Swamp TV: Thousands of Marines could leave Iraq

The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan. This is what the Democrats have been saying FOR YEARS. And the Republicans call them names and question their patriotism. So are the Marines "defeat-o-rines"? Are the Marines for "cut and run"? Are the Marines "aiding the terrorists"? Are the Marines "phony soldiers"?Come on Republicans, let's start the name calling.

"BUSH SECRETLY LISTENS TO DEMS"

If the BRITISH ARE NOT COMING BUT GOING HOME and allowed some Iraqi to STAND UP AS WE STAND DOWN why can't we.

Bush is a trip, he is like an abusing husband. BEATS YOU ONE DAY, and tells you he HEARS YOU THE NEXT DAY.

NOW THIS IS THE TOP GENERAL ON THE GROUND, LETS ALL SEE IF HE LISTENS THIS TIME AROUND!

Actually Paul, we can blame this on John Murtha. He is a phony soldier, cut and run Marine - maybe he is telling the Marines to move back to Afghanistan.

No way any of the bush's soldiers leave Iraq before he leaves office.

"Thousands of Marines could leave Iraq"

...and to think Rudy Gigoloiani and all the other Neocon whackjobs are still drooling for a war with Iran.

With whose military?

I guess we'll just have to start drafting some of these college Republican chickenhawks who are still quacking about staying in Iraq but are to afraid to sign up for it.

We are at war with Iran and eventually there will be a conflict it may be air surgery strikes but, I'm convinced it will happen in 08.John E neo-cons is code word for Jews in the liberal lexicon. After Mahmoud came to America spieling DNC talking points aren't you still proud of their patriotism. This is America we have to protect our national security first. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Jerry White, Not only are you a traitor to this nation (since you support outing undercover CIA agents during times of war), but you are now a blatant anti-semite. Go back into that hole you call Springfield and go away!

Neal, please show where Jerry White is anti-Semetic. Also, if you want true anti-Semetism, look at most of the posts by your buddies on the Left.

Also, Neal, the true unAmericans, the true haters of the U.S., the true haters of the military, the CIA are you and your friends on the Left.
Did or did not you and your ilk say Marines "killed, raped and torture innocent women and children in Haditha"? When in fact that is not the case.
Did or did not you and your ilk say we are torturing and abusing prisoners at Gitmo? When in reality, that is not the case.
Did or did not you and your ilk go on the Senate floor and say the U.S. military is no different than Pol Pot and Nazi Germany?
Did or did not you and your ilk run an ad labeled "General Betrayus" and continue that crap in left wing blogs and in here like your good friend weinerlessbrain?
Did or did not you and your ilk spit on an Iraq War veteran at a so-called "peace rally" last spring?
Do or do not you and your ilk continually refer to Bush, Cheney and Republicans in general as Nazis?
When the U.S. was bombing Bosnia for 46 straignt days, any Republican who dared to criticize the Clinton administration was admonished for criticizing the commander-in-chief while "troops are in harm's way." Hence, do or do not you and your ilk lambast the current commander-in-chief while American troops are in harm's way?
Neal, did or did not many Democrats in the Senate and House vote for this war?
Neal, did or did not Democrasts such as Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc. speak of the dangers and threat of Saddam Hussein and the need for regime change long before George Bush became president?
Neal, aren't the true traitors to this nation you and your ilk for the countless history revisionism, lies, distortions, etc. put forth about Iraq, Hussein and Islamic terrorism?

Posted by: Jerry White | October 11, 2007 1:39 PM

Hey Jer,

Are you and your favorite cheerleader going to stay stateside and sit out this (upcoming?) war with Iran too?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50087332@N00/279623937/

The Marines want to transfer thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan -- maybe to go after the guy who really caused 9/11, Osama bin-Laden?

pResident Doogie Howser may not think about that guy anymore, but I know that a lot of Americans still think about him quite often. They can't understand why pResident Doogie Howser dropped the ball in going after this guy. Then again, a lot of Americans know that Afghanistan doesn't have oil.

Neal, aren't the true traitors to this nation you and your ilk for the countless history revisionism, lies, distortions, etc. put forth about Iraq, Hussein and Islamic terrorism?

Posted by: John D | October 11, 2007 2:53 PM

Lil Johnny D'ancing Queen,

Who said this?

"Iraq has WMD's"

"Mission Accomplished"

"The Insurgency is in it's last throes"

Here's some leaning material for you Lil Johnny:

"Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense"?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D:

Did you or did you not make the allegation that John Edwards spends as much on his suits as George Bush does?

-- Yes.

In the approximately 2 months since you made that statement, have you or have you not provided any proof, with hard numbers, to back up this claim?

-- NO!

Thus, have you or have you not been caught in trying to pass off your OPINION as fact?

-- Yes.

Have you or have you not been MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT THIS?

-- NO!

John D-

Why can't the actions of the military be questioned? Isn't the military there to serve the people of the United States?

You seem to think it's the other way around, that the people of the United States exist to serve it's military.

"Thousands of Marines could leave Iraq."

"Come back and fight. I'll cut you with one arm tied behind my back. I'll kill you with no legs."
- A. Qaeda

I see the mentally challenged BC is on his Edwards suit kick again.

BC, answer these questions:
1. Did or did not Men's Vogue say Edwards buys imported suits?
2. What type of magazine is Men's Vogue and Vogue magazine for that matter?
3. If Men's Vogue reports Edwards buys imported suits, what do they mean by that? What is an "imported suit" to Men's Vogue magazine?
4. Do you think John Edwards (or most any wealthy person) buys their suits off the rack or are they usually custom made?
5. Do you know what "off the rack" and "custom made" mean?
6. Do you think John Edwards buys his suits at Men's Wearhouse or do you think he buys them at a specialty boutique?

BC, I know you buy your suits at Costco or The Home Depot. And you buy 100 percent polyester ties, suits and shirts.

The Swamp World is tired of your continued, and frankly quite mentally ill, fixation on this subject. You may think you got me, and for some of your equally mentally ill brethren on the Left they would agree (but that says nothing), but in reality you just look foolish each and every time you bring up John Edwards and his suits.
Rather than spend so much of your time fixated on me and John Edwards suits, use some of that energy on your wife. More than likely she needs it -- or perhaps she prefers you not spend so much time on her. I know if I were her, I would want to spend as little time as possible with you.

JohnD,

More lunatic rantings from a 26 percent deadender. Face it, loser, the majority of this country thinks you and your lover boy, Chimpy McFlightsuit, are plain wrong. You can spin (we in the real world call you outright liars) all you like, torture boy, but the truth is out and its definately not on your side. JohnD=Braidead Fascist Scum!

Neal, what exactly is a Braided Fascist Scum??? Sorry, but I have no braids. It's sad actually because I would like all the hair back that I lost. I had a beautiful head of hair.
Me, a fascist? No.
Me, scum? No, again.

But, Neal, thanks for not answering the questions I posed. Just shows once again, that you sick, twisted, uneducated little peons can't handle the truths of life, facts, common sense and basically anything but your own twisted sense of an alternative reality.

BC,

I like it! :0)

BAGHDAD - U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad on Thursday, the military said.

I'd love to see all these reichwingers defending the death of children after they get on their holy bandwagon about abortion.

9 children! DEAD! Defend that wingnuts. Tell us how THAT'S making America safer.