November 20, 2005

Hysterical Left Begins Building New Lie: "She Called Murtha a Coward"

"He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that, 'Cowards cut and run, Marines never do'." - Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R) Ohio
The latest burning question: Who called Democratic congressman Jack Murtha a "coward"? Was it Jean Schmidt, or a Marine Reserve colonel?

Reality and common sense have been lost in the hysteria. Read the quote. Neither called Murtha a "coward". Certainly not Schmidt, who was relaying a quote from a constituent, a colonel in the Marine Reserve. And the Marine didn't call Murtha a coward, either, if one takes the time to read the quote for comprehension, which few seem willing to do.

The Marine, quite clearly, is reminding Murtha that the accepted Marine tradition is "Reteat? Hell!" not the immediate and ignominious withdrawal that Murtha had publicly advocated. The Marine is admonishing Murtha that ignominious withdrawal is not a part of the Marine tradition. The Marine is trying to prod Murtha into doing the right thing, i.e., withdraw the call for surrender. The Marine is correct. When Schmidt relayed her constituent's message on the floor of the House Friday, she touched off such a firestorm of hysterical weeping and gnashing of teeth that she was forced to withdraw her comments from the Congressional Record. Now, leftist bloggers and mainstream media propagandists are trying to twist the public perception of Schmidt's remarks into a meme that will serve their purpose, Democratic victory at any cost.

Not surprisingly (to anyone who reads the Gray Lady regularly) Jason DeParle, writing in the New York Times gets the story wrong, even while quoting Schmidt directly:

So when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, created a furor on her 75th day in Congress by lobbing the word "coward" toward a Democratic war hero, those who know her best were anything but surprised.
The only mystery about DeParle's piece is whether the mistake is accidental or deliberate. It's possible, but not likely, that DeParle didn't understand exactly what Schmidt said. More likely, the NYT, as is their wont, made the mischaracterization on purpose. The Left lobe of the blogosphere is gleefully following the mainstream lead.

From leftie blog Bazzfazz

"A fellow congressperson (Rep. Jean Schmitt from Ohio) called Murtha a coward..."
Shakespeare's Sister offers us way too much information:
"I was watching it live, and almost shit my breeks when she called Murtha a coward."
Even gay alleged conservative Andrew Sullivan, who should know better, joined the Leftist meme creation frenzy, while quoting Schmidt's remarks in full:
SHE CALLED MURTHA A COWARD: Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt called Jack Murtha a coward this afternoon, unworthy of the Marines, on the House floor.
I always suspected that Sully was a mole. His dishonesty in spreading this distortion strengthens that suspicion.

There are only two possibilities here. Anyone who says that Jean Schmidt called Murtha a "coward" is either incapable of comprehending spoken English, or deliberately lying for political gain.

Originally posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, named "most extreme blog" by the sissy Limey asshats at the Guardian Unlimited.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:07 PM | Comments (145) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.

1 "Who called Democratic congressman Jack Murtha a "coward"? Was it Jean Schmidt, or a Marine Reserve colonel?" Both. The analogous concept would be publisher liability in libel.

Posted by: actus at November 20, 2005 01:27 PM (Zi15r)

2 Except, actus, the truth is NO ONE was called a coward. Instead, the acts of a coward and of a Marine were contrasted. IMHO, the people who are taking Schmidt's statement as being about Murtha are the ones calling him a coward. They're making the association that neither Schmidt nor her constituent did. BTW -- the real motivation here is to get Schmidt. She beat a Kossack Kandidate in a special election, so now they're out for her blood. Any lie is fine, so long as it serves that end.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 20, 2005 01:34 PM (Gn9tM)

3 "Except, actus, the truth is NO ONE was called a coward. Instead, the acts of a coward and of a Marine were contrasted." Oh. And Murtha is not doing or advocating a cut and run strategy? Fine with me!

Posted by: actus at November 20, 2005 01:44 PM (Zi15r)

4 Neither did - I heard it all complete and in context. Dems and left will of course try and play it but it will be lame and useless. Can't sell something if you can't actually show and present it (it is available) out of fear others wouldn't "re-interpret it like them". Besides - who would actually care about this one way or the other except the mil/vet community - does the Dem/left actually believe they can suddenly convert this constituency? Get real! Better chance pulling rabbits out of a hat. Lame lame lame!

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 01:53 PM (Jvmry)

5 ya ya, we know. first off your trite arguments between conservative and liberal is totalitarian crap, so you need to get over it so you can begin to think again. your slimy oily reptiles NEVER do anything wrong, do ya? you didnt compare battle wounded amputee max cleland with being a friend of terrorists, you never impugned john kerry wither. you didnt claim john mccain was nuts over his war service in 2000 south carolina either. you slug idiots are disgusting and america is on to you. you are the minority folks, traitors leading us soldiers to their deaths because you are too stupid and weak to admit your phony ideology is shit and you have mud in your souls. you chicken hawk jackasses, following deferment cheney, bad back gingrich, and cocaine AWOL Bush have no ouls, no courage, nothing. you are exposed as being the lickspittle fascists that you are. cowards. go sign up for your holy jihad you pussies. let the national guard troops come home to work and raise their kids and you go fight for your impotence and fear. "conservatives", paste eater disgusting nerds, always willing for others to fight. anyway, your slander aint shit, america hates you. feel it. acknowledsge it. you are petty sycophants for liars and your lack of dignity is obvious for all to see. sign your geek asses up. leave this nation, go die for your holy pharoah . semper fi. ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 01:53 PM (ocmaF)

6 ernie And your are phony with nothing to show except the same old tired one-trick pony crap. No soldier - just try (lamely) to imply you are to as if that will magically give you credibility. Note public record - Max C lost his limbs playing sock hockey with a grenade - kinda embarrassing and stupid. wouldn't even bother with rest - you don't rate extensive comentary. Nothing is more pathetic than a lil' lefty play-acting Rambo.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:05 PM (Jvmry)

7 I find impersonating a Marine to be a particularly heinous act, Ernie. You should know that commenting reveals your IP to administrators. Most people realize that.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:06 PM (RHG+K)

8 Great post. Glad somebody gets it. I plugged it here.

Posted by: Eric Kephas at November 20, 2005 02:14 PM (5qKGR)

9 no my friends are marines and they hate you nerd dickheads whop are getting them killed with your trite reasoning. and of ocurse you cant defend the point. you moral value pusseis live off of character assassination and lies. you call 66% percent of america traitors because they know you are full od shit. we think you 34% are traitors, you are on the losing side pussy boys, and we hold you responsible for every 2085 deaths. you idiots are on the way out. go out in public and spew your filth so we can beat your nerd asses. ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 02:14 PM (ocmaF)

10 Well, ernie my family are Marines (and Soldiers) and they say you're so full of shit you squish when you walk. The word used was "blivet", or ten pounds of shit in a five pound sack. I do speak my mind in public.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:23 PM (RHG+K)

11 Your not a marine - but your friends are? Yeah - that will work. What a pathetic lil' dweeb!

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:24 PM (Jvmry)

12 I sense a lot of chicken hawks on this board.

Posted by: rick at November 20, 2005 02:28 PM (3B9Yj)

13 so why is it that military families blindly support deferment cheney and awol bush as their slanderous political machine defames people who actually served? that is incredibly undignified and irresponsible...as bush would say. so in short, everyone understands "supporting the troops" but we also understand selling out the troops to muderers and liars. if you cant see that, then you no longer defend the constotition, but fascism. so whatever, again, 66 % of america is awake and it will only grow, nobody supports your fake ass holy wars and tyhe lies of the republican attack machine... imagine...karl rove makes south carolina certain john mccain is crazy due to his service, max cleland called a friend of bin laden, kerry's service was discgraced by your really cool band aids making fun of his wounds...now murtha... but you guys cant see it. that is a shame and disgusting...ya, just keep following awol bush and deferment cheney as they kill more soliders for their lies. you should be ashamed for selling out the troops, again, 66% of us see it, why cant you? ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 02:29 PM (ocmaF)

14 ernie's argument is that he hates Bush (and probably hates bush, too; seems a little light in the loafers, doesn't he?) so we should, too. It's a tough call what's more pathetic, continually posting with no reason or logic, or pretending to be a Marine to bolster your weak attempts at debate.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:34 PM (RHG+K)

15 What is striking to me is how many military families, former and active soilders, former and current high ranking goverment officals that are Republicans HAVE spoken out against this war and the direction that it is taking. When you are in the active military you do not speak out against the president no matter what. So it just amazes me that so many have.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:40 PM (3B9Yj)

16 poor ernie Like soooo many on the left they just can't realise that the "soldiers" don't give a fuck about them. I'll make it easy for ya - their not "your" soldiers - their not "your" troops. The war is our war -OK - feel better? One last thing - you and whatever mystical horde you think you represent - are not in charge. like they say in Russia - tuffski shitski!

