Cowards turn tail and run - Marines don't!

  1. The House voted 403-3 against an immediate withdraw of troops from Iraq. The above quote was the most provocative of the debate.

    Wow.

    From AP:

    "Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war. Murtha, a Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam, issued his call for a troop withdrawal at a news conference on Thursday. In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.

    At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

    "He asked me to send Congress a message-stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message-that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said."

    ~~~

    I must say I am in some agreement w/ the concept that those that advocated and voted for this involvement should stay the course. Most military/political actions (and this is both) take time to resolve.
    Reading the political winds is not leadership.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 19, '05
    •  
  2. 338 Comments

  3. by   Tweety
    Low blow and childish in my opinion.

    I realize at this point an "immediate withdrawal" is unrealistic. I would just like some honesty.

    It seems like six months ago they said "in about six months". Probably that was just to shut people up. A week or so ago they wanted more troops.

    The truth is they have no idea when they can get out, and it could be years, and a cost of billions and an untold human cost on both sides. We lost.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    It might be a low blow - I agree w/ that.

    But, he was playing off his credibility as a marine to pass off his comments. If he's gonna be a big player in the big game, he has to take the criticism.

    Murtha was one of many, including the President, to authorize this action. It might be overkill to call him a coward, but his statements were certainly not in support of the troops that he helped to put into harm's way.

    It wasn't semper fi.

    The only elected officials that have a right to complain that we shouldn't be there are the ones that voted against this action. The rest need to bear some responsibility for their decisions - and instead of whining about being misled (even though they had the same intel), they need to either bring common sense solutions to the table or shut up.

    The political process hasn't played out yet. With every bombing of civilians, Zarqawi and his ilk are sealing their fate. There was almost an exact parrallel to this situation in Germany in 1946 - and when their new gov't was strong enough, they crushed their internal rebellion. We didn't cut and run then - and we shouldn't now.

    We can't argue that the end of the rebellion means the eventual withdrawal of US troops - it would be a position of weakness. But the Iraqi gov't can - and it will be a position of strength when they do. But first, they have to have a process in place that allows them to appeal to Iraqi nationalism - and that process takes place in a voting booth.

    But in truth, we will be there for a long time. In a year or so, I believe that we WILL withdraw to bases and let the Iraqis be the day to day police force. AT THAT TIME, we will be an over the horizon aid that Murtha referred to. But his comments are very premature.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 19, '05
  5. by   GLORIAmunchkin72
    You have to know when to fold. Doesn't necessarily make one a coward. A realist maybe?
    Quote from Tweety
    Low blow and childish in my opinion.

    I realize at this point an "immediate withdrawal" is unrealistic. I would just like some honesty.

    It seems like six months ago they said "in about six months". Probably that was just to shut people up. A week or so ago they wanted more troops.

    The truth is they have no idea when they can get out, and it could be years, and a cost of billions and an untold human cost on both sides. We lost.
  6. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from Tweety
    Low blow and childish in my opinion.

    I realize at this point an "immediate withdrawal" is unrealistic. I would just like some honesty.

    It seems like six months ago they said "in about six months". Probably that was just to shut people up. A week or so ago they wanted more troops.

    The truth is they have no idea when they can get out, and it could be years, and a cost of billions and an untold human cost on both sides. We lost.
    This is the truth. We have no plan-----we will just have to see how it goes. Just wish there were more forthcoming HONESTY about this. It's not cowardice you are criticizing here. Just a way for the pro war side to call names to those who believe this was a wrongful and deceitfully-started involvement to begin with.
  7. by   rn/writer
    Quote from Tweety
    Low blow and childish in my opinion.

    I realize at this point an "immediate withdrawal" is unrealistic. I would just like some honesty.

    It seems like six months ago they said "in about six months". Probably that was just to shut people up. A week or so ago they wanted more troops.

    The truth is they have no idea when they can get out, and it could be years, and a cost of billions and an untold human cost on both sides. We lost.
    I don't recall anyone on the conservative side saying, "six months."

    It astounds me that so many have forgotten that Bush said at the outset that this war would be difficult and would take time. When Baghdad fell so quickly, I think he--along with many others--got a bit overconfident for a very short while, but overall, he has never painted the war as quick or easy, and, in fact, kept saying it would be just the opposite.

    I don't know how you can say that we lost. For one thing, it isn't over yet. For another, the complexion of the Middle East has changed. It isn't only Iraq that has been affected. Do you think Lebanon would have challenged Syria's ruthless behind-the-scenes control if we hadn't gained a foothold in Iraq? What about Moamar Ghadafi? He agreed to unconditional surrender of all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. That seems unlikely to have occured without a huge change in the former status quo. Afghanistan is slowly but surely coming out of the dark ages. Other countries are looking at the possibilities of democracy and freedom. I count every one of these changes as a light shining in a place that was formerly a black hole of fear and tyranny.

    Part of the problem is that we get such distorted reports of what is really going on in Iraq. I hold the mainstream media accountable for the withholding of much of the good news that is taking place. Military people coming home on leave or returning from deployment almost universally express astonishment and even horror that our news coverage is so slanted toward the negative. They question the absence of reporting on the many good things that are taking place on a daily basis and decry the tremendous imbalance between what they actually saw and what we are being told.

