Because of his wombs-are-owned-by-the-government views, Murtha is not one of my favorite politicians. But really, does fealty to the wingnuts now trump service for the country?

True to form, the radical right has opened up a new full-frontal assault on another veteran who has criticized the Republican leaders with the swift-boating John Murtha. Just look at the "quality" of reporting here.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won the election.

But there's no bad blood there. No. Bailey wouldn't have any motive for disparaging Murtha! (This is the lead of the story. I goes downhill from here.)

[A]nother source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.

Another political rival produced "evidence"?

When Saylor died in 1973....

--The perfect witness for the prosecution--

...Fox attempted to succeed his boss in Congress, but was narrowly defeated by Murtha in a 1974 special election.

A third political rival! We're 3 for 3 on political rivals producing the "evidence" so far.

"Pretending to be a big war hero and boasting about having medals is a slap in the face to our veterans who were seriously wounded or killed in action," Fox was quoted as telling the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Nov. 1, 1996 edition. "He campaigned as a war hero and I've never seen any documentation that he earned any of these honors," Fox reportedly stated.

"Reportedly"? So this is hearsay of what a political rival said? And this is convincing ... how?

On Friday, Jan. 13, Murtha's congressional communications director provided Cybercast News Service with a copy of a letter from the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, citing Murtha's request of Sept. 26, 1967, seeking Purple Hearts. Cybercast News Service did not authenticate the letter.

Well, why not? Is it because they could not? Or would not? Too much trouble? No gain in it?

Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate.

Another ideal witness for the prosecution.

But in a 1996 newspaper article, Fox questioned whether Murtha deserved his Purple Hearts, alleging that there was insufficient evidence of injuries and that Murtha was never confined to a hospital.

Hell, let's go through all of the campaign speeches of Murtha's opponents! There's bound to be lots of dirt there!

"Of course Congressman Saylor wanted to help if he could, but there was nothing in the service record to indicate the wounds were of any severity and the documents specifically indicated that next of kin was not notified in either instance," Fox told the Herald-Standard in 1996.

Can you visualize the crocodile tears?

Many freepers seem to question the swift-boating tactic here:

Is this a wise place to go?

I think this approach will backfire. Best to deal with Murtha in the present, not the past.

Not a smart move.

I don't think this line of argument is a good idea at all.

The military decides what is and isn't worthy of a purple heart. Once that decision is made, I don't think it's up to the public to second guess. This is not a good idea.

Should not go there.

I agree...too close to the Kerry background
stories.

How sad when it comes to this.

Being freepers, there's also plenty of righteous vitriol. Many just can't help themselves. To them, anyone who served in the military and isn't shilling for the Republican Party must be a liar and a traitor. They can just make up facts ... or go get "evidence" from political rivals.

Given this kind of track record, I'm disinclined to believe any "evidence" the wingnuts throw up against a Democrat.

Now if we can dig up a "fighting Dem" who actually supports women's liberty and reproductive rights, I'd consider voting for him or her.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.