Murtha and Moran Owned by Army Sgt.

[Zguy28]

If you weren't so wrong, you would be taken seriously. The "Bush Lied" comments are not about the intellegence (well most of them) but Bush's words leading up to the invasion. Don't you remember the "We all want a peaceful solution"? How about the "We want the weapons inspectors to go into Iraq and force Saddam to disarm". The entire vote was NOT for war, but to give Bush the backing of America. Then when the got the cooperation of Saddam, and they couldn't get the vote in the UN, they decided to invade Iraq any way. That is how "Bush Lied", not because of his humongous blunder in interperting the intel (well actally fixing the intel around the facts, we know that one too) They played politics with our soldiers, and that is about the most disgusting thing I have ever seen a president do.

Perhaps if you read the article I posted, you would understand. It wasn't just Bush. I should send you the DVD "Kerry on Iraq."

Unfortunately there are FAR FAR to many people in this country who put their party BEFORE our country. If this was Clinton, would you still feel the same way about the war? Maybe there are a handful in the US, but the vast and overwelming majority would be calling him a traitorist scumbag if he did this. I just have to point this outt to people every now and then, especially when BS is used for a defense.

Hypocrisy at it finest. Bosnia mean anything to you? In his Nov. 27, 1995, address to the nation, Clinton said the mission in Bosnia “should — and will — take about one year.” Am I calling him a "traitorous scumbag?" Was that the truth? Our troops just left last year. 10 YEARS! Nobody calling for an immediate pullout there, even though it was Clinton's war.

I think you have it backwards as usual Chomerics. A small number of folks are calling names and bending our government to their aims and ideaology through their highpower lobbyist (and its not just Oil Company CEO's, try Planned Parenthood for example).

Oh, and also, I don't put my party first. I haven't always voted for my party.

[Destino]

Because, this is just my opinon the home front was at fault. They quit on our soldiers. Correct me if I am wrong but the reality of the Gulf of Tomkin incident was not exsposed till after the war. They way the troops were treated on their return as second class citizens in some cases speaks volumes. This war is very personal to me, my uncle lost his leg in Vietnam and I can still remember the torment my mother went through trying to find out his condition. I can still remember visiting the VA hospital in Philadelphia, they were just building Veterans Stadium. This is why I think the Congressman a Vietnam Vet himself should know better.

Ed

You are right that the reality of the Tonkin incident did not come out until later, but in reading about the period it seems clear that people in the US were not convinced about the war to begin with.....thus the need to fake an attack. When you march into war with an unwilling nation isn't it to be expected that support will not be long lasting? Shouldn't leaders, for one not lie to those they were elected to serve, and not drag the US into wars that the people simply want no part of?

I agree with you 100% that soldiers were treated poorly and that this is shameful. They shouldn't have been treated that way. But who is to blame for the entire nasty period is where you and I seem to differ. I view it as causing an accident but because you weren't hit driving away like you did nothing wrong.

[Air Force Cane]

What is the point arguing over the origins of the war THREE YEARS AGO?!! these leftists still believe Al Gore won and that really he is the President. They are trapped in a time warp where they were in power, and can not reconcile themselves to the Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, the Courts, and the Governorships.

it is a mental disorder, that no matter HOW MANY articles showing Clinton or Kerry or Albright or Biden or Gore discussing WMD in Iraq- they will just put their hands on their ears and say "Bush Lied"...

don't waste your time.

luckily we are winning regardless of the 15-20% defeatists who want us to lose.

[Mad Mike]

I see you left off the coward comment THIS time. . . and yet you still follow to the drumbeat of the right wing noise machine without even a modicum of decency in your arguments, why am I not suprised. Such valuable insight from the man who still argues that Saddam Hussen was working with Al Qaeda :doh:

I also see the irony of your post goes RIGHT over your head as well. :laugh: The funny part is you don't even see it.

I consider coward to be a given when refering to you. As well as many other things which I will not speak out loud. You are the single person on this board that I have zero respect for. I may dissagree with others here, but they at least show some intelligence. You show none.

