Murtha

Kerry Shafts The Military And The Country Again…Cowardice Or Treason??

John Kerry, the oh so pompous…who is seeking some legacy other than the betrayal of his comrades in arms in Viet Nam, has decided to extend his treasonous activities to brand new generations of our servicemen and women. Kerry is despicable. Thank the Lord above that the honorable men of the Swift Boat Veterans had the courage of their convictions and stopped Kerry’s White House aspirations. As it turned out it only deferred us the disaster which is Barack Hussein Obama. Barry and Kerry deserve each other. They share the same yellow streak. Obama’s inability to make a decision to send the resources to Afghanistan that the field commanders in charge have determined are required to accomplish the mission, despite the advice of the finest military minds in the country, is irresponsible and well… it’s cowardly. Every two bit tinhorn  bad guy in the world sees Obama for what he is…weak, ineffectual, indecisive and therefore not to be feared. John Kerry has already proven his yellow creds…his shameless self promotion and the outright prevarication of his service record were and are an embarrassment to the entire officer corps of the US military. Except perhaps a Jack Murtha who gave his honor away long ago. Kerry’s appearance before Congress as a member of the Viet Nam Veterans against the war was a LITANY of untruths created of whole cloth…and an insult to hundreds of thousands of men and women who served during the Viet Nam era faithfully upholding the oaths they swore. Now John Kerry seeks to falsify another  LEGACY on the bodies of our honored dead. Every day that Obama stalls in his decision and every day that the BOMBASTIC Mr Kerry goes in front of the cameras to play out his seditious game at our military’s expense is a day there is American blood on his and  Obama’s hands. Clearly there is gross malfeasance at work in the administration and in the halls of Congress. How long will we allow these truly evil people to play with the lives of those for who they are not fit to carry water? The day of reckoning cannot come soon enough. The ballot box is our recourse…The nearest opportunity is 2010. Let them hear us loudly and clearly.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

 

The Airport for Nobody

I happen to focus a lot of my time these days on technology and rarely get involved in politics, so when I came across this article about Rep. John Murtha's airport that he get money for which nobody uses (and which concidentially enough is also named after him)  I got physically ill...and angry.

There is something just very undemocratic about the idea of elected officials getting things named after them that they helped get the funding for.  It sounds like somehting you would read about in a corrupt central African dictatorship.

How many other examples of this are there like this?  We can start with Bob Byrd, Ted Stevens.I see the whole “naming things after elected officials” as putting them in a higher league above everyday citizens and only seeking to make permanent that element of big government (i.e. to eliminate the airport would  be disrespectful for the person it was named after, therefore, we cannot get rid of it). 

After all, the late-Sen. Daniel Moynihan once remarked on Meet the Press that the reason he was able to restore funding for the International Trade Center when it was on the chopping block was that he decided to get it named after Ronald Reagan.While we’ve been told American’s like their earmarks and not everyone elses’,I wonder what kind of reaction there would be if a bill was introduced that simply said “elected officials cannot accept or vote for government funded projects (especially they helped secure funding for) named after them while they are in office.”In some respects, such a measure also has roots to the founding documents of the Republic, when you consider that,

  • In Federalist 84, attributed to Hamilton, he ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” 
  • And the Constitution very clearly states (in Article I, Section 9) a prohibition against states and the federal government from granting titles, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State”

(Somehow Ted Kennedy never got that message when PM Gordon Brown announced on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II that he would receive an honorary knighthood.In some respects it is also why we have “dark period” period for Congressman who retire and become lobbyists, to reduce undue influence.I think people would really rally around such a law. Such a small measure might even help stem the tide of corruption of money in government.

What do you think?

 

What a Difference a Day Makes--Chessani Update


Yesterday, those of us who have been following the Haditha Marines case were rewarded with the news Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani had all charges against him dismissed. And about time, too. That's seven out of eight, with one Marine left to be cleared.

Today, on the heels of the news Chessani was looking into the possibility of suing not only Rep. John Murtha (an ex-Marine himself who threw these Marines under the bus by smearing them publicly by stating they were "cold blooded killers" and thereby tainting any possible jury pool and thereby effectively denying the Marines due process under the Constitution), but also Time magazine reporter Tim McGuirk, it came to light the government has filed an appeal in the case.

Here is the WND article reporting this monstrous travesty (snarky comments and emphasis mine):
 

IN THE MILITARY
Haditha Marine prepares to sue Murtha over smear
Congressman had accused soldiers of killing 'in cold blood'
Posted: June 18, 2008
6:14 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani

With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused, with the government trying to salvage its allegations against him on appeal, is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

But the attorney, Brian Rooney, said nothing will happen immediately because he wants Chessani, described as a devout Christian and the father of six homeschooled children, completely "out of the woods" legally before any action is taken. The government, through Lt. Col. S.M. Sullivan, today filed a notice that it would appeal the case to the next judicial level.

