Posted on 01/17/2006 8:32:14 PM PST by Calpernia
Since November, the media have carried around Rep. John Murtha around on their shoulders like a conquering hero for his opposition to the war in Iraq. They’ve thrown around the words “war hero” like clowns throwing candy at a parade. Murtha was broadcast far and wide attacking Vice President Cheney for his five deferments from Vietnam, suggesting these chicken hawks don’t like any suggestions about how to fight a war.
If Murtha were a Republican accusing a Democrat like this, we know what would happen. The so-called nonpartisan, objective, “mainstream” media would either (a) totally ignore him as an irrelevant, obscure House wacko, or (b) investigate his own military record to see if he earned all the “war hero” talk. And if discrepancies were found, all hell would break loose. And if you don’t believe me, just ask John O’Neill and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, who underwent first (a) and then (b) when they challenged John Kerry.
But Murtha is a Democrat accusing a Republican. So it fell to the Cybercast News Service, (CNSNews.com, which I founded), and reporters Marc Morano and Randy Hall to look into the Murtha military record. What they found were a lot of similarities to the military record of John Kerry.
Like Kerry, Murtha’s medals came for surface wounds that never caused his evacuation from the battlefield, and like Kerry, he attempted to get his medals by political manipulation, in Murtha’s case, through then-Rep. John Saylor. But Saylor’s office felt it was odd for Murtha to seek medals for “superficial lacerations.”
Murtha also told differing stories about when and where he was wounded in action. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story reported in 2002 that Murtha had facial lacerations. In 1994, the Uniontown (Pa.) Herald-Standard quoted Murtha saying he was “wounded in the arm” for one medal and “my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down” for the other. Then, Morano and Hall uncovered a June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown (Pa.) Tribune-Democrat quoting from a letter from Murtha to his wife describing his injuries as being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."
Since there were so many similarities to Kerry – including the fact that author Morano was also one of the first reporters on the Swift Boat Veterans story – the left predictably threw an ugly fit. It was not long, then, for Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne to load his air-rifle for rhetorical battle. “I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing,” he began.
Even before he gets started, we know where he’s going, don’t we?. Liberals want to insist when they tout a “war hero” making their anti-liberation of Iraq talking points, it’s 100 percent beyond the pale of decency to investigate him. They want the world to know that when a “war hero” acceptable to them disagrees with President Bush, everyone must stop, shut up, and listen like an old E.F. Hutton commercial.
Dionne sounds just like his hero Bill Clinton as he proclaims to be maddened by “the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates...personal vilification to abort honest political debate.” As if that weren’t enough, there’s also this: “Moreover, the right has demonstrated that its attitude toward military service is entirely opportunistic.”
Now here is where we should all acknowledge our partisanship – I oppose the Clintons and the Kerrys, and Dionne favors them. But can Dionne honestly state that the left wing (and “objective” smearers like CBS) have not resorted to “personal vilification” on the military record of George W. Bush? Can he honestly ignore that the left has vilified the World War II military service of Bob Dole in 1996 (Robert Ellis in The Nation) and George H. W. Bush in 1992 (Sidney Blumenthal in the New Republic)?
More importantly, how dare anyone on the left accuse any conservative of attitudinal opportunism where military service is involved. Military service didn’t matter a bit to them when Bill Clinton was running, but was vitally important when Kerry was their man in 2004. They felt George W. Bush’s National Guard record was a scandal in 2000, but also didn’t want the media poring over Al Gore’s Vietnam service as a journalist. Four years later, there they were again, poring over Bush’s Vietnam-era service record.
It’s fair to state that on some investigative stories, only conservatives want the tough, thorough report, and on others, only liberals are really jazzed about it. But what about the public interest? A media revering the words “objective,” “nonpartisan,” and “mainstream” would investigate both Republicans and Democrats when politicians start dragging out their war records.
