November 22, 2005

Another Iraq Vet For Staying The Course -- Will Libs Respect Him?

No one can criticize John Murtha and his position on Iraq, according to the cut-and-run Leftists. Will they extend the same courtesy to this veteran, and kindly shut up? After all, I think he is in a better position than they are to know what to do.

A National Guard general from upstate New York responsible for securing one-quarter of Iraq for the past year said Tuesday it's not yet time to withdraw American troops, though progress has been made in turning over control to Iraqi authorities.

"I don't think a quick pullout is in the interests of anybody," Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto said. "You've got to have a military that can secure the government."

Commander of the Troy-based 42nd Infantry Division and a task force of 24,000 U.S. troops in north-central Iraq until Nov. 1, Taluto said they helped establish 18 fully- trained and equipped Iraqi battalions and turned over 11 military operating bases to Iraqi control, including the former presidential palace in Tikrit on Tuesday.

"I think it's possible we can see troop reductions in 2006 based on what I see," Taluto said. "It has been on our watch incrementally getting better all the time."

The task force included about 3,500 members of the 42nd, about 400 from the greater Albany area, with the last few planeloads slated to return shortly. Maj. Richard Goldenberg said their area in Iraq comprised about 27,000 square miles, about half the size of New York state. It included Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas and about 40 percent of the country's oil fields.

Yeah, I think the commander of a major theater of operations would be in a position to comment about the appropriate policy on troop deployment. General Taluto says to stay. Let's respect his service and that of his troops by making sure that the mission is completed and that the American military leaves with honor.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He will certainly get more respect from the left than the chickenhawks on the right have extended to Murtha. I respect his right to say what he believes, and won't attack him personally. You failed to extend Murtha that same respect.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Nov 23 02:09:50 2005 (aSKj6)

2 You know, coming from the intolerant left, I have a really great laugh on that one Dan...

I am glad you won't attack someone for having a difference of opinion in this matter, now can you do that with everything else?

My experience with liberals, from the net to real life, is that if you don't agree with them, well they have all kinds of names for you, and they have all this proof you are wrong and they are right.

Thing is, they can never produce the proof, and when they claim to be tolerant of others views, they really show their intolerance if those views are not theirs....

Practice what you preach Dan...

Posted by: Scubachris at Wed Nov 23 03:25:55 2005 (AktpP)

3 Hmm - I'm certainly guilty of resorting to a few choice descriptors from time to time, but you seem to be equating the treatment Murtha got with simple disagreement. Tell you what - let's compare the number of attacks on Murtha with the number of attacks we'll see on Taluto, and then we can talk about who's intolerant. Sound fair?

Posted by: Dan at Wed Nov 23 04:04:59 2005 (D+DIf)

4 http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm#

Bush was told on September 21, 2001 that Iraq had no significant ties to Al Qaeda, and in fact was considering infiltrating the group in order to keep tabs on them, because he saw them as a threat.

Yet the BA kept saying that Iraq had significant ties to Al Qaeda, and used that in their justification for the war.

If that ain't lying, then there ain't no such thing as lying.

Posted by: didjman at Wed Nov 23 08:54:44 2005 (u/50d)

5 I would be inclined to agree with you -- if that one PDB were teh only assessment of the connections that the President ever heard.

On the other hand, if other sources -- including foreign intelligence services -- provided different data, then it comes down to which sources he believed.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Nov 23 08:59:23 2005 (z8veF)

6 The trouble with your view, RWR, is that you ignore the fact that the Bushies stated the Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection as if it was proven fact, not "some intelligence sources say there's a connection, but others say there is no connection."

And, of course, the truth, as best known, is that there were no meaningful ties between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Just as there were no WMDs in Iraq.

By the way, it turns out that those of us who read lefty news sources had better intelligence than the Bush administration. If you go to the Common Dreams website and look at their archives, you'll see that they were accurately debunking claims of Iraq's WMDs well before the start of the war.

Posted by: didjman at Wed Nov 23 11:04:26 2005 (u/50d)

7 No, i avoid Common Treason whenever possible.

And we know that there were WMD -- Saddam used tehm onhis own people. We also have found some, and can reasonably conclude that others wee hidden or disbursed elsewhere.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Nov 23 12:16:55 2005 (iDWD+)

8 RWR, now you showing that you're full of manure.

Yes, Sadaam had WMD...in the 1980s. He was disarmed. If he still had them, don't you think he'd have used them against U.S. troops?

This is my last post here--there's no point in having a discussion with shameless liars.

Posted by: didjman at Wed Nov 23 15:51:37 2005 (1I4e7)

9 Of course I'm a liar -- I have the audacity to disagree with you, you left-wing sack of shit! It is a well known fact that anyone who disagrees with a liberal is not operating in good faith.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Nov 23 16:44:26 2005 (omkuj)

10 RWR - are you going to take my bet?

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 24 11:05:53 2005 (aSKj6)

11 You have already lost, given the terms of derision the Left has thrown at those of us who support completing the mission in Iraq.

