http://www.tribune-democrat.com/siteSearch..._213002118.html
Vets set sights on Murtha
By SANDRA K. REABUCK
The Tribune-Democrat
The “Swift Boat” veterans who grabbed national headlines in 2004 when they attacked John Kerry in his failed presidential bid now are turning their sights to Johnstown.
Their target is U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a critic of the Iraq war and a de facto spokesman on the subject for the national Democratic Party.
Armed as a new group – Veterans for the Truth – they’re bringing their campaign to “Redeploy John Murtha From Congress” to his backyard.
They plan to hold a national rally in Johnstown in October “to show their outrage at John Murtha over what he is saying about our troops,” state chairman and former Johnstowner Mark Parker said in a release.
Details of the rally will be outlined at a news conference at 11 a.m. Thursday in front of Murtha’s office at 647 Main St.
Murtha, who will not be in his district office Thursday, appears unfazed by the pending “Swift Boat’’ campaign.
He is scheduled that day to be in Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County, campaigning for Democrat Chris Carney, who’s running against incumbent Republican Don Sherwood in the 10th District.
In a statement released by his office, Murtha said, “Nobody has done more for the troops than I have.
“This is a policy difference, and everybody has the right to an opinion.”
Murtha is running for re-election against Diana Irey, a Washington County commissioner, who has been critical of Murtha’s comments about the war and what she sees as his lack of support for the troops.
The news conference will be held by Craig Minnick, an Iraq war veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, and Harry Beam, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Vietnam vet, both of Johnstown, and Parker, an Air Force veteran.
A guest at the news conference will be Larry Bailey, president of Veterans for the Truth. Bailey is a retired Navy captain and former commanding officer of the Naval Special Warfare Center. He co-authored the anti-Kerry book “Unfit for Command.”
Murtha, a retired Marine Reserve colonel, in 1974 became the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. He’s been known for his strong support of the military and on defense issues, working quietly behind the scenes with Republicans and Democrats alike.
But that changed late last year when – with mounting American casualties – he went public and called on the Bush administration to withdraw troops from Iraq and redeploy them nearby. His comments brought an eruption of emotions, both pro and con.
Bailey, in an interview from North Carolina, said he and other vets who were active in the 2004 Swift Boat campaign didn’t get interested in Murtha’s race until he went public about a Pentagon war crimes investigation.
In May, Murtha said the investigation would show that Marines had killed more than a dozen innocent civilians “in cold blood” Nov. 19 in the town of Haditha.
Bailey said those remarks were highly prejudicial “without any due process.”
At that point, Swift Boat veterans from the 2004 campaign were approached by Parker and other area vets about Murtha, Bailey said.
“We decided to get back together and put together a new organization to hold John Murtha accountable for what he said,” Bailey said.
Minnick said he and Beam have been discussing for “months and months” Murtha’s stands.
“We’re very tired of lies and distortions from Mr. Murtha on the Iraq war, and it’s time we get the correct information out” about the war, its purposes and the troops, he said.
The main speaker at the October rally is expected to be John O’Neil, a former Navy officer who served on Kerry’s swift boat during the Vietnam War. O’Neil was an active campaigner against Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Full Version: Vets set sights on Murtha
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
QUOTE
In a statement released by his office, Murtha said, “Nobody has done more for the troops than I have.
“This is a policy difference, and everybody has the right to an opinion.”
“This is a policy difference, and everybody has the right to an opinion.”
Good statement.
Well, all I'll say about John Murtha is I think he's wrong and playing a party line. I wouldn't call that swift boating him.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 12:37 PM)
Well, all I'll say about John Murtha is I think he's wrong and playing a party line. I wouldn't call that swift boating him.
Wrong about what? And, don't Republicans follow the party line?
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 1 2006, 02:41 PM)
Wrong about what? And, don't Republicans follow the party line?
He's wrong about leaving Iraq before the Iraqi Army is ready to take over. Leaving Iraq to the likes of the people in the insurgency would be utterly foolish. I believe someone who advocates an utterly foolish course of action to be wrong.
At last check the republicans got a party line which doesn't cause them to be perceived weak on defending America. I don't know how the democrats let themselves get cast as weak on defending America again, do you?
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 12:59 PM)
At last check the republicans got a party line which doesn't cause them to be perceived weak on defending America. I don't know how the democrats let themselves get cast as weak on defending America again, do you?
"Defending America" in Iraq is costing American taxpayers $200 million a day. I'd sure like to see the Democrats bring the debate on that expenditure to the American people.
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item_print.php?...655&issue_id=35
EXCERPT:
Today, strong public support at the beginning of the Iraq war was quickly tried as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved a myth, and a seemingly endless and increasingly unpersuasive string of justifications for toppling Saddam followed. But unlike earlier eras, the media itself has become implicated in the deceit, sometimes wittingly, sometimes not. Prominent personalities have been paid to hype administration themes. “News” stories written by “consultants” have been planted in the foreign press, sometimes with money changing hands. At one point, the administration allegedly considered releases to foreign journalists of “stories” that were absolutely false.
When Bush is not appearing in strictly military or military-oriented venues for presidential speeches, his applauding audiences are pre-screened to ensure only supporters are present. Writers and journalists critical of U.S. government policies risk losing access to briefings and press conferences – and hence their livelihood. Others are constrained by their own non-media corporate conglomerates.
In this climate, the public doesn’t know who to trust – not government, for it has shaded the truth in every way possible; not the media, for one no longer knows who is on a secret payroll or who is as much a victim of planted stories as the readers or viewers; certainly not consultants or most politicians.
That is why Americans sit up and pay attention when a person of the stature of John Murtha speaks out against dissembling and misleading statements out of an obvious commitment to principle. Such individuals understand that the suffering and the dying on the battlefield – whether Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq – or the ideological crusades against communism, nationalism, or the extreme violence of terror may not be the real “war.”
The real war is internal. It is for the spirit of the nation and the soul of representative democracy, both of which fall into jeopardy when government leaders fail to tell the truth, substitute character assassination for accountability, and consciously suborn the press.
In 1954 and 1968, respected arbiters of truth cut through public fear to open the way for a change in public discourse and accountability from leaders who had exploited public trust. In 2005, Representative Murtha may be the decisive voice for the truth that restores the most fundamental necessity of democracy: a well-informed public.
Dan Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is Senior Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation
END EXCERPT
Bravo for Murtha, showing his personal courage once again. The above excerpt from a 2005 article still applies IMO.
lenal
EXCERPT:
Today, strong public support at the beginning of the Iraq war was quickly tried as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved a myth, and a seemingly endless and increasingly unpersuasive string of justifications for toppling Saddam followed. But unlike earlier eras, the media itself has become implicated in the deceit, sometimes wittingly, sometimes not. Prominent personalities have been paid to hype administration themes. “News” stories written by “consultants” have been planted in the foreign press, sometimes with money changing hands. At one point, the administration allegedly considered releases to foreign journalists of “stories” that were absolutely false.
When Bush is not appearing in strictly military or military-oriented venues for presidential speeches, his applauding audiences are pre-screened to ensure only supporters are present. Writers and journalists critical of U.S. government policies risk losing access to briefings and press conferences – and hence their livelihood. Others are constrained by their own non-media corporate conglomerates.
In this climate, the public doesn’t know who to trust – not government, for it has shaded the truth in every way possible; not the media, for one no longer knows who is on a secret payroll or who is as much a victim of planted stories as the readers or viewers; certainly not consultants or most politicians.
