Hide Comments
Otherwise, unscrupulous opponents might level charges that they're manipulating those facts, or even lying to drag the country out of the war.
Well how could anyone ever come to a conclusion such as that ? Why we might have to actually look at what some are saying and doing and the 'context' of their 'remarks'.
What a shameful time in which we have come to live. Can some people even spell honor at this point?
Posted by dougf at November 18, 2005 04:00 AM
Actually, as Commander in Chief, the President is the guy who commits the military to combat.
Posted by Steve Skubinna at November 18, 2005 04:30 AM
TypePad's still having trackback problems. I linked and posted some thoughts
of my own at
.">http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/posts/2005/11/hawkish_dem_tim.html.
Posted by Bill Faith at November 18, 2005 08:41 AM
The pacifist movement is going to get us killed.
Posted by susan at November 18, 2005 10:49 AM
Remarkable post. To hear the stories on the news, we have 15,000 amputees being taken out of action. And yes, it is tragic that 280 men have lost their limbs, but this is war. In earlier times they would likely be dead. I am in awe of their sacrifice, but I don't see it as another "grim milestone" in this war.
Posted by G at November 18, 2005 11:58 AM
So far as I am concerned, every milestone will be a grim milestone until the war has been won. War is a pretty grim business after all.
At the same time, great things are happening. It is a time for rejoicing for the freedoms being created and mourning for those lost creating them.
As Winston Churchill, a lousy military strategist but a great inspirational speaker, once said... "never give in, never surrender".
I was always taught that you have to finish what you start.
Posted by Nicholas at November 18, 2005 01:06 PM
That 15,500 number is actually only the _reported_ wounds. Smaller stuff doesn't get reported.
You know, I don't even think the Nazis used aerial bombardment against the towns where they had major problems with the French resistance (mostly leftists, since the right wingers, led by right-winger Petain _were_ the jew-killing Vichy government).
Steve,
Only the US House can declare war, and they must authorize all "force bills" or the like, too. Some Presidents have gotten around them, and not been impeached, but that's not my fault.
Susan,
Only a nitwit could call a combat veteran and 37 year Marine a "pacifist." I never saw combat in the Marines, but on behalf of a fellow jarhead, you are a nitwit.
Nicholas,
We can't win. We are, in fact, losing. Every month we stay it gets worse. Every month is worse than the same month the year before, every month so far in this war. Get your head out of your ass, boy.
Posted by JS Narins at November 18, 2005 02:14 PM
I tried to "ping" you here but for some reason it won't take...just wanted to let you know.
http://youbetchaimapam.blogspot.com/2005/11/shaking-my-head-with-fists-clenched.html
Posted by yankeemom at November 18, 2005 03:06 PM
rep john murtha is a decent and honest american veteran. he is stating the obvious we are either going be over in iraq gradually taking casulities for years to come and he is getting tired of it. our military readiness is suffering period. this veteran is overjoyed that the threat of saddam hussein is gone. after the elections are done in december it is going to be iraqi people's problem what type of nation iraq needs to become. that is the reality folks. except of course we will be iraq's air force for the forseeable future. god bless out troops tommy peace out.
Posted by tommy in nyc at November 18, 2005 03:14 PM
"Susan,
Only a nitwit could call a combat veteran and 37 year Marine a "pacifist." I never saw combat in the Marines, but on behalf of a fellow jarhead, you are a nitwit. - JS"
Murtha has now achieved something few Marines ever accomplish by advocating surrender and slamming the Marines on the ground. He has become an "ex" marine. Wanna' pick a fight about it JS? Have at it! Marines do not fail as Murtha is advocating. Period! The Grunts are disgusted with his behavior. They do not want his kind of "support" thank you very much. They are NOT losing and believe 100% in the mission. To it's completion.
I've read "opinions" from over 30 current and retired Marines that state the exact opposite of your opinion. From PFCs to Full Birds not one supports this tact by Murtha. It shames them to even see this type of grandstanding in the name of the body politic! From a former Marine no less!
