The Murtha Boomerang

[Lemur]

Interesting read from James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam. He does a nice rundown of the history of swiftboating vets, and concludes:

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

Sounds more like their learning from Kerry. How do you explain the vast majority of the military is republican yet most of those who are running for office are democrats. Are you saying their having a change of heart and switching. I seriously doubt that. More like they joined for the same reasons Kerry did. They had political ambitions all along.

[Xiahou]

Speaking of Murtha... had anyone seen this video clip from a recent townhall meeting he and Rep. Moran had in Arlington? I think the looks on their faces were priceless.

[Watchman]

...
...
...
...you know, this partisan mud-throwing is getting more than a little stale. It's getting me pretty convinced that not only is the practical execution of American internal politics off its rockers, so is its very mental framework, though. Damn wannabe vultures anyway. *Real* vultures at least fulfill an important function as trashmen, this crap is just vulgar.

[Lemur]

More like they joined for the same reasons Kerry did. They had political ambitions all along.

Why not respond to Mr. Webb's article rather than spinning out your own hypotheticals?

And yes, Watchman, partisanship will be a big problem for us. The extreme ends of our political spectrum seem to see no benefit in cooperation or compromise.

[Watchman]

Conclusion: two-party systems suck. Too much polarization, too few outlets for expressing opinion.

I'll grant you I've seen quite a few Americans on assorted forums long after electoral reforms to get rid of that though, so at least they know where the shoe chafes.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why not respond to Mr. Webb's article rather than spinning out your own Why not respond to Mr. Webb's article rather than spinning out your own hypotheticals?
?

All he did was spin out his own hypotheticals? What would you like me to address? I see the lefts bashing of Bushs military record isnt even mentioned. We all know what the left thinks of the military. I find this editorial hilarious. If any bashes the military its the left not the right.

[Watchman]

This whole discussion has a kind of dirty feeling to it.

[Major Robert Dump]

hahaha

Yes, no Democrats have ever been in the amred forces, ever, and if they were it was purely career motivated.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps some soldiers like knowing theres a healthy debate going on back home about the foreign policy that sent them into battle, rather than being cowtowed to and patronized by a party and its pundits who rely strictly on stereotypes and its "tradition" of being the party of the military.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, no Democrats have ever been in the amred forces, ever, and if they were it was purely career motivated.

No one ever said that. In fact most of the soldiers who fought for the south had been democrats.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps some soldiers like knowing theres a healthy debate going on back home about the foreign policy that sent them into battle, rather than being cowtowed to and patronized by a party and its pundits who rely strictly on stereotypes and its "tradition" of being the party of the military.

Obviously it has to those of you on the left. Most of the soldiers I speak with are appalled with the debate going on here and the democrats missrepresentation of whats going on.

[Sartaq]

I don't necessarily agree that it will make all or most vets vote or run democrat but this is disgusting to see and the republicans deserve whatever backlash they get.

In the case of some people, mostly Kerry, he milked his service for all it was worth, I don't have so much sympathy for him as I do the others.

[Watchman]

Obviously it has to those of you on the left. Most of the soldiers I speak with are appalled with the debate going on here and the democrats missrepresentation of whats going on.

Obviously the soldiers you speak with aren't all the soldiers. More to the point, if I know anything of how people network and socialize, most of the soldiers you speak with are going to be reasonably like-minded individuals...

Ergo, the point is moot.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Obviously the soldiers you speak with aren't all the sol

Obviously, But they do represent a cross section of the military.

. More to the point, if I know anything of how people network and socialize, most of the soldiers you speak with are going to be reasonably like-minded individuals...

Yes their like minded. They think the democrats should be ashamed of themselves and the press as well. I ask any soldier ,sailor or Marine I run into about Iraq and almost all give the same answer. I dont socialise or network with any of them.

[Watchman]

*sigh* There *is* a thing called "source critique", and somehow I dont think we can trust yours if you know what I mean.

Not that I had overmuch faith in the judgement of the average American soldier either.

Anyway, as said, this whole phenomenom seems inherently tacky and filthy to me. Gives me the impression of bickering loudmouths throwing bones from an open grave at each other, or something similar. No, it's not a very pretty impression. Kind of like mud-slinging crossed with grave-robbing.

[Lemur]

I just remembered, many newspapers allow their articles to lapse into pay-only land after a week. In the unlikely case anybody in here is still talking about this in a week, here's the full text:

Purple Heartbreakers
By JAMES WEBB

January 18, 2006
Arlington, Va.

It should come as no surprise that an arch-conservative Web site is questioning whether Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has been critical of the war in Iraq, deserved the combat awards he received in Vietnam.

After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha.

Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves.