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:40 PM (Jvmry)

17 It's been written that Bush does not talk to his father anymore because someone close to his dad spoke out against this war stragedy. That now he only talks to four advisors (all women) on a regular basis.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:44 PM (3B9Yj)

18 I know this is a pro-Iraq board and none of you are for withdrawing our troops because as you say it would be "cut and run". my question then is how long do we stay in Iraq?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:47 PM (3B9Yj)

19 Where did all you traitorous creeps come from? You are nothing more than a bunch of delusional shits from Indymedia and DU. Go back to the swamps, you potheads.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 02:52 PM (rUyw4)

20 Hey I'm not calling anyone here names. I'm just asking a question. Can't you have a civil conversation?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:56 PM (3B9Yj)

21 Jesusland joe, how old r you?

Posted by: Sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:57 PM (3B9Yj)

22 I don't feel like being civil when creeps come in here from DU and troll. Come back later, sonnybear.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 02:58 PM (rUyw4)

23 troll? Because I ask a question?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:00 PM (3B9Yj)

24 jesusland Joe, I'll ask the quetion again; How long do you think we should stayin in iraq? P.S.I'm not trying start a fight I just want to know your opinion.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:02 PM (3B9Yj)

25 its been written ... ha ha ha ... er true - not true ????? then again - what's your point? How long? Till we win (ie achieve objectives, goals)! If the Dems/left were rational they would focus on the definition of winning (a fair point any respectable right-wing conservative here would agree). But they don't - because winning by any definition doesn't return them to power!!!!!!!!!!! To them - winning only legitimizes Bush/conservatives etc. and they can't have that now, can they!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:03 PM (Jvmry)

26 hondo, Huh,so how long will these goals take? 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, years? again, just a question, not looking to fight with ya.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:07 PM (3B9Yj)

27 Sonnybear, How long have we been in Europe? How long have we been in Korea? And dozens of other places in the World. Until Iraq is stabalized, and I might add, had the terrorists, insurgents, or whatever you call them, not received assistance from people right here in the US, I believe our troops would be coming home right now. Just my opinion.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 03:13 PM (rUyw4)

28 Again- simple - AS LONG AS IT TAKES! Now question for you - when do you want to quit and fail? A fair question - I was totally straightforward with my answer.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:17 PM (Jvmry)

29 The point I'm trying to make is that I believe we are going to start reducing (cut and run) our forces in Iraq by next year. The democrates know this and that is why there are trying to capitallize on this by callling for pullout within the next 6 months now. This way they can weaken the president and claim victory. The Repulicans on the other hand want to make it sound as if we have reached some our goals so thus they can say that they won. Same result just a different approach. It's just politics, don't take is personally.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:24 PM (3B9Yj)

30 There is a big difference. Reductions are inevitable as conditions change - draw down in any war is done over time. When WW2 ended did 10 million servicemen come home within a week? My anger is this - if Dems see future reductions and drawdowns as signs of failure (for political gain or whatever) - then failure (losing)HAS ALWAYS BEEN their end goal. Why? Because they see America losing the war as an OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO RETURN TO POWER.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:36 PM (Jvmry)

31 Easy, I say pull them out within 6 months. I'm very hawkish when it comes to war, but this was so screwed up from the begining that the president as lost the american people. Politics are such that you cannot have a war that last past two terms. YOu only have a small window to get things right and sadly Rummie was not the guy to plan this War.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:38 PM (3B9Yj)

32 He's not a coward, he's just a scumbag dhimmicrat traitor who should be hanged with the rest of them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 03:40 PM (0yYS2)

33 I totally agree with your assement on the Democrates. But understand polictics is a two way street and I feel that people tend to only see there side as being the one that has any virtue.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:41 PM (3B9Yj)

34 I guess if I understand you correctly is that you agree with me that they will start reducing some troop levels my next year?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:45 PM (3B9Yj)

35 Finally! Your prepared for defeat - you want to surrender - hawkish like a sunshine soldier! The consequences .. you don't care - you can blame Bush - like that makes the consequences go away like magic pixie dust.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:48 PM (Jvmry)

36 Bullshit. What exactly is Jean saying?

Posted by: Steve at November 20, 2005 03:53 PM (OyPHr)

37 why are you getting angry?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:54 PM (3B9Yj)

38 Murtha's a dirty, rotten, cowardly son of a bitch because he wants to cut and run and give the Islamists a victory in Iraq. If she didn't say it, then I just did.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 03:56 PM (rUyw4)

39 Hondo, Do you agree that we are going to start reducing our exposure before the 06 elections?

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:00 PM (3B9Yj)

40 Because I will never accept defeatism regardless why its being advocated.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 04:00 PM (Jvmry)

41 Dinner time! I talk to you guys later.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:01 PM (3B9Yj)

42 hondo, It's not defeatism military that concerns you but the political consquences for the replublican party. Remember it was not to long ago that the Dems where in the hot seat on the other side of this debate. Nixon won in 68' under the promise to end the war and to to WIN it military. He bomb the hell out of the north to bring them to the peace table.

Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:11 PM (3B9Yj)

43 How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball' The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

Posted by: Route Irish at November 20, 2005 05:53 PM (Eh9tH)

44 Look our country has done this before, all we have to do is say "Peace with honor" and then leave. The Iraqis will straighten out their own mess with out us. Since the polls on the war have turned upside down so have both political parties. The republicans now wanting troop withdrawals and the democrats now wanting to send more troops. WTF !! So I guess the best thing to do if they can not come up with a policy that we the people can live with is: BLAME EACH OTHER ! He started it. No I didn't. It was his fault. H;e called me a bad name. Sometimes this place reminds me of the two opposing squads of cheerleaders having a cat fight in the 4th quarter while the 2 teams are out there not really knowing what the outcome is going to be but still trying to give it their all.

Posted by: john Ryan at November 20, 2005 06:17 PM (ads7K)

45 by way of patriot routeirish@yahoo.com "One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat."

Posted by: Route Irish at November 20, 2005 06:29 PM (Eh9tH)

46 Not only did she call him a coward, she didn't even have the guts to do it on her own account. This is the world we live in. The chickenhawks are all heroes with other people's lives; a fighter who calls enough is a coward.

Posted by: Dr Zen at November 20, 2005 06:43 PM (78Q5w)

47 "Murtha's a dirty, rotten, cowardly son of a bitch because he wants to cut and run and give the Islamists a victory in Iraq." Well, they've beat you, fuckhead. It's just a question of how many people have to die before you accept it.

Posted by: Dr Zen at November 20, 2005 06:45 PM (78Q5w)

48 Earnie: Semper Fi. From a real Marine. You sissy assed little punk.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:47 PM (ZaAd/)

49 Pulling the Coalition out of Iraq would be a colossal mistake now. In the short term, the soldiers will come home and families will be reunited. In the long term, chaos, will ensue as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia rush to fill the power vacuum in Iraq, something which has global repercussions. The perception that the West cannot sustain loses is already there and withdrawal will only confirm that, paving the way for an increase in attacks around the world. The citizens of Iraq are losing dozens everyday, but they aren't saying "Let's just give the country to Al Qaeda and be done with it." Withdrawal now will mean that the sacrifices have been for nothing. Even if the Coalition were to withdraw, then what? Will a better plan be formulated and then it all starts over again? Mistakes have been made in the waging of this war, but war is not precise - it's a mess where very bad things can happen. The United States needs to stay the course and finish the job. That can only be accomplished with forces on the ground with good leadership and clearly defined goals. The US has failed to stay the course in the past and now those events are studied by the terrorists. Anyone remember the Marine barracks in Beirut? The embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Mogadishu, Somalia? The USS Cole? Why not apply the 'when things get tough, we cut and run' strategy to other policies? In that regard, I propose the following: 1) Humanitarian assistance to African countries aren't preventing famines, so there's no point really. Stop the wasting of federal funds! Bring the money home now! 2) All those children not performing well in the public school system are clearly a burden on society. Shut the schools down and send the children home. No use trying any more with them. 3) The border patrol isn't stopping illegal immigrants from flooding the US-Mexico border, so scrap the immigration laws, send the border patrol home and let the Mexicans come. They'll end up in the US anyway, right?

Posted by: Graeme at November 20, 2005 06:58 PM (krwm9)

50 Bringing peace and stability to a shithole like Iraq, at gunpoint yet, will never happen. Religious (as usual) and tribal differences there are not like anything we have ever encountered. "Winning", as described, ain't gonna happen. Until people stop killing each other over whose 'Invisible Man in the Sky' is authentic and whose is fake, peace is not going to fall on Iraq. We had no idea what we got into and now we have no idea how to 'complete' this ever-morphing "mission". All the name calling and all the narrow-mindset rhetoric can't make this continued war justified. America has seen through the illusion and that toothpaste isn't likely to jump back in the tube. The web is unraveled, the lies revealed. Americans don't like being misled. Momentum will never return to the pro-war rah-rah group. The "progress is being made" line has evaporated. Re-evaluation is a foreign concept to this arrogant bunch od Neo-Cons in charge. They blew it. You folks attacking those who question this futile grinder in Iraq might spend less time reflexively attacking thinking people and engaging in a little self-exploration. You won't but if you ever did you might end up putting down the Kool-Aid and acting more like a thinking human being with the ability to ask questions and the dignity to listen to all sides intelligently.

Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 08:27 PM (A8hdT)

51 One more thing; Adjusted people with happy healthy sex lives don't turn every political argument (such as Iraq) into a referendum on homosexuality. People with repressed sexual urges and demons of their own happily do. It makes them feel better about themselves. You out there who are so obsessed with the sex lives of people you never met must interject your own conflict over sexuality into political discussions, I know. You just have to. That's what compulsion is all about.

Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 08:32 PM (A8hdT)

52 Interesting - the ones taking the brunt of the horror are the Iraqi people (primarily shia & kurds) - men, women, and children slaughtered (AND TARGETED DELIBERATELY!!!) by car, truck and other suicide delivery systems from those wonderful saddamists and jihadists. Story related to me by 1SG (I'm in the rear stateside) - husband and wife school teachers beheaded in their home and three children murdered because they wanted a better Iraq. He can't get the image out of his mind. And there are plenty more stories like that. To some here the solution is easy - just don't look - turn away. And if we turn away then what - they will all live happily ever after? The real slaughter will begin with the saddamists and radical jihadists vieing for control. What is it - battlegrounds you don't like - but killing fields are OK as long as we're not there? Jihadists and terrorists flock to Iraq! But you don't want to fight them there - well, then where? What makes hondo angry is experience - you don't give a flying fuck about the soldiers you claim to care for - and have little if any real contact with us. At least Dman has to courage (sic) to express his indifference and hatred for all Iraqis - feel free to expand that to all others. What pisses you whiners off is that all this simply detracts you from your daily carefree lives, or maybe some mean jihadist might come here and - god forbid - interfere with you vacation plans - maybe if we ignore them they will go away! Want to end this? Then get your freakin' Dem politicians to vote NO! Ball-less wonders!

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:18 PM (Jvmry)

53 A friend of mine tells me that "you guys suck dead donkey dicks". I'd never say that about you guys, but the same friend tells me "you guys eat shit on rye". My friend simply has no respect for the rules of posting, so I want to apologize for what my fried said about you guys. Of course, I don't believe I have anything to apologize for since I am only relating what my friend had to say. By the way, did the Congresswoman apologize for what the colonel said, or did she apologize for her remarks? I was inclined to accept her apology and move on. I take it you guys don't accept her apology?

Posted by: Quizmos at November 20, 2005 09:39 PM (rcuoz)

54 Representative Murtha is an honorable Member of Congress, a veteran and a Marine. By insulting him and his service, you are insulting the millions of Americans who have proudly served who happen to disagree with the direction the Bush Administration's flawed and dangerous foreign policies. It appears the loyal adherents of the Bushian Warfare Cult present on the "Jawa Report" still don't get it.

Posted by: Collin Baber at November 20, 2005 09:40 PM (eDzLA)

55 Collin Baber, At least Quizmos read the post and made an attempt at a relevant reply (though tragically limited by his homophobia, lack of intelligence, and stunted vocabulary). But you Collin, have replied without reading the post, or, having read it, have failed to understand its import. If I decide to delete Route Irish for posting off-topic, why not you, as well?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 09:54 PM (RHG+K)

56 Saw the statment - Murtha wasn't called a coward - re-intrepret or read into it all you like if it makes you feel happy. As far as all the millions who proudly serve(d) - you ain't one of them - but don't let that stop you from claiming to speak for them. Interesting - for this so-called issue to fly it must be endorsed by those "millions" (who else cares about this subject passionately?)- myself and those millions won't of course. Must be frustrating huh.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:56 PM (Jvmry)

57 This "you didn't serve" insult gets hurled around by both sides when its convenient. It is amusing to watch people fall in line with war policies concocted and promoted by a whole team of those who "never served" yet these same people, locked into that very war policy, feel inclined to use "never served" as an insult to be used AGAINST someone who defends the opinions of someone who DID SERVE. Guess it all depends on whose ox is getting roasted. This week the Republican spin machine got two flat tires and its overheating. Watch the attack machine rev up to compensate for the spin machine breakdown. What a show.

Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 10:13 PM (A8hdT)

58 I can't believe these dumb ass democrats. They are crying about the war when almost the entire House of Representatives, including all but three democrats, voted to keep our troops in Iraq. Go complain to your Congressman, you dip shits!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 10:44 PM (rUyw4)

59 I don't typically hurl something like that around - but the truth is - you didn't serve and feel inclined to speak for those who did. Better yet - you wish to accept and defend the opinion of "one who served" and how dare anyone challenge him ... But when those challenging also "did serve" then what - they don't count anymore? Their just ignorant dupes? You don't give a damn who did or didn't serve! - you simply latch on it and hope it works for you. And its not working for you now is it? Your still outside looking in, moving your feet in place and yet to get anywhere.

Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 11:08 PM (Jvmry)

60 She may not have called anyone a "coward" but it was not necessary to read the reserve Marine colonel's comments about Congressman Murtha. Jean Schmidt crossed the line. She has been an embarrassment to the Republican Party since she started her campaign.

Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 01:48 AM (XJ5N5)

61 Agent Jones, Agent Brown and I have served the Architect dutifully since 2009. We have never gone on holiday.

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 21, 2005 06:23 AM (xXsDQ)

62 Interesting topic guys. It's pretty amazing that the majority of you resort to fallacy and insults instead of supported arguments. But that's what Blogs are for, right? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a Bleeding Heart Commie Hippie Liberal is a Gun Toting Bible Thumping Right Wing Fascist Republican. There, now I feel like part of the "crew". I like to read these Blogs from time to time because I like the perspective. I like to see and hear what people are thinking on a given issue. Many of you are blinded by party loyalty, but some of you DO have interesting points. Here's the problem...this post was about the comments made by a Representative on the floor of the House of Representatives, not about the fight for Iraq. Here's the thing guys...she was BOOED OFF THE FLOOR! Booed...by her own party members as well as the "enemy democrats" across the isle. She was booed because of a breach of etiquette and character, and however you want to construe her comments (called him a coward/no she didn't) what seems to be lost in the discussion is that IT WAS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS SHE COULD HAVE SAID, AND SHE SHOULD APOLIGIZE for her lapse in judgment. She will be reprimanded by her own party for her actions and vilified by her Democratic opponents. By insulting a man who served and gave an argument that even President Bush has called "well supported", she gave the Left ammunition and may have galvanized more people who are sure whether to support the war or not AGAINST he cause. Call they stupid all you want, the Right need them as much as the Left. Bottom line, whatever party you support, Web Logs are for name-calling and insults. Keep it off the floor of my Legislature.

Posted by: JoePa at November 21, 2005 06:42 AM (bIAXm)

63 I don't believe Murtha is a coward. But he is a political pawn and a dumb ass democrat.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 AM (ZaAd/)

64 DMAN is without doubt a pay professional. These turkeys use the same words, phases, etc: Easy to spot.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:22 AM (ZaAd/)

65 I think the time to leave Iraq was clearly stated already. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. When they belive they're capable of protecting themselves we can reduce our presence to a bare minimum and act only as tactical support. I also believe that Jean Schmidt relayed a message from someone who deserved to be heard as much as any Senator or Representative. Many people didn't like that message and interpreted differently than others. Nevertheless, it's out there and one can simply take it or leave it. And just saying that it was a personal insult doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 07:33 AM (YudAC)

66 Oh God, now one of the lib trolls (JoePa) is trying the "I'm an unbiased independent" gambit, and using it as a pretext to ignore the points made in the post. Okay Joe, since you say that our Representatives "booed her off the floor" you're telling us that they were actually booing...the Marine who called her with his concerns about Murtha's senior moment. That's supposed to make everybody feel better about their representation, that the opinion of a serving memeber of the military was booed off the floor by partisan Democrats? Go back to the DU where you belong.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 07:37 AM (RHG+K)

67 Bluto, did you see the video? Yes, people from both sides booed her off the floor. And no, in my opinion they were not angry with the Marine and his/her comments. They were angry at the decorum shown by a young Representative who made a poor decision on the floor of the Legislature. The comment is not what people should be taking issue with. The time and place the comment was raised was inappropriate.

Posted by: JoePa at November 21, 2005 08:01 AM (bIAXm)

68 I saw the video. The comment was in no way inapropriate. It's a truism that Marines never cut and run. Got a problem with that truth?