You want to argue that a ruthless dictator who hated america and supported every other islamic terrorist organization on earth was not a threat. In your silly little mind it's an absolute fact that there were no ties when there were plenty of contacts and all that has ever been said is we cant prove they were cooperating. Newsflash: If a thief breaks into your house and you cant prove it, he still broke into your house. There is a reason police look to those who have commited similar crimes in the past as suspects and a threat to repeat their actions. There is a reason we arrest kids for talking about how they want to kill their peers at school. Saddam plotted to kill a US president, he was in violation of sanctions by not cooperating, he was harboring a known alQaeda terrorist who escaped afghanistan but in your idiotic world he was contained by sanctions even as he profited by them, blamed the US for his peoples suffering (a theme repeated by binLaden) and gave large sums of money to terrorists as he openly inflamed hostility with us and called for our demise. The UN and every nation that resisted our intentions to enforce the resolutions was profiting from the status quo, THAT is why they were against war, not because they actually beleved it was wrong.

Right now because of the efforts of good men like grdpounder we are making progress and winning the hearts and minds of the good people of Iraq. Because of good men like grdpounder they are having elections and building schools and all you can say is "we can't win".

You are a defeatist, and frankly you are the one person on this board that I can not stand. If I saw you were on fire, I would not pee on you to put it out.

:2cents:

[Predicto]

I consider coward to be a given when refering to you. As well as many other things which I will not speak out loud. You are the single person on this board that I have zero respect for. I may dissagree with others here, but they at least show some intelligence. You show none.

You want to argue that a ruthless dictator who hated america and supported every other islamic terrorist organization on earth was not a threat. In your silly little mind it's an absolute fact that there were no ties when there were plenty of contacts and all that has ever been said is we cant prove they were cooperating. Newsflash: If a thief breaks into your house and you cant prove it, he still broke into your house. There is a reason police look to those who have commited similar crimes in the past as suspects and a threat to repeat their actions. There is a reason we arrest kids for talking about how they want to kill their peers at school. Saddam plotted to kill a US president, he was in violation of sanctions by not cooperating, he was harboring a known alQaeda terrorist who escaped afghanistan but in your idiotic world he was contained by sanctions even as he profited by them, blamed the US for his peoples suffering (a theme repeated by binLaden) and gave large sums of money to terrorists as he openly inflamed hostility with us and called for our demise. The UN and every nation that resisted our intentions to enforce the resolutions was profiting from the status quo, THAT is why they were against war, not because they actually beleved it was wrong.

Right now because of the efforts of good men like grdpounder we are making progress and winning the hearts and minds of the good people of Iraq. Because of good men like grdpounder they are having elections and building schools and all you can say is "we can't win".

You are a defeatist, and frankly you are the one person on this board that I can not stand. If I saw you were on fire, I would not pee on you to put it out.

:2cents:

Gee Mike, what do you really think?

Note to self: do not disagree with MadMike and provide facts to counter his claims. He takes it personally.

By the way, Mike, did you ever wonder why not even your own right wing cohorts on this board agree with your claim that Saddam and the Al-Queda 9-11 attack were connected?

Try this analogy. Chomerics believes you are a hysterical, hostile idiot. I also believe you are a hysterical, hostile idiot. But, amazingly enough, I have never met Chomerics or talked with Chomerics or assisted Chomerics. What is more, if he wanted to give you the punch in the nose that you arguably deserve, I would not help him do so.

I hope you can figure out the analogy I just made, but I doubt it. Try substituting "fly into the Twin Towers" for "punch in the nose" if it is too hard.

Have a good weekend now. Go Skins!

[Sarge]

I consider coward to be a given when refering to you. As well as many other things which I will not speak out loud. You are the single person on this board that I have zero respect for. I may dissagree with others here, but they at least show some intelligence. You show none.

You want to argue that a ruthless dictator who hated america and supported every other islamic terrorist organization on earth was not a threat. In your silly little mind it's an absolute fact that there were no ties when there were plenty of contacts and all that has ever been said is we cant prove they were cooperating. Newsflash: If a thief breaks into your house and you cant prove it, he still broke into your house. There is a reason police look to those who have commited similar crimes in the past as suspects and a threat to repeat their actions. There is a reason we arrest kids for talking about how they want to kill their peers at school. Saddam plotted to kill a US president, he was in violation of sanctions by not cooperating, he was harboring a known alQaeda terrorist who escaped afghanistan but in your idiotic world he was contained by sanctions even as he profited by them, blamed the US for his peoples suffering (a theme repeated by binLaden) and gave large sums of money to terrorists as he openly inflamed hostility with us and called for our demise. The UN and every nation that resisted our intentions to enforce the resolutions was profiting from the status quo, THAT is why they were against war, not because they actually beleved it was wrong.

