Captain's Quarters -

We are all involved in Guernica styled warfare, isn't that the only effective way to fight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

Seems Obama's choo-choo has chugged off the track. While no one wants to "debate" the silk pony.

Heck, I'm not complaining.

Seems Bush's numbers are going UP. And, that's good news for the GOP. No need to run from Bush, anymore.

But Obama? Gosh, the Bonkeys sure have been hitting the bottom of their barrel. No wonder there's nothing left but the pork.

My ex must have been a democrat, his attitude was just like most of theirs: Our opinions are FACT, your facts are WRONG.

great work cap'n!

also:

many of the stats on afghans killed come from provinces run by those sympathetic to alQ and Taliban, and they are not to be trusted.

many of the civ death are people the enemy puts in danger on purposes as they HIDE AMONG CIV in direct violation of Geneva.

obama is wrong.

and on this: so is allahpundit.

BTW:

FOR SOME UNKNOWN AND ILLOGICAL REASON, OBAMA SEEMS TO WANTS US TO REVERSE OUR MILITARY PROFILES IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ:

HE WANTS A SMALL FOOTPRINT IN IRAQ AND MORE AIR, AND HE WANTS MORE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN AND LESS AIR.

AND HE WANTS TO USE AIR AND TROOPS AGAINST PAKISTAN.

IF THERE WAS A SHRED OF MILITARY SUPPORT FOR THIS THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE DOING.

MORE HYPOCRISY:

WE HAVE MORE OF AN AN INTERNATIONAL FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN THAN IRAQ.

HE SEEMS TO WANT TO REVERSE THAT TOO.

IS THERE A SHRED OF LOGIC IN WHAT HE'S ARGUING!?

IS THERE A SHRED OF MILITARY REASONING!?

NO:

IT'S ALL JUST A BUNCH OF NEGATIVIST BS JUST TO BE CRITICAL OF BUSH.

(OF COURSE: WE ALL WANT OUR AIRSTRIKES TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE EVERYWHERE.)

"And didn't the AP used to be a news agency?"

Really? Are you sure? Must have been before my time....

It's apparent that the oft quoted "multiple layers of fact checking" is a figment of the MSM's imagination.

So obama says this:
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"

Obviously he wasn't implying that there are no ground troops. Reasonable people would understand this comment to mean Obama doesn't believe there are enough ground troops in Afghanistan; not that there are none.

Reasonable people would also understand that he is implying that too much of what we are doing is relying on bombing, which has ended up killing more civilians than the enemy we're fighting there. We killed 280 some civilians according to the AP, and militants have killed 230.

This should be understood as saying: If we kill civilians due to our use of bombs as one of the main strategies, then maybe we should choose a different strategy.

That would be what reasonable people would infer from the quote. Of course the RNC believes it to be an insult to the troops. Spin is ridiculous.

I'm sorry. What part of "Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians" don't you understand?

When I was in school the word "just" as in "not JUST air raiding villages" meant that we were only dropping bombs or firing rockets.
Of corse I'm old. I haven't seen any Mastodons lately. Maybe the meaning of "just" has changed, ask ck.

I don't get the need to "fact check" the statement that we are killing civilians. I'm sure everyone knows that civilians have been killed in Afghanistan (although it might be somewhat of an open question as to who is or isn't a "civilian" in the ordinary sense of that word). Nor do I understand why it was necessary to compare how many civilians we've killed vs. the insurgents since that wasn't even addressed by Obama from what I can tell. I don't believe there is truly a way to know that accurately anyway.

As a reasonable person, I inferred from the Senator's comments that he views our military strategy in Afghanistan to be primarily limited to pointless bombing missions and indiscriminate killing of civilians. He believes our strategy has no real purpose and little positive effect. Is he right? I don't know, I don't have the background to say. But then neither does he.

Pickler is obviously carrying water for The Dope. No surprises there. Can you imagine the screams of outrage if (for example) Brit Hume provided a similar "fact checking service" for Bush or Cheney?

O' course, the ONLY reason she's performing such a selfless act is because we right wingers are at once too stupid to grasp the (wait for it!) nuance of The Dope's statements but smart enough to (gasp!) possibly convince "middle America" that The Dope is not only wrong on defense matters, he's dangerously uninformed and outright stupid on the subject.

Say, now that I think of it... Aren't the libs who are desperately parsing The Dope's statement to PROVE that he didn't really mean what he said the same libs who flatly refuse to believe that "Mission Accomplished!" means ANYTHING other than, "We won the war in Iraq because I'm a genius and we'll never have any casualties ever again and Iraq is a model democracy"?

Keep in mind that a terrorist is always a civilian when the AP wants to help Democrats condemn the US military.

That's when they are referred to in the abstract. When the story is directly about killing them in combant, then they are called 'militants' and 'gunmen.'

I'm quite certain that a great many of these civilians we are supposed to have killed in Afghanistan are Taliban and others waging illegal war. Illegal precisely because they are "civilians."

Which is exactly why the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them.

Uh oh. We're getting into another of those logic loops that the Left can't handle ...

"I'm quite certain that a great many of these civilians we are supposed to have killed in Afghanistan are Taliban and others waging illegal war."

Lloyd, I'm more than "quite certain" -- I'm positive -- that that is the case since I know people directly involved in bombing incidents in which members of the Taliban killed by airstrikes have been listed as civilians by the Afghan government and/or NGOs. As I mentioned in the previous post on this subject, my son is a tactical air controller whose job it is to direct bombs on target and they do not bomb if there are any civilians known to be in the target area (and they do check). But dead "militants" have shown up in the civilian death total more than once.