Posted by: Vladimir at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (RzwGs)

69 "Yes, people from both sides booed her off the floor" Er, is there a reason these people are un-named and identified?(The GOP ones) Must be a bummer having to depend on an incident that was filmed for the record - and then depending on others to re-interpret it according to your political position.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (Jvmry)

70 I reproduced Schmidt's remarks verbatim in this post. Decorum isn't the point of this post. Deliberate lying by Democrat-affiliated blogs and mainstream media is the point.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 08:35 AM (RHG+K)

71 General interest: anyone who wants an example of how leftist bloggers and their readers think should visit the link to "Shakespeare's Sister" below the fold and look at the comments.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 08:47 AM (RHG+K)

72 Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward, and even if she did, I fail to see what the fuss is about. If the Dems find it offensive, then they should point out the policies / legislations / strategies which they support to prove otherwise. Put the burden on Schmidt and company to prove that they're cowards. But because they can't, they have to resort to the 'Boo hoo. That's such a mean thing to say' defense. This is just like Gov. Arnold's 'economic girlie men' incident.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 08:53 AM (nt3NF)

73 WOW, I'm a "paid professional"!!! Cool, where do I go to get paid? Actually I'm a career firefighter (22 years) in a tough city. (Maybe you can find some other right-wing firefighter somewhere to call me a coward). Funny how these guys can "see" over the internet and magically can tell "who served" (although in Murtha's or Cheney's case that doesn't matter this time) and who is a "paid professional" by the tenor of the post. Einstein would be jealous. Maybe, since you are posessed of such clairvoyent power, you can tell us when we can get out of the shithole we created in Iraq. You don't, however, seem to be able to discern some simple things like: Who was behind 9/11 The ridiculousness of this war and its rah-rah cheerleaders (safe at home on line) continues to grow exponantially in direct proportion to the crumbling public support for the war-of-choice and the exposing of the stale Bush propoganda lines (staying the course, progress is being made....blah blah blah).

Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 09:04 AM (A8hdT)

74 I think you are doing a great job of spinning a very out of line comment by a congress person who has never served and who has very little experience to make such a comment. You are right that she did not say “Murtha, you are a coward” but she was clearly making the connection, and her comments were out of line. She is like the rest of the War Mongering neo-Republicans, she has a lot to say, is willing to send our boys into harms way, but has never dawned a uniform and defended her nation. I have, and I am forever disabled because of my service. Her comments discussed me, I expect that we all show each other respect, and I think that those that served there nation in a time of war, deserve at least the comment decency of any person. Her comments were grossly out of line, and from a congress women who has been in congress less time than Martha was in a theater of war. Sick if you ask me, and what is more sick is your blind faith towards these neo-republicans (I call you this because real republicans have long died, Smaller gov, money smart, all dead) that you refuse to call foul no matter what they do.... The real question for you neo-republicans is, Do you have any shame what so ever? Don't drfend this war monger cowards comments, it only makes you look dumb as hell.

Posted by: Mark at November 21, 2005 09:08 AM (jNk3r)

75 Let's see if I got this straight - 1) can't criticise if you haven't worn the uniform 2) if you have worn the uniform and criticise you don't count if you disagree with Dems/left and this approach is supposed to have traction with who/what group? The mil/vet community obviously. Soooooo - why don't you take it to them directly - they have boards, clubs, associations etc. What's the problem? The problem is they don't have much use for you either. Must be tuff having an "issue" that simply uselessly fades in a matter of days. I've never considered Service a benchmark - and I have nearly 30 years. I serve because I want to AND it allows others to not. But if the left assholes want this as an issue - fine. maybe a Robert Heinlein solution will appeal to all. Citizenship, the right to vote, critical job positions restricted to mil/vets only - everyone else is simply a person with rights proscribed by the governing group. Will of course disenfranchise the bulk of the US population and virtually all of the lib/left ... But Service is voluntary - your choice I don't immediately buy your "disabled status" - primarily because the lib/left has a tendency to "fib" if they think it gives their argument additional credibility. You could be of course - the beauty is on a board with soooo many real vets just a few bits of information (which we and only we would understand) would settle the question. We would of course still consider you an ass - but you would be one of ours. Fair enough?

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 09:59 AM (Jvmry)

76 Wow, you conservatives really are stupid. First you attack those with common sense by suggesting this woman did not call Murtha a coward, when it is clearly implied. Then you say that he called for the immediate withdrawl of the troops, which he said he was not doing. Only true cowards like yourselves would ever attack a decorated Marine while you enjoy and abuse the priviledges he so desperately fought to protect. You are despicable, and you reflect your leadership: An AWOL son of priviledge, and a loser who received five deferments from the defining war of his generation. Fight on Fighting Keyboarders!

Posted by: st at November 21, 2005 10:20 AM (rQn1G)

77 Let me clarify a few points for the mentally retarded liberal trolls who have swarmed in to fling some excrement: 1. Military service does not automatically make someone an expert on military strategy or foreign policy, nor does it make them a de facto spokesperson for the entire military. This is especially the case for lower ranking service members who may not understand things outside their own perspective as defined by experience. This is why generals are in charge, and privates aren't. 2. A lack of military service does not automatically disqualify anyone from being able to advocate military action, as a lack of a medical degree does not disqualify one from being able to know when someone is sick. The chickenhawk argument is childish and idiotic, especially considering that it's often directed at veterans. If it is wrong to for people to suggest that society take a course of action though they themselves will not be participating directly in that action, then why do liberals always want to redistribute all the wealth, except for their own? If liberals really believed that socialism worked, they'd have all moved to Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, or North Korea by now, but unfortunately they haven't. Liberals are gutless chickenshit liars who only think of their own short-term comfort, and never think of the future. This is why liberals must never be allowed anywhere near foreign policy or military planning. Or domestic policy, for that matter, though it's a different subject. 3. Anyone who can't understand the historical lessons of Korea and Vietnam, both cases where peace, rather than victory, became the objective, is doomed to repeat them. We still have 37,000 troops in Korea fifty years later, because we didn't win; rather, we agreed to quit shooting at one another, which is a far cry from peace, and now North Korea is trying every way they can to provoke a war by arming the enemies of civilization. It was liberals, mostly Communists in the 1950's, who led the drumbeat to withdraw from Korea, as they did a decade later during Vietnam, where we just quit fighting and pulled out to let the North Vietnamese slaughter the South Vietnamese, and which is still one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Only cowards and traitors could advocate the same, twice-failed course of action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but then, liberals are nothing but cowards and traitors anyway, and should not be allowed to live, much less make decisions.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:28 AM (0yYS2)

78 All of these military-supporting liberals...how is it that they always seem to pull a disappearing act when military absentee ballots are being invalidated by their party apparatchiks?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:37 AM (RHG+K)

79 Just to name a few liberals who aren't chickenshits, and do understand foreign policy: Franklin Roosevelt: As the father of the "new deal" he's about a liberal as one gets. Didn't stop him from guiding the country thru the difficult years of WW2, and ultimately ushering in our superpower status. Harry Truman: He authorized the dropping of two atom bombs, choosing a course of great tragedy over the alternative of greater tragedy in invading Japan. Name calling will get us nowhere, and in case you have forgotten, we're all on the same side here folks. One of the reasons so many "liberals" oppose continuing in Iraq is specifically because of the long term consequences that action is reaping. To put it in a nutshell, America is stronger when we have the world on our side. This will sometimes require small concessions on our part, like respecting international laws. But it's worth it, because we gain more than we lose. Anybody who can't appreciate the value of multilateral diplomacy, shouldn't be making foreign policy. Never in history has a nation dominated by force of arms alone; but not for a lack of trying. Our military is a powerful tool, but it is only one of many tools. Ask the Israelis if they think a military is capable of stopping terrorists attacks.

Posted by: some liberal at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (o8uyV)

80 Good question Bluto. Maybe like Margaret Carlson, they consider them to be tax evaders and therefore not worthy of voting rights.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (0yYS2)

81 "clearly implied" - that's funny! That is quite different from "clearly stated" now isn't it? Murtha is a decorated veteran - and hondo is a decorated Senior NCO - and I will now attack him openly as a gutless idiot. Feel better lib/left? Since the lib/left wants to play this stupid credentials (as long as it serves them) game fine - then put up or shut up. If you are not mil/vet then your opinion pro or con doesn't count! Simply prove your status - you know how if you are - and those here will know. So if its "important" then put out! lil' ernie tried (ha ha) but being able to spell Sempre Fi wasn't good enough. AWOL/deferments ... recycling old material now? - didn't work then - think it will work now? Is that all you got? Think vets give a damn about deferments in the 50s n' early 60s (BEFORE THE VIETNAM WAR NO LESS) He and 30 million + other Americans - what a joke! Unless your advocating a standing military of say oh 20+ million! AWOL is a MILITARY TERM - and military people understand it - and you don't - which is why the crap didn't fly among that very same mil/vet community. But go ahead - I enjoy seeing you fail again and again. So come on! Military service seems to impress you (now) - show us what you got and who you are.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:01 AM (Jvmry)

82 Since your opinion doesn't count unless you are a mil/vet, that just about wipes out the entire Republican party. Here are the facts: DEMOCRATS * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted in Army Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 with 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Sol dier's Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. *! Pete St ark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg. Republicans -- These are the brave guys sending people to war: * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Roy Blunt: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism. * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Richard Shelby: did not serve. * Jon Kyl: did not serve. * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. * Christopher Cox: did not serve. * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor. * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. * Phil Gramm: did not serve. * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. * Dana Rohrabacher: did not! serve. * John M. McHugh: did not serve. * JC Watts: did not serve. * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years. * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. * John Engler: did not serve. * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.

Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 11:24 AM (w1fE2)

83 Let's see - any idea of the total number of Republican/Dems serving in all offices nationwide? Or constituency for that matter - total registered Dems/GOP We're talking what - into the tens of millions maybe. And your lil' weinie list is the "definative story"? My My! And you get to chose who to include and who to leave out - how neat! Oh - personally never liked Bob Dornan but "consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea???" as opposed to unconsciously??? You do realize that millions have served in peacetime - you implying that they don't count? Tis tis! I'll stand by the Heinlein solution - only vets count (even lib ones) - which still leaves you out! I am proudly confident that at the end of the day we (conservatives) vastly outnumber our liberal vet counterparts - and you still don't count. Oh, last thing - since "the list" is sooooo important to you - why aren't you on it?

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:46 AM (Jvmry)

84 Oh - forgot Cut & paste list? Do your own writing and commentary. reminds me of a line from Hamburger Hill "betcha don't even do your own fucking!"

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:55 AM (Jvmry)

85 You're right, I'm not a vet and I'll be happy to agree that disqualifies me, as long as it also disqualifies every single architect of the war in this administration. Let's turn it over to the real soldiers. As a matter of professional military pride, you guys can't possibly be happy with all the miscalculations these play soldiers have made. They have been wrong about absolutely everything, from how we would be greeted by the locals to how many troops we would need to how long the engagement would last to how much it would cost to the kind of armour we would need for our vehicles to whether we would be able to invade through Turkey, to whether we should secure the ammo dumps... our cause may be just, but these guys haven't gotten one thing right yet. They are making our armed forces look naive. Have you no pride?

Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 12:19 PM (w1fE2)

86 I get so tired of the chickenhawk argument and all its variations and implications. Suppose we disallowed all commenting from all who have never served. Think that'll clean up the comment sections and message boards? When that's done, want to make any bets on how many are for completing the job and how many want to pull out now? If there were a way to do this, I would put all my money, every dollar, on the scale tipping so heavily on the side who wants to "stay the course" the other side would be so high up there they'd get a nose bleed.

Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 12:29 PM (fl6E1)

87 (forgive me if this posts more than once. There seems to be technical issues right now) I get so tired of the chickenhawk argument and all its variations and implications. Suppose we disallowed all commenting from all who have never served. Think that'll clean up the comment sections and message boards? When that's done, want to make any bets on how many are for completing the job and how many want to pull out now? If there were a way to do this, I would put all my money, every dollar, on the scale tipping so heavily on the side who wants to "stay the course" the other side would be so high up there they'd get a nose bleed.

Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 12:33 PM (fl6E1)

88 Perhaps the "chickenhawk" argument keeps coming back because you keep insisting on disqualifying everyone who hasn't served. I know, I know... consistency is such a troublesome thing. (sigh)

Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 12:41 PM (w1fE2)

89 There is grumbling within - you would be surprised - but we keep it in-house. There are actually boards where WE vent and complain. Reason - we know you and others out there would take the opportunity to jump on it and twist it to suit your own agenda. Your doing it right now with your assessment commentary of deficiencies. Tell me - what exactly qualified you to "assess" and "identify"? This is what you hear - repeat HEAR - from those opposed with their own agenda. And what knowledge do you bring to the table to comprehend it all? And its a credible assessment because - why? - you accept and validate it? Its tempting to actually address some of those points but then again - Who are you? Why would you even understand the mechanics and details involved? So you think this makes our military forces look naive? - in your humble knowledgable opinion of course.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 12:48 PM (Jvmry)

90 So the point of your story is to point out the fact that a statement was brought up, but that the liberal media has twisted it to say that someone was called a "coward" here. Well, you shoot yourself in the foot and make yourself look stupid all in one quick stroke. You stated Murtha's proposal was the "...immediate and ignominious withdrawal that Murtha had publicly advocated." Well, you're wrong. Flat wrong. His proposal stated that the troops should be redeployed out of Iraq "as soon as practicable." Not a quick, disgraceful and immediate withdrawl as you say that he proposed. Get your facts right before you spread one misinformation to attack another.

Posted by: Ordinary Average Guy at November 21, 2005 01:00 PM (yrKRt)

91 sorry osyter Usually don't get heavily involved - try and keep it light approach - but lil' ernie and his ink hit a nerve and set me off. Personally - military service "don't mean nuthin'" - till its shoveled in my face by those seeking to use it for their own agenda. Preferred the ol' days when the left openly showed contempt for military service instead of now trying desperately to pimp it. Expect now Jane Fonda to show up at my door to give me a big hug and take me to her breasts as one of her (America's)children (she's still kinda hot). It's not going to happen of course.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 01:05 PM (Jvmry)

92 Reason people. Didn't this argument start out with the "hysterical left beginning a new lie?" I'm not hysterical and this is what I saw: freshman member of congress brings up a quote from a marine Colonel who told her to tell Murtha for him that, "cowards cut and run; marines do not." The colonel's words not hers. But you kinda have to wonder why Rep. Schmidt brought them up, though. Was it because she disagreed so vehemently with this opinion of Murtha? Doesn't seem likely; I don't bring up a lot of arguments that run counter to my own when making a case. Did she bring it up just to make small talk, kind of like, "Is it hot in here, or is it just me?" and it was mistaken by the hyper-senstive Democrats for a comment directed toward Murtha? Doubt that too. No, those who actually have the power of critical thinking and logic at their disposal can draw the connection that though she did indeed not say "Jack Murtha is a coward" (politicians are smarter than that; even the dense ones.), the context of the comment is plain. And this directed at a man who stops at Walter Reed twice a week to visit with the returning injured. Let's be generous and say this isn't a Republican talking. This is a bombastic idiot talking.

Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 01:10 PM (UHKaK)

93 Colonel Bubp's "message" for Murtha was clearly a warning: "You're on the wrong track, that's not how Marines act." Now, I realize it's politically expedient for Democrats to conflate this into, "You're a yellowbellied scumbag," but I'm fed up to here with Democrat political expedience. It's time the jackass party started putting the nation ahead of their own agenda. Won't ever happen, but it's time.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 01:31 PM (RHG+K)

94 Well that gung-ho crap flies better behind cozy desks stateside than it does when IEDs are taking the bottom half of your legs off. That was basically Murtha's response.

Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 01:50 PM (UHKaK)

95 So that Marine Col's comment is gung-ho crap while he's behind a cozy desk stateside - (wonder where he was last year by the way). So back to where we started - Murtha is a vet - he agrees with you - so he is above reproach and no one has the right to challenge him ... But the Col is a vet as I and others - Oh, just realized - we don't count ... How convienent! A real winning argument! How's this - Murtha is a vet, the Col is a vet, I am a vet and you are some one looking to latch on to a vet's shadow since you are not. Guess that make Murtha just the handy vet of the moment.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 02:07 PM (Jvmry)

96 Bingo hondo, right between the peepers.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 02:14 PM (RHG+K)

97 Hey Hondo, come down off the cross will ya? We get your argument already, we get it, we get it. Doesn't matter if Murtha agrees with me, I agree with him or we don't agree at all. Did I say he was some sort of God? Hell no. I just don't think veiled references to cowardice are apprpriate, especially to a man who's arguably paid a few dues. That's really beneath contempt.

Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 02:37 PM (UHKaK)

98 Heinlein's idea of citizenship only for veterans is about as unamerican as it gets. A better approach would be compulsary service. It would be unfortunate to see the militarization of civilian culture that would result, but I bet it would cut down on frivolous and poorly planned for wars. It's not coincidence that many politicians lack military service, and even fewer of them have children in the military. While there are the rare individuals that come from backgrounds of privilage who choose to serve, they are the exception to the rule. I thought long and hard about going into the military, but in the end, I didn't trust our government to use my service appropriately. Too often the military is used to serve the ambitions and line the pockets of the powerful. It's telling that the only people unambiguously gaining from the Iraq conflict are the friends and business partners of the administration.

Posted by: some liberal at November 21, 2005 02:37 PM (o8uyV)

99 The premise for Starship Troopers isn't really unAmerican, just unfashionable. Who are the "friends and business partners" who are gaining so unambiguously? Are you really just "some" liberal or one of the Bushitlerburton ones. Sometimes they're amusing in a monkeyhouse kind of way.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 02:48 PM (RHG+K)

100 Heinlein was a lil' nuts - but compulsary service (also known as forced conscription)?? That's the liberal way to get people to do the right thing? Under penalty of law? And you don't see that as fundamentally perverse? Just politicians? Many professions, groups, and regions are under-represented - maybe a topic for discussion in its own right. I didn't join the Army to serve my government. I joined to serve my country, family and friends. A distinction probably lost on some here. You already possessed a self-rationalizing bias for non-service so why bother extrapolating it further in the Iraq issue? Service entails the always present dangers of hardships and risks. Service for most is short term - then go about your life (career isn't required). There are several motivators for non-service. Fear is one of them and never acknowledged - comfort (lack of) is another and never acknowledged. The lamest (acknowledged) is disagreement with government policy.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:08 PM (Jvmry)

101 bluto Forget the movie - read his writings. He was indeed one unusual character. Tempting but I'll pass on his vision. BTW - all democracies are "qualified" - example 18 to vote is a qualifier - there are obviously others. His vision just one honorable tour of service (peacetime or otherwise). All others have rights as assigned (and defended) by democratic process (vets only). The rights assigned people were actually quite generous and liberal - they just had no part in the decision/enforcement process.

