PDA

View Full Version : A Traitor's Tirade: Rep. John Murtha Soils The Corps



thedrifter
11-17-05, 05:43 PM
A Traitor's Tirade: Rep. John Murtha Soils The Corps
November 17, 2005
by Bob Newman

In a statement that has angered, embarrassed and humiliated Marines around the globe, one of our own -- a retired Marine Corps Reserve colonel -- has called for the legendary fighting force to retreat from Iraq and surrender to the terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Americans at home and abroad. He has even called for the United States to enter into negotiations with al Qaeda. This vermin's demand for retreat, surrender and negotiations with the enemy is so committed to assisting al Qaeda in their efforts in Iraq that he has posted his unspeakable demands on his website in the form of an official statement.

The traitor, Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, agrees 100% with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi that the Marine Corps, which is mangling the enemy on a daily basis in Iraq and suffering comparatively light casualties, should lay down its arms, call it quits, and abandon the people they are defending in the fledgling democracy of Iraq.

Furious Marines from wars as far back as World War II are spitting mad at the cowardly colonel and many want his head on a stake in the middle of the Marine Corps Commandant's lawn. Personally, I would not soil that good earth with so vile and despicable a piece of offal.

Encouraging retreat is viewed as aiding the enemy by the Marines and is a violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is punishable by death. Currently serving Marines, active duty or reserve, who encourage surrender are in violation of Article 100 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an offense also punishable by death. Because Murtha is retired, he is virtually assured of not being prosecuted.

However, he will be celebrated by al Qaeda and other terrorists around the world. At this very moment, al Qaeda communications specialists are likely prepping pieces of propaganda using Murtha's traitorous tirade as a tool to recruit fresh killers by showing them that even an American Marine (apologies to Puller) believes his allegedly beloved Corps is so inept in battle that retreat and surrender are the Marines' best option and perhaps should, in fact, be added for the first time to the Leathernecks' vast, quasi-mythical repertoire of operational art and battlefield strategy.

Murtha joins the likes of traitor Clayton Lonetree, the Marine security guard who gave top-secret intelligence to the Soviets, and traitor Robert Garwood, the Marine who went over to the enemy during the Vietnam War and was involved in holding and abusing US prisoners of war in North Vietnam while wearing the uniform of the enemy.

The Marine Corps is famous for its members standing their ground and winning fights against outrageous odds. Battles with names like the Peking Legation, Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh and Fallujah decorate the hallowed halls of Corps history. Especially repugnant is how Murtha is insisting upon surrender while the Marines are decimating the enemy en masse.

Marines should ask Murtha if Chesty Puller would order retreat and surrender before the enemy.

John "The Jellyfish" Murtha should be shunned by all Marines and, if possible, legal steps should be taken to prevent this betrayer from being buried in a national cemetery upon his demise.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-18-05, 05:28 AM
Democratic Hawk and War Veteran Wants U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Now <br />
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer <br />
<br />
WASHINGTON — When he came home from Vietnam, John P. Murtha had two Purple Hearts, a Bronze...

thedrifter
11-18-05, 06:47 AM
Whatever happened to Semper Fi?
Daily News Editorials

Congressman John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is a retired Marine colonel, decorated Vietnam veteran, ranking member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, longtime supporter of the military and a noted hawk who was an early advocate of the U.S. incursion into Iraq - a man, in short, none would call faint of heart. When such a figure declares that the time has come for America to turn tail and bug out, his views carry more weight than do the similar assessments of the Dennis Kuciniches and Barbara Boxers and Cindy Sheehans of the world.

But, sadly, he is as wrongheaded as they are, and Murtha might as well be sending up the white flag for all the terrorist gangs to see. Doubtless there is much rejoicing in Al Qaeda's rat holes this day over still another encouraging cut-and-run signal from U.S. shores that maybe someday soon, with U.S. troops pulled out, the rodents will have Iraq - and beyond - all to themselves.

Murtha's mouthings arrive hard on the heels of ex-President Bill Clinton, whose utterly disgraceful shame-on-America remarks in Dubai the other day could only have made it sufficiently plain to many millions of Middle Easterners, both those who are with us and those who are not, that the United States cannot be counted on to stand behind the historic mission that toppled the butcher Saddam Hussein, helped persuade crazed Libya to give up its nuclear intentions, was instrumental in driving Syria out of Lebanon and is daily leaning hard on the malevolent mullahs of Iran.

Defeatism, it's called. Willingness to give it all up. In Washington, it isn't so much the war effort is going badly as it is the poll numbers are going badly. Congress has a nervous eye on America's popular distemper, and many on Capitol Hill want some idea of a withdrawal deadline. But a commander would be mad to even consider setting such a deadline, inviting an implacable foe to sit tight and wait it out.

There's still a job to be done - a miserable slog, no doubt, and one, it is true, that could and should have been undertaken more efficiently from the beginning. But the job cannot be left unfinished. Yes, defeatism is in the American wind, there's no question about that. It must not prevail. For what is already in the wind far across the sea is the gleeful, hideous laughter of a triumphant enemy.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-18-05, 08:24 AM
The nadir of the war?
November 18th, 2005
Rick Moran

Forgive me my pessimism today. I made the mistake of reading reaction in the mainstream media to Representative John Murtha’s (D-PA) tearful tirade against the Iraq War on the floor of the House yesterday. The fact that he said the war was “unwinnable” last year apparently isn’t newsworthy. Was it the dramatic image of the old war hero tearing up when talking about his admirable visits to see wounded veterans? If so, why weren’t the images of Iraqis weeping for joy after voting in the first free elections in their lives also considered fodder for the front pages and cable talk shows that now breathlessly report on the latest “turning point” in the American people’s support for the war?

We’ve had so many “turning points” in this war that we’ve damn near gone around in a circle. Why should the lamentations of one Congressman, albeit a respected voice on military matters, cause such a stink? Of course, Murtha’s diatribe has not occurred in a vacuum. It follows closely on the heels of an effort by Republicans in the Senate to try and outdo their Democratic colleagues in proving that election to high office does not necessarily mean one is blessed with common sense and wisdom. In fact, the “Cut And Run But Not As Quickly As Michael Moore Would Have It” version of a “Sense of the Senate” resolution on Iraq supported by Republicans only proves that, quite simply, the words “sense” and “Senate” used in the same sentence when referring to that august body is a misnomer.

And don’t forget those poll numbers that show 57% of the American people believe that President Bush misled the country about intelligence in the lead up to the war with a similar majority believing the war was a mistake. Funny, but it never seems to make it into the same paragraph in stories reporting those grim statistics that 2/3 of the country is in favor of staying in Iraq “until the job is done.” That would seem to cut the chocks from underneath the cut and run crowd except their allies in the mainstream press have better things to do than reporting anything that would upset the delicate imbalance they try to maintain when reporting war news.

Murtha may be forgiven his apostasy. The man has served his country in war and peace with a dedication and selflessness rarely seen these days. But so did Marshall Petain. (HT: Ed Morrisey). The French hero of Verdun and head of the collaborationist Vichy government believed that Nazism was the wave of the future and in order for France to survive, cooperation with Hitler seemed to be the most logical course. The fact that he was tragically wrong both about Nazism and the cost to France that such cooperation engendered has made history’s judgment of his actions an object lesson for the Murthas of this world. For like the Nazis, the implacable Islamists currently blowing up our boys in Iraq will attack us wherever and whenever they choose. It doesn’t matter if we are in Iraq, not in Iraq, setting a timetable to pull out, or simply wringing our hands over the whole mess. Their goal is death. Their agenda, mayhem.

It may be that this moment is indeed a turning point of sorts. The inconstancy of the Republican Senate about the war is reflective of something deeper abroad in the land. Call it a crisis of spirit or a loss of confidence on the part of the nation’s political leadership but the sad truth is that the closer we get to outright victory in Iraq with our troops coming home in triumph the more we hear that the effort has been a failure and that only by leaving the field of battle to our enemies can we make the situation right.

The Iraqi government is facing enormous problems. Internal security, civil rights, factionalism, foreign interventionism, sectarianism, infrastructure; the list goes on and on. But forgotten in all of the naysaying and dire warnings of catastrophe is the fact that progress is being made – fitfully and not as quickly as we would like but progress nonetheless – on all of those problems.

In just a few weeks, the people of Iraq will hold an election under their newly minted constitution that, on paper, is a marvel of compromise and idealism. What kind of government emerges from these elections may not be very satisfying to the United States. But that is not the point. It will be the kind of government that the Iraqi people want. And that is what more than 2,000 American boys and girls have died trying to establish; a democratically elected government set in the heart of jihad territory. The Iraqis are about ready to spit in the eye of Osama bin Laden and all our weak kneed, faint of heart “nervous nellies” can spout about is how much of a failure the war has been and how we should leave these courageous people to the tender mercies of al Zarqawi and his Merry Band of Beheaders.

