From GOP, Zero Tolerance For Democratic War Critics

Republicans have adopted a scorched-earth strategy toward Democrats who challenge the wisdom of the way the war in Iraq is being conducted. Such critics, GOP officials say, are not merely misguided but are craven cut-and-runners who help the enemy and put politics ahead of U.S. troops' safety.

Democrats say the Republicans are twisting facts and trying to stifle debate through intimidation. Not so, say the Republicans, who insist they are not questioning Democrats' patriotism, only their judgment and resolve. If accuracy and nuance sometimes fall victim to all this rhetoric, well, there's a war on, folks.

The ruckus began May 6, when Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) -- a hawkish, longtime defender of the Pentagon -- told reporters he believed the war in Iraq could not be won without sending in significantly more troops and equipment, which he advocated. "Our failure to surge in terms of troop level and resources needed to prevail in this war" has resulted in "what appear to be unattainable goals in our current path," Murtha said at the news conference, hosted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

House Republicans responded within minutes. "This morning, in a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democrat party declared its surrender in the war on terror," said Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). "Out of sheer, brazen partisanship," House Democrats have "undermined our troops." Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.) said Democrats "are basically giving aid and comfort to our enemies."

Reporters pointed out that Murtha has consistently said the war was unsustainable only under the current policies, and that he urged massive troop buildups as a remedy. DeLay was unmoved. "If you don't give solutions," he said, "that is saying, 'Cut and run.' "

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30111-2004May15.html

You lying bastards have killed other people's children, while yours are partying hearty.

Aid and comfort to the enemy? I know who MY enemy is, Tommy. I know you well.

It's petty but they started it.

that would be an insult to bar owners everywhere.

How about the Repubelick Party?

1) there's no "pub" in what they stand for
2) they are "relics" of a primitive way of thinking

Shorten it to "Repub". "Republic" sounds too normal, "Repub" is much more disjointed.

I personally prefer to use "Pubic", but I don't see that working well on a national level.

It's not just Democrats anymore.

he's gone.

Absolutely Nothin'......Say it again, yeah........

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

Lets see :

unlawful - check
use or threat of force - check
by an organized group - check
against people and property - check
not in definition, but against civilians - check
intent to intimidate or coerce societies or governments - check
for ideological or political reasons - check

Those who resist the occupation are freedom fighters, not terrorists.

I second that notion.

doing absolutely not one thing to us. WE are the terrorists.

Who in hell listens to Tom DeLay!!!!! Even Repubs can't stand him.

That the only voices given credence in the media in criticizing the Iraq invasion are folks who supported it in one fashion or another before the invasion? People who were against the invasion from the get-go or from early on don't rate as war critics.

I guess because too many questions would have to be: "Scott (or Noam or Howard or William), you said two months before this ill-considered international fiasco that (whatever the latest totally foreseeable failure is). Why didn't we have you on the program before, and why doesn't anyone listen to you now?"

will be naked democratic reps cowering in the corner while repukes sic attack dogs on them.

After all, my State's Rethuglican Governor refuses to answer any and all questions from my state's largest newspaper unless the questions are submitted a month in advance.

From a local arm of "USA Today" no less.

Must be the "lingering liberalism" in the media....

REPUBLICANS CRITICIZED CLINTON DURING KOSOVO CONFLICT

From March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, the United States and NATO engaged in a military campaign to protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbian aggression. While American troops engaged in battle, Republican presidential candidates and leaders in the House and Senate criticized the Clinton administration and the war in Kosovo, including the proposed supplemental funding for the conflict.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

Then-GOP Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush: According to the Houston Chronicle:"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goalfor the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enoughresponse. `Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exitstrategy is,' Bush said."

Then-GOP Presidential candidate Dan Quayle: "What has happened is we have taken a political crisisand a humanitarian crisis and escalated it into a full military crisis. The handling of the situation in theBalkans reflects the inattention of the Clinton Administration to foreign policy. ... You have the same situation . Ambiguity, no stated, clear cut mission and then you are going to have to be there quite some time."

Then-GOP Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander: "Once we've started bombing we should bomb aggressively and consistently and for a long time to try and bring Milosevic to the table. But the president needs to tell us the rest of the story. Which is that if we put peace-keeping American forces in Kosovo they are going to be there for a long time, maybe as long as they have been in Korea, 25 to 50 years; and if they are harmed as they were in Somalia, then we are going to put other forces in there to make sure that they are safe."

Then-GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: "And what are we doing bombing and attacking this tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO's credibility and NATO's face. And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans."

Then-GOP Presidential candidate Gary Bauer: "The President has not demonstrated he's got a way to solve a crisis or conflict that literally has been raging since 1350. ... They treated each other with an incredible amount of inhumanity. That's a terrible thing. It offends our conscience. But how in the world are American boys flying over Kosovo dropping bombs going to somehow stop something that's been going on for 600 years?"

REPUBLICAN LEADERS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE:

GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL): "Many may question the path that has taken us to this point. I have my own questions about the long term strategy of this campaign."

Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): "Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. ... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. ... Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."

Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): The deployment of U.S. military forces in Kosovo is "just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus."

Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): "America needs to quickly change directions and leave behind this chilling comedy of errors that has defined our foreign policy."

Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): "First of all, it's using NATO for the first time to attack a sovereign nation. ... It's also one more adventure in a whole line of adventures of failed foreign policy." <"Fox News Sunday," 3/14/99>

Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): "I had the utmost confidence in President Bush. He had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a country that was invaded , and an oil interest to defend. ... we have a president I don't trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing."

Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): "I think he's gotten us into a mess. I don't think you can bomb a country into signing a peace agreement."

Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): "The Administration, and NATO as a whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster."

Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): "I want NATO to be credible, but for crying out loud, when you are so arrogant to say here is our wisdom, here is this accord, we determined this is in your best interest and you must sign it or else we are going to bomb you--I stated in my speech on the bombing resolution that I don't think you can bomb a country into submission or into signing an agreement."

CRITICISMS FROM OTHER REPUBLICANS:

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): "(P)resident has decimated our ability to defend ourselves."

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH): "I don't believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is going to be very successful."

Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA): "This is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States."

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

remember , we won that one!

Let's look at the two parts of the sentence, shall we?

Part A: Reporters pointed out that Murtha has consistently said the war was unsustainable only under the current policies, and that he urged massive troop buildups as a remedy.

Part B: DeLay was unmoved. "If you don't give solutions," he said, "that is saying, 'Cut and run.' "

So, basically, we're saying that words have absolutely no meaning any more. There need be no relationship--not even the most tenuous or strained--between what a Reichpublican says and the immediately presented reality.

"Here's a solution!"

"If you can't offer a solution, shut up or you're a traitor!"

"No, no, no. I'm saying, here's a solution."

"You Democrats never offer solutions! Dirty traitors."

"But I just said--"

"Nya nya nya nya nya nya gabba gabba gabba bugga gabba hugga mugga!"

The same old pattern: they identify what their own weaknesses are and accuse their opponents of that.

I was surprised when they began attacking Kerry on his military service. You would think that would be the LAST comparison they want to make. And then they started on the "flip-flopping" thing. Unbelievable.

It's been pointed out endlessly here: what they say can be totally fabricated, utter BS, but it gives the faithful a talking point. I can't tell you how many times I have had conversations with people who bring this stuff up, and when I refute it, they just say something like "well, they're all politicians", or "well, all politicians lie", or some other deflection ("media bias") that allows them to retreat to their beliefs on faith and not have to face reality.

for opposing the war and bring facts to the table. Rightie is in a desperate situation here with public support waining..

and the whole Iraq mess proves that.

Of course they're going to try to bully people into silence.

Of course they're going to use their thuggish tactics, lie, distort and scream to try to make sure people don't realize that.

That is all the more reason for the Dems to NOT become defensive.

The Dems need to put Bush and company on the defensive. Bush and his guys are so absolutely incompetent, they have shown such bad judgement, the Democrats must focus on that bad judgement rather than aiding and abetting the criminals in the white house!

... is that as overall support for the war ebbs, these tactics become less and less effective, to the point that they will eventually backfire.

This war is toast, and a lot of the Reps who got us into are too. They live in denial but truly, the torture mess was the last nail in the coffin of our intended success in Iraq.

Over the coming months, Bush* and his minions will concede (flip/flop) point after point in Iraq and then "cut and run", though they will attempt to characterize it as some kind of success.

Nobody thought Vietnam was any kind of success and only the idiot few will think Iraq is.

Considering the admins poll numbers on Iraq, most of America are now "cut 'n' runners" in Delays estimation.

We still need a Constitutional Amendment, something along the lines of:

SEC. 1. The authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast in a Nation-wide referendum using non-secret ballots.
SEC. 2. Upon confirmation of a Congressional declaration of war by referendum, conscription for national service shall commence, in a manner established by law, and the citizens conscripted shall include, at minimum, all those who voted to confirm the declaration of war.

My goodness, these people make me puke.

Call it an attack on free speech, extremism, politicizing the war, turning the war into a campaign issue, and every other thing that it is, which the American people will understand.

This country was founded on the idea that you could disagree with your government. Democrats need to fight back hard and often.

The best defense, as always, is for enough Democrats to speak up that the GOP can't target specific people.

Could all be shipped over to Iraq so they can experience the hell they created first hand.

They want to do murder and mayhem on the cheap, the word IRONY is synonymous with U.S.Republican

they'll be out of office soon enough. the tide has turned, thugs.

care what you have to say about it". The truth is the truth. What good is it going to do to deny the facts????

Chickenhawks who send other people's sons to fight their war$.

How Christian of them.

This is the same tact used by the GOP and the debate about the Department of Homeland Security right before the 2002 elections. I just hope that the Democrats have learned from their mistakes back then.

...using the rhetoric of nationalism to intimidate the nation into supporting a war. Whether it's right or wrong...or even winnable... has become secondary to blindly following the little dictator.

-

...at least in terms of their rhetoric.

think he is not one of them.

Against The War!!!