Ohio Congressperson plays "Coward" card on 37 Year Marine Veteran...

[DeltAlum]

This reminds me of the old saying, "Be sure your brain is engaged before putting your mouth in gear..."


"said she had received a call from a Marine colonel, who "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."


Showdown on Capitol Hill (excerpts)

WASHINGTON (Nov. 19) - She grew up in the rough-and-tumble of a family auto racing business, went through concealed-weapons training, and bears a local nickname seldom applied to shrinking violets: "Mean Jean..."

...Among those seemingly turned off (by her comment) was Ms. Schmidt, who quickly asked that her words be withdrawn from the Congressional record, even as they made headlines worldwide.

The uproar arose Friday as the House debated a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq.

In scheduling the vote, Republicans were trying to embarrass Democratic critics of the war, forcing them to dissociate themselves from a call earlier in the week for a slower but still definite withdrawal. That call came from Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran who spent 37 years in the Marines and is one of the most respected military authorities in the House...

...In attacking the Democrats' position, Ms. Schmidt, the newest member of Congress, said she had received a call from a Marine colonel, who "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

(Note: Murtha was also a Marine Colonel when he retired)

The House exploded in catcalls and jeers among outraged Democrats. When debate resumed, Ms. Schmidt retracted her comments and said, "I did not intend to suggest they applied to any member," especially Mr. Murtha.

Ms. Schmidt could not be reached for comment on Saturday, with voice mailboxes full at all three of her offices. Her campaign manager did not return a phone call.

Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.

"The poor lady didn't know Jack Murtha was a Marine - she really just ran into a hornet's nest," said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia.

Representative David Dreier of California said, "Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine."

...The 100-proof speech on the House floor may shore up Ms. Schmidt's standing inside her party's right flank.

"I was listening to talk radio today, and people were calling in and praising her," said Chris Finney, a Cincinnati Republican allied with Ms. Schmidt's local rivals. "They like that jingoistic thinking."

[DeltAlum]

"I think it's a healthy thing in a democracy to have people disagreeing, but if you're screaming or demonizing, then the very people you want to reach — which is those who don't agree with you — can't hear you."

-President Bill Clinton

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
"I was listening to talk radio today, and people were calling in and praising her," said Chris Finney, a Cincinnati Republican allied with Ms. Schmidt's local rivals. "They like that jingoistic thinking."

You can pretty much tell she was going for the whole jingoistic angle - litterally wrapping herself in the flag with the outfit she chose the day she made the statement. She could have slammed Murtha's position/opinion calling for the withdrawal of troops; but instead she chose to sink to a 'Rovian' low (sorry it was a great phrase used by Deutsche Welle this morning).

What I'm wondering is this: does the US Congress have rules of decorum and such similar to the British/Canadian Parliamentary system? ie. can she be charged/threatened with a libel suit for defaming a person's character on the floor?

[kddani]

Lol, go Murtha! Glad to see one of my reps making headlines. Rather him than Santorum. (as an aside, seems that Santorum has been pretty quiet lately... probably trying to keep a low profile and not say anything outrageous since he'll be running for reelection next term).

This woman truly made herself sound like an idiot.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by RACooper
What I'm wondering is this: does the US Congress have rules of decorum and such similar to the British/Canadian Parliamentary system? ie. can she be charged/threatened with a libel suit for defaming a person's character on the floor?
The British Parliament has decorum?

I thought they spent most of the day yelling at each other across the aisle. (Then went out for a jar.)

Again, a lawyer needs to confirm or disagree, but I believe that under U.S. libel laws, when a person becomes a newsworthy personality (like a politician), she or he gives up many of his/her rights under those statutes -- and also to some rights of privacy.

[33girl]

I'm a former resident of Murtha's district.

The ONLY reason he spoke up is because he's been there for so long and brings so much pork to the district, he could basically get up there and say he's a Nazi and eats puppies for breakfast and still get voted into office time after time. If this was 25 years ago and he didn't have the seniority, he never would have opened his mouth. Because there are LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of guys in the service from his district, lots of people that will see this as an attack on the servicemen and lots of Dems that are only Dems because their parents were - who are more Republican than some Republicans.