Only recently has the President begun to refocus the country’s attention on what is at stake in Iraq, something he should have been doing religiously these past two years but a task in which he has failed miserably. The belief by the White House that the American people wouldn’t believe the lies and distortions about the justifications for the war by his political enemies has proven to be as bad a blunder as the Administration has ever made. Their concurrent strategy of relying on surrogates to define and restate our war aims has also been inadequate. For when it comes right down to it, the American people don’t give a damn what Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman or even a respected Senator like John McCain says about the war. They need to hear it from the President himself.

The White House can perhaps be forgiven for not holding regular press conferences given the temperament and political leanings of the White House press corp. But that doesn’t preclude the President from barnstorming the country, treating the war like a political campaign, hammering his opponents who are calling him a liar while urging, even begging the people for their support. Such a campaign probably wouldn’t have much affect on his opposition – except perhaps to drive them into even more comical fits of apoplexy – but it would almost surely put some backbone into his wavering supporters in the Congress.

Whatever the President does, he must do it now and it must be a sustained effort. One reason for his low poll numbers despite a humming economy, falling gas prices, and real progress in Iraq is the sense among a majority of people that the country “is on the wrong track.” By not getting up on his hind legs and fighting, thus leaving the field to his political enemies, the President has allowed the opposition to not only define the issues but also supply a skewed narrative to go with those issues.

The President, who has in the past demonstrated a reluctance for the attack, must now fight back as only a President can: by dominating the news day after day from the bully pulpit, shaming his enemies and encouraging his supporters. Otherwise, the tepid support demonstrated by Republicans of all stripes recently will continue with the very real danger that an anti-incumbent backlash in 2006 will cost the Republicans the Senate.

If this is the nadir of the war it is because the President has failed to keep Iraq in the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. The fact that we are in a war for our survival and that Iraq is currently the major front in that conflict makes the President’s reluctance to engage his political enemies all the more troubling.

However, it is still not to late to retrieve the situation. The President must demonstrate in a sustained and coherent manner the passion and leadership that he exhibited at the start of the Iraq campaign. His recent speeches would seem to indicate that he understands this which is heartening. But unless his focus remains firmly fixed on a defense of his decisions that took us to war as well as a patient approach to explaining why we must see the task through to victory, he stands to lose even more support in the Congress. In short, he must regain control of the debate over the war.

Following a disastrous defeat for the Union army at Fredericksburg, President Lincoln, for the only time in his Presidency, gave in to a feeling of hopelessness. He covered his face with his hands and said “What will the country think?” The fact is, the country by that time had been conditioned to understand that the Civil War was going to be a long conflict and that setbacks were inevitable. The reason they were conditioned was because of Lincoln’s steadfast belief in victory and his inspiring defense of his policies.

President Bush has the most powerful bully pulpit on the planet with a megaphone much larger than anything Mr. Lincoln could ever have imagined. The question foremost on the minds of his supporters should be, when is he going to start using them?

Rick Moran is a frequent contributor and is proprietor of the blog Right Wing Nut House

Ellie

thedrifter
11-18-05, 04:34 PM
An open letter to John Murtha



Dear Representative Murtha,

I am still in shock over your pronouncement to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. At least you had the personal courage to stand up and unequivocally define the end game of your political party. Many of your less courageous colleagues have adopted the modus operandi of impugning the character of our President, criticizing him while on foreign shores and telling out right lies in order to gain political advantage.

As a twice wounded, personally decorated Marine Vietnam combat veteran, I would have thought that the images of Marine helicopters desparately snatching the last remnants of loyal Vietnamese from the rooftop of our embassy in Saigon as well as the disbelief etched on the faces of the young Rangers who were told they were not allowed back into Mogadishu to avenge the loss of 18 of their brothers would have cured you from thinking that the cut and run approach has ever served our country very well.Someone much smarter than I once said that those who fail to learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Iraq and all the issues that swirl around it provide enormous stores of grist from which self serving, narrowly focused politicians can achieve their few fleeting moments of fame. But hopefully, one would have thought that some would resist this temptation and put the national interests of our great nation first. Let me be specific.

Bernard Lewis in his book entitled The Crisis of Islam spoke at some length about how Islamic fundamentalists view the world today. Mr. Lewis describes this view as follows.

“In their perception, it was they, not America that had won the Cold War In their eyes, the Soviet Union was not the benign helper in the common struggle against Jews and the western imperialism but rather the fountainhead of atheism and unbelief, the oppressor of many millions of Muslim subjects, and the invader of Afghanistan. As they saw it, not implausibly, it was their struggle in Afghanistan that had defeated the mighty Red Army and driven the Soviets to defeat and collapse. Having disposed of the more ferocious and more dangerous of the two infidel superpowers, their next task was to deal with the other, the United States, and in this war the compromisers were tools and agents of the infidel enemy. For a variety of reasons, the Islamic fundamentalists believed that fighting America would be a simpler and easier task. In their view, the United States had become morally corrupt, socially degenerate, and in consequence politically and militarily enfeebled.”

Iraq has been a costly undertaking for our country though not as costly as others in which we have been engaged.. If one were to catalog all our accomplishments, many of which are unknown because of inadequate and biased reporting, and divide them by the number of days we have been there, I am certain that few other military operations would be able to show such startling results on a day by day basis. Those results have been achieved and made possible by the blood and sacrifices of the members of the finest military in the world. Make no mistake, the Islamo fascists we face over there fear and respect our military. They know that if it were up to our military alone, their efforts to defeat us would fail.

I cannot help but believe, with all my heart, that comments like yours and the agenda of many on the left give them hope that they can win this thing in the long run.

Finally, I leave you with this question. After we pull our folks out as you suggest…then what?

Semper Fidelis,

Dave St. JohnCapt, USMCR 1964-70 RVN Vet

Bill Thompson
11-18-05, 05:38 PM
Maybe the Corps should call the senator back to active duty. Then lets see what he has to say when he is stationed in Iraq. He seems to forget that retirees and officers can be called back to active duty Without their consent.

carroll1972
11-19-05, 11:03 AM
GOD HELP US.......
If this fool's wishes......come true......what do we tell the men and women that their love ones died for over there.....
You know...I think that now that the enemy has these politicians on their side.....THEY WILL WIN.....and we will lose......it gives our enemies hope.......all they have to do ....is wait for the politicians....and the boneless libirals .......and we will tuck our asses and run with our tails between our legs, like a beaten puppy....

The people of Pa....should recall this son-of-bit_h.......(excuse the King's English) and put his ass on the front lines...in Iraq......no time table ....NOW....
Don't give this FOOL.....time to get his shi_ together.....pack your trash ....put him on the next flight to Iraq......NOW.....not tomorrow either....NOW.....YOU NO GOOD SCUM.......

thedrifter
11-20-05, 04:12 PM
Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor?
November 20th, 2005
J. Peter Mulhern

The prize for the most dramatic oratory in the United States Congress in the new millennium goes to fledgling Representative Jean Schmidt. In the midst of debate over whether the House of Representatives should vote on a resolution endorsing immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq she conveyed a message she had received from an active duty Marine colonel, to Representative Jack Murtha. Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, inspired the debate earlier this week by calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

Representative Smith’s message quoting the colonel was simple: “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

Democrats are up in arms. They believe Smith slandered Murtha. No less a conservative voice than Jonah Goldberg seems to think they have a point. In the Corner at NRO he argues that Schmidt didn’t mean to call Murtha a coward and that it was a mistake to say anything that was bound to be interpreted that way. He writes:

“Murtha’s an honest, brave and patriotic guy. He’s also wrong. But therein lies the debate.”

Charging someone with cowardice, or worse yet disloyalty, isn’t something anyone should do lightly. Jonah Goldberg’s generosity and temperance do him credit. But he’s as wrong as he could be here. When people engage in debate within the boundaries of legitimate disagreement they should be respectful. But we need to maintain those boundaries.

Jack Murtha’s call for immediate disengagement took him far outside the boundaries of legitimate disagreement. He has never been able to articulate any plausible basis for his position on Iraq. There is a simple reason for that. There isn’t one.

Reasonable people cannot differ about whether or not the United States should press forward with our war against the terror masters. For the time being Iraq is inevitably the principal front in that war. A congressman who tries to duck his share of the responsibility for prosecuting that war is displaying moral cowardice. Any American who recommends retreat is injuring his own country and calling his own patriotism into question.

Almost all the Democrats in the House understand this, which is why only three of them would vote on the record for retreat.

We mark the boundaries of legitimate disagreement by the way we characterize arguments that lie outside them. What Jack Murtha did last week wasn’t just wrong. It was cowardly and disloyal. That’s the truth and Jack Murtha deserves to hear it.

Thirty-five years ago he demonstrated that he had physical courage. This week he demonstrated that he lacks moral courage. There is no inconsistency here. Thirty-five years is a long time and physical courage is not the same thing as moral courage.

Jack Murtha served the nation honorably and should be honored for it. But his service doesn’t establish that he is loyal now. Nobody ever did the Republic of Rome greater service than Julius Caesar who capped off his military career by fighting a civil war and destroying the republic.

Jean Schmidt didn’t slander Jack Murtha and neither did any other House Republican. On the contrary, he and his views have been getting way too much respect from all sides.