Stupid is as stupid does I guess.
http://nogovernmentcheese.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-we-owe-them.html
Posted by JarheadDad at November 18, 2005 03:45 PM
I tried to ping you as well. No luck.
Posted by Buckley F. Williams at November 18, 2005 04:50 PM
I spent too many months in USMC/Navy hospitals to have anything but horrors at the thought of war, but I've long been an admirer of Gandhi, too, and I think that there's one USMC officer that could learn from him:
"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
"But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns the soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
"The people of a village near Bettiah told me that they had run away whilst the police were looting their houses and molesting their womenfolk. When they said that they had run away because I had told them to be nonviolent, I hung my head in shame. I assured them that such was not the meaning of my nonviolence. I expected them to intercept the mightiest power that might be in the act of harming those who were under their protection, and draw without retaliation all harm upon their own heads even to the point of death, but never to run away from the storm centre. It was manly enough to defend one’s property, honour or religion at the point of the sword. It was manlier and nobler to defend them without seeking to injure the wrongdoer. But it was unmanly, unnatural and dishonourable to forsake the post of duty and, in order to save one’s skin, to leave property, honour or religion to the mercy of the wrongdoer. I could see my way of delivering the message of ahimsa to those who knew how to die, not to those who were afraid of death.
"The weakest of us physically must be taught the art of facing dangers and giving a good account of ourselves. I want both the Hindus and the Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage, to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed, rather than in a cowardly manner flee from danger. For the latter in spite of his flight does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.
"Self-defence is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
"I would risk violence a thousand times than the emasculation of a whole race.—YI, 4-8-20, Tagore, 32I"
(bolding added}
Posted by htom at November 18, 2005 05:05 PM
Jarheaddad,
You only have to look at the re-enlistment numbers to know what the vets of this war think, they are voting with their feet.
You are just swinging around slogans like "Marines don't fail." Of course they do. They have won some and lost some thoughtout their history.
The fact that the entire leaderhip of this war is a set of draft dodgers who have decided to try out war fighting theories that are bankrupt and doomed to fail is what out to tick you off. Not geniune hero's like Murtha.
An increasing small fraction of America hangs on to what the rest already know. This war is worse for us than Vietnam. Its conduct and the loss of the war has left us weak.
Your son is the same a s Murtha or Kerry. He is patriotic and wantd to do the right thing. His betrayal is not by the critics of the war, but the idiots who are managing it.
Posted by KL19 at November 18, 2005 05:07 PM
:(
I'm unauthorized to send you trackbacks again!
Sorry to bug you about this again... can you take me off of the spam list?
Thanks! Josh at Peakah's Provocations...
http://peakah.blogspot.com/
This is the post I was going to trackback:
http://peakah.blogspot.com/2005/11/freedom-from-religion_17.html
Posted by Peakah at November 18, 2005 05:12 PM
"You are just swinging around slogans like "Marines don't fail." Of course they do. They have won some and lost some thoughtout their history."
Name 'em. Sure they've lost engagements but never their mission. Politicians may have done so but not the Marines. Ever. Take that "slogan" and put it where the sun don't shine!
What reenlistment numbers are you talking about KL19? The Corps is amazing in it's retainment. My son is coming short soon and we've been discussing his reenlistment. He wants to (hence he probably will) but I do not feel the risk is worth the effort when he has the cowards that you espouse as heroes making sure he cannot finish the drill. Yeah, I'm the cynical one not him. I do not believe that the Left of this Country is worth fighting for and I wouldn't take the time to pi** on them if they were on fire. He would rush in and save them. Good thing I'm not of age huh?
What do you know of heroes KL19? Seen any lately? Read any stories in the MSM about any lately? Can you point to a mainstream awareness of our heroes accomplishments in battle? Yeah, OK.
What small fraction would that be? Oh, you mean the "small" fraction that still believes in Honor, Country, Duty, Mom, and Apple Pie. Well just pardon the hel* out of us for being so backward and not "with it". We apologize for gracing your world with our ability to get it done and sacrifice for the betterment of mankind. Were it you that had the cajonies that these young fireaters have that are doing one hellova job in Iraq and The Stan. Funny thing about all us old archaic neanderthal relics and their offspring, we just simply can't get the hang of being seditionists, cowards, and apologists like your heroes. But then our definition of a hero is at odds with yours.
