24 Comments

• 1. Joe  |  November 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

  Any reason why, in the section that you have highlighted, leaves off the part where he says…
  “But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can’t win it for them.”

  THAT is what we are talking about!

  Or how about this:
  Mr. Murtha said he may be willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal if the White House shows some flexibility. He acknowledged that the U.S. military would be unable to handle the logistics of pulling its heavy equipment from Iraq by the end of 2008.
  Why will the WH not cooperate? Their compromise is “Do it my way or I will veto”.

• 2. Joe  |  November 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm

  OT… do you think this guy was a Republican that did this???
  
  BOSTON — An armed man took people hostage Friday at a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office in New Hampshire, police said.

  The incident happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at 28 North Main St. in Rochester. Officials said that a man is holding people hostage at the office, but it is unclear how many people are being held.

  There are several police officers positioned across the street from the office, crouched down behind cruisers with guns drawn, according to a reported at the scene.
  
  
  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14737866/detail.html

• 3. js  |  November 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  not sure if he was a pulican or not, but for sure, he really might be from gaza

• 4. Bigfoot  |  November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

  Any reason why, in the section that you have highlighted, leaves off the part where he says…
  “But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can’t win it for them.”

  The rest of that ppg (which Matt also did not include):

  “I think the ’surge’ is working,” Mr. Murtha, a Democrat, said in a video conference from his Johnstown office, describing the president’s decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops at the beginning of the year.

  Could it be that pigs are flying? Oh wait, it’s just all that pork that those Congresscritters are throwing around :o)

• 5. phnx  |  November 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

  Joe,

  All you need do is consider recent demonstrations around the country to know that it is far more likely that this is some fringe moonbat from your party.

• 6. Kahn  |  November 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

  Well yah - there’s a study today that most Democrats think they’re crazy…..

• 7. John Ryan  |  November 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  Regardless of how the “surge” is working, Americans want our troops to come home now. Let the Iraqis deal with their own pronlems.

• 8. Kahn  |  November 30th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

  John,

  Ummmm - no they don’t. People want success and victory. You’re just kind of misinformed.

  Tell ya what, cite a poll answer to the question: Should the troops come home immediately regardless of consequences?

• 9. Kahn  |  November 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

  I wonder if they have to order people to talk to Murtha and to be polite. I’ll bet they do.

• 10. JPL  |  December 1st, 2007 at 12:55 am

  “Tell ya what, cite a poll answer to the question: Should the troops come home immediately regardless of consequences?”

  Kahn, I think you’ll wait a looooooong time for JR’s response, because (as I’m sure you know) the latest polls show a large majority of Americans OPPOSE an immediate pull-out, and favor keeping our troops in Iraq for at least another year. At best, JR is misinformed; at worst he’s just a shill for the defeatists.

• 11. Casper  |  December 1st, 2007 at 3:59 am

  JPL,
  You mean like this poll?

  “Iraq Troop Withdrawal
  63% Want Troops Home From Iraq Within Year
  Tuesday, November 20, 2007

  A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 63% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. For the third week in a row, that figure is up two points from the week before. Over the last twelve weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%. ”

  I haven’t seen any polls favoring us staying in Iraq for over a year. Could you provide some links?

• 12. Mark Noonan  |  December 1st, 2007 at 4:02 am

  Casper,

  That very same poll shows that - depends on how you slice up the results.

• 13. Casper  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:36 am

  Mark,
  Show me where it says Americans want our troops to stay in Iraq OVER a year. Or for that matter where it says at least a year. Within a year means less than a year. Come on Mark, you are too smart of a guy to play stupid word games.

• 14. neocon  |  December 1st, 2007 at 9:06 am

  Conditions are changing dramatically Casper, so if you’re going to force surrender, you’d better hurry up. You’re running out of time.

  The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll finds that 47% of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s up from 43% a month ago and reflects is the highest level of confidence measured since December 2005. Over the past 35 months, confidence in the War on Terror has been higher than today only twice, in November and December 2005.

  The 47% who believe the U.S. and its allies are winning is up significantly from earlier in the year. During the first nine months of 2007, the number believing that the U.S. fell as low as 33% and reached the 40% level just once. During calendar year 2006, an average of 40% believed the U.S. and its allies were winning. That average was 45% in 2005.

  In what may be just as significant a finding, only 24% of voters now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 30% a month ago and represents the lowest level of pessimism recorded since 2004.

• 15. Casper  |  December 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am

  neocon,
  “Conditions are changing dramatically Casper, so if you’re going to force surrender, you’d better hurry up. You’re running out of time.”

  Where did I say I wanted to force surrender? I was only pointing out how Mark was playing word games with the results of the poll. I know how cranky you get when someone puts words in your mouth, please don’t do it to me.

• 16. Almiranta  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:17 am

  Casper, I have yet to see a poll in which the answer to any one question is definitive. That’s the trouble with polls.

