CNN's Henry reported that Murtha said "surge is working," ignored his continued call for Iraq withdrawal
SUMMARY: On CNN,
Ed Henry reported that "Democrats ... like Congressman John Murtha ... are now saying that
the surge is working," and suggested that, as a result of such comments,
it "is going to be more and more difficult for Democrats" to argue
that President Bush should sign a war funding bill that includes a provision
for troop redeployment.
But Murtha, who voted in favor of the bill, actually said, "I think the
surge is working, I think -- but that's only one element. ... [T]he
thing that has to happen, the Iraqis have to do this themselves." In a subsequent statement, Murtha
added: "The
fact remains that the war in Iraq
cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable."
On the December 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry reported that "Democrats ... like Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, are now saying that the surge is working," referring to President Bush's troop increase strategy in Iraq. Henry further suggested that, as a result of such comments, it "is going to be more and more difficult for Democrats" to argue that Bush should sign a war funding bill that includes a provision for troop redeployment. But Murtha did not broadly assert that the troop increase strategy "is working," as Henry suggested. In fact, during his November 29 press conference -- video of which is available online -- Murtha said: "I think the surge is working, I think -- but that's only one element. ... There's no question in my mind that if you put more forces in ... it's going to work out. But the thing that has to happen, the Iraqis have to do this themselves." Murtha went on to state that, according to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, "the impression was, that I got from all of them, [was] that the central government is pretty close to dysfunctional." Moreover, in a statement released the next day, Murtha reaffirmed his support for the very legislation that Henry cited -- a $50 billion war funding bill passed by the House, which Murtha voted for, that mandates that the United States begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, "[w]ithin 30 days after enactment of this Act." Murtha added that "[t]he fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable."
As Media Matters for America has noted, when announcing his troop increase strategy in January, Bush specifically stated that "[a] successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations" and will include a political component: "hold[ing] the Iraqi government to the benchmarks [the United States] has announced." Indeed, during a July 12 press conference, Bush asserted that his troop increase strategy "seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability":
BUSH: The strategy I announced in January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions. It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.
Reporting on Bush's criticism of Congress for not passing war funding legislation, Henry noted that "House and Senate Democratic leaders fired back at the president and said that if he really wants to help out U.S. troops and he wants the money, he should sign a bill that also will start bringing them home in large numbers by the end of 2008." Henry then quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) statement that "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops." Henry concluded: "But that argument is going to be more and more difficult for Democrats to make, especially now that some of their own, like Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, are now saying that the surge is working."
However, as Huffington Post political reporter Sam Stein reported on November 30, Murtha acknowledged military successes in Iraq during his November 29 press conference, but "the congressman's statement was far more nuanced than what is being reported and echoed his previous statements praising the U.S. military's efforts":
War proponents have seized on the words of Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, who said Thursday, following a visit to Iraq, that the troop surge is working -- a seeming contradiction from earlier criticism.
But the congressman's statement was far more nuanced than what is being reported and echoes his previous statements praising the U.S. military's efforts.
Speaking via teleconference to reporters in four different cities, Murtha did acknowledge that the surge, which he had firmly criticized, has led to military successes. But he also warned repeatedly that the Iraqis were not doing enough to capitalize on those gains.
"I think the surge is working but that's only one element. It's working because of the increase in troops," he said, "but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves..."
(The caveat was all but ignored by some conservative critics, one of whom described Murtha's claim as the equivalent of "hell freezing over.")
Since expressing skepticism over the war in November 2005, Murtha has consistently applauded the capabilities of the troops but also emphasized that, in the absence of political progress among the Iraqi government; their work would be for naught. When President Bush rolled out his surge proposal in the winter of 2007, he opposed the idea, according to the Wall Street Journal, because "it meant depleting readiness at home or extending the tours of troops [currently] in the war zone."
On Thursday, the congressman took a softer but similar stance. Murtha harped on the lack of political and diplomatic progress in Iraq. "The impression I got was that the central government was pretty close to dysfunctional," he said. "They hope the 2008 budget will be passed by 2007 but there are still 17 ministerial seats unfilled."
And he spoke worrisomely about the status of America's armed forces: "I keep stressing we can no longer afford to spend 14 billion a month on the war and let our readiness slip in other parts of the country."
