08 PM
I'm basing my view on what Murtha actually said. You and Logical are making assumptions about what was left unsaid. You've been doing this with Murtha's redeployment plan from the very beginning as I recall. Wouldn't you find it a bit refreshing if Murtha could actually say something that stood on it's own instead of requiring creative reinterpretation to avoid sounding either uselessly vague or completely absurd?Well, in his own statements, he said Okinawa and Kuwait. Everybody, including you, is applying their own interpretations based on what was said, and extrapolating what was unsaid. I just think that in your interpretation, you're tossing Occam's Razor out the door. What makes more sense - (1) despite being well aware of the brewing situation in North Korea, and despite being aware that Kuwait shares a border with Iraq, Murtha actually just tossed Kuwait and Okinawa out as arbitrary destinations, intending only to completely cut-and-run and leave Iraq to its own devices (your interpretation); or (2) Murtha, being a veteran and thus having experience with this sort of thing from the past, knowing that our troops are spread too thin, knowing that we may well need to build up troop strength in case of a confrontation with North Korea, knowing that Okinawa is a good staging point for operations in North Korea, and knowing that we will still need to maintain a military presence close enough that they can quickly move into Iraq if they are needed, and that Kuwait is and has always been the number 1 staging point for just such an operation, tossed out Okinawa and Kuwait because of their strategic importance to the two most immediate situations we face (my interpretation)? You seem to think that it isn't sensible to assume the latter, since he didn't come out and say all that word-for-word, yet you consider it sensible to assume the first, though he didn't come out and say all that word-for-word either. Admit it, pat, your interpretation is being strongly informed by your particular partisanship, as is mine.

John_Locke
06-26-2006, 03:10 PM
Murtha, the guys that wants to redeploy the troops to Japan from Iraq..... tell me what good they would do in Japan?!


got your rush talking points today I see

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 03:49 PM
got your rush talking points today I see

Dittoheads unite.

Ultra Peanut
06-26-2006, 08:26 PM
MURTH HATES AMURRICA AND FREEDOM

Bootlegged
06-27-2006, 07:16 AM
MURTH HATES AMURRICA AND FREEDOM


I don't know who Murth is, but John Murtha loves this country and is a veteran if you haven't heard.

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 07:27 AM
I don't know who Murth is, but John Murtha loves this country and is a veteran if you haven't heard.

I heard he like North Korean porn and Stalin shaped meatloaf.

Unlike, Bush, Rove, Cheney..he never served.

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 07:29 AM
got your rush talking points today I see

I'm surprised the story hasn't been posted yet, but Rush was busted at an airport with someone else's Viagra.

Seriously....[insert joke here]

FringeNC
06-27-2006, 08:07 AM
Is Murtha a Rove mole? If you listen to Keller's (NY Times managing editor) interview with CNN closely, it strongly suggests that Murtha was the guy who gave the go-ahead to the NY Times to publish the SWIFT story.

Ultra Peanut
06-27-2006, 08:31 AM
I'm surprised the story hasn't been posted yetI am, too.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 10:47 AM
Well, in his own statements, he said Okinawa and Kuwait. Everybody, including you, is applying their own interpretations based on what was said, and extrapolating what was unsaid. I just think that in your interpretation, you're tossing Occam's Razor out the door. What makes more sense - (1) despite being well aware of the brewing situation in North Korea, and despite being aware that Kuwait shares a border with Iraq, Murtha actually just tossed Kuwait and Okinawa out as arbitrary destinations, intending only to completely cut-and-run and leave Iraq to its own devices (your interpretation); or (2) Murtha, being a veteran and thus having experience with this sort of thing from the past, knowing that our troops are spread too thin, knowing that we may well need to build up troop strength in case of a confrontation with North Korea, knowing that Okinawa is a good staging point for operations in North Korea, and knowing that we will still need to maintain a military presence close enough that they can quickly move into Iraq if they are needed, and that Kuwait is and has always been the number 1 staging point for just such an operation, tossed out Okinawa and Kuwait because of their strategic importance to the two most immediate situations we face (my interpretation)? You seem to think that it isn't sensible to assume the latter, since he didn't come out and say all that word-for-word, yet you consider it sensible to assume the first, though he didn't come out and say all that word-for-word either. Admit it, pat, your interpretation is being strongly informed by your particular partisanship, as is mine.

Apparently you haven't actually read or heard what Murtha is saying. Yes he mentions Kuwait and other locations in the region in the same breath as Okinawa, but his mention of Okinawa is clearly intended to be in relation to Iraq, not North Korea. For some reason, despite the fact that a direct path from Okinawa to Iraq takes one straight across Chinese and Iranian airspace, Murtha thinks that fighters could fly back at the drop of a hat. Oh, and that leaves out the fact that we don't have fighters with anything close to the range necessary for such a response without multiple aerial refuelings along the way. Of course, if we don't violate Chinese and Iranian airspace, the suggestion becomes even more ridiculous.