Go figure!
Posted by JarheadDad at November 18, 2005 05:38 PM
I have had a serious problem lately with the excesses of some on the right in advocating the use of military force. There seems to be an unfortunate tendency among many who have offered little but words in the defense of this country to revel in the sacrifices of others. Support both for troops and for the justicity of the cause for which they fight is admirable, but many have gone a step further and seen fit to criticize the character and service record of Rep. Murch. I did not object when the Swifties took on Kerry because they had the stature to do so. While this case is hardly analogous, there are few if any people with the sort of credibility to take aim at that of Rep. Murch. Respect his service and his efforts even as you disagree with his views. That is the appropriate course of action to take.
Posted by AnonCon at November 18, 2005 07:10 PM
AnonCon - He served. Yay. I disagree with his views because he's setting up a nice little scenario that will cost a hell of a lot more down the line than he can foresee - and the stupid bastard's old enough to realize that HE won't be around when the bill comes due to be called on it. And he's doing this for sheer political advantage here in the states, REGARDLESS of what it does elsewhere. If they've got to fuck over Iraq to get a Democrat as Prez, then BOHICA to the people of Iraq. God knows they wouldn't deserve it, but hey, who really gives a flying fuck in the DNC about anyone who won't get them power?
Screw him, and the Donkey he rode into office.
JMHO, of course. I'm sure there's plenty of folks who thought Benedict Arnold was a fine fellow also. War hero and all that, you know... and then he sold out the US.
J.
Posted by JLawson at November 18, 2005 07:24 PM
Without going overboard, let me point out that the Army made only 80% of its enlistment goal during the last fiscal year. Judging from your acronym-happy post I would imagine you've already signed your name on the dotted line, but some of these people should seriously consider it. The desperate-to-remain-relevant John Kerry is alright warning about Murtha's imminent 'swifting.' There is enough in what Murtha says to work with without having to tackle his military record. He is not John Kerry, and if we try to treat him as though he is it WILL boomerang.
Posted by AnonCon at November 18, 2005 07:52 PM
Anoncon- NO ONE HERE has criticized Murtha the Marine. Murtha the congressman is a different story. Don't confuse the two. So far as I know, his years of service as a Marine deserve respect and gratitude. On the other hand, from what I've seen, his service as congressman deserves scorn and disgust. Does he not see the harm that will be done as his comments will encourage the terrorists to stick it out and kill a few more Americans? I thought he wanted to protect them?
It seems the Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen on the ground only want our support and the time and tools to get the job done. Don't we owe that to them? They are the ones CURRENTLY risking injury and death, and they still believe the mission is a viable and worthy one, why don't you?
Also, don't change the subject from retention to enlistment numbers, which still don't support you- Retention is through the roof (so much for your 'the vets are with me' argument), and only the Army came up short on enlistment GOALS. They are actually doing quite well in absolute numbers relative to previous years. Go figure, eh? Maybe when you have facts that are actually correct, we can take seriously your opinions about our failure or lack thereof in Iraq.
Posted by douglas at November 18, 2005 08:44 PM
Who's attacking Murtha's record AC? I'm attacking his statements that he was doing this for the Marines. The Marines I know have all answered with a resounding, "No thank you we prefer to finish the mission and we are winning". He's alienated himself without the help of anyone else from the Corps. Marines do not lose (another jingolistic slogan for you). Murtha is advocating that. He's done it to himself and with an entire new generation.
Imagine you're in a sh*thole in Kharma, Ramadi, Zaidon, Fallujah, Mosul, or somewhere and you see this announcement to cut and run. No, no one else needs do a thing. Murtha has done it all by himself but don't think for a minute that there aren't hard feelings about it. And it doesn't have a dam* thing to do with his record as a Marine other than to ostracize himself from it. No one did that for him.
Posted by JarheadDad at November 18, 2005 08:44 PM
So many things that need comment.
