See, here's the problem --- for ++++EAAMPLE --- they can't spell and probably can't read. But ignorance is no excuse.

The prick is from Springfield Virginia which does make him a stupid prick!

"at the earliest practicable date" does not equal "immediate".

that one dependent clause makes all the difference, which is probably why Murtha wrote that way.

apparently the emailer from Virginia is unfamiliar with the techniques of reading carefully to ensure full comprehension, thinking through statements, or proofreading before clicking 'send'.

and resorting to name-calling --- the last refuge of the meritless argument --- is just sad.

"stupid prick", indeed.

oh, the irony....

What the hell is EEAMPLE!???!??

Dear god, are all republican hacks nothing but stupid criminal liars?!?!????

It sure seems like it....they can't even spell a word when they try to make a point!
:crazy:

That's it.....Its time to take out those Michael Scanlon quotes again.... "And all those christian whackos, we got the whackos here and we make em vote for us! Chuza"

Indeed you do, using a bunch of crooks that is...

Doug E.

EAAMPLE #232323232 : I wuz on the road and i got this huge revelationz, James Murtha is a chicken.

WTF does this crap mean, does anyone have a special decoder for double-secret super stupid background?

Doug E.

Just as the Bush administration decided to pick and choose which intelligence information it would share with Congress in the run-up to war in Iraq, so too did this illiterate hack in order to make his...ahem...point.

Thankfully, we educated readers had the necessary, additional information (i.e. "earliest practicable date") in order to make an informed choice.

Sadly, our congressional leaders did not have the necessary, additional information to make an informed choice about authorizing force in Iraq. And now we sit here with nearly 2,100 dead and 15,000 wounded U.S. soldiers to show for it. Great. Just great.

If the GOP revised version & the original version drafted by Murtha mean the exact same thing, why did the GOP re-write it?

Huh? You mean all this time I've been eating uncooked steaks and I could have sent 'em back??? Now you tell me!!!

Simply to bait the Dems and the Dems bit. Every one of them should have stood up and voted YES and called the GOoPers on it.

What a waste of more of our taxpayer dollars on this asinine GOP parlor game. Oh yea, robber-baron-george, we'll just add it to your tab.

I even know what the guy looks like. I've seen him on "This Modern World".

Let's see.. here are some definitions..

ter·mi·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tûrm-nt)
v. ter·mi·nat·ed, ter·mi·nat·ing, ter·mi·nates
v. tr.

1. To bring to an end or halt: “His action terminated the most hopeful period of reform in Prussian history” (Gordon A. Craig).
2. To occur at or form the end of; conclude or finish: a display of fireworks that terminated the festivities.
3. To discontinue the employment of; dismiss: a company that terminated 300 workers.

v. intr.

1. To come to an end: The oil pipeline terminates at a shipping port. Negotiations terminated yesterday. See Synonyms at complete.
2. To have as an end or result: “The Peloponnesian war... terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth” (Alexander Hamilton).

im·me·di·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-md-t)
adj.

1. Occurring at once; instant: gave me an immediate response.
2.
1. Of or near the present time: in the immediate future.
2. Of or relating to the present time and place; current: “It is probable that, apart from the most immediate, pragmatic, technical revisions, the writer's effort to detach himself from his work is quixotic” (Joyce Carol Oates).
3. Close at hand; near: in the immediate vicinity. See Synonyms at close.
4. Next in line or relation: is an immediate successor to the president of the company.
5. Directly apprehended or perceived: had immediate awareness of the scope of the crisis.
6. Acting or occurring without the interposition of another agency or object; direct.

prac·ti·ca·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkt-k-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See Synonyms at possible.
2. Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry.

[Medieval Latin prcticbilis, capable of being used, from prcticre, to practice, from prctica, practice, from Greek prktik, practical science, from feminine of prktikos, fit for action, practical, from prssein, prk-, to make, do.]practi·ca·bili·ty n.
practi·ca·bly adv.

Usage Note: It is easy to confuse practicable and practical because they look so much alike and overlap in meaning. Practicable means “feasible” as well as “usable,” and it cannot be applied to persons. Practical has at least eight meanings, including the sense “capable of being put into effect, useful,” wherein the confusion with practicable arises. But there is a subtle distinction between these words that is worth keeping. Someone with a practical knowledge of French may be able to order coffee in a café, though it may not be practicable to learn the language of every country in Europe.

So.. when an employer tells you your position is "terminated" and you can finish out the pay period, they don't mean "leave now and we'll still pay you", they mean "your position is gone, after the next pay period you won't be employed here, but we're telling you in advance.. kinda.. to be nice.. but you are terminated". I've seen it happen a lot, actually.. On the other hand, I've seen people be "terminated immidiately", which is different than "terminted".

Just look at the definitions of "terminate", which doesn't have a time factor, immidiate, which is "instant", and the LANGUAGE FROM MURTHA, which means "as soon as feasible".. Sorry, moron. NOT the same.. the -fact- that you can't understand that (without being spoon fed) helps explain why 1/3 of our society still supports Shrubby.. we already knew we had a bunch of illiterate jerkoffs in this country, just didn't realize they were gainfully employed making good money.. Kinda makes me sick that you can be rich and ignorant, you just have to be willing to shit on a lot of people. Nice.

#11 that shore is sum fine ditchinary larning y'all done. Maw & me iz real proud of you. Now set down, that butt o you'rn is blocking the nascar race on the big screen.

Thanks, Castro #12..