Moreover, Murtha continues to support redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, as he made clear in his November 30 statement:
The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi Government. Unfortunately, the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi Government and they have failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.
The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable.
The House of Representatives has passed a $50 billion funding bill that provides the President, our troops, and our nation with a responsible plan for bringing our troops home. The President should heed the advice of the American people and allow this funding bill to become law.
From Murtha's November 29 press conference:
MURTHA: I think the surge is working, I think -- but that's only one element. And the surge is working for a couple different reasons: one is because of the increase in troops. I sent a letter to the president three or four years ago saying, "We need 100,000 more troops" at one point. They went in with inadequate forces. There's no question in my mind that if you put more forces in, you're going to have -- it's going to work out.
But the thing that has to happen, the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them. In Afghanistan or Iraq, they've got to take over themselves. And in the provinces where they've taken over, we've made progress. Anbar Province is a perfect example of that. Now, we've had to pay some of the folks, but the point is, when they get into the whole thing, we start making progress.
[...]
MURTHA: In Iraq and meeting with General Crocker, or Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, they stated -- or the impression was, that I got from all of them, that the central government is pretty close to dysfunctional -- that's the central government.
From the December 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week:
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody. President Bush warning Congress this week of the dire consequences of its failure to fund our military. It is one of his strongest challenges yet to the Democratic leadership in Congress. The president said Congress should approve a spending bill without any strings attached before it leaves town for the Christmas recess. Ed Henry has our report from the White House -- Ed.
HENRY: Lou, the president this week will be on a collision course with congressional Democrats returning from their Thanksgiving break. Mr. Bush already ripping into them for dragging their feet on getting him more war funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- essentially declaring now that American lives are at risk. The president last week making a trip to the Pentagon and saying, defense officials are trying to stop what he called "another day of destruction on American soil, a terror attack."
Democrats, as you know, have been pushing a plan that would give the president another $50 billion in war funding, but it comes with a big catch. That war funding would only come if the president agreed to a provision to bring home most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. That plan blocked by Senate Republicans because the president is not on board. Mr. Bush saying at the Pentagon, it's time to get this money to U.S. troops before Christmas without any strings attached. He said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates can only move money around into different accounts for so long, then, eventually, the Defense Department will have to start laying off some civilian employees and freezing defense contracts.
BUSH [video clip]: Pentagon officials have warned Congress that the continued delay in funding our troops will soon begin to have a damaging impact on the operations of this department. The warning has been laid out for the United States Congress to hear.
HENRY: Now, House and Senate Democratic leaders fired back at the president and said that if he really wants to help out U.S. troops and he wants the money, he should sign a bill that also will start bringing them home in large numbers by the end of 2008. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid saying, quote, "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops."
But that argument is going to be more and more difficult for Democrats to make, especially now that some of their own, like Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, are now saying that the surge is working -- Lou.
I do not care what the media says and portrays now, the surge is not working , because as long as we are paying Peter and robbing Paul we will never have a long term solution. More deaths will occur, My only hope at this point is with 13 months left in the Bushie term less violence will occur and a democratic president will end the madness. Its a hope and a stretch i know.
SAVE DEMOCRACY!! VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!
Doris. nothing will change if the top candidates from either party win, they are bought and paid for, that is what is so silly about our two party system. Hillary Clinton is not pulling the troops out neither is future war criminal Rudy.
Join the fight and end the two party system.
Bob
I agree we need change but it will not happen in this election, I hold my judgement on Senator Clinton, as for Rudy, he has yet to do anything to call him a war criminal so I hold judgement as well.
Hi Bob,
You can join my new "War on Wars" party. Our platform is, no more wars; end the war on drugs, terror, poverty; and what ever other wars have been started and never finished. End all wars and don't start any new ones.
Interested?
By the way, there are many more factors at work in Iraq than just a surge in US occupiers, most notably the radical cleric army has largely quit their fun and games of roaming death squads. Secondly, the ethnic cleansing is largely done.
Is the surge working? I guess it depends on the meaning of "working". I'm not seeing much reporting on Iraq lately. Is that because not much is happening, or is there a news blackout going on? What happened to the millions of refugees? Is the Pentagon fudging the way its counting casualties again? How many Iraqis have been killed by our new Sunni "allies"? Will we ever be able to leave?