J. Peter Mulhern is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-21-05, 07:54 AM
Reconstructing Murtha <br />
November 21st, 2005 <br />
Noel Sheppard <br />
<br />
Almost since the moment Congressman John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) took the stage last Thursday to call for the withdrawal of American...

thedrifter
11-21-05, 11:53 AM
Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout
By DAN LOVERING, Associated Press

U.S. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.

"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."

Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.

Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."

He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.

House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.

U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."

Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.

Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."

Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."

Ellie

junker316
11-21-05, 12:15 PM
Has any-one taken into account that there may be somehting he is trying to hide, that the Terrorists or some-one else found out about it, that may have been the final push for him to change his mind. There has been more than one person of power, or so called influence, that was blackmailed into recanting a prior statement no matter how they felt about it.

horselady
11-21-05, 12:43 PM
f˝? ?pDunker316]Has any-one taken into account that there may be somehting he is trying to hide, that the Terrorists or some-one else found out about it, that may have been the final push for him to change his mind. There has been more than one person of power, or so called influence, that was blackmailed into recanting a prior statement no matter how they felt about it.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, now that's an interesting theory.
Or maybe someone made him an offer (monetary?) he couldn't refuse.

junker316
11-21-05, 01:36 PM
horselady,

Thats one I didn't think of. I figured that since he was a Marine that he would have known better than to take money but then again his statements don't match Marine values either.

rb1651
11-21-05, 02:30 PM
That's the problem with so many of our Representatives, no values other than what serves their own interests.

Ron

kentmitchell
11-21-05, 04:40 PM
I don't care what he said, he's one of us. Hell, I even have to remind myself that James Carvell is a former Marine. We all have opinions but they aren't always the same.
I'll choose to disagree with Col. Murtha and still respect him as a Marine brother. He's not the first Marine to go against the grain. Two-time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler alienated himself, too, with his speech, "War is a Racket." http://www.anti-sheep.com/articles/smedley_butler.php
So, I can't go to the extreme of calling Col. Murtha a traitor, but I would tell him--if I saw him face to face--that he REALLY ****ed me off.

yellowwing
11-21-05, 10:15 PM
Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.
That does not sound very plausible considering the heavy casualties the Iraqi Civilians are suffering.

But now the politics has taken a bizarre turn:

"Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man, who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a United States congressman," President Bush said. "He is a strong supporter of the United States military. And I know the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way. I disagree with his position."

And now from Vice President Cheney

"He's a good man, a Marine, a patriot — and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion," Cheney told the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Cheney, who represented Wyoming in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, called Murtha "my friend and former colleague."

CHOPPER7199
11-21-05, 10:56 PM
I believe he earned the right to sound off. No matter what one thinks, he did his duty to have the right. To many out there have not served at all but have alot to say. Time will tell it all.

greensideout
11-21-05, 11:12 PM
That does not sound very plausible considering the heavy casualties the Iraqi Civilians are suffering.

But now the politics has taken a bizarre turn:

And now from Vice President Cheney



The words "traitor", "cut and run" and "retreat" are not really a fit as we speek of Rep. John Murtha. Words such as "good judgement", "understanding what has been accomplished" and "a full understanding of the REAL enemy that we are fighting" are more apt to be correct.

We can stay in Iraq with our troops till hell freezes over but it will not win the war.

The enemy that we fight is a mindset, a calling and a religous following that is not isolated in Iraq. In fact, it was weak there because of Saddam's rule but once he was out of power it raised it's ugly head.

The enemy is world wide and will take efforts for ALL NATIONS to stomp them into submission. Better yet, into extinction. But it ain't going to happen. When the war began the Pres and Vice Pres called it like it is. "It's going to be a very long and very nasty war." (They were not just talking Iraq.)

Iraq was just a start and also a very bad call to ingage in. The troops have done their job with Valor! Saddam is out of power but he was the least of the REAL enemy.

Murtha is right.

okla2
11-22-05, 12:38 AM
I am Retired from the Marine Corps March 1970. I was in Korea, two tours in Vietnam , we did not win either one Of them . I see in Hme Depot they now have things made in Vietnam after we lost so many Marines, Does anyone have a suggestion how we can get out of there. When they blow themselves up they think they are going to Haven. I am not here to rock any boats but I dont think we are going to win it is going to be stalmate for as long as we are there you kill us and we will kill you that can go on forever. I would never protest the war as Jane Fonda did in Vietnam nor would I protest it openly as that is just givining the enemy more amuntion.



Semper Fi to all our Marines

Bob S

hrscowboy
11-22-05, 12:51 AM
Gentlemen, lets look at what Murtha said and remember this gentlemen has trained Marines 30 years and looking at Iraq as a Military objective and only the objective and nothing more. I believe the objective was to take saddam out and weapons of Mass destruction.. We have done just that we took saddam out and killed his two bully sons on top of that and found no weapons of Mass destruction.. Now where did it say we where going to rebuild iraq and be there police dept and have more of our troops killed by insurgents that have came to iraq from other countries. I for one can see where alot of people would say that Murtha wants to cut and run but again i believe he honestly believes that the Military objective is over and we should move on to other terrorist threats. just my observation....

thedrifter
11-22-05, 06:50 AM
SCREAMING BLOODY MURTHA <br />
NEW YORK POST <br />
<br />
With emotions over the Iraq war white-hot, it would do the country good if all sides took a deep breath — and relaxed. The stakes are too high for...

thedrifter
11-22-05, 07:28 AM
Murtha's Retreat and the Winning Alternative <br />
By Frank J Gaffney Jr. <br />
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 22, 2005 <br />
<br />
Call it the Week that Was. In the course of four days, Washington was wracked by...

thedrifter
11-22-05, 08:15 AM
Friendly Fire
John Murtha unites the Republicans.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Shortly after stepping off a plane at Dulles Airport last week, Rep. Duncan Hunter was on a cell phone delivering a surprisingly stern message to a few reporters. Coverage of the debate in the Senate to "ban" the use of torture, the Armed Services Committee chairman said, was inaccurate and unfair.

Mr. Hunter's beef was that it is already illegal for any American to torture someone overseas and such a crime is punishable of up to 20 years in prison, or execution if the torture victim dies. To underscore his point, Mr. Hunter followed up on Tuesday with a press release noting that "contrary to widespread media reports, torture is [already] banned under American criminal laws." The release included copies of the applicable criminal code.

Democrats might have seen this as a signal not to push too hard on the war lest they risk uniting a fractured Republican Party. But they didn't heed it. By midweek Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced a resolution aimed at pushing political moderates to oppose the war in Iraq. His plan called for "redeploying" U.S. troops out of Iraq over the next six months, leaving a "rapid reaction force" in the region and then pursuing U.S. goals through "diplomatic" means. It was a crafted political proposal that was meant to be an alternative to "staying the course" while not calling for outright withdrawal. It was a return of "peace without victory." And it backfired.

The Murtha resolution was intended to allow Democrats to have their cake and eat it too--to oppose the war while confusing the issue by pretending to support the war's aims of a free and democratic Iraq. Instead of fighting on the ground staked out by Democrats, Republicans chose clarity. Mr. Hunter introduced a simple, one-paragraph resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Late Friday night the House voted the resolution down 403-3.

Anyone who thinks that vote was simply cheap political theater and not connected to the larger debate on how to fight the war on terror hasn't been watching Mr. Hunter and the other defense hawks in the House over the past four years. It's not an accident that the House hasn't passed the "torture ban" that John McCain and John Warner pushed through the Senate. Nor is it a coincidence that intelligence reform stalled in the House last year until it was amended to insure that troops in the field would still have the intelligence they need.

It's not lost on Mr. Hunter, or on Reps. Steve Buyer, John Kline and many others, that Iraq is the most visible front in the war on terror and is therefore a symbol for whether the political elites of this nation have what it takes to confront global terrorist networks. If politicians can't stomach going after terrorists who openly attack U.S. soldiers, they won't have what it takes to go after terrorists who hide in some of the most remote or ungoverned reaches of the world.

It should now be clear--if it wasn't already--that the Democratic Party is the party of withdrawal. Had John Kerry won the election last year, the U.S. would today be packing its bags and preparing to leave Iraq under something similar to the Murtha plan. The fallout from that would be disastrous. "Rapid reaction force" or not, Iraq would descend into political chaos and then perhaps fall under the power of a dictator. Maybe Saddam Hussein himself would return, though there is no shortage of Saddam wannabes in that part of the world. Following that, no U.S. president for a generation or maybe two would have the political muscle to topple a rogue regime anywhere. In the meantime, the U.S. would be on the run, while terrorists and the dictators who nurture them would have the upper hand.

