Murtha a fraud?

If one were to visit Rep. Murtha's webpage one would find that a full 50% of his bio is devoted to his military service and quite prominently features the decorations he received.

Rep. Murtha has every right to be proud of his service and his medals and should be held in honor for them, but by so clearly defining himself by this service, he opens the door to political opponents to investigate it.

He has not sought to parlay his medals or service into greater political power (as did Kerry) nor for personal monetary gain (as did Duke Cunningham), but there is little question that it is his service which underpins the credibility his position on Iraq is granted by many, and that he is not at all oblivious to this fact.

Unless there is legitimate evidence calling into question the appropriateness of his decorations, mere innuendo spread by anyone is a despicable smear campaign. Similarly, in the absence of legitimate evidence that the Bush Administration is behind such a smear campaign, asserting that it is, is calumny in itself.

Focusing on Murtha's decorations, without true reason to suspect their legitimacy, is not only vile, it's meaningless. If his service is to be questioned at all it should be in terms of his strategic and tactical acumen.
The mere fact that he served with distinction in Vietnam does not make him an expert in military strategy or tactics, and this is the basis for the position he has taken on Iraq.

Perhaps he is such an expert, but whether or not he is, is an entirely legitimate question.

Much is made about the military record of George W Bush, but if he had the record of his father, would it make much of a difference to the people who oppose the Iraq War or him? In some cases perhaps, but not for the vast majority of his opponents.

In post-Vietnam America, Conservatives have the advantage of having always been perceived as pro-military. Liberals, on the other hand, having created the current environment by encouraging the castigation of returning Vietnam Vets, must engage in an artful dance whereby they can express hatred for the War, but love for the Troops. The degree of their success in this regard, however, would have them voted off Dancing With Stars after the first episode.

Unfortunately, the entire issue of military service has become something of a sacred cow. Of course it is ridiculous to presuppose that anyone who has engaged in combat is a paragon of virtue, and yet we are lead to do so by the politics of our time.

Equally ridiculous is the notion that someone who has not engaged in combat is categorically unfit to serve as Commander In Chief.

People join the military for all sorts of reasons, and they are not all because they want to protect the American Way.

People in the military are not a special breed to the extent that they do not represent a wide cross section of personality types.

People in the military are not all heros, simply because they are in the military.

The people who do serve in our military, and particularly those who are placed in Harm's way, deserve our respect, our thanks, and our admiration. They do not, necessarily, deserve lionization.

The question of how one will react when faced with death runs to the core of what we believe humanity is all about. However, the question doesn't limit itself to situations of war.

BBB
bm

Just so you know,military regs prohibit any commissioned officer from meeting with any representatives of any country we are at war with.
Also,it is a violation of US law for any private citizen to negotiate with the enemy.
I will find the actual laws and post them for you,but for now,while it is irrelevant now,Kerry did break the law and he violated his oath as a naval officer by meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris.

Just more of the smear tactics of the right. First Kerry now Murtha. I guess that's all they (Republicans) have. It'd be nice to put the shoe on the other foot, but hell you'd be hard pressed to find one of these chickenhawks that served...........Oh the irony.

You are right.I was hardpressed.It took me all of about 10 seconds...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/nicholson-bio.html

"Mr. Nicholson was born in 1938 and grew up on a tenant farm in northwest Iowa in a family of seven children. He is a 1961 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He served eight years on active duty as a paratrooper and Ranger-qualified Army officer, then 22 years in the Army Reserve, retiring with the rank of colonel. While serving in Vietnam, he earned the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry and two Air Medals."

happy new year, mystery. ya alright ?

i think we're really talking about the perceived "cheerleaders" in this regard. cheney, perle, wolfie, frist, hastert, delay etc. ya know, the guys who really got behind it and started up all the stuff about who is or isn't patriotic.

by the way, people are starting to talk about bayh running for prez fairly often. might be something there. good call, dude.. :wink:

DTOM,
Happy new Year to you also.
I'm doing ok,except for my shoulder surgery.