That is why Americans sit up and pay attention when a person of the stature of John Murtha speaks out against dissembling and misleading statements out of an obvious commitment to principle. Such individuals understand that the suffering and the dying on the battlefield – whether Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq – or the ideological crusades against communism, nationalism, or the extreme violence of terror may not be the real “war.”
The real war is internal. It is for the spirit of the nation and the soul of representative democracy, both of which fall into jeopardy when government leaders fail to tell the truth, substitute character assassination for accountability, and consciously suborn the press.
In 1954 and 1968, respected arbiters of truth cut through public fear to open the way for a change in public discourse and accountability from leaders who had exploited public trust. In 2005, Representative Murtha may be the decisive voice for the truth that restores the most fundamental necessity of democracy: a well-informed public.
Dan Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is Senior Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation
END EXCERPT
Bravo for Murtha, showing his personal courage once again. The above excerpt from a 2005 article still applies IMO.
lenal
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 1 2006, 03:15 PM)
"Defending America" in Iraq is costing American taxpayers $200 million a day. I'd sure like to see the Democrats bring the debate on that expenditure to the American people.
They already have, it was called the Cold War and at every turn the democrats lost ground. Used to be the democrats were strong on national defense, now they send the message it's just too expensive to defend America.
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 01:21 PM)
They already have, it was called the Cold War and at every turn the democrats lost ground. Used to be the democrats were strong on national defense, now they send the message it's just too expensive to defend America.
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
They lost both houses of Congress because they stopped representing average Americans and became Republican lite.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 01:21 PM)
They already have, it was called the Cold War and at every turn the democrats lost ground. Used to be the democrats were strong on national defense, now they send the message it's just too expensive to defend America.
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
Doesn't that kind of expense bother you!?
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/index22.cfm
The Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) was established in January 1947, after President Harry Truman signed legislation to create majority and minority party policy committees in the Senate. Since its creation nearly sixty years ago, the DPC has served Senate Democrats by providing research and legislative support, publishing reports on important legislation and policy issues, tracking roll call votes, differentiating Democratic policy positions from Republican positions, and promoting Caucus unity and cohesion.
At the start of the 109th Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan expanded the mission of the DPC to include two new functions: 1) conduct oversight investigations and hold public hearings to ensure accountability in government; and 2) develop cutting-edge policy ideas through the creation of a “new idea network” with state and local government officials, think tanks, academics, and policy experts around the country.
######################################3
There is much more detail at the link and unless you are a C-Span junkie you will find these efforts of Senate Democrats receive short shrift in the rest of the media so if there were wider coverage of these policy meetings there might not be such misconceptions about the Democrat view on issues.
If you are satisfied with the republican condoned conduct of the waste in the military budget - the military-industrial-political complex - or the millions and millions of cash dollars squandered in Iraq without accountability - it you want to construe that as opposition to the military, then I can only conclude that's off track, way off track.
lenal
The Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) was established in January 1947, after President Harry Truman signed legislation to create majority and minority party policy committees in the Senate. Since its creation nearly sixty years ago, the DPC has served Senate Democrats by providing research and legislative support, publishing reports on important legislation and policy issues, tracking roll call votes, differentiating Democratic policy positions from Republican positions, and promoting Caucus unity and cohesion.
At the start of the 109th Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan expanded the mission of the DPC to include two new functions: 1) conduct oversight investigations and hold public hearings to ensure accountability in government; and 2) develop cutting-edge policy ideas through the creation of a “new idea network” with state and local government officials, think tanks, academics, and policy experts around the country.
######################################3
There is much more detail at the link and unless you are a C-Span junkie you will find these efforts of Senate Democrats receive short shrift in the rest of the media so if there were wider coverage of these policy meetings there might not be such misconceptions about the Democrat view on issues.
If you are satisfied with the republican condoned conduct of the waste in the military budget - the military-industrial-political complex - or the millions and millions of cash dollars squandered in Iraq without accountability - it you want to construe that as opposition to the military, then I can only conclude that's off track, way off track.
lenal
QUOTE(lenal @ Aug 1 2006, 02:09 PM)
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/index22.cfm
The Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) was established in January 1947, after President Harry Truman signed legislation to create majority and minority party policy committees in the Senate. Since its creation nearly sixty years ago, the DPC has served Senate Democrats by providing research and legislative support, publishing reports on important legislation and policy issues, tracking roll call votes, differentiating Democratic policy positions from Republican positions, and promoting Caucus unity and cohesion.
At the start of the 109th Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan expanded the mission of the DPC to include two new functions: 1) conduct oversight investigations and hold public hearings to ensure accountability in government; and 2) develop cutting-edge policy ideas through the creation of a “new idea network” with state and local government officials, think tanks, academics, and policy experts around the country.
######################################3
There is much more detail at the link and unless you are a C-Span junkie you will find these efforts of Senate Democrats receive short shrift in the rest of the media so if there were wider coverage of these policy meetings there might not be such misconceptions about the Democrat view on issues.
If you are satisfied with the republican condoned conduct of the waste in the military budget - the military-industrial-political complex - or the millions and millions of cash dollars squandered in Iraq without accountability - it you want to construe that as opposition to the military, then I can only conclude that's off track, way off track.
lenal
The Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) was established in January 1947, after President Harry Truman signed legislation to create majority and minority party policy committees in the Senate. Since its creation nearly sixty years ago, the DPC has served Senate Democrats by providing research and legislative support, publishing reports on important legislation and policy issues, tracking roll call votes, differentiating Democratic policy positions from Republican positions, and promoting Caucus unity and cohesion.
At the start of the 109th Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan expanded the mission of the DPC to include two new functions: 1) conduct oversight investigations and hold public hearings to ensure accountability in government; and 2) develop cutting-edge policy ideas through the creation of a “new idea network” with state and local government officials, think tanks, academics, and policy experts around the country.
######################################3
There is much more detail at the link and unless you are a C-Span junkie you will find these efforts of Senate Democrats receive short shrift in the rest of the media so if there were wider coverage of these policy meetings there might not be such misconceptions about the Democrat view on issues.
If you are satisfied with the republican condoned conduct of the waste in the military budget - the military-industrial-political complex - or the millions and millions of cash dollars squandered in Iraq without accountability - it you want to construe that as opposition to the military, then I can only conclude that's off track, way off track.
lenal
lenal, I have to say that I am not getting your post. Democrats have more than condoned this massive military spending. They have gone along with everything the Bush administration has asked for - without question, I think. And, they have been reliable supporters of the military industrial complex for years. The buildup started under Truman (if you don't count WWII) and it has been relentlessly expanding ever since.
Maybe a good idea to follow the money trail.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=D
And there was a Senate Cmte hearing this morning - televised live by C-Span, featuring the oversight on the Iraq spending mess, the special inspector general was the chief panelist being queried. Guess who was asking the penetrating questions - Democrats Dayton, Lautenberg, Carper -most of the R members were absent except of course for the chair - Collins - and Voinovich showed up.Dayton kept referring to the DPC multiple hearings on the subject - my impression is that the R's are rubberstamping anything no matter how egregious.
lenal
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=D
And there was a Senate Cmte hearing this morning - televised live by C-Span, featuring the oversight on the Iraq spending mess, the special inspector general was the chief panelist being queried. Guess who was asking the penetrating questions - Democrats Dayton, Lautenberg, Carper -most of the R members were absent except of course for the chair - Collins - and Voinovich showed up.Dayton kept referring to the DPC multiple hearings on the subject - my impression is that the R's are rubberstamping anything no matter how egregious.
lenal
QUOTE
In a statement released by his office, Murtha said, “Nobody has done more for the troops than I have.
