Summer Soldiers

NY Sun ^ | 11/21/05 | JOHN O'NEILL

[Just mythoughts]

I heard a portion of JFKerry droning, while foaming at the mouth tirade, gave me a chill thinking just how many Americans cast a vote for his method of governing.

We do have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, for at this moment alllll the loons can do is rant and rave.

[mass55th]

It says a lot about a person's motives when they won't even vote for their own proposal. I see Murtha's been on the news since the vote and spewing the same garbage. If he was such a believer in a pullout, why didn't he vote for it. How he can now go before the cameras after voting "NO" on his own proposition is beyond me. I'd be too embarrassed to do so.

[Bear_Slayer]

Summer Soldiers. Summer Not

The difference is obvious.

[blackie]

John O'Neill ~ Bump!

[Cicero]

I would differentiate between Murtha and Kerry. Kerry is a lying, leftist traitor. I think Murtha is basically a decent guy, who perhaps was leaned on by the leadership to make this statement. I don't think he's a coward or a traitor, but I do think he may have been swayed by the thought of losing some of that military pork he handles. Maybe someone whispered a word in his ear about future committee assignments.

If I were Murtha, I would be very embarrassed to be defended by that traitor Kerry.

[Soul Seeker]

O'Neill continued the theme of "Kerrying" our soldiers:

Are the politicians like Mr. Kerry who led the campaign to send our kids to war (when it was popular) now to withdraw support while they are locked in combat and apparently succeeding because the task is difficult or unpopular? Will Mainstream Media "Kerry" our troops by portraying Abu Ghraib or isolated cases of prisoner mistreatment as the rule to demoralize our troops and nation, while ignoring the beheadings and butchery of those peacefully praying in Mosques or shopping in a Bazaar? Will the press's selective glorification of isolated figures such as Cindy Sheehan, Mr. Kerry, or Mr. Murtha drown out the actual voices of the large majority of our servicemen? I hope not. We pay our troops little and subject them to considerable danger. We can at the very least support them with stability of mission and honesty of reporting.

Likewise, we ought not to "Kerry" our troops with after-the-battle second-guessing. The fog of combat produces in any war mistake and folly. Both World War II and the Korean War began with wholly avoidable military disasters - Pearl Harbor and the retreat to Pusan. Likewise, the Iraq War has had its share of mistakes and miscalculations (along with brilliant successes). But it simply Kerries our troops in the field to elevate network newsmen (who have likely never even spent a night in a tent) or self-promoted Congressional military heroes with two months of 35 years ago combat in a much different world into armchair Napoleons. That is why we rely instead upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the best professional military establishment in the world (when they are left alone). And we should remember the words of Thomas Dewey declining to make Pearl Harbor a campaign issue in 1944: "I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than the reverse."

I've been expecting O'neil to resurface since their honor was attacked again. It's a welcome return. One of the few Democrats I'd trust with our national security.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Obviously there are many things to despise about Kerry but the following quote

"I won't stand for the Swift-Boating of Jack Murtha!"

is as good a place to start as any. To me the tone implies almost an imperial "we" - as if Kerry was some sort of monarch to whose will the nation must inevitably bend.

Sure, there are plenty of other things to dislike about the traitor but this one sort of caught my eye.

I would like to inquire of the senator, what, precisely, he proposes to do about the quote-unquote "swift-boating" of Mr. Murtha.

....crickets.....

OK, that's what I thought Senator.

[tuckrdout]

Keep it up...Thanks for keeping me informed.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Murtha didn't even have the balls to vote for what he was so ardently flapping his yap about.

If you visit Mousie Murtha's website, you not only get to express your desire to keep the troops in theater until the job's done, you'll also see that Murtha is claiming that last week's resolution was not his. Good luck to him, but he's claiming that he doesn't want to pull the troops home, but rather out of harm's immediate way to the periphery, where they'll be safe but can monitor Iraqi progress and intervene when and where needed. Given that our troops are needed daily in many locations within Iraq, this seems to be an inefficient and patently stupid suggestion--especially coming from a Marine. But I'm wondering whether the 'Icans should call his bluff and vote on a new resolution to do just this. I wonder what the resulting vote would be? I suspect it wouldn't be all that different. You'll see from Mousie Murtha's poll that he's basically saying that if we don't immediately redeploy to the periphery, we should impose a draft to generate the numbers of troops needed to go in full strength and do it right. This guy seems seriously disturbed--either wimp out or put the nation on an all-out war footing and send in a million troops. Would it be fair to regard him as an extremist given that he's only comfy working at either extreme?