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.

This is as garbled and nonsensical as anything George W. Bush has ever said. I'm tolerant of poor public speaking skills, but the ideas this guy is proposing with a straight face can only fool the most gullable or uncritically receptive among us.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 11:30 AM
REP. MURTHA: ...our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.


Yeah, because moving armies is as simple as a couple hour plane ride. :spock:

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 12:02 PM
Yeah, because moving armies is as simple as a couple hour plane ride. :spock:

We just leave the tanks and other military vehicles in Iraq so we don't have to move them back and forth.

Just lock'em and hide the keys under the the gas flap. Simple really.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:12 PM
I love all the armchair warriors who think they know better than a decorated veteran who actually experience with such things.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 12:21 PM
We just leave the tanks and other military vehicles in Iraq so we don't have to move them back and forth.

Just lock'em and hide the keys under the the gas flap. Simple really.

Maybe they can come up with tanks that work like Transformers, that fold up into a backpack. Then we could employ the Murtha Doctrine; or, 'How to move several divisions without really trying'

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:23 PM
I love all the armchair warriors who think they know better than a decorated veteran who actually experience with such things.

Attacking the messengers not the message? Surely not, Night Wish. ;)

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 12:28 PM
Maybe they can come up with tanks that work like Transformers, that fold up into a backpack. Then we could employ the Murtha Doctrine; or, 'How to move several divisions without really trying'

Maybe platoons of Murtha Power Rangers or a Murtha Virtual Brigade.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:28 PM
Attacking the messengers not the message? Surely not, Night Wish. ;)The message is pretty meaningless when it's coming from messengers who lack the authority or experience to establish the limits they're trying to establish.

StcChief
06-27-2006, 12:31 PM
run sHillary as VP on the ticket. :p :lame:

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:33 PM
The message is pretty meaningless when it's coming from messengers who lack the authority or experience to establish the limits their trying to establish.

Ironic then, isn’t it, that these "know nothing messengers" can so easily shred Murtha’s rhetoric?

Bootlegged
06-27-2006, 12:36 PM
Murtha Murtha Murtha
we made him out of clay
Murthat Murtha Murtha
with Allah he will play.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:41 PM
Ironic then, isn’t it, that these "know nothing messengers" can so easily shred Murtha’s rhetoric?I have yet to see them shred anything but a strawman. They are quite good at that, though.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:43 PM
I have yet to see them shred anything but a strawman. They are quite good at that, though.

Strawmen? Pat posted his exact words from a Russert interview. :spock:

Cochise
06-27-2006, 12:44 PM
The message is pretty meaningless when it's coming from messengers who lack the authority or experience to establish the limits they're trying to establish.

KCJohnny, is that you?

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:45 PM
KCJohnny, is that you?

:LOL: Doubt it, he’d have already challenged someone to “step outside”.

I gotta get on the road, I’ll be back later.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:47 PM
Strawmen? Pat posted his exact words from a Russert interview. :spock:
Yes, and those words don't paint the picture your buddies are trying to paint. That's where the strawman comes in. And nothing in all of the whinings of Cochise and company come close to establishing that the limits they imagine are there with regard to how effectively we can mount an operation into Iraq after redeploying elsewhere actually exist anywhere but in their own untrained minds.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 01:01 PM
Yes, and those words don't paint the picture your buddies are trying to paint. That's where the strawman comes in. And nothing in all of the whinings of Cochise and company come close to establishing that the limits they imagine are there with regard to how effectively we can mount an operation into Iraq after redeploying elsewhere actually exist anywhere but in their own untrained minds.

Is this the “armchair warrior” strawman you were whine'n 'bout earlier? ROFL

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:10 PM
Is this the “armchair warrior” strawman you were whine'n 'bout earlier? ROFL
The strawman was in the insistence that Murtha's mentioning of Okinawa as a redeployment destination didn't even consider the tactical advantage of such a redeployment near North Korea, but that he was only considering that locale as a staging point for operations into Iraq. That insistence is not based on anything Murtha said (save for the fact that Murtha was answering questions framed in the context of Iraq, so may have not felt the need to expand his explanation for that site any further than the question of Iraq). Murtha also mentioned Okinawa as an outside possibility, not as a primary destination, yet Cochise and the Armchair Coalition are arguing as if that were the primary goal. That's a strawman, too. The two most immediate possibilities he mentioned were Kuwait and Qatar, but strangely, the Armchair Coalition doesn't seem to have much to say about those.