Whether I agree with his position or not is immaterial, but he's not this paragon of courage some are making him out to be.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by kddani
Lol, go Murtha! Glad to see one of my reps making headlines. Rather him than Santorum. (as an aside, seems that Santorum has been pretty quiet lately... probably trying to keep a low profile and not say anything outrageous since he'll be running for reelection next term).

This woman truly made herself sound like an idiot.

There's also an absolute privilige to things said on the floor of the legislature.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
The British Parliament has decorum?

I thought they spent most of the day yelling at each other across the aisle. (Then went out for a jar.)

Again, a lawyer needs to confirm or disagree, but I believe that under U.S. libel laws, when a person becomes a newsworthy personality (like a politician), she or he gives up many of his/her rights under those statutes -- and also to some rights of privacy.

:D Yeah the British debates are a little more entertaining to watch than say the Canadian or US floor debates...

But you'll notice that they never get down to personal attacks on each other's character - and if they do they quickly appologize to the speaker and the house. There is a distinct difference in what you can say about a person on the floor and what you can say about them off the floor - on the floor rules of decorum/honour are still enforced (legally if need be); so you can slam the opposition for shoddy policies, finicial irregularities, and vote rigging - but you can't actually impugne a member of the opposition's character on the floor. Off the floor however anything goes really, a real no holds barred media rumble... or it used to be before Blair got the police involved in enforcing party policy...

[moe.ron]

Link to the Video Stream (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/schmidt.320.240.mov.html)

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Link to the Video Stream (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/schmidt.320.240.mov.html)
How do you spell, "Loose Cannon?"

ETA:

Murtha to Russert On Meet The Press...

"Referring to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) calling him a coward on the floor of Congress, he pointed out that she is a new member of the House and maybe someone simply gave her something to read."


Being occassionaly cynical of Congress, I have to wonder if this might not be orchestrated by others...I won't speculate on who.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by 33girl
I'm a former resident of Murtha's district.

The ONLY reason he spoke up is because he's been there for so long and brings so much pork to the district, he could basically get up there and say he's a Nazi and eats puppies for breakfast and still get voted into office time after time. If this was 25 years ago and he didn't have the seniority, he never would have opened his mouth. Because there are LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of guys in the service from his district, lots of people that will see this as an attack on the servicemen and lots of Dems that are only Dems because their parents were - who are more Republican than some Republicans.

Whether I agree with his position or not is immaterial, but he's not this paragon of courage some are making him out to be.
I need to cosign on this. It's a Central PA thing about Murtha - he seriously could kill a puppy on the Capitol steps and the J-towners would still vote for him.

[hoosier]

Murtha and the Dem boys are just grandstanding. When the "bring the troops home" resolution came to a vote, even Murtha didn't vote for it, as it lost about 433 - 3.

Of course, one of the 3 was my Congresswomen and jihadist, Cynthia McKinney.

When it came right down to voting against American troops and American Marines, only 3 were willing (of course, 6 other cowards voted "present".)

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier
Of course, one of the 3 was my Congresswomen and jihadist, Cynthia McKinney.


As usual, another incredibly inappropriate post by hoosier. There are ways of getting your point across without saying something so libelous.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Murtha and the Dem boys are just grandstanding. When the "bring the troops home" resolution came to a vote, even Murtha didn't vote for it, as it lost about 433 - 3.
OK, but let's tell the whole story just for the sake of keeping it straight.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (sp?) told everyone to vote against that particular resolution for parliamentary reasons. The vote probably doesn't reflect the spirit of either party at this point.

Besides, the resolution and vote aren't really what this thread is about -- although I understand why it bends that way.

The thread is about a woman who shot off her mouth, naming by name a veteran of 37 years in the Marine Corp and Marine Reserves, (he was an active duty Marine at the beginning of his military career, went into the Reserves and then went back into the active Corp. during Vietnam if I read his biography correctly) who was decorated in Vietnam and rose to a senior command rank.