Right now because of the efforts of good men like grdpounder we are making progress and winning the hearts and minds of the good people of Iraq. Because of good men like grdpounder they are having elections and building schools and all you can say is "we can't win".

You are a defeatist, and frankly you are the one person on this board that I can not stand. If I saw you were on fire, I would not pee on you to put it out.

:2cents:

Don't mince words Mike, say what you really mean!

[Mad Mike]

Gee Mike, what do you really think?

Note to self: do not disagree with MadMike and provide facts to counter his claims. He takes it personally.

By the way, Mike, did you ever wonder why not even your own right wing cohorts on this board agree with your claim that Saddam and the Al-Queda 9-11 attack were connected?

Try this analogy. Chomerics believes you are a hysterical, hostile idiot. I also believe you are a hysterical, hostile idiot. But, amazingly enough, I have never met Chomerics or talked with Chomerics or assisted Chomerics. What is more, if he wanted to give you the punch in the nose that you arguably deserve, I would not help him do so.

I hope you can figure out the analogy I just made, but I doubt it. Try substituting "fly into the Twin Towers" for "punch in the nose" if it is too hard.

Have a good weekend now. Go Skins!

Now, now, we wouldn't want to go calling people names would we?

BTW. Saddam DID want to help bin Laden. That has never been in dispute. A bi partizan commision agrees on that. Furthermore Saddam WAS harboring a top al Qaeda terrorist. I call that helping. Just like it is a crime to harbor a criminal. This is also a fact. He also tried to punch us in the nose by assasinating a US president. Another fact. So your analogy does not work. That isn't too hard for you to figure out now is it? Care to try again?

Oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me what part of this post....

I see you left off the coward comment THIS time. . . and yet you still follow to the drumbeat of the right wing noise machine without even a modicum of decency in your arguments, why am I not suprised. Such valuable insight from the man who still argues that Saddam Hussen was working with Al Qaeda

I also see the irony of your post goes RIGHT over your head as well. The funny part is you don't even see it.

...provides "facts to counter my claims".

Then again, perhaps you should only open your mouth to change feet.

[chomerics]

I consider coward to be a given when refering to you. As well as many other things which I will not speak out loud. You are the single person on this board that I have zero respect for. I may dissagree with others here, but they at least show some intelligence. You show none.

You see Mike, this is why you hate me so much, because I tell you things about yourself and I make you face things you don't like to see. I show you, in sometimes glaringly obvious terms, what you hate to admit.

As for the coward comment, sling it all you want Mike, it means nothing coming from you, because I know what a coward is. A coward is someone who can't admit things to himself. A coward is someone who can see the truth, yet can't admit that truth to himself. A coward is someone who never say's "I was wrong." A coward is someone who knows what has to be done, but he can't bring himself to do it. Challenging the motives and beliefs coming into this war is not cowardise, NOT admitting to yourself that you were wrong is, and that is what you still have to learn.

You want to argue that a ruthless dictator who hated america and supported every other islamic terrorist organization on earth was not a threat.

Yes, I do. Saddam was NOT a threat to the US. Read the WMD Myth and every document which led up to the invasion Mike, it may open up your eyes.

In your silly little mind it's an absolute fact that there were no ties when there were plenty of contacts and all that has ever been said is we cant prove they were cooperating.

Like I said before, you STILL after all these years think Saddam and Al Qaeda were cooperating. They were not. It is that simple. In fact, Saddam tried to infultrate Al Qaeda at one point, but I guess you missed that one reading your Newsmax websites all day didn't ya.

Newsflash: If a thief breaks into your house and you cant prove it, he still broke into your house.

So you at LEAST admit you can't prove anything. That is the first step towards salvation Mike, at least you admit you can't prove anything.

There is a reason police look to those who have commited similar crimes in the past as suspects and a threat to repeat their actions.There is a reason we arrest kids for talking about how they want to kill their peers at school.