I am not a democrat,but I stand by what I said...If Bayh does run,I WILL vote for him.
I have met him,and I like him and I TRUST him.
That isd the most important thing to me,that I trust him.
He is a little to liberal for me on some things,but I can overlook those small flaws to see the big picture.

good for you, mystery. flexibility is gonna be key, i think. the rigidity of our current leaders just isn't helping us.

i'm not a dem either, though i've voted that way more often than not over the last decade or so. registered as a republican first time, been a registered libertarian since 1978 and have just changed my registration to independent. like you, i prefer to vote for the man rather than the party.

bayh may have a decent chance. anything about that guy, mark warner from virginia ?

As soon as Murtha called for a withdrawal, I guessed that efforts would be made to discredit his military service. From what I see here, no one has come up with anything more than: "Any military veteran who speaks against a war is inherently discredited."

I think anyone listening to Murtha for more than a few minutes will know he's the real deal...

i agree. served in korea and vietnam. combat in 2 wars has got to give something of a better understanding of the thing than sitting around in a think tank.

Finn d'Abuzz, I commend you for a very good analysis of military service, what it qualifies people for in terms of respect and authority behind their politics, etc. Politicians of all stripes served in the military, and does lend more weight to their opinions concerning the current military policy, but there are many varying opinions among veterans. For every Murtha type opinion, there are as many opposite opinions relative to Iraq. So do we see the press go seek out a balanced reporting of both sides? Typically, no, we do not.

DTOM,


Warner may have a good chance.
There are many things about Warner that I support,but I dont know enough about him to say one way or another.

I am going to wait till I see who the frontrunners before I make a decision,the only thing I know for sure is that I will vote against Hillary if she runs,I just dont trust here at all.

I wouldn't make much of this, coming from the editor of the extremist Brent Bozell's CNS.

The Washington Post's Reporting on Murtha
The Washington Post's Reporting on Murtha
Murray Waas
01.15.2006

The Washington Post yesterday morning gives major play to an attack of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) on the website of the (until now) obscure Cybercast News Service. It accuses Murtha -- who had won eight military awards, including a Bronze star, and a Distinguished Service Medal of the United States Marine Corps, for his 37 years of military service -- of purportedly saying that he had not deserved to win two Purple Hearts also awarded him for his service during the Vietnam war.

The Post story, by reporters Howard Kurtz and Shallagh Murray, quotes extensively David Thibault, the editor in chief of the (who ever heard of them before the Washington Post decided to give them such prominence?) Cybercast News Service, as saying that Murtha's medals from 1967 are relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement."

But the article tells us very little about Thibault himself. Had the reporters done a simple Internet search, they would have discovered this biography of Thibault posted online which describes him as a "senior producer for a televised news magazine" broadcast and sponsored by the Republican National Committee. I dunno, but I for one, would have wanted to know that.

Thibault's background and those engaging in the Swiftboating of Murtha would be relevant to any news story on this issue, I would think.

And so would some independent examination by the Post as to whether there is even any veracity to the charges.

The New York Times takes a day or two, or longer, before doing stories like this, as do other papers. They tend to examine the motives and backgrounds of those making such charges, and whether or not they have any basis in fact. That's how the Times handled the allegations that swirled around John Kerry's war service.

The Post's news ethic tends more towards that simply because an allegation is made it should be reported. To do otherwise, some editors of the newspaper argue, would mean putting aside one's objectivity. But simply giving prominent play to allegations that might or might not turn out to be true at some later day seems to me to be subjectivity by some other name.

Update: The Post article in amplifying the allegations of the Cybercast News Service, also, in turn quotes an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

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 old Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.

What the Post leaves out of its story is that Saylor is deceased, and well, has been for some time now. (Saylor died way back in 1973, something that the Cybercast "News" Service, noted in their news story -- not to impugn their reporting practices.) In short, the Washington Post is relying on something said by a person with an axe to grind (Fox), who is quoting someone who is deceased (but who the newspaper forgot to tell you is deceased.) But it is even somewhat worse than that: the Post is quoting the ever-so-reliable and unbiased Cybercast News Service, which is quoting a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, which includes an allegation by Fox... who is citing someone now deceased.

