Once again, as I laid out here, John Murtha shows how to respond to the noise machine.
Murtha was criticized during a Pentagon news conference Thursday, when the chairman of the joint chiefs said Murtha’s weekend criticism was “damaging” troop recruitment efforts.
In a statement released by Murtha, the decorated Marine veteran responded that the real damage to recruitment comes from prolonged deployments, inadequate equipment, and the “lack of any connection between Iraq and the brutal attacks of 9/11.”
Reject the premise of the attack, repeat with your original point. Bang. Murthanized.
Murtha had told ABC’s “This Week” program he wouldn’t enlist in the military if he were eligible today.
War hero, my ass…
Murtha is full of sh@t
Soldiers in WWII deployed for YEARS with no cell phone, no email etc, etc.
It cracks me up that people can look at what the chairman of the joint chiefs says and just brush it off. Even DKel only gets a tiny little view of morale, recruiting etc.
If you said what murtha said during wwII youi would have been run out of town on a rail.
High OPTEMPO and multiple deployments become a whole lot easier when you have support from home. Few of you leftists here know that, not ever having deployed.
You guys are full of it, “we support the troops!” , yea, when it fulfills your political agenda. You are just like what OW calls the “Bandwagoneers”, when you think it will win you votes you will deign to discuss Soldiers, but every once and while you let the act slip and we get to see your true colors.
Frank,
Are you saying that Frank Murtha is not a war hero because he says he would not enlist in the military today? Does that fact erase the reality that he is a decorated combat veteran? I don’t believe that having served in the military should give a person license to say or do anything, but he didn’t run for Canada decades ago., and I hope you don’t believe that hooey that troops are “demoralized” when people speak out against the war. Trust me, the last thing anyone thinks about during an OPORDER backbrief is what the polls show about the popularity of the war.
Also, Murtha simply said what he would not do today based upon his views of the war. Let us not forget that there are many eligible young Americans who wouldn’t enlist in the military today, the startling reality is that many of them “support” the war. Or perhaps you saying that he is not a war hero because his combat exploits pale in comparison to yours?
As usual Frank, your keen analysis of the facts is remarkable.
While you are likely stuck in “we coulda won it in ‘68 if not for the hippies” mode, much of the country has learned the lesson of Vietnam, whether they vocalize it or not, that the government will often lie about its intentions in starting foreign wars. The government will send soldiers into poorly conceived situations without adequate plans for success. The gov’t will abandon those soldiers when they return.
Unlike the chickenhawks neocons in the Bush administration who found ways to hide from fighting when they had the opportunity to serve, Murtha has a personal understanding of how the military ought to be. He has personal experience of what can happen when the military is run by a corrupt executive (facilitated by a corrupt and weak-kneed congress).
Murtha’s statement was so simple even you should be able to understand it, Frank. The craven cowards in the White House tried to pin low recruitment numbers on Murtha (at one point they’ve even paid Murtha the highest compliment a winger can bestow by comparing him to Michael Moore). Murtha responded with the truth: it’s the Bushies’ criminally incompetent use of the military that people are seeing, and those people remembering their Vietnam lesson. The list of suckers has gotten shorter, even in a pathetic job market.
I’ve got an idea, Frank. Instead of sitting at your keyboard pissing on Murtha, why don’t you go out and help your fearless leader’s cause? Is there a nearby high school or college? Why don’t you put on your old uniform and go help with recruiting efforts? You could share your military experiences with young men and women, and then share with them the same pro-Bush wisdom you share here. Of course, then you’ll have to go straight the local recruiter’s office to help out, because they’ll immediately be swamped with the eager young patriots you’ve convinced to fight for the noble cause.
Exactly right.
Murtha and fellow dems should also have the same ratio as the
republican machine. For every dissenting comment, seven
responses should be made. One is not enough. Repetition
is the key to returning the tide.
BTW
Tweedldum; you couldn’t find a war hero, or your ass with both hands.
Gen Pace is anointed of God because he currently serves?
He is a wind-up-toy for the Commander In Chief, and as such,
is a PARTISAN POLITCAL OPERATIVE.
And I think Dkel, since he has served more recently than any
speaking here, has a better take on what troop morale is
affected by.
If you said what murtha said during wwII youi would have been run out of town on a rail.
Iraq isn’t WWII, genius. U.S. complicity in the rise of the Nazis notwithstanding, a U.S. military outpost was attacked, and Germany declared war on the U.S. At some junctures, German U-boats were attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S.