What's better is, I knew all that before I had to go dig it up to try and teach the moron right-winger-freak who sent Brad the mail what most people over the age of 16 already know.. Hell, my 13 year old daughter understands the difference in language from what Murtha posited versus what the morons Republicans did.. That's funny..

HEY! I'm from Springfield VA! I'm not stupid (but I can't spell) nor a prick. Sometimes a bitch.

Lori #14 LOL.

Find the person who wrote the email to Brad. He is from your fine town.

Explain to him that Murtha's statement that "the people are ahead of us [congress] on this" means that his resolution was the will of the people.

Tell him also that the people created this nation and that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Then explain to him that the people want the troops pulled out of there as soon as possible, all things considered.

The United Nations, instead of the United States alone, should be the prime entity helping the Iraqi people to join the family of nations, so that no one nation is seen as an occupier.

The "coalition of the willing" is another fantasy you can tell him about.

After your tutoring of him people in your fine town will likely have more respect for the reasoning challenged fellow.

I agree that Murtha's a prick. In the long run he's not much different than Bush. Listen closely to his speech and you'll agree.

Murtha on American Forces in Iraq

Implied in Mr. Murtha's recent speech, the United States has no intention of leaving Iraq; controlling Middle East oil is much too important.

The United States, the "greatest democracy on earth," has been the greatest warmonger since WWII. In the name of democracy, we have spread death and destruction around the world. Americans should be ashamed of how our government and military forces have destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of helpless people over the past sixty years.

You, Mr. Murtha, are no different than little Bush and his pack of criminals. I've seen you suck up to Cheney when his neocons were flying high. You're only now speaking up because the tides are turning and 2006 elections are over the horizon. You're not saying, America must get out of the Middle East, now! You're not saying, America must stop killing defenseless Iraqis and Afghanis! No! You're saying, America must redeploy our troops to fortified bases and continue bombing the hell out of those "terrorists." According to you, Mr. Murtha, it's still ok to kill, kill, kill, as long as America's loved ones don't die in the process.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Murtha. I firmly believe that you are much more intelligent than little Bush. Just as daddy Bush and his criminals ran Reagan's government, Cheney and his criminals are running little Bush's government. But I also believe that you talk from both sides of your mouth.

You said, "The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course."

You said, "It is evident the 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."

You quoted, "'…the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'"

And you said in so many jumbled words that our war mongering has bankrupted this country. That is partially true, Mr. Murtha. Our country is collectively forty trillion dollars in debt. That's mind-boggling and no amount of virtual increases in GDP will ever fix that debt. Our over-dependence and over-consumption of imported oil and cheap foreign products has turned Americans into the fattest and weakest people on earth. Without a steady influx of cheap oil, our economy will collapse and millions will starve to death if we don't die first from mass rioting and anarchy. Our "mighty democracy" is on the verge of permanent collapse.

You said, "I believe and I have concluded, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress."

You said, "…we have become a catalyst for violence."

You quoted the British poll reported in the Washington Times, "Over 80 % of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces."

You said, "I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

You said, "The Iraqi people and emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. Immediately redeploy."

You said, "All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from United States occupation."

Iraqis and the Middle East will be free from United States occupation? Mr. Murtha, listen to what you said!

You said, "Create a quick reaction force in the region."

You said, "Create an over the horizon presence of marines."

That's free from United States occupation? "Quick reaction force" and "over the horizon" do not connote free from United States occupation. United States military forces must leave the Middle East, permanently! United States military forces must abandon those fourteen enduring military bases in Iraq and those scores of other military bases throughout the Middle East! "Terrorism" in the Middle East will not stop until our WMD military presence is no more. And that means no more B-52 carpet bomb attacks, no more gun-ship and Apache helicopter attacks, and no more "precision" guided cruise missile attacks.

What you are saying, Mr. Murtha, is, It's ok to continue killing those "Iraqi bastards," but let's do it so none of our loved ones die. That's wrong, Mr. Murtha. Slaughtering helpless people from the air, just because we can do it, is wrong. Our airborne military actions have caused more death and destruction and suffering than any number of civil wars could have, and we've accomplished nothing. Nothing, short of increasing the "terrorists" resolve to fight against our aggression instead of fighting amongst themselves. Whether we like it or not, the Middle East inhabitants must work out their own problems, and they will do so only after we've cleared out of the Middle East.

We must concentrate on cutting our reckless military spending and attend to resolving our own advancing economic problems at home. You should be thinking about how this country is going to manage its runaway forty trillion dollar debt as world oil production goes into a permanent decline and world oil demand continues to skyrocket. How high will the price of oil have to go before our economy collapses? Wasting more trillions of dollars to control Middle East oil would be a temporary fix at best. The Middle East's oil will deplete just as will the rest of the world's oil. Wasting trillions of additional dollars and further driving our country into debt will not solve our long-term energy problems, but only hasten our ultimate demise.

Roger: He called for a "phased withdrawl plan" beginning soon. He did not call for an immediate pullout like a coward such as Bush would(and his GOP did) and he did it in way with fine finesse and grace.

Doug E.

The difference between "ending immediate deployment" and "immediate withdrawal" is vast.

"Don't send any new people to Iraq" doesn't mean the same as "Pull everyone out, now." It's a separate (though connected) question. Besides, Murtha didn't say "Pull them out, now...". He said,
"at the earliest practicable date." That could be a month from now, or several months from now.

I have heard the news starting to twist this into the "...democrats not supporting one of their own by voting against the immediate withdrawl....." On a PROGRESSIVE radio channel!