Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Democrats & Republicans?

In my opinion this vote shows just how much the media misrepresents the truth. That in News there is not truth, and in truth there is no news.
I think that the pro-war movement has been downplayed. Did the squeaky wheel get the grease? Did the smallest voice scream the loudest?
Yea or Nay and congress spoke. They said as representatives of the people. Yea 398 to 3

Great bipartisan effort here.
Finally some progress, constructive debate, led to conformity among our representatives.

Too much partisan bickering to make anything usefull at this time (it applies equally to both parties).
A vote by politicians is not the vote of the peoples minds, you know that (although the spin is helpfull when it assists in justifying ones position on a subject).
The media are whores, they simply sell a product. Their product is splashy hollywood gossip, and tragedy. Nothing else moves copy as well. Good news does not move copy, simple fact. People enjoy "driving by" a horrible accident on their TV.
Don't go quoting votes from partisan politicans as gospil, they are as bad as media whores. Don't belittle yourself.
If you are trying to lift the opinion of your chosen party, then chose a better angle than that.
As for Murtha (the bottom line on your post), I think it is reprehensible that snot nose shits who have never worn a uniform are lecturing a 30+ year marine vet on the military. I believe that taking 5 deferrments because (and I Quote here) "I had more important things to do" does not qualify a person to overstep someone who has served honorably for decades. I believe that ditching service to stay stateside and fly a plane a few times does not make a person "understand" and "feel" what the boots on the ground feel like.
You should be more concerned that the "lead up" to this disaster is not examined too closely and the omitted intelligence etc... is not examined. If that occures then your boy will be in deep kaka (he'll need to give himself a pardon along with his buddies, more are coming....). And if you hold the line on the whole WMD lie and pretend to believe it (or are truely dense and do believe it, like a NASCAR fan) then you should feel satisfied that no WMD's are there and we can leave immediately. NOTE: remember, giving purple thumbs, democracy, votes and shit like that was NOT the reason presented to the public to do this IMMEDIATELY. Colon Powell did not stand up in the UN and talk purple thumbs now did he?
Yeah, lets talk revisionist history. It's been going on for quite some time now.
You are defending a bunch of people who have never served in the military who have no understanding of what the troops are going through (as they never had to) and don't understand or give a shit about blindness, amputation, burns across a body or any of those other things.
And as for the whole "Iraq" debacle which you are ultimately defending. I say we either flood fucking Iraq with troops and fucking clean that shit up (I'm talking 1/2 million troops) or get the fuck out. This half effort SHIT is not doing it. We need to fucking put the resources on the ground and let em do it right, or stop tunring the troops into moving targets.
If saying lets flood that fucking country with troops and fucking clean it up, or get the fuck out and stop half-assing it makes me into a "liberal like micheal moore (aka Murtha)" then fucking label me that way.
We need to make a REAL decision and do it now. I'm sick of buying water purification plants with MY tax dollars in FUCKING Iraq when peeps in the good ol USA need that help (ie: Katrina victims getting booted out December 6th).
The only people making money are assholes like Halliburton (I will omit the obvious tie-in for your pleasure, as you are 1000000% certain those no bid contracts are on the up & up).
Murtha was ACTIVE marines for 30+ years, and when he speaks, he carries a LOT more weight than snot nosed fucktards who have NEVER worn a uniform. And those snot nosed fucktards have ZERO room lecturing him on what patriotism is. They also have no room lecturing him on what a "failed war" is. Hell he fought it, they didn't. He knows the signs.
So in summary. Yes the media is evil. No the administration is not the holy embodiment of Jesus walking on the earth strearing Christian armies to victory.
"Stay the course" is only a valid tactic if the course leads to success. Otherwise it is called "stubborn stupidity".
I'm fucking sick and tired of $3000-$6,000/yr of MY fucking tax dollars going to IRAQ to build shit which they blow up and Halliburton gets to rebuild again and again and again on MY fucking quarter. I want MY fucking tax dollars to help Americans who also have no fucking water (and won't blow the shit up).
Can the rhetoric, get impartial.

