Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peace

There's an interesting enough case that they should though too...

Enough Americans are pissed off about the current administration, but the Democrats are sitting in the middle of it, stuck between getting livid and being essentially Republican lap dogs. Adopting this would invite the far left into the arena, those who have given up on the Dems for not being liberal enough.

If the Democrats do start to make this their tone, it wouldn't be all that bad - certainly a change of pace over the lap dog(ness) of the last 6 years. And it just might be crazy enough to work.

If we're playing politics... possibly. But it's time that Americans look seriously into our addiction to war. Our wars, conflicts, campaigns, whatever you want to call them since the end of WWII certainly haven't made the world a safer place. Violence begets violence.

I am sorry, but most Americans are not going to buy into blame America first. If the democrats adopt that, they will finish behind the libertarians.

Fortunately that is neither what Murtha is saying or Democrats. Your formulation is a political strawman. The fact is that America isnt perfect and infallable, and pointing that out isnt "blame America first".

Is your position America, is infalliable and has never done anything wrong ever?

War in Iraq Has Global Repercussions

America being in Iraq is a threat to no one except some factions in Iraq.

Tell that to the over 2500 dead American soldiers and over 50,000 dead innocent civilians not to mention tens of thousands of seriously wounded.

Unfortunately millions of people around the globe dont share your assessment.

People in European and Muslim countries see US policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear programme.

Millions of people worldwide see America in Iraq as a threat. Furthermore, the presence in Iraq is fueling a lot of anger against the US which in turn fuels the threat of terrorism it is supposedly part of the effort of reducing. You dont have to take just my word for it:

Washington is failing to make progress in the global war on terror and the next 9/11-style attack is not a question of if, but when. That is the scathing conclusion of a survey of 100 leading American foreign-policy analysts.

In its first "Terrorism Index," released yesterday, the influential journal Foreign Policy found surprising consensus among the bipartisan experts.

Some 86 per cent of them said the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, despite President George W. Bush's claims that the U.S. is winning the war on terror.

The main reasons for the decline in security, they said, were the war in Iraq, the detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy towards Iran and U.S. energy policy.

The survey's participants included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, along with prominent members of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment.

The majority served in previous administrations or in senior military ranks.

"When you strip away the politics, the experts, almost to a person, are very worried about the administration," says Joe Cirincione, vice-president of the Center for American Progress, the Washington think-tank which co-sponsored the survey.

"They think none of our front-line institutions is doing a good job and that Iraq has made the terror situation much worse."

Of course, the lives of the US soldiers themselves are threatened, how do you forget them?

I AM NOT criticizing his patriotism or saying he hates America.

You are using the same rhetoric of those that do, it can be hard to tell the difference.

Of course, the lives of the US soldiers themselves are threatened, how do you forget them?

I have combat service with a purple heart and several other medals. That does not make me right and it does not make Murtha right.

Your comment is a complete non-sequitor, your combat service and Murtha's has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. My comment makes no mention of Murtha's combat service.

Are you saying you were wrong not to include US soliders among those threatened? What about the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians? Whats your point, are you sure it belongs here?

If the leftovers from Hussein were not fighting and killing their own people, including children, US forces would be home, not in Iraq. THAT is where I place the major blame

What about all of those who are fighting who are not leftovers from Hussein? Hussein's rule was supported by a minority of the population and a lot of people who didnt like Saddam are also fighting against the US.

. I also blame democrats and republicans alike for dragging this out for 3 years.

Could you offer any evidence about how Democrats have "dragged this out for 3 years"?

People Owe Murtha an Apology: Suntimes Runs Retraction Upon Which This story was based

Correction: An article in Sunday's editions misinterpreted a comment from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town hall meeting in North Miami on Saturday. In his speech, Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq ,and the perception that the U.S. is an occupying force. Murtha was citing a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea.

This seed should be edited to reflect the fact that the news account it linked to was false.

I disagree. He still said it, did he not? Whether he believes it or not is not the substance of this seed.

Hrm.

Then let it be said:

I believe it.

(Do not look for the sarcasm or the jest in that last statement. Take it for exactly what it is.)

To clarify -- I'm referencing a belief in what the "corrected" article quotes him as saying.

In his speech, Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq ,and the perception that the U.S. is an occupying force.

But I -can- also understand why people might get the impression that the US is hurting world peace more than it is helping it. (Or, at least -- the Bush administration.) I think it's a valid concern that is arguable.

I disagree. He still said it, did he not?

What is "it" exactly?

Your conclusory statement says nothing. The Newspaper upon which this seed was based retracted their article expressly stateting that the misrepresented what he said and that the "it" was false.

Feel free to actually provide what he actually said and the actual context to prove that your point is still valid, until then you own him an apology.

Semantic Dance makes it anti-American?

I agree he has a poor choice of words. Although, I do believe what he said is anti-American, because if he wanted to direct his comments at the Bush Administration he could have said, "The Bush Administration's policy is more dangerous ..." instead.

Since when did calling it the way you see it become anti-American or anti-Bush? It sounds like you are arguing that its politically incorrect to see anything that that the American government has done is counter productive?

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil? If you honestly believe the policy is dangerous how is attributing it to Bush supposed to make it any better?

Murtha Certainly Fuels the fire of rightwing rants, but do you really think insurgents and terrorists care as much as you do?

There are American soldiers lives at stake out there. For a veteran to say such a thing while these people are in harms way is just plain stupid.

You have it backwards. Yes there are American soldiers at stake, and not to speak your mind and try to do what you think is right is stupid and cowardly.