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 01:22 PM
The strawman was in the insistence that Murtha's mentioning of Okinawa as a redeployment destination didn't even consider the tactical advantage of such a redeployment near North Korea, but that he was only considering that locale as a staging point for operations into Iraq. That insistence is not based on anything Murtha said (save for the fact that Murtha was answering questions framed in the context of Iraq, so may have not felt the need to expand his explanation for that site any further than the question of Iraq). Murtha also mentioned Okinawa as an outside possibility, not as a primary destination, yet Cochise and the Armchair Coalition are arguing as if that were the primary goal. That's a strawman, too. The two most immediate possibilities he mentioned were Kuwait and Qatar, but strangely, the Armchair Coalition doesn't seem to have much to say about those.

Sounds like your typical democratic plan...buzz words with no substance.

Tell your guy Murtha to look up General Casey. Out of anyone here on CP or in Congress he's really the only one that probably knows what he's talking about.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 01:26 PM
The strawman was in the insistence that Murtha's mentioning of Okinawa as a redeployment destination didn't even consider the tactical advantage of such a redeployment near North Korea, but that he was only considering that locale as a staging point for operations into Iraq. That insistence is not based on anything Murtha said (save for the fact that Murtha was answering questions framed in the context of Iraq, so may have not felt the need to expand his explanation for that site any further than the question of Iraq). Murtha also mentioned Okinawa as an outside possibility, not as a primary destination, yet Cochise and the Armchair Coalition are arguing as if that were the primary goal. That's a strawman, too. The two most immediate possibilities he mentioned were Kuwait and Qatar, but strangely, the Armchair Coalition doesn't seem to have much to say about those.

Russert specifically pointed out that "it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa." That would have been an opportune time for Murtha to point out that Kuwait and Qatar were the "most immediate possibilities" and that Okinawa was merely an "outside possibility" if that were actually the case. More importantly, if the Okinawa deployment wasn't about a timely response to trouble in Iraq but instead was intended to hedge against other threats, he could have easily said that there were "other considerations" involved in his Okinawa suggestion rather than trying to mumble his way through an explanation about how a timely response to Iraq was actually not as far fetched as a sane person might think.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:53 PM
Russert specifically pointed out that "it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa." That would have been an opportune time for Murtha to point out that Kuwait and Qatar were the "most immediate possibilities" and that Okinawa was merely an "outside possibility" if that were actually the case.
It was pretty clear from the way he said it. The whole "heck, we could even go to Okinawa" (not the exact words, I know, but that was the gist, and I don't feel like searching for the transcript right now) thing pretty much suggests it's an outside possibility, as well as the fact that he mentioned Kuwait and Qatar first, then writing out Saudi Arabia, then only at the end of the list tacking on Okinawa.

More importantly, if the Okinawa deployment wasn't about a timely response to trouble in Iraq but instead was intended to hedge against other threats, he could have easily said that there were "other considerations" involved in his Okinawa suggestion rather than trying to mumble his way through an explanation about how a timely response to Iraq was actually not as far fetched as a sane person might think.
He wasn't being asked about other considerations. He was being asked about Iraq. It wasn't a pre-rehearsed and vetted speech. It was an interview.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:55 PM
And the whole spiel from Chief Cochise and the Armchair Coalition that "we can't realistically redeploy out of Iraq because it would be too hard to take our tanks and large equipment with us" is about the most laughable objection I've ever seen. They got the stuff in there, they can get it out. They're going to have to eventually, whether it is this year or ten years down the road. Are you expecting us to occupy the country forever?

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:07 PM
It was pretty clear from the way he said it. The whole "heck, we could even go to Okinawa" (not the exact words, I know, but that was the gist, and I don't feel like searching for the transcript right now) thing pretty much suggests it's an outside possibility, as well as the fact that he mentioned Kuwait and Qatar first, then writing out Saudi Arabia, then only at the end of the list tacking on Okinawa.

I gave you the exact words. "So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa." That's a far cry from your "gist" IMO.

He wasn't being asked about other considerations. He was being asked about Iraq. It wasn't a pre-rehearsed and vetted speech. It was an interview.

He was asked about why it makes sense to redeploy to Okinawa if what we need is rapid redeployment to Iraq and he didn't bat an eyelash before he started puking out an incoherent answer that didn't do anything to lead a rational listener to believe a redeployment of that kind had to do with anything but Iraq. You must be related to Murtha the way you try to clean up his messes.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:09 PM
And the whole spiel from Chief Cochise and the Armchair Coalition that "we can't realistically redeploy out of Iraq because it would be too hard to take our tanks and large equipment with us" is about the most laughable objection I've ever seen. They got the stuff in there, they can get it out. They're going to have to eventually, whether it is this year or ten years down the road. Are you expecting us to occupy the country forever?

The keyword that you and John Murtha seem to ignore with regularity is "rapid" as in "rapid response to trouble in Iraq."

