Fat Steve's Blatherings

Saturday, November 19, 2005

'What Do You Mean, the Memory Hole is Bust and Can't be Fixed?'

        The New York Times tried to rewrite history, in an effort to help Rep. Murtha and the Democrats.

        Alas, the multiple record of the Internet defeats them, at Discriminations.

        I feel SO sorry for them.

        Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .


THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

3 Comments:

  • I feel so sorry for you.

    Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha’s resolution:

    Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:

    Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

    Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

    Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

    The GOP then entered a revised resolution:

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

    Section 1. Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

    The distortion is clear.Where does the GOP get off "expressing the sense" of someone else's proposal?

    By Blogger Frederick, at 6:25 AM  

  • Mr. Bieling:

            I thank you for your sympathy, but I must say, I miss your point.

            The post dealt with the New York Times, which kept changing what its story said.  I don't see the relevance to my posts of the stuff you quote.

            But since you bring up Mr. Murtha's resolution, and the one the Republicans forced a vote on, I must say I think it's a distinction without a difference.

            Murtha:

    "Resolved . . . The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq . . . is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

            GOP:
    "Resolved . . . that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

            'Earliest practicable date' sure sounds like immediately to me, as it did to the Times, and to Eleanor Clift in Newsweek.  Am I supposed to take it as 'They leave when Bush thinks its OK?'  That sounds like the policy we already have.  If Murtha's resolution doesn't mean immediately, and doesnt't meant 'When Bush feels like it,' then what does it mean?

            "A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region."  I think this means that the troops, or some of them, get to leave but not come home.  Instead, an unspecified number will stay in an unspecified, where in the event of
    something or other it will quickly react to do whatever it's supposed to do — kill people and break things, I imagine.  I'm sure being located hours or days away from the battlefield, with inadequate training room and no contact with the Iraqi civilians, will enhance combat performance of the quick reaction force.  I'm sure the Easter Bunny is real too.

            And then we get to section three, where diplomacy will somehow magically turn things around.  I'm sure the beheaders, the wedding bombers, and dictatorial neighbors of Iraq will love this idea.

            But the whole thing does sum up Murtha nicely.  He wants to run, while stayin in one place; to pull the troops out while having them stay there.  To negotiate with those sworn to destroy our way of life.

    The House of Saud Must Be Destroyed!

    By Blogger Stephen M. St. Onge, at 2:26 PM  

  • Fred:

            Since you objected to people putting words in Murtha's mouth, here's what he said on his website:
            The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.  Our military is suffering.  The future of our country is at risk.  We can not continue on the present course.  It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. . . .

            Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years.  Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. . . .

            I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.”  I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize.  I believe the same today.  But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. . . .

            I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.  All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free.  Free from United States occupation.  I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

    My plan calls:

    To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
    To create a quick reaction force in the region.
    To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. 
    To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

    [italics to distinguish Murtha's words from mine. My emphasis via boldtext]

            If you maintain that Rep. Murtha is calling for something other than immediate withdrawal, I'd like to see the argument.

    The House of Saud Must Be Destroyed!

    By Blogger Stephen M. St. Onge, at 9:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home