Well, I see that you're a victim of modern indoctrination and as such are probably hopeless. I myself don't view mankind through the eyes of only the last 30 years as our liberal society would have, but through the wider window of our long history. For most of human history men and women held to their marriage vows till death, no matter what sort of problem they faced in their marriages. For this reason it truly did take great courage and strength for a woman to remain living in a marriage with an abuser. You may not know this, but marriage vows were once as sacred to folks as, say, money, abortion, pornography and open sexuality are to people today; and we all know what most people today will endure to keep these destructive things in their lives. So from this point of view I do believe that many women were extremely heroic in holding to their vows before God, and so were/are the many men who lived with unhappy, abusive wives.
This said, I detest women and men who abuse their spouses, or abuse anybody for that matter. And if my example of every day heroism by everyday people was a poor one, so be it. I still believe however, no, I absolutely know that people in everyday life can be every bit as brave as any soldier on the battle field. The purpose of my post, whether or not it came through properly in the eyes of super sensitive, 'modernized' people who will walk out on a marriage as soon as one of the spouses sneezes the wrong way, was to show that heroism isn't unique to the battle field, and that a man's war record shouldn't be used to further his political career to the exclusion of all the other heroic men out there, like President Bush for example. Bush, I believe, is a strong Christian man whose courage is being tested every day by the relentless forces combining against him to destroy his Presidency and his reputation. His endurance shows me his strength, courage and faith. John Kerry on the other hand is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Which of the two would you prefer to have beside you in combat?
BTW, it's wrong to think of every man or woman who tries to stand firm in their unhappy marriage as being stupid or cowardly. Most of them, I believe, are indeed exercising their faith, courage, determination and inner strength. But this does not mean that I would want any person to remain married to somebody who's physically harming them, they should get away and fast. It does mean, however, that sometimes through the grace of God people really do change, and those who exercise their patience, faith and courage are sometimes rewarded for it. I think today many people are weak kneed quitters who wouldn't know faith, patience, forgiveness, understanding and courage if these things walked right up and bit them on the arse. They're are far too busy concerning themselves with "me". That's why the divorce rate is an astonishing 52%. This is not a sign of courage, it's a sign of weakness.
Well, I see that you're a victim of modern indoctrination and as such are probably hopeless.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
For this reason it truly did take great courage and strength for a woman to remain living in a marriage with an abuser.
You were talking in your original post about someone sticking around and taking abuse from their spouse. There IS such a thing as leaving without getting divorced.
You may not know this, but marriage vows were once as sacred to folks as, say, money, abortion, pornography and open sexuality are to people today; and we all know what most people today will endure to keep these destructive things in their lives.
YOu have no idea what I know or don't know. Condescention will get you no where.
BTW, it's wrong to think of every man or woman who tries to stand firm in their unhappy marriage as being stupid or cowardly.
There is a HUGE difference between staying in an unhappy marriage and staying in an abusive one. I would suspect from your views that you have most likely been in neither. You should be thanking God for that. There are plenty of people around (and I know several here on FR) who have been victims of abuse at the hands of their spouse. Telling a person that STAYING in that situation is being BRAVE is lunacy.
Nobody should stick around and 'take' abuse.
There is nothing heroic about it.
It is the height of stupidity to stick around.
If you think it is 'heroic' to stick around and 'take' abuse, what about Nixzmary Brown?
A child.
Beaten and tortured to death by her step-father while her mom did nothing.
How 'heroic' is that?
BTTT
Where did you get that idea from? I'm certainly not claiming that their actions are in any way of equal value to society. I'm illustrating that they both are exercising COURAGE. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp? Guess I need to say it simpler and more direct:
Courage is sacrificing yourself for others, and it isn't something that's unique to the battle field.
Or maybe I need to be even more direct:
Courage isn't something that's unique to the battle field.
There, it's done. Maybe when you're older and you've seen more of life you'll get it.
Why, from your post 9 of course:
"There are war heros and there are heros in everyday, ordinary life. As far as I'm concerned I've never held in higher esteem a man who acted bravely in combat to save a fellow soldier than a man who ran into a burning house to rescue his neighbor's child. Both are heroic. But for that matter, woman who endures years of physical abuse at the hands of her husband just to preserve a family life for her children, or a man who endures a brutal ten year attack from his alcoholic ex-wife to protect his children from her insanity, are every bit as 'heroic' as anyone else."