I think that a lot of this type of distraction could be averted if we took a more honest political approach to the war. That is to say that the war is just, and in the interest of our national security. As for those that are being harmed by the war -- that's really their problem -- not ours.

We offer virtually anyone the ability to share in our security. Those that fail to do so are largely making bad decisions of their own.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not pleased by civilian dealths. I put the emphesis for their safety in their own hands and less so in our hands.

In other words, get the F*&^ out of harms way. If, as an American Citizen, I found myself in the midst of a group of wanted criminals, I would take action to make sure the police were aware. I would not be in harms way when the police arived because I would be the guy that called them.

These

No, the only ones parsing this statement are on the right wing. You guys want so badly to say the democrats are against the troops that you commonly take a quote and spin it so badly that you actually believe democrats hate the troops.

Set aside for a moment that Obama is running for president, and that pretty much throws out the chance that he would knowingly trash our troops (political suicide); and what do you have left? What's left is obvious except to those who want to feel as if he's a bad person. What's left is that he didn't phrase his statement in a way that would secure him from right wing attacks. So the right wing attacks. What's left is the same damn thing that most others have been saying for years. We need to focus more on Afghanistan.

For the side of the political sphere that despises political correctness, you guys sure do seem to utilize it a lot.

On one hand, Obama's right in a way, as was noted by Gen Mackenzie of the Canadian Forces:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=027ba0b7-225a-4f0d-9e3f-ae581b5478a0

We (that is, NATO and everyone else) have nowhere near enough forces in Afghanistan to get the job done.

Certainly we need more boots on the ground, and perhaps that means we're doing more bombing than we otherwise might, though typically one uses airpower in an effort to mitigate one's ground forces getting shot at (and potentially killed.)

Nonetheless, if that's what he meant, that's not quite what Obama said, and it's certainly not what his flack said. It would have been nice if the AP had done their job rather than just spinning.

Obama is making one rookie mistake after another. If he continues his slide towards the cliff, he will ruin any chance he had of running under Hillary as the VP.

Actually ck; Liberals making stupid thoughtless comments regarding our military apparatus; our soldiers; our president, is so common these days that it's not even worth a bit of a surprise or a bit of a shocker. Hillary won't make those mistakes; she is seasoned enough to know that the independent voters will not be impressed by this tactic, and the moderates will flat out reject the notion that our warriors are murderers, rapist, and torturers. Have at it, but keep our soldiers out of the pissing match that goes on between the two parties. Without our soldiers, this country is toast.

ck

Obama has not been saying things that make good sense to me or to other Democrats. He has no ground to stand on in his sudden desire to create a winning strategy in our war. His best approach would be to come out and say that he supports the war and that he supports our military's ability to conclude it.

That would be a wise statement from a politician. He hasn't said anything of the sort -- instead he insults the military by supposing that he has a plan that will win where theirs failed (which it hasn't.)

Our military knows how to get this done -- they really do. The politicians need to collectively shut up and say, "we will give them what they need -- we will allow for their expertise."

Obama is being criticized by all of the Democratic candidates – it’s only reasonable to expect that the Republicans would criticize also.

Keemo - I don't think its so much that democrats are saying bad things about the military, I believe its more that right wingers try to take most comments out of context so that they can gain political leverage and make people like you think democrats hate the troops and only want us to fail. Apparently it's worked since I've heard you say those same sentiments on multiple occasions.

Of course, though, politicians talk so much they're bound to say stupid things every now and then. This is not only democrats, all politicians.

Capt Ed: "I'm sorry. What part of "Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians" don't you understand?"

I haven't seen that quote. You said it, but its not linked anywhere in your piece. So I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on what Obama actually said.

ck: "No, the only ones parsing this statement are on the right wing. "

You could actually be halfway correct. The left wing isn't parsing it at all. The left wing hasn't parsed a sentence in years.

No need. It's all one big narrative. Facts do not penetrate.

ck

Democrats are saying bad things about the military. Ried, Pelosie, Murtha are being horrid towards the military and clearly in a political way that is meant to make GWB43 look bad. They are saying bad things in the worst possible way -- refuting it while they are saying it.

They say, "I support the troops --not the war." To me, that's like saying I like the team but not the sport, or I like the team but not the coach.

You can not be in support of the troops and against their commander. It's an oxy-moron.

You can not be in support of the troops and against their mission. It's an oxy-moron.

I'm a Democrat who has also voted Republican. I don't like the politics that I'm seeing right now -- not one bit. The President belongs to the country, not a party. If he were a Democrat I would expect these Republicans to fall in line and shut their mouth -- if we were at war.

Good one bostonian -

Eric: You don't sound like a democrat to me. I'm not a democrat either, I'm liberally independent. But Eric you sound like a republican trying to feign being a democrat. Most democrats I know don't like what Obama said about Pakistan, but they surely know that this war was ill-advised to begin with (as Dick Cheney pointed out in 94), and that it has been run extremely poorly. For you to say nearly the opposite wither means you aren't a democrat or you aren't paying attention.

