Your judgement here is flawed and more to the point having served is not a requirement for offering an opinion on those who have or haven't.
And now I'll explain why your judgement is flawed. Murtha has stuck his ample foot in his ample mouth more times than is necessary to cast doubt on his opinion. When he advises young men and women not to serve their country while we are engaging islamofascists worldwide he wins no points. When young soldiers stand up and tell him that to his face he loses points and credibility as he should. So Murtha should be attacked but not for what he did 37 years ago but for the lunacy he is offering today for two reasons. The first is that attacking his record engenders sympathy for an old Marine that he would not otherwise get from various folks in this country. And the second is because it has no bearing on todays debate though it might go to his credibility.
So my judgement is to attack his words and leave his DD-214 in the closet.
And one other thing, I never did like officers. :-}
PS: usmcobra, only the analysis applies to you. I understand where you're coming from and the analogy to politicans during Vietnam is right on target. People should be reminded of that on a daily basis.
But he's not being attacked for what he *did* all those years ago, but rather for distorting it now. Big difference.
Why? Murtha has very noisily and visibly played up his war experiences from 37 years ago in a cynical attempt to gain moral advantage over those he disagrees with. Thus, he has put his military service in play.
I say, fire for effect on his fraudulent heroism.
"Murtha has stuck his ample foot in his ample mouth more times than is necessary to cast doubt on his opinion."
Why haven't the MP's called this idiot into their office, and perhaps take away that, "Hero" status/purple hearts if he doesn't button his lip?