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.
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 .