I said it before, Bush ruined the military. It's one of the big non-stories in the MSM. The Bush administration is responsible for critically low recruitment. Because, we now know that a corrupt president can lead our military, including guard and reserves, into harm's way and death, based on lies. You're supposed to obey the executive branch. For those who insist on obeying the commander in chief, the only honorable thing to do is to not sign up, so you don't disobey the commander in chief.

No WMD's. Downing St. memo's. Torture prisons. This is not America, with Bush & the neo-cons running it, stealing elections on electronic voting machines.

I heard about this on the Ed Schultz show. I come from a solid military family. EVERY male in my family (for three generations) has served or is serving in the military. I am telling my teen aged son not to join until the Republicans are out of office. Maybe I'm not the only mom saying this...

But Jo, how many were in the military before Bush got in? It's not safe. Bush ruined the military, because he proved that things can be going well, and a corrupt president can steal an election, and screw the military.

Did you see where they are not releasing the local counts in Iraq, but they're sending them to a central place, where they will all be entered in a computer? With a mysterious 2 week delay? We brought them some democracy! American-style! They mysteriously won't release the local results, only the central computerized count weeks from now.

I would not want my son in the military while Mr.Bush is president. If the next president hails from the same crowd as Mr. Bush , well then, maybe my son will be the first to break the family tradition. I hope not. I am very pro military. My son has always wanted to be a marine like his dad and uncles, so hopefully we will have a better leader in 08. ( we need to start working for 06 now!)

My father and father-in-law were also in the military,There is no way I would let my son sign up.I realize we owe our country,but not for an illegal war run by an illegitemate president.This man John Murtha has my sincere respect for having the balls to speak up.I say with pride,this man is my hero! One of many I have learned put the Constitution first and partisan politics aside.John Conyers,Barbara Boxer and the House Black Caucus and Russ Fiengold. Why with 2 houses of Congress are there so few?

I read on another thread here that progressive talk show host Ed Schultz slammed Murtha's position on this. I went there and had a listen to what he had to say, via soundclip, and noticed he had a poll:

"Do you agree or disagree with Big Eddie’s take on Rep. Murtha’s comment from "Nightline" stating he would not join the U.S. military today?"

Schultz' audience had only 15% agreeing with him, with a whopping 74% saying he was wrong, and 11% feeling torn on the issue!

I found the results of his poll interesting, given that it has always appeared to me that most talk show hosts' audiences tend to agree with them, and kiss up to them in a most embarrassing way, "mega-dittoes", and all that rot (of course I am referring to neocon hosts, such as Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly, so that's probably the difference).

However one may feel about the results, I was quite surprised to see such a large percentage of Schultz' audience disagreeing with him (must still be some free-thinking Americans out there!).

I don't think you'd ever see such a thing on the other above-mentioned shows. Those other guys remind me of those charlatan tent-evangelists whose flocks rely on their every word.

I don't agree with big Eddie on Murtha, but he is spot on the mark much of the time. I encourage people to listen to his show. Good interviews and he seems like a regular type of guy, a moderate progressive, very civil with callers. He lets people have their say and doesn't interrupt constantly.

Unfortunately my son joined right before the illegal invasion was declared. If he were wanting to join today, I would lay down in the driveway in front of his car before I would let him sign up. No, you are not the only one, Jo.

I made sure he didn't have any thoughts of re-enlisting. He'll be recovering from his one year in Iraq for the rest of his life as it is.

My hat is off to Mr. Murtha, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Boxer and maybe 1 or 2 more. As someone previously asked, why are there so few?

They (dems and reps) laugh in our faces everytime they go to the bank and cash the multiple checks from the lobbyists. They work for them, not America any longer.

Last thought. With the total joke of the "torture ban" Dubya signed into law last week, where he attached his "signing statements" declaring he will continue to torture and we can all kiss his ass - what horrible things await our military members when they are captured anywhere in the world in the future now that torture is known to be our standard practice? As a parent or family member, that's not a pretty thought.

McCain is alright with this? Does he think he really accomplished anything? Please, they are all a joke. Yes, our military has been ruined by one single administration, possibly forever. Because the enlistment numbers continue to be sooooooooo low, they have now lowered the entrance standards down to where they just have to be vertical and breathing. That will be the next major problem for the military a few years down the road. *sigh*

BEWARE! If I were an American citizen (which I am) who was truly concerned about the direction this administration is taking our country in terms of foreign policy (that would also be me, although I am just as concerned about domestic issues...but that's another thread...), and wished to see an abrupt, positive change in strategic planning regarding the middle east (yup--guilty there, too), then I would be EXTREMELY wary of Murtha and his personal opinions on such things and more especially, his own plans for our military in that arena. However, I would be infinitely MORE wary of the way his opinions, etc. are being publicized and the light under which they are being shown.