And given Murtha's history of proposing that US troops cut-and-run, I think that questioning his moralcourage TODAY is perfectly approrpiate, no matter how physically courageous he was under fire 35-40 years ago.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 24 12:09:01 2005 (ncZNx)

12 Hah. You're not taking the bet, are you? Come on, let's compare the number of personal attacks on Murtha with the number of personal attacks we'll see on Taluto. So far, I haven't seen a single attack on Taluto, but I've seen plenty of attacks on Murtha. You're afraid to take the bet, aren't you? You're kind of feeling like you're caught in a lie here, aren't you, and hoping that you can change the subject?

Simple yes or no question. Let's compare the number of attacks on Murtha with the number of attacks we'll see on Taluto, and then we can talk about who's intolerant. If you can document more personal attacks on Taluto than I can document on Murtha, I'll make a $20 donation to whatever crazy right-wing charity you name. If you lose, you make a $20 donation to something innocuous - say the American Cancer Society or the American Heart Association. Simple yes or no response is all I need. Are we on?

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 24 16:24:57 2005 (aSKj6)

13 I'm not playing your game -- and I have yet to see a single actual personal attack on Murtha.

I have, on the other hand, seen a lot of political attacks on Murtha -- which is how I classify my comments.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 24 17:00:33 2005 (cR4ho)

14 Oh, and by the way, your objection to personal attacks seems rather hypocritical, given that I spot at least three on me just in your reply.

You accuse me of being a liar.

You accuse me of being a coward.

You make a comment about me picking a "crazy right-wing charity".

Go examine your own conscience before trying to police anyone else's

Oh, and by the way -- I would have suggested a charity dealing with one of my wife's medical conditions.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 24 17:06:51 2005 (cR4ho)

15 I commented above in this same thread that I've resorted to personal attacks (well, I used the phrase "a few choice descriptors", but the context was clear). And I didn't call you a coward - I just pointed out that you were afraid to take the bet, which you are, right? Don't be so hard on yourself, RWR.

You've spun yourself into a 180 turn here, RWR. First, your post asked, in its title, "Will Libs Respect Him?", and your intro into the quote asked "No one can criticize John Murtha and his position on Iraq, according to the cut-and-run Leftists. Will they extend the same courtesy to this veteran, and kindly shut up?". I simply pointed out that the "libs" weren't going to try to tear down Taluto the way that the right attacked Murtha. You were the one getting his boxers bunched up about the politics of personal destruction.

To recap a little further, I then had the clever idea of challenging you to a bet, because your anticipated firestorm of criticism from the left simply never showed up, as I knew it wouldn't. In short, I showed you up for your false posturing about the big, mean left.

I'm sincerely sorry to hear your wife has medical conditions which requires charities. If you like, email me at dan@gonemild.com and identify the charity, and I'll make a donation.

If you ever catch me making silly claims I can't back up, feel free to challenge me to bet.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Nov 25 04:32:37 2005 (aSKj6)

16 Rhymes;so calling someone a coward on the floor of the house is not a personal attack?

Posted by: Jojo at Sat Nov 26 16:24:13 2005 (9SIY/)

17 Go back and read/watch the speech. At no point does Rep. Schmidt actually call Rep. Murtha a coward. To say that she did is pure spin which requires making an inference from what she did say.

Even if she had, there is more than one sort of cowardice. I would never question Murtha's physical courage -- but one could easily question his moral courage in light of his proposal to cut and run from Iraq.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Nov 26 17:13:25 2005 (QDTSV)

18 yes you did u called him a cut an runner and thoes statments that the"honorable"rep from ohio the source has said tat they wernt directed at murtha .....someone is b.s ing and you know that

Posted by: Jojo at Sat Nov 26 18:52:35 2005 (9SIY/)

19 Dan may not call you a liar and a fucking chickenshit-chickenhawk, but I will you miserable piece of shit. Until you have actually done military service why don't you shut the fuck up about that which you so obviously know nothing about, and stick to your alleged "teaching" shitty as it may be you stooge.

Posted by: I'm an effing piece of shit at Sun Nov 27 09:06:36 2005 (Sfcu+)

20 Bubba, this is the end of my telling you about the language issue. tone it down, or you go on the permanent banned list.

And I love teh fact that you want to remove issues of war and peace from the hands of the vast majority of the American people and reserve it strictly for veterans. Tell me, do you offer the same advice to Cindy Sheehan (who lacks in military experience to precisely the same degree that I do -- and who never had any interest in or desire to serve, which makes her even less qualified than me) -- should she also "shut the f*** up about that which [she] so obviously know nothing about"? Or do you reserve that advice only for those who hold different views from you?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Nov 27 12:23:24 2005 (h0OjB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.0064, elapsed 0.0132 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0085 seconds, 49 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]