  Example: In a poll with many questions, one might be whether or not I am ’satisfied’ with President Bush’s performance—say, in the past three years. Being an honest person, and also reading ahead to see that there are other questions where I can explain tmy answer to some degree , I say “no”.

  An honest account of the poll results might show that of those who are presently unhappy with Bush’s recent performance, 80% list his stance on immigration as the reason, 20% list his high spending. Further questions would make it clear that the unhappiness was not about his performance in general, or about Iraq, or the Invented Scandal of the Week that the Dems are now trying to blow up into something it ain’t.

  And it might give the answer to the last question, “Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for Bush in 2004?” Or “Are you glad you voted for Bush” or any variant of the above.

  But the tendency would be, as it has been, to either NOT ask the followup questions, or to quote the answer to only the one about being satsified with his performance, without any context or any effort to let people really say what they think.

  Ditto for questions on pulling out of Iraq. Iraqis were once asked “Do you want the Americans to leave” and of course the overewhelming response was “yes”. What was not asked in that poll, or quoted from other polls, was “WHEN do you want the Americans to leave?” where the answer was almost NEVER “immediately”.

  Remember, the one thing the radical Left tries hardest to hide is that being unhappy with Bush is not the same, not by a long shot, as wishing we had elected Kerry.

  While Bush may not have been the absolute best man for the job, he was, as he himself said, the “best man running”. This is not Utopia. We had two choices, and we made the best choice of those two. Whining because that choice did not give every one of us exactly what we wanted is simply silly.

  When we can construct a president in a test tube, maybe we can put in all the characteristics we want. I vote for the looks of Tom Selleck, the wit of Abraham Lincoln, the intelligence of Condoleeza Rice, the military savvy of Eisenhower, and so on. But till then I fully expect a president who falls far short of my personal idea of perfection, and will settle for one who is inherently honest, who truly wants to serve and not just be president for the power or the glory or the ego, who has the courage of his convictions even when I don’t agree with them, who truly loves this country and who believes it must be governed according to the Constitution..l…and I will accept his warts and flaws. (I say “his” because Hillary meets none of those criteria and Condi is not running…)

• 17. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am

  Wait a second, I’d like to see them home in a year also. Where was the second half of the question? “regardless of consequences?”

  You get an F on that teach Casper. And, well I think you knew you were being dishonest when you posted.

• 18. Casper  |  December 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm

  kahn,
  I was quoting the Rasmussen poll. It didn’t include the “regardless of consequences?” I was certainly not trying to be dishonest with my post.

• 19. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm

  But that was my challenge, wasn’t it?

  Whatever - knock your credibility down a notch.

• 20. Casper  |  December 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pm

  Kahn,
  In rereading this post, I just figured out what your challenge was.
  Your challenge was to John Ryan (#8) at 5:36pm yesterday. My first post was at 3:59 am this morning (#11).
  If you want to criticize John for not responding feel free, but please don’t expect me to answer a challenge given to someone else.

  I expect you to raise my credibility up at least one notch and change the F to at least a B.

• 21. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm

  But, you answered it as if you were. Be honest.

  # 10. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 12:55 am

  “Tell ya what, cite a poll answer to the question: Should the troops come home immediately regardless of consequences?”

  Kahn, I think you’ll wait a looooooong time for JR’s response, because (as I’m sure you know) the latest polls show a large majority of Americans OPPOSE an immediate pull-out, and favor keeping our troops in Iraq for at least another year. At best, JR is misinformed; at worst he’s just a shill for the defeatists.

  #11. Casper | December 1st, 2007 at 3:59 am

  JPL,
  You mean like this poll?

  “Iraq Troop Withdrawal
  63% Want Troops Home From Iraq Within Year
  Tuesday, November 20, 2007

  A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 63% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. For the third week in a row, that figure is up two points from the week before. Over the last twelve weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%. ”

• 22. Casper  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 am

  Kahn,
  I was responding to the second part of JPL’s post because I felt he was misinterpreting the polls. I wasn’t even thinking about your post.

• 23. DougH  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 am

  Every year they have a poll that says that most of the people want the troops home within a year.

  When you run the poll next July, the majority will say the want the troops home within a year.

  It has remained the same for the past 3 years….

  If people were really serious about the troops home within a year, then the majority would be saying we want the troops home NOW……

  As for Murtha and the rest of the Democrats…. they use to call Iraq a civil war and that the US shouldn’t have troops in the middle of a civil war.

  Now they start saying the problem is the Iraqi government isn’t making the legislature within the time frame they think is suitbale.

  Let’s see.. mutiple parties, mutiple interests in the Iraq government structure.. and they still do more than the two party system in the USA.

• 24. Blogs For Victory »&hellip  |  December 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  […] contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in […]

Matt Margolis on Twitter