It turns out, however, that the politics of national security favor staying the course. Both the president and vice president have hit back hard in this debate, noting the importance of winning in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday called for an open and clear debate, but he forcefully argued that the war was and remains in this nation's interests because it allows the U.S. to combat terrorists in the heart of the Middle East. He also took on the idea that by invading Iraq the U.S. has made itself more of a target for terrorists. "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11 and the terrorists hit us anyway," he told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

And in Congress, fighting the war remains the one issue that continues to rally the GOP. Before Mr. Murtha's resolution, the Republican Party seemed hopelessly split and unable either to cut spending or to make the president's tax cuts permanent. After the Murtha resolution, Republicans quashed the earmark for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska (though the state still gets to keep the money for it), passed $50 billion in spending cut, and, of course, soundly rejected the idea of withdrawing from Iraq. Suddenly Republicans seem to understand why they are in the majority.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-22-05, 09:41 AM
Reconstructing Murtha II: Pork and Earmarks
November 22nd, 2005
Noel Sheppard

Any cosmetician worth her salt will tell you that the most important step in a quality makeover is to apply a first-rate foundation. In the case of the character reconstruction that has been expertly crafted on John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) the past five days, it appears the foundation was a complete avoidance of his history as one of Congress’ most renowned pork-barrel spenders.

To be more precise, the recent left-wing love affair with Mr. Murtha totally ignores past depictions of him as being “a leading pork-barrel politician” who is often in the middle of a great deal of questionable spending related to defense contracts.

A Nexis/Lexis search identified that many of the headlines Murtha made in the ’90s were specifically connected to projects that he pushed through the House that largely benefited his home district in the state of Pennsylvania. In fact, his “earmarking” was so legendary that Roll Call’s Mary Jacoby stated in a February 24, 1994 article that it might have prevented him from becoming the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations:

“Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa) well-known ability to channel federal dollars to his southwestern Pennsylvania district has made him a hero at home but, ironically, is one factor keeping him out of the quiet race to succeed ailing Appropriations Chairman Bill Natcher (D-Ky), according to House sources.

“Of the approximately $4 billion in ‘directed spending’ contained in the $240 billion fiscal 1994 defense appropriations bill, more than $110 million is earmarked for projects in Murtha’s district.

“As a result, Members and top aides say, there is a feeling that an institution already suffering a public relations problem can not afford an Appropriations chairman portrayed by the press – fairly or not – as a leading pork-barrel politician.”

What were some of the earmarks identified by Jacoby?

“As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, Murtha last year helped produce a $240 billion spending bill that included $113 million for projects in his hometown of Johnstown.”

And:

“A US News and World Report article this month detailed Murtha’s earmarking of funds for a college headed by his cousin. But Murtha’s handiwork is, of course, more extensive.

“The fiscal 1994 defense appropriations conference report, for example, contains $103 million in projects directly benefiting a non-profit research company in Murtha’s hometown of Johnstown, Pa.

“That company, Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), is a subsidiary of the University of Pittsburgh Trust and operates three technology centers and a computer project for the Defense Department.

“Those CTC earmarks include: $30 million for the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence, $40 million for the National Center for Excellence in Manufacturing Technology, $10 million for the National Applied Software Engineering Center, and $23 million for the Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (CALS) Shared Resource Center (SRC).”

But that’s not the end of the story. A few months later, as a result of all this earmarking, a fellow Democrat in the House, George Brown (D-Cal), threatened Murtha with a possible subpoena to compel him to release detailed information surrounding his committee’s activities. Roll Call’s Mary Jacoby reported on April 21, 1994:

“Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash) yesterday intervened in a feud between Reps. George Brown (D-Calif) and John Murtha (D-Pa) over Defense Department release of documents detailing Congressional earmarks, saying he will try to resolve the issue in Brown’s favor before the dispute escalates.

“Brown, chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, is on a self-described “crusade” against so-called academic earmarks. Those earmarks direct federal money to specific universities or other institutions for civilian research, bypassing the normal competitive peer review process.

“Murtha, as chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, plays a major role in establishing the earmarks Brown opposes by allowing defense research and development accounts to fund civilian projects.”

It turns out that Foley had to intervene again a few weeks later to prevent this from turning into a full-blown Congressional scandal. States News Service reported on May 10, 1994:

“Attempts by several powerful Pennsylvania congressmen to block the release of details of how billions of dollars worth of earmarked projects are spent, have ended in failure.

“Overruling the objections of Reps. Robert S. Walker, R-16; John Murtha, D-12, and Joseph McDade, R-10, House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., has asked the Department of Defense to release documents on military-funded projects that benefit specific interests or congressional districts.”

Yet, 1994 wasn’t the only time that Murtha was accused of pork-barrel spending. The Washington Post published the following on August 12, 1989:

“The infighting over Maxi Cube represents a variation on the usual ‘pork barrel’ politics in which well-placed legislators reward home states and congressional districts with federal projects. The fiscal 1990 bill that passed the House last week included many such examples, from mine sweepers for Oregon to $ 10 million for Army mobile field kitchens, an addition that may benefit a small business in Murtha’s district.”

More recently, the Washington Post published this on August 15, 1998:

“At a time when the Pentagon is lamenting a lack of money for key programs, the annual defense appropriations bill headed toward passage this fall contains an estimated $ 4 billion in projects the military never asked for—programs added on by members of Congress seeking to steer military spending to their home districts.”

Much of this article focused on Murtha’s activities:

“In the House version of the fiscal 1999 defense appropriations bill, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) has inserted $ 25 million in funding for DRS Laurel Technologies in Johnstown, his hometown. He inserted another $ 25 million or so in classified funds for a Johnstown drug intelligence center and millions more for a Johnstown research group studying ‘environmental excellence’ and other issues.

“Murtha’s earmarks are part of the fine print of the $ 252 billion defense appropriations bill and its accompanying committee reports, which detail the spending.”

In fact, the Post suggested that Murtha’s earmarks were largely responsible for the success this company:

“In six years, stoked by Murtha’s clout as the ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, DRS Laurel’s annual revenue has ballooned from $ 3 million to $ 70 million and its work force has grown from 45 to 260. Jack Donnelly, the president of DRS Laurel Technologies, credits Murtha ‘100 percent for opening the door’ to lucrative Pentagon business.”

One of the key conclusions of this 1,590 word front-page story:

“Like some of his colleagues, Murtha demonstrates his effectiveness in press releases touting new money for local enterprises. And the publicity helps come election time. A power in military spending, Murtha garners his largest chunk of campaign donations from the defense industry, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.”

What is truly fascinating about all this is that the picture the left and their media minions have painted of Rep. Murtha since his call to withdraw American troops from Iraq suggests an almost saintly quality. For instance, on Friday, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi referred to Murtha as “One of the most distinguished Members to ever serve in the House of Representatives.” Even Vice President Cheney has spoken highly of him.

One has to wonder how all this earmarking makes a person so distinguished, especially in an era of exploding budget deficits.

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and contributing writer to the Free Market Project. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. Noel welcomes feedback at slep@danvillebc.com.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-22-05, 09:49 AM
Tool versus Fool
Oh man, this is rich:

A colonel in the Marine reserves has taken issue with how his views were represented in a Republican attack last week on Representative Murtha.

Speaking on the House floor on Friday, Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, asserted that the colonel had "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, marines never do."

But a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.

While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."


Schmidt has repeatedly used GOP Operative and Marine Reserve Desk Jockey Danny Bobp to abuse individuals who actually served in a conflict. She used him often when she was sliming Paul Hackett. Now her knuckle-dragging douchebaggery comes back to kick her in the ass and Bobp, the willing tool, runs for the proverbial hills.

Leaving Mean Jean all alone -- except, of course, for her flying monkeys.

Ellie

junker316
11-22-05, 12:33 PM
Maybe I misunderstood what was first depicted. This Senator has had more back ground of Military War than probably most of them put together. He has first hand knowledge of what happens at War and what it feels like. He is by no means an expert on the subject but he has more references to call on. Others that just researched the subject or read books about it have really nothing to recall. Murtha may be just as tolerant as the rest of the US as to how the War is really going and what actually should happen. Murtha has also the ability to futurize the outcome better because of his experience. This is idealogically tempered and not just some brain strom from an anti-war extremist. Iraq will take a lot longer than Bush could have ever thought about.

The insurgents gather strength from the nieghboring Islamic nations and there is really no way to stop this insurtion of the enemy. Mainly because of the ways they use to get in. Anything from a street vender to an Islamic high preist ( I forget the actual word for this). We are not forcing these individuals to return to their homeland because of the way the represent themselves and then turn on us later. I think that Murtha sees this also happening.

The rules of engagement have stopped us from doing certain things because of our values and respects towards certain beliefs. I know that even Vietnam Vets had Rules to abide by that kept them from following the enemy. only to have them regroup and counter attack in mass forces. the only answer to Iraq would be total elimination of the insurgents in Iraq and the Known areas of Terrorism. That would draw us into another World War of sorts. Maybe even concidered by many as a 21st Century Crusade.