Keemo said:

Actually ck; Liberals making stupid thoughtless comments regarding our military apparatus; our soldiers; our president, is so common these days that it's not even worth a bit of a surprise or a bit of a shocker. Hillary won't make those mistakes; she is seasoned enough to know that the independent voters will not be impressed by this tactic, and the moderates will flat out reject the notion that our warriors are murderers, rapist, and torturers. Have at it, but keep our soldiers out of the pissing match that goes on between the two parties. Without our soldiers, this country is toast.

Eric says: Keemo -- you're right on the money. And a week after Hillary beats Obama and Edwards, Hillary will begin having conversations about a change of heart concerning the war and having discovered a new-found respect for our actions and our mission. You will see a real passion towards the war at that point.

Remember this prediction.

ck

I would suggest that it is you, sir, that is not a Democrat.

You like to put people in neat little files don't you? I guess that all GOP's hate gays and blacks, right?

I guess all Dems hate war, hate the military and think that Kerry really won the election, right?

I guess if I'm a dem I have to belong to a union and if I'm a GOP I light cigars with $100 bills and laugh at the poor, right?

I guess if I'm a GOP, I go to church everyday, but if I'm a Dem, I'm an atheist, right?

I think that I'll just do away with any form of political association as of right now.

I am now officially Independent.

Eric - no, I think you might just be an idiot if anything.

To try and claim you are a democrat is rather humorous. To say that all the people you mentioned are saying bad things about the military means you are probably getting your information from right wing sources. If that's true, I doubt you are a democrat. I told you why earlier, and I still believe it.

The funniest part, though, is your denunciation of all things democrat because of an independent poster on a right wing website (that's me)... Your ruse is amusing, but pitiful.

ck said:

Eric - no, I think you might just be an idiot if anything.

Eric Says:

Wow, ck. You're not making a freind of me. Sorry if I've insulted you in some way by expressing my opinions outside of the guidlines of what you view as acceptable Republican vrs. acceptable Democrat.

I think that if you do a little research into some of the other comment sections of this BLOG, you'll find that I've been supporting Hillary quite a bit -- last time I checked, she's a Democrat.

I'm a supporter of our current President and the GWOT. If President Bush or Cheney were running in 08, I would vote for one of them instead. But their not. Hillary is not opposed to the war -- read. Read what she writes.

Incidently, I'm moderate leaning conservative, like Hillary (or Rudy.)

Ever since Mayor Nanny Bloomberg declared hizzoner as an Independent, I'm a little skeptical of its meaning, let alone whether that's something trustworthy. Democrats i know want to take everyone's income, not sure about the Centtist voter, seems they want everyone else's income but leave their income alone.

In any case I don't believe the uber wealthy liberal greenwich Connecticutians will be visiting the hood anytime soon now that the Independent One is charging an 'access fee' to the city.

Based on what you said, Eric, you sound like a republican or an idiot of a democrat. Sorry. You say that the war hasn't failed, (we might be able to salvage Iraq, but the war has failed. We let too many people die and too much chaos. That's failure. We still can't even get the electricity to stay on over there. That's failure. Sure 5 years from now we might get it fixed, but we still failed the troops and the people in Iraq for way too long). You say that Murtha talks bad about the troops. What did Murtha say bad about the troops THAT WASN'T THE TRUTH? You might not want to hear about things like Abu Ghraib or our own soldiers killing a whole Iraqi family, but they need to be said.

You question the phrase: I support the troops but not the war. How can you question that? You really can't see how someone can care for the well being of American citizens who have to fight in a different country AND not want them to be fighting in the other country? Let me explain: The best way to keep them safe is to keep them away from war!!! Although I suppose you support the administration who has held back from getting them proper armor and equipment AND started the whole war in the first place. And please don't say that Iraq started the war with some vague connection to 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the war most people agreed we should be fighting -- the one in Afghanistan. In fact it took away from that war and has allowed Al-Qaeda to grow and expand all over the world.

You are so far off base its a bit disheartening. Try reading some things besides the NRO or whatever you read. And please stop pretending you are ideologically aligned with the left. You have made it apparent that you are ignorant to the facts, and your ideology lays well within the Republican's.

"You say that Murtha talks bad about the troops. What did Murtha say bad about the troops THAT WASN'T THE TRUTH?"

I'm no Murtha expert (not my Congressman and he seems like a typical old time, back room kind of pol) but I believe he called the Marines involved in the Haditha incident as "cold blooded killers". Some of them at least have since been acquitted or charges dropped against them. I don't know all the details but I think it's probably risky to label Murtha as the ultimate truth teller here. Some other Democrat perhaps but not Murtha

Based on what you said, Eric, you sound like a republican or an idiot of a democrat.

Seriously, cw, it’s not necessary to insult. We are all allowed to have opinions.

Sorry. You say that the war hasn't failed, (we might be able to salvage Iraq, but the war has failed. We let too many people die and too much chaos. That's failure.

No. Europe was in chaos following WWII. Korea, Japan – same.

We still can't even get the electricity to stay on over there.

When did that become our job?

That's failure. Sure 5 years from now we might get it fixed, but we still failed the troops and the people in Iraq for way too long).

Took a decade to get Korea working right. 5 years sounds okay to me. We are still in Korea, Germany and Japan.

You say that Murtha talks bad about the troops.

Hertha Marines.

What did Murtha say bad about the troops THAT WASN'T THE TRUTH?

Hertha Marines.

You might not want to hear about things like Abu Ghraib or our own soldiers killing a whole Iraqi family, but they need to be said.

