Skip to comments.
Navy to name warship for Murtha despite protests
Associated Press ^
| March 1, 2011
| ANDREW MIGA
Posted on 03/01/2011 12:00:18 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy says it is forging ahead with its decision to name a warship for the late Rep. John Murtha, despite protests the decorated Vietnam War veteran was disloyal in his 2006 accusation that Marines had murdered Iraqi civilians.
Three Facebook sites opposing the Navy's April 2010 decision bristle with thousands of angry postings.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: garbagescow; murtha; navy; ship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: Free ThinkerNY
2
posted on
03/01/2011 12:02:15 PM PST
by
fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Who the hell was the idiot who signed off on this? They should be keelhauled under a carrier!
3
posted on
03/01/2011 12:02:28 PM PST
by
Abathar
(Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
To: Free ThinkerNY
4
posted on
03/01/2011 12:03:03 PM PST
by
Doogle
((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
To: Free ThinkerNY
Why would they name a ship the U.S.S. Traitor?
To: Free ThinkerNY
A portrait of the scumbag as an old geezer.
6
posted on
03/01/2011 12:03:24 PM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
I hope it’s a Higgins Boat, at most!
7
posted on
03/01/2011 12:03:28 PM PST
by
RexBeach
(There is no such thing as a good tax.- Winston Churchill)
To: Free ThinkerNY
How about the John P. Wheeler III instead
To: Free ThinkerNY
9
posted on
03/01/2011 12:04:50 PM PST
by
Cheetahcat
( November 4 2008 ,A date which will live in Infamy.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
The Navy must be under DIRECT ORDERS from the Commander in Chief in the naming of the ship. Nothing else figures.
10
posted on
03/01/2011 12:05:21 PM PST
by
mentor2k
To: Free ThinkerNY
Wait until the Pentagon finds out that the sailors nickname it something like the :”ABSCAM” or the BIG FAT MURTHA.
11
posted on
03/01/2011 12:06:15 PM PST
by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: Free ThinkerNY
A quick kick in the gonads to anyone who has ever worn the uniform. I wouldn't name a garbage skow after that bastard!
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
12
posted on
03/01/2011 12:06:21 PM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Only if it’s a garbage scow.
13
posted on
03/01/2011 12:06:24 PM PST
by
beethovenfan
(If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
To: Free ThinkerNY
"The Navy says it is forging ahead with its decision to name a warship for the late Rep. John Murtha..." The U.S.S. Abscam?
14
posted on
03/01/2011 12:06:31 PM PST
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: Free ThinkerNY
15
posted on
03/01/2011 12:06:36 PM PST
by
skeeter
To: Free ThinkerNY
To: Free ThinkerNY
To: Free ThinkerNY
“There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. Our troops (Marines) overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
That’s quite a slogan for a navy ship designed to support the Marine Corps: “The USS John P. Murtha will be an amphibious transport vessel able to carry 700 Marines, their equipment and supplies.”
Disgusting. I just hope that President Palin will take office in time to fix this symbolic slap in the faces of all real Americans and to repeal the substantive evil of the far left liberal era.
18
posted on
03/01/2011 12:10:25 PM PST
by
Pollster1
(Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
To: Free ThinkerNY
As much as I love the Navy, the current command structure has the backbone of a marshmallow (or perhaps president). I f*rt in the general direction of their so-called leadership.
Murtha is slime.
Really Obama-smelling slime.
To: Abathar
Who the hell was the idiot who signed off on this? They should be keelhauled under a carrier!
I believe that would have been SecDef Gates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson