[Dwencejed]

Good News. Looks like we're actually going to get a Congress that actually shows up to work.

Rep. Murtha: I will be recommending to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that we begin extensive hearings starting on January 17, 2007 that will address accountability, military readiness, intelligence oversight and the activities of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We will be demanding substantive answers to questions that have gone unanswered for far too long.

The war in Iraq and its effect on our military and our nation's future remains the most crucial issue facing the new Congress. I will be will be recommending an aggressive pursuit of action that will allow us to reduce our military presence in Iraq at the soonest practicable date. The Blog | Rep. John Murtha: Extensive Hearings on Iraq | The Huffington Post

[Soresbox]

I'm looking forward to it. Tomorrow they get sworn in. Game on.

[fabrizioitwloch]

It'll be interesting but since Murtha is involved, I predict a circle jerk.
I guess time will tell.

[Vemnagelignc]

Congressional oversight?

Sweet.

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

John "AbScam" Murtha wants to talk accountability?

That's funny.

Fortunately, since the rest of the Democratic caucus found him unfit to lead, all Murtha can do is "recommend".

I have no problem with looking into the myrid things that have not gone well in Iraq, and in the pre-war intelligence.

But as I have noted many time before, I hope the Congress doesn't pull a repeat of the Iran-Contra farce. That particular Democrat press stunt ended up setting guilty men free, just to get politicians some TV time.

Matt

[PypeMaypetasy]

Game on.

and this is what i am afraid all things will be in the future

a game

[cokLoolioli]

Good News. Looks like we're actually going to get a Congress that actually shows up to work.

How do you figure? Democrats missed the most votes in the last congress and many were reelected:

House members who missed votes | 109th Congress | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com

[Unjucky]

and this is what i am afraid all things will be in the future

a game

Right, because up until now, the Iraq war was a campaign ad, a much more fitting and dignified way to die............

[Teareerah]

And what do we expect will be found? Democrats will not hold actual hearings for they will not want the real information getting out. On Iraq intelligence, the intelligence has been the same since 1991. On military accountability, do they intend to fire generals, and do not the dems have a bad enough image with the military now?

Frankly, there is nothing that will come of this. Committees will call in administration staffers and military leaders and lecture them and impugn their character, but no hearings. Facts will expose the democrats as frauds.

[sarasaraseda]

And what do we expect will be found? Democrats will not hold actual hearings for they will not want the real information getting out. On Iraq intelligence, the intelligence has been the same since 1991. On military accountability, do they intend to fire generals, and do not the dems have a bad enough image with the military now?

Frankly, there is nothing that will come of this. Committees will call in administration staffers and military leaders and lecture them and impugn their character, but no hearings. Facts will expose the democrats as frauds.

Yes - it's a minefield for the Dems. But I do think there will be hearings.

Most people want a full account of how we got into Iraq and, especially, where we are going. But it can easily turn into an anti-military fiasco, and as you mention, the Dems are extremely vulnerable. They have not yet escaped their reputation as anti-military, anti-defense "lefties". This could be a chance to prove that reputation wrong, but with the far-left in the positions of power they are heading for a fall.

You make a good point about the generals. Photos of self-righteous left-wingers insulting and yelling at the military will be like free propaganda for the GOP. The real issues surrounding the decisions to go to war in the first place were not made by these generals. But the Dems can go after them easily.

I have seen Sen. Leahy talking many, many times about the need to look into the rights of prisoners. That is another potential minefield. If the Dems appear to be supporting and appeasing the terrorists in any way, that will flood the media outlets. Leahy is an attack dog when he gets going, and I'm sure the GOP is waiting for him to start going after the military.

Altogether - grim stuff.

[Dwencejed]

And what do we expect will be found? Democrats will not hold actual hearings for they will not want the real information getting out. On Iraq intelligence, the intelligence has been the same since 1991. On military accountability, do they intend to fire generals, and do not the dems have a bad enough image with the military now?

Frankly, there is nothing that will come of this. Committees will call in administration staffers and military leaders and lecture them and impugn their character, but no hearings. Facts will expose the democrats as frauds.

I fear you may be right, but I need to hang on to hope because if the Democrats let us down, then all is lost.

[Dwencejed]

HAHAHA! This is classic. C&L pointed me this way. It's hilarious.



It's the cover for Red State 01/04/06



NOOOOOOO! The commies are back! Run!!

[fabrizioitwloch]

I fear you may be right, but I need to hang on to hope because if the Democrats let us down, then all is lost.

Sooner or later, somethings got to give.

[ahagotyou]

Yes - it's a minefield for the Dems. But I do think there will be hearings.

