Fallujah finds

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"Any point with that remark or are you merely making conversation?"

Conversation to be sure-- assuring you that US bases can easily cease to be a source of friction in the world if convenience dictates otherwise.

usfj.mil/pacific_bases.html

"Iran and North Korea are international bogeymen who seems not to have invaded any sovereign nations during the last decade."

So? If you ever become country who uses WMDs on your own people, feed perceived enemies into woodchippers, rape and torture people openly, habitually violate UN resolutions and continually jerk around weapons inspectors the US might invade you too. So let that be a lesson to you. Attempting to lump the greatest, most powerful, most prosperous nation on earth together with the last sick money-grubbing Stalinist regime and a country of pathetic fanatical women-haters is a jolly good one, heh. Well thank goodness you're just some guy in Germany and not a US voter.

But dude, seriously-- silly humor like yours (and old TBR's, and MoveOn.Org's) is exactly what got Dubya elected in the first place. Twice. You should know better. Then again . . . since you're an avowed conservative, perhaps there's a method to your madness . . .

www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...p?ID=17504

nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone...orror.html

www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright...buses.html

www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright...korea.html

www.amnestyusa.org/news/d...E130662006

www.iranfocus.com/modules...oryid=1424

www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/...nt_iht.htm

* * *

"Only Murtha never said that"

"He was citing a poll"

More humor. If he cited a poll, then he said it.

Say(past tense 'said') -verb: Utter aloud

* * *

“That was in reference to international polls. It was not so much his own conjecture, but a conclusion drawn from polls in various countries.” --Melissa Sanchez of the Miami Herald

Murtha was citing a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea. "

I instinctively (and so should you) question the methodology and results of any poll funded by the agenda driven Pew Charitable Trust (or those funded by any of those laughably biased conservative "charitable trusts" as well)

The Pew Charitable Trust's Biases

"The Pew Charitable trust is routinely touted as a non-partisan organization, and by that, most normal people understand that to mean unbiased one way or the other.

But according to a report in City Journal (via Powerline), the Trust is not only biased, it is a backroom player in the big game:

Campaign-finance reform has a squeaky-clean image, but the dirty truth is that this speech-throttling legislation is partly the result of a hoax perpetrated by a handful of liberal foundations, led by the venerable Pew Charitable Trusts. New York Post reporter Ryan Sager exposed the scam when he got hold of a 2004 videotape of former Pew official Sean Treglia telling a roomful of journalists and professors how Pew and other foundations spent years bankrolling various experts, ostensibly independent nonprofits (including the Center for Public Integrity and Democracy 21), and media outlets (NPR got $1.2 million for “news coverage of financial influence in political decision-making”)—all aimed at fooling Washington into thinking that Americans were clamoring for reform, when in truth there was little public pressure to “clean up the system.” “The target group for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,” said Treglia matter-of-factly, referring to Congress. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot—that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

Treglia urged grantees to keep Pew’s role hush-hush. “If Congress thought this was a Pew effort,” he confided, “it’d be worthless. It’d be 20 million bucks thrown down the drain.” At one point, late in the congressional debate over McCain-Feingold, “we had a scare,” Treglia said. “George Will stumbled across a report we had done. . . . He started to reference the fact that Pew was playing a large role . . . [and] that it was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress. . . . The good news, from my perspective, was that journalists . . . just didn’t care and nobody followed up.” The hoaxers—a conspiracy of eight left-wing foundations, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation—have actually spent $123 million trying to get other people’s money out of politics since 1994, Sager reports—nearly 90 percent of the spending by the entire campaign-finance lobby over this period.

In Heather McDonald's excellent book "The Burden of Bad Ideas" there is a wonderful chapter about the work of these foundations. They are the master funders of liberal nonsense, and they probably have 10 times the money behind them that the Heritage foundation et al have."-- Pennraker

"Murtha should have it brought to his attention that past service does not assure unassailable knowledge of policy nor does it somehow bestow good sense. Benedict Arnold served the USA in the Revolutionary army as a general, but after that whole betraying our country to the British incident no one would imagine he would be a good one to ask about war policy thereafter. God forbid a man as vain and self-promoting as General George A. Custer would have become president in 1776 as he planned to do. And as good a soldier as he was, few would want as profane and unpredictable a man as General George Patton leading in Congress, either."-- Warner Todd Huston

:boink

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Conversation to be sure-- assuring you that US bases can easily cease to be a source of friction in the world if convenience dictates otherwise.

The difference is there were no rivaling forces in Japan to the brink of Civil War, the one ruler who ran the country was so utterly defeated through the two first, and to this day, only nukes dropped on civilians. This was over 50 years ago.

Why don't you tell me about all the US bases in North Vietnam instead?

Quote:
So?

Just stating a fact.

Quote:
"Only Murtha never said that"

"He was citing a poll"

More humor. If he cited a poll, then he said it.

Say(past tense 'said') -verb: Utter aloud

Quote:
"Congressman John Murtha telling an audience in Miami that U.S. troops in Iraq are a bigger threat to world peace than a nuclear Iran or North Korea"

Like I said: it fits the swiftboating better to have Murtha make that claim.

