Posted on 08/16/2006 5:39:51 PM PDT by 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.
Yes, I'm sure. It is disgusting and it is true. Murtha slandered the Marines based on an alleged incident at Haditha. It has nothing to do with the Pendleton 8 case.
If you want to get up to speed on all this, start with the thread, Vets for the Truth: "Why We Are Against John Murtha". The link is below. Here's a quick summary:
During a May 17, 2006, press conference Congressman John Murtha claimed Pentagon sources had briefed him about an incident involving a Marine unit in Haditha, Iraq. Of those Marines he said, "...they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
Murtha's 'cold blooded' judgment was spoken prior to investigation, charges or trial – unleashing an uproar both in and out of the military.
Fueling the uproar are two more recent developments: a defamation lawsuit filed against Rep. Murtha by attorneys for one of the Marines (Sgt. Wuterich); and a statement from Murtha's Pentagon source – Gen. Michael Hagee – denying Murtha's claims...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684125/posts
Do you work in the MSM? That's the kind of mistake the AP would make.
You're absolutely wrong. Murtha slandered Marines involved in an alleged incident at Haditha. It has nothing to do with the Pendleton 8.
Murtha said the Marines at Haditha had killed civilians in cold blood before any charges were brought. That's partly why one of the Marines under investigation (not charged) is suing Murtha for defamation.
DOC; The Marines had no regular BSM. It is a V if the award was made in a combat theater. So, Murtha got what the Army calls a good conduct medal for officers in a war zone. Quiet. Let's not tell anyone about this.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003285.php
Col Davis, who presented cut and run's BSM. Now this jerk gets a SS in a chopper? He killed 500 plus bad guys from a slick? Give me a break. Always respect Marines, not these two. Looks like a bad bunch of politics for the Corps.
Murtha's a sleazeball, an absolute piece of garbage. But I see no value in digging around his service record. It will likely only backfire.
http://www.securenet.net/3rdbn5th/davis.htm
Dang left Coast
Official Notifications of Award
Bronze Star transmittal letter
Murtha's failure to include the information about his PHs or the reason why he was awarded the Bronze Star are odd to say the least. No after action reports or medical info is provided. The PH letter references Murtha's request of 26 Sep 1967, which means that he must have initiated it after the fact. Murtha should be asked to provide this info. I bet he was never hospitalized for the two PHs. I wonder how the PHs were documented.
Murtha has recently added this info to his website, but the transmittal letters are a smokescreen. He needs to be called on it.
My father received his Silver Star 45 years after the action for which he earned it.
Well, realistically, you better mean what you say, or eventually your words will mean nothing.
BTW, try shouting "FIRE" in a theatre, threatenibng the President or saying, "I HAVE A BOMB" in an airport.
Well do that as things look real bad. LTG Krulak was not an LTG until 92. Davis, the Col, who presented Murtha's BS was not awarded a SS until 92,unless Krulak has a father, who was an LTG, too. The hanging tree looks real bad. You Dems are hanging yourselves. Now let me tell you about the awards I got in 96 for actions in 68. You want to buy swampland, too.
I am a Marine. I don't need to ask one.
Krulak indeed had a father who was also a LTG.
I am surprised to hear you say that. Not to say there aren't any Marines that side with Murtha, you are just the first one I have met who does. And it is your right to do so.
The point I make is that Murtha is not being attacked because it is politically expedient to do so. He is being attacked on the basis of his expressed beliefs and opinions that are on the public record.
I didn't say I was on his side. I am simply pointing out that attempts to discredit him based on his military service will fail miserably, and frankly are quite shameful. The trend of immediately trying to discredit a veteran, by questioning the legitimacy of their service records the minute they say something you don't agree with, is a tactic that I consider to be in direct conflict with conservative values. Of course, the Republican party isn't exactly a bastion of said values anyway. Personally, I think Murtha's recent conduct is an embarassment ot the Marine Corps, but that in no way justifies these pathetic attempts to discredit his prior service. It just proves that so called patriots who claim to "support the troops" really mean "support the troops who support us." It's a little frustrating to watch. As I've said before, if Murtha decides to sign a form 180 and release all his records, I believe many Freepers will wind up looking silly, and Murtha's credibility will have been bolstered as a result.
In short, ad hominem attacks are completely unnecessary and quite risky. Yet, many continue the relentless pursuit of proof that Murtha is another John Kerry. It has become almost automatic. If some folks don't learn to rise above this sort of thing, many folks like myself will start looking elsewhere.
Thank you for the clarification.
However, I do not think that someone's service record is out of bounds by any means,especially in the case of someone like John Kerry who could have been our Commander in Chief.
I personally think that what the Swift Boat Veterans did was not only a patriotic act of the highest order, but that what they did for the country went above and beyond the call of duty. Several of them were hassled for their involvement, and I believe that one of them lost his job (for using a fax machine or some other thing-a perfectly legitimate fireable offense, but clearly politically motivated.)
The fact that Murtha and the Democratic Party use him as an antiwar messenger, and specifically reference his military service as proof that his opinion has a higher value than that of, say, Dick Cheney, opens him up to examination and criticism, in my opinion.
The Liberal tactic of using someone supposedly unassailable to support their position is not new. Max Cleland was the perfect example of that. I have no problem with Max Cleland and his military service. I think the trauma he suffered at his own drunken hand is just as deserving of gratitude from the nation that sent him to Vietnam, as a soldier that is wounded in combat. He just had bad luck. And to his credit, he never presented himself as a war hero. But others did on his behalf, and he did not distance himself from those that did.
Bottom line, I understand what you are saying, and I do respect that. Coming from a Marine, it means something. I just disagree on the context, and whether it is appropriate in that context.
Yep. I should have gone for a Political Science degree first.
Benedict Arnold had a pretty impressive background as well.
I think it is reasonable to imply that I was referring to political speech...
Probably the best rebuttal posted. Good point.
I checked it out (the link). Not sure what to make of it. Most of the quotes didn't necessarily show that he is a "cut and run" type or that he is against the military. I missed something with the Styker vehicle. Is the implication that he tried to get it deployed before adequately tested so that his lobbyist brother could profit? I assume someone in military command ultimately makes that decision?
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.