A responsible, functioning Press Corps would hound the Bush Administration unmercifully for these answers. Instead, they're endlessly fascinated with where Obama went to kindergarten.
Good call Nerz. The media are all breathing a sigh of relief because in their new corporate role as "USA, USA, we're number one" cheerleading they can abdicate any hard work reporting about the issues you mentioned (besides the fact that death still permeates the landscape) and just report Repub and BushieCo talking points.
I just don't think this debate is focused correctly. If the surge is working, troops should be coming home soon. If the surge isn't working, troops should be coming home soon. Bush should accept the timetable.
Of course the surge is "working" in that violence is down. If you plopped 10,000 top-of-the-line troops in the middle of any city crime and violence would plummet.
What the surge does is further re-inforce the point that more troops were needed at the outset - something that was dismissed by these idiots in charge.
And furthermore, the "surge" was never an end in and of itself. Instead, the surge was merely a tactic that was supposed to provide time for the Iraqi government to gain footing. The actual GOAL of the whole policy was lost, and now all we're left with is the tactic. Weren't there something like 18 goals that were supposed to be completed by September? And something like three of them were partly done? And "The Surge" was never one of those goals. It was a means to an end only.
Get out of Iraq. It's time to bring 'em home.
the fact that the surge is quote unquote "working" is as you say, no surprise. it was what a lot of people predicted. thousands of troops in an area are going to tamp down violence. it's also a fact that everything this administration predicted from the beginning was totally false, from the length of time we would be there, the war "paying for itself", and the supposed spread of democracy all over the middle east. instead the radicals are stronger than ever. my favorite cartoonist, tom toles of the washington post, had a cartoon recently showing a sign in front of the white house. it had a switch saying we can't withdraw because things are "bad" or conversely we can't withdraw because things are going "well".
This is exactly why the Democrats are essentially backed into a corner and flailing about on Iraq. By all accounts the military surge is working, but there is also the political nature and that is quite different. Murtha reveals the conundrum this puts his party in, one part is working, the other is not. How do you sell that in the middle of a war? Which is why nobody can really explain the Democrat's position or what they want to do - continue to fund?, defund?, stay? get out? They better get a cohesive plan as a party and stick with it, otherwise they look wobbly and indecisive.
How do you sell that in the middle of a war?
Tommy with all due respect this is not a war, its a police action.
It's an occupation. The media and both sides should stop framing it as if there are two defined forces battling it out for domination of Iraq.
It is an illegal occupation, you are correct.
Well... there ARE. The Iraquis and the Iraquis. ;)
Yeah this hasn't bee a WAR for like three years now. Standing around getting shot at isn't a war. The WAR ended when we captured Saddam. This is the AFTERMATH. Something the 'Pub's aren't so strong on. That's why the want to keep the word "WAR" in the discussion.
You're correct Doris, the war has been over for many years. It's now an occupation.
If there is an explanation necessary, it should be coming from those in favor of continuing the occupation. They should be the ones answering the questions. Like whose children will be occupying iraq next year to keep the surge working? Whose grandchildren will be footing the bill?
Someone needs to be accountable.
I agree, it's Bush's war - he needs to be held accountable.....but if the Democrats want to takeover in 2009 then they owe us, the American people, their intentions as to how they will deal with it.
Soldiers are adults, not "children". They volunteered for service as adults and are serving as adults. Stop playing the game of referring to them as "children".
child
Main Entry: child Pronunciation: \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren... 4 a: a son or daughter of human parentsBut that's just Merriam-Webster vs. Computer. Who you gonna believe?
Sorry Tommy, no cigar.
If the surge was 'working' then we would be hearing talk of time tables and ultimate withdrawal. There is none coming from the Administration. Zero.
Here's the fact: Bush has no intention of ending this war on his watch. This is a war that cannot be ended based on his deranged beliefs.
Take your cigar from Murtha as well, as long as you're the decider of puffing oral extenders......
Wow, Tommy, I thought you were a cut above as far as conservatives are concerned. Most cons on message boards really suck - no pun intended, of course. I've read many of your posts here and you do present logical arguments that are SOMETIMES worthy of consideration. Not too shabby. But lately, things seem to have changed. You really are disappointing me.