I support keeping terrorist locked up in Abu Ghraib. I don’t care what happens to them. There are no American Citizens in Abu Ghraib. Only American Citizens are given rights through our constitution. If it was truly wrong, and not political, why hasn’t it been stopped?

You question the phrase: I support the troops but not the war. How can you question that? You really can't see how someone can care for the well being of American citizens who have to fight in a different country AND not want them to be fighting in the other country? Let me explain: The best way to keep them safe is to keep them away from war!!!

Maybe so in the short term – not in the long term. Our amazing American Soldiers are not concerned for their own safety – they are concerned for yours, and mine.

Although I suppose you support the administration who has held back from getting them proper armor and equipment AND started the whole war in the first place. And please don't say that Iraq started the war with some vague connection to 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the war most people agreed we should be fighting -- the one in Afghanistan. In fact it took away from that war and has allowed Al-Qaeda to grow and expand all over the world.

I do support the President. I’ve supported every President. Our nation has been blessed throughout its’ history by the right leadership at the right time. This time is no different. No, Iraq did not start the war – they failed to comply with a lawful order of the UN. America and 25 + other countries decided to enforce the UN mandate. We decided to have law and order. Afghanistan is also won in my opinion and will settle down with time.

You are so far off base its a bit disheartening.

We can let America decide at the next election who is and who is not off base. I am allowed to have an opinion. It is a right that is written into our constitution. It’s okay that we don’t agree. In the end, this type of discourse leads to compromise that ultimately makes America better. I support your right to dislike my opinion. I will not do anything to harm you for your opinion. Isn’t America the greatest!

Try reading some things besides the NRO or whatever you read.

I don’t know what NRO is. I read a lot. I do not rely on Television for my news or my opinion. I also like to have conversations with people and I sometimes alter my opinion based on what they have said. My conversation with you has not led to a change of opinion.

And please stop pretending you are ideologically aligned with the left.

I most certainly am not aligned with the left. If anything, I lean conservative. Most Democrats do. Clinton 42 was very conservative – more so than Bush 41 – less so than Bush 43. Clinton 44 is even more conservative. Carter was conservative during his presidency, until the end. In fact, America has never had a liberal President during my lifetime or any time that I can think of. Most Presidents are moderate. A few have been conservative (Reagan, Bush43.) It is the left that is damaging the Democratic Party, not my group. The DLC is what wrestled control from Republicans by being more conservative, not less conservative.

You have made it apparent that you are ignorant to the facts, and your ideology lays well within the Republican's.

I am not ignorant. I have an opinion. I read this BLOG because I enjoy the comments of some of the posters – many of whom are Republican. I have many friends who are more conservative than me. I don’t publicly criticize them for their beliefs because it’s not my place to judge them. Sometimes, when the time is right, I try to influence them to see things a little more my way. If they don’t – that’s okay. I also have friends who are more liberal than me and the same applies to them.

Posted by: ck at August 14, 2007 8:25 PM

The End is Near

Didn't the prophet Daniel warn us of the coming Obamination of Desolation?

Bennett - He did say that; after 24 civilians were killed in Haditha after a roadside bomb struck one of the marines vehicles.

Murtha wasn't the only one: "John Kline, the Republican Congressmen for Minnesota who is a retired marine colonel, was briefed on the findings. "This was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians," he told the New York Times. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Why isn't anyone trashing John Kline?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687/
"WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity."

So was it not true?

Eric - your responses are laughable and sound just like what the right wing pundits say. Sorry for calling you an idiot, I should have said you were ignorant.

When did getting electricity to work in Iraq become our job? --- Maybe after we bombed the hell out of their infrastructure. Or disbanded the government. Maybe because we can't get security for Iraq which allows for further attacks on the infrastructure?

Europe in WW2 is not Iraq in 2003. The point was that it was possible to have done the war right, or at least better. Planning for after the war was not extensive and apparently not right. It was possible to do it right, and we didn't. That's a check against this administration.

You say only American citizens are given rights by our constitution. You are ignorant beyond belief if that's what you're basing your thoughts on. I'm not even going to argue with a fake democrat trying to say that we can torture Iraqis as long as it is in Iraq and its not Americans. You're sick.

Our Amazing soldiers are not concerned for their own safety? What fantasy world do you live in? You make yourself look worse and worse the more you talk. Yeah, the soldiers don't give a damn for their own lives... You're insane.

Don Miguel -- your son is a hero!

ck

I think you and I should just stop talking.

That would probably be a good thing... How about you stop lying about how diverse you are, and actually start picking up some legitimate books and articles on current events. Also, if you don't give a damn about what happens to Iraqis (as you said about Abu Ghraib), then why the hell did you want to send our troops over there to die for them?

Wait, I know! It's because (as you said) our troops don't care if they die or not. So if our troops don't care of they die or not, why not use them to die for us... right?

You said worse things about our troops in a couple paragraphs than any democrat has said in the last 5 years. You are truly unbelievable, and I'm very glad this conversation is now over. Good riddance -

CK, I believe the article you quote from is outdated. Again, I am no expert on the Haditha situation but a quick review of more current news finds as follows:

"A Marine general dropped criminal charges facing two of the seven Marines accused in connection with the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha, and said the killings had been "exhaustively reviewed," Marine spokesmen announced Thursday. Lt. Gen. James Mattis decided that neither Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, an accused triggerman, nor Capt. Randy Stone, accused of failing to push for an investigation of the deaths which included women and little children, will face court-martial...Two Marine infantryman and three officers, whose cases are not as far along in the legal process as Sharratt and Stone, are still fighting to get charges against them dismissed. The Haditha cases center on the rules of engagement, which direct troops as to when they can shoot."