Saddam plotted to kill a US president

Yes Mike, and it was THIS president's father. Do you not think that would be a motive?

he was in violation of sanctions by not cooperating,

Yet, he complied with EVERYTHING when we asked him to. We put inspectors everywhere, and they found nothing. Why don't you read the IAEAreport on Iraq's non-exitant nuclear program a week before we invaded.

he was harboring a known alQaeda terrorist who escaped afghanistan

No, at the time Mike, Zarqawi was NOT an Al-Qaeda member before the invasion. After we invaded he proclaimed his loyalty to Bin Laden. You see, Zawqawi is yet another example of an Al Qaeda recruit which came about from our invasion. Combining terrorism to hate against the US instead of fighting in their little factions.

but in your idiotic world he was contained by sanctions even as he profited by them, blamed the US for his peoples suffering (a theme repeated by binLaden) and gave large sums of money to terrorists as he openly inflamed hostility with us and called for our demise. The UN and every nation that resisted our intentions to enforce the resolutions was profiting from the status quo, THAT is why they were against war, not because they actually beleved it was wrong.

No Mike, you are wrong again. The UN did not want war becasue of the "oil for food" scandal, they did not want war because there was no REASON for war. He was not stockpiling chemicals, he was not trying to purchase nukes, he did not have 500,000 tons of biotoxin. He had no WMDs, and he had no weapons programs no nothing. That's why the UN didn't want to invade!!!

Right now because of the efforts of good men like grdpounder we are making progress and winning the hearts and minds of the good people of Iraq.

Really? Winning the hearts and minds Mike? How can we be winning the hearts and minds of people when 65% of the people support attacks on our troops? Or that lss then 1% think we are making them safer? How is that inning the hearts and minds of Iraq?

Because of good men like grdpounder they are having elections and building schools and all you can say is "we can't win".

No Mike, I applaud our soldiers, but I loath the people that put them in that position. I look at history to tell me what to expect as it has a strange way of repeating itself. You just can't handle the truth, and when faced with it, you explode. That is who you are, it is your personality, hell your name is "Mad Mike"

You are a defeatist, and frankly you are the one person on this board that I can not stand. If I saw you were on fire, I would not pee on you to put it out.

Mike, if for once in your life you could actually open up your eyes, I think I would die a happy man, but unfortunatley you see the world in terms of hate and spite. I on the other hand, understand what life is about, and I can see the forest through the trees. Maybe one day you should try it, but I don't think you are ready. You still have to take that first step and admit you are wrong.

[nelms]

You see Mike, this is why you hate me so much, because I tell you things about yourself and I make you face things you don't like to see. I show you, in sometimes glaringly obvious terms, what you hate to admit.

As for the coward comment, sling it all you want Mike, it means nothing coming from you, because I know what a coward is. A coward is someone who can't admit things to himself. A coward is someone who can see the truth, yet can't admit that truth to himself. A coward is someone who never say's "I was wrong." A coward is someone who knows what has to be done, but he can't bring himself to do it. Challenging the motives and beliefs coming into this war is not cowardise, NOT admitting to yourself that you were wrong is, and that is what you still have to learn.

Yes, I do. Saddam was NOT a threat to the US. Read the WMD Myth and every document which led up to the invasion Mike, it may open up your eyes.

Like I said before, you STILL after all these years think Saddam and Al Qaeda were cooperating. They were not. It is that simple. In fact, Saddam tried to infultrate Al Qaeda at one point, but I guess you missed that one reading your Newsmax websites all day didn't ya.

So you at LEAST admit you can't prove anything. That is the first step towards salvation Mike, at least you admit you can't prove anything.

Yes Mike, and it was THIS president's father. Do you not think that would be a motive?

Yet, he complied with EVERYTHING when we asked him to. We put inspectors everywhere, and they found nothing. Why don't you read the IAEAreport on Iraq's non-exitant nuclear program a week before we invaded.

No, at the time Mike, Zarqawi was NOT an Al-Qaeda member before the invasion. After we invaded he proclaimed his loyalty to Bin Laden. You see, Zawqawi is yet another example of an Al Qaeda recruit which came about from our invasion. Combining terrorism to hate against the US instead of fighting in their little factions.