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (Jvmry)

102 iorek: I have never insisted "on disqualifying everyone who hasn't served". Never. It was simply a "what if" statement. That if we do, in fact, disqualify all who haven't served - like the left continues to try to do with the chickenhawk argument - then my scenario is the most likely to be a result. The funny part is the left is selective in which military or ex-military should be disqualifed. The only one's that can speak, in their book, are those who are serving or who have served AND agree with them. The rest are summarily ignored or rejected. That's the crux of the whole thing. The left insists they support the troops but want them pulled out now. The guys and gals that are over there no doubt want to come home, but they overwhelmingly are emphatic that they believe they should finish the job first. Yet the anti-war left continues to ignore what those troops that are there are saying. Those troops have more weight in this issue than anyone. Jean Schmidt was conveying a message that is largely ignored. By putting it out there on the floor, once and for all, it got heard loud and clear. And boy did it ever piss a bunch of people off. However, she was very gracious in asking that it be stricken from the record and apologized. Hardly anyone has brought that up. Tell me, where are Dean's numerous needed apologies for the outlandish remarks he makes every single day? Where are the apologies from all the democrats who slimed Michael Steele? Hell, even Durbin apologized for his comments! Schmidt apologized, but that doesn't seem to be enough for the left. They want her head on a pike. These people are more ready to say Saddam Hussein should have been left alone than they are to forgive a United States Congresswoman for a perceived insult. I find that troublesome.

Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 03:47 PM (fl6E1)

103 What she said most definitely does not fall into the category of something that "needed to be said." That's not leadership; that's blather. Understand the difference.

Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 03:48 PM (UHKaK)

104 Here's what I know. About 65% of the enlisted men and 70% of the officers in the active military are from the South and the West(except California), are predominantly white with some hispanics, are conservative in their politics and hate the hell out of leftists. That's what I know. And I will tell you lefty trolls this, if our men come home from Iraq after having lost another war due to sympathy and help to the enemy from some people in the US, I'm not sure what they might do to the people who helped the enemy. But I know what they should do.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

105 Hey Joe, a thought. Relax.

Posted by: mindspring at November 21, 2005 04:23 PM (UHKaK)

106 Hey Spring, I couldn't be more relaxed. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:25 PM (rUyw4)

107 "Heinlein's idea of citizenship only for veterans is about as unamerican as it gets." And unconstitutional too.

Posted by: actus at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (CqheE)

108 actus I agree so what's your point? I'm just aware of the details of his philosophy. Too many flaws he never addressed. Though you should realize that his vision would also qualify as a democracy - the question is in the qualifiers which all democracies do. He simply didn't believe in broad-based universal sufferage. (Oh, and our constitution originally in the begining didn't either).

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:00 PM (Jvmry)

109 hondo: I wasn't going by the movie - I have most of Heinlein's books.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 05:04 PM (RHG+K)

110 "What she said most definitely does not fall into the category of something that "needed to be said." That's not leadership; that's blather. Understand the difference." I notice you don't seem to be very forthcoming with forgiveness. And I don't need to be told what "differences" I need to understand. While what she said could have been done in a much more diplomatic fashion, it wouldn't have been heard. It would never have been quoted by the MSM and especially would never have gotten more than a yawn by any anti-war democrat in the room. I'm glad it got said. I'm sorry she had to do it wrongly to get anyone's attention. And I'm glad she apologized. You don't like my opinion? Tough titty.

Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (YudAC)

111 DMAN: You have disqualified yourself as you admit you are just another democrat who hasn't worked on his own. Spent your entire life living off the taxpayers. Sitting around the station house cooking, reading, watching TV. Then figuring your best chance for a raise is with the cry baby democrats. You haven't been paying the bills so you don't count. Reality hits when you are not on the dole (government worker).

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:40 PM (ZaAd/)

112 oyster! Risque language? I'm shocked I tell ya, next thing I know you'll be dating musicians (from Under Siege.)

Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:42 PM (Jvmry)

113 Cripes. Someone's "deliberately lying for political gain," but it sure ain't lefties. Perhaps the reason Andrew Sullivan doesn't "know better," on this one is that there isn't a "Leftist meme creation frenzy" going on here, but rather, a very shrill and insulting junior congresscritter who got rightly called on some very nasty crap she tried to pull on a very well-respected member of the House (and former Marine). Let's get some ground rules down here: Jean Schmidt represents a wide group of people. Since Murtha's comments were front-page news the day after his comments, it seems likely that her office logged quite a few calls regarding the issue, from a number of different perspectives. Some probably expressed support for Murtha's proposal. Others may have been ambivalent. But Rep. Schmidt chose to go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with one from a constituent which was not only opposed to Murtha's proposal, but talked about cowards vs. Marines, too. So we can pretty much assume that for Schmidt to choose that particular call to her office to repeat aloud in the House, she almost certainly felt those words reflected her own position, more or less, too. Next, the issue of whether she called Murtha a coward. Well, of course not, in those words - she didn't say "Jack Murtha, you are a coward." But let's further envision a scenario in which a man publicly expresses a fondness for, say, quiche. And someone else stands up and says "you know, homos like quiche....real men never do." Would you say that the comment was more or less intended to impugn the first speaker? Or just a harmless comment, which was, at most, urging the first speaker to "be a man?" Likewise, after Murtha had just gotten through advancing his proposal ("cut and run") in the chest-thumping über-macho dialect of wingnuttia, Schmidt;s standing up and relaying the message that cowards do what Murtha just advocated doing was indeed calling him a coward. Simple transitive property stuff, if you remember your basic math: if cowards say "cut and run" and Jack Murtha (according to Schmidt) says "cut and run," then Jack Murtha is a coward. Unless you believe that the campaign of "lying for political gain" was launched simultaneously and instantaneously by dozens of individual Democrats who heard the comments and spoke up in outrage, then you pretty much have to accept the idea that, despite your best effort to spin it another direction, that is the common reaction most people had to Schmidt's remarks: she called him a coward, and it was out of line. Now, it's possible (to torture the math analogy a little longer) that what Schmidt REALLY meant was that the two subsets of people who "cut and run," cowards and, well, people like Jack Murtha, don't overlap entirely - that what she meant instead was that although both cowards and Murtha "cut and run," she didn't believe that one equalled the other....but if so, she offered no mitigating caveats to suggest that's what she thought. Instead, she just plowed on ahead with the ham-handed, insulting analogy. The point here is that anyone who doesn't take an overly legalistic interpretation of the words Schmidt chose to put forth on the floor of the House can see that her words were indeed meant as a jibe at Murtha. Especially when you consider that Schmidt has since claimed she did not KNOW Murtha was a Marine. That kinda shoots to hell the "she was just relaying something from a constituent who wanted to remind Murtha of his marine roots. B.S. Schmidt wouldn't have chosen those particular comments to pass on had she not endorsed them herself, and the way they were constructed and delivered were quite clearly a salvo in what would have been the swift-boaring campaign of Jack Murtha. But when it started to backfire as people - not just "lefties" -immediately interpreted Schmidt's remarks as calling Murtha a coward, from De Parle's article, the first iteration of Republican spin began to emerge:: ""The poor lady didn't know Jack Murtha was a Marine - she really just ran into a hornet's nest," said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia. Representative David Dreier of California said, "Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine." Uh-oh....except that she DID know that he was, considering her attendance at the GOP press conference the night BEFORE her remarks on the floor, where several members mentioned Murtha's service. So THAT one doesn't fly, either. So Schmidt's quite obviously a liar to boot - on top of a mean-spirited attack wombat. Perfect GOoPer material, in fact.

Posted by: Phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 01:49 AM (DpK6n)

114 Representative Schmidt, You disappoint me.

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 22, 2005 06:29 AM (iLDC1)

115 "unless you believe that the campaign of 'lying for political gain' wa launched simultaneously and instantaneously..." - of course it was. Lying for political gain is as natural as breathing to today's Leftist, phenobarbarella. Despite paragraph after paragraph of disingenuous spin, you're still skewered on the fact that the blogs and MSM who accused Schmidt of calling Murtha a coward got the story wrong, most likely deliberately. If a coach says to his team, "Quitters never win," does that mean he's calling them "quitters". Of course not, he's encouraging non-quitter behavior.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 10:20 AM (RHG+K)

116 You guys are nuts. Keep spinning though. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352 Three days after Rep. Jean Schmidt was booed off the House floor for saying that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do," the Ohioan she quoted disputed the comments. Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.