MillRatUSMC
11-22-05, 01:04 PM
<font size="3">Have we become a nation of sheep?
Have we forgotten our oath of enlistment?
Both Officers and Enlisted.
We swore to defend the Constitution of United States.
There the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, allowing free speech.
As much as some might take offense of Rep/Col John Murtha statement for withdrawal.
He guaranteed that right under the 1st Amendment.
Here's his official statement in full text.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/statement_051117iraq.html

When you read that, you might come away with a different view.
Like Vietnam, we in and we lose members of the military, to even suggest that we withdraw, might be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But in this case, there's no identifiable enemy in Iraq
He states that we done what we set out to do, topple Saddam, give them new leadership and a new government.
we done that.
Nothing was stated that we were to rebuild Iraq .
That's what he saying, we done what we said we were doing to do, time to start thinking of bring the troops home.
I'll close with this;</font>
<font size="3" color=blue>I keep thinking about those last moments in the Constitutional Convention when the delegates signed the document and sent it to their respective states for ratification. When Benjamin Franklin stepped out, as he was leaving the State House in Philadelphia, a lady approached him and asked: "Dr. Franklin, What have you given us"? to which question, Franklin wisely answered: " A REPUBLIC, Madam, if you can keep it." It is interesting how much we hear today about "Democracy" instead of "Republic." For Franklin and the other Founders, these words were complete opposites.
~ Jorge Maspons ~</font>

teresaanne
11-22-05, 06:11 PM
First time poster - long time military member. Below is a note my husband wrote to this so called former marine. His recent rant is an outrage to all who have served, are serving and will someday serve their country. This man proclaims to be a best friend to the military family and yet stabs this same family in the back! We have no room in our halls of hero's for a swine such as this! Go to his website and use his office address to gain access to tell this "ex-marine" how you feel! I petition to make this traitor the first "EX-MARINE". It sicken's me beyond words that he would attempt to dishonor our brothers and sisters with his trash talk! We must come together and get the word out.

Jack:

Marines don't cut and run! We finish the job. We listen to our
Commander in Chief. We remain faithful to each other. Unless you are
swearing off your membership in our band of brothers, you should shut your
mouth. The only way to treat a fellow Marine, is to honor his service,
support his mission, and continue to sacrifice for him/her. If you intend
to capitolize upon your service as a Marine do so with honor.

I am a retired Marine Chief Warrant Officer 4. I saw combat in Viet Nam
as a Pfc/LCpl in 1/9. I have two Purple Hearts (I was shot in the arm and
returned to duty, then shot in the face and lost my eye). Unlike you, I
returned to duty and saw my career through, finishing in Desert
Shield/Desert Storm where I was the point platoon leader who crossed the
line of departure from Saudi Arabia into Kuwait in front of 3/9 the
breaching battalion for that part of combat. I rose from Private to
finish my career 25 years later (all active duty) as a Chief Warrant
Officer 4. I worked at night to get my Bachelors Degree and then finished
my graduate studies with a Masters Degree. As you can decipher, this was
no easy trip for me where I was supported by annonomyous donors to whom I
now have to sacrifice my honor and dignity. I have remained true to the
thoughts and meaning of "our" motto SEMPER FIDELIS, as do ALL good
Marines.

One of your flunkies is probably reading this and screening it from you
so you don't have to rethink your position regarding your statements
relative to cutting and running from Iraq. Some flunky who has not been
in ANY service, let alone the USMC. Some privilaged flunky who does not
have to sell his/her honor because they have none. Some flunky who is
actually guiding you through your day. Some flunky who was never scared,
cold, hurt, numb from watching his mates go down, hungry, lonely, tired,
but who always remained steadfast in his Fidelity because he knew his
mates would too.

You might not feel ashamed of your self, but the rest of us Marines are.
Where you sit you could do something but instead you spout and sputter,
then cry out loud when you shamelessly kowtow to those who lead you around
by your nose ring. Those such as Nancy Pelossi. Did you ever dream that
you would be snuffeling along behind a person like her? Or, is that what
you always strove for as you failed to finish your duty as a Marine, as
you failed to finish your education, as you failed to even have, let alone
finish your career as a "Small Businessman", and now as your career as a
Congressman is ending in a shamefull and dull manner; Isn't it noteworthy
that you end up a doddering old man who's claim to fame is going to be
that when you stood to do the most, you advocated cutting and running and ended up doing the least.

I'd close this by saying Semper Fidelis to you, but then I'd be the liar.
I won't advocate being Always Faithful because I know now that you don't
feel that way. We real Marines always say we are former Marines but you
have earned the title of EX-Marine.

If this is read by one of your flunkies and they choose not to face you
with the truth, then they are a bigger coward than you.

Chuck Whittlesey, CWO-4 USMC (Retired)</MSG>
</APP>

greensideout
11-22-05, 09:52 PM
CWO-4 Whittlesey,
With all due respect sir, I am not sure who you are calling, "flunkies"? Is it people that agree with Rep. John Murtha and his belief that we should pull our troops home from Iraq?
I agree with Murtha and I will not accept the name of "flunky". Why? Simple sir, I am a United States Marine! No greater then you, no less then you, as is our brother Marine John Murtha. It's called gung ho and Semper Fidelis. Get it sir? It starts with our brothers when under attack. It should be an instinct to cover. Write him after the fire and tell him you disagree, but remember that we NEVER leave our own behind.

Semper Fi,
Ron

greensideout
11-22-05, 10:54 PM
CWO-4 Wittlesey,
I also see that you just arrived with post #1.
Welcome on board, pull up a foot locker and and have a seat and spend some time with Marines from WW-ll to present in Iraq.

hrscowboy
11-22-05, 11:06 PM
OOOOOOOOOOrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh GSO i could not have said it better...

MillRatUSMC
11-22-05, 11:33 PM
We treading on dangerous gtound here, do we label and silence every Marine that has spoken out on the war in Iraq as a coward or a traitor.
I'll start with General Anthony Zunni USMC, who told Marines to speak their minds.
General Zunni, thought and still thinks it was a big mistake going into Iraq.
Then there James Webb USMC another Vietnam Veteran, he too thinks ot was a big mistake and he has spoken out.
Than there Fred Reed also a Vietnam Veteran...you might like this article by Fred, than you might not, because he tells like it is.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
If "You Want To Enlist" does not show, look for it on the links to all the articles he has written.
Fred makes the point, all those , who got in this mess, never served, and they're call Rep/Col John Murtha a "coward"...
I would ask you, will they make available the photos of the caskets of our dead?
How about photos of our wounded.
No they won't do that, it might make more call for a timetable for us to bring the troops home.
The Iraqi's are now calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of our miltary from Iraq.
Here an example of what Fred Reed writes;
The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents.

Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly.

Wars seem important at the time, but they usually aren’t. Five years later, they are history. About sixty thousand GIs died in Vietnam. We lost. Nothing happened. It was a stupid war for nothing. Today the guys who lost faces and legs and internal organs back then are just freaks. Nobody gives a damn about them, and nobody will give a damn about you. A war is a politician’s toy, but your wheelchair is forever. If you want adventure, try the fishing fleet in Alaska.

Think about it.

Than there the use of "Flunkies" I believe that remark was directed at Rep/Col John Murtha staff, who work in his office in Washington D.C
"Flunkies" comes from the word "Flankers" or one that covers one flank, in time it has come down as a word of comtempt.
Like Vietnam, this war is driving a wedge in our society.
Was it a bad mistake?
History will give us an answer...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

PS
What John Fallows has to say on Iraq;
By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost.
~ James Fallows ~

hrscowboy
11-23-05, 12:12 AM
ooooooooooooorahhhhhhhhhhhhh sic em SSgt..

sgtrock1970
11-23-05, 06:28 AM
Col. Murtha is a Marine Veteran and has the Hardware to prove it. He has EARNED the right of dissent and it is his job as a Legislator to differ if he feels the administration is wrong. I don't agree with his thoughts but by no means is he a traitor or coward for disagreeing with the President ( with questionable service in the Air National Guard and ties to Big money Oil) or a Veep (with five college deferments and ties to Corporations that are making money off this war). This war and others are about the rights of individuals but it is not our right to besmirch the honor of a Brother Marine. If I have rambled on, I apologize. If I've ****ed you off, good!
Semper Fi

sgtrock1970
11-23-05, 06:36 AM
Col. Murtha is a Marine Veteran and has the Hardware to prove it. He has EARNED the right of dissent and it is his job as a Legislator to differ if he feels the administration is wrong. I don't agree with his thoughts but by no means is he a traitor or coward for disagreeing with the President ( with questionable service in the Air National Guard and ties to Big money Oil) or a Veep(with five college deferments and ties to Corporations that are making money off this war). This war and others are about the rights of individuals but it is not our right to besmirch the honor of a Brother Marine. If I have rambled on, I apologise. If I've ****ed you off, good.
Semper Fi

thedrifter
11-23-05, 08:09 AM
Reconstructing Murtha <br />
Written by Noel Sheppard <br />
Wednesday, November 23, 2005 <br />
<br />
Almost since the moment Congressman John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) took the stage last Thursday to call for the...

gwladgarwr
11-23-05, 11:10 AM
:mad: I do not agree with Congressman Murtha's call for withdrawl, either.

However, I almost reached through the computer screen to throttle that B***H from Ohio, that C*** who had the unmitigated gall to call a Marine veteran and battle-proven warrior a "coward" in front of God and everybody while muttering the title "Marine" in the same breath.

This jumped-up hooker from Ohio, who has never served in our military and who has never taken up arms for this country, who has never been and will never be a Marine, has the nerve to pretend she speaks from experience and knows what it's like to literally place her a** on the line to protect this country, and call a two-time Purple Heart recipient a "coward". She presumes to know what a Marine is and how a Marine acts and what a Marine should do.