Anxious for me to get to the point? Very well, let me just put something out there on the table to be seriously considered, as I have yet to see it discussed or even mentioned in any public manner, so far as I can remember: Murhta NEVER said he wants our troops to come home. Murtha NEVER said he wants our troops out of the middle east. Murtha is only calling for redeployment of our troops, presumably to a more strategically viable theatre (which can only be assumed, since he has not once been so kind as to even seriously imply that he actually has any intention of fighting for the return home of our troops currently deployed to Iraq--the good will, optimism, exasperation/extreme desire on the part of peace-loving Americans for immediate change in strategy, if not policy regarding Iraq/the middle east, and in some cases, gullability of those who also and/or otherwise care about such things on a humanitarian level have provided all the implication needed to make him seem worthy of immediate canonization here in the States).

Does it seem at all plausible that such an aggressive military proponent as Murtha might have in mind a redeployment to somewhere such as, oh I dunno--I'll just pick a random country: IRAN or, less likely: SYRIA, as such redeployments offer more lucrative ventures, in terms of strategic viability, given the current intelligence and flavor of relations between such countries and our own?

Don't go backing such a person and start shouting that you're 100% behind his thoughts on the matter simply because he is openly, loudly calling for half of what you yourself hope for our military situation. While I can't imagine he doesn't wholly appreciate the added momentum you give to his cause, it would be quite a shame if you got what you wish for in his promises, only to learn that the other half of his ideas are far more deadly than anything happening currently.

I say 'far more deadly' for this reason: Rummy, et al are pushing for things like atomic power in smaller packages than currently available to us, for things like subterranean bunker-busters, and a whole host of other things that would make far more realistic the aims of the PNAC and their ilk. Of course, given current military bog-downs, etc. they are facing NOTHING BUT opposition on such things, but imagine if we weren't in such a quagmire--what would opinions of certain fence-sitters be then? So is it better or worse to redeploy our troops to a more strategically viable theatre, where we could be in hog heaven (as far as THEY are concerned) and not losing so many of our own brothers and sisters to such a conflict? Because that would mean more prestige for the Neo's and therefore more leniancy and less pressure on them to keep the business of their plotting little bees, and the proliferation of their known, even openly-stated and self-admitted plans for the rest of the world in this century to a minimum.

Yessirree--ol' Murtha sure could help to bring about the fabled Pax Americana that would do the whole world so much "good"...under the jack boot of the American military and their NeoCon task masters...just something to think about.

One aspect of Murtha's comments is that we have a vote on many issues ... votes that do not go thru election comittees and electronic voting machines.

We can vote with our feet.

If we think a war is bogus we can vote against that war by not partaking of it.

Let Sadaam and Bush shoot it out in the desert. Whoever comes back can fort brag, and the rest of us can go on in our true happiness while they fondle about in their trigger happiness.

Happiness is not trigger happiness.

I think Murtha suggested redeployment to Kuwait as backup security, "over the horizon".

Concerned Citizen,
Two of my nephews were in the reserves. Both had fulfilled their active duty requirements as full time Army/Marines several years previous to their deployment to Iraq. They thought they would be going as support personnel. Instead they were used as primary troops.
This is a preemptive war. A war of choice. There was plenty of time to think, plan and acquire adequate troop and supply levels. Why no plan to win the peace? Why inadequate equipment? Lack of armor? Why the long deployment? One of my nephews was there a year and a half. As he was waiting to get on the plane, word came that they were not going to let them go home and he was there six more months. He says it was like emotional torture. Wondering if they would ever let him go. He has been home awhile now and they are planning to send him back.
This administration has so little respect for the troops and sacrifices of military families. A lot goes into raising a kid (food, getting them up for school, getting them off to church, braces, sickness, doctor visits, clothes). The least our government can do is not send them off to war recklessly. I'm with you. Until these chicken hawks are out, my son stays right where he is.