The reason the Democrats are in a corner is because the GOP Spinsters have successfully framed the Iraq occupation as a pitched battle against evil terrorists. The GOP base seems to believe that, if we just kill enough towelheads, they'll give up and scurry away... then we can plant the flag of Western Democracy in Baghdad, establishing a grateful, oil-rich mini version of ourselves. This ain't gonna happen. What we're mired in there is a corrupt deviation of "nation building", an activity in which George W. Bush promised not to engage. To accomplish the NeoClown pipe dream, we'll have to purge most of the people out of Iraq and rebuild it from the ground up. We have neither the manpower nor the resources to do that.
I find it interesting that the administration and Republicans are running around screaming "the surge is working".
According to the administration and Republicans “the surge” was suppose to clam the violence and allow Iraq to have a functioning “government”. I guess some would say the violence is calmer since the US death toll was only 40 *roll eyes* for November but how’s it going on the "provide a stable functioning government"?
So the initial arguments to giving this President additional money for this endless situation still stands. What does this administration and Republicans call “winning”? How long and how much more money will it take to achieve “winning”? With the military stretched to it’s breaking point, our equipment at it's breaking point, how much longer will the troops be in Iraq? If the “surge” is working because of the increase in troops, what happens when they leave? And the biggest question of all is when will Iraq have a functioning government?
It’s funny how one can paint the Democrats as backed into a corner because of their position on the war when with the right questions the administration and Republican find themselves backed into the same corner. Although I guess if your goal is to simply scurry out of office instead of working toward long-term goals you might not feel backed into a corner.
Good points. The CroMaglicans are really good at deflecting the criticism their party so richly deserves for this mess. They've squelched any notion of investigating how we got there. If Democrats criticize Bush's policy, they demand to know what the Democratic plan is. If the Democrats turn that around and demand to know the Republican plan, the resort to the same tired talking points we've heard ad nauseum over the last five years. Essentially, their plan, according to them, is to "win". Sounds good, but what the hell does it mean?
I believe we went in there to steal the oil, or at least secure it for our future consumption by imposing a puppet government. That turned out to be more complicated than they thought, and now they just don't know what to do with their broken new toy.
I believe we went in there to steal the oil, or at least secure it for our future consumption by imposing a puppet government. That turned out to be more complicated than they thought, and now they just don't know what to do with their broken new toy.
Nerzog, I believe you're correct. What have we accomplished? Saddam is gone BUT there is no security, unless we plan on leave 160,000 US soldiers there, they have very little clean drinking water, very few hours of electricity, very little employment unless you count the US government, but you can't tell anyone you work for them if you want to stay alive, building upon building falling down due to faulty workmanship and refugees returning to what, nothing. However we do have a secure, beautiful US embassy and a mercenary force to protect you IF you're an American and private contractors upon private contractors making millions. Such a deal huh!
Great points Pearlene!!
There are those on both sides of the aisle who want a U.S. military presence in Iraq indefinitely. The oil is the reason for this. But for the Neo-cons, there is another reason...they can make piles of money for themselves and their cronies there, looting the Iraqi oil and using U.S. tax money to pay private contractors.
Most of the arguing about the "surge" is useless anyway because it can't be sustained. Troops will be withdrawn no matter what, next year...
The Neo-cons are the most aggressive about using force to run the world. If they ruin the lives of the people who live in those places they exert control? They don't care.
It is true that the U.S. needs oil to run our economy. What the focus should be on is conservation and alternative energy to lower our dependence on oil
Exactly. The trillions we'll spend in Iraq could be used to develop a car that runs on any number of synthetic fuels, or hydrogen, or electricity, or solar power. For that price, we could put solar collectors on the moon and microwave the energy back to Earth.
Or, it could be used to provide true universal healthcare....gasp! But that would be....Socialist! EEEEWWWW!
Mary, I agree with you. I don't understand why the GOP is so excited about the surge working, when it's already been established that it's not sustainable. Troops are already on their way back, as we speak I believe.
Iraq is the 3rd most currupt country in the world, yet Bush wants to keep pouring money and resources into Iraq, all the while conveniently forgetting the national debt grows $1 million dollars a minute.