Did Saddam Hussein send the mighty Iraqi Navy up the Hudson? Did he declare war on the U.S.? NO.
High OPTEMPO and multiple deployments become a whole lot easier when you have support from home. Few of you leftists here know that, not ever having deployed.
Can they get any easier when you realize you aren’t really fighting for anything meaningful?
You guys are full of it, we support the troops!
What gives with this right-wing affinity for the Straw Man? I don’t have a stupid yellow sticker on my car, and I don’t repeat stupid slogans like “support the troops.” The only support I’m offering is adding my voice to those who want them brought home now. But I will not refrain from pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hide behind the ‘honor’ of ‘the troops’ whenever their petty rationalizations and limp-dick, chickenhawk cheerleading get called out. It’s you pricks and your masters who are responsible for this bloody pointless war, so you should own up to it.
The fact is that anybody who speaks out against the war automatically gets tarred as a Partisan Political Operative, whether they are or not. It’s the same way that any celebrity who speaks out against the war is a Hollywood Know-Nothing Celebrity (although celebrities who speak out in favor of the war are Patriots).
Namecalling is the right wing partisan’s best tool–it’s cheap, simple, and everybody remembers it from their days in kindergarten.
if you neocons think what Murtha said was wrong then you would have to say that Bush not completing his military obligation was wrong. Back in the 60’s it cost over a million dollars to train a fighter pilot. And Cheney kept getting student deferments until the Viet Nam war was over. Was that ok with you neocons. How would you neocons treat Clinton if he had taken us to war with Iraq. Would you be so quick to support him even if over 2000 Americans were killed trying to bring Democracy to Iraq. Clinton was a draft dodging non veteran. You know you would not support the war in Iraq if Clinton had done what Bush has done. And I doubt if any Democrats would have supported him either.
I think George Bush is doing more to hurt troop morale and enlistment, what with starting the unnecessary war with no plan, than John Murtha telling the truth. And if you think Pace is apolitical, I have some other news for you: Santa Claus isn’t real.
So we have the current, apolitical, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, saying your guy, a high ranking partisan Democrat, is hurting troop morale and recruiting. And your answer is that Gen Pace is part of the “noise machine?” How about the General’s charges? Do you just take Murtha, who has been out of uniform for quite a while and is apartisan political figure, no matter what, at face value and dismiss Gen Pace.
Let me say it: Murtha could be Jesus F Christ with Two Medals of Honor stapled to his forehead and he would still be totally full of sh*t. Lets be clear, he is today, first and foremost, a PARTISAN POLITICAL OPERATIVE. You may give him credit because in his past he served his country when you didn’t, but there are plenty of us who have been there, also served and consider him bad for the troops, bad for the war effort and a partisan cynic.
Dugger
Tweedldee believes he’s right. It must be so.
Cool your jets, Smith. What I was suggesting, Corrigan’s imbeilic tirade to the contrary, is that Murtha is no hero now. He’s just a dove in hawk’s clothing, trotted out by the left because when he parrots their line, they can introduce him by saying, “He’s a war hero, and even he’s against the war in Iraq.”
Big deal.
I wonder how many war heroes in Iraq are opposed to the war in Iraq? Let’s give everyone of them a press conference — all of them. Then let’s see what people think of that.
Therefore, there is one, and only one, thing that can be done: blow up lots of people who had nothing to do with it.
Looks like you’ve blocked out apx. 12 years where we tried more than “one thing”.
Uh…
So you’re saying that no Democratic opinions of this war should be regarded? Classy.
Oh no, Corrigan, you mean I have become a new species of chickenhawk, because I won’t help at the Recruiting Office?
What a jerk you are.
The fact is, I know more about the Viet Nam War than you could learn if you lived to be a hundred, and I’m still learning. No one in my classes has ever made an incorrect statement about Viet Nam without being taken up on it by me.
That includes any public place since I came home in 1970. When was the last time you dragged your sorry punk ass away from that keyboard to speak out for what you believe in?
Semant,
Lets face it. You like what Murtha says and use his PAST credentials to legitimize his present -day arguments. I like what Pace says and use his PRESENT credentials to legitimize what he says. Murtha, TODAY, no matter what, holds a Democratic Party leadership position. Pace, TODAY, is a soldier forbidden by law to actively engage in partisan politics. Pace has first hand knowledge of Iraq, the war and Armed Forces issues. What Murtha knows, he knows because the Pace’s of the world tell him.
