Comments on: Murtha Briefly Sees Light, Pelosi Shoves Back Into Darkness

By: peter

peter — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:51:48 +0000

If what he speaks about concerns his district or his ability to get re-elected, then absolutely yes — he’s not my favorite person in Congress –

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:25:41 +0000

Peter, glad to hear that. I presume that whenever Murtha speaks, his motives will be suspect, right?

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:04:39 +0000

Clint: I’m not sure if Clinton opposed the war from the outset or not. If he was opposed, I don’t think that he could have voiced his opposition publicly, as it would seemingly violate the protocol which ex-Presidents typically observe not to actively oppose a decision to go to war. As for Romney: it seems to me that he is spending a lot of time and effort trying to distance himself from what he did when he was governor — e.g., health care, gay rights, abortion — so I wouldn’t hold him up as an example of strongly held conviction.

Andy: Of course not — and I recognize that Murtha is a porker extraordinaire — not here to make excuses for that.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:43:55 +0000

Peter:

there is no sin if Democrats who thought the surge to be a failure earlier change their position if they think changes on the ground warrant it.

Would you still feel the same if either or both positions are rooted in generating earmarks to their constituents? The better porkers have a win-win plan for DOD regardless of political outcome, and I don’t mean something dumb like a peanut warehouse back home. In fact a good porker strategist would drag the game out, as circuitously as possible, to ensure every pocket gets stuffed rather than just push for the quickest, efficient route to completion.

By: Clint

Clint — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:28:38 +0000

Fargus,

Any response at all to the specific examples of Democrats emphasizing the supposed failure of the Surge to curb violence?

Peter,

No sin at all in changing one’s mind. The sin I object to is trying to rewrite history. When you change your mind, say so. You don’t get to pretend you never thought differently.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but we all have to work from the same set of facts.

See Romney on abortion as opposed to Clinton’s pronouncement that he was always strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:02:48 +0000

No, I’m interested in ‘winning the war’…leaving now will throw away the gains we’ve made…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:48:17 +0000

Aha, you give up too much. See, you give away that you’re only looking for excuses to justify “our continued presence.”

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:28:09 +0000

Fargus, have you ever considered the fact that violence being down is an unmitigated good, regardless of the cause? I could care less if the violence is down because everyone is playing in a checkers tournament in Paris – the point is, the violence is down. Is the surge the ONLY reason? Of course not – is it A reason? Of course…but the larger point is that our continued presence is more feasible with lower levels of violence…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:05:24 +0000

Ew. Have you not considered, Mark, the widespread and credible claims that a lot of violence is down because displacement and ethnic cleansing has been so successful? Are you so eager for everything to back up your opinion?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:14:48 +0000

One more thing, Scott – no one, myself included, has ever argued around these parts that the Iraqis don’t need to do more, and more quickly. I have been a quite outspoken critic of the Maliki government.

Nevertheless, it has been democratically elected, and it has indicated it wants the Americans to stay – and stay for a good long while, as the recent ‘agreement in principle’ laying the groundwork for a long-term troop presence showed us.

That might not be good enough if casualties continued on the scale that they did as recently as 6-9 months ago…you may recall that I was about ready to pull the plug myself, as casualties then were seemingly getting worse and were already far too high.

Nevertheless, conditions HAVE changed. It’s unavoidable…and under the current circumstances, talk of a quick withdrawal is irresponsible and harmful to national security. Many Democrats now sense this, but Pelosi and Reid have made their deal with the ‘progressives’, and they will NEVER give an inch. That’s partisan, petty, and dangerous to our national security. That’s my view… yours may differ, and that’s your right. I always strive to call ‘em as I see ‘em, and I see no reason to revisit anything I have written in this post…