As WND reported, a military judge at Camp Pendleton in California yesterday dismissed charges that Chessani failed to properly investigate the Nov. 19, 2005 incident in which 24 Iraqi men, women and children were killed.

Rooney, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center who served a tour of duty in Iraq himself, is urging citizens to tell their representatives in Congress and military officials that they want the case to come to an end.

"At some point you have to have somebody in the chain of command, whether it's civilian or military, saying enough is enough," said Rooney, who served with Chessani in the second battle of Fallujah.

Rooney told Savage the Haditha case is the largest investigation in the history of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, with 65 agents assigned by the government.

The filing of charges against Chessani was approved by Gen. James Mattis, then commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command and commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. Mattis has been promoted to commander of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation and commander of U.S. Joint Forces.

"This is the most important case since Vietnam, if not before," Rooney said. "There's no doubt about it."

He noted the New York Times featured the case on the front page when it was being compared by war critics to the infamous My Lai massacre in Vietnam. But now, with evidence the Haditha accusations were a smear, the story has been relegated to the back pages.

The military judge, Col. Steve Folsom, dismissed Chessani's charges without prejudice, giving permission for the prosecutors to continue trying to build a case that began in December 2006.

Four Marines were charged with murder and another four with not properly investigating the incident.

Defense lawyers contend insurgents deliberately attacked the Marines from hiding places where they surrounded themselves with civilians to use as shields. The defense insisted Chessani promptly reported the events to his superiors and that nobody in the chain of command believed there was any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines.

Libel and defamation

Rooney acknowledged to Savage it's difficult to sue a sitting congressman, but he believes it can be done.

"If he leaves his realm of speaking from the congressman's point of view … then he can be sued for libel and defamation," Rooney said.

The Time magazine story, according to Rooney, was planted by an insurgent propaganda agent. Publishing of the story was soon followed by a May 17, 2006, news conference by Murtha. The congressman announced he had been told by the highest levels of the Marine Corps there was no firefight and Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

"All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about," Murtha told reporters at the time.

Murtha's assertions, however, conflicted with results from the military's own investigations. An initial probe by Army Col. G.A. Watt found no indications coalition forces "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants." Later, Army Maj. Gen. Aldon Bargewell found no cover-up.

Nevertheless, the Marine Corps eventually brought charges against Chessani and seven other Marines.

But now the cases against Lance Cpls. Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell and Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz have been dropped. First Lt. Andrew Grayson has been acquitted, leaving only the case of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich untested in court and Chessani prosecutors facing the hurdles of the appeal process.

WND previously reported a military jury of seven officers acquitted Grayson of all charges.

The ruling by Col. Folsom yesterday followed a previous decision in which he confirmed evidence of unlawful command influence.

The evidence indicated two generals who controlled Chessani's case were influenced by Marine lawyer Col. John Ewers, who was allowed to attend at least 25 closed-session meetings in which the case was discussed.

Throwing Marines under the bus

Rooney acknowledged the Haditha case taken a toll on the Marine Corps.

"There's no doubt it's affected recruiting," he told Savage. "How could you have your sons or daughters join the Marine Corps when you're not sure the government will protect them?"

Rooney was asked by Savage why he thought Murtha, a former Marine himself, accused the officers and enlisted men.

"In my opinion, it's clear it was done during the election cycle, it was done to bolster himself in the party," the attorney said. "He was vying for a leadership position, and if he had to throw some Marines under the bus to do so, that was the cost of power for him."

He hopes soon politicians will weigh in on the case in support of Chessani and the others.

"I would think all politicians, especially politicians that have military records, should say something about this case," he said.

"In a horrible and very complex environment, when you have an enemy that's using women and children as shields, you should always give the benefit of the doubt to the Marine or soldier," said Rooney. "You should never bring him back and put him in front of a court martial."

Just who do you think is behind this obscenity? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Note above I described Murtha as an EX-Marine. There are only two EX-Marines--Lee Harvey Oswald and John Murtha. All others are FORMER Marines. And the pork fat, earmark king would also be? Why, John Murtha! And is this the SAME John Murtha who deployed to an elevator and refused to answer questions when queried when he would be apologizing to these men? DING, DING, DING! Right again! Just a refresher, here's Murtha's famous deployment (

Thanks Michelle Malkin!

):

Maybe Murtha's not able to handle TWO lawsuits filed against him for his big fat mouth? Remember about 100 years ago in internet time, another of the slandered Marines, Sgt. Frank Wuterich (the last Marine waiting exoneration) has already filed suit--Hot Air has that report

here.

If I properly recall, Murtha was not allowed to "talk" his way out of testifying in that case regarding his actions. Yes, I do recall properly and The Crypt at Politico has that story

here

.

So, WHEN is Murtha going to apologize? How about, in a real good Samaritan turn Murtha call an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Wow, those crickets are loud!

Syndicate content