Not unlike the Clinton "triangulation" strategy, the approach has been to attack an opponent's greatest perceived strength in order to diminish his overall credibility. To no one's surprise, surrogates carry out the attacks, leaving President Bush and other Republican leaders to benefit from the results while publicly distancing themselves from the actual remarks.

During the 2000 primary season, John McCain's life-defining experiences as a prisoner of war in Vietnam were diminished through whispers that he was too scarred by those years to handle the emotional burdens of the presidency. The wide admiration that Senator Max Cleland gained from building a career despite losing three limbs in Vietnam brought on the smug non sequitur from critics that he had been injured in an accident and not by enemy fire. John Kerry's voluntary combat duty was systematically diminished by the well-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in a highly successful effort to insulate a president who avoided having to go to war.

And now comes Jack Murtha. The administration tried a number of times to derail the congressman's criticism of the Iraq war, including a largely ineffective effort to get senior military officials to publicly rebuke him (Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was the only one to do the administration's bidding there).

Now the Cybercast News Service, a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party, has dusted off the Swift Boat Veterans playbook, questioning whether Mr. Murtha deserved his two Purple Hearts. The article also implied that Mr. Murtha did not deserve the Bronze Star he received, and that the combat-distinguishing "V" on it was questionable. It then called on Mr. Murtha to open up his military records.

Cybercast News Service is run by David Thibault, who formerly worked as the senior producer for "Rising Tide," the televised weekly news magazine produced by the Republican National Committee. One of the authors of the Murtha article was Marc Morano, a long-time writer and producer for Rush Limbaugh.

The accusations against Mr. Murtha were very old news, principally coming from defeated political rivals. Aligned against their charges are an official letter from Marine Corps Headquarters written nearly 40 years ago affirming Mr. Murtha's eligibility for his Purple Hearts - "you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action" - and the strict tradition of the Marine Corps regarding awards. While in other services lower-level commanders have frequently had authority to issue prestigious awards, in the Marines Mr. Murtha's Vietnam Bronze Star would have required the approval of four different awards boards.

The Bush administration's failure to support those who have served goes beyond the smearing of these political opponents. One of the most regrettable examples comes, oddly enough, from modern-day Vietnam. The government-run War Remnants Museum, a popular tourist site in downtown Ho Chi Minh City, includes an extensive section on "American atrocities." The largest display is devoted to Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator and governor of Nebraska, recipient of the Medal of Honor and member of the 9/11 commission.

In the display, Mr. Kerrey is flatly labeled a war criminal by the Vietnamese government, and the accompanying text gives a thoroughly propagandized version of an incident that resulted in civilian deaths during his time in Vietnam. This display has been up for more than two years. One finds it hard to imagine another example in which a foreign government has been allowed to so characterize the service of a distinguished American with no hint of a diplomatic protest.

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

Rudyard Kipling summed up this syndrome quite neatly more than a century ago, writing about the frequent hypocrisy directed at the British soldiers of his day:

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

*sigh* There *is* a thing called "source critique", and somehow I dont think we can trust yours if you know what I mean.

Stop the sighing. By the way do you have a mouse in your pocket or do you now speak for all the other members of the ORG?

Not that I had overmuch faith in the judgement of the average American soldier either.

I doubt they have much faith in yours as well.

.Anyway, as said, this whole phenomenom seems inherently tacky and filthy to me. Gives me the impression of bickering loudmouths throwing bones from an open grave at each other, or something similar. No, it's not a very pretty impression. Kind of like mud-slinging crossed with grave-robbing.

Simple. Dont try using the fact that you are a veteran to get elected. These people hold nothing sacred and will sling mud from where ever they can find it. Neither side is innocent here. If you do use your military experience to run on be prepared to defend it.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's classic guilt by association. Because some people in the party take the debate in an unhealthy direction then it makes everyone bad. Any democrat is immediately dismissed because they are democrats, and any Republican is automatically an expert on military issues and geopolitics because they are a republican. This is people like Sheehan make everyone on the left look bad, and this is why twats like Schmidt think they can put on a stars and stripe pant suit and subtley call an opponent a coward on the house floor.

Whats funny about the entire thing is about 20 years ago military-turned-politicians were almost always Republicans, whereas now we would be lucky to need both hands to count the number of veterans in the congress, period. Simply questioning the policy which sent the troops into battle in the first place is not anti-military, and the politicians who hide behind the soldiers and smother dialogue and discourse on the grounds it "hurts morale" are the real cowards.

I wish two things of the parties right now:

1-I want the Republicans to realize that being in a must-win military campaign should not and does not mean people will forget or ignore any improprieties or incompetencies leading up to and managing the war

2-And I wish the democrats would understand that regardless of how many times they ask "why are we there?" or "we coulda shoulda woulda" it does not change the fact that it is a must-win military campaign, and pulling up stakes and giving up would only make things worse, much worse.