That's crap! Not only do I know it, but methinks he knows it too! Congress critters like Ike Skelton, Gene Taylor and John Spratt, just to name three, methinks've done one hell of a lot more than mealie mouth Murtha.Of course if he's talkin' 'bout bein' against the troops enjoyin' their constitutionally guaranteed rights then might be he has a valid point, eh? Methinks I might hafta consider that a bit more.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 04:37 PM)
Well, all I'll say about John Murtha is I think he's wrong and playing a party line. I wouldn't call that swift boating him.
Not so sure some of it ain't "Swift Boating", but methinks he's said enough stupid stuff that he deserves lotsa animosity from vets. I use to think highly of him, but not since he publicly prejudged Marines involved in a couple incidents, eh? Now I'm hopin' he goes down big and other politicians learn there's a real price to pay for doin' stupid stuff like this! Far's I'm concerned he's now nothin' but a complete waste of perfectly good air. Don't like to sugar coat it, but methinks the mods'd never let what I now really think 'bout him go.
I guess it depends on your politics.
Personally, I have great respect for John Murtha.
I don't know that's he's done more for vets as
far as budgeting for vets hospitals, retirement etc.,
but he calls a spade a spade and that's refreshing.
It seems those who have "set sights on Murtha" are
lead by a guy charged with rape and murder of a civilian.
His lawsuit appears aimed at learning where Murtha
got his information that murders occurred. And further,
to use that military information to show prejudice
against him at his pending courtsmartial.
It's a good legal manuever on the part of the defense...
but I believe Murtha's rep is much stronger than the defendant's.
(edit/add: this discussion also contains interesting comments
which reflect on The Brotherhood IMHO.)
Personally, I have great respect for John Murtha.
I don't know that's he's done more for vets as
far as budgeting for vets hospitals, retirement etc.,
but he calls a spade a spade and that's refreshing.
It seems those who have "set sights on Murtha" are
lead by a guy charged with rape and murder of a civilian.
His lawsuit appears aimed at learning where Murtha
got his information that murders occurred. And further,
to use that military information to show prejudice
against him at his pending courtsmartial.
It's a good legal manuever on the part of the defense...
but I believe Murtha's rep is much stronger than the defendant's.
(edit/add: this discussion also contains interesting comments
which reflect on The Brotherhood IMHO.)
GOP website first page is a total attack on Murta. GOP must be desperate to attack a well respected legislature and war veteran!
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._bid/?page=full
Republican activists take aim at Murtha reelection bid
Echo tactics used against Kerry in '04
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | August 5, 2006
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- His depiction in the recruiting flyer mailed to members of the American Legion leaves little room for interpretation: congressman John Murtha, scowling and wrinkled, juxtaposed against the now-famous image of a young John Kerry testifying before Congress in 1971 about alleged US atrocities committed in Vietnam.
Murtha, a 16-term Democrat, made ``despicable" comments about Marines suspected of killing nearly two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha, according to the four-page handout. Therefore, the flyer states, Murtha is no longer fit to serve in Washington.
The flyer, seeking veterans to help work against Murtha's reelection, is part of a ``Boot Murtha" campaign launched this week by Vets for the Truth, a pro-Republican activist group that supports the Iraq war. The group wants Murtha, a former Marine colonel who served in Vietnam, defeated for his blunt criticism of the war and his call to withdraw US troops. Some of the group's members, however, were part of a similar campaign against Kerry during his 2004 Democratic presidential campaign against President Bush. Calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, they boldly attacked the Massachusetts senator, accusing him of lying about his combat record in Vietnam and condemning him for claiming to have seen US troops commit war crimes while he was there.
``I called my buddies in the anti-Kerry movement from 2004," said Larry Bailey , a former Navy officer and Vietnam veteran who runs Vets for the Truth and who worked closely with Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, which included some who served with Kerry.
Standing in front of the Cambria County, Pa., Republican headquarters on Thursday -- across the street from Murtha's district office -- Bailey vowed to hurt Murtha's campaign the same way his group helped sink Kerry's presidential bid two years ago.
``I will do my best to `Swift boat' John Murtha," he declared.
But this time, Murtha and his allies, including an irate Kerry, have planned a counterattack, ready to portray Bailey and his comrades as pawns of the White House and the Republican Party. With growing public doubts about the Iraq War, Murtha's allies hope to convince voters to see the group as political tools who lack basic credibility, and in the process, provide some belated vindication for Kerry.
``They are engaging in a pure political smear job," Kerry thundered in a telephone interview yesterday. ``They have no respect for open debate."
To them, Kerry said, honorable military service doesn't matter: ``If you don't have the [same] opinion of the president [they] are going to tarnish your reputation. I think they are a disgrace and we will challenge them every time they raise their head, from one end of the country to the other."
``This is classic Karl Rove," said former Democratic senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam and lost his reelection bid in 2002 after similar attacks on his military service record. He believes Rove, the president's chief political strategist, helped orchestrate the campaign that cost him his office, and ``they are staying the course on the dirty tricks."
Bailey hopes the Boot Murtha campaign will convince voters in the conservative bastion of rural Pennsylvania to turn against Murtha, who has received little Republican opposition in his 32 years in the House.
Pennsylvania's 12th district, which Murtha represents, stretches from the middle of the state to the Ohio border in the west. Encompassing suburbs as well as rural areas, political analysts say, the district could be a microcosm of national attitudes toward the Iraq War. The district leans more than two-to-one in favor of Democrats, but most are socially conservative
``Reagan Democrats": voters who oppose abortion rights, support gun ownership and the military, and want Congress to pass tighter immigration laws. In 2004, Kerry took the district with 51 percent of the vote to Bush's 49 percent.
``This is a very different congressional campaign," Diana Irey , a Washington County commissioner and Murtha's GOP challenger, said Thursday in her Monongahela, Pa., campaign office. Her headquarters are just down the road from where Appalachian settlers launched the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 to protest government taxes.
``The war issue has people's attention," she said. ``When I talk to people in the district the war usually comes up."
While she distanced herself from Bailey and the Vets for the Truth, Irey said attacking Murtha's remarks about the Iraq war is part of her campaign strategy.
``I am not questioning his military record or anything about his service," she said. ``I am focusing on his comments on the Iraq war and his voting record since he's been in Congress."
But the veterans who want Murtha defeated hope to influence congressional races nationwide, helping depict Democrats' push for withdrawal from Iraq as a slap in the face to US troops.
``It is getting the attention of citizens around the country," said Irey. As the controversy around Murtha makes headlines, she said, campaign contributions have come in from outside the district and across the country, and traffic to her website has spiked dramatically. Indeed, some deep-pocketed military veterans from other states -- and well-heeled GOP contributors -- have helped fund and organize the Boot Murtha drive, including Lewis ``Jack" Peevy , a Georgia real estate developer and a retired Army colonel.
``It's not so much what Kerry did in [Vietnam] -- though his three purple hearts were for scratches -- but it was what he did when he came back home," Peevy told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in August 2004, referring to Kerry's Congressional testimony about having witnessed US war crimes. ``He lied about my soldiers . . . What he told were bald-faced lies, and he has never apologized to us in the military."