No Mike, you are wrong again. The UN did not want war becasue of the "oil for food" scandal, they did not want war because there was no REASON for war. He was not stockpiling chemicals, he was not trying to purchase nukes, he did not have 500,000 tons of biotoxin. He had no WMDs, and he had no weapons programs no nothing. That's why the UN didn't want to invade!!!

Really? Winning the hearts and minds Mike? How can we be winning the hearts and minds of people when 65% of the people support attacks on our troops? Or that lss then 1% think we are making them safer? How is that inning the hearts and minds of Iraq?

No Mike, I applaud our soldiers, but I loath the people that put them in that position. I look at history to tell me what to expect as it has a strange way of repeating itself. You just can't handle the truth, and when faced with it, you explode. That is who you are, it is your personality, hell your name is "Mad Mike"

Mike, if for once in your life you could actually open up your eyes, I think I would die a happy man, but unfortunatley you see the world in terms of hate and spite. I on the other hand, understand what life is about, and I can see the forest through the trees. Maybe one day you should try it, but I don't think you are ready. You still have to take that first step and admit you are wrong.

Do you just copy and paste the same crap over and over again? :doh:

[Mad Mike]

Do you just copy and paste the same crap over and over again? :doh:

Damn. You had to go and quote him didn't you? :laugh:

This message is hidden because chomerics is on your ignore list.

And for the record chom. I hate you because you are an obnoxious idiot who posts endlessly long diatribes that defend evil men like Saddam. I cant stand you because you are too stupid to see the hypocrasy of your own far left bias and you have a smart mouth that I would bet you would not use in the same manner if confronted face to face. I could go on and on with much enjoyment but I will stop here before I get myself banned. Welcome back to my ignore list, life is too short to waste on the likes of you.

[chomerics]

Damn. You had to go and quote him didn't you? :laugh:

And for the record chom. I hate you because you are an obnoxious idiot who posts endlessly long diatribes that defend evil men like Saddam. I cant stand you because you are too stupid to see the hypocrasy of your own far left bias and you have a smart mouth that I would bet you would not use in the same manner if confronted face to face. I could go on and on with much enjoyment but I will stop here before I get myself banned. Welcome back to my ignore list, life is too short to waste on the likes of you.

Yep Mike, you REALLY have me figured out :laugh: :laugh: :rotflmao: . . . . . . . .no seriously :laugh::rotflmao::laugh:

You are the best example I can think of for a person who has been blinded, yet thinks he can see. You are George Bush waving to Steve Wonder, and not realizing that what people are laughing at. . . yep that's you Mike, right along with your 2002 sig :laugh:

[Sarge]

I think it's time for you two to go to time out:)

[Mad Mike]

I think it's time for you two to go to time out:)

:laugh:

Me. I'm fine. In fact I'm in a wonderful mood. Despite losing an expensive pair of glasses that I really liked and having to buy an even more expensive pair, I had an enjoyable afternoon and I'm sitting here with a smile on my face.

[Destino]

And for the record chom. I hate you because you are an obnoxious idiot who posts endlessly long diatribes that defend evil men like Saddam. I cant stand you because you are too stupid to see the hypocrasy of your own far left bias and you have a smart mouth that I would bet you would not use in the same manner if confronted face to face. I could go on and on with much enjoyment but I will stop here before I get myself banned. Welcome back to my ignore list, life is too short to waste on the likes of you.

ONOS AN E-THUG!!!

[Joe Sick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/18webb.html

IT should come as no surprise that an arch-conservative Web site is questioning whether Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has been critical of the war in Iraq, deserved the combat awards he received in Vietnam.

After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha.

Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves.

Not unlike the Clinton "triangulation" strategy, the approach has been to attack an opponent's greatest perceived strength in order to diminish his overall credibility. To no one's surprise, surrogates carry out the attacks, leaving President Bush and other Republican leaders to benefit from the results while publicly distancing themselves from the actual remarks.

During the 2000 primary season, John McCain's life-defining experiences as a prisoner of war in Vietnam were diminished through whispers that he was too scarred by those years to handle the emotional burdens of the presidency. The wide admiration that Senator Max Cleland gained from building a career despite losing three limbs in Vietnam brought on the smug non sequitur from critics that he had been injured in an accident and not by enemy fire. John Kerry's voluntary combat duty was systematically diminished by the well-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in a highly successful effort to insulate a president who avoided having to go to war.