I agree we need to refocus our energies on finding new ways to replace our dependence on oil. It just makes sense, especially from a national security stand point. Not only that, but rebuilding our infrastructure to accommadate new sources of energy is sure to create new jobs and stimulate the economy.
Justice and Truth (tm) in the USA (R) - Fact Check:
Murtha, who voted in favor of the bill, actually said, "I think the surge is working,Once Murtha admits that the surge is, in fact, WORKING then what is the argument about?
MoveOn.org and the far left argued that the surge would not work MILITARILY or any other way. If I wanted to copy the left's petulant attitude I would start accusing Murtha, Reid and Pelosi of being LIARS!!!
But I'm bigger than that. The left was merely "mistaken". Now it's up to the military general (you know, the guy you called a "traitor") to try and win in Iraq before the Democrat Party can plant the flag of surrender. It's going to be a close call, but my money is on the brave fighting men in Iraq!
Please define what a "win" is. I request specific terms: By what date? How many troops will remain to "secure" the victory? How much will it cost us - per year, and in total? And how much of a tax increase will you personally accept to pay for it?
We should also ask our good friend Truthy, if he's willing to suit up, or if he's too old, are his children enlisting?
Worrier,
Just a small point. Since this is an all volunteer army, the views of the pro-American-winning parent do not necessarily mean that the parent can make their child enlist. It is up to the child.
So to call for parents to send their children to Iraq is actually rather a silly argument wouldn't you agree?
When right wingers make it a point to question the patriotism of fellow americans on the grounds that not supporting the war is the same as being against the soldiers, it is just and right to counter that people who make the claim are hipocritical if they themselves do not serve.
I'm sure that your post would make the same amount of sense to AA if you posted it in Guarani or Quechua or some other 'obscure' language.
With all of the practice Barney has at making strawmen, you'd think the quality would improve a bit.
Another silly argument with yourself, AA.
Great point Snoop.
You've summed up it all in a few words. But you've spoken volumes.
The silliest.
I'm just trying to remind people (our friend with the trademarked name in particular) that this war is being fought by a miniscule segment of our society. We've placed an unfair burden on them and whenever things go downhill, we dump on them even more.
And people come here and say, "Well, it's an all volunteer military, isn't it?" The answer of course is, yes it is. But I'm sure people didn't enlist to serve three and in some cases, four tours.
We've reached the breaking point with the military. We need fresh troops, we need more equipment, we need more help for wounded vets and we don't have the money to pay for it unless we keep using our grandchildren's credit card.
Yet, the war supporters and enablers can sit by and thump their chests and hide behind OUR flag, while someone else's kid is facing those IEDs.
And you talk about winning, yet can't define it.
If winning means stabilizing Iraq, having a working central government, with functioning local governments in place, an end to factional fighting, and an infrastructure that works, we're a generation away from that.
How long will the military stay all-volunteer if we aren't able to accomplish those goals?
Justice and Truth (tm) in the USA (R) - Fact Check: Murtha, who voted in favor of the bill, actually said, "the thing that has to happen, the Iraqis have to do this themselves. … the central government is pretty close to dysfunctional -- that's the central government.” Once Murtha admits that the surge is, in fact, NOT WORKING then what is the argument about? Bush and the far right argued that the surge would work MILITARILY and every other way. If I wanted to face facts I would start accusing Bush, Henry and Myself of being LIARS!!!
But I'm more pathetic than that. The right was merely "mistaken". Now it's up to the military general (you know, the guy you never called a "traitor") to try and save face in Iraq before the Democrat Party can bring common sense to the situation. It's going to be a close call, but my money is on the Democrats!
Ok, that's fixed up. You're welcome.
"If I wanted to copy the left's petulant attitude I would start accusing Murtha, Reid and Pelosi of being LIARS!!!"
Which is exactly what The Detestable One is doing every night on his pukefest show. Along with promoing his pathetic book.
So my question to you is this: why are you going against the grain of your AM Radio Masters and THEIR petulant attitude?
Fact (C) Check(TM):(R)
You(TM) really(R) don't(TM) have(C) a(C) clue(R),(TM) do(C) you(TM)?(TM) As(C) usual(R),(TM) you(TM) cut(C) and(R) paste(TM) only(R) part(TM) of(C) the(C) sentance(C) and(TM) claim(C) it(TM) supports(C) your(R) view(C) after(R) all(TM).(C) It(TM) would(C) be(TM) downright(R) funny(C) if(TM) it(TM) weren't(C) so(TM) pathetic(R).(C)
Sux(R) to(C) be(TM) you(TM)!(C)
P.S. You need to show a link of the left calling Betrayus a traitor.