Quote:
I instinctively (and so should you) question the methodology and results of any poll funded by the agenda driven Pew Charitable Trust

I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself made that poll out of chewed paper. You cannot turn it into that Murtha made the claim himself when he cited the poll. End of story, Mr Bozell

.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

" . . . the one ruler who ran the country was so utterly defeated through the two first, and to this day, only nukes dropped . . ."

Surely you're not suggesting the US nuke Iraq. Are you?

* * *

Quote:"Only Murtha never said that"

"He was citing a poll"

More humor. If he cited a poll, then he said it.

Say(past tense 'said') -verb: Utter aloud

Quote: "Congressman John Murtha telling an audience in Miami that U.S. troops in Iraq are a bigger threat to world peace than a nuclear Iran or North Korea"

GALMIN: "I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself made that poll out of chewed paper. You cannot turn it into that Murtha made the claim himself . . ."

Nobody but you used the word "himself", my friend.

He . . . cited . . . the . . . poll. He . . .used . . . words.

He . . . uttered . . . those . . . words . . . aloud.

He . . . said . . . those . . . words . . . to . . . an . . . audience.

He told an audience in Miami (about a possibly biased poll that states) that U.S. troops in Iraq are a bigger threat to world peace than a nuclear Iran or North Korea.

He got that information into the minds of his audience.

If he didn't use words, then he's telepathic. Do you believe Murtha is telepathic? If not than you agree he must have used words. If he used words, he said it. If he said it, then that's what he told the audience. He used language effectively to persuade. That's the definition of rhetoric.

As the man said, the GOP attack ad practically writes itself, despite protests from you and Murtha himself.

Murtha: I didn't say it, I just cited it

Galmin: He didn't say it, he just cited it

lmao

You guys . . .

* * *

From Murtha's press release:

" During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace. "

DO note that he doesn't offer his quote in context, but only an explanation of what he "really" meant.

Where's the full text of his actual words? Is there audio somewhere?

If Murtha wants to offer an explanation of his speech, fine and good. He may be finally realizing his shoot-from-the-lip that underlines his Toykoist motives is not bringing this unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal of the 80's the kind of attention he craves. But he doesn't offer any more of a quote than was attributed to him by the Sun-Sentinel.

Let's say I'm a bit cynical about the "misquote" because the second half of Murtha's press release claims his quote about redeployment to places like "Okinawa" was also a misquote. Transcript

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.

REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all.

Is this a "misquote?" or being "quoted out of context"?

No. Sorry. Murtha undercuts any credibility to the first "misquote" by tacking on the second as "another occassion" of the same. And why should anyone believe Murtha was more circumspect in Miami about America's threat to peace then he was about "the wrongful coverup" in Haditha in the same speech?

Murtha's press release also includes a link to a website that features both his press release and an article entitled "SwiftBoat II?"

What is it about "Swiftboating" for the Left community? Last I checked, not one thing alleged in the book was disproved. Indeed, Kerry's* Christmas in Cambodia was just one point of incredulity uncovered equal to Murtha's "rapid deployment from Okinawa." -- Darleenclick

You should rent that movie "What The [Bleep] Do We Know"

It answers all your questions and more

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Like I said: it fits the swiftboating better to have Murtha make that claim.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

re "Like I said: it fits the swiftboating better to have Murtha make that claim. "

. . . But are you sure you really said this, or did you merely cite it?" Some find it hard to make the distinction

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Some find it hard to make the distinction

Apparantly some find it hard, though only if the shoe fits.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Initially you were 'saying' it, but by the last reiteration you were obviously citing it.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Please bear in mind that in his press release Murtha never offered his quote in context, but offered only an explanation of what he "really meant".

Where's the full text of his actual words?

If you have a copy kindly post it.

If you don't, then your evidence of 'Swiftboating' is circumstantial and thus inadmissible.

To prove a charge of 'Swiftboating' you'd have to, at the very least, produce a 'logical fallacy' in the ad hominem attack, and none exists. Allow me to cite an earlier post:

If He Cited It, He Said It

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Where's the full text of his actual words?

You mean an actual quote as the one not present in the discrediting "article" you posted? Why the sudden interest in detail? It didn't seem to bother you the slightest what Murtha actually claimed, as in a direct quote, when you initially pasted the BS. I suggest you do your own homework.

In the meantime, this might be of interest to you.

SF Sun-Sentinel correction.

Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly have realized their mistake to believe the original Sun-Sentinel article and issued corrections (I guess they are soft on commies or sumthin).

And here your own source:

Quote:
Arizona Daily Star correction

Corrections

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.28.2006

A South Florida Sun-Sentinel article on A12 Sunday misinterpreted a comment from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town-hall meeting in North Miami.

In his speech, Murtha cited a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. presence in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea.

Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and the perception that the United States is an occupying force.

?œ Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" does not say Jesus' crucifixion never occurred, as was reported in a story on B7 Saturday.

Quote:
If He Cited It, He Said It

It fits the swiftboating better to have Murtha make that claim himself instead of him citing a poll, right?