And now comes Jack Murtha. The administration tried a number of times to derail the congressman's criticism of the Iraq war, including a largely ineffective effort to get senior military officials to publicly rebuke him (Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was the only one to do the administration's bidding there).

Now the Cybercast News Service, a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party, has dusted off the Swift Boat Veterans playbook, questioning whether Mr. Murtha deserved his two Purple Hearts. The article also implied that Mr. Murtha did not deserve the Bronze Star he received, and that the combat-distinguishing "V" on it was questionable. It then called on Mr. Murtha to open up his military records.

Cybercast News Service is run by David Thibault, who formerly worked as the senior producer for "Rising Tide," the televised weekly news magazine produced by the Republican National Committee. One of the authors of the Murtha article was Marc Morano, a long-time writer and producer for Rush Limbaugh.

The accusations against Mr. Murtha were very old news, principally coming from defeated political rivals. Aligned against their charges are an official letter from Marine Corps Headquarters written nearly 40 years ago affirming Mr. Murtha's eligibility for his Purple Hearts - "you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action" - and the strict tradition of the Marine Corps regarding awards. While in other services lower-level commanders have frequently had authority to issue prestigious awards, in the Marines Mr. Murtha's Vietnam Bronze Star would have required the approval of four different awards boards.

The Bush administration's failure to support those who have served goes beyond the smearing of these political opponents. One of the most regrettable examples comes, oddly enough, from modern-day Vietnam. The government-run War Remnants Museum, a popular tourist site in downtown Ho Chi Minh City, includes an extensive section on "American atrocities." The largest display is devoted to Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator and governor of Nebraska, recipient of the Medal of Honor and member of the 9/11 commission.

In the display, Mr. Kerrey is flatly labeled a war criminal by the Vietnamese government, and the accompanying text gives a thoroughly propagandized version of an incident that resulted in civilian deaths during his time in Vietnam. This display has been up for more than two years. One finds it hard to imagine another example in which a foreign government has been allowed to so characterize the service of a distinguished American with no hint of a diplomatic protest.

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

Rudyard Kipling summed up this syndrome quite neatly more than a century ago, writing about the frequent hypocrisy directed at the British soldiers of his day:

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, was a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam.

[Zguy28]

And conservative posters get mud slung because they post from the conservative Wash Times, consider the source here: NY Times=liberal. Where's all the bias-crying now?

And also, who the heck knew there was a museum showing off Bob Kerrey's supposed atrocities? Not me or anyone else I know.

[Destino]

And conservative posters get mud slung because they post from the conservative Wash Times, consider the source here: NY Times=liberal. Where's all the bias-crying now?

Where? You are the very next post and you are crying about bias. So you are the answer to your own question.

Also I freely admit that is a heavily bias article. No doubt about it. I don't know that writer though so I can't say what his bias is though it appear to be liberal, could be wrong though. having said that, I would like to point out this is an editorial not a news article listed under Nation/Politics as was a certain Moonie-Times article concerning a big headed senator.

[WinSkins]

Congressman Murtha.

On behalf of 98% of the military, we'd appreciate it if you'd just keep your comments to yourself

Missed the election where you were elected spokesman for 98% of active duty military...please share the link to source.

[Predicto]

And conservative posters get mud slung because they post from the conservative Wash Times, consider the source here: NY Times=liberal. Where's all the bias-crying now?

And also, who the heck knew there was a museum showing off Bob Kerrey's supposed atrocities? Not me or anyone else I know.

Umm... "James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, was a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam."

The Reagan administration? I doubt he's a liberal.

[WinSkins]

Support our troops.

Get them the body armor and equipment they need and deserve.

Send them into harms way only when absolutely necessary and return them home as soon as possible.

Improve funding and support for them and their families while they are deployed and when they return home.

Do not take one casualty or one life for granted…every American we lose is a tragedy.

Serving your country proudly is not a republican or democratic party behavior...it's an American behavior.

Anyone who throws the word coward around without personally observing someone in combat is a fool.

Calling a 37 year, highly-decorated United States Marine any despicable names just because you disagree with his opinions is questionable at best and utterly absurd in and of itself.