Bailey said Peevy paid for plane tickets and other expenses to jump-start the anti-Murtha campaign, set to peak with a ``national rally" here scheduled for Oct. 1, about a month ahead of Election Day. The invited speakers include John O'Neil, who headed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and wrote ``Unfit for Command," a scathing attack on Kerry's military record in Vietnam that was published during the 2004 campaign.
``I haven't made up my mind" whether to attend, O'Neil said in a telephone interview yesterday. He would not talk about Murtha but lauded Bailey, a former Navy SEAL, for his work against Kerry in 2004. ``They were opposed to Kerry and he was very involved in bringing out the truth."
To the Boot Murtha troops, the congressman's most disturbing moment -- which they liken to Kerry's alliance with actress Jane Fonda, derisively known as ``Hanoi Jane" for her protests against the Vietnam War -- was when ``Jihad Jack" accepted an award from Code Pink, a liberal anti war activist group that has staged protests at military hospitals treating wounded soldiers.
But Bailey and local veterans who turned out on Thursday were outraged by Murtha's comments in May, when he scolded the Marines under investigation for civilian casualties in Haditha. One of the Marines sued Murtha this week, alleging the congressman defamed him and members of his squad during a TV interview, charging that the men killed ``innocent civilians in cold blood" even though an investigation was still underway.
At Thursday's event in Johnstown, Lieutenant Colonel Craig Minnick , an Iraq veteran and Army reservist, said Murtha's remarks prompted him to work with Vets for the Truth this fall. Describing him as ``unpatriotic" and ``a traitor," Minnick said Murtha ``provides aid and comfort to our enemies and attacks the integrity of our forces."
But the Boot Murtha kickoff was far outnumbered by a loud, defiant counterdemonstration in support of the congressman. The demonstrators -- as well as Kerry and Cleland -- say they're ready to fight back against any GOP attacks on their war record or Democrats' national security credentials.
``We didn't fight strongly enough against the lies and innuendo" in 2004, Vietnam veteran Dick Class told Murtha supporters Thursday, many of them veterans themselves. ``Karl Rove's clone army is out there spreading lies [but] we're not going to take it anymore."
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Republican activists take aim at Murtha reelection bid
Echo tactics used against Kerry in '04
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | August 5, 2006
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- His depiction in the recruiting flyer mailed to members of the American Legion leaves little room for interpretation: congressman John Murtha, scowling and wrinkled, juxtaposed against the now-famous image of a young John Kerry testifying before Congress in 1971 about alleged US atrocities committed in Vietnam.
Murtha, a 16-term Democrat, made ``despicable" comments about Marines suspected of killing nearly two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha, according to the four-page handout. Therefore, the flyer states, Murtha is no longer fit to serve in Washington.
The flyer, seeking veterans to help work against Murtha's reelection, is part of a ``Boot Murtha" campaign launched this week by Vets for the Truth, a pro-Republican activist group that supports the Iraq war. The group wants Murtha, a former Marine colonel who served in Vietnam, defeated for his blunt criticism of the war and his call to withdraw US troops. Some of the group's members, however, were part of a similar campaign against Kerry during his 2004 Democratic presidential campaign against President Bush. Calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, they boldly attacked the Massachusetts senator, accusing him of lying about his combat record in Vietnam and condemning him for claiming to have seen US troops commit war crimes while he was there.
``I called my buddies in the anti-Kerry movement from 2004," said Larry Bailey , a former Navy officer and Vietnam veteran who runs Vets for the Truth and who worked closely with Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, which included some who served with Kerry.
Standing in front of the Cambria County, Pa., Republican headquarters on Thursday -- across the street from Murtha's district office -- Bailey vowed to hurt Murtha's campaign the same way his group helped sink Kerry's presidential bid two years ago.
``I will do my best to `Swift boat' John Murtha," he declared.
But this time, Murtha and his allies, including an irate Kerry, have planned a counterattack, ready to portray Bailey and his comrades as pawns of the White House and the Republican Party. With growing public doubts about the Iraq War, Murtha's allies hope to convince voters to see the group as political tools who lack basic credibility, and in the process, provide some belated vindication for Kerry.
``They are engaging in a pure political smear job," Kerry thundered in a telephone interview yesterday. ``They have no respect for open debate."
To them, Kerry said, honorable military service doesn't matter: ``If you don't have the [same] opinion of the president [they] are going to tarnish your reputation. I think they are a disgrace and we will challenge them every time they raise their head, from one end of the country to the other."
``This is classic Karl Rove," said former Democratic senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam and lost his reelection bid in 2002 after similar attacks on his military service record. He believes Rove, the president's chief political strategist, helped orchestrate the campaign that cost him his office, and ``they are staying the course on the dirty tricks."
Bailey hopes the Boot Murtha campaign will convince voters in the conservative bastion of rural Pennsylvania to turn against Murtha, who has received little Republican opposition in his 32 years in the House.
Pennsylvania's 12th district, which Murtha represents, stretches from the middle of the state to the Ohio border in the west. Encompassing suburbs as well as rural areas, political analysts say, the district could be a microcosm of national attitudes toward the Iraq War. The district leans more than two-to-one in favor of Democrats, but most are socially conservative
``Reagan Democrats": voters who oppose abortion rights, support gun ownership and the military, and want Congress to pass tighter immigration laws. In 2004, Kerry took the district with 51 percent of the vote to Bush's 49 percent.
``This is a very different congressional campaign," Diana Irey , a Washington County commissioner and Murtha's GOP challenger, said Thursday in her Monongahela, Pa., campaign office. Her headquarters are just down the road from where Appalachian settlers launched the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 to protest government taxes.
``The war issue has people's attention," she said. ``When I talk to people in the district the war usually comes up."
While she distanced herself from Bailey and the Vets for the Truth, Irey said attacking Murtha's remarks about the Iraq war is part of her campaign strategy.
``I am not questioning his military record or anything about his service," she said. ``I am focusing on his comments on the Iraq war and his voting record since he's been in Congress."
But the veterans who want Murtha defeated hope to influence congressional races nationwide, helping depict Democrats' push for withdrawal from Iraq as a slap in the face to US troops.
``It is getting the attention of citizens around the country," said Irey. As the controversy around Murtha makes headlines, she said, campaign contributions have come in from outside the district and across the country, and traffic to her website has spiked dramatically. Indeed, some deep-pocketed military veterans from other states -- and well-heeled GOP contributors -- have helped fund and organize the Boot Murtha drive, including Lewis ``Jack" Peevy , a Georgia real estate developer and a retired Army colonel.
``It's not so much what Kerry did in [Vietnam] -- though his three purple hearts were for scratches -- but it was what he did when he came back home," Peevy told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in August 2004, referring to Kerry's Congressional testimony about having witnessed US war crimes. ``He lied about my soldiers . . . What he told were bald-faced lies, and he has never apologized to us in the military."
Bailey said Peevy paid for plane tickets and other expenses to jump-start the anti-Murtha campaign, set to peak with a ``national rally" here scheduled for Oct. 1, about a month ahead of Election Day. The invited speakers include John O'Neil, who headed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and wrote ``Unfit for Command," a scathing attack on Kerry's military record in Vietnam that was published during the 2004 campaign.
``I haven't made up my mind" whether to attend, O'Neil said in a telephone interview yesterday. He would not talk about Murtha but lauded Bailey, a former Navy SEAL, for his work against Kerry in 2004. ``They were opposed to Kerry and he was very involved in bringing out the truth."