[hgro]

Democratic War Stories In the Times of London, anti-Bush hysteric Andrew Sullivan lauds Rep. John Murtha:, All you have to do is look at John Murtha to see what he represents. He's a white-haired, red-faced pro-war Democrat with a record of 37 years of service in the US Marines. Democratic chairman Howard Dean cited the "37 years" figure in an e-mail to supporters last week too. It's true, in a sense, but misleading. It makes it sound as though Murtha was a career military man. In fact, according to his congressional biography, Murtha was on active duty for six years at most (1952-55 and 1966-67); the rest of the time, including some 16 of his nearly 32 years in the House, he was a reservist. We don't mean to disparage Murtha's service, but why do the Democrats always seem to exaggerate these things? John Kerry* was a "war hero" for serving 120 days in Vietnam and earning an improbable number of medals. In 2002 pro-Saddam Rep. Jim McDermott claimed that he and then-Rep. David Bonior served in Vietnam. In fact, McDermott served as a naval psychiatrist and Bonior as an Air Force cook--both in California. Let's honor the service of all veterans--including, by the way, those who wore the uniform of the Texas Air National Guard, and those who criticize John Kerry. But all this phony jingoism in the service of weakness on national security has us nostalgic for the days when the Democrats nominated an honest-to-goodness draft avoider for president. * The haughty, French-looking blankety-blank who on Friday e-mailed his supporters: "Yesterday, an extraordinary congressman, former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on the war in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. No sooner had the words left his lips than the vicious assault on his character and patriotism began."

From "Best of the Web Today" Nov. 21,2005

[JLO]

Too bad the "Move On FReepers" are still on FR and not DU where they came from!

Well, Tonk, I think I'm just one of many who says:

Good thing the "Keep on Freepers" like you are still here at FR! :-)

[dervish]

"If I were Murtha, I would be very embarrassed to be defended by that traitor Kerry."

I think that was Mr O'Neill's point. He was too honorable to say anything negative about a fellow soldier who really served his country. Nevertheless he wanted to show up Murtha's position by reference to its supporters.

And as others have said, Murtha did not even vote for it.

[Kenny Bunk]

Murtha just missed getting nailed by ABSCAM, remember?

[LibertarianInExile]

Technically, last week's resolution WASN'T his. But that's just a technical excuse. You can't say it and not vote for it, which is what Murtha did, that big sack of crap.

"This guy seems seriously disturbed--either wimp out or put the nation on an all-out war footing and send in a million troops. Would it be fair to regard him as an extremist given that he's only comfy working at either extreme?"

As to this, I'm all for the notion we should fight a war fully (I have an objection to our 'go to the mall, do the things you'd normally do' war footing myself) or stay out of it, but we're in now and have to stay. If his objective was to get more troops there, saying we should pull out simply didn't cut it. The battle having been joined, his duty was to push for more troops, WHICH HE HASN'T DONE, either. Murtha is a weasel and a coward whose claimed loyalty to the troops is pure b.s.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I have an objection to our 'go to the mall, do the things you'd normally do' war footing myself

I hear ya, but I've resigned myself to this--It's probably hard to find anything else that ticks off the Islamofascists as much as the fact that the vast majority of our population acts as if nothing whatsoever has changed. We can thank the troops big time for this. Their sacrifices have kept our big, powerful economic engine cranking.

I think a big part of why LBJ failed in Vietnam was his desire to have both guns and butter. He was way too generous with the butter here at home, but I assume that all presidents are concerned about public support waning, and probably conclude that it'll turn sooner if economic hardship is the rule.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Benedict Arnold

Revolutionary War Major General

Arnold was assured that Lord North would renew the liberal terms already offered in 1778, which conceded everything that the Americans had demanded in 1775. By rendering a cardinal service to the British, he might hope to attain a position of such eminence as to conduct these negotiations, end the war, and restore America to her old allegiance, with her freedom from parliamentary control guaranteed. In order to realize these ambitious dreams, Arnold resorted to the blackest treachery. In July, 1780, he sought and obtained command of West Point in order to surrender it to the enemy. When his scheme was detected by the timely capture of Andre, he fled to the British at New York, a disgraced and hated traitor. Instead of getting control of affairs, like Gen. Monk, he had sold himself cheap, receiving a brigadier-general's place in the British army and a paltry stun of money. In the spring of 1781 he conducted a plundering expedition into Virginia. In September of the same year he was sent to attack New London, in order to divert Washington from his southward march against Cornwallis.

[Boazo]

Let me whack him a few times too!

[Boazo]

Took me a minute to get that. HAHAHA

[dixiechick2000]

LOLOLOL!

Excellent!

[potlatch]

You can play "wack a mole" like Hillary!