Maybe somebody set her up, as I think Representative Murtha seems to be suggesting in his comment to Tim Russert. In any event, before you attack someone by name on the floor of the House of Representatives, you should perhaps know something about that person and his background and record.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by kddani
As usual, another incredibly inappropriate post by hoosier. There are ways of getting your point across without saying something so libelous.

The absolute defense of "libel" charges is truth.

Cynthia is proud of her reputation as the Al Quaeda rep in Congress.

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier
The absolute defense of "libel" charges is truth.

Cynthia is proud of her reputation as the Al Quaeda rep in Congress.

And as usual, what you say either lacks in truth or is such a twisted, convoluted version of "truth" that it can no longer be considered as such. And furthermore, you don't back your big mouth up with any actual proof.

[kddani]

Originally posted by kddani
And as usual, what you say either lacks in truth or is such a twisted, convoluted version of "truth" that it can no longer be considered as such. And furthermore, you don't back your big mouth up with any actual proof.

Bump, because Dale refuses to provide proof for ANYTHING he says. Yeah, quality journalism

[IIOA]

Pardon me for butting in, but it appears that Congressman Murtha has voted against his own proposal:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
Pardon me for butting in, but it appears that Congressman Murtha has voted against his own proposal:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

See Above:

"OK, but let's tell the whole story just for the sake of keeping it straight.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (sp?) told everyone to vote against that particular resolution for parliamentary reasons. The vote probably doesn't reflect the spirit of either party at this point."

[hoosier]

To bring a little accuracy back to this thread, I post a portion of Opinion Journal's comment today.

Murtha did ask for "immediate" pullout (re-deploy).

He and his 187 Dem buddies then voted against the resolution.

I salute Murtha and the others for realizing that an immediate withdrawal is about the worst possible thing.

===================================
From OJ:

Last Thursday Murtha held a press conference, at which he advocated the following course of action:

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.

"No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target._._._.

"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:

"An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict."

This made more news than it should have, since, as we noted Friday, Murtha, although he did vote to liberate Iraq, has been a frequent critic of the idea, even before casting that vote. In any case, Rep. Duncan Hunter responded to the Murtha proposal and the attendant hype by putting up for a vote in the House a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." This the House rejected, 403-3, with Murtha among the 99.3% voting against what he had proposed the previous day.

Some of our readers say it was unfair of us to label the Hunter resolution "the Murtha proposal" because Murtha actually offered a resolution of his own, which did not use the word immediate but instead called for withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date." That resolution appears at the bottom of this page on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blog, which one of our critical readers e-mailed us triumphantly.

The same page, however, features Murtha's comments from his press conference, including repeated references to immediate withdrawal. It's fascinating how those who claim to be Murtha's defenders are now hiding behind the text of his resolution to claim he never called for immediate withdrawal, when in fact that is exactly what he did. Here's an AP dispatch from yesterday that confirms the point:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

"The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: "I think that would cause more problems for us in America." "

Hillary Clinton opposes immediate withdrawal. So did 187 Democratic members of the House last Friday. The defense of Murtha consists of falsely denying he ever called for any such thing.

Give Murtha credit for helping to clarify the debate. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is something no serious person favors. Even those who think they do, like Murtha, change their minds upon reflection.

[kddani]

Originally posted by hoosier
To bring a little accuracy back to this thread,

You know, you could just make accurate postings to begin with.

And again, you refuse to provide any justification for what you said earlier.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Murtha did ask for "immediate" pullout (re-deploy).

He and his 187 Dem buddies then voted against the resolution.
Come on. Read the thread. Nobody is arguing with you about the above. The reason all of the Democrats voted against it, though, is because they were asked to by the Democratic leaders to circumvent a parliamentary move by the GOP.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
To bring a little accuracy back to this thread, I post a portion of Opinion Journal's comment today.


Hehehehe Opinion Journal bringing in accuracy,,, well only if you think quoting Micheal Moore is bring back the accuracy as well....

[IIOA]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
See Above:

"OK, but let's tell the whole story just for the sake of keeping it straight.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (sp?) told everyone to vote against that particular resolution for parliamentary reasons. The vote probably doesn't reflect the spirit of either party at this point."
First, let me say that I have the utmost respect for anyone who has served in any of the branches of the Armed Forces. However, I don't know if Murtha made his proposal for "parliamentary reasons" in the first place. In fact, I thought his proposal was based upon his strong personal conviction that our troops should be removed from Iraq.