When the incident first occurred, before it had been investigated, Murtha stated that the troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

I'm sure others are far more familiar with the Haditha situation than I am but I don't know any way that you can characterize Murtha's statement except as painting every Marine involved with a very broad brush and rushing to judgment as to the facts before they were known. Does this make him a liar? Perhaps not but it does make him at least injudicious in his public statements about a controversial event.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/09/military/1_00_908_7_07.txt

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_521435.html

This is a thread about Obama so I'm going to leave it at that.

For the room.

A few facts about Iraq and Afghanistan that I think are important.

1) The GDP of Afghanistan has increased 400% in the years following the American led invasion. Women are being educated for the first time in decades. The brutal Taliban is no longer in control.

2) Iraq had very little electrical power before we got started. They had very little use for it either. Since the Invasion, the income of the average Iraqi has increased 700% which has put a huge strain on the electric grid because the first thing they did (understandably) was to go out and buy electrical appliances that have not been widely available. Engineers are working non-stop to attempt to rebuild and restart very old Russian power plants. This takes time -- and they are hero’s just like our troops. The US has built over 500 schools although none were destroyed in the invasion.

3 America really has not wiped out the Iraqi electrical grid. The US military was very careful about this. They did not strike civilian targets. In fact, the initial "shock and awe" campaign was a remarkably controlled event. Al Quida, however, has been working in Iraq to kill the power system. They cut lines, as fast as American engineers are able to rebuild them. That will end with time -- I think.

4 Zero terrorist event in the US since we decided to take the fight over there.

I don’t like having words put in my mouth – but I have confidence in the intellect of the room.

ck

WHY are you posting a 1 year old story from a non objective news source? At least post something from this year.

I confussed Abu Ghraib with the prision in Cuba. I retract my statement about Abu Ghraib as it was meant about Guantanamo. I know that's a really dumb mistake -- sorry.

Hey, CK!

The last time I heard someone make as many excuses (denial) as you do, it was a eight year-old kid.

Ok few responses here -
Del Delmonte - The story I posted clearly shows that Murtha was not the only one of the belief that the Marines had acted improperly in killing 24 civilians. No matter how you say that (i.e. cold blooded or not) merely saying marines killed 24 innocent civilians is an indictment. What you guys can't grasp for some reason, is that even the court found compelling evidence to bring them to trial. And they are still awaiting trial as far as I know. So all we really know is that 24 innocent civilians were killed by our marines. Instead of trying to make sure that never happens again, you guys seem to believe that Murtha saying it was in cold blood is somehow worse than actually killing 24 innocent civilians.

Also, you guys must have missed your republican counterparts saying the same damn things: Murtha wasn't the only one: "John Kline, the Republican Congressmen for Minnesota who is a retired marine colonel, was briefed on the findings. "This was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians," he told the New York Times. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Eric, I accept mistakes are made. Thanks for acknowledging it. But that makes me wonder about Guantanamo. My problem with Guantanamo is that they never get a trial. If they never get a trial, then how the hell can we be sure that they are really guilty? That's my problem. Otherwise I don't care about locking up real terrorists. Just make sure they are real and not just there because we didn't translate right or something.

As far as your little list - I will rebut with the real facts:
1. Afghanistan - You are flat out wrong (unless you are counting selling opium?). The real non-drug inflated value of the GDP has risen 29% in the first year, 16% 2nd year, and 8% the third year. Nowhere near the 400 percent you stated. LINK

Also, Afghanistan has been in wars for something like 30 years. That decreased the GDP considerably. Then in 2000 and 2001 there were severe droughts there which greatly reduced the main aspect of their GDP which was Agriculture. You seem to have not looked into all the factors... again!
If you read into it, you will see that Opium is one of their main cash sources, and that the U.S. construction efforts are part of the upgrading of the GDP.
Either way, Afghanistan is where we should be. Imagine if we put even more effort there, they might really see progress!

2. Again you are merely flat out wrong. I have to ask where the hell you're looking?
The Truth: Iraq's electricity was BELOW pre-war levels. LINK
and right now its not much better: Link

Your excuse that Iraqis went out to buy new electrical equipment and therefore created some sort of overwhelming demand on the power grid is horrible! It's really really disgusting that you would make something like that up, and shows just how little you really know about the situation.

3. Did the U.S. target the power grid? Nope - never said they did. But they also didn't protect it. The plan failed, they failed in protecting the infrastructure in place. They could have done it if they had more troops on the ground or merely had a comprehensive war plan. But they didn't and now the Iraqis are paying the price.

4. 0 terrorists attacks in the U.S. since. First, this is the most ridiculous fact that the most ridiculous people always love to bring up. The easiest way to dispute that argument is to show you how long of a time frame there normally is between terrorist attacks on the U.S. Soil. It's about 4-5 years. A time frame we are only barely past.
Secondly, there have been more terrorist attacks throughout the world since we started these wars than before. By a long shot!!! More Americans have died, and more bombs have gone off.

You have no sense of context buddy...

BTW Eric, i replied to your informational post with the true information (hint: Afghanistan only sees 400 percent GDP growth if you include all the opium they sell and many other tidbits you have completely wrong)... I think the post was a bit long, though, and it got automatically held up for approval. So I suppose you'll have to wait until Ed allows it to go through.

