He can never admit when he has made an error.

He's not the only one. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

It really is unfortunate that are so blind to the truth. Why can't you either admit that you were wrong or admit that you were lying? I really don't think you're lying, but you are obviously wrong.

I am not wrong, I am not lying.  Which link did not work for you?  You really dont know now to debate.  You post an after the fact CYA, and then try to call me a liar?  You are a sheeple!

And one who is addicted to my blog apparently.

In the first place, you cannot call me a liar, as all I did was post the appropriate links and then commented on them.  You can call the Congressional record a liar if you want (and you might actually get some mileage out of that), but dont call me a liar just because you cant click on a link.  That is your problem.

Now, how can I admit I am wrong when I am merely quoting sources?  can I admit that my sources are wrong?  SUre!  I did not write them.  But I have no proof they are, and you provide none.  So lets get off this stupid kick you are on.  You were actually getting better as a debater.  You are backsliding now.

Ok, here you go THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Thank you!  Just like I linked and stated.  Thank you for proving my point.

The Rep. Murtha proposal not only makes sense but this week 100 Iraqi leaders demanded a timetable for U S and all foreign troop pull out from Iraq. This is the very thing Bush has refused to do. Every day the Bush, "stay the Course" becomes more and more wrong. He can never admit when he has made an error. Most Americans know the Iraq war an error and most Iraqis do not want us in their country. Bush is a Sad leader for our country

Col klink, no  one is denying what the Iraqis said.  However, they did not say what Murtha proposed.  So try to stick on topic.  At least Davad posted a link that basically backed up what my article said.  You just want to turn this into a Bush bash again.  And I will not let you.  Comment on the article, or dont comment.  Or I will delete. period.

He's not the only one. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

You can fix your problem.  We can help if you are weak.  But you have proved nothing that is contradictory to this article.  So perhaps you can admit you are wrong?  We will not think less of you for it.

You can fix your problem. We can help if you are weak. But you have proved nothing that is contradictory to this article. So perhaps you can admit you are wrong? We will not think less of you for it.

What are you talking about? I provided you a link to the congressional record that shows the resolution that Murtha introduced on the 17th. The COMPLETE resolution. So how is that an after the fact CYA like you keep insisting?

At least Davad posted a link that basically backed up what my article said.

How did the link I provided back up what you said? You said;

Bowdlerized? It stated exactly what Murtha did!

here's the definition of bowdlerized;

bowd·ler·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bdl-rz, boud-)
tr.v. bowd·ler·ized, bowd·ler·iz·ing, bowd·ler·iz·es
To expurgate (a book, for example) prudishly.
To modify, as by shortening or simplifying or by skewing the content in a certain manner.

Ok, now that we have that out of the way look at the entire text of both of the resolutions, not any statements or quotes from other articles...the actual resolutions that are part of the congressional record you keep referring to. The one Murtha submitted on the 17th Link
and the one the GOP submitted on the 18thLink

Would the GOP's version not qualify as a bowdlerized version of Murtha's?

 

What are you talking about? I provided you a link to the congressional record that shows the resolution that Murtha introduced on the 17th. The COMPLETE resolution. So how is that an after the fact CYA like you keep insisting?

And it is exactly what I said!

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region. SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

That is what I said!  Are you esl?  Seriously!

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Friday, November 25, 2005

No, at least he tried to!  You are just a jerk.  Buh, buh bye!

How did the link I provided back up what you said? You said; Bowdlerized? It stated exactly what Murtha did! here's the definition of bowdlerized; bowd·ler·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bdl-rz, boud-) tr.v. bowd·ler·ized, bowd·ler·iz·ing, bowd·ler·iz·es To expurgate (a book, for example) prudishly. To modify, as by shortening or simplifying or by skewing the content in a certain manner.

Very good!  Now prove it wrong.  PROVE it wrong.  No opinions.  FACTS.  Do it! Or just be a sheeple.

And it is exactly what I said!

Well, I guess you'll have to define what an "after the fact CYA" is.

After what? This is the resolution that he introduced in congress. This resolution is what started it all. So what did it come after?