To the Boot Murtha troops, the congressman's most disturbing moment -- which they liken to Kerry's alliance with actress Jane Fonda, derisively known as ``Hanoi Jane" for her protests against the Vietnam War -- was when ``Jihad Jack" accepted an award from Code Pink, a liberal anti war activist group that has staged protests at military hospitals treating wounded soldiers.
But Bailey and local veterans who turned out on Thursday were outraged by Murtha's comments in May, when he scolded the Marines under investigation for civilian casualties in Haditha. One of the Marines sued Murtha this week, alleging the congressman defamed him and members of his squad during a TV interview, charging that the men killed ``innocent civilians in cold blood" even though an investigation was still underway.
At Thursday's event in Johnstown, Lieutenant Colonel Craig Minnick , an Iraq veteran and Army reservist, said Murtha's remarks prompted him to work with Vets for the Truth this fall. Describing him as ``unpatriotic" and ``a traitor," Minnick said Murtha ``provides aid and comfort to our enemies and attacks the integrity of our forces."
But the Boot Murtha kickoff was far outnumbered by a loud, defiant counterdemonstration in support of the congressman. The demonstrators -- as well as Kerry and Cleland -- say they're ready to fight back against any GOP attacks on their war record or Democrats' national security credentials.
``We didn't fight strongly enough against the lies and innuendo" in 2004, Vietnam veteran Dick Class told Murtha supporters Thursday, many of them veterans themselves. ``Karl Rove's clone army is out there spreading lies [but] we're not going to take it anymore."
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 04:21 PM)
Used to be the democrats were strong on national defense, now they send the message it's just too expensive to defend America.
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
Wonder why they lost both houses of congress?
Not to expensive when you do it tough and smart - like Bayh says.
And, let's wait for late November to see who gains what.
Problem with "staying the course" is that the people we
"freed" are demonstrating by the tens of thousands against
us and Israel - and Iraq is less stable today than the day we went in.
Think about it, Saddam was killing Iraqis - he was the bad guy,
who hated Iran. Then we started killing Iraqis, then we
destablized the government and they started killing each other.
Now 60% of them love Iran and hate us (Shia) and another
10-30% hate us as much as Iran. Even without all the dying and the
money (and both are important) there is less stablity in the
Middle East as a result. Not smart.
Meanwhile there is a deep scratch in the GOP record: it
just says "We can't cut and run, no timetable" and then jumps back
to the same words...how about a clue? A workable mission?
Some tactics? Some leadership?
When you are the party in power (in Congress and the White House)
you are responsible for some answers - not just rhetorical questions.
Republicans have been mislead by their Neo-Con Wing
and have failed.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 02:59 PM)
At last check the republicans got a party line which doesn't cause them to be perceived weak on defending America. I don't know how the democrats let themselves get cast as weak on defending America again, do you?
The Democrats have been cast by the LIES of the republicans and their lap-dog media friends as weak on defense. The republicans will tell LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES as long as they think the telling furthers their 'rotten-to-the-core' ambition of maintaining their power base in Washington.
They are pond-scum and betrayers to the true American spirit and values of friendship, tolerance and peace.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Aug 6 2006, 07:22 AM)
The Democrats have been cast by the LIES of the republicans and their lap-dog media friends as weak on defense. The republicans will tell LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES as long as they think the telling furthers their 'rotten-to-the-core' ambition of maintaining their power base in Washington.
They are pond-scum and betrayers to the true American spirit and values of friendship, tolerance and peace.
They are pond-scum and betrayers to the true American spirit and values of friendship, tolerance and peace.
I would suggest that not all Republicans fall into this catagory, rather the segment that has hijacked the party.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Aug 6 2006, 10:41 AM)
I would suggest that not all Republicans fall into this catagory, rather the segment that has hijacked the party.
Bill Crystal called Democratic Defeatist on Fox today and also said fire Rumsfeld and hire Lieberman.
Talk about confusion in the ranks and crystal is such a slimy person anyway.
I have noticed the shape of all republican heads are long and square.......
QUOTE
Dear MoveOn member,
Two years ago Republican operatives calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans" smeared John Kerry. This year the same people are at it again—starting with attacks on John Murtha.
No damn way we're going to let them get away with that. We saw this coming and instead of playing defense we're ready to go on offense.
We've prepared a hard-hitting new TV ad about Iraq to move this fight into the congressional districts of vulnerable Republicans. But to flood the airways in these places we need to raise $500,000 this week. Can you chip in $25 today?
http://political.moveon.org/donate/iraqad....bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=4
If we raise the money we'll put the ads on TV in six key districts—places we can win especially because of frustration with Iraq. That'll make a sweeping Democratic takeover even more possible.
The Connecticut Senate race shows that voters are ready to reject politicians who are too close to George Bush and polling shows Iraq is the top issue for voters nationwide.
Now dozens of Republican candidates are furiously working to distance themselves from Bush and the mess in Iraq.
We can stop them in their tracks when we expose their Iraq record to voters with these ads—and August is the critical month for that.
Why August? The candidate TV ads aren't expected to start until after Labor Day—starting now will force the Republicans to play defense early.
And these ads are focused on winning in November:
The ads are targeted to key races where Iraq matters and tested to maximize impact. Four months of research of swing districts have narrowed down the targets.
The ads connect with all sorts of voters. The message of the ads focuses on broad frustration with the money that has been lost or wasted in Iraq—something liberals and conservatives agree on.
The ads do double-duty by modeling good Iraq messaging. Together we can show candidates around the country how to win on the top issue for voters.
The last round of TV ads worked. In all of the districts we ran our last round of ads the incumbent is in serious jeopardy.
We can only pull this off with the contributions of MoveOn members. Without support, it won't happen. Can you chip in $25 today?
http://political.moveon.org/donate/iraqad....bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=5
John Murtha is a hero to millions of Americans and the best way to honor him is to beat the Republicans who smear him.
MoveOn is entirely member-funded—with no contributions from the Democratic Party and no donations larger than $5000. That is why your contribution is so important.
Let's get these ads on the air and put Republican candidates on defense.
Thanks for all you do.
–Tom, Marika, Matt, Tanya and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.h...bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=6
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://political.moveon.org/?id=8385-59048...bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=7
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Two years ago Republican operatives calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans" smeared John Kerry. This year the same people are at it again—starting with attacks on John Murtha.
No damn way we're going to let them get away with that. We saw this coming and instead of playing defense we're ready to go on offense.
We've prepared a hard-hitting new TV ad about Iraq to move this fight into the congressional districts of vulnerable Republicans. But to flood the airways in these places we need to raise $500,000 this week. Can you chip in $25 today?
http://political.moveon.org/donate/iraqad....bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=4
If we raise the money we'll put the ads on TV in six key districts—places we can win especially because of frustration with Iraq. That'll make a sweeping Democratic takeover even more possible.
The Connecticut Senate race shows that voters are ready to reject politicians who are too close to George Bush and polling shows Iraq is the top issue for voters nationwide.
Now dozens of Republican candidates are furiously working to distance themselves from Bush and the mess in Iraq.
We can stop them in their tracks when we expose their Iraq record to voters with these ads—and August is the critical month for that.
Why August? The candidate TV ads aren't expected to start until after Labor Day—starting now will force the Republicans to play defense early.
And these ads are focused on winning in November:
The ads are targeted to key races where Iraq matters and tested to maximize impact. Four months of research of swing districts have narrowed down the targets.