Sorry, i know you were eager to see it. Basically though, you're wrong again. Look it up...

Hey Sharpshooter!
Last time someone said something like you just did, they didn't actually read the thread!!

how bout them apples.

Well stated Captain.

Yes, Obama's statement is absurd, but probably targets the real belief of a many of the Democrat Loyalists.

Really sick to think how biased the AP has become...

This is not journalism.

But when we focus only on the pathetic expression of Obama, we miss the other ugly Democrats at work.

Hillary Clinton's AD is absolutely just as misguided.

------------------------

"If you're a family that is struggling and you don't have health care, you are invisible to this president," the New York senator says in the ad. "If you're a single mom trying to find affordable child care so you can go to work, you're invisible too."

The ad also argued that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "invisible" to Bush.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/W/WHITE_HOUSE_CLINTON?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME

----------------------

This is an outrage, and the ugly politics of the Clintons will continue to bring the entire Nation down, for as long as they are encouraged.

Well, hopefully Obama will prosecute all those war criminals, from the pilots right up to ex-President Bush, when he becomes President.

And, while he's at it, is there a statute of limitations for war criminals? If there isn't (which I think is the case), he ought to pull in John Kerry and all Kerry's peers the good Senator "swiftboated" in the '70s and prosecute them too.

Then we can march proudly into Darfur and clean the place up (at least until the first soldier dies).

The oddest part, of course, about Obama's comment is that if you're sensitive about casualties among your ground forces then you use lots of airpower.

This has one of two results: either you have a lot of collateral damage including dead civilians (Cologne, Hiroshima, etc) or your operations end up marginal to ineffective (Serbia.)

If you put boots on the ground you accept the fact that some percentage of those soldiers are going to get shot up.

But that, too, is anathema to Obama's boosters, as well as to the leadership of most of those NATO nations we've carried on our backs since 1945.

It's clear that Democrats love, respect, and support the troops.

Murtha says they're cold-blooded murderers, and they've failed in Iraq.

Obama's people say all they're doing in Afghanistan is bombing civilians.

Durbin says they're as bad as Nazis or Soviet gulag guards.

Reid says they've lost the war in Iraq, and General Petraeus is a liar.

Kerry says those don't do well in school will end up stuck in Iraq, and our troops are terrorizing Iraqi civilians.

Rangel says the only people who join the military are those who can't make it elsewhere.

Clinton wants them to withdraw from Iraq in a rout, while under fire, abandoning their heavy weapons and betraying all the Iraqi soldiers and cops fighting at their side.

Pelosi wants to force them to surrender because she says they've failed in Iraq.

The Democratic-controlled Congress withheld troop funding for months, preventing Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from being shipped to Iraq.

I've never seen such love. Never.

Only a crazy right winger would accuse Democrats of not caring about the troops.

consisted "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians."

Say, wasn't that the military strategy of Clinton and Wesley Clark in Bosnia? How'd that work out?

So, Nedra has a new crush in Obama. I bet that John Kerry is absolutely devastated.

I second the motion that the "innocent civilian" numbers are as phony as the "poor suffering Palestinians" vs. Israeli deaths casualty figures -- that invariably include suicide bombers and militia fighters in the count.

One more thing. If there are massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan caused by American bombing -- why are there not a plethora of "green helmut guy" photos from the Afghan area on the wire services?

So what you're saying is - you don't want to fact check his entire statement, because it might look bad? And, why doesn't NRO do it either?
"Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops"

And perhaps - just perhaps - he was making an overly dramatic statement to accentuate how much he disagrees with his oppositions strategy? Nahhh, politicians never do that. And he was in no way making accusations of war crimes - nowhere does he say that bombing of civilians is intentional.

Someone was asking for a link with a correction.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070814/NEWS08/208140358/-1/news08

Best I could find on short notice. My guess is this is not all of it.

Ack, dropped a paragraph. Check up on Salon's (obviously biased, because it comes from Salon) writeup recently about the change in procedures for the "magic number" of civilian casualties. And, how non-US NATO forces have a more strict operational rules than US forces.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/30/collateral_damage/

Sorry ck,

when Obama says "just bombing", it takes a really weird interpretation of english to read that as anything other than a claim that bombing is all we are doing.

Eric,

You don't get it. You are allowed your opinion, but only if you check it with the commisar first.

CK--

Neither the war nor the President has failed. The failure is in half the citizenry, the half that includes you.

Yeah, you're smart. You're not good.

Read the following words spoken by the enemy of freedom; enemy of the western way of life.

Iran-Afghanistan-Ahmadinejad

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.

President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.

"Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks."
He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan," he added.

The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.

This ideology is exactly what we face in this enemy; the failure of Obama and all Liberals to publicly denounce these statements, while recognizing the real reasons-causes for the attacks of 9/11, is proof positive that these Democrats-Liberals are not the right people to lead our nation at this time in our history. Obama makes one dumb ass statement after another regarding the realities of this war and the bravery of our soldiers; Hillary has yet to come up with ONE single plan for an American victory against this enemy. These people are as dangerous to our way of life as the ideology that controls the souls of our enemy.

It is true that it is difficult to talk for a living, as presidential candidates do, and not say something ill-advised or intemperate sooner or later. Obama is not immune to the law of averages any more than the next guy. But neither is he immune to the first rule of holes, and that one he seems to be blissfully unaware of.