Makes you want to drop a dime to Howie Kurtz! But alas, Kurtz wrote the story. Oh well.

Second update: It gets worse. At a blogger, I am only an amateur at best. Jane Hamsher who knows how to do it right, and better than anyone else, has some new information. A natural born blogger! Jane very importantly points out that Cybercast never even actually interviewed Harry Fox.

Jane quotes the website as saying: "Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate."

So if I understand this correctly, regarding the purported allegations by the late Rep. Saylor that Rep. Murtha did not deserve his Purple Hearts, the Washington Post is relying on the reporting of the Cybercast News Service, which is in turn is relying on comments made years ago by Harry Fox, who is in turn is quoting the late Congressman Saylor -- who died all the way back in 1973. The Post should have done a much better job of making this clear in their story -- in my humble opinion -- if they should have even published a story at all.

i dunno. i think she'd probably do a good job. the armed services committee has a pretty high opinion of her. but, the wife and i have talked about it and don't think she can win. too many folks are suspect of her.

i may have forgotten, but has anything solid ever been brought against her ?

Congressman Murtha has served this nation well, both in uniform and in Congress. He is an honest man with courage not found nearly often enough in Congress. I doubt that the man ever fudged his service record, but even if he did he would not be alone. Murtha has seen war first hand, he understands it and how the military must be run.I respect him and his opinions are worth listening to.

That said, I disagree with his recent calls for a rapid withdrawl of U.S. Forces from Iraq. I believe that is wrong, and would be about the worst thing we could do at present. The new Iraqi government will depend upon our support for some time yet. The Radical Islamic movement is concentrating its forces in Iraq to destroy representative government. Imagine how desperate they must be to adopt a campaign of bombing and terrorism against the population. They are losing that battle, and it is costing them dearly. Every day the Iraqi government becomes a little more able to stand alone, but they still must lean on our military for training and leadership. We should not quit until the job is done.

What would have happened in Germany or Japan after WWII if our military presence was reduced to minimum levels? The Korean War is still going on, and if we removed our troops from the penninsula that war would likely go very hot, very quickly. By staying the course Germany, Japan and ROK recovered and reformed their political machinery so that today all of them are strong economically, politically and of no threat to world peace. Granted that the Germans, Japanese and Koreans never conducted a campaign of violent bombings against our troops. If they had, and they might have, should we have abandoned them to tender mercies of ex-Nazis, the Imperial War Department, or the Communist fifth column in ROK? We need to be patient. This is a tough nut to crack, but we will prevail, IF we stay the course.

BTW, most of the conservatives at A2K are military veterans and I haven't heard any of them smear or slime Murtha (ret. USMC). There are those who have been very critical of him, but most of those are the extreme-Right, not the administration nor most Republicans. We conservatives have our extermists as a cross to bear, but they are really the smallest of minorities. On the other hand it certainly seems as if the Democratic Party and the socialist mainstream is way, way off there toward the left and out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Warning: Objects in the mirror may appear smaller than they actually are.

"Warning: Objects in the mirror may appear smaller than they actually are."

Well, the Democrats aren't likely to go extinct anytime soon, but then they are unlikely to win any major elections either. The Party that claims to be soooooo dedicated to the People is dominated by rich pseudo-intellectuals who still have romantic attachments to Socialism. In each election their influence is more and more focused in a few major urban areas totally out of step with the rest of the country. So long as the Democrats continue to run folks like Kerry and Hillary there isn't much chance that they'll recaptue the Executive mansion ..... thank goodness for small favors.

You have more confidence than I do about that. Any party that can promise the world to everybody has a chance if the people are gullible enough, the candidate is good looking, is a smooth talker, and the media is on their side. And polls show a very high percentage of people believe the government is hiding information about UFO's from the people. Not a good sign. But I hope you are right.

flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Murtha did.