First off, the Republican wingnut tactic of sliming whoever disagrees with them no longer works. The attack on Rep. Murtha is unconscionable, and it will backfire on whoever launches it. The role of a congressman is not to click his heels, raise a stiff-armed salute and shout "Jawohl!"
The bloom is off the rose for the Liar in Chief and his clique. Every aspect of the Iraq War is being picked apart. It should have happened a long time ago, but it's better late than never. The country was led by the nose into an unnecessary war by lying leaders, who proceeded to offer horrendously failed leadership. The best thing Bush and Cheney could do is resign, and hand over the reins to a group of competent bipartisan leaders who would pledge to not seek re-election in 2008. Absent that, they should be impeached and then handed over to the World Court for war crimes prosecution.
The USMC never fails? What horseshit. Right off the top of my head I can cite the Mayaguez incident off the coast of Cambodia, and the truck bombing of the Beirut barracks. If your response is to shift the blame for these and other failures to others, then my retort would be that the Marine Corps ought to be more concerned about winning its battles than polishing its image.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 18, 2005 08:54 PM
JS Narins: You obviously feel you are better than Iraqis. In your mind, they are doomed to fail because they are somehow inferior, whereas you are nothing but a font of truth. Too bad they're the brave people fighting for their freedom while you are nothing but a mouthpiece of defeatism.
Do you really think 27 million people will allow themselves to be terrorised by a tiny minority again? How stupid do you think they are?
Posted by Nicholas at November 18, 2005 10:14 PM
Kolb bleated:
"First off, the Republican wingnut tactic of sliming whoever disagrees with them no longer works."
...except it is Kolb who slimes pretty much everyone who disagrees with him. Funny that.
Posted by Patrick Chester at November 19, 2005 03:26 AM
WK- "The role of a congressman is not to click his heels, raise a stiff-armed salute and shout "Jawohl!""
Looks like all but three of your Democrats just did. (Voting on the "Murtha" resolution)
Posted by douglas at November 19, 2005 06:11 AM
Kolb. Why did Pelosi have all of her lackeys sign a loyalty oath to vote the pary line, and not do the will of the people in their home districts?
Who is the heel clickers now?
Posted by nosmo at November 19, 2005 06:28 AM
This is the first I've heard of such an animal, nosmo. Please provide a link to the article -- and make it comething other than the [i]Bill O'Leilly Terrorist Support Hour[/i] or the [i]Moonie Times[/i], would you? And give us a link to the form that Pelosi "makes" anyone sign. I want to see this! Or is this just one more lie that you heard on the [i]Rush limbaugh Prescription Drug Hour[/i]?
Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 04:33 AM
I have a question for everyone.
What more can be accomplished with the continued presence in Iraq at the current troop levels?
Also, what's your view of when the Iraqis will be able to handle things on their own?
Note: To left & right extremists - I would like some civilized discussion on this, not the same old rhetoric from either side ;-)
Thanks in advance to all who respond!
Posted by Bryan M. Chesmer at November 20, 2005 08:08 PM
Your post - (Posted by douglas at November 19, 2005 06:11 AM) "Looks like all but three of your Democrats just did. (Voting on the "Murtha" resolution)"
My reply - Please get your facts strait before posting. That has not been voted on. What was voted on, was a 1 linner from the Republican's
Posted by Bryan M. Chesmer at November 20, 2005 08:12 PM
You might want to start here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html
Rumsfeld has a withdrawal plan on his desk.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 10:46 PM
I am glad my step-father passed on to the Big Muster before this happened. How could he, a lifelong democrat, justify the representatives' remarks. Dad served in the USMC in Haiti around 1930, then went back in during WWII. He landed with the 5th Marine Division Engineers on Iwo Jima. He could never understand a Marine advocating a cut and run strategy. I respect the congressman for his service to the country, which includes his serving in congress, but feel it is my duty to say he is very wrong on this issue.
John M. Schwab
AG1 USN (Ret.)