Such stoopit civilians and military wanna-be's such as this crotch from Ohio who don't know s**t from Shinola about the military and what it's like to serve one's country (sorry, running for office don't count, in my book) who p*** me off so bad, I can't see straight. Civilians such as her have no right so say S*** about military anything!!! I don't care how many friggin' marathons she's run (just ran my 8th MCM and 10th overall marathon, btw - thank you very much) and how right-wing she is - if my arm could reach out to Ohio or to the House, I'd B***h-slap her so hard, she'd have to run the Boston backwards. F*** that civilian congressional B****!!!:evilgrin:

Sorry to say, but her husband doesn't beat her at home enough.

thedrifter
11-23-05, 11:18 AM
Reconstructing Murtha III: It’s a Somalia Deja Vu
November 23rd, 2005
Noel Sheppard

When one is trying to make a political figure look like a conservative hawk, it is in one’s best interest to hide from the public any moments when said figure acts like a dove. Such appears to be the case with the ongoing character reconstruction of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) since his call last Thursday to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

A story published by NewsMax on Monday stated that Congressman Murtha urged former President Clinton to remove U.S. troops from Somalia in 1993:

“Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal – a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.”

It is now approaching 48 hours since the story broke, and the results of a google news search suggest that not one mainstream media outlet has decided to pick this story up. In fact, apart from conservative radio hosts and bloggers, this issue is being largely ignored.

What makes this even more curious is that a LexisNexis search identified a number of articles confirming that Congressman Murtha was indeed instrumental in President Clinton’s decision to remove American forces from Somalia. Rowan Scarborough, who was then working for the Washington Times, reported the following on September 6, 1993:

“Foes of America’s lingering military involvement in Somalia will force the first congressional debate on the policy this month, just as some senior Democrats begin to question President Clinton’s open-ended troop commitment.”

“House aides say other senior Democrats, like Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, are privately expressing concerns.”

On September 22, 1993, the Associated Press published the following:

“Exasperated by the long-running U.S. military involvement in Somalia, a congressional panel voted Wednesday to impose conditions on President Clinton’s ability to deploy forces for future humanitarian operations.”

“Murtha, who has urged Clinton to withdraw U.S. forces from Somalia, recalled that President Bush told him last December, when troops first were sent to the war-torn region, that they would be out by Inauguration Day.

“‘I don’t know whose inauguration,’ Murtha quipped.”

On September 30, 1993, Rowan Scarborough reported for the Washington Times:

“‘Our welcome has been worn out,’ Mr. Murtha said on NBC’s ‘Today’ show, adding that Mr. Clinton has been ‘listening to our suggestions. And I think you’ll see him move those troops out very quickly.’

“With those comments, Mr. Murtha joined a small but influential list of Democratic lawmakers who have publicly urged the president to change the mission in Somalia.”

Finally, on October 6, 1993, Murtha’s home paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported the following:

“Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations committee, yesterday called upon President Clinton to rapidly withdraw all U.S. armed forces from Somalia.

“Murtha, D-Johnstown, released his statement the same day a growing number of House and Senate members were voicing sharp objections to the Clinton administration’s decision to send 650 more U.S. soldiers to the African nation.

“While conceding that Clinton ‘’inherited a very difficult situation in Somalia,’’ Murtha said he did not ‘see any achievable goal or national security interest in this operation.’’‘

This search also produced articles with supporting content from the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Yet, the mainstream media is uninterested in reporting these revelations. Could it be that, as NewsMax suggested, our withdrawal from Somalia is indeed seen as having emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and the press don’t want to in any way link Congressman Murtha to it?

The following paragraphs from bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa offer some insight to this question:

“Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that ‘the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists.’

“We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the ‘heart’ of every Muslim and a remedy to the ‘chests’ of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”

In addition, a May 1998 installment of PBS’ Frontline presented bin Laden in a question and answer session with his followers. This key exchange further indicates the importance of America’s withdrawal from Somalia, and how it relates to the war on terror:

Question: Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

Bin Laden: After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

Putting it all together, a powerful and influential “conservative hawk” pressured the president twelve years ago to withdraw American forces from an embattled nation with the net result being the emboldening of the most heinous terrorist organization that has ever threatened the United States. Now, that same “conservative hawk” is pressuring a different president to make what could end up being the very same mistake, but with potentially more dire consequences.

Is it any wonder that the mainstream media don’t want the public to know about this?

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and contributing writer to the Free Market Project. He is also a contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. Noel welcomes feedback at slep@danvillebc.com.

Ellie

rb1651
11-23-05, 11:48 AM
gwladgarwr,

What you said. Try not to hold back next time!!!;)

hrscowboy
11-23-05, 07:47 PM
Ooooooooooorahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Semper FI

thedrifter
11-26-05, 06:42 AM
Murtha: A Marine Corrupted by Liberalism?
Written by Barbara J. Stock
Friday, November 25, 2005

A few shocking statements were made last week by an old Marine. "It's time to bring the troops home," was just one of the comments of Representative John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha uttered the words that indicated, in his mind anyway, that the Iraq war was virtually lost, and he probably stunned many of his fellow Marines. In doing so, he implied his beloved Marines and the rest of the American military were losers. At least one fellow Marine did not like what heard.

On the floor of the Congress, the junior representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message from another Marine, and Schmidt was shouted down by the Democrats and forced to apologize. What that Marine said is not what the leftists wanted to hear. One Marine was sending a specific message to another Marine, not to the Congress: “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.” Rep. Schmidt was accused of calling Murtha a coward. She did no such thing. A fellow Marine did. Murtha got the message even if his leftist friends did not.

But the “cut and run” statement was not the only absurd statement that came from Murtha’s mouth. In his speech, Murtha said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us." Does this mean that we should not have landed on the beaches of Normandy out of fear that the invasion would “unit the enemy against us?” Undoubtedly, that is exactly what happened. Using Rep. Murtha’s logic, D-Day was a tragic mistake.

Murtha said that our troops are the primary target of the terrorists. He should tell that to the families of the dead Iraqi policemen, the dead Iraqi National Guard members, and the dead Iraqi civilians murdered in mosques and Iraqi mourners slaughtered by Islamic terrorists while burying their dead. Murtha should tell that to the Iraqis who risked death just to vote in the first real election in Iraq’s history.

In the days following his speech, Murtha defended his remarks by berating men like Vice President Cheney. "I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who (have) got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions (about) what may need to be done." The president has numerous military advisors and all have had more combat experience than Murtha who spent most of his years in the Reserves. The Iraq war is not Viet Nam and Islamic terrorists are not the Viet Cong.

Using Murtha’s logic, Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have resigned the second he heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor and deferred to Harry Truman, who served in the army in World War I. Did Roosevelt have a “plan for the peace” in place on June 6, 1944? Was this part of the soldier’s training?

Murtha’s recent remarks were not the first time that he had indicated that our military was losing the war in Iraq. In May, 2004, Murtha, standing next a beaming Nancy Pelosi, stated that the Iraq war was “unwinnable.” Just as the leftists had John Kerry as a hero during the Viet Nam war, they now have another hero to hold up as a trophy. The leftists convinced a decorated Marine war hero to declare that our soldiers and marines are not up to the challenge. After barely a year, Murtha ran up the white flag.

Scrambling to explain that he didn’t mean the military is nothing more than a group of fumbling idiots, Murtha and his fellow liberals say it is not the fault of the military, but the fault of the administration. Murtha implied that Bush is just a poor leader. Bush sent our troops into war naked, on foot, and unarmed, if you believe Rep. Murtha.

Visiting the wounded troops Murtha said that the men were “demoralized” because they didn’t have the equipment to make a transition to peace. Exactly what kind of equipment is that? Is “peace equipment” standard issue like meals ready to eat? Do soldiers actually talk about such things? Soldiers care about staying alive and completing the mission. Murtha stated that the soldiers complained about being deployed while hurricanes were sweeping across their state. They complained about the roadside bombs. They complained about being away from their families. It seems our soldiers and Marines complain about everything.

These soldiers know when they join the military that they will more than likely be called upon to leave home and family. It is part of the job. Many of the wounded have stated that they wish to go back to Iraq. They want to finish the job that they started and they want to complete the mission. They want the people of Iraq to be free. Murtha paints these heroes as whiners and complainers instead of the honorable men and women that they are.

It is particularly troubling that a Marine who served his country with courage during Viet Nam and felt first-hand the wrath of the leftist forces has now joined those very forces that called him a “baby-killer.” Murtha is now the darling of the forces that handed a victory to the enemy and sent the American military packing in defeat in Viet Nam. The very defeat our present enemy, Islam, now quotes as the way to win this war.

Just be patient, the Islamic leaders tell their followers. The Americans are weak. Just as in Viet Nam, they will flee Iraq. All Islamics have to do is wait and the leftists in America will win the war for them, just as they won the war for the North Vietnamese.

Now, even an honored Marine from that humiliating political defeat is beating the same drum of “cut and run.” This leads one to wonder how much Marine is left in Murtha these days. The leftist Democrat seems to have taken control and he only sees defeat.

