Remind me to get all choked up...Follow

Huh, sounds like it was unexpected. I didn't know besides that he was a socially conservative Democrat. Pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, co-sponsored the flag desecration act (which was freaking idiotic).

Too bad he suddenly snuffed it, but my views didn't line up with his much. Only thing I did like that comes to mind was that he was against torture.

A socially conservative Democrat is still a democrat. He vote time and again for economic redistribution, bought in to the whole global warming hoax and loved the U.N.

Add in the fact that he accuses half of Pennsylvania of being racist and calls U.S. soldiers murderers without apology after they were completely exonerated, I'll be ok hoping there's a special place in hell for him.

Somebody touched a nerve.

I smiled.

Thankyou Universe, the Holy Trinity of the Asylum has become the Holy Quadrangle. Or is it the Holy Pentacle? What are Bodhi's politics?

Not "after the invasion". After he stood at a podium in November of 2005, declared Iraq a lost cause, and called for the immediate withdrawal of US soldiers. Not surprisingly, violence spiked for about a year after that...

Because the insurgents watch C-Span? Seriously??

Are you calling her a man?

Everyone is Jophiel.

Jophiel Jophiel, Jophiel, Jophiel! Jophiel... Jophiel Jophiel, Jophiel.

Jophiel, Jophiel! Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel. Jophiel Jophiel, Jophiel Jophiel... Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel, Jophiel?

Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel! Jophiel Jophiel; Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel... JOPHIEL! Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel, Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel... Jophiel! :)

Careful, or you'll end up on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Hey! To be fair, it's like you two have one brain or something...

That is freaking weird

It's not about the specifics of the withdrawal, it's *why* they were being withdrawn that was important. Murtha wanted us to get our soldiers out because he believed we had failed in Iraq and there was no way to turn it around. He was obviously wrong.



Perhaps? There is no question that it "would not have worked", unless by "worked" you just mean that our soldiers would have left. Had we done what Murtha wanted, we would have failed in Iraq. Our soldiers would be out, but we'd have lost. And Iraq would be in pretty horrific shape.

The objective wasn't to get our soldiers out, but to succeed in rebuilding a stable Iraq. Please tell me that you understand the monumental difference between withdrawing soldiers because you've failed to achieve your objective and believe the cause is lost, and withdrawing soldiers because you succeeded in your objective. You get that one is better than the other, right?


There's no question to ponder here. If we had done what Murtha wanted, we would have failed in Iraq. Period. It is only because we did not do what he wanted that we succeeded. Worse, the very fact that he was pushing for failure made success harder. If the other side knows that you're on the edge of throwing in the towel, they'll tend to work hard to push you over that edge.

Murtha said exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time, and a whole lot of people died because of it.



Clearly? How? I think it's quite reasonable to state that if a prominent member of a country's legislature calls for withdrawal of forces on the grounds that the war is lost, it's going to make any success that much harder. It will embolden the enemy.

I think you are the one "clearly out of touch with reality". Does what you're saying actually make sense to you? Or are you just saying it because you're mindlessly defending a position? Cause you're not making a lick of sense...



It doesn't matter what the specifics were. The important part was the declaration that the war could not be won. The call for withdrawal was part of that, but isn't itself that significant. Even if not a single soldiers was withdrawn as a result of his statement, the act of making it affected the conflict itself and caused an uprising of violence. We were literally right on the cusp of getting things in control in late 2005. Murtha declares defeat for the US and within a month, we start seeing massive amounts of infighting among Iraqi factions. Remember the Golden Dome Mosque bombing? That occurred about a month and a half after Murtha's statement. After his declaration, it took about a year and a half to get things back to the level they'd been before he said it.

We could speculate that the violence would have happened anyway, and certainly some of it would have. But a good portion wouldn't have. The violence in 2006 and early 2007 was mostly Iraqi factions fighting each other over control, not insurgents or terrorists. Those factions were fighting for position because they believed that the US would not stay in Iraq long enough for a peaceful set of agreements to be reached. They knew if/when the US left, the factions with the most guns and in control of the most territory would have the most control in the new Iraqi government.

Anyone with even a vague understanding of politics and war should immediately understand the horrific significance of Murtha's statement. We were already in a very touchy political situation in Iraq, and he basically poured gasoline on it and tossed a match.