Posted by John M. Schwab at November 21, 2005 06:05 PM
Oh for Pete's sake. Murtha's wrong (and late) in what he ASSERTS, period. My not having been a Marine for 37 years doesn't matter one bit. In America we don't base arguments about reality or contingencies on AUTHORITY, but on THE FACTS. Just as you don't have to be a lung cancer survivor to argue against smoking or an AIDS patient to argue against "unsafe" sex, so too you don't have to have served in the military to be able to read, assimilate facts, compare them with what Murtha et al. claim to be true and conclude he's not only full of hot air, he's also misinformed.
Posted by John at November 21, 2005 06:58 PM
Oh and a couple more things... throughout the 1990's Osama was making a connection between our policy with regards to Iraq and his attacks on us.... so whom are we to claim while Al Qaeda had links with every OTHER nation on earth, they magically had absolutely zero contact with Iraq?
Secondly, regardless of "pre-war" intelligence and the degree of Iraq-Al Qaeda alligiance, it's totally clear TODAY that Al Qaeda is IN IRAQ NOW. All the Moonbats who claim we can only morally fight in Afghanistan "because only Al Qaeda attacked us" amazingly simultaneously claim we ignore the SAME GROUP in Iraq today! If they're serious about "fighting the real war against Al Qaeda" then what the heck are they doing claiming we ought to pull out of Iraq - where the enemy is!?
One final thing... the Democrats recipe for every other issue is SPEND MORE MONEY AND MORE TIME on it, whether "it" be education, the "war on poverty", crime, curing cancer or AIDS, affirmative action. They never ever claim we've spent too much money or it'll never work. Why the difference in war? 2 years is hardly long enough to reform a single failing DC highschool but the moonbats think we (or they) could liberate Iraq and magically win the war by now? We're still in Bosnia (despite Klinton's claim to have an 'exit strategy that included a time table). Somehow I missed the "peace" marches calling for our withdrawl of forces by December 1999.
Posted by John at November 21, 2005 07:16 PM
throughout the 1990's Osama was making a connection between our policy with regards to Iraq and his attacks on us.... so whom are we to claim while Al Qaeda had links with every OTHER nation on earth, they magically had absolutely zero contact with Iraq?
To my knowledge, Osama never commented about al-Qaeda attacks on the United States prior to 9/11. Now I could be wrong about that, so please post a link to the evidence. Surely this isn't just one more rightwingnut lie, is it?
Secondly, even if Bin Laden had made such statements and had mentioned Iraq, that does not mean that Iraq was involved. You need more proof to establish a connection. al-Qaeda is an Islamic fundamentalist organization. Saddam was a secularist. Those two forces were opponents.
Your Liar-in-Chief's linkage between Saddam and al-Qaeda rested on the ignorance of the averqage American, who figured that because Bin Laden's an Arab and Saddam is an Arab and both of them had grievances against the U.S., they must have been working together. Well, the Republicans have grievances against Ted Kennedy and the Nazis have grievances against Ted Kennedy, so does that mean they're working together?
Jawohl!
Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 21, 2005 09:48 PM
Does anyone know the citations accompanying Mr. Murtha's Bronze Star and the 2 Purple Hearts? As a retired Marine, myself, I am fully aware that the Bronze Star was known among us enlisted men as the "officer's Good Conduct Medal" during the end of VietNam. And, a great many officers got themselves posted to Vietnam for a temporary stay (in some cases only 1 day), so that they could be honestly nominated for the inclusion of the "V", denoting combat. Remember, Vietnam was a combat Zone, in toto.
Semper fi,
John
Posted by John Crawford at November 26, 2005 05:40 AM
Regards John Crawfords post. Serving in RVN does NOT entitle a Bronze Star holder to wear a V device. The V is awarded for a SPECIFIC act of bravery, documented and affirmed by others. I smell a BOORDA here. What does an S-2 officer (Major?) do to win a V on a Bronze Star? As for KOLB, I'm willing to knock on Murtha if he is pulling a BOORDA. Afterall I've got me an ARCOM, MSM, GCM w/4 kts, NSM, VNCM w/3 lvs, VNSM, and a bunch more. OOOOhhh, a real hero I am!
Posted by landroll at December 3, 2005 02:03 AM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(35) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