So if we just look at credentials and positions, Pace is obviously the more authoritative spokeman. Doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right, but it does mean you can’t just toss out Murtha’s past experience and say, blank check, what he says must be true. I served a long time and that service does not inoculate me from being wrong and or being challenged on logic and factualness. Likewise Murtha.
southpaw, Bush of course completed his service commitment.
BD, OK. Not everybody who speaks out against the war is a partisan political operative, but many ARE. The best way for Murtha to not be thought of a partisan political operative is for him to resign from his, ahem, partisan political position. Don’t you think?
Dugger
Doesn t necessarily mean he s right, but it does mean you can t just toss out Murtha s past experience and say, blank check, what he says must be true
Dugger;
Murtha is partisan, Pace is not partisan. Are you kidding me?
Pace is the public face of the JC and the Pentagon, and the WH.
Are those the only three bureaucracies on planet earth that don’t
operate top-down? Yes-men have suddenly disappeared from the
landscape of this triad? Pace is not aware of what has happened
to Brass who have drifted off the reservation?
Really Dugger, your memories of the military must be like a lot of
my ancient archives. Nostalgia occurs when memory filters
out the bad, and selectively cuddles with the good.
southpaw we are talking about murtha stop changing the subject.
Unneccesary war? When will war be necessary in your mind OW? If the mexicans or canadians come over the border, is that your standard? If the iranians plan a flag in the middle of central park?
Iraq violated a cease fire agreement multiple times, shot at coalition forces, violated a dozen serious UN resolutions .
You lefties try to tag those of us who believe in protecting the country “cowards”, yet how cowardly is it to let a rogue dictator spit in the face of the free world again and again. I know you OW are afraid (and would not qualify) to serve, as with most of your leftist posters here. But many of us who wore the uniform when 9/11 happened believe this is the right course. And based on changes we have seen throughout the middle east, libya etc, history is going to prove us right.
Yes. Yes, please.
James T: So you re saying that no Democratic opinions of this war should be regarded? Classy.
It is the habit of the left wing dizbrains who inhabit this blog to do things such as you have done: “So you’re saying Little Miss Muffet should be put to death? That’s terrible,” when of course I said no such thing.
You may think you’re clever, but it’s a worn out tactic on this blog.
It has been a common tactic of the Left — used far less often, I don’t know why, on the Right, to trout out a speaker for a left wing cause who one would not ordinarily expect would support that cause, as in:
He’s a Catholic priest, yet he favors a woman’s right to choose;
He’s a Republican, yet he favors raising the minimum wage; and, of course,
He’s a war hero, yet he is opposed to the war in Iraq.
You see?
If Murtha is not being exploited, then why is he consistently referred to as “decorated Marine veteran,” when he hasn’t been in the military in what, 15 or 18 years?
I say we should start referring to George W. Bush as “current President, former fighter pilot George W. Bush.”
Stop being so naive.
Hmmm, the TANG issue?
The one that the democrats fabricated documents to prove? You are absolutely right, it WOULD be excellent timing for us!
If Murtha is not being exploited, then why is he consistently referred to as decorated Marine veteran, when he hasn t been in the military in what, 15 or 18 years?
Does being out of the service for a time make him any less decorated? No. Military honors are typically taken as an indication of commitment to service. Duh.
I say we should start referring to George W. Bush as current President, former fighter pilot George W. Bush.
Oh, I so wish you would. Let’s put the whole TANG issue right up front again, please. It’d be such excellent timing for the Republicans.
I was addressing Dugger, Frank.
But incidentally, a Bush supporter has no grounds to criticise ‘the Left’ (heh! As if it were a single, united machine) for obfuscation.
Short answer: When was the last time you dragged your sorry punk ass away from that keyboard to speak out for what you believe in?
That s my business.
Fine, then the chickenhawk argument ends right here, right now.
Longer answer: Where did I say that you were a chickenhawk?
Right here: I ve got an idea, Frank… why don t you go out and help your fearless leader s cause? … Why don t you put on your old uniform and go help with recruiting efforts?
My (appropriate) answer was: Oh no, Corrigan, you mean I have become a new species of chickenhawk, because I won t help at the Recruiting Office? [In the form of a question -- you see? Not a declarative statement]
Your diatribe on Viet Nam, sounding like it was cut and pasted from MoJo, indicates that you are not only ignorant of the whole nature of the Indochinese War (its proper name), but, in fact, too ignorant to understand what I might tell you.