Cochise
06-27-2006, 02:12 PM
And the whole spiel from Chief Cochise and the Armchair Coalition that "we can't realistically redeploy out of Iraq because it would be too hard to take our tanks and large equipment with us" is about the most laughable objection I've ever seen. They got the stuff in there, they can get it out. They're going to have to eventually, whether it is this year or ten years down the road. Are you expecting us to occupy the country forever?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

This from the guy who just got through preaching about straw men...

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:13 PM
The keyword that you and John Murtha seem to ignore with regularity is "rapid" as in "rapid response to trouble in Iraq."
Define "rapid." Even from Okinawa, once readied, the amount of time it would take to mount an operation inside Iraq would be only a matter of hours. We're not talking about an advancing army marching on Baghdad that we need to arrive ahead of to prevent them from irrevocably taking over the whole country. We're not talking about WWII Germany. We're talking about scattered cells of terrorists and disorganized pockets of insurgency. In most conceivable cases, we aren't going to need to be able to travel there just short of instantaneously. A few hours will be plenty.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:15 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

This from the guy who just got through preaching about straw men...
Are you suggesting that your tic bantering about moving tanks and vehicles was meant to serve a purpose other than to criticize Murtha's plans for redeployment? Cuz that's sure how it read.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:25 PM
Define "rapid." Even from Okinawa, once readied, the amount of time it would take to mount an operation inside Iraq would be only a matter of hours. We're not talking about an advancing army marching on Baghdad that we need to arrive ahead of to prevent them from irrevocably taking over the whole country. We're not talking about WWII Germany. We're talking about scattered cells of terrorists and disorganized pockets of insurgency. In most conceivable cases, we aren't going to need to be able to travel there just short of instantaneously. A few hours will be plenty.

So let me get this straight. You're admitting that Murtha's rapid response would be limited to small operations requiring limited manpower and very little or no armor? Because that's the kind of operation you're going to get with just a few hours notice from Okinawa. If you need any significant presence, you'd need weeks to get it there from Okinawa.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:27 PM
So let me get this straight. You're admitting that Murtha's rapid response would be limited to small operations requiring limited manpower and very little or no armor? Because that's the kind of operation you're going to get with just a few hours notice from Okinawa. If you need any significant presence, you'd need weeks to get it there from Okinawa.
That would be true if Okinawa were the primary or sole redeployment destination. For the most part, all we could muster in Iraq from Okinawa would be war planes and missiles. From Kuwait or Qatar, our response could be much more substantial. I'm not sure why you are choosing to ignore Murtha's mentioning of those states.

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 02:30 PM
Are you suggesting that your tic bantering about moving tanks and vehicles was meant to serve a purpose other than to criticize Murtha's plans for redeployment? Cuz that's sure how it read.

Welcome to the Armchair coalition. Newbies bring the donuts.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:33 PM
Welcome to the Armchair coalition. Newbies bring the donuts.
Except I'm not trying to argue that it can or can't be done. I'm arguing that Murtha has been there, done that. He knows a heckuva lot more about the intricacies of these kinds of things than any of you do.

Bootlegged
06-27-2006, 02:38 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

This from the guy who just got through preaching about straw men...



ROFL ROFL

Never ? a Murtha.

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 02:39 PM
Except I'm not trying to argue that it can or can't be done. I'm arguing that Murtha has been there, done that. He knows a heckuva lot more about the intricacies of these kinds of things than any of you do.

Seems like,

In most conceivable cases, we aren't going to need to be able to travel there just short of instantaneously. A few hours will be plenty.

is just the sort of forward looking, brilliant tactical general speak we are looking for here at the Armchair coalition.

Welcome aboard. I like sprinkles.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:42 PM
Seems like,


is just the sort of forward looking, brilliant tactical general speak we are looking for here at the Armchair coalition.
Sorry, sport. Try again. That was a commentary on the type of enemy we're facing, not on the success or failure of a given operation or endeavor. My take on it merely requires common sense. Yours requires some degree of military expertise.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:43 PM
Except I'm not trying to argue that it can or can't be done. I'm arguing that Murtha has been there, done that. He knows a heckuva lot more about the intricacies of these kinds of things than any of you do.

Without googling it, can you give me a description of what Murtha's actually done? Was he a war planner? Was he a part of a rapid response team? Did he fly planes out of Okinawa? Other than having served in the military (apparently with distinction) and having been involved in defense appropriations while in Congress, just what does "been there, done that" mean when you say it about Murtha?

Speaking of been there, done that, Don Rumsfeld has served as SecDef on two different occasions and has experience in several years of warfare in Iraq. He's been there and done that.

Dick Cheney was SecDef and VP and has similar direct experience with Iraq. Dick Cheney has been there and done that.