The Obama campaign's arrogance is testament to the challenges of youth and inexperience. I think it's good that the qualification boundry gets tested on a regular basis, and that we (the public) are reminded of what is and is not ready for prime time.

Compare and contrast the raw and clumsy message coming from the Obama campaign to the massive essay released by Rudy's team in the last couple of days. They aren't in the same league.

Is anyone keeping track of how many times the media and left has trashed the miltary in the last four years?

This is really nothing even close to being a "news" story because it's almost identical to what I get from the DNC in the email "updates."

Note about CK. "It" can't even accept someone saying they are independent or Democrat. If CK can't accept somone's own definition of themselves, it leads one to conclude CK has a narrative and facts or other's opinions are irrelevant.

solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.

There it is totally out of context.

Let us do the PC deconstruction:

solely - this means A plus B and C not A only

air raids - this includes infantry attacks and Naval attacks where required

bombing - also means shooting

civilians - widows and orphans

Obama is continuing to contradict himself on this issue. He stated he would bring in more troops into Afghanistan and stop relying on air strikes as they kill civilians yet has also stated that he would use air strikes in Pakistan which would undoubtedly kill civilians. How can Obama oppose the use of air strikes on the Afghanistan side of the border yet support their use in Pakistan when both the terrain and social conditions are the same? Ether he doesn't understand much about the region or he's being deliberately misleading about his policy.

I would like to point out to the Obama supporters that one can only surmise that Obama policy would be to use bomb targets in Pakistan but not Afghanistan. It was only a few weeks ago when Obama supporters repeated incessantly that Obama did not state an intention to invade Pakistan with US troops when he made statements that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.", remember? Since it is apparent that he wouldn't invade with troops, that only leaves air strikes of the kind Obama now says in ineffective and bad policy.

Obama doesn't have a good understanding of the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan and he doesn't even remember what his own policies are from week to week.

No, Obama's trying to play the old 'surgical war' game so beloved of the supposedly-responsible fragment of the Left, the idea that somehow you can have a war and no one - not your own troops, not the 'civilians', maybe not even the enemy if you can buy them off - get hurt.

"Opium is one of their main cash sources"

Tell me CK, would you support sending thousands of troops into, oh, say Colombia and/or other South American countries as they are the leading producers of coca plants which are used to produce cocaine? It seems to me that you do as you believe we need to increase our military in Afghanistan to reduce the production of opium amongst other needs, like increasing civilian infrastructure. Oh, that is also needed in South America as well since a lot of the people in South America don't have access to reliable electricity, good roads, proper medical facilities, etc. Shouldn't we send tens of thousands of troop into South America to help them root out left wing and right wing extremists, as well as criminal originations, and stop the killing of civilians that still occurs on an almost daily basis? If it would be good policy in Afghanistan, wouldn't it also be good policy in South America?

I must say that ck never disappoints. After months of reading his posts, his ability to boggle the mind continues unabated.

Let's leave aside his accusations that Eric isn't REALLY a democrat (as Sean Connery said to Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables", who would claim to be THAT who is not?) and look at ck's post (August 14, 2007 7:11 PM) defending The Dope:

Set aside for a moment that Obama is running for president, and that pretty much throws out the chance that he would knowingly trash our troops (political suicide)...

1. "Trashing the troops" is nothing new to the democrats, as I think that Tom W. amply demonstrates (August 15, 2007 12:45 AM)

2. It is hardly political suicide for a democrat to talk in this fashion. John Kerry publicly, officially, loudly, and on numerous occasions trashed the troops after he came home from Vietnam. Not only is he basically a senator for life (unless Teresa kicks him to the curb and cuts off the money), he was the dems' presidential nominee. I expect Jack Al-Murtha and Dick Turban Durbin to be reelected, too.

3. Right now, Obama is running for the nomination, which (like any candidate during primary season) means he has to court the extremists of his party. Extreme lefties in America have no problems with trashing the troops; they hate the military.

4. Obama can safely rely on the MSM to cover for him. After all, the AP went out of it's way to "fact check" the criticism of his statement. Nice of them, don't you think?

5. He's a politician who can be expected to claim, "I wasn't trashing the troops; I was criticizing the president's failed strategy" (It depends on what the meaning of "is" is). After all, he didn't say explicitly that "the troops" are raiding villages and killing civilians. This ties in with the dems' recurring view of American soldiers as ignorant, mind-numbed robots who will do ANYTHING that the eeevil Bushitler orders them to do. Witness Abu Ghraib and even the reaction to generals talking about progress in Iraq: "They're only saying that because Bush told them to!"

What's left is obvious except to those who want to feel as if he's a bad person.

Oh, WAAAAH! We're making poor Obama look like he's a BAD PERSON. What a bunch of meanies we are! (For what it's worth, I don't think he's a bad person, merely a garden variety idiot) It's not like this is par for the course in American politics. What the hell has the left done for the past six years but make George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove out to be "bad people"?

The fact of the matter is that Obama said something stupid. It wouldn't matter so much except for the facts that:

1. It comes hard on the heels of his idiotic promise to attack Pakistan if we have "actionable intelligence" that al Qaeda is there, and;

2. He not only failed to clarify his remarks, he's absolutely standing by them.

What he should have said in the first place - and could have said by way of clarification - is pretty simple:

"We don't have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan, forcing us to rely heavily on airpower to attack the terrorists. Despite the best efforts of our pilots, bombs and missiles sometimes go astray, causing casualties among the civilian population. Further, the terrorists hide among the civilian population, making it inevitable that even the most accurately-delivered air attack will kill innocent people. An American soldier with a rifle is much more selective than a 500 lbs bomb."