Your Dad might have warned you away from the Army for the benefit of the Army.
It is the habit of the left wing dizbrains who inhabit this blog to do things such as you have done: So you re saying Little Miss Muffet should be put to death? That s terrible, when of course I said no such thing.
You may think you re clever, but it s a worn out tactic on this blog.
A few comments earlier, Frank also said:
Oh no, Corrigan, you mean I have become a new species of chickenhawk, because I won t help at the Recruiting Office?
Never accuse anyone else of trotting out the Straw Man, Frank, until you’re willing to admit that he’s your own bestest friend. Where did I say that you were chickenhawk? Actually, I’d have more respect for you if you were a chickenhawk. At least then you’d have an excuse for being wrong.
That said, there’s this…
When was the last time you dragged your sorry punk ass away from that keyboard to speak out for what you believe in?
That’s my business. This is a public forum just like any other. We all have our own ways of standing up for what we believe in, not the least of which is our regular trips to the ballot box (unless we live in Ohio or Florida). But this debate is specifically about Iraq. You claim to have such an indepth understanding of Viet Nam, so tell us all: why were we there? When you get done parsing that one, maybe you can recap for us what your extensive experience and knowledge tells you about the latest imperialist overseas adventure in Iraq. From what I’ve seen, your knowledge and experience has graced you with the wisdom of rat sh-t.
Vietnam was a clusterf-ck started under false pretenses by an imperialist U.S. gov’t that was trying to impose its will on some uppity non-white people half a world away. All that nonsense about dominoes and protecting democracy was just that– nonsense. The Vietnamese were trying to unite their country and throw off the yoke of western colonialism; they even drew up a constitution based on our own. So what if some of them were commies? What better way to show them the benefits of capitalist democracy than to help them with their cause? Instead, we took the arrogant, murderous route of trying to bomb, strafe, and shoot them into submission, and we set up a corrupt puppet gov’t in the southern half of the country to give our imperial intentions a veneer of sincerity.
Now, our gov’t is at it again in Iraq. Face it: the Bushies didn’t go after N. Korea, China, or Iran because those nations can defend themselves. The Bushies knew the price of invading those countries would be too high except for maybe the most ignorant hawks in the U.S. public to accept; not to mention only Iran has the strategic oil reserves to make it worth any such effort.
The Bushies went into Iraq because they had a ready-made boogeyman in Saddam. Clinton did a fine job of helping keep those coals stoked, but Dubya’s gang wanted it all. They knew after 9/11 that they could capitalize on our nation’s ignorance of its own history, including that of Vietnam. They knew they could use fear to manipulate a corrupt congress and an ignorant electorate long enough to get their haphazard colonial adventure under way. Now they’ve got us in there with no good way out, and no happy ending to be had.
Frank, if all your wisdom tells you that this is acceptable, than I repeat that it isn’t worth rat sh-t. But, please, by all means, you are welcome to spread your wisdom to help the military with its dismal recruitment numbers. You aren’t going to convert the smart people; as you can clearly see, we know better, whether or not we ever put on a military uniform (I had the benefit of being warned away from it by my dad, who did spend time in the Army). Maybe, though, you can help the Bushies get a few more suckers into their illegal and immoral adventure.
How was recruiting before Murtha said anything? Oh yeah, it sucked. It must be Murtha’s fault.
Question 1: Reluctantly, but probably. Incidentally, I am by no means wealthy.
Question 2: If it took place after the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11/2001, yes. Would I expect him to have done so? Never.
If Clinton, or Gore, were President on 9/11/2001, we’d still be trying to get a UN force together to go into Afghanistan.
Now tell me you think I’m a liar; what else can you say?
“All that nonsense about dominoes and protecting democracy was just that nonsense. ”
That statement alone demonstrates your ignorance. Pol Pot sound familiar? Killing fields…..
yea, sure, nonsense…..
Alex - my wife, who is Vietnamese, and her parents would wildly disagree with your characterization of the Vietnam conflict.
Pray tell, which President got us into that conflict, and which one got us out?
You are just dead wrong, if Gore had president on 9-11, there is a better chance the terrorist attacks would have been foiled or diminished. If they had occured, military action would have taken place in Afghanistan. Furthermore, bin Laden would have probably been caught.