General Casey is being there and doing that right now. He's not planning a redeployment to Okinawa is he? Why not?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:46 PM
Speaking of been there, done that, Don Rumsfeld has served as SecDef on two different occasions and has experience in several years of warfare in Iraq. He's been there and done that.

Dick Cheney was SecDef and VP and has similar direct experience with Iraq. Dick Cheney has been there and done that.
Neither one of them served one day in the military. They're famous chickenhawks. And one only needs to watch the news to notice how abysmal a failure they've been at the game of war.

General Casey is being there and doing that right now. He's not planning a redeployment to Okinawa is he? Why not?
General Casey is in Iraq, assigned to Iraq, and not retired. North Korea isn't his concern right now. Iraq is.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Except I'm not trying to argue that it can or can't be done. I'm arguing that Murtha has been there, done that. He knows a heckuva lot more about the intricacies of these kinds of things than any of you do.

Really? How so?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:53 PM
Really? How so?
He's been there, done that. He has experience as a veteran and long-time member of the armed forces. Judging from most of their responses, the Armchair Coalition can make no such claims.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 03:02 PM
Without googling it, can you give me a description of what Murtha's actually done? Was he a war planner? Was he a part of a rapid response team? Did he fly planes out of Okinawa? Other than having served in the military (apparently with distinction) and having been involved in defense appropriations while in Congress, just what does "been there, done that" mean when you say it about Murtha?

Retired US Marine Colonel.
37 years of service
Military advisor to two presidents of both parties
Former Chairman of Defense Appropriations Committee
American Spirit Honor Medal
Bronze Star with Combat "V"
2 Purple Hearts
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry
Navy Distinguished Service Medal

... you're right, he served without distinction.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 03:12 PM
Retired US Marine Colonel.
37 years of service
Military advisor to two presidents of both parties
Former Chairman of Defense Appropriations Committee
American Spirit Honor Medal
Bronze Star with Combat "V"
2 Purple Hearts
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry
Navy Distinguished Service Medal

... you're right, he served without distinction.


And yet with all these accolades he thinks Okinawa is a “hasty fight’n position” for incursions into Iraq? ROFL

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 03:14 PM
Sorry, sport. Try again. That was a commentary on the type of enemy we're facing, not on the success or failure of a given operation or endeavor. My take on it merely requires common sense. Yours requires some degree of military expertise.


Define "rapid." Even from Okinawa, once readied, the amount of time it would take to mount an operation inside Iraq would be only a matter of hours. We're not talking about an advancing army marching on Baghdad that we need to arrive ahead of to prevent them from irrevocably taking over the whole country. We're not talking about WWII Germany. We're talking about scattered cells of terrorists and disorganized pockets of insurgency. In most conceivable cases, we aren't going to need to be able to travel there just short of instantaneously. A few hours will be plenty.


That would be true if Okinawa were the primary or sole redeployment destination. For the most part, all we could muster in Iraq from Okinawa would be war planes and missiles. From Kuwait or Qatar, our response could be much more substantial. I'm not sure why you are choosing to ignore Murtha's mentioning of those states.


Except I'm not trying to argue that it can or can't be done.


ROFLROFLROFL Sure looks to me like you're playing Armchair General. And then denying it.

Go ahead, I enjoy the spin. You're good at it.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 03:19 PM
ROFLROFLROFL Sure looks to me like you're playing Armchair General. And then denying it.

Go ahead, I enjoy the spin. You're good at it.

I’ll go ahead and predict the response.

I know you are, but what am I?

Or,

That’s not hypocrisy, you’re build’n strawmen.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:13 PM
And yet with all these accolades he thinks Okinawa is a “hasty fight’n position” for incursions into Iraq? ROFL
Your words, not his.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:15 PM
ROFLROFLROFL Sure looks to me like you're playing Armchair General. And then denying it.

Go ahead, I enjoy the spin. You're good at it.
I'm not the one with all the military expertise of a field mouse trying to second guess a 37-year veteran of the US Marine Corp and former military advisor to the President.

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 06:19 PM
I'm not the one with all the military expertise of a field mouse trying to second guess a 37-year veteran of the US Marine Corp and former military advisor to the President.

You're spewing logistics and tactics depending on location which is the same thing as the rest of us Armchair Generals were doing.

If you say I'm second guessing a Marine I can say you're second guessing a General like Casey. Which trumps your Marine and raises you two battalions.

Just pointing out the facts man. It's all good.

I watched Meet the Press Sunday. Russert gave Murtha a specific question as a bone so he could offer up a coherent response.

His response made me think of how W would answer the question at Murtha's age.

I'll trust Casey's judgement over the bobblehead every time.