The ads connect with all sorts of voters. The message of the ads focuses on broad frustration with the money that has been lost or wasted in Iraq—something liberals and conservatives agree on.
The ads do double-duty by modeling good Iraq messaging. Together we can show candidates around the country how to win on the top issue for voters.
The last round of TV ads worked. In all of the districts we ran our last round of ads the incumbent is in serious jeopardy.
We can only pull this off with the contributions of MoveOn members. Without support, it won't happen. Can you chip in $25 today?
http://political.moveon.org/donate/iraqad....bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=5
John Murtha is a hero to millions of Americans and the best way to honor him is to beat the Republicans who smear him.
MoveOn is entirely member-funded—with no contributions from the Democratic Party and no donations larger than $5000. That is why your contribution is so important.
Let's get these ads on the air and put Republican candidates on defense.
Thanks for all you do.
–Tom, Marika, Matt, Tanya and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.h...bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=6
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://political.moveon.org/?id=8385-59048...bkMnAjwJ9BQ&t=7
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Aug 4 2006, 03:09 PM)
That's crap! Not only do I know it, but methinks he knows it too! Congress critters like Ike Skelton, Gene Taylor and John Spratt, just to name three, methinks've done one hell of a lot more than mealie mouth Murtha.
QUOTE
The About-Face of a Hawkish Democrat
Murtha, With Many Military Connections, Moves From Voting for War to Urging Troop Withdrawal
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 25, 2005; A02
A man of gruff familiarity -- most colleagues find it more natural to call him "Murtha" than "Jack" -- has been representing his Pennsylvania district for 16 terms, rising to become the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations panel's defense subcommittee.
A man of gruff familiarity -- most colleagues find it more natural to call him "Murtha" than "Jack" -- has been representing his Pennsylvania district for 16 terms, rising to become the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations panel's defense subcommittee. For that perch, he became known for his opposition to defense cuts and his willingness to send troops into battle -- and even to draft them, if necessary. He was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, and has fashioned a reputation as the Democrats' soldier-legislator -- a John McCain type without swagger or upward ambition. He generally prefers the shadows of Capitol Hill to the spotlight -- though that changed dramatically in recent days.
Last week, as Congress was preparing to leave town for a two-week Thanksgiving break, Murtha told a gathering of colleagues and, later, reporters that -- although he had voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion -- he now wants American troops withdrawn immediately. "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said. "It is time to bring them home."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted that Murtha's statement would become a "watershed event for our caucus, for our Congress and for our country." The burly 73-year-old lawmaker ignited a news blitz, and Republicans scrambled to respond. House GOP leaders hastily drew up a watered-down version of Murtha's withdrawal resolution, and made Republican lawmakers remain in town for a bitter and emotional Friday night session to vote it down.
It's hard to imagine any other Democrat causing such a stir. Republicans privately acknowledge that Murtha is a worrisome opponent because he can hardly be portrayed as a liberal of the Michael Moore stripe.
That's what they're trying to do though.
What sets Murtha apart from most fellow Democrats is his close connection to different layers of the armed services. The congressman regularly visits with wounded troops, but he also talks to battle commanders. "Jack Murtha is one of a kind," said Rep. Curt Weldon (Pa.), one of the few Republicans who rose in Murtha's defense during the Friday night House debate. "He is an example for all us in this body, and none of us should ever think of questioning his motives, his desires or support for our American troops."
***
Democrats suspect that Republicans dialed back their criticisms after taking into account Murtha's hawkish track record. Judging from his history and close relationships at the Pentagon, Murtha probably was echoing a belief that runs deep within the ranks of senior officers. "He's someone who's a strong supporter of the military," said Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a West Point graduate and one of his party's leading Senate spokesmen on the military. "People will recognize that he's got their best interests at heart."
Murtha joined the Marines in 1952, and served in active duty or in the reserves until he retired in 1990. He volunteered for active Vietnam service and received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He was elected to the House in a 1974 special election, after a five-year stint as a Pennsylvania state legislator.
His hawk credentials were burnished early on. "He was one of our strongest supporters when I worked for Reagan," said Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985, and now a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Murtha shared President Ronald Reagan's anti-communist views, supporting the military buildup against the then-Soviet Union along with covert aid to the Nicaraguan contras. "I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing," Murtha reminded reporters during his Nov. 17 news conference.
He was a strong supporter of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and today regards it as a model for international cooperation, both diplomatically and financially. He noted in an Oct. 2 C-SPAN interview that Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, also kept Congress well informed throughout the conflict. "President Bush One really did it exactly right," Murtha said.
Despite disagreements over defense spending, Murtha also forged a close relationship with President Bill Clinton. At the 1999 signing of a defense authorization bill, Clinton credited Murtha for pay and retirement provisions that Clinton called the biggest increase in military compensation in a generation. USA Today reported Monday that Clinton said in an interview he would reconsider his opposition to a withdrawal timetable in the aftermath of Murtha's proposal. "He's a really good man," Clinton told USA Today. "I'm going to have to think about it because I respect him so much."
Murtha leans conservative on social matters such as abortion and gun control, but his central Pennsylvania district is a union stronghold, and he tends to vote liberal on economic and workers' rights issues. He criticizes Bush's tax cuts as helping the rich at the expense of other needs -- including defense. He had an ethical scrape in 1979, when he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal and testified against two House colleagues.
After a 1990 primary scare, Murtha spent more time tending to parochial interests. Of the 58 news releases posted on his Web site since August, three are about Iraq, one is about Hurricane Katrina, and the remainder address local concerns, including military contracts Murtha helped to secure and money he lined up for local dams and schools.
For the past few months, Murtha had dropped hints to colleagues that he would soon make a major announcement about the war. Although he supported the initial invasion, he soon came to believe that troop levels weren't adequate and that soldiers weren't properly equipped. He was one of the few Democrats to publicly advocate the reinstatement of the draft. In a CNN interview in May 2004, Murtha said that although "it would be an international disaster I think if we pulled out . . . the alternative is, we're going to struggle along, get more and more young people killed."
Last week, as Murtha prepared for his speech, he spoke to Pelosi, to whom he is close. According to aides who were privy to the conversation, she warned Murtha that "this is going to be a huge deal" and that people would "come after him." His reply: "I can handle it. I'm ready for anything."
Murtha, With Many Military Connections, Moves From Voting for War to Urging Troop Withdrawal
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 25, 2005; A02
A man of gruff familiarity -- most colleagues find it more natural to call him "Murtha" than "Jack" -- has been representing his Pennsylvania district for 16 terms, rising to become the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations panel's defense subcommittee.
A man of gruff familiarity -- most colleagues find it more natural to call him "Murtha" than "Jack" -- has been representing his Pennsylvania district for 16 terms, rising to become the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations panel's defense subcommittee. For that perch, he became known for his opposition to defense cuts and his willingness to send troops into battle -- and even to draft them, if necessary. He was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, and has fashioned a reputation as the Democrats' soldier-legislator -- a John McCain type without swagger or upward ambition. He generally prefers the shadows of Capitol Hill to the spotlight -- though that changed dramatically in recent days.