Iraq would not have been invaded. Terrorism would be on the run instead of rising, North korea’s threat would be diminished and Iran’s nuclear proggram would be stopped.
Frank
Would you continue to support and defend Bush if he rescinds the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Would you have supported Clinton if he had invaded Iraq for the same reasons Bush did and over 2000 troops were killed.
Please answer truthfully.
Sometimes the easy ones are fun:
Alex - my wife, who is Vietnamese, and her parents would wildly disagree with your characterization of the Vietnam conflict.
Really? I’ll bet they would. Were they pro-colonials? I’d love to ask them if they prefer English to French. Seriously, though, I’m sure there were a lot of different opinions in pre-U.S.-involvement Vietnam about where the country should go. Look at this way: if half the U.S. were taken over by the Chinese, would you grab your gun and fight, or would you brush up on your Mandarin?
Pray tell, which President got us into that conflict, and which one got us out?
What’s your point? Are you trying to imply that Nixon deserves credit for getting thousands more people killed in a war that was already lost?
Don’t forget, there’d be a chicken in every pot, he would have invented the internet, and psoriasis would just be a bad dream. I mean we know that Clinton/Gore did so much to prevent terrorism that a terrorist attack occurred 6 months after they left office. And as posters here keep telling us, these attacks take “years” to plan and execute. And Bush has been in office going on 6 years, not one US attack….
Geez pidge, open a window, the fumes are getting to you.
I shouldn’t have to swat so many flies in January, but what the hell:
That statement alone demonstrates your ignorance. Pol Pot sound familiar? Killing fields& ..
Do any of you wingers actually understand how history works? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were murderous psychopaths, but it was U.S. carpet-bombing of Cambodia (ostensibly to destroy NVA and Viet Cong bases in Cambodia) that helped drive much of the country away from U.S. and CIA asset Lon Nol and into the arms of the commies. After that, Nixon backed off Cambodia just as the Khmer Rouge was gaining ground.
In other words, Nixon blundered into a messy situation and made it even more messy. How far could the Khmer Rouge have gone if Nixon hadn’t bombed so many Cambodian peasants into oblivion? We can never know.
Your Dad might have warned you away from the Army for the benefit of the Army.
That’s by far the funniest, most intelligent thing I’ve ever read by you, Frank. You know what? You’re probably more than half right. See, if you give me a lethal weapon, and some asshole gives me an order to kill innocent people, I can’t say which way I’d point that weapon (only that it wouldn’t be at myself). That’s why I stick to firefighting. Sure, there’s risk involved, but I get to help people without killing them or humiliating them in front of their families. Also, if a ’superior’ gives me a bullsh-t order, I can tell him to go f-ck himself. Of course, that’s not likely to happen, because all my superiors are trained life-savers, not trained life-takers. I’m less likely to run into sadistic, self-serving sociopathic officers in my line of work, and incompetent ones are less likely to get large numbers of people killed.
Your diatribe on Viet Nam, sounding like it was cut and pasted from MoJo, indicates that you are not only ignorant of the whole nature of the Indochinese War (its proper name), but, in fact, too ignorant to understand what I might tell you.
Nice copout. In other words, I’m right on the mark, and you’ll be saving your stale Niixonian indoctrination for those in “your classes” (I hope that doesn’t mean you’re a history teacher) whose critical thinking skills are as poorly developed as yours.
the chickenhawk argument ends right here, right now.
Nice ultimatum, but that chickenhawk thing was you arguing with yourself. I never labeled you a chickenhawk. Apparently your reading comprehension is worse than your critical thinking, or you don’t know what a chickenhawk is. Either way, I don’t think you’re a chickenhawk. A stubborn dupe, maybe, but not a chickenhawk.
You can go now.
Good answers Frank. I believe you.
The reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is because of all the security checks before getting on a plane. I believe if we do get attacked it will be by terrorists coming across the Mexican or Canadian borders. The only way to keep them out is to seal the borders. More should be done before it is too late.
James,
I’m not saying that any Democratic opinions or Republican opinions should be disregarded. Pretty much the opposite. I’m saying that Murtha’s or my opinions should be given no special pedigree because of past service. And that really Murtha’s opinion, IMO, counts for no more than Nancy Pelosi’s or Herb Feingold’s or smokin Joe Liebermans.
I honestly think lefties and pacifists feel their criticism of the war is less valid because they most likely didn’t serve and they feel a guy like Murtha adds a needed credential to their opposition. I don’t think so. A bad argument is not made good by military service. A good argument is not made bad by lack of same.