My brother is in Iraq and therefor I support what he is doing. Moosealini said it right in an earlier post, and I agreed with him. Flood Iraq with troops and clean out the insurgency, unfortunately its a political war and we have to be sensitive to our killers.
I think this debate is our truest form of discussion. Not bickering back and forth via the news. Today was progress.
Once again, I am not a bush fanboi and know that our military generals "have a plan". This whole lets let the public hear the "big plan thing" is a democrat idea, and the whole "stay the course thing" is a republican idea. They are both bullshit IMO. I have full faith in our generals and believe they are constantly reevaluating the situation, its a hard fight when you have a politician setting guidelines for war. When what you should do is shoot first, and ask questions later.
Lets go in there with flame throwers, bombs, and extreme force and flush out the rat infestation. (short version) -My view refer to Moose's post.
Debating on CSPAN by the dems and reps is far more constructive than devious fighting via the media. That was the point I was trying to make. Whether it was a republican stunt or not (which I agree stretch, it was a stunt) it was the most construtive happening I have seen on tv by our representatives in a very long time. If someone had something to say about the war from either party line, well the floor was theirs. Kudos to both parties for stepping up to the plate to defend their idea. A line was drawn in the sand, and our representatives stepped to one side. That is progress. No fence straddlers. No lets play "politician". We need more debates in my opinion.

The rhetoric is what I have heard by the media for the past 6 years. Constructive debate is what I watched on CSPAN last night.

I was paying attention. Was this debate not the most constructive situation that has taken place in the last 6 years? Did they not have the floor, to go on the record to show how they feel about the Iraq War? I really feel as though this debate was a very constructive move among our representatives.

I don't think the democrats could get a plan if it hit them on the head. They are utterly worthless, clueless and have no direction. The republicans have a direction, just not an optimal one.
I agree, we should let the generals do their work. And I think we need to fucking waste the place right back to the stone age (and not bother building it back up for them).
I believe we should publicly torture terrorists and globally televise it live with a text bar running across the bottom which says in Arabic "If you become a terrorist, or do ANYTHING to piss us off, you will be on TV next getting this treatment. And your fucking family. Alllah Akbar this mother fucker".
We should stop this half assed effort and simply let the military do their job the way they know how to (I totally agree with you on this).
The sad part is this whole this is turning into a festival of stupidity in washington with a battle of soundbites from politicians. They should be on the ground there, or their kids.
I hate all politicians equally.

Do you know how why that vote was 398 to 3 (actually 403-3)?
Because the proposal, drafted by the Republicans, stated this:
"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
They knew no one would vote that bill in, because no one had made that demand. At the same time, they could declare a "victory" when it failed to pass. The anti-war faction wanted to pass a resolution that said that the U.S. would withdraw the 160,000 troops "at the earliest practicable date". Quite different from the straw man bill that was actually voted upon.
I'm sorry, but you're the sucker here. You bought into the story exactly the way the politicians who crafted that useless proposal wanted people to.

From what I understand, (and correct me if I'm wrong), the force that we currently have in Iraq was deployed to take out Saddam, not quell an insurgency. The civilian miltary leadership made this mission very clear, and general's accomplished their mission incredibly efficiently.
Now the generals are faced with a new task. Defeat an insurgency and support the development of a new democracy. As I see it the Generals will never be able to be successful in this task unless they have clearly defined goals, and are equipped for this new mission.
As I see it the civilian administration has failed horribly to define this second mission, and until it is clearly defined, the military leadership will find it impossible to succeed.
The debate right now is not about cutting and running, but it is about clearly defining the mission so that the military succeeds. A clear set of goals that are acheivable, and time bound will not only increase troop morale, but will increase support for the war on the home front.
The people of the Unitied states as well as many of the Democratic and Republican representatives in the legislature are asking the President to define what success means.
His failure to do so is dissapointing Republicans and Democrats alike accross this country.
By the way. This news just out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.
I say listen to the Generals.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

So the debate wasnt a small step toward progress? In your opinion?
I think we could analyze why politician (A & B) voted for reason (C) until we are blue in the face. I just think debate like that is very constructive, and I wish I could hear it more often on TV. They should debate weekly on TV. That would give us all a better feel for "who" they really are.

What is wrong with that draft by the republicans? They just wanted to know (a line drawn in the sand) who wants the troops out of there tomorrow. They were very specific and there was nothing wrong with the vote.
So let the Democrats describe what "practical" means to them, and what "practical" means to the republicans. Whats practical to you may not be to me. That is why it needs to be written in black and white, not in gray.
So what we know now is that almost no democrats and republicans want our troops out of Iraq tomorrow. (Thats progress IMO) The best part of the bill was that it wasnt vague like the initial one by the democrats.

Read all of his articles and tell me hes not a partisan hack like the rest of them?
E. J. Dionne Jr.
You gave me E. J. Dionne Jr's subjective opinion. As intelligent as the opposing side.