Your "blame America" rhetoric is just empty rhetoric as does the empty assertion: "It fuels the fire of the enemy." Do you have any evidence for your breathless assertions? It sure does fuel the fire of rightwing critics, do you think insurgents or terrorists think just like you do or actually give a hoot what he says?

Your inflammatory rhetoric certainly demonstrates that it fuels your fire, meanwhile the soldiers in Iraq are still dying, with zero evidence that Murtha's statement has put them in any greater danger. Don't you believe in having evidence before making such allegations?

His rant was not against the government but at the country. That's the difference.

Wow you are blinded by your anger and ideology. Criticism of the policy in Iraq is not criticism of the country. Can you really not see the difference or to you are the decisons of the President what makes America what it is?

Military service doesn't give one carte blanche to be a raging idiot. If it did, we would have had to shut our mouths about George Senior, who served both bravely and honorably, yet was still a complete nitwit.

Murtha's problem is that he's getting too much attention, and doesn't know when to reel it all back in. He's drunk on the spotlight, and letting his rhetoric get the best of him, like so many others have before. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with this adminstration, but when you start spouting gibberish about the situation in Iraq being more dangerous than N. Korea to world peace, you've left reality.

Sure, Iraq is a full on cluster@!$%#, but can you see a path from their to a world war? Do any of the major powers really give a crap in one direction or the other regarding the middle-east? Have they ever, so long as the oil continued to flow?

Whereas the situation in N.Korea could spin up into a deeply ugly World War in a heartbeat. All it takes is a missile test that goes wrong and drops a payload in Japan or Seoul, and it's go time. The U.S. or Japan strikes N.Korea and China gets nervous about having occupational troops on their border.

The U.S. has been in Iraq for three years without a peep from a major power. If that situation was going to flare any brighter, it would already have done so.

It would be a lot more informative to have the actual quotes and context wouldnt it?

People around here seem ready to call Murtha a raging idiot and senile on the basis of a partial out of context quote:

"(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said.

Its not even a complete sentence, let alone in context. Sure it may have been stupid, but without the context people around here are in a rush to judgment.

Have people forgotten that news is often sensationalistic, and that the paraphrasing of what he allegedly said may also be sensationalistic. Have they forgotten that sometimes an isolated sentence may have been poorly spoken or taken out of context. The speed with which people leap to shout anti-American, raging idiot and senile is pathetic. I tried to find an actual transcript of what he said but couldnt.

Odd that some of the same people angrilly accused Murtha of rushing to judgment on a lot more evidence than this.

If you judged our President by out of context quotes he looks like an imbecile, is that ok too?

Correction my first sentence I intended to be in bold, not quotation. Its NOT a quote.

It would be a lot more informative to have the actual quotes and context wouldnt it?

I wonder if any of the posters here have any military service. Or the writer of this column.

Are you serious?! What the @!$%# does that have to do with whether or not the US in Iraq is a top threat to world peace. You're skirting and trying to change the issue.

Use your logic, dude.

And if you try to defend the country against terrorists, you are accused of trying to take away freedoms and spying on Americans.

Amen to that.

I've reported it, and hopefully so will everyone else.

You bring up a good point. Last time it was the madbaddangerous guy putting in the "obesity" tag on an article about the Dixie chicks who he doesn't like. Now it's kevinb66 abusing the senility tag since he hates Murtha. Seems like a common theme among conservatives here - abusing tags and attacking the character of someone they don't like. I haven't seen you liberals do that yet. Don't hold your breath waiting for kevinb66 to come out with an apology - he snuck it in and, just as slyly, snuck it out when he was caught.

And to think that Newsvine is supposed to be the smart crowd. I shudder to think what it's like in the real world outside.

Personally, I think this country is so deeply divided that it is on its way down. It's so bad that even another 9/11 isn't going to make it united - it'll only increase the hatred you liberals and conservatives have for each other. Sad to say this, but 20 more years and it will no longer be the world power that it is today.

In all fairness -- if he were honestly intending to 'sneak' it out -- I suspect he would have deleted the comments that made reference to it. (Or, pulled a MBD by sneaking it back in later. Tricky, he is.)

In reality, I'm sure he put it in thinking it was humorous or in an attempt to get a chuckle from his base and has thought better about it after being (rightly) called out about the decision to include it.

It's gone, so hopefully we can move on and discuss why Murtha shouldn't be marginalized for having a perfectly valid and (arguably correct) opinion about the US under it's current President.

This seems to be your modus operandi from what I've seen so far - when you are caught, you simply try to cover it up with a joke or a trite remark. And them liberals in their never-ending endeavor to be nice, forgive you and let it go.

Brian Ford in 11.3

In all fairness -- if he were honestly intending to 'sneak' it out -- I suspect he would have deleted the comments that made reference to it. (Or, pulled a MBD by sneaking it back in later. Tricky, he is.)

In reality, I'm sure he put it in thinking it was humorous or in an attempt to get a chuckle from his base and has thought better about it after being (rightly) called out about the decision to include it.

Turns out you are wrong - he did not sneak it out, it was removed by Newsvine. See his own admission in comment 14.3.

Furthermore, he didn't put it there because he thought it's humorous; he believes in it with all seriousness.

You give him far too much credit than he deserves.

This is one reason why you liberals never win - you are far too nice to the conservatives who, on the other hand, know that they don't need to play nice with you.

Kevin is not the only one who has power to add or remove tags from this seed.

*I* was the one that removed the tag based on CoH #6.