Laura, owing America is one thing, and it's different than owing your life to Bush and the neo-cons. And they use patriotism (like Hitler) to cover themselves, and get all the hicks blood flowing. I didn't have kids, so they could die for George W. Bush. He can go fuck himself. His twins should be fighting for this "noble cause". I never hear the rightwingers mention why his twins aren't fighting in the Iraq War.

And chickenhawks are pro-war people who wouldn't dare be in the war themselves, but go around using patriotism (like Hitler) to trick everyone else into the fighting. It's all lies. I thank god I'm smart enough to know this, and it wasn't one of my kids dying for a useless cause for no reason.

...and Bush avoided combat and was AWOL, and Cheney had 5 deferments. The rightwingers never mention this. Watch how carefully they absolutely will not even answer or talk about these things in an argument. If you said to a rightwinger on this blog, "what about Cheney's 5 deferments?", there'd be no answer.

My husband and I watched powerline the other night about Walmart. At the end of the program the mayor of this town(that had lost all of their manufacturing jobs) said they were losing all of their young people because of no future for them in the town. My husband turned to me and said thats just what the government wants.For the young people to have no opportunity,so they will have to go into the military. It literally hit me in the gut when he said that.It makes a lot of sense to me. Between wal mart and the government we are turning into a third world country,which it seems is exactly what they want.

Jeff, you are so full of shit it is amazing!

You imply that a redeployment to Iran would somehow be SAFER than staying in Iraq? Do a little research buddy! Please tell me how a redeployment to Iran would result in "not losing so many of our own brothers and sisters to such a conflict". This is beyond foolish! Let's see, a country with at least 350,000 troops devoted to Allah, and likely in possession of nuclear weapons. Sure sounds like a smart bet to me! Where do you get your information from, son?

Murtha is clearly speaking from his heart, and is taking a very unpopular stand because he is sick of this "war" forced upon us by chickenhawk neocons.

Peddle your misinformation somewhere else please.

Jeff, I think Owen was pre programmed to thinking on the wrong track, you'll have to re state your position so he understands it, I got what you meant

Floridiot,

I am not "pre programmed" to think on ANY track. If you "got" what Jeff (#10) meant, then let's hear a logical explanation. I understand that the Neocons would love to get their hands on Iran, but the rest of Jeff's post was total bullshit.

Please 1) explain how Iran is "a more strategically viable theatre" in terms of "not losing so many of our own brothers and sisters to such a conflict" (Jeff's words, not mine), then 2) provide ANY evidence that Murtha is involved in said scheme.

I can't wait for my patch--this "pre programmed" virus has been killing my bandwidth.

Or, if on the other hand you are talking out of your ass as well, then some food for thought: next time don't make idiotic (despite your moniker) condescending assumptions when somebody calls bullshit on a bizarre, rambling post with no footing in reality.

Thanks in advance!

Laura, I second that. I said long ago, the failing economy fits right into young people having no where to go but the military. Young poor and middle class people, only. The rich get richer, while the poor and middle class sacrifice their lives so they get richer. And they trick all the stupid hicks, by pulling the "patriotism" string. You forgot to add that into your excellent observation. The minority super rich running the country, trick the poor and middle class into thinking it's patriotic to do their bidding.

This is it in a nutshell. We have more in common with poor and middle class Iraqi's, than we do with rich Americans and American politicians. Think about it. And they have us killing each other, and we would never do that.

Wow, Owen
Have you ever considered switching to decaf? And then, once you've stopped vibrating, if you could do me a favor and learn as much as possible on the subject of rhetoric, specifically regarding tactic and application thereof in a real-world environment such as this forum. (PSST! Hey li'l fella--I'll give you a hint to get you started on your newfound path to intelligent discussion--S-T-F-U. That's it. Just shut the f**k up and LISTEN. Then, when you've got that down, you can move on to the more difficult task of actually analyzing what you learn from that skill, and ONLY THEN, learn of the sacred, ancient ways of tayloring the junior high school-level bile you spew to--oh, let's see here, what can you do with your argument...hmmm...wait! I've got it! You could custom design it to - ya ready for this? - actually fit in with what the other person says and be a viable, logical, intelligent opposition to their argument! Doesn't that sound like fun? Oh, it is, Sport--it is. Now run along and play with your toys, okay Champ?)