Nightwish
06-28-2006, 09:02 AM
If you say I'm second guessing a Marine I can say you're second guessing a General like Casey. Which trumps your Marine and raises you two battalions.
I'm not second-guessing Casey. Casey has nothing to do with anything. Casey is only concerned with Iraq, that's what he's getting paid for. He's active duty and on assignment, so he doesn't have the luxury to look at the bigger picture, such as North Korea. That's not his job at the moment. There are other people assigned to think about North Korea.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:28 AM
Neither one of them served one day in the military. They're famous chickenhawks. And one only needs to watch the news to notice how abysmal a failure they've been at the game of war.

That's just dumb. So what? Murtha hasn't served a day in Iraq so his expertise (so to speak) is invalid too. :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:31 AM
Retired US Marine Colonel.
37 years of service
Military advisor to two presidents of both parties
Former Chairman of Defense Appropriations Committee
American Spirit Honor Medal
Bronze Star with Combat "V"
2 Purple Hearts
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry
Navy Distinguished Service Medal

... you're right, he served without distinction.

You get a gold star for your google skills. Congratulations. None of those commendations suggest that Murtha's "been there and done that" in anything related to what we are talking about.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:38 AM
I'm not second-guessing Casey. Casey has nothing to do with anything. Casey is only concerned with Iraq, that's what he's getting paid for. He's active duty and on assignment, so he doesn't have the luxury to look at the bigger picture, such as North Korea. That's not his job at the moment. There are other people assigned to think about North Korea.

There isn't a single thing in what Murtha said that gives the slightest hint that he was thinking about the "bigger picture, such as North Korea" when he gave his response. That's all coming from you. You spin for Murtha like the guy is family or something. The spin you lay out in an attempt to save Murtha's comments from themselves would make his very own mother blush with embarassment.

Nightwish
06-28-2006, 11:14 AM
There isn't a single thing in what Murtha said that gives the slightest hint that he was thinking about the "bigger picture, such as North Korea" when he gave his response. That's all coming from you. You spin for Murtha like the guy is family or something. The spin you lay out in an attempt to save Murtha's comments from themselves would make his very own mother blush with embarassment.
Nor is there a single thing in what he said that suggests the bigger picture wasn't a consideration. As I said, to assume that the situation in North Korea wasn't somewhere on his mind when he tossed out Okinawa, you have to toss Occam's Razor right out the door, something I've noticed you're quite fond of doing. I've also noticed you have a particular blind spot to your own tendency to spin. You recognize it in others, but fail to see it in your own posts.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:25 AM
Nor is there a single thing in what he said that suggests the bigger picture wasn't a consideration. As I said, to assume that the situation in North Korea wasn't somewhere on his mind when he tossed out Okinawa, you have to toss Occam's Razor right out the door, something I've noticed you're quite fond of doing. I've also noticed you have a particular blind spot to your own tendency to spin. You recognize it in others, but fail to see it in your own posts.

The question was specifically about Iraq and how quickly a redeployed force would be able to respond should it become necessary. I think Occam's Razor is with me on this one. In the past couple of years, has Murtha made a single statement, in any context other than redeployment out of Iraq, calling for an increased presence of troops in and around the Korean peninsula?

KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2006, 12:23 PM
from the washington times http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.
That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."
Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.

Yup sounds like a swell kinda guy to me!

patteeu
06-28-2006, 05:14 PM
from the washington times http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.
That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."
Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.

Yup sounds like a swell kinda guy to me!

I'd imagine that jAZ will be all over this one in his nonpartisan quest to expose all hints of Congressional impropriety.

Saggysack
06-29-2006, 02:44 AM
We just leave the tanks and other military vehicles in Iraq so we don't have to move them back and forth.

Just lock'em and hide the keys under the the gas flap. Simple really.

There is a brigade of vehicles & equipment at Camp Doha in Kuwait. They just sit there.

There are several pre-positioned floats with a division's worth of vehicles & equipment floating out at sea. They get rusty from sea water and their batteries go dead. Hey, atleast they face the proper way to exit the boat now. Try backing up Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M1A2 Abrams MBT's, duece and a halfs, 5tons, HEMMT's and the like in the bottom of a dimly lit ship. Not that I would know anything about that.

What you think is impossible is already being done. Has been for alittle over a decade.

And FWIW, most military vehicles don't have keys. One 14mm rachet and socket is all you need.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:40 AM
I'd imagine that jAZ will be all over this one in his nonpartisan quest to expose all hints of Congressional impropriety.Except that there doesn't appear to much in the way of Congressional impropriety from the occurences noted, though the Washington Times, in their predictable manner, have tried to spin it as if there were.

KSA Consulting didn't get the money, their clients did. That's what lobbyists are for. The fact that the lobbying firm included Murtha's own son is irrelevant. It's nothing the same as awarding no-bid contracts, thus effectively axing all competition, to Halliburton because of their close relationship to the Veep.

The Hunters Point Shipyard was transferred to the city, at Murtha's behest, not to the landowners. And the land was already owned by Pelosi's nephew's company, it wasn't something they were awarded during the deal.