So, if he made his proposal for a philosophical reason but then turned around and voted against it for "parliamentary reasons", it gives the appearance of.....intellectual inconsistency at best.
The fact that he changed his vote simply because Pelosi told him to is even less impressive.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
However, I don't know if Murtha made his proposal for "parliamentary reasons" in the first place. In fact, I thought his proposal was based upon his strong personal conviction that our troops should be removed from Iraq.
It does not appear that Murpha made his proposal for parliamentary reasons, but Democratic Leaderships decision to vote against the measure was. It appears that Murpha feels very strongly that our troops should be pulled out. As for your other point, strict following of party leadership, while not always followed to the letter, is pretty much the way of the world in Congress. In this case, the parliamentary move on the part of the Democrats was to foil a GOP counter-move which would have followed.

Following are a couple of excerpts of Representative Schmidt's appology and the denial of an Ohio State Representative that he made the comment about Murpha.

CINCINNATI (Nov. 23) - Ohio Republican Jean Schmidt said Tuesday she should have rephrased her sharp critique...

Schmidt was booed off the floor of the U.S. House on Friday after she criticized Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., saying that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

When Schmidt made the comment, Democrats rose in protest at the suggestion that Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, was a coward.

Schmidt said the comment was prompted by a conversation she had with state Rep. Danny Bubp, though he denies discussing Murtha with Schmidt...

(A typical political "He said/She said.")

...Schmidt, who sent Murtha a note of apology on Friday moments after her speech, said in a statement Tuesday that she never intended to attack Murtha personally...

(Although she mentioned him by name in her comment)

...Bubp said in a statement of his own Tuesday that his conversation with Schmidt "was based strictly on the proposal to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq and the consequences of such a proposal..."

(He also said that, as a Marine, he would never question the courage of another Marine officer)

...Murtha has called Schmidt's comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said Monday when asked about her remarks at a news conference in Pennsylvania. "This is not a war of words, this is a war..."

...President Bush and other administration officials have since said that while they don't agree with Murtha, they do not question his patriotism..."


So, it appears to me (opinion) that either Rep. Schmidt was either remarkably uninformed, or dumb, for not realizing that one of the top Democrats on Defense is a decorated veteran or 37 years in the Marines -- or she is a sacraficial lamb (the newest member of Congress) on the part of the GOP leadership who were running up a "trial balloon" attack on the Democrats. Her bio and nickname, Mean Jean, doesn't make her sound like the easiest person to like.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
Hehehehe Opinion Journal bringing in accuracy,,, well only if you think quoting Micheal Moore is bring back the accuracy as well....

We all know about MM's errors/exagerations in his movie, and in his speeches/support for Kerry.

Can you give me a few examples of OJ being inaccurate?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
We all know about MM's errors/exagerations in his movie, and in his speeches/support for Kerry.

Can you give me a few examples of OJ being inaccurate?

Oct 11th article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007390
"...we have seen no convincing evidence to back up the assumption, commonly accepted in the media, that the Swift Boat Veterans unfairly maligned him."

Sorry but this assertion is too laughable to even bother with rehashing the whole Swift Boat lies again...


or more recently -
Nov 21st article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007581
"Late Friday night the House took a vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 403-3 against, with Murtha among the 403. The only congressmen favoring Murtha's idea were three far-left Democrats: Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida. Six Dems voted "present": Michael Capuano (Mass.), William Clay (Mo.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Major Owens (N.Y.).

Some Republicans have labeled Murtha a "coward," which strikes us as unduly personal. But he does seem to lack the courage of his convictions."

Umm... I thought the House voted on House Joint Resolution 571 - not Murtha's House Joint Resolution 73.

[IIOA]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
...It appears that Murpha feels very strongly that our troops should be pulled out. As for your other point, strict following of party leadership, while not always followed to the letter, is pretty much the way of the world in Congress. In this case, the parliamentary move on the part of the Democrats was to foil a GOP counter-move which would have followed.
I admit that I hadn't been following this issue that closely. What GOP counter-move were the Democrats worried about?