In Ayman al-Zawahiri’s letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the importance of Iraq was stressed. Al-Zawahiri said, “It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq.” The terrorists understand quite well the importance of winning the war in Iraq. The future of Islam depends on it.

For the leftists to win, our military must loose. As absurd as that sounds, that is the reality of the situation. If Iraq is successful, Bush is successful. That is something the leftists cannot tolerate. So powerful is the hatred of Bush that even the proud tradition of the United States Marines has been trampled. It’s just shocking that the stampede has been joined by one of the few, the proud…a Marine.

About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara J. receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.

Ellie

hrscowboy
11-26-05, 09:25 AM
Barbara stock needs worry more about her nursing than worry herself about what goes on in war. First of all the veterans in no way lost the war in vietnam, politics did not us veterans. she has no idea what combat is either so how can she say whats what and where. As I said she needs to worry more about her nursing then worry about a Warriors comments. enuff said..

sgtrock1970
11-28-05, 06:20 AM
hrscowboy is 100% right. Politicians start and formulate policy for wars. Marines just get the job done. Not every war is just or even about justice, some of it is about money but that doesn't lessen the sacrifice our Brothers have paid. Something these people don't know is what Semper Fi means, and they should do their job (nursing) and let our young Marines do theirs, and let us crotchety old Marines do ours. A *****ing Marine is a happy Marine.
SF

junker316
11-28-05, 07:43 AM
Brothers and Sisters there is only one thing to say in this. Where the Hell were all these louds mouths before this all started and when it began? Where were they during the Veitnam Era? Hiding from the front lines, defending the couch and TV, or running in the opposite direction of the recruitor's office. Maybe since they all have been through US Marine Corps Boot Camp they were all in Canada drinking Canada Dry. How many of these ignorant Republicans and Democrats have done any type of service to our Country other than to run down those who did? Murtha is a Marine who served, got wounded, trained, and lived a Marine's life. He has the right to say what he wants. We may not agree but then again do we always agree with each other? I think not. I keep hearing all these nicve words like " coward " and " traitor " describing Col Murtha. Come to think of it he wouldn't have been granted two purple hearts had he been either. A coward doesn't get those awards and a Traitor usually ends up in another country not as a Representitive for our nation.

It is always easier to fain names for those that had done their job, and served their motherland proudly, than to face the fact that he may actually know something that they aren't willing to tell us. Congress and the House have been calling names for a while now but the situation hasn't gotten any better. maybe they should listen instead of act like childern.

recon532002
11-28-05, 08:21 AM
Every one has a right to there opinion whether it is correct or incorrect. This democracy would not survive without indifferance. I think John Murtha has a right to his opposition without ridicule. Remember He did fight for his country not like some who hid behind academics. War is not a pretty sight but in the world at large we have to be more discriminatory about who we declare war against and what the consiquences will be. Be careful who you throw stones at today those stone may someday be thrown back at you.

Semper Fi
Recon :evilgrin:

PTWARRIOR
11-28-05, 09:36 AM
He probably did earn the title of marine but DO YOU NOT AGREE kentmitchell THAT WHAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH WAS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL MARINES HAVE THAT HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES?

OLE SARG
11-28-05, 10:12 AM
Evidence points to the fact that murtha talks out of one of his two faces. I agree he has the right to disagree but records indicated he was one of the leaders in the charge to withdraw troops from...

junker316
11-28-05, 11:07 AM
I do agree that what he said is a slap in the face towards Marines. But I don't see why calling him such things as a coward or traitor will make it any better. He damn sure wasn't a coward or traitor...

hrscowboy
11-28-05, 01:01 PM
well gentlemen lets see here, all along our president and others have said where not leaving until the job is done, Then all of a sudden a Marine stands up and says or Military objective is over and we need to start bringing our troops home.. Isnt it funny after Murtha said what he said all of a sudden where going to start bringing troops home... Did someone finally wake up and see that in fact the Military objective was over???

yellowwing
11-28-05, 01:20 PM
I think the Democrats are regretting giving a blank check approval of the war. From what I've read, Rep. Murtha wants more accountability and realistic progress reports. Congress is funding our efforts in Iraq and it is not unreasonable for them to get the scoop on OUR interests over there.

It would be really great to see a media blitz of the good deeds and rebuilding that our Marines are involved in.

Overall, I don't think the military objectives have been met. Iraq still has an insurgent problem. If they can't even secure their market places, they would be easy pickins' for 2 Iranian Army groups.

Osotogary
11-28-05, 02:06 PM
Rebuilding? Getting the word out?
DefendAmerica News shows what's going on with the rebuilding of Iraq.
I know that this is an "official" website but it's out there if anybody wants to look at it.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

hrscowboy
11-28-05, 04:10 PM
Yellowwing my brother i ask you? Whos fault is it these insurgents are coming to Iraq? Who forgot to secure the borders first?

yellowwing
11-28-05, 05:41 PM
I think your asking the wrong person on this one, hrscowboy. I remember that army general that was fired for telling congress that we did not have enough troops planned for an after action force. Rumsfeld didn't think that was so cool for one of his generals to go against the grain.

MillRatUSMC
11-28-05, 05:54 PM
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D241101/ZINNI_ANTHONY1298ap.jpg
General Anthony Zinni USMC (retired)

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm
The ten major mistakes we made going into Iraq by General Anthony Zinni USMC (retired)

All these mistakes might be reason enough for what Rep/Colonel John Murtha is seeking.
It was too long to cut and paste...

MillRatUSMC
11-28-05, 10:36 PM
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003927.html

In all due respect to the honorable and gentlelady from Ohio, she was just relaying a message from another Colonel in the Marine Corps...

Ms. Schmidt: Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young Marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

That brought an uproar that been heard far and wide through out the land...

thedrifter
11-29-05, 07:02 AM
A Marine Corrupted by Liberalism?
By Barbara J. Stock
November 29, 2005

A few shocking statements were made last week by an old Marine. "It's time to bring the troops home," was just one of the comments of Representative John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha uttered the words that indicated, in his mind anyway, that the Iraq war was virtually lost, and he probably stunned many of his fellow Marines. In doing so, he implied his beloved Marines and the rest of the American military were losers. At least one fellow Marine did not like what he heard.

On the floor of the Congress, the junior representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message from another Marine and Schmidt was shouted down by the Democrats and forced to apologize. What that Marine said is not what the leftists wanted to hear. One Marine was sending a specific message to another Marine, not to the Congress: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Rep. Schmidt was accused of calling Murtha a coward. She did no such thing. A fellow Marine did. Murtha got the message even if his leftist friends did not.

But the "cut and run" statement was not the only absurd statement that came from Murtha's mouth. In his speech, Murtha said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us." Does this mean that we should not have landed on the beaches of Normandy out of fear that the invasion would "unite the enemy against us?" Undoubtedly, that is exactly what happened. Using Rep. Murtha's logic, D-Day was a tragic mistake.

Murtha said that our troops are the primary target of the terrorists. He should tell that to the families of the dead Iraqi policemen, the dead Iraqi National Guard members, and the dead Iraqi civilians murdered in mosques and Iraqi mourners slaughtered by Islamic terrorists while burying their dead. Murtha should tell that to the Iraqis who risked death just to vote in the first real election in Iraq's history.

In the days following his speech, Murtha defended his remarks by berating men like Vice President Cheney. "I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who (have) got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions (about) what may need to be done." The president has numerous military advisors and all have had more combat experience than Murtha who spent most of his years in the reserves. The Iraq war is not Viet Nam and Islamic terrorists are not the Viet Cong.

Using Murtha's logic, Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have resigned the second he heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor and deferred to Harry Truman, who served in the army in World War I. Did Roosevelt have a "plan for the peace" in place on June 6, 1944? Was this part of the soldier's training?

Murtha's recent remarks were not the first time that he had indicated that our military was losing the war in Iraq. In May, 2004, Murtha, standing next to a beaming Nancy Pelosi, stated that the Iraq war was "unwinnable." Just as the leftists had John Kerry as a hero during the Viet Nam war, they now have another hero to hold up as a trophy. The leftists convinced a decorated Marine war hero to declare that our soldiers and marines are not up to the challenge. After barely a year, Murtha ran up the white flag.

Scrambling to explain that he didn't mean the military is nothing more than a group of fumbling idiots, Murtha and his fellow liberals say it is not the fault of the military, but the fault of the administration. Murtha implied that Bush is just a poor leader. Bush sent our troops into war naked, on foot, and unarmed, if you believe Rep. Murtha.

Visiting the wounded troops Murtha said that the men were "demoralized" because they didn't have the equipment to make a transition to peace. Exactly what kind of equipment is that? Is "peace equipment" standard issue like meals ready to eat? Do soldiers actually talk about such things? Soldiers care about staying alive and completing the mission. Murtha stated that the soldiers complained about being deployed while hurricanes were sweeping across their state. They complained about the roadside bombs. They complained about being away from their families. It seems our soldiers and Marines complain about everything.

These soldiers know when they join the military that they will more than likely be called upon to leave home and family. It is part of the job. Many of the wounded have stated that they wish to go back to Iraq. They want to finish the job that they started and they want to complete the mission. They want the people of Iraq to be free. Murtha paints these heroes as whiners and complainers instead of the honorable men and women that they are.