As far as the children of Rep. Kanjorski, that might amount to something IF it is demonstrated that those appropriations were secured solely based on the relationship between those companies and ranking Democrats, AND that other companies which competed for the same were unfairly denied. It is that sort of nepotism that is behind the dissatisfaction with Halliburton's role in things, but afaics, that hasn't been alleged of these doings.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:07 AM
Except that there doesn't appear to much in the way of Congressional impropriety from the occurences noted, though the Washington Times, in their predictable manner, have tried to spin it as if there were.

KSA Consulting didn't get the money, their clients did. That's what lobbyists are for. The fact that the lobbying firm included Murtha's own son is irrelevant. It's nothing the same as awarding no-bid contracts, thus effectively axing all competition, to Halliburton because of their close relationship to the Veep.

The Hunters Point Shipyard was transferred to the city, at Murtha's behest, not to the landowners. And the land was already owned by Pelosi's nephew's company, it wasn't something they were awarded during the deal.

As far as the children of Rep. Kanjorski, that might amount to something IF it is demonstrated that those appropriations were secured solely based on the relationship between those companies and ranking Democrats, AND that other companies which competed for the same were unfairly denied. It is that sort of nepotism that is behind the dissatisfaction with Halliburton's role in things, but afaics, that hasn't been alleged of these doings.

As usual, you're FOS, Nightwish.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:10 PM
As usual, you're FOS, Nightwish.
As usual, you're too hooked on the rhetoric of the right to see it for what it is. I merely elucidated on what was actually contained in the article, rather than reaching beyond those items to try to connect dots that are not alleged. If you think I'm FOS, then please, point out where I spoke beyond the actual contents of the article?

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:26 PM
As usual, you're too hooked on the rhetoric of the right to see it for what it is. I merely elucidated on what was actually contained in the article, rather than reaching beyond those items to try to connect dots that are not alleged. If you think I'm FOS, then please, point out where I spoke beyond the actual contents of the article?

To what article are you referring?

Furthermore, it looks like you took my initial comment as an allegation that there was actual impropriety involved. Lack of proven impropriety doesn't stop some people around here from insinuating likely wrongdoing. Check out some of the Tom Delay threads.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:30 PM
To what article are you referring?
Post #82, the article to which I was referring in the comments you said were FOS.

Furthermore, it looks like you took my initial comment as an allegation that there was actual impropriety involved.
Okay, so if you aren't alleging that there was actual impropriety involved, and I merely pointed out how the article itself fails to demonstrate that there was actual impropriety involved, then how exactly am I full of shit? Because it would seem that we're in agreement, and if I'm FOS for agreeing with you, what does that make you?

patteeu
07-03-2006, 06:31 AM
Post #82, the article to which I was referring in the comments you said were FOS.


Okay, so if you aren't alleging that there was actual impropriety involved, and I merely pointed out how the article itself fails to demonstrate that there was actual impropriety involved, then how exactly am I full of shit? Because it would seem that we're in agreement, and if I'm FOS for agreeing with you, what does that make you?

jAZ has been all over any story that hints that there might be impropriety involved when a Republican Congressman is involved. This article hints at impropriety on the part of a democrat. I was using sarcasm to point out that I didn't think jAZ would treat this story the same way he treats stories about Republicans. An effort to determine whether or not actual impropriety was involved was beyond the scope of that commentary.

But since you did...

Except that there doesn't appear to much in the way of Congressional impropriety from the occurences noted, though the Washington Times, in their predictable manner, have tried to spin it as if there were.

KSA Consulting didn't get the money, their clients did. That's what lobbyists are for. The fact that the lobbying firm included Murtha's own son is irrelevant. It's nothing the same as awarding no-bid contracts, thus effectively axing all competition, to Halliburton because of their close relationship to the Veep.

Consultants/lobbyists get paid for getting their clients what they want. The better the job they do, the more money they make. Funneling government money to a contractor simply because a friend or relative is their lobbyist rather than on merit might be a fact of life and it might be hard to prove, but it's improper nonetheless. I don't have any way of knowing if that's what happened here, but you don't either.

It was your unjustified certainty that no impropriety was involved and your ridiculous comparison to Haliburton that led to my "FOS" statement. I apologize for hitting you with that without giving you my reasons though.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 11:03 AM
It was your unjustified certainty that no impropriety was involved and your ridiculous comparison to Haliburton that led to my "FOS" statement. I apologize for hitting you with that without giving you my reasons though.
It didn't say it was certain that there was no impropriety. I said there didn't appear to be much in the way of impropriety from the occurences noted. In other words, if there were any improprieties, the article does a lousy job of pointing any of them out. And the comparison to Haliburton is anything but ridiculous. The no-bid awarding of huge contracts to Haliburton is the single best example of nepotism we've seen going on during this administration. It's only natural that it should be offered up as a comparison to other suggestions of governmental nepotism. I understand your ire, though - you've made it abuntantly clear in the past that you practically worship Cheney and get extremely irritated when there is any suggestion of impropriety involving him or Haliburton.

go bowe
07-03-2006, 11:26 AM
To what article are you referring?

