Cowards cut and run, Marines never do
Nov 24th 2005RavenGeneral & Iraq & Marine Corps & War
Rep. Jean Schmidt? From Ohio…
I wouldn’t have “booed” her off the podium. I would have gotten up and applauded. She’s right with what she said, and those who took offense- go screw yourselves and then take a long look in the mirror.
Schmidt said in her brief speech: “A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp. 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.”
The chamber exploded in boos and catcalls from Democrats, and within minutes Schmidt had withdrawn her words and sent a note of apology to Murtha. But waters were still roiling when she went home Saturday to start a two-week congressional recess.
Those who speak the truth need to be respected. When the truth hurts, those who are spoken of need to accept responsibility.
9 Comments »
9 Responses to “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do”
Seth on 25 Nov 2005 at 09:34 #
When I watched the video, I enjoyed every second of it, LOL! The explosion from the left side of the aisle was something to see.
The way the Democrats took offense, you could tell Jean Schmidt’s statements hit home, especially since they were being relayed from a Marine.
The left, together with the MSM, has been trying hard to suppress any inkling that our troops are fighting the Islamofascists by choice, and to them, that was like a “leak.”
Raven on 26 Nov 2005 at 07:47 #
I had the same impression. I only wish I could have seen Jean Francois Kerrie’s face-he wasn’t there that I saw (he’s off doing the jury duty gig). Kerrie, the real hero among them all. You can always tell when the Dems are really pissed off-they react like a bunch of animals. LOL
Alfred Glenstein on 27 Nov 2005 at 22:29 #
actually Seth, the quote wasn’t from an active duty Marine, but a congressman who hasn’t fought in Iraq, and who says he was misquoted. Also, later in the debate Schmidt retracted her statements and claimed that they were not directed at Murtha.
Seth, don’t you think there are other reasons the Dems could take offense? You could make that argument against anyone who has taken offense against anything ever, and to apply it (for convenience) against the Democrats as if this is one specific case is pitifully dishonest and counterproduct to any real debate.
Seth on 28 Nov 2005 at 15:22 #
Actually, Alfred, without BSing over semantics, “cut and run” is exactly the policy pursued by the left and given what’s at stake, cowardice does indeed figure into the equation, whether the marine to whom the remark was credited is active duty, reserve, retired or a discharged civilian.
Schmidt retracted her statements because of pressure put on her by her peers. Retractions are often made under those circumstances, but that does not mean that the statements in question are not true, just that they are not “PC”; they have offended someone.
The Dems take offense, as we have seen, at any criticism of their agendas, mild or severe, and their SOP is to attack.
I have yet to see such an extreme reaction from the right when Dems like Dick Durbin compare our soldiers with Nazis and GITMO with a gulag.
Raven on 28 Nov 2005 at 17:29 #
Actually Alfred, you’re an idiot. You say all the right things and use the right terms to sound smart and intelligent, but when it comes right down to it, aren’t you just like the Dems? They do have a policy of “cut and run”, or better yet, “appease and please” at all costs. The Dems like to make a lot of noise with their boohooing bullshit, but they are noiseless when it comes to keeping this country safe. Spineless wimps who would give up the lives of millions of Americans (in a major terrorist attack) over a war that might cost us a few thousand.
Alfred Glenstein on 28 Nov 2005 at 17:34 #
“Actually, Alfred, without BSing over semantics, “cut and run†is exactly the policy pursued by the left and given what’s at stake, cowardice does indeed figure into the equation, whether the marine to whom the remark was credited is active duty, reserve, retired or a discharged civilian.”
I’ll follow your lead and stay away from a debate about semantics. But that said, what you posted above is a straw man argument. You are right that the truth of the situation does not depend on WHO says it, but I feel like you are just appeal to an argument from assertion that for you is already proven.
I think that there are legitimate questions about the war that merit an answer that we shouldn’t refer to as proven one way or the other, and I think it is unfair to just plaster “cut and run” on people who object to the war. I think the better debate will come from answering those questions, and realizing that there is reason for object that ought to be taken seriously and considered.
At this point I find it hard to beleive that being wimpy cowards is the #1 element making Democrats want to leave Iraq. People dying, the ‘higher cause’ they serve for was first America’s security, then to stop terrorism, etc. etc. They are real human beings that we ought to care for, and we must weigh very carefully what we get in return for the sacrifice of their lives.
I feel it is a very sane, humane, and considerate concern that has much more to it than cowardice.
And I do kind of feel that your Schmidt argument is one over semantics.
Raven on 28 Nov 2005 at 18:43 #
Ahh Alfred…you sound so…liberal.
I appreciate your care and concern for those who are dying. We all feel the same way; what’s different is our reasoning for them being in the war zone in the first place. You see it another way than I do, or Seth does.
These very qualities…caring and concern are the trademarks of those who are weak and wimpy, I hate to say. When you worry too much about what others will think, you get walked all over. Look at France.
Face it…you’re all wishy washy when it comes to anything war related, Bush related and that’s what it all comes down to. You could care less about the troops, you just don’t want to be in their shoes.
You want to world to love America and so do I…but America need not become a doormat to the bank in order to get that love.
John M. Schwab on 29 Nov 2005 at 15:49 #
PC, balderdash. This is just another example of the party caving in to the unreasonable demands of the “Progressive Party”. I can just see it now. Rep. Schmidt is called into the principles office by the party leadership and told that she has ticked off and offended the fools on the left. She is told that as a very junior Representative, she should leave that to the leadership (who is too afraid to do it for fear of offending the fools on the left). She is then given a statement and told that if she caves in and reads this, she will be allowed to continue to sit at the foot of the table and eat any crumbs off the floor, as long as a Democrat does not want said crumbs. And I was starting to think my party had developed some intestinal fortitude. Should have known better.
Seth on 30 Nov 2005 at 16:49 #
I’m looking forward to seeing how our Senate majority holds forth in January, when the Alito confirmation hearings commence.