No you are stupider than that. Working? Everything that can be accomplished militarily was done long ago. Politically we have NOTHING accomplished and THAT is what is left to do. We cannot help with that. The government there is a joke. We had specific benchmarks NONE of the political benchmarks are even close to being met. Just because the sectarians have accomplished enough ethnic cleansing that there is less of it going on. IF thats the case instead of the way the administration has CHANGED THE DEFINITIONS in order to show a lessening of violence it is STILL not bringing any political solutions any closer. Unless the goal is to STAY in Iraq with a puppet government and make sweetheart oil deals then no the left WASNT wrong. Also if we are playing whackamole we cannot maintain this level of troop involvement forever so quietening things down for a temporary period accomplishes WHAT? I would accuse YOU of being a liar but I dont think you are bright enough to make up lies just regurgitate silly nonsense like this that has zero insight or logic
Then again what should I expect from someone so STUPID they dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in America. You are another proud member of the Marching Morons Brigade.
Solon,
It's a small point but my guess is that they call it the Democrat Party just to drive guys like you a bit bonkers.
To me, it's like someone calling other people posting here names names like 'stupid' and 'moron'.
What do you think?
Why should I care? It is stupid. People who do it are STUPID. So there is no reason to delve into what the motive is for them to act STUPIDLY. I just point out that someone that ignorant cant be taken seriously. And I will CONTINUE to do it every time I see it. Its really very simple. Either you are talking the issues or you are playing. He wants to play I will oblige. I think I have pointed out before I dont really care what you think about that. You are another of those who keeps trying to pretend what I do in RESPONSE is the same thing as the original foragy into attacks. I dont think it is and you wont be convincing me otherwise
Truthy, before making statement, you should check with Rush and the mouthpieces about your statements. As you have written, "if Murtha says the surge is WORKING.....". Think about it, you are believing a Democratic Party member...if your statement is true, then Gore invented the internet, even thought he never said that. Any other qoutes from any Democrat or liberal is therefore correct.
I am only basing this on your name Truth and Justice unless your TRUTH is only based on YOUR facts. But as you can see or we hope that you can, Murtha said a few more things. You do agree with the rest of his statements, don't you?
The surge is not working when the intended goal is not being achieved.
The levels of violence in Iraq have decreased. However, that was not the goal of the surge.
The goal was for the Iraqi government to gain control. There is virtually no evidence this is happening, in spite of the breathing room supplied by the surge.
The surge can NOT be maintained indefinitely.
If the surge is not achieving its goals, how can we say it's working? It's that simple.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the violence go down every year at this time because it was Ramadan?
I check in on this site occasionally to see the trends. You can see how other Septembers and Octobers compare.
snoop,
It's not because of ramadan ding dong! (Sorry couldn't resist.)
Ramadan occurs in September and October.
The name came from the time before the Islamic calendar, when the month of Ramadan fell in the summer. Fasting during this month is often thought to figuratively burn away all sins. Muslims believe that the Qur'an was sent down to the earth during this month. Furthermore, Muhammad told his followers that the gates of Heaven would be open all the month and the gates of Hell would be closed. The first day of the next month is spent in celebrations and is observed as the ‘Festival of Breaking Fast’ or `Eid ul-Fitr.
my source: wikopedia. Hope this helped.
bluuuuuue
moon
It's not because of ramadan ding dong! (Sorry couldn't resist.)
You couldn't resist making fun of another religions holiest days? Conservatives sure do get upset about that when it's done to their religion.
Lighten up Francis. (Sgt. Hulka)
Yes it was a bad joke, but not for the reason you mentioned.
I can't speak for all conservatives but appreciate the fact that you can. :-)
Hey, it's your side that's constantly preaching about how people shouldn't make fun of religion. But as you demonstrate, it's only certain religions that are untouchable.
Your side frequently mocks and dehumanizes those of other cultures so that it's easier to kill 'em. It's disgusting.
Grow up, Francis.