Furthermore, it looks like you took my initial comment as an allegation that there was actual impropriety involved. Lack of proven impropriety doesn't stop some people around here from insinuating likely wrongdoing. Check out some of the Tom Delay threads.yeah, but everyone knows delay is a crook...

go bowe
07-03-2006, 11:28 AM
It didn't say it was certain that there was no impropriety. I said there didn't appear to be much in the way of impropriety from the occurences noted. In other words, if there were any improprieties, the article does a lousy job of pointing any of them out. And the comparison to Haliburton is anything but ridiculous. The no-bid awarding of huge contracts to Haliburton is the single best example of nepotism we've seen going on during this administration. It's only natural that it should be offered up as a comparison to other suggestions of governmental nepotism. I understand your ire, though - you've made it abuntantly clear in the past that you practically worship Cheney and get extremely irritated when there is any suggestion of impropriety involving him or Haliburton.yeah, that's because cheney is a crook too...

patteeu
07-03-2006, 11:30 AM
It didn't say it was certain that there was no impropriety. I said there didn't appear to be much in the way of impropriety from the occurences noted. In other words, if there were any improprieties, the article does a lousy job of pointing any of them out. And the comparison to Haliburton is anything but ridiculous. The no-bid awarding of huge contracts to Haliburton is the single best example of nepotism we've seen going on during this administration. It's only natural that it should be offered up as a comparison to other suggestions of governmental nepotism. I understand your ire, though - you've made it abuntantly clear in the past that you practically worship Cheney and get extremely irritated when there is any suggestion of impropriety involving him or Haliburton.

You leap to the conclusion that there is "nepotism" (using the term very loosely, I assume) involved in the Haliburton deals despite a complete lack of evidence but you are sure to defend Murtha because the appearance of possible wrongdoing doesn't equate to actual proof. That's exactly the same double standard I implicitly accused jAZ of in my first post.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 11:50 AM
You leap to the conclusion that there is "nepotism" (using the term very loosely, I assume) involved in the Haliburton deals despite a complete lack of evidence but you are sure to defend Murtha because the appearance of possible wrongdoing doesn't equate to actual proof. That's exactly the same double standard I implicitly accused jAZ of in my first post.The appearance of nepotism is equal in both cases. The degree and flagrancy of that nepotism however is not equal. I believe there probably is some degree of nepotism involved in the Murtha case. It's not terribly alarming, though, as it appears on the face to be the sort that is not out of the ordinary among Senators and Congressmen. Saying that they do favors for friends, relatives and fellow party members is like saying that Barry Bonds plays baseball. Shocker!!! And if you don't think there was nepotism involved in Haliburton securing those no-bid contracts in the face of competitors who were properly bidding for the positions, then you're seriously deluded.

And no, I'm not using the term loosely, at least not so loosely as not to be permitted by accepted common usage. By definition, nepotism's primary usage regards family members, but it also refers, in secondary usage, to friends and other associates.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 01:32 PM
The appearance of nepotism is equal in both cases.

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. This is why I would expect an even-handed jAZ to condemn it. I don't know if it's exactly equal, but close enough in the sense that it isn't a smoking gun in either case.


The degree and flagrancy of that nepotism however is not equal. I believe there probably is some degree of nepotism involved in the Murtha case. It's not terribly alarming, though, as it appears on the face to be the sort that is not out of the ordinary among Senators and Congressmen. Saying that they do favors for friends, relatives and fellow party members is like saying that Barry Bonds plays baseball. Shocker!!! And if you don't think there was nepotism involved in Haliburton securing those no-bid contracts in the face of competitors who were properly bidding for the positions, then you're seriously deluded.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I see almost no reason to believe that there is any favoritism being shown toward Haliburton and certainly none specifically tied to the VP. Who were the competitors and how do you know they could do the job?

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 01:54 PM
I see almost no reason to believe that there is any favoritism being shown toward Haliburton and certainly none specifically tied to the VP.
Translation: "I'm such a Cheney homer that I refuse to believe there is any favoritism being shown toward Haliburton, and none tied to the VP." You're right, though, the fact that Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton and that its current board of directors is still closely tied to him, and the fact that the contracts were awarded "no-bid," which is very unusual, isn't in the least bit suspicious! [/sarcasm]

Haliburton wasn't awarded no-bid contracts, they were rewarded with no-bid contracts.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 04:38 PM
Bump.