I'm not surprised that any political party can be mobilized to vote a certain way for a certain political purpose; however, the fact stands that McKinney, Serrano, and Wexler still voted for it even though they didn't propose in the first place. It makes Murtha look either confused or malleable.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by IIOA
What GOP counter-move were the Democrats worried about?

I don't really understand it myself. There was some procedural move which would have precluded voting later for this resolution -- or perhaps reintroducing it(?)

Anyway, it was in the party's best interest for it to lose this time.

Seems strange, but then that's often the case in Congress.

[Tom Earp]

D A You addressed the point very well. No one knows what a Politcal will say and for what reason.

It seems that the smaller Democratic Delegation will say and do anything to stir up Problems. They dont seem to realize that it harms them more than the Republican Party. It just makes them look sorrier.:(

I was not a True Democrate or a True Republican, I do not ever vote on Party Lines. There are Idiots, liars, and Crooks in Both.

Everytime I turn around, The Middle Class are getting screwed and just trying to make a living before it is taken away from them!

That is why the Golden Years Suck. Screw the People who with the sweat and hard work are hurting today!:mad:

Small Business has More People working in it. But, how to hurt a small business, tax the hell out of them, change the tax structure, the new proposal, Who does it Help? Not Me for damn sure!

I truely Hope it all comes out for the Legislatures who have been there for Years and Why!:rolleyes:

Term Limits!!!!
I wonder what the Founders would think of todays Poloticians?


Do VULTURE SOUND GOOD?:rolleyes:

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Hehehehe Opinion Journal bringing in accuracy,,, well only if you think quoting Micheal Moore is bring back the accuracy as well....

You, the poster boy for lies and inaccuracy, are making claims against the Wall Street Journal and it's Opinion Journal?

-Rudey

[Rudey]

DeltAlum,

Let's say an American soldier fights in two wars. In the first war, he was a decorated hero. In the second war, he commited treason.

Does his activity in the first war shield him from any criticism of his actions in the second war?

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

No, but what does that have to do with this case?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
No, but what does that have to do with this case?

Having been a marine does not shield you from criticism in the future.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by Rudey
Having been a marine does not shield you from criticism in the future.

-Rudey

I don't know if Max Cleland was Marine or Army, and he lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. Even that didn't allow him to be shielded from criticism before his re-election try - especially when he voted like Kennedy in Washington, and talked like John Wayne in GA.

I've also learned that Murtha had two terms of active duty, totaling about 6 years. All the rest of of his 36+ service was in the reserves. Some of his friends have criticized Bush for being in the reserves/natl. guard - not on active duty.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
I've also learned that Murtha had two terms of active duty, totaling about 6 years. All the rest of of his 36+ service was in the reserves. Some of his friends have criticized Bush for being in the reserves/natl. guard - not on active duty.
So, the way I figure, that means that Murtha spent six years on active duty -- including at least part of that in combat in Vietnam when he was or himself reactivated and where he was injured -- to zero years on active duty for President Bush.

And thirty or so in the Reserves to probably six and a half -- assuming he served his full term -- for the President.

What were you trying to prove?

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
Oct 11th article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007390
"...we have seen no convincing evidence to back up the assumption, commonly accepted in the media, that the Swift Boat Veterans unfairly maligned him."

Sorry but this assertion is too laughable to even bother with rehashing the whole Swift Boat lies again...


or more recently -
Nov 21st article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007581
"Late Friday night the House took a vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 403-3 against, with Murtha among the 403. The only congressmen favoring Murtha's idea were three far-left Democrats: Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida. Six Dems voted "present": Michael Capuano (Mass.), William Clay (Mo.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Major Owens (N.Y.).

Some Republicans have labeled Murtha a "coward," which strikes us as unduly personal. But he does seem to lack the courage of his convictions."

Umm... I thought the House voted on House Joint Resolution 571 - not Murtha's House Joint Resolution 73.

Pt. 1 - you believe it, OJ doesn't. That's opinion, not error.