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"Why the sudden interest in detail?

What do you mean by 'sudden'?

"It didn't seem to bother you the slightest what Murtha actually claimed . . . "

? What he actually claimed? You can't tell me what he actually claimed, because you have no transcript.

It doesn't SEEM to bother me because it DOESN'T bother me what Murtha 'actually' claims, in direct quotes or quotes he takes from biased sources. You're the one characterizing an alleged 'misinterpretation' as an 'attack', presumably because you like the term 'swiftboating'.

If you find a link to the actual text, kindly post it here. Meanwhile I'll continue to do that particular 'homework' for both of us

As a conservative, it may interest you to know that the following of your fellows have not yet retracted their remarks:

* Discussing the Sun-Sentinel report during his June 26 radio show, Neal Boortz compared Murtha to Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman, who shot dozens of people from atop a tower in Austin, Texas, in 1966. Boortz said that "Moonbat" Murtha "has lost his mind," later adding that "the Democrats need to get ready to throw this man under the bus."

* On the June 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, guest host Mike Gallagher, discussing Murtha's alleged comments with Gingrich and co-host Alan Colmes, asked: "Is this guy having some kind of mental meltdown? Is he crazy like a fox or just plain crazy?" Gingrich added that "the most logical explanation" for Murtha's supposed comments is that "it's conceivable that Murtha woke up one day a year ago and said, 'You know, if I don't start bashing America, and bashing the military, and repudiating everything I've stood for my whole life, these guys aren't going to allow me to be chairman of the committee that spends the money.' "

* On the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Republican Strategist Jack Burkman claimed that with Murtha's comments, as originally reported by the Sun-Sentinel, "did nothing but disparage our troops."

(You can spare me any retorts about how you could care less what a bunch of hairy neo-cons think. I'll do my own homework on that too)

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
What do you mean by 'sudden'?

You pasted an entire debate article, based on Elizabeth Baier's article clinically free of any direct quote from Jack Murtha, written to make people believe that Murtha had professed his opinion that the U.S. was more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran. Now when Elizabeth Baier has issued a correction, you suddenly want direct quotes were the absence of the same didn't seem to bother you before. That is what I mean by 'sudden'.

Quote:
You're the one characterizing an alleged 'misinterpretation' as an 'attack'

It is. Trying to make people believe that Murtha had professed his opinion that the U.S. was more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran is indeed an attack.

In the light of Elizabeth Baier's correction, I hope that it has become clear to you that he did not do that.

Quote:
As a conservative, it may interest you to know that the following of your fellows have not yet retracted their remarks:

The original story came from Elizabeth Baier at SF Sun-Sentinel. If the ones basing their reporting on her journalism fail to issue a correction when their source does, they're merely lowsy journalists. Whether they have retracted their remarks is as important to the issue at hand as who funds the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Profess (Verb): Confess one's faith in, or allegiance to.

Murtha apparently did confess his faith in a likely biased Pew Charitable Trust poll. Else why cite it?

"You suddenly want direct quotes . . ."

Baloney. I'd have preferred direct quotes from the beginning. Unfortunately, Murtha refuses to issue them.

"Trying to make people believe that Murtha had professed his opinion that the U.S. was more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran is indeed an attack."

How is that an attack, unless the transcript shows he DISAGREES with the probably biased poll? Have you found that transcript yet? I haven't, tho diligently I've searched . . .

All I've found is what he says he 'really meant':

From Murtha's press release:

I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace.

No mention of any disagreement with the poll, therefore no proof of an attack . . . yet.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Murtha apparently did confess his faith in a likely biased Pew Charitable Trust poll. Else why cite it?

Could it possibly be to show what a, ahem, suboptimal PR job the US has been doing recently?

Quote:
Baloney. I'd have preferred direct quotes from the beginning. Unfortunately, Murtha refuses to issue them.

Murtha is working at SF Sun-Sentinel?

Quote:
How is that an attack, unless the transcript shows he DISAGREES with the probably biased poll?

Disagrees with what? The probability that the result of the poll may be accurate (as in: the majority in 10 out of 14 nations think this way) or the statement: "the US is more dangerous to world peace than [insert rouge nations here]"

Wait, he didn't seem to say on that very event that he disagrees with Osama Bin Laden either, so I guess it's open season on that one too.

Edited by: Galmin at: 7/3/06 22:54

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

'Misinterpretation' was loudly proclaimed so retractions were duly issued. No evidence of 'swiftboating' there. Charges of 'misinterpretation' can't be disproved with no transcript, so the prudent course of action is to issue a retraction. Everybody would prefer to hear the direct quotes from his speech instead of what he 'really meant', yet Murtha continues to refuse to issue them. I wonder why?

Until he does, people (you) have yet to offer any hard, non-circumstantial evidence of 'swiftboating'. You can't use a retraction as evidence of swiftboating, even if you repeat the word 'swiftboating' until your bottom lip falls off.

Off on holiday now. I hope you've got something other than inadmissible circumstantial evidence to offer by the time I return.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711