Most people want a full account of how we got into Iraq and, especially, where we are going. But it can easily turn into an anti-military fiasco, and as you mention, the Dems are extremely vulnerable. They have not yet escaped their reputation as anti-military, anti-defense "lefties". This could be a chance to prove that reputation wrong, but with the far-left in the positions of power they are heading for a fall.

You make a good point about the generals. Photos of self-righteous left-wingers insulting and yelling at the military will be like free propaganda for the GOP. The real issues surrounding the decisions to go to war in the first place were not made by these generals. But the Dems can go after them easily.

I have seen Sen. Leahy talking many, many times about the need to look into the rights of prisoners. That is another potential minefield. If the Dems appear to be supporting and appeasing the terrorists in any way, that will flood the media outlets. Leahy is an attack dog when he gets going, and I'm sure the GOP is waiting for him to start going after the military.

Altogether - grim stuff.

You are nuts. The high profile leftists have been consistantly lying their asses off spouting anti-USA bullshit on the floor and at committe hearings for the last 2 years, and guess what, it didn't hurt them one fucking bit as evidenced by mid-term elections.

That because it doesn't get publicity. When the Dems boycotted the Kartrina hearings, the media didn't give a shit. (Kudos to Ms. Mckinney for showing up despite party orders BTW). When Boxer got caught lying her ass off at the Rice confirmation hearings the media said nothing. When Kucinich got up and mindlessly repeated false enemy propaganda the big media backed him up.

I record all this shit and watch it.

Face it. The mainstream media is on the Dems side so a "spotlight" cannot hurt them. If you are hoping that some kind of spotlight on the left's new position of power is going to weaken them I'd say you are going to be in for a big letdown come Nov. 2008. They are already media darlings and they are in a position to blame any failures on the president and take the credit for any successes.

The Dems are going to take the whitehouse and strengthen their position in congress easily. And they know it too.

[PypeMaypetasy]

Right, because up until now, the Iraq war was a campaign ad, a much more fitting and dignified way to die............

a war you never supported

troops you only talked about to prove a political point

armned forces you dont respect


so what was your point? the right is wrong cause they used it in their campaigns

there is truth in that

but what you and your ilk have done. is no better if not worse

[fameintatenly]

Murtha's hearings will be very limited in scope and will not address questions like "were we lied into iraq" or "was the intel fabricated". Frauds committed by contractors and comparisons of admin estimates v actual expenses for the war will be explored. At best maybe an effort will be made to actually include the cost of the war in the national budget instead of hiding it in "emergency appropriations" as the republican congress always did.

[Unjucky]

Well, for one thing, there is eight billion dollars in US $100 bills that is unaccounted for in Iraq. The previous administration declined to investigate the disappearance of this cash, because it might show them in a bad light, after all there was a huge wave of connected GOP hangers on that flooded Iraq right after the fall of Baghdad to make their fortunes.
For another thing for something like 50 billion dollars in "rebuilding" that was done, there is precious little to show for it, and the investigations into over billing by Halliburton and Bechtel were routinely squashed.
All of that should make some interesting hearing material.

Then there is the fact that Humvees were being uparmored at a rate of 4/month for the first couple of years, and body armor was not being ordered in sufficient amounts to supply the forces in Iraq, not just in the first few months, but years after the war was launched, that should make interesting hearings.

And then there is all that "intelligence", I'm sure there are some CIA analysts who are chomping at the bit to be sworn before the committee and asked if the White House manipulated the data it supplied Congress.

[Unjucky]

a war you never supported

troops you only talked about to prove a political point

armned forces you dont respect


so what was your point? the right is wrong cause they used it in their campaigns

there is truth in that

but what you and your ilk have done. is no better if not worse

A war I didn't support, because it was wrong, and worse than wrong, it was stupid.
When a military genius named "goober" can spot that from his house, and all the presidents men can't see it, then I'd say this country is in trouble.

The greatest of all war crimes, is starting the war, and we know who did that don't we.

What me and my ilk did was speak truth, if that's "no better if not worse" than starting a war in your book, you need a new book.

[PypeMaypetasy]

A war I didn't support, because it was wrong, and worse than wrong, it was stupid.
When a military genius named "goober" can spot that from his house, and all the presidents men can't see it, then I'd say this country is in trouble.

The greatest of all war crimes, is starting the war, and we know who did that don't we.

What me and my ilk did was speak truth, if that's "no better if not worse" than starting a war in your book, you need a new book.

no sir it is your book that is flawed

you wax poetic about saddam for god sake..........

[Soresbox]

and this is what i am afraid all things will be in the future

a game

Explain please.