Semant,
(Quaker will harass me for this) Pace may be partisan at heart (or may not) but he is not allowed to actively participate in partisan politics - nor is the military. So in a sense legally, he could not advocate a political position or a political candidate. He can speak of the pros and cons and goods and bads of fighting the war, however - which is part of his job. Now I will concede that sometimes the military can be identified with an adminstration’s goals (after all, the Pres is his CINC) but at least the military has many restriction placed on its politics. Murtha has none. So I still don’t see how we can equate the credentialed value of Murtha’s judgment of that with Pace.
We would have to argue the war on its merits - which is exactly what should be done IMO. It would be wrong for me to start waving my ‘Pace” flag and say “shut up! See what the general says. Hes a veteran.”
Dugger
Let’s see if I can summarize so far: if you are against the war, you are wrong. If you have no military experience, you are wrong because you don’t understand the military. If you DO have military experience, you are wrong because you are betraying that memory. If you are currently in the military, you are breaking the law by talking out against your CinC. So, in summary, you are always wrong if you are against this war.
Am I missing some part of this argument? Some part that would allow me to treat this as a discussion, a debate, and not just party-line posturing?
Back to the main topic: “the chairman of the joint chiefs said Murtha s weekend criticism was damaging troop recruitment efforts.” Well, that was surely his intent, no? You don’t tell kids, “I wouldn’t sign up for military duty under these conditions” and expect that to have no impact, right?
The only news I see here is that those in favor of this war now have to deal with a new “poster child” for the anti-this-war movement, one that is seemingly more credible than a Mom who lost her son, or an ex-Lieutenant that protested the Vietnam War.
No, I’m not going to harass you for that.
I’m going to harass you for this:
Really?
The fact that righties and warhawks have long derided us as “peaceniks, draft-dodgers, and McGovernites” doesn’t play a part in it?
Well. I declare.
Dugger;
“It would be wrong for me to start waving my Pace flag and say shut up! See what the general says. Hes a veteran.
But that is exactly what the critics are saying to Murtha and war critics.
“I still don t see how we can equate the credentialed value of Murtha s judgment of that with Pace.”
The two positions are IN NO WAY equal. Pace and the Prez have,
by far, the greater weight when measured in gross tonnage.
Who on this site would honestly join the military now if you met all the qualifications? knowing that you would probably be deployed to the Middle East multiple times. It would be easier if you were single with no kids. I served 20 years in the Air Force including Viet Nam. But, I do not think I would join any branch of the military right now. I probably would enlist if we were doing everything possible to get Bin Laden and his followers.
Alex Nixon stopped the vietnam war…check a book
You have been breathing too much smoke you big strapping firefighter if you can, with a straight face, suggest that Nixon caused the killing fields of Cambodia. Prima facia ridiculous…..
Now that Murtha said he would not enlist if he were eleigible today, it will undoubtedly induce many young Republicans to avoid signing up as well. I can understand the intense outrage at this, as young eligible Republicans had been practically beating down the doors at the recruitment office up to the day that Murtha made his declaration.
Yea since apparently the leftists don’t have the stones (or perhaps the physical fitness) for the armed forces. How do I know….The military runs about 80% republican
Or to paraphrase “out of our way you liberal pu**y, we’ll protect america….”
My sympathy to your patients. Gawd!
Frank: Just because you don’t like what he’s saying today changes not a whit of what he’s done before.
drpedro: It may be he isn’t being run out of town on a rail because people, in general, don’t disagree with what he’s saying. Haing been to Iraq, and having freinds who are still there, or going back; again, I can tell you the reason for poor morale isn’t the things Murtha is saying but rather the reason he is saying them.
And, being in the military, yes we tend to be more conservative, in some ways, but at the same time we know the difference between lip-service, and real support. I have no respect for people who abuse those who excercise the freedoms my service is meant to protect. If speaking one’s mind has become treason, then I am being asked to violate my oath, because petitioning for the redress of grievances, and speaking freely are part of the Constitution I swore to defend. Nowhere in my oath, any of the four times I’ve sworn it was I saying I was supporting and defending the president. merely obeying his lawful orders and those of the officers appointed over me.
As for Gen. Pace, he is enjoined from actively speaking against the administration, the congress, and the policies they’ve established under various articles of the UCMJ, so his statements about the morale of the troops are to be taken with a grain of salt, unless he’s swapping the shit with you over a drink, in an O-club somewhere.