Posted by: Justin at November 22, 2005 11:12 AM (MjUGS)

117 Justin: learn to comprehend English, both spoken and written. In over 100 comments, no one has been able to refute the basic premise of the post, to wit, that Murtha was not "called a coward", though some have claimed to divine the intent of the statement, evidently through telepathic means.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 12:10 PM (RHG+K)

118 ED. NOTE: Because the author of this comment tried to mimic another poster's (mine) identity in the signature, and I hate poseurs I have changed it to something more appropriate. - Bluto You ***holes remind me of the drunk who grabbed the lamppost for support rather illumination. If this "cowards run, Marines don't" comment wasn't directed at Murtha's statements, then why in the hell would Rep. Schmidt even bring it up at that particular moment? As a general observation about the Marines? Come on. If G.W. said something about lowering taxes and a Democratic stood up and said "Idiots are in favor of lowering taxes, guys with balls aren't" without EVER mentioning the Prez by name, what do you think Mr. Bush could fairly draw from that statement? Think maybe he might feel it was somehow directed toward him? Damn right. I love how guys like Dread Pundit become conveniently dense, word-parsing and legal-technical at all the right moments. Telepathy? Hell, you don't need that to make a connection and all the bullshit hair-splitting in the world doesn't change the facts!!!!

Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 12:35 PM (UHKaK)

119 TLAR: if, as you say, the insult was delivered in clear language that needs no parsing, then certainly you could cut and paste the part where someone is called a "coward". Can't? I see. Keep ranting, perhaps the rules of English usage will magically change if you wish hard enough.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 12:54 PM (RHG+K)

120 ...lying for political gain, of course it was... Bluto, you vastly overestimate the organizational abilities of the Democratic party. They are incapable of putting forth a coherent platform in political campaigns they plan years in advance for. What makes you think they can respond that quickly to a current event? The only party currently with that kind of organizational ability is the Republican party, which is why they control the government - because it's surely not based on representing the best interests of the american people. Additionally, while in a strict literalist sense Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward, she strongly implied it, which for most people is close enough. What I find most amusing about this strict literal approach to her statement, is that it's coming from the right. If anybody understands how to literally say one thing, but imply another, it's the republican party. To be literal, we could have brought the forces home years ago, because the "mission" was "accomplished". One thing that would go a long way to defuse those who want to pull the troops out, would be for there to be a plan that might work. If the administration has a plan, they aren't sharing it with the rest of us, and it sure looks like they are stuck and blundering. Seems like their original plan went out the window, when the occupation ceased to be a "cakewalk" (to be literal), and they haven't had any good ideas since. We are all waiting for them to prove us wrong on this one... For the sake of argument, suppose the original plan for the liberation of Iraq was fundamentally undoable. Sure, the troops want to be successful in their mission (and by doing their jobs with excellence, in my book, they are by definition successful); but they can't do the impossible. What if our government has proposed an impossible goal? I think they have. At this point, the Iraqis view our forces as an army of occupation, and a certain number will be willing to resist us indefinately. And in the end, they care more about getting us out, than we care about staying. Further, Iraq itself does not have the necessary unity to become a stable democracy. They will fight each other until some sort of partitioning (or virtual partitioning) of the country has occurred. I think the government led us into this war for the wrong reasons, and has been misrepresenting and changing these reasons all along. While the proposed course was ill advised, and difficult, I think at the beginning it was not completely impossible. What has made it impossible at this point, has been the poor decisions made by the administration. Incompetent decision making at the top is what has cost us our initial goals. If you want to place blame, it not be on those who realize we are in an unwinnable situation, but on those who got us there in the first place.

Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 12:57 PM (o8uyV)

121 I don't rant; I state.I leave the ranting up to tin-pot tyrants who run blog-sites. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that, 'Cowards cut and run, Marines never do'." Was there another Murtha in the room?

Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 12:59 PM (UHKaK)

122 ha ha ha Much ado about nothing - murtha fades away like so many nickel & dime "issues" of the left - and still they're outside looking in and frustrated as ever. Fret not! - you'll find some other "ISSUE" to hurl in the air - and it will of course plop. Recycle some old ones - your good at that (or lack creativity) and recycling garbage is good for the environment. Deferments, AWOL, WP, Haliburton, and the list goes on ... plop, plop, plop Strange predicament isn't it. Your "success" is dependant on our defeat in Iraq - now that's a winning strategy (NOT)

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 01:27 PM (Jvmry)

123 2,200+ dead soldiers in Iraq, a guy says "enough" and you find cause to laugh. What a dink.

Posted by: mindspring at November 22, 2005 01:35 PM (UHKaK)

124 Simple - those soldiers are my brothers - I've lived with them - trained them and so on ... To you they are a number to feign concern over and attempt to use for your own political ambitions ... simple - actually so ha ha ha

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 01:41 PM (Jvmry)

125 What nonsense - failure to achieve our goals in Iraq is a defeat for us all. National allegience supercedes political affiliation. All on the same side, remember? I don't think anybody in enjoying this in the least. It's a bitter and unenjoyable thing to see many of the possible consequences that were warned of bear fruit. Many people (including those in the military establishment) saw this coming, but nobody was willing to listen at the time. A call for troop withdrawal is the lesser of two evils, because we're not making it better for ourselves. First law of holes - when you are in one, stop digging.

Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 01:43 PM (o8uyV)

126 Anus Res: So, if a coach tells his team that "quitters never win..." is he calling them "quitters". By your logic he is, the bastard! some lib: you seriously expect me to believe that the Dems aren't capable of reflexively trying to smear an opponent or coordinating a media campaign (especially with virtualy all of the major networks, cable news, and daily newpapers on their side)? Now you're just being openly disingenuous. The trouble is, as Rusty has pointed out in his toppost, you folks have moved beyond the respectable status of "loyal opposition" and into the area of putting all of us in greater danger; solely to advance your political goals. You just don't care what the consequences will be, so long as a "D" gets elected.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 01:43 PM (RHG+K)

127 Yes, I do believe the Democratic party is just that incapable. Just because I'm left, doesn't mean I'm a democrat - I'm independent, thank you very much. The media is on the side of the democrats? Have we been in the same country for the last 5 years? The media takes sides, but does so capriciously; they just want a story to tell. They gave Bush a pass for 5 years, and now that the tide is turning, they are starting to change their tune.

Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 01:54 PM (o8uyV)

128 Hondo: Yeah, well, I've never been in the military. But I have family members who were, including dear old dad in Korea. He never said much about it --though as a frontline combat engineer he had plenty to say. He used to tell me "the guys who talk a little too much about their military service? They either never had any at all or if they did, they sat in the rear as clerk-typist." Which are you?

Posted by: mindspring at November 22, 2005 02:04 PM (UHKaK)

129 Was the media giving Bush a "pass" in 2000, when they declared Florida for Gore - before the polls closed in the heavily-Republican panhandle? Was Dan Rather giving him a pass? Mary Mapes? Mark Halperin? Eason Jordan? Brian Williams? Stick your head in the sand if you must, but the idea that the MSM is randomly biased is laughable, and, quite frankly, I have a very hard time taking seriously anyone who believes that.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 02:08 PM (RHG+K)

130 Actually don't talk much about it at all - beauty of the blog is that the written words are all there to see and remember - think most here would agree. You want something OK 11B/12B/19D (my fav)/82B/96B not Q'd, but I do now have a desk, a coffee pot, a box of donuts and a private to send to the store ... oh, and I can and do type (quite good at it actually) Next question is - why do you give a fuck - your not soooo why bother feigning any concern, interest or (oddly)prior "association" - dad - family members? Yeah - so? What is it - gene therapy osmosis? Want an atta-boy for someone else? Tell you what - I'll give you a lil' atta-boy if it makes you feel good. here in NYC that and 2 bucks will get you on the subway.

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 02:23 PM (Jvmry)

131 You think a general, trite statement like "quitters never win" is analogous to "cowards run, Marines don't,:" especially knowing the context the coward statement was made in? If Rep. Schmidt had walked up to John Murtha 6 months ago and made that same statement as fact, it would have meant very little. In fact, being as how he was a 37-year member of the Marine Corps, I'm assuming he would agree. As a general principal, it seems fair to say Marines are trained to meet the fight under any circumstances. However, we're talking about more than the general principal here. There is a huge difference betwen meeting the fight and sacrificing lives needlessly in a poorly run war. Even a Marine isn't suicidal for God's sake. As for Rep. Schmidt, she did not make her comments in an off-handed way;she made them immediaely after he made his statement concerning withdrawal. You wouldn't say the differing contexts gives the same statement two different meanings? Of course it does. Quitters never win in football is true. But if coach says that after the other team shows up with ax handles and chains, he sounds a little out of touch. It's all in the context. You're choosing to ignore context and focus instead on literal technicalities, a strategy smear merchants have honed with skill. And that makes you intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 02:30 PM (UHKaK)

132 Bluto: skewered? Hardly. The MSM didn't get the story wrong either. "Lying for political gain is as natural as breathing to today's Leftist" - only if you believe that dozens of multiple, simultaneous, INSTANtaneous shouts of outrage amount to "lying" AND that the Democrats in the House chambers that day were so Vulcan-mind-melded together that they all knew instantly what each other were going to do well enough to coordinate their "attack." Otherwise, this is weak fantasy at best, and - to use your phrase - disingenuous spin - in all likelihood. If there'd been nothing to be upset or ashamed about in those remarks, why is Piece of Schmidt acting like the Great White Hermit Crab™ of the House for the past couple of days, and why has Bubp disavowed her words, saying that he never spoke Murtha's name, would never call a fellow Marine a coward, and that her characterization was unfortunate? Hell, if this was such a shining example of moral rectitude in the face of leftist treachery and weakness, why wouldn't the principals in this little melodrama be rushing to embrace their parts in it? Bubp clearly thinks that she as much as called Murtha a coward, else he wouldn't a) mention that HE'D never call a fellow Marine that and b) characterize her remarks as "unfortunate." She said - in her statement - that Bubp had said what she mentioned he did about Murtha. Bupb now denies it. Either Bupb (a dedicated GOoPer shock-trooper in his own right) or Piece of Schmidt is lying. To absolve her of any active malice, you have to believe BOTH that it is not Schmidt but Bupb who is lying (or that it was a misunderstanding so fundamental that both participants in the conversation should be forced to take remedial English classes) AND that even though she called anyone who advocates "cut and run" as a strategy a coward and addressed these remarks to a man who just advocated that very thing, she did not intentionally expect people to draw that logical link between A and B. You also have to believe that at the previous night's press conference, Schmidt was simply daydreaming when Duncan Hunter and others were describing their admiration for Jack Murtha's service as a Marine, so that when she claimed she didn't know he was one....she was not lying. That's a lot of coincidences to swallow, as Charles Johnson might have said during "Rathergate." In fact, it's almost assuredly bullshit.