So a woman who stupidly sticks around while getting knocked around is "just as" heroic as a soldier, hunh?
So Nixzmary Browns mother showed courage when she stood by and let her hubby beat her daughter to death?
I hate those dull razors
I certainly do not advocate staying in a physically abusive marriage, in fact I left one myself long ago. Women can be as abusive as any man, and sometimes perhaps more so. So let's try this one more time, my short sighted friend, and maybe try to open that massive brain up a little this time time around.
There are many people who have endured abusive marriages, both physical and emotional, or both. They did so in some cases because there seemed no way out, and they did so in other cases because in their minds they were doing the right thing. They felt enough love for the person to marry them in the first place, and as is always the case the abuser showed only their best side during the courting. They concealed their alcoholism or their violent nature, whatever the case may be. So the abused spouse often endures suffering for the sake of love, for what they once saw in that person, and of repsect for their sacred vows.
Love, as the Bible says, "endures all, is patient, is tolerant.." etc. This being true, the abused party in the marriage will often remain in that state for a long time, praying for change, hoping for a turnaround. Sometimes it never happens, but as horrible as this can be, it doesn't make them stupid or cowardly. People can and do change, and lives and marriages can be turned around. The men and women who find themselves in these situations truly have to exercise courage and faith for as long as they're in it, whether or not ignorant, arrogant people think they stayed in it too long due to their 'stupidity'.
But I do agree with you that when the time comes to leave the abuser, that too takes courage, especially when there are children involved and life becomes a dark tunnel with an unknown future. In any case, my original post was simply to illustrate that courage comes in many forms and in many places, and is certainly not unique to the battle field. Politicians who've seen combat have no more ownership rights to courage than any other man. If you disagree, then you are bound by your own ideals to vote for the likes of John Kerry and Murtha over somebody like Pres. Bush who never saw combat, because you will believe they are the only ones privy to courage.
Remember, Kerry promised Tim Russert that he would sign the Form 180 to release his military records! Wonder if Russert will ever bring that subject up again?
You'd better go wash your hands, they must be pretty dirty after pulling this stuff out of your arse.
Wow, you aren't even going to address the substance of your own post.
Which is that Nixzmary Browns mother was courageous in sticking around with that piece of dirt to 'preserve a family life' for her child.
Thanks for playing.
Try again.
And I got it from YOUR posts, genius.
"But for that matter, woman who endures years of physical abuse at the hands of her husband just to preserve a family life for her children,"
So Nixzmary Browns mother waas brave and showed courage for letting her hubby beat her daughter to death?
Bob had absolutely no excuse for not saluting - he could've done a "John Kerry" left to the brow...
[Me ducking too!]
certainly do not advocate staying in a physically abusive marriage, in fact I left one myself long ago
I am sorry that happened to you.
Women can be as abusive as any man, and sometimes perhaps more so.
My husband's Aunt's second husband was killed by his ex-girlfriend. I know this is true.
my short sighted friend
Do not assume that I am either. Is there a reason why you cannot debate without name calling??
but as horrible as this can be, it doesn't make them stupid or cowardly
I would not call it cowardly, and I would not call THEM stupid. I do say it is STUPID to ADVISE someone to stay in that situation for what they think of as LOVE or whatever. My neice was beaten up several times by her boyfriend/fiance. He always apologized and she insisted he loved her and she loves him. That's a steaming load and I would tell her it IS stupid to stay with him. I'd tell her the same thing if they were married. I would not call HER stupid, I would just say she is making a horrendously stupid decision. A fine line of difference, but a line nonetheless.
my original post was simply to illustrate that courage comes in many forms and in many places, and is certainly not unique to the battle field.
Your original post likened staying in an abusive relationship to preserve a family life with facing a foe on a battlefield. I told you I believed that comparison to be unbelievable ignorant. I stand by what I said.
Check out his response in post 91.
Seems he doesn't like the obvious comparison of his stance with current events.
And I stand by my previous BTTT !
Kind of difficult to stand by that statement when a real-lif example is shown isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.