Pt. 2 - there was little if any difference. Murtha proposed "immediate redeployment", and the GOP leadership proposed "Immediate withdrawal."

Still waiting for for a factual error in OJ. Also still waiting for any instance of FOX News distorting news. Talk show talked Neal Boortz has offered $10,000 for an example - with no takers.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Having been a marine does not shield you from criticism in the future.
Obviously. Especially when the criticism comes from someone as uninformed as the Congresswoman in question here.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Obviously. Especially when the criticism comes from someone as uninformed as the Congresswoman in question here.

I'm just saying that you can be a hero and all in one war and a coward/traitor/whatever later on. That's all.

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by Rudey
I'm just saying that you can be a hero and all in one war and a coward/traitor/whatever later on. That's all.

-Rudey

So, Why Besmirch a Person Who Did His Deed and Lived!

So Now Besmirch a Member of The Armed Forces of any Country and See How Far That Gets anyone?

When a Person is Called To The Fire By Members of His Own, then, that does make One Think!

There is a Big Difference Between Max Cleland and John Kerry!:(

Of Course Max Is a LXA!:cool:

Oh, that can Be Revearsed cannot it not?

What is Your Breaking Point?:(

[33girl]

I'm going to (oh dear) agree with hoosier and Rudey. This whole "well I served so I can't be criticized" thing is ridiculous. It's like saying all children are innocent and never do anything wrong.

Like I said in an earlier post, Murtha is not this paragon of courage he's being portrayed as. He's supposed to represent his district in congress, not spout off whatever pops into his head - and in his district, it's 2-1 AGAINST what he said. If he ends up losing his seat over this I am going to laugh hard. But like I said....doubtful it will happen because everyone knows when you get a Congressman w/ that kind of seniority you don't give it up - you just hold your nose & vote him back in.

And I think the reason hoosier pointed out that the majority of Murtha's service was in the reserves is because the thread title calling him a "37 year Marine veteran" is somewhat misleading. Oh, the irony.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by 33girl
And I think the reason hoosier pointed out that the majority of Murtha's service was in the reserves is because the thread title calling him a "37 year Marine veteran" is somewhat misleading. Oh, the irony.
That's very common when reserve service is tacked on to active duty.

It really doesn't matter much, though. The Congresswoman is still trying to get both feet out of her mouth. You might note that she amost immediately asked that her comments be stricken from the Congressional Record and apologized.

[33girl]

Yes, maybe she said something stupid. It doesn't change the fact that Murtha's an asshat.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by 33girl
Yes, maybe she said something stupid. It doesn't change the fact that Murtha's an asshat.

I'm sorry a what? ;)

In all seriousness though I can understand why Murtha said what he did - he has always been one who's concern for the troops has been out in the open. After all wasn't he the guy that complained about the lack of proper battle-vests?; the lack of up-armoured HMVEE's?; the troops being treated in Germany having to pay for the hospital food?

Basically he cares more for the troops than he does the bigger picture - that's something I can't fault the guy for even if I completely disagree with his call for withdrawal. The only ones making hay of it were the some of the more hawkish or right-wing commentators and politicos... until of course the embarassing coward remarks. If the remarks had come from someone that had also served, or if the remarks hadn't involved such a base personal attack, then things might have blown over... but the fact of the matter was that he was called a coward (besides the whole implication that he wasn't a Marine anymore) on the floor.

[damasa]

Originally posted by hoosier


I've also learned that Murtha had two terms of active duty, totaling about 6 years. All the rest of of his 36+ service was in the reserves. Some of his friends have criticized Bush for being in the reserves/natl. guard - not on active duty.

6 years active duty.

No years active duty.

Did you intend to make this post look like you have no idea what you just said or what you were trying to prove?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by damasa
6 years active duty.

No years active duty.

Did you intend to make this post look like you have no idea what you just said or what you were trying to prove?

Damn you and your logic - hoosier doesn't like it when logic/reality gets in the way of his political arguements :D

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
And thirty or so in the Reserves to probably six and a half -- assuming he served his full term -- for the President.

What were you trying to prove?
Again, to take it even a step farther...