Last week, as Congress was preparing to leave town for a two-week Thanksgiving break, Murtha told a gathering of colleagues and, later, reporters that -- although he had voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion -- he now wants American troops withdrawn immediately. "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said. "It is time to bring them home."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted that Murtha's statement would become a "watershed event for our caucus, for our Congress and for our country." The burly 73-year-old lawmaker ignited a news blitz, and Republicans scrambled to respond. House GOP leaders hastily drew up a watered-down version of Murtha's withdrawal resolution, and made Republican lawmakers remain in town for a bitter and emotional Friday night session to vote it down.
It's hard to imagine any other Democrat causing such a stir. Republicans privately acknowledge that Murtha is a worrisome opponent because he can hardly be portrayed as a liberal of the Michael Moore stripe.
That's what they're trying to do though.
What sets Murtha apart from most fellow Democrats is his close connection to different layers of the armed services. The congressman regularly visits with wounded troops, but he also talks to battle commanders. "Jack Murtha is one of a kind," said Rep. Curt Weldon (Pa.), one of the few Republicans who rose in Murtha's defense during the Friday night House debate. "He is an example for all us in this body, and none of us should ever think of questioning his motives, his desires or support for our American troops."
***
Democrats suspect that Republicans dialed back their criticisms after taking into account Murtha's hawkish track record. Judging from his history and close relationships at the Pentagon, Murtha probably was echoing a belief that runs deep within the ranks of senior officers. "He's someone who's a strong supporter of the military," said Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a West Point graduate and one of his party's leading Senate spokesmen on the military. "People will recognize that he's got their best interests at heart."
Murtha joined the Marines in 1952, and served in active duty or in the reserves until he retired in 1990. He volunteered for active Vietnam service and received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He was elected to the House in a 1974 special election, after a five-year stint as a Pennsylvania state legislator.
His hawk credentials were burnished early on. "He was one of our strongest supporters when I worked for Reagan," said Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985, and now a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Murtha shared President Ronald Reagan's anti-communist views, supporting the military buildup against the then-Soviet Union along with covert aid to the Nicaraguan contras. "I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing," Murtha reminded reporters during his Nov. 17 news conference.
He was a strong supporter of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and today regards it as a model for international cooperation, both diplomatically and financially. He noted in an Oct. 2 C-SPAN interview that Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, also kept Congress well informed throughout the conflict. "President Bush One really did it exactly right," Murtha said.
Despite disagreements over defense spending, Murtha also forged a close relationship with President Bill Clinton. At the 1999 signing of a defense authorization bill, Clinton credited Murtha for pay and retirement provisions that Clinton called the biggest increase in military compensation in a generation. USA Today reported Monday that Clinton said in an interview he would reconsider his opposition to a withdrawal timetable in the aftermath of Murtha's proposal. "He's a really good man," Clinton told USA Today. "I'm going to have to think about it because I respect him so much."
Murtha leans conservative on social matters such as abortion and gun control, but his central Pennsylvania district is a union stronghold, and he tends to vote liberal on economic and workers' rights issues. He criticizes Bush's tax cuts as helping the rich at the expense of other needs -- including defense. He had an ethical scrape in 1979, when he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal and testified against two House colleagues.
After a 1990 primary scare, Murtha spent more time tending to parochial interests. Of the 58 news releases posted on his Web site since August, three are about Iraq, one is about Hurricane Katrina, and the remainder address local concerns, including military contracts Murtha helped to secure and money he lined up for local dams and schools.
For the past few months, Murtha had dropped hints to colleagues that he would soon make a major announcement about the war. Although he supported the initial invasion, he soon came to believe that troop levels weren't adequate and that soldiers weren't properly equipped. He was one of the few Democrats to publicly advocate the reinstatement of the draft. In a CNN interview in May 2004, Murtha said that although "it would be an international disaster I think if we pulled out . . . the alternative is, we're going to struggle along, get more and more young people killed."
Last week, as Murtha prepared for his speech, he spoke to Pelosi, to whom he is close. According to aides who were privy to the conversation, she warned Murtha that "this is going to be a huge deal" and that people would "come after him." His reply: "I can handle it. I'm ready for anything."
QUOTE(flydangler @ Aug 4 2006, 03:09 PM)
Of course if he's talkin' 'bout bein' against the troops enjoyin' their constitutionally guaranteed rights then might be he has a valid point, eh? Methinks I might hafta consider that a bit more.
Not so sure some of it ain't "Swift Boating", but methinks he's said enough stupid stuff that he deserves lotsa animosity from vets. I use to think highly of him, but not since he publicly prejudged Marines involved in a couple incidents, eh?
Now I'm hopin' he goes down big and other politicians learn there's a real price to pay for doin' stupid stuff like this!
Not so sure some of it ain't "Swift Boating", but methinks he's said enough stupid stuff that he deserves lotsa animosity from vets. I use to think highly of him, but not since he publicly prejudged Marines involved in a couple incidents, eh?
Now I'm hopin' he goes down big and other politicians learn there's a real price to pay for doin' stupid stuff like this!
I believe it was one incident that Murtha spoke out about, the Haditha deaths. His explanation is that he spoke out because he wanted to bring attention to the stress that the troops are under.
I believe Murtha made a mistake by publicly disclosing information that was leaked to him about Haditha. However, why was the information leaked? I believe he spoke out about what he heard from the military people because he wants to save the lives of our troops.
It appears that the evidence against the Marines is pretty strong.
QUOTE
Source: Haditha evidence implicates Marines
Investigators reportedly finish initial review in deaths of 24 civilians
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:36 a.m. PT Aug 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687/
Investigators reportedly finish initial review in deaths of 24 civilians
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:36 a.m. PT Aug 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687/
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 9 2006, 01:33 AM)
I believe it was one incident that Murtha spoke out about, the Haditha deaths. His explanation is that he spoke out because he wanted to bring attention to the stress that the troops are under.
Methinks we covered this pretty well in the Haditha thread. Murtha called those Marines "Cold blooded murders" and said 'twas based mainly on the faulty initial story in Time.I'm also wonderin' if maybe who ever the military source that supposedly "leaked" the info to him didn't do so in confidence, eh? If so 'twould seem it didn't stay confidential for long.
I'm still afraid Murtha's unconscionable actions have irreparably affected the judicial proceedin's in the Haditha case, yet he's never apologized for doin' what he did. That's the main reason I and other vets I know got so much heartburn with the guy. IMHO 'tis enough!
QUOTE(flydangler @ Aug 9 2006, 12:03 PM)
Methinks we covered this pretty well in the Haditha thread. Murtha called those Marines "Cold blooded murders" and said 'twas based mainly on the faulty initial story in Time.
I'm also wonderin' if maybe who ever the military source that supposedly "leaked" the info to him didn't do so in confidence, eh? If so 'twould seem it didn't stay confidential for long.
I'm still afraid Murtha's unconscionable actions have irreparably affected the judicial proceedin's in the Haditha case, yet he's never apologized for doin' what he did. That's the main reason I and other vets I know got so much heartburn with the guy. IMHO 'tis enough!
I'm also wonderin' if maybe who ever the military source that supposedly "leaked" the info to him didn't do so in confidence, eh? If so 'twould seem it didn't stay confidential for long.
I'm still afraid Murtha's unconscionable actions have irreparably affected the judicial proceedin's in the Haditha case, yet he's never apologized for doin' what he did. That's the main reason I and other vets I know got so much heartburn with the guy. IMHO 'tis enough!
That's too bad that you and other vets are angry with Murtha. Maybe he regrets what he did, maybe not.
Have you ever thought that some in the military might WANT the word to get out about the horrible things happening in Iraq because they might WANT to have the U.S. redeploy our troops?