TK
Nixon had a brother named Alex? He stopped the war? I did not
know that.
Quaker,
I think pacifism is unrealistic and misguided and will lead a country to disaster in most circumstances. But that is certainly a debatable position. But there is nothing ostensibly wrong about my or anybody arguing for or against pacifism. But I believe paciifists, war opponents should have the courage of their convictions to argue their own positions and philosophy and not try to borrow from Murtha’s resume. It silly anyway. Would you cede my position because Oliver North, authentic war hero, might back it? Of course not. You think Ollie a buffoon. Exactly how I feel about Murtha.
Dugger
So let’s see if I follow you…
WAR OPPONENT: I think the war in Iraq is based on a misguided premise and we should bring the troops home as soon as possible.
WAR SUPPORTER: Shut up, hippie! You leftists don t have the stones (or perhaps the physical fitness) for the armed forces. You’re all just a bunch of draft dodgers who don’t know the first thing about the military.
WAR OPPONENT: I see. Well, this nice Mr. Murtha knows a lot about the military. I understand he was once a Marine drill sargent. He says the war is misguided too…
WAR SUPPORTER: Isn’t that just like a leftist? Why drag Murtha into this? Just because he was a soldier doesn’t mean his opinion counts for anything. What’s the matter with you?
Is that how it’s supposed to go?
“Murthanized”
Love the coinage. Via Oliver…
suggest that Nixon caused the killing fields of Cambodia
When it comes to history and politics, you wingers just can’t seem to grasp the concept of cause and effect. Add that to the demonstrated winger inability to distinguish anything beyond the binary, and statements like that above become predictable. Did Nixon set out to cause the killing fields to happen? Doubtful. Did his decision to carpet-bomb Cambodian villagers drive the surviving villagers into the arms of Lon Nol’s (Nixon’s local ally) enemies (including the Khmer Rouge)? Unquestionably.
Then why go on hooting and hollering that Murtha is not negatively affecting recruitment levels?
Of course, it does detract somehow from his decorated Marine hero - hawk persona, does it not.
If by “hawk” you mean ignorant, unquestioning dupe of the executive branch, then, yes, Frank, I think Murtha fails to live down to that. Anyway, blaming Murtha for pointing out the obvious– well, this is more of that cause and effect thing.
By the way, Frank, why are you still here? Shouldn’t you be out helping with those recruitment efforts? If Murtha is so wrong, maybe all Bush needs is for veterans who believe in the war effort to go out and convince young people that military service is a good thing right now. There are thousands of young Republicans in high schools and colleges all over this country. I’m sure there a few in your area who would listen to your wisdom over Murtha’s any day…
Nice copout. In other words, I m right on the mark, and you ll be saving your stale Niixonian indoctrination for those in your classes (I hope that doesn t mean you re a history teacher) whose critical thinking skills are as poorly developed as yours.
No “in other words”, corrigan — you are ignorant of the whole Indochina history. Your US - oriented view is just one piece of evidence for that assertion. The Indochinese War began in the late 1920’s, early 1930’s, while the French were still a colonial power in the area. Keep reading, you’ll learn eventually.
Start here
You are by no means “right on the mark” (see above). In fact, in addition to the above erroneous statement, everything else you said was incorrect. That’s why I said I couldn’t begin to correct you.
I don’t teach history, I am in graduate school. I attended undergraduate classes, and graduated in 1994. Those were the classes I referred to, and the statements I referred were more often made by professors than by students.
As for “critical thinking” (nice use of educo - babble, by the way), it requires education. Critical thinking without data is called “imagination.”
Corrigan, you are a buffoon.
First, you have no response to my thorough destrustion of your simple - minded post on Vietnam.
Then you come back with that “aren’t you going down to the recruiter’s yet” stupidity, which we’ve already dismissed as irrelevant (by “we” I mean you and I, since we have agreed that what we do for our country — well, my country, anyway — is nobody’s business).
Now, you’re trying to tell me how I define “hawk.”
Let’s play the “Google game,” shall we? Google “John Murtha” hawk, and what do you get?
CNN.com - White House: Murtha’s call is ’surrender’ - Nov 18, 2005
Democratic hawk: US must leave Iraq. story.murtha.cnn.jpg. Senior Democrat Rep.