Posted by: phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 02:50 PM (DpK6n)

133 With all this talk about whether or not withdrawal is a good idea, or nearly treasonous, I wonder what the Iraqis themselves would say? Guess what- they have an opinion: Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference;_ylt=Avc9b3tvA.x8zeeT1MTSkSms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- excerpts: "Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference reached out to the Sunni Arab community by calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and saying the country's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance. " "The communique condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if they don't target innocent civilians or institutions that provide for the welfare of Iraqis." So do you hear that? Iraqi leaders are saying the insurgents aren't terrorists, and have a legitimate right to attack american troops! Can someone explain to me what sort of success we can achieve when that is the opinion of Iraqis? I repeat - the administration's bungling of the occupation has produced an unwinnable situation.

Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (o8uyV)

134 An "unwinnable situation" - just the type of comment that is beloved of the jihad, bullshit on its face, and the main reason I enjoy posting something like this that just agitates the hell out of the knee-jerk liberal crowd. Having you here commenting on a two-day old post means that that many of America's enemies aren't causing mischief elsewhere. And I do consider you enemies, every bit as willing to help the other side as Kos.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 03:24 PM (RHG+K)

135 Knowing that you're watching out for the enemies of America let's us all sleep better at night...

Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 03:28 PM (UHKaK)

136 Yeah, I didn't expect Bluto had a victory plan either. Stay the course, right off a cliff. I'm not agitated, I'm bored at work!

Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 03:54 PM (o8uyV)

137 Agitates me? Nah. Amuses me with its dizzying spin is more like it. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is the first and likely last time I'll be visiting your little self-referential chateau on the web, because I *DO* spend most of my time out causing mischief elsewhere, for real. I just came here to wipe my d*ck on the curtains while I find some new bottles and rags to hold the gasoline. Toodles, ya big, loveable, delusional wingnut, you! I've got a lot of important America-hating and enemy-abetting to do.

Posted by: Phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 04:11 PM (DpK6n)

138 No comments to any of this from the Bloviating Blutarsky himself?!? Ah, must be tied up donning his mask and cape, and firing up the Blutmobile to save humanity from the agitated, mouth-frothing, bile-spewing libera-commies ready to overthrow all we hold dear. Yeah, think I'll be abandoing this shit-pile of a blog myself. It's fun to goad the facists, but only for so long...then you gotta get back to work finding new garbage to refute.

Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 04:31 PM (UHKaK)

139 #1 Bluto: You're posts are all over the place (Heinlein??) to be criticizing anyone for being off topic! #2: Hondo(obligatory flame): Ok - so you pretty much fall into the latter category of those who talk too much: a dirt-pounder desk jockey. Congrats on the private to order around ... my PFC buddy would probably love cleaning your ass for you when he gets back next time from the shit-smelling (go figure) fly infested hell hole somewhat south of the real war on terror (Yeah ... I remember Bin Laden - up north in Pakistan). Safe place to avoid combat that would be! When Blaine and Chris ship out next spring, you'll be right here safe warm and dry just like me. #3: Back to the original point of this: Now the issue isn't that she made a statement that has been widly interpeted as calling Murita a coward by all but the most blind of partisans - in this instance the miniscule distinction between a personally directed implication and direct assertion is really indistinguishable. Justified good point or not, this sort of talk is unnecessary and a non marine addressing a marine in this fashion is downright embarassing even if she claimed to be simply acting as messenger. It was as shrill as anything Hillary Clinton has ever dreamed of. The bigger issue, if one should be made at all, is she also completely lied regarding the marine source she claimed to be quoting. He has complained of the context and has clearly stated that he never intended his words to be directed the way she chose to use them. Observation: The line that determines "leftie" is moving steadily rightwards ... soon most everyone will be lefties without ever even changing philosophy.

Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 06:15 PM (XIJy3)

140 I you asked me I would have sworn that Bluto's post was focused on the stories coming from the left and MSM stating pretty clearly that "Schmidt called Murtha a coward". No one's addressing that. They're attacking some on the right for using a technicality that she didn't outright "call him a coward" for a defense. Since it's technicalities that we seem to be harping on here, some of you are so busy attacking Schmidt, and the right for defending her, that you forgot to defend the left for lying about it - technically.

Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 06:19 PM (YudAC)

141 Hey Hondo if you are what you claim: Am I PAYING you to write this crap ... i.e. are you pulling government payroll and using army equipment to make these posts? I don't know many active mil who are off duty at 2:23 in the afternoon. It also appears that on the 21st you also spent the bulk of normal working hours posting to this blog. If so - you are a slacking piece of crap! Spew propaganda on your own dime like the rest of us.

Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 06:23 PM (XIJy3)

142 ha ha ha You are soooo clueless - and don't even realize how stupid you just came off. Like all the others, your dependent on advertised "associations" for your heroic bluster. Its kinda like "alcohol muscles" standing next to ya buddies huh. Tell Chris n' Blaine Top says hey and don't forget what you've been taught - and the PFC - got a jobslot open here - need a driver in S2 to drive my tired ass around and get more donuts. ha ha ha

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 06:30 PM (Jvmry)

143 KGB Oh, day off - rotating status ACTIVE/GUARD, DA CIV - equipment - sometimes - are you paying me? Your damn right you are! Fuckin'A! I can smell that pension Sweetpea, and it smells like victory! ha ha ha

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 06:39 PM (Jvmry)

144 I know nothing about army life except that a few of my pals believed what the recruiters told them and find themselves dealing with more than they bargined for. I have recieved first hand descriptions of life on the gound in Iraq and taken away my own impressions regarding how they feel about this war in general - I don't speak for them, but find your characterization of the attitude of those who are serving to be inconsistant with the majority of the discussions I've had in social settings with many soldiers. I would describe their attitude as resigned, not gung-ho (nor anti war). They have described life on a stateside base pretty well. I do know that stateside, soldiers have duty hours. I also know that even at PFC they are able to have lower rank enlisted men pull undesirable (late) shifts. Based on your braggidicio(ph), you indicate that not only do you have an office but also direct supervision duties and an unlimited supply of donuts - making it unlikey that you work late shifts. I also know that you have not answered one question in such a fashion that makes your claims of active military service credible. In fact the hours that your posts cover indicate that even steady employment is unlikely. So here it is: describe please, in plain english, what is your purported rank and where do you claim to be stationed? Have you served in Iraq? If so when and (again in plain english) what is the moniker your fighting group went under? What patch is on your combat fatigues? Any private in the army could answer those questions, posed by a civillian, in a way that their mother can understand it ... can you? Final question: in Vietnam the soldiers called the enemy "charlie" what do they call the enemy in Iraq? (yes folks this war has a new one - hint: it's several thousand miles off from being racially accurate) Oh yeah .. if you navigate those qestions and still claim to be in the military: Are you on duty and using government equipment to post to this blog? - I kind of think you are a piece of crap now regardless. I may sound stupid, but at least I don't claim to be something I'm not.

Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 07:23 PM (XIJy3)

145 KGB I'm at home now 'bout to watch some TV - steppin' out later to the NCO Club for some BS and a beer. (maybe a donut too). You are soooo clueless with an apparent need to be taken seriously. Hondo is what hondo is - find a Private friend to decipher what you've been told (if you really cared). I've actually said a lot, but you are the outsider who can't comprehend. Plain English? Ha ha - again the outsider - the non - who doesn't know ... though you would like to think you do from the eyes of others of course - that's actually kinda sad really. Your the one son who needs validation. I completed the last of mine when I checked and signed off on the material in my Retirement Packet. Come back tommarrow - this way I get paid to talk to you.

Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 07:54 PM (Jvmry)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
137kb generated in CPU 0.2276, elapsed 0.3361 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.311 seconds, 394 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 4443
  • Files: 1
  • Bytes: 29.8M
  • CPU Time: 4:28
  • Queries: 397926

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76631

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0