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 9 2006, 04:07 PM)
That's too bad that you and other vets are angry with Murtha. Maybe he regrets what he did, maybe not.
If some politician screwed up chances for a family member of yours by runnin' his mouth methinks you'd think differently 'bout it. As to regrettin' it, 'twould seem he ain't had any lack of opportunity to say so, he's sure kept runnin' his mouth prejudgin' folks in uniform, eh?I respect his expressions of his opinions on the Iraq war. What I don't respect is his disregard for the rights of folks who wear the same uniform he once wore.
QUOTE
Have you ever thought that some in the military might WANT the word to get out about the horrible things happening in Iraq because they might WANT to have the U.S. redeploy our troops?
Yeah, but pretty much discounted that as a probability. Doubt many military members, 'specially senior ones that'd have access to preliminary info, would cross that line when it'd so negatively affect the ability of others in uniform to get a fair hearin', eh? Just don't seem feasible, but 'twould seem when some former military folks decide to play political games their conscience gets sacrificed for the greater good of partisan politics.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Aug 9 2006, 05:44 PM)
If some politician screwed up chances for a family member of yours by runnin' his mouth methinks you'd think differently 'bout it. As to regrettin' it, 'twould seem he ain't had any lack of opportunity to say so, he's sure kept runnin' his mouth prejudgin' folks in uniform, eh?
I respect his expressions of his opinions on the Iraq war. What I don't respect is his disregard for the rights of folks who wear the same uniform he once wore.Yeah, but pretty much discounted that as a probability. Doubt many military members, 'specially senior ones that'd have access to preliminary info, would cross that line when it'd so negatively affect the ability of others in uniform to get a fair hearin', eh? Just don't seem feasible, but 'twould seem when some former military folks decide to play political games their conscience gets sacrificed for the greater good of partisan politics.
I respect his expressions of his opinions on the Iraq war. What I don't respect is his disregard for the rights of folks who wear the same uniform he once wore.Yeah, but pretty much discounted that as a probability. Doubt many military members, 'specially senior ones that'd have access to preliminary info, would cross that line when it'd so negatively affect the ability of others in uniform to get a fair hearin', eh? Just don't seem feasible, but 'twould seem when some former military folks decide to play political games their conscience gets sacrificed for the greater good of partisan politics.
How do members of the Military feel about the Brass getting protected from the consequences of incompetence? Or giving orders that shame our Servicemen's honor? How do they feel about those same Brass getting promoted for it?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 9 2006, 10:40 PM)
How do members of the Military feel about the Brass getting protected from the consequences of incompetence? Or giving orders that shame our Servicemen's honor? How do they feel about those same Brass getting promoted for it?
Methinks that's just too generalized to comment on, eh? 'Twould be much easier if there were specifics, and methinks maybe it might be better done in a thread dedicated to that subject.Havin' said that, methinks 'twould be a good subject for discussion, eh?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 9 2006, 08:40 PM)
How do members of the Military feel about the Brass getting protected from the consequences of incompetence? Or giving orders that shame our Servicemen's honor? How do they feel about those same Brass getting promoted for it?
How about some examples, eh?
I've not seen anyone get promoted for doing anything which lacks integrity.
This isn't France and it isn't 1894.
Published on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Stay the Crooked Course
by Ray McGovern
The editors of the New York Times this morning feign shock that in his speech at Fort Bragg yesterday evening President George W. Bush would “raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Kudos for that insight! Better three years late than never, I suppose.
Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the U.S. and U.K. starting pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men—his co-opted, castrated military brass—have no clue regarding what U.S. forces are up against in Iraq. The president insists that we must stay the course.
As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president’s practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks—men who “kiss up and kick down,” in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, describing UN-nominee John Bolton’s modus operandi at the State Department. So when the president assures us, as he did yesterday, that he will be guided by the “sober judgment of our military leaders” he is referring to the castrati.
This is all lost on doting congresspeople like Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has been around long enough to know better than to recite oxymorons. Most striking last week was his quixotic appeal to the military’s top brass to give a candid assessment of the situation.
Is there no top military official—active-duty or retired—around to tell it like it is? Active-duty? No. Retired? Sure there are. But the latter get little or no ink or airtime in our domesticated media. There are, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, for example, or Gen. Brent Scowcroft (USAF), who was national security adviser to George H. W. Bush and, until this year, Chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. If their remarks are reported at all, one must dig deep into the inside pages to find them.
A General With the Courage to Speak Truth
More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (US Army, ret), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of “staying the course” in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks.
Her is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV’s Panorama program:
“When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties.
“When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, ‘I am still on course.’ Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course...
“Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.”
At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to “prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.” Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you’ve succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?
Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld, and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and Director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign “intelligence reform” last summer, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, observing:
“No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents.”
Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.
And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war.
When the president spoke last evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Ambassador Paul Bremer no doubt were cheering him on from their armchairs. A most unsavory spectacle.
If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
--Rudyard Kipling
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. Now retired, he is a 27-year veteran of the analysis division of the CIA, and more recently co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Stay the Crooked Course
by Ray McGovern
The editors of the New York Times this morning feign shock that in his speech at Fort Bragg yesterday evening President George W. Bush would “raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Kudos for that insight! Better three years late than never, I suppose.
Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the U.S. and U.K. starting pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men—his co-opted, castrated military brass—have no clue regarding what U.S. forces are up against in Iraq. The president insists that we must stay the course.
As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president’s practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks—men who “kiss up and kick down,” in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, describing UN-nominee John Bolton’s modus operandi at the State Department. So when the president assures us, as he did yesterday, that he will be guided by the “sober judgment of our military leaders” he is referring to the castrati.
This is all lost on doting congresspeople like Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has been around long enough to know better than to recite oxymorons. Most striking last week was his quixotic appeal to the military’s top brass to give a candid assessment of the situation.
Is there no top military official—active-duty or retired—around to tell it like it is? Active-duty? No. Retired? Sure there are. But the latter get little or no ink or airtime in our domesticated media. There are, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, for example, or Gen. Brent Scowcroft (USAF), who was national security adviser to George H. W. Bush and, until this year, Chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. If their remarks are reported at all, one must dig deep into the inside pages to find them.
A General With the Courage to Speak Truth
More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (US Army, ret), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of “staying the course” in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks.
Her is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV’s Panorama program:
“When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties.
“When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, ‘I am still on course.’ Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course...
“Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.”
At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to “prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.” Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you’ve succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?
Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld, and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and Director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign “intelligence reform” last summer, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, observing:
“No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents.”
Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.
And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war.
When the president spoke last evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Ambassador Paul Bremer no doubt were cheering him on from their armchairs. A most unsavory spectacle.
If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
--Rudyard Kipling
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. Now retired, he is a 27-year veteran of the analysis division of the CIA, and more recently co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 1 2006, 03:57 PM)
They lost both houses of Congress because they stopped representing average Americans and became Republican lite.
In your dreams maybe.
They lost both houses of congress because they abandoned to traditional groups which supported them.
Try to figure out what happened to American labor unions, the democrats took them for granted until they just about don't exist anymore. The American working man's job is now in Mexico or Indonesia. Used to be American manufacturing was the gold standard for the world.
Pick up just about anything off your desk and find out where it was made, betcha it isn't made in the USA.
The democratc party has been steadily losing power since the early 1970s; think real hard about what happened in the early 1970s and what changed in the democratic party.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.