Very good! Now prove it wrong. PROVE it wrong. No opinions. FACTS. Do it! Or just be a sheeple.

I just proved it wrong. Did you read the definition of what that word means? Once again, Murtha's original resolution is;

To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005

Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on
__XXXXXXX
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to ``promote the emergence of a democratic government'';

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That:

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The GOP resolution is;

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

You don't see that as shortened and simplified?

The only thing their resolution calls for is the deployment be terminated immediately. Immediate means right now.
Murtha said "at the earliest practicable date." Another shortened and simplified concept of Murtha's resolution.

In addition, the GOP resolution omitted the following;

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Once again, bowdlerized.

No opinions. FACTS.

Where exactly have I stated any opinions regarding this whole issue? I have provided dated transcripts of the actual congressional record and working links to the above. All of which show that you don't know what you're talking about when you say that what I provided is an after the fact CYA.

Your first link doesn't even work.

The fact remains that Murtha set the issue ablaze; and the administration blinked.

Murtha didn't set anything in motion that wasn't already in motion. Prs. Bush has said that we won't abandon Iraq. We will stay until the Iraq government decides they are ready and asks us to leave.

What happened in Cairo was the government of Iraq assessing their situation and coming to an agreement on what that means.

Of course Iraq wants foreign troops out of their nation as soon as it is able. Why do people want to play politics with this great news? Link

just proved it wrong. Did you read the definition of what that word means? Once again, Murtha's original resolution is;

Again, you proved me right! 

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

What part of that do you not understand? You might want to reread the bolded part!

Where exactly have I stated any opinions regarding this whole issue? I have provided dated transcripts of the actual congressional record and working links to the above. All of which show that you don't know what you're talking about when you say that what I provided is an after the fact CYA.

Where have you stated any facts to refute me?  Do you even know how to debate?  Geez!  You are a fish in a barrell!

The fact remains that Murtha set the issue ablaze; and the administration blinked

Now that is a great response!  I dont think blinked, I think reacted.  ANd in that I think it was about time.

Just seeing different sides of the elephant!

Of course Iraq wants foreign troops out of their nation as soon as it is able. Why do people want to play politics with this great news?

Short answer?  They hate bush. And so even when his predictions are realized, they try to paint it as bad news.

Where have you stated any facts to refute me? Do you even know how to debate? Geez! You are a fish in a barrell!

All over the place, but you will never admit to being the misinformed sheeple that you are. It's no fun with you on this one any more because you refuse to comprehend what you even wrote. If you can't even comprehend your own words there is not much chance of you understanding someone else's.

I'll talk to you the next time you spread your misinformation.

All over the place,

No, NOwhere!

You have not posted any facts yet!  Now try to post one!  Start with one!  Go from there.

Do not insult us again.

I'll talk to you the next time you spread your misinformation.

No, you dont talk.  YOu just preach.  And are a lousy one at that.  I document facts.  YOu spread lies and crap.,  No documentation.

Just crap.

Well here is some hard facts. We are not able to control the terrorism in Iraq. Week after week we have more American troops killed. We can not maintain the current troop levels in Iraq for another year without sending our troops back for third and in some cases a fouth tour. Most Iraqis want us to leave.

You spread lies and crap., No documentation.

I showed you facts. I showed you that the GOP resolution was in fact(according to the dictionary), a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution.

You said what I posted was an after the fact CYA by Murtha. I showed you the congressional record that shows the entire resolution I posted was introduced in congress on 11-17-05, one day prior to the GOP resolution. And you have refused to offer anything other than your opinion to support that what I quoted was an "an priori" or "after the fact CYA". I've asked you several times to clarify what you meant by "after the fact", after what? But you refuse to answer for fear of being proved wrong.

This is from the Murtha resolution -
Therefore be it

1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
2) Congress assembled,
3) That:
4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines
8) shall be deployed in the region.
9) Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy.

So this is like quitting a job. Murtha proposes the two-week notice.

Now the Republicans offer up a resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

What happened to this part:

"and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines
8) shall be deployed in the region.
9) Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy"

The GOP will pressure Bush to reduce the troop levels prior to the 2006 Congressional elections. Wait and see!