[Lemur]

Very well put, MRD.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Murtharang!

Sorry. Had to get that outta my system.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Whats funny about the entire thing is about 20 years ago military-turned-politicians were almost always Republicans, whereas now we would be lucky to need both hands to count the number of veterans in the congress

There are currently 14 democratic senators that are veterans and 18 republicans with one independent. One of the dems is Zell Miller so I guess that makes 19 republicans
There are 121 members of the House that are veterans. You must have some big hands.

[Watchman]

Maybe he just has a large collection.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe he just has a large collection.

True, But most of us TW fans collect heads.

[Watchman]

He ought to get pretty far by scavenging, then.

[Major Robert Dump]

I stand corrected then, but when I'm talking about decades ago I meant more along the lines of veterans of wars, not just people who pulled 4 years in the guard. I'm not saying thats what these current vets did, because I don't know, nor am i saying they are posers for their service, but when I think vets in the congress i think of Bob Doles and so forth. I did 4 years in the guard right out of high school and it was a very uneventful, peacetime enlistment, so I don't exactly feel proper calling myslef a "veteran." By prospective-employer definition someone who enlists, breaks their knee 2 weeks out of AIT and gets a medical discharge is considered a "disabled veteran." Not sure what the legal definition is.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but when I'm talking about decades ago I meant more along the lines of veterans of wars, not just people who pulled 4 years in the guard. I'm not saying thats what these current vets did, because I don't know, nor am i saying they are posers for their service, but when I think vets in the congress i think of Bob Doles and so forth. I did 4 years in the guard right out of high school and it was a very uneventful, peacetime enlistment, so I don't exactly feel proper calling myslef a "veteran."

Because we havent had a real war since Nam and this is where most of the current actual war Vets are from. And yes their are still quite a few of them. Mc Cain is a good example as is Cunningham although he is no longer in the congress, shame be upon this once great man. Also dont diminish your service. You are a veteran although not of war.

[Sheep]

I live right by the biggest military bases on the West Coast so I know quite a few military types. Most of them are pretty conservative generally, although not all Republicans. What seems to me is that very few of the guys really changed their politics after being enlisted. Most of the guys that were pot-smoking socially liberal punks who didn't have really any other career options BESIDES the military are still pot-smoking socially liberal punks who don't really have any other career options now. And vice versa with the conservative ones. Also a lot of the black soldiers I know would still vote Democrat. Actually to be honest most of the guys I know are pretty disillusioned with everyone in the government. Although most would still say they vote Republican.


Anecdotal, I know.

[Lemur]

Anecdotal seems to be as good as it gets.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hear it from the horses mouth .


A VETERAN TELLS OFF MURTHA/MORAN

[Lemur]

To get vaguely back on track, does the .org membership believe that Murtha is worthy of Swiftboating? The WaPo did a little bit of digging ...

Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals

By Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.

In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.

David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." Thibault said: "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach."

Cindy Abram, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said, "We certainly believe that the questions being raised are an attempt to distract attention from what's happening in Iraq." As for how Murtha won the Purple Hearts, she said: "We think the congressman's record is clear. We have the documentation, the paperwork that proves that he earned them, and that he is entitled to wear them proudly."

Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA. "We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods," he said.

Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who was quoted in the article, confirmed his account to The Washington Post yesterday.

In a conversation on the House floor in the early 1980s, said Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, Murtha told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts. He recalled Murtha saying: "Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek." Murtha's spokeswoman would not address that account.

Bailey, who lost a House race to Murtha after a 1982 redistricting, said "Jack's a coward, and he's a liar" for subsequently denying the conversation. "That just really burned me," he said.

While saying he has only responded to reporters' questions and is not bitter toward Murtha, Bailey said the congressman's approach to Iraq is "not responsible" and that "it just turned my stomach" to see Murtha acting as a spokesman for veterans.

He said he shared the information with Republican William Choby, who ran against Murtha four times beginning in 1990 and made the Vietnam decorations an issue. Choby raised the issue again during Murtha's 2002 reelection campaign.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, citing Marine records, reported that year that Murtha was wounded during "hostile" actions near Da Nang, Vietnam: "In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation." The Cybercast article cites a 1994 interview in which Murtha described injuries to his arm and knee.

The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was "pretending to be a big war hero." Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts but was turned down because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, "The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics."

In November, when Murtha called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the congressman was endorsing "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party" and called his stance a "surrender to the terrorists." Days later, President Bush called Murtha "a fine man" and said they simply disagreed about Iraq.

The Cybercast article appeared shortly before a segment scheduled for CBS's "60 Minutes" tomorrow in which Murtha predicts that the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end.

[Xiahou]

I for one, don't see how what he did in Vietnam -one way or the other- has any relevance on the stupidity of his opinions on Iraq.