Murtha Received Bronze Star V 1 Year After Service

The Daily Courier, Connellsville, PA. ^ | October 21, 1968 | SBD

[SBD1]

Murtha received his Bronze Star V one year after his service and during his campaign for the 22nd Congressional District according to an article from The Daily Courier dated October 21, 1968. The article says he served one year in Vietnam from August 18, 1966 to July 1, 1967 yet he received his Bronze Star over one year later.

[Diplomat]

Exposing the truth does not conflict with conservative values. While I agree with you it will backfire, this is only because Murtha can count on total MSM support with regard to his service, not because he may or may not have earned his medals.

The fact remains that this man is a proven liar and a fraud. Not only that, he's clearly an imbecile to boot. It's logical to assume that he's been a liar all along.

[RedRover]

Most of the quotes didn't necessarily show that he is a "cut and run" type...

Oh, good grief. Murtha wants to leave Iraq now. He wants to send the troops in Iraq to Okinawa. What else does Murtha have to do to show you he's the "cut and run" type???

[Lumper20]

Well,Murtha then sign the SF 180. Please do not insult my intelligence or combat service in RVN with a BSM V written so poorly that anyone who served in any Infantry or Marine unit would laugh his fanny off .

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I don't think it's a great idea to leave Iraq now, but I don't think it's a good idea to keep sacrificing men for Iraq either. At this point we're probably damned if we do and damned if we don't...

[SBD1]

From Patterico.com Based on news reports, I suspected this was wrong. Murtha’s “in cold blood” statement was made on May 17, and I believed that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha well after that. Later news reports — in particular this one from Reuters — appeared to confirm my suspicions. But when I wrote the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative, she insisted that The Times’s report had been accurate, despite my having provided her with evidence to the contrary, including the Reuters story. Some suggested that Reuters might have gotten the story wrong, or overlooked an angle. So I contacted Gen. Hagee’s office directly. I heard back yesterday from the Public Affairs Officer for the Commandant. She directly contradicted the L.A. Times’s version of the facts — but declined to criticize the article specifically. Here is her statement: While it would not be appropriate to comment on any particular press article, I can confirm that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, provided a progress update on the Haditha investigations to Congressional leaders, to include Rep. Murtha, on May 24, 2006. In a follow-up phone call, she confirmed that May 24 was the first progress update Gen. Hagee gave Murtha and others. I specifically asked her whether May 24 was the first time Gen. Hagee spoke to Congressman Murtha about Haditha, and she said “yes.” So Hagee first briefed Murtha on Haditha on May 24 — a solid week after May 17, when Murtha first accused Marines of killing civilians “in cold blood.” Yet the L.A. Times specifically said that Hagee had briefed Murtha first, and Murtha “later” made his “in cold blood” accusation. If Hagee’s office is right, then the L.A. Times May 26 article was wrong. I can only speculate about where Murtha got his information, but according to Gen. Hagee’s Public Affairs Officer, it wasn’t from General Hagee himself (as Murtha had claimed to the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not only did Murtha make his statements before the investigation was complete, he didn’t receive his preliminary information from the top brass before accusing Marines of cold-blooded murder. And the L.A. Times covered for him, and continues to do so — even after I have told them that Hagee’s office says otherwise.

[freema]

SBD1 wrote:

From Patterico.com Based on news reports, I suspected this was wrong. Murtha’s “in cold blood” statement was made on May 17, and I believed that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha well after that. Later news reports — in particular this one from Reuters — appeared to confirm my suspicions. But when I wrote the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative, she insisted that The Times’s report had been accurate, despite my having provided her with evidence to the contrary, including the Reuters story. Some suggested that Reuters might have gotten the story wrong, or overlooked an angle. So I contacted Gen. Hagee’s office directly. I heard back yesterday from the Public Affairs Officer for the Commandant. She directly contradicted the L.A. Times’s version of the facts — but declined to criticize the article specifically. Here is her statement: While it would not be appropriate to comment on any particular press article, I can confirm that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, provided a progress update on the Haditha investigations to Congressional leaders, to include Rep. Murtha, on May 24, 2006. In a follow-up phone call, she confirmed that May 24 was the first progress update Gen. Hagee gave Murtha and others. I specifically asked her whether May 24 was the first time Gen. Hagee spoke to Congressman Murtha about Haditha, and she said “yes.” So Hagee first briefed Murtha on Haditha on May 24 — a solid week after May 17, when Murtha first accused Marines of killing civilians “in cold blood.” Yet the L.A. Times specifically said that Hagee had briefed Murtha first, and Murtha “later” made his “in cold blood” accusation. If Hagee’s office is right, then the L.A. Times May 26 article was wrong. I can only speculate about where Murtha got his information, but according to Gen. Hagee’s Public Affairs Officer, it wasn’t from General Hagee himself (as Murtha had claimed to the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not only did Murtha make his statements before the investigation was complete, he didn’t receive his preliminary information from the top brass before accusing Marines of cold-blooded murder. And the L.A. Times covered for him, and continues to do so — even after I have told them that Hagee’s office says otherwise.

[freema]

LOL!

[Gondring]

From what I've read, Murtha has trouble remembering what wounds the Purple Hearts were issued for...or at least has three or more stories floating out there. I doubt that real Purple Heart wounds would be difficult to recall.

[Marine_Uncle]

The LAT has little recourse then to deny it had in any way goofed up the time line and is covering for Murtha. After all, one cannot have any form of doubt emerge into the public arena on Murtha's integrity. He must be upheld as a war hero.

[Seaplaner]

The one-year post service part means little. The election timing makes one quite suspicious, however.

Mister Murtha gathered a Kerry-load of service decorations. Perhaps some of his comrades in arms might be best able to describe if he really deserved them -- or if he gamed the system.

This Marine Dad wants the full and complete "skinny" on Mister Murtha and his Marine medals.

.

[Chieftain]

Murtha is nothing but a FRAUD. The newspaper article from 40 years ago was brimming with errors and untruths, namely Murtha NEVER served in Korea, he obtained his commission after he finished his active duty enlistment, then applied for a commission. I am disgusted with Murtha as much if not more than Kerry, because Murtha wore the Eagle, Globe and Anchor of our Corps.

[freema]

Well, you're probably right about the little recourse, but I want redress.

Out of the blues and into the yellow he so richly deserves.

[freema]

This freeMA wants what you want.

[freema]

My disgust ranks with yours.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Out of the blues and into the yellow he so richly deserves."
Understand your sentiments, that is for sure. Politics can end up being amoung the dirtiest endevours. Things that should be held to a high standard, as we are so painfully aware, sink into the lowest moral conditions imaginable. Let us hope Diana has an opportunity to show that there can be good people that will serve all their constituents, honor bound to do the right things. We sorely need people to enter politics that really can help restore some integrity in both sides of the asile.