John Murtha on Thursday called the war in Iraq “a flawed policy wrapped in …
NPR : Long-time War Hawk, Murtha Is An Angry Dove
Long-time War Hawk, Murtha Is An Angry Dove. Murtha. Mark Wilson,
An Unlikely Lonesome Dove
In his 37 years in the military, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, … he has been a fierce hawk, championing conflicts in Central America and the Persian …
Hawkish Democrat Joins Call For Pullout
John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. …
THE BRAD BLOG: “War Hawk Rep. Murtha (D-PA) Calls for Immediate …
Guest blogged by David Edwards Representative John Murtha (D-PA), … A known Hawk, once very powerful. I believe this is a major story and perhaps too new …
Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/18/2005 | A Hawk Says Get Out
A Hawk Says Get Out. By James Kuhnhenn. Inquirer Washington Bureau.
Rep. John P. Murtha, a hawkish Marine Corps veteran
CBS News | John Murtha, The Real Deal | November 22, 2005 12:00:05
“When John Murtha says something on defense, people listen. He has always been a hawk, he’s not a garden variety liberal, nor a Bush hater.”
Do you think I labelled him a hawk? I had never heard of the guy until he turned his back on the Iraqis and the Marines in Iraq.
Back to the main topic: the chairman of the joint chiefs said Murtha s weekend criticism was damaging troop recruitment efforts. Well, that was surely his intent, no? You don t tell kids, I wouldn t sign up for military duty under these conditions and expect that to have no impact, right?
Allrighty, then…
Then why go on hooting and hollering that Murtha is not negatively affecting recruitment levels?
Of course, it does detract somehow from his “decorated Marine hero - hawk” persona, does it not.
Ryland’s site documents the death of a hero the mainstream press
seems to have overlooked. I am sure our local hate mongers
will find something evil to spew, however.
http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/
Life is full of surprises
{Should have looked like this}
For the record, the Hugh Thompson story was in January 7th s New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/national/07thompson.html
Is this the kind of response you were expecting, Cleo?
I thought I posted a comment in reference to that story, over there, but I don t see it, so I guess I ll repeat it here.
Thompson gave lie to Calley s story that his men just reacted. Calley was guilty of murder, and should have been punished to the full extent of the UCMJ (as in hanging). All the other men, if it were proved they shot and killed civilians, should have done big time in Leavenworth.
The worst part of the whole thing was that the war effort itself was blamed for Calley s actions.
From US NEWS & WR Aug 2001: Not all soldiers at My Lai participated in the carnage. Some men risked courtmartial or even death by defying Calley s direct orders to shoot civilians.
For the record, the Hugh Thompson story was in January 7th’s New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/national/07thompson.html
Is this the kind of response you were expecting, Cleo?
I thought I posted a comment in reference to that story, over there, but I don’t see it, so I guess I’ll repeat it here.
Thompson gave lie to Calley’s story that his men just “reacted.” Calley was guilty of murder, and should have been punished to the full extent of the UCMJ (as in hanging). All the other men, if it were proved they shot and killed civilians, should have done big time in Leavenworth.
The worst part of the whole thing was that the war effort itself was blamed for Calley’s actions.
From US NEWS & WR Aug 2001: Not all soldiers at My Lai participated in the carnage. Some men risked courtmartial or even death by defying Calley’s direct orders to shoot civilians.
Only to the closed - minded…
midderpidge: Evidence, please?
1) More Democrats than Republicans?
2) If so, by how many?
3) Republican leadership equals who and how many?
4) “Nearly none” equals how many?
Wouldn’t want to embarrass you == eMail the answers to fd10801@gmail.com, if you don’t want to post them here.
yea and a lot of the democrats deliberately TRIED serving in war ( for about 3 months, then asked to go home to an admiral staff job…)brought along their movie cameras and then rapidly wrote up purple hearts for scratches.
Others got their legs blown off when they were careless with their own grenades……
whats your point?
Have you noticed DrPedo that 80% of the military votes Republican but nearly none of the Republican leadership served in the military, and some, like the President, actively tried to avoid serving in time of war? So your point is…
Careful, Pedro; it’s not safe to drink that much Kool-Aid.
mizerock Says:
January 6th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Let s see if I can summarize so far: if you are against the war, you are wrong. If you have no military experience, you are wrong because you don t understand the military. If you DO have military experience, you are wrong because you are betraying that memory. If you are currently in the military, you are breaking the law by talking out against your CinC. So, in summary, you are always wrong if you are against this war.
You’ve got, by George, you’ve got it!