It is particularly troubling that a Marine who served his country with courage during Viet Nam and felt first-hand the wrath of the leftist forces has now joined those very forces that called him a "baby-killer." Murtha is now the darling of the forces that handed a victory to the enemy and sent the American military packing in defeat in Viet Nam. The very defeat our present enemy, Islam, now quotes as the way to win this war.

Just be patient, the Islamic leaders tell their followers. The Americans are weak. Just as in Viet Nam, they will flee Iraq. All Islamics have to do is wait and the leftists in America will win the war for them, just as they won the war for the North Vietnamese.

Now, even an honored Marine from that humiliating political defeat is beating the same drum of "cut and run." This leads one to wonder how much Marine is left in Murtha these days. The leftist Democrat seems to have taken control and he only sees defeat.

In Ayman al-Zawahiri's letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the importance of Iraq was stressed. Al-Zawahiri said, "It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq." The terrorists understand quite well the importance of winning the war in Iraq. The future of Islam depends on it.

For the leftists to win, our military must loose. As absurd as that sounds, that is the reality of the situation. If Iraq is successful, Bush is successful. That is something the leftists cannot tolerate. So powerful is the hatred of Bush that even the proud tradition of the United States Marines has been trampled. It's just shocking that the stampede has been joined by one of the few, the proud...a Marine.

Ellie

thedrifter
11-29-05, 03:39 PM
Rep. John Murtha:
From Hero to Zero in 72 Hours
Current Events/JB Williams

November 28, 2005 - Unlike Senator John Kerry, whose self-proclaimed war-hero status of some 30 years ago is questionable at best, not a single individual doubts the past valor of House Representative John Murtha thirty-five years ago in Viet Nam. It’s what has happened to him since then that gives rise to great doubt. Mostly, his recent recitation of DNC issued political propaganda concerning the mission in Iraq, which has a very familiar ring to it…

Do these words sound familiar? “Our welcome has been worn out," "They're subdued [our troops] compared to normal morale of elite forces," "There's no military solution.” "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

They sound a lot like the words Rep. Murtha used less than a week ago leading up to his formal call for troop withdrawal from Iraq. However, these are instead the words Rep. Murtha used to convince Bill Clinton to withdraw troops from Somalia in 1993, after 18 U.S. soldiers were attacked and killed in the streets of Mogadishu.

The most important part of this story for every American to know and understand is this.

Al Qaeda, at the direction of our friend Osama bin Laden, organized that street attack against U.S. Soldiers in Mogadishu. Bin Laden himself later said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning Al Qaeda force and encouraged him to plan new attacks. (This was years before 9/11.) "Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat." Osama bin Laden, (Source: HAN in Nairobi)

This is indeed not the first time Rep. Murtha has adopted a “cut and run” attitude towards a challenging, but worthwhile mission. In fact, this is not the first time he has done so while staring into the face of international terrorism and not the first time his words have emboldened America’s enemies, here and abroad.

There is a 95lb tigress from Ohio named Jean Schmidt though, who is currently being maligned for bravely carrying a message from a U.S. Marine to the floor of the people’s House. She is being tarred and feathered by her colleagues in the House and the media around the world for reading a Marines statement that was at odds with Rep. Murtha’s “cut and run” attitude and that of his faux patriot friends in the DNC.

But that Marines message was kind compared to what many active and retired military folks would like to say on the floor of the people’s House, given the chance. I have included a letter from a reader who responded to my recent column “When Rhetoric Clashes with Reality”, just so you won’t miss the point… I receive similar messages from active and retired military on a daily basis, as I’m sure the press does as well. This one just says it better than I could ever hope to…and unlike the press, I’ll publish it…

The letter is from a New Jersey man who served in the Fourth Division of the U.S. Army in Germany from 1954-1957. He is the very proud father of two Marine sons’, both of whom have served in Iraq. His oldest received the Navy Meritorious Medal for his actions directing attacks on Najaf. The younger is a Cobra helicopter pilot who flew missions in the attack on Fallujah. Both of them volunteer Marines, both of them commissioned at Quantico. The youngest has volunteered for further duty in Iraq. This writer is also a former FBI agent and no novice in the arena of national security. His name is Robert Hallett… (Without edit)

“Mr. Williams,

I think many people have bought into the BS that Rep. John Murtha is a "well-respected veteran of the Viet Nam War." He was decorated and earned two purple hearts. But, you know, I simply don't buy into a man' courage demonstrated thirty-five years ago, that whatever he does today must be measured by that once demonstrated act of valor. As a Democrat he has surrounded himself with the lies and fury of his party for too long. It clearly has made him into a coward today. I'm truly sorry to malign a man who once demonstrated his courage on the battlefield but it is his act TODAY that angers me. As a man who was once in battle in an unpopular war, he more than others should know what advocating "cut and run" really means. Obviously, he doesn't remember or more likely doesn't want to remember. Today, he is a Democrat politician and as such, I call him a coward as I would have called him a hero thirty-five years ago.

I know that what I am saying here would anger many Americans and I'm sorry they feel that way but I have said it and I mean it. People change over time and it is clear to me that Rep. John Murtha has changed. For his political end he has, like that other Viet Nam "hero", John Kerry, changed his stripes and he has become a yellow coward for his own political gain.

Bob”

Before going to press with this statement, I offered Mr. Hallett an opportunity to reconsider his strong words, to which he replied:

“I reread my statements to you a moment ago and feel sad that I should state a decorated Marine Viet Nam hero should have changed his stripes so significantly, apparently to satisfy his current political status. I hold Rep. Jean Schmidt's comment, "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do" in high esteem and quite correct. Hopefully, Col. John Murtha will rethink his statement and his attacks upon a commander-in-chief (same speech) as a liar.

Bob”

Like the Marine that sent Rep. Schmidt to read a message to congress, Mr. Hallett’s comments do nothing to malign the past heroism of Rep. John Murtha some thirty-five years ago in Viet Nam. Instead, they rightfully question the motives behind the current acts of cowardice of Democrats throughout the people’s government, including the recent acts and statements of one Rep. John Murtha.

I believe that Mr. Hallett is exactly right here. People do change with time, not always for the better and not always for the best reasons. It does appear that Rep. Murtha has either lost his will to win, his will to defend freedom and liberty, whether in Somalia, Iraq, or even here at home, or been overcome by the leadership of his failing Party, resorting to the same desperate attacks that have become standard DNC operating procedure today.

Viet Nam was the first war fought on our TV screens, and consequently, the first war to be heavily politicized back home while our troops were in harm’s way. Democrats and their minions in the press have worked diligently to turn the war on terrorism into another Viet Nam by once again politicizing a war effort in search of an elusive political power.

Soldiers shouldn’t have to remind Americans back home how to properly behave during a time of war. They sure shouldn’t have to remind the people who authorized that war.

As sad as it is to see a good mans past honor tarnished in the political brawl over Iraq, it is even sadder to think of what it must be like to be in uniform, on the ground in Iraq or many other parts of the world, fighting an enemy capable of 9/11, feeling the need to write home just to tell your politicians to shut up and have a little backbone.

Clearly, the blood of real Americans is nearing a boiling point and the era of tolerance for anti-Americanism at home is fast coming to an overdue end… Jack Murtha will always be a Viet Nam war hero. Nobody can ever take that away from him.

But his actions today, like the actions of his fellow Democrats, are anything but heroic. And no amount of hogwash from DNC headquarters or their many minions in the press can change that either…

Ellie

greensideout
11-29-05, 08:06 PM
To Barbara J. Stock and JB Williams; I almost have to laugh at your lemming way to follow without question. What is even worse, is your attact on anyone who questions the path that we are on. You attack a Marine who proved himself in combat. He understands war and it's cost. We have won the war in Iraq! What is going on now is a civil war. As I understand it the "insurgents", for the most part are home grown. It's an internal religious war for the power of religious rule. By "internal" I mean "Islam". If we stay, it will continue. If we leave it will continue. That takes us back to Rep Murtha and his understanding of the cost of war. No matter the price we pay, the war will continue. Time to pull the troops out. We have already won the war that was our mission.

hrscowboy
11-29-05, 08:15 PM
Yehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww GSO I couldnt have said it better....

MOUNTAINWILLIAM
11-29-05, 09:46 PM
Ol' Murtha is just getting a head start on the upcoming presidential elections a few years from now. This is SOP in Washington practiced by the party in the minority and out of power. These good ol' boys and girls really don't give a hoot whether their actions cause serious bodily harm to our troops, all they care about is "puffing" up their image and trying to portray their party as "caring." This applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.

I never could understand why, reasonable people, who may or may not have served their country and been in harms way, go to Washington and become...well...corrupt. All I can say about Murtha is...he has turned into a hypocrite.

Semper Fi

sgtrock1970
11-30-05, 06:40 AM
I think we've strayed from the course, the statement was about whether Col. Murtha is a traitor and coward was in my opinon is a big fat NO. Do I entirely agree with his politics? No again. But a...