Go to sarooster's opinion on things
- Add a comment
- Go to Real journalism!
I am not going to call anyone an expert, no matter how great his
credentials, if they speak up AFTER the fact. All these guys should have said something before this war started. It's just not right to say I told you so after the fact. They don't have to give their medals back. I am pretty sure these two guys earned theirs. They can keep that part of the deal. If they were experts they would have told us what was going to happen before all this took place. Or maybe they are not any more expert than anyone else including President Bush! Stormin' Norman could have kept us out of this if we had taken care of Saddam and his ilk in the first Gulf War.
posted by
sarooster
on January 22, 2006 at 7:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Do some research and see what former General
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki had to say about the war, they had many questions.
Why not look into their service and take their awards away, maybe they are not experts either.
posted by
scoop
on January 22, 2006 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply
To speak out after the fact is not wrong. If mistakes were made, correct it
Murtha never said he was an expert. Show me where he said he was an expert. Is McCain an expert? Bush never went to war, is he an expert on war?
I suppose retired Four Star General Tony Zinni, USMC, former CENTCOM commander is also not an expert and is anti-American for saying this about the Iraq war, "There has been poor strategic thinking in this. There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure."
posted by
scoop
on January 22, 2006 at 7:27 PM
| link to this | reply
If Hagel's medals are questioned and there is reason
to look into what he did then I say by all means look into it! He is not a favorite of mine either, but I don't think his service has ever been questioned.
posted by
sarooster
on January 22, 2006 at 7:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Murtha should have spoke up before the war started!
Then he could be called an expert. The Congress, and Murtha is a Congressman, gave President Bush, overwhelmingly, the right to do what we are doing today. To speak out after the fact is wrong. Murtha saw much of the same intelligence and data that everyone else saw. He gave away his right to complain, along with everyone else who voted to let the President get us into war, when he voted the way he did. The guy is given credit for being an expert, yet he was not expert enough to speak out against the war before it started. His medals are being questioned a long way after the fact because some conservative journalist decided to hit back like the liberals do. I say that's fair game. I won't fault Clinton alone for not serving. Many others did the same, and while I don't agree with some of that, he did what many others did. We have to condemn the whole lot who did so. Everyone who served probably did not do so honorably. When people use their war credentails and such to get elected to public off they are always fair game for scrutiny.
posted by
sarooster
on January 22, 2006 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
How about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?
Why not take his medals to for speaking out? He must be a real turncoat to the Republicans. He must be Anti-American also right?
He was an infantry Sergeant in the Army, during the Vietnam War and also received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
This is bullshit and you know it I guess anyone who speaks out is a commie. This is why I am hating the republican bullshit more and more.
posted by
scoop
on January 22, 2006 at 7:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Why is Murtha dangerous because he speaks out?
Where is the freedom of speech, where is the democracy? How about maybe the war is wrong? It is a politicians right to ask questions, otherwise he is not doing his job. Just because Bush sent us into Iraq with bad info makes everything OK?
Why question Murthas medals 40 years later? I bet if Murtha didn't speak up no one would say anything. Sure Bush served ,questionably, better then I can say for Clinton but this is garbage to go after a man for speaking his mind.
posted by
scoop
on January 22, 2006 at 7:08 PM
| link to this | reply
I knew it scoop. I knew it.
If someone speaks out against a vet, no matter if he got his stuff dubious or not, you go ballistic. I have no reason to believe you served other than honorably. I think you are man of honesty and dignity. Murtha is dangerous in my book. Just because he served does not make him an expert. His words have probably given aid to the enemy. I knew you were going to jump in and defend someone who is a vet who's credentials have been challenged. But if he got his medals in a dubious manner than let's find out about it. Conservatives are attacked all the time. I say the liberals can endure the same.
posted by
sarooster
on January 22, 2006 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarooster, This is just garbage politics as usual.
Rep. John P. Murtha served as a Marine and is now a critic of the war in Iraq, because of that he joins the list of what Republicans call anti-Americans.
This is just another swift boat attack because he is outspoken against Bush and Iraq.
Murtha received the Bronze Star with a combat V, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. When he retired as a Colonel he received the navy Distinguished Service Medal.
As a fellow Marine I applaud John Murtha.
I was a machine gunner in the 1st Marine Division and I received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and a Purple Heart and I oppose Bush in the war in Iraq.
I suppose you want my fucking medals right?
posted by
scoop
on January 22, 2006 at 6:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes, Yes, Yes!!
That is pretty much the point of my whole post! The media reports opinions as news much of the time. Facts are not allowed to get in the way of a story. To take most of this seriously is just funny. Thanks for the read and one great comment.
posted by
sarooster
on January 22, 2006 at 6:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarooster...Interesting post. Real journalism is straight reporting of well researched, accurate, and objectively written news and facts, or it should be.
TV or radio talk shows are far from straight reporting. Rather, they're used as an opportunity by people to express opinions, to promote political and other beliefs, or their version of a happening - distorted, biased, or accurate...anything goes. One might refer to such shows as entertainment...never to be taken too seriously.
posted by
reasons
on January 22, 2006 at 6:31 PM
| link to this | reply