*AHEM*

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I would just love it if you could be so kind as to smartly dissect my post and please enlighten us all as to where it was, exactly that I made any accusation or even stated anything at all that went beyond the level of putting it "out there on the table to be seriously considered", as I stated in the first full sentence (which is my evil little sneaky tactic for letting everyone know that what I'm about to say is either just a theory, or one of several possibilities I've noticed with potential weight to bear on the outcome, making it worth considering and testing as a possibility. Isn't that just about as low down as you can get? I mean, where do I get off, being so openly acidic, attacking his character in public like that?? Just ain't right I tell ya'...).

As to my basis for such rash, specifically accusatory assertions, just look at his voting record--he's not exactly an isolationist. I can't imagine he just wants to bring all the troops home to live happily ever after with their loving families. He has a long history of supporting and sponsoring the military and their frequent use in U.S. foreign policy apoplications. Besides, while every vocal supporter of withdrawl from Iraq is saying, "Bring them home," he's specifically saying "REDEPLOYMENT". I'll give you an hour or so to go look up the word "DEPLOY", then I figure you'll probably need another little while to determine the etymological framework for adding the "MENT" on the end, but I'll save you the trouble of figuring out the prefix: "RE", when prefixed to a verb in english does not, in any way change the meaning of the performed action denoted by the word, it simply means that it is repeated over again. It does NOT mean to undo the action once it has been performed.

Oh, and as to whether or not Iran is a viable target, it's obviously not for you and I to discuss or decide. I'm sure you could have said the same thing to me in 2002 about Iraq and felt mighty smug...no shit, Iran is not a viable target. In my opinion, there's no such fucking thing as a viable target unless they are personally standing on our doorstep, as would be implied by National DEFENSE. But none of that means anything to a republican or a democrat. They think only in terms of doing as much good for their constituents as they absolutely must to stay in good graces and get re-elected. Beyond that, they are like bastard children of a bizarre sex triangle between Satan, a jackal, and an ad exec. They take take take and it is ok if they have to give or if it's doomed to failure, because they only have to give the lives of other people and they never have to witness the failure and tragic results firsthand. Any argument about whether or not a politician wants to go to war or find some other way to butt America into the peaceful business of some other country is naive and sophomoric. Now fuck off.

#16 and #20....total 100% agreement here. This is all part of the game. The neo's need cannon fodder and they are using every tool available to get it. I was appalled in the late 80's when my son came home from school and told me about 'career day' at his high school. The military had landed on campus for god's sake. My second born was 12 years later, the phone didn't stop ringing for 18 months from the recruiters starting when he was a Senior. Our kids are bullied and badgered by these recruiters. I don't live in a 'right to work' state, but even where I live, I see the despair of the graduates and their inablility to find a decent paying job. They don't move out, like I did when I turned 18. No, we need to support them, because they can't afford to do it, even where I live. During both '41 and '43 I had draft age boys, had one been instituted.

There is so much undoing to do. Part of the PNAC agenda is genocide, we see this being carried out all over the world. Iraq is just another spec on the planet where this horror is being committed. M4

Jeff,

Now who needs to switch to decaf? Little FYI for ya buddy--I am a PhD student at one of the finest institutions in the world (oh, and I have a degree in English Lit as well), so I do a lot of listening when appropriate, and have a pretty clear understanding of the English language.

However, when some jackass libertarian (read conservative-lite) dumbfuck makes wild claims as you did above (# 10), I call bullshit on it. Typically I would not resort to childish name calling and hurling petty insults out there (except directed at neocons of course), however, in your case I will call your "Now fuck off", and raise you a dose of "tayloring (whatever that is) the junior high school-level bile you spew" with a go fuck yourself (which I am sure you do regularly anyway).

OK, now that I have gotten that out of the way, here is the problem I had with what you said. You wrote: "So is it better or worse to redeploy our troops to a more strategically viable theatre, where we could be in hog heaven (as far as THEY are concerned) and not losing so many of our own brothers and sisters to such a conflict?"

If you read past the words "full of shit" in my above posts (# 17 and #19), you would see that I did ask you specific questions about your post. I absolutely believe that you have a right to your opinion, and appreciate hearing different ideas. However, it seemed that you were posting a very incoherent train of thought. I will concur that Murtha is no saint, and that the Dems and Repubs alike are complicit in this "nation building" scheme being foisted upon us by the neocons, but your premise that Iran was somehow a less dangerous environment for our troops is simply false.

So please enlighten me as to how Iran represents a "safer" theatre than Iraq. I am all ears...

High ranking British officer agrees with Murtha (link here).

The fault with the US Military, according to the british fellow, is that they are neoCon minded.