But no. What he said was:

"Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

See the difference? No? Well, I guess that's a bit much to ask.

Captain Ed,

You have converted a paraphrased passage:

Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.

Into a quotation:

His campaign confirmed Obama's analysis of the Bush policy, which Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin said consisted "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians." [emphasis yours]

Not so, Hubris.

Consider the following, from Nedra Pickler's article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_el_pr/obama_afghanistan_fact_check

Behind the scenes, Obama's rival campaigns buzzed about his statement uttered Monday during a campaign stop in New Hampshire when he was asked about his plan to move troops into Afghanistan.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said.

This would indicate that it was Obama, and not his spokesman, who made the statement.

Similarly, in this article, it is Obama who is quoted:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Earlier this month, Obama drew criticism when he said he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission, if warranted.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/wireStory?id=3475874

So, either the AP gets it wrong again (in which case, one has to wonder exactly how two separate writers from the AP, writing two separate articles, could make the same mistake).

Or, Obama did indeed say it, and the spin is on.

"..(we might be able to salvage Iraq, but the war has failed. "

Ah, I was wondering how the Dems would handle a U.S. victory in Iraq. So now we see how it will be spun.

If the Petraeus report is a positive one, and the Iraqi's keep improving; the Dems will say ' Well, it took too long. It was too costly. '

Keep moving those goalposts, boys and girls.

Lurking Observer,

You're conflating the "just" quotation from Obama and the "solely" paraphrase of Obama's spokesman. Ed is focusing on the latter, but presenting it as a quotation rather than a paraphrase. From the post:

His campaign confirmed Obama's analysis of the Bush policy, which Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin said consisted "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians."
-------
Besides, Obama and his campaign didn't just say that civilians had been killed in Afghanistan. He claimed that it was Bush policy to kill civilians and that his strategy consisted "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians." What's the best way to fact-check that statement?

Are you suggesting that "just" and "solely" do not mean the same thing?

Or are you simply noting that the Captain should have quoted Obama' s use of the term "just" and not his spokesperson's use of the term "solely"?

If the latter, I agree, the Captain would have done better to have specifically quoted Obama, but that's a distinction without a difference (i.e., the thrust of his arguments do not change).

If the former, I refer you to Webster's.

More the latter, although the words have different shades of meaning. "Solely" is more precise vis-a-vis the-exclusion-of everything-else meaning. As to a distinction without a difference, that smacks too much of fake-but-accurate for my refined tastes.

For all I know, that spokesman might have said "solely," but it is presented as a paraphrase and I don't think skepticism of media should be selective.

So, Hubris, what do you make of Obama's comment?

Or are you here primarily to watch-dog everyone's quotations?

Not that there's anything wrong w/ that.

I think it was ill-considered because it didn't specify that the civilian casualties inflicted by the US are of an unintentional collateral nature, but I don't think by the omission Obama intended to say that American forces are deliberately targeting civilians. The lack of such a distinction in the AP article comparison is worse to my mind because it is an article rather than an on-the-fly comment, and seeks to set up a direct comparison.

I think Obama was a really good guy until Tony Rezko of the Nation of Islam got a hold of him.

Fair enough, Hubris.

I'm not so sure about whether Obama meant or knew what he said, with regards to deliberately targeting civilians. (That certainly can be one interpretation of what he said.)

But I can see your view of it, and agree with you regarding the AP's subsequent spin.

FOB: "Note about CK. "It" can't even accept someone saying they are independent or Democrat. If CK can't accept somone's own definition of themselves, it leads one to conclude CK has a narrative and facts or other's opinions are irrelevant."

If Eric wants to say he is a democrat, that's fine. If he wants to act like he believes in the ideology most of the left does, and yet still support Bush, he is lying. Simple as that.

Docjim tries to counter my arguments with a bunch of propaganda.
Let me shorten your post doc: Liberals ALWAYS trash our troops.
So, that's said. The problem is that most of the time its not liberals saying horrible things about the troops, it's right wingers taking their quotes out of context and trying to make everyone believe liberals hate the troops.

And you have to love how the words liberals speak are somehow so much worse than actually sending the troops to war - Or worse than not supplying them the right equipment to keep them safe - Or worse than losing 240,000 weapons which are not circulating in the hands of the insurgents and are killing our troops.... NO, the worst thing in the world is John Kerry botching a joke and the right wingers spinning it as some sort of insult to the troops --- right?

BTW Eric - I'm awaiting you correcting your facts -

Sorry to retrun so late..

Sorry, ck. You did NOT answer my question. Posting a year-old "news" story doesn't cut it now unless facts have changed since that time that support the original story. And the facts since a year ago have discredited not only the story you quote, but also your hero Jack Murtha. What are you, his son-in-law? LOL

And quoting one minor Republican member of Congress (one that no one has ever heard of, as opposed to Murtha who hae been made a national "hero" by the military hating press a la Wesley Clark)-simply because he opposes one particular war-is intellectually dishonest.

Got any better material?

My question...Obama says the air-raids and civilian killing is causing "enormous pressure over there". Just what is this "enormous pressure" and just how would more troops relive it?