What are we winning in Iraq? They’ve been shocked and awed, Saddam is gone from power, they've had their elections and 70 to 80% of the Iraqis want us to leave...what are we winning?

Might we want to consider getting ourselves militarily ready to address threats from North Korea and Iran just in case current efforts to politically and diplomatically solve issues are unsuccessful?

No party owns the American flag or patriotism...anyone who tries to pretend this is so brings disgrace and dishonor to themselves, for they cannot tarnish the sacrifices of Americans who have fought, been wounded, or died in defense of their country.

People who try to diminish or minimize their service and sacrifice are lower than whale manure, regardless of what party label they wear!

My father was a career military man and I volunteered to serve. We always believed we owed that service to our country. However, even those who chose other priorities have a right, and even a responsibility, to express their opinions whether I agree with them or not…the America for which I served is a much bigger and better place than I see reflected in some of these postings.

[Zguy28]

Umm... "James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, was a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam."

The Reagan administration? I doubt he's a liberal.

I see your point but that doesn't really hold water in my opinion.

Reagan put Justice Kennedy and O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Bush did the same with Souter and Pres. Ford with John Paul Stevens.

All liberal judges.

Does that make sense?

[Joe Sick]

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

----

Mr. Webb spent the "Watergate years" as a student at the Georgetown University Law Center, arriving just after the Watergate break-in in 1972, and receiving his J.D. just after the fall of South Vietnam in l975. While at Georgetown he began a six-year pro bono representation of a Marine who had been convicted of war crimes in Vietnam (finally clearing the man's name in 1978, three years after his suicide), won the Horan award for excellence in legal writing, and authored his first book, Micronesia and U.S. Pacific Strategy. He also worked in Asia as a consultant to the Governor of Guam, conducting a study of U.S. military land needs in Asia, and their impact on Guam's political future.

...

In government, Mr. Webb served in the U.S. Congress as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from l977 to l98l, becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve as a full committee counsel in the Congress. During the Reagan Administration he was the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from l984 to l987, where he directed considerable research and analysis of the U.S. military's mobilization capabilities and spent much time with our NATO allies. In 1987 he became the first Naval Academy graduate in history to serve in the military and then become Secretary of the Navy. He resigned from that position in 1988 after refusing to agree in the reduction of the Navy's force structure during congressionally-mandated budget cuts.

Among Mr. Webb's many other awards for community service and professional excellence are the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal, the Medal of Honor Society's Patriot Award, the American Legion National Commander's Public Service Award, the VFW's Media Service Award, the Marine Corps League's Military Order of the Iron Mike Award, the John Russell Leader-ship Award, and the Robert L. Denig Distinguished Service Award. He was a Fall, 1992 Fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics.

http://www.jameswebb.com/about.htm

[Predicto]

I see your point but that doesn't really hold water in my opinion.

Reagan put Justice Kennedy and O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Bush did the same with Souter and Pres. Ford with John Paul Stevens.

All liberal judges.

Does that make sense?

I guess I see your point too, well, except for the part where you think Anthony Kennedy is a liberal judge. O'Connor isn't liberal either - but I guess people could argue about that based on a handful of her decisions. Kennedy, on the other hand, really can not be legitimately called a liberal, even by a scale that has Scalia and Thomas as mainstream conservatives.

Now, looking at his bioography... The American Legion usually does not give awards to liberals, does it?

[Zguy28]

I guess I see your point too, well, except for the part where you think Anthony Kennedy is a liberal judge. O'Connor isn't liberal either - but I guess people could argue about that based on a handful of her decisions. Kennedy, on the other hand, really can not be legitimately called a liberal, even by a scale that has Scalia and Thomas as mainstream conservatives.

Now, looking at his bioography... The American Legion usually does not give awards to liberals, does it?

True enough. I guess Kennedy and O'Connor are actually moderate/swing votes.

[DCRunner]

Please, anyone who knows Jim Webb knows that he is not in any way a liberal. Quit talking out of your asses.

I told you many Republican and conservative former leaders in the government and the military are disgusted with Bush II and what he is doing now. They're being very cautious with their criticism cause they don't want to hurt the party but I think you're going to see more of it.