    It's a sad state of affairs when many media sources have become so biased and agenda-driven that returning military personnel don't even recognize the landscape they've just left in the stories we're being told.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
  9. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Those do not look like the words of a "COWARD" to me, Spacenurse.
  10. by   jnette
    ermm... Timothy, in all fairness.. I watched this entire "debate turned vote" in it's entirety over the past two days. And you, along with the house repubs neglected to mention that Murpha did NOT ask for "immediate" withdrawal... what he SAID and what the republicans then said.. and worse yet, DID , were two entirely different things.

    Murpha called for a withdrawal to begin in six mos., staggering the withdrawal over time to ensure safe troop return.

    What the repubs then did, was to draw up a NEW proposal (not Murpha's) and put it up for a vote.. playing on the "immediate" withdrawal as if it were Murpha's proposal. By doing this, they hoped to embarass Murpha and the dems, knowing full well, that noone would vote for an immediate, all inclusive withdrawal. Then they could say "neener neener".

    I think that was pretty underhanded, muself.. and THIS was most of what the yelling and screaming and back and forth was all about in the house yesterday before the vote.

    Yes, I heard letter from the Captain read out loud, and again.. they were not asking for this CAPATAIN's vote.. they were asking for a vote in congress. I thought that was uncalled for as well.. noone asked for an emailed message here.

    Coward, my FOOT.

    Murpha is a highly decorated General.. double purple heart recipient... KNOWS wars inside and out, and yes, WAS hawkish about this one at the onset as well.

    But now... now that we see the blunders made, the lack of concrete plans for exiting, the close to 2,100 lives lost (nearly 60% of which are YOUNG lives under 24 years of age).. and the continuing violence and loss of life with no real end in sight... yes, some who might have been for the war at first, DO have the right to rethink.. and those of this man's caliber, to restrategize, and offer his input as one who certainly KNOWs about wars. After all, he HAS been there.. and I would say that he as a war General would have a good deal more insight into these things than this particular Captain emailing his messages.. wouldn't you agree? :stone

    Of course it was voted down.. because this was never intended to be voted on, and NOT at ALL what Murpha had asked for.
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    Those do not look like the words of a "COWARD" to me, Spacenurse.
    It takes courage to tell the truth to this administration. Remember how they attacked Max Cleland and John Mc Cain?
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    One word: Ugly.

    That's the one word that comes to mind when I think of this situation. :stone

    This situation is getting uglier than my face the mornin' after a night of hard drinkin'.

    And it's smells worse too.
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from jnette
    ermm... Timothy, in all fairness.. I watched this entire "debate turned vote" in it's entirety over the past two days. And you, along with the house repubs neglected to mention that Murpha did NOT ask for "immediate" withdrawal... what he SAID and what the republicans then said.. and worse yet, DID , were two entirely different things. . .

    I think that was pretty underhanded, muself.. and THIS was most of what the yelling and screaming and back and forth was all about in the house yesterday before the vote. . .

    Murpha is a highly decorated General.. double purple heart recipient... KNOWS wars inside and out, and yes, WAS hawkish about this one at the onset as well.
    Two comments:

    1. Was the vote a political lashback at Murtha. Absolutely. And while they didn't word it like Murtha might have the point was this: to force Democrats into hedging against the far left wing of their party that WANTS an immediate withdrawal. You can say Murtha wanted a six month staged w/draw all you want, that is NOT how it has presented in the media.

    It was presented as an advocation for an immediate withdrawal. And the vote was an attempt to put that on the record, not necessarily Murtha's point of view. It wasn't a quid pro quo against Murtha - it was a vote to DISTINGUISH Murtha's comments from those that advocate immediate withdrawal.

    2. Murtha may be a 'hawk' - and this is exactly why his opinion mattered more. But. He voted for this. I wouldn't say advocating a cut and run strategy makes him a coward. I WOULD say it is turning his back on Semper Fi.

    If he didn't have the understanding that military engagements are long term decisions and the fortitude to stay with it, he either shouldn't have voted or shouldn't be a leader of this nation. You pick.

    Murtha did have the capital to play on his experience and expertise to make his comments. But his comments went a long way to undermine both.

    ~faith
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 19, '05
  14. by   jnette
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    If he didn't have the understanding that military engagements are long term decisions and the fortitude to stay with it, he either shouldn't have voted or shouldn't be a leader of this nation. You pick.

    ~faith
    Timothy.
    As someone said above... you must know when to fold. And have the courage to do so. Courage is not found soley in the war theatre on the ground.

    This is not a "war" as we have known them in the past.

    This is something far different, and we will be paying for the decisions we have made for a long, LONG time.. be they right or wrong. That much is clear.

    I won't debate we should/shouldn't have gone in. We've done that ad nauseum here already. And I do respect your point of view, just as I expect mine to be so respected. No hard feelings, Timothy.

    Being from a military family and a vet myself, I can see how things have changed, including "wars". Very sad, very troubling.

    No offense or disrespect intended, Timothy.

close