Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?

By Bob Geiger, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2006.


The right-wing smear machine has set upon John Murtha -- a decorated combat veteran -- for speaking out against the Iraq war.
Advertisement

In his quiet moments, Rep. John Murtha must sometimes catch himself thinking about how much easier his life would be if he had just kept his damn mouth shut and gone along to get along on the Iraq war. The Democrat, who has represented Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District for 32 years, began angering the Republican party in late 2005 when, having seen enough of the Bush administration's incompetence, he became the most vocal critic of the White House's failed and dishonest Iraq policies.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," said Murtha, in November 2005, in calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf regime."

Despite Murtha's standing as a highly decorated combat veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 37 years, it was off to the races for the right-wing smear machine. They immediately set upon Murtha, who just turned 74, for requesting moderation and a cautious course when risking the lives of our military men and women stationed in Iraq.

And who did most of the attacking? Conservative chickenhawks, who have never served a day in uniform in their lives, but who immediately began talking tough and accusing a man of Murtha's stature of running from a fight.

It started on Nov. 18, 2005, the day after Murtha's initial remarks, when Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House of Representatives at the time, implied loudly on the House floor that Murtha was a coward.

"Cowards cut and run, Marines never do," crowed Schmidt, as the House chamber erupted in shouting and came to a standstill. Schmidt was eventually forced to withdraw her statement as inappropriate but, knowing how the GOP leadership operates, it's safe to assume she was given major kudos behind closed doors for taking one for the team.

Dick Cheney, told in advance of Murtha's new stance on the war, had begun insulting former Marine Murtha almost immediately saying, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone."

Meanwhile, Murtha, who was fighting in Southeast Asia while Cheney was kicking back on one of his five military deferments, fired back at the vice president.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that," said a disgusted Murtha. "I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But that didn't stop the likes of Cheney and Schmidt at the time, and it's proceeded to get worse ever since -- the same ugly specter of Republicans who claim to be so patriotic and to worship at the military altar smearing decorated veterans at every turn for the crime of being Democrats and voicing dissent with GOP policies.

They did it with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, famously brought out the Swift Boat Liars to smear John Kerry's war record, and they immediately started doing the same with Murtha, who volunteered for Vietnam in 1966 and for his service was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
all the Bushies
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 27, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the Bushies are good for is creating giant piles of unbelievable shit to fling at the most decent members of society. They are creating so much that they will finally bury themselves in it and we will all say GOOD RIDDANCE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all the Bushies Posted by: rinpochet
Send Them to North Korea
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 27, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now this is a tough call indeed. The likes of Ann Coulter, Ted Sampley, David Thibault and Jean Schmidt in North Korea (during the Korean War) or North Vietnam (during the Vietnam War) would have been unthinkable. Those countries, who Murtha, Kerry and thousands of other veterans fought against, would have never allowed such unstable fabricators to exist in public. And receiving any medal is not the issue. It is being there that is important. Those who never were, and if they had been most likely would have cut and run, but who smear and attack those who were in combat should have the option of either putting on a uniform and showing up in battle or relocating to Iran or North Korea. My belief is that in doing so they would never be heard from again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Send Them to North Korea Posted by: Riverside
» RE: Send Them to North Korea Posted by: Doubtom
Why?
Posted by: Hedgwitch on Jun 27, 2006 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because we have been to war and do not view it through rose colored glasses. As a result we tend to tell it as it is, not as they want it to be.
William J Fulks
USA, Retired
Korea & Vietnam Vet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why? Posted by: Doubtom
Organized Response
Posted by: nvineberg on Jun 27, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can assume the Democrats have no organized response to protect one of their own. And sadly, its likely the media will buy into the BS like they did with the Swift Boat veterans. Or have they learned their lesson (Fox News aside)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Organized Response Posted by: dangerouslysane
It's not just high profile vets the Repugnicans hurt
Posted by: Steve_in_NH on Jun 27, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican lead congress has been cutting veteran's benefits quietly for years while they publicly stated that they were the friends of the military.

I wish the veterans who believe in "the war president" and his party of theives would open their eyes and ears and learn who has really hurt them over the years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the good American people!
Posted by: ssegallmd on Jun 27, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would have to be a blathering idiot to risk your life for the people of this country.

These Republicans and their tens of millions of supporters are not just an American anomaly; they embody the character of America people. I can say that safely since:

[a] there appears to be no shortage of these monsters who derive from the general public and choose to work for the fascists, whether it be in America's Sunday schools or on the school board of some typical American community, and

[b] Americans aren't complaining about the character of the Republicans. The Republicans are free to do the vilest of things to their own country and to the world without any fear that the American people will take a moral stand.

You can be certain that when the dust settles in the future and it is generally accepted that Bush et al. were both morons and monsters, these cheap knock-offs of real people who, by their silence, are presently tacitly endorsing the present administration, will disavow ever having supported the regime as they do with the criminal Nixon nowadays. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, but apparently nobody will admit to voting for him.

Now that's character! That's the right stuff. Character assassinations of loyal patriots would offend decent people, but not the American people. Decent people would be objecting, but the Republicans needn't worry about that.

Why would anybody want to help such people rather than just abandoning them to themselves? This experiment in democracy has somehow gone horribly awry and now threatens the well being of the world. I for one don't want to be a part of that, and I would hate for my descendants to think that I was taken in by it or contributed to whatever misery this generation of Americans leaves to the rest of the world as its legacy.

Remember, we are human beings and earthlings before we are Americans. Our first loyalty has to be to the planet and to the life that it supports, not some malefic government and its stuporous people that are indifferent to its well being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You have articulated my greatest fears! Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
packer
Posted by: packer29 on Jun 27, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE AMERICA'S VETERANS?" You only refered to Murtha and Kerry--just two? Headline appears to be quite deceitful. In addition, if you read the preface to Murtha's book you will see he sings quite a different veteran's tune in 2004.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nam vet
Posted by: solrev on Jun 27, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Chaney said “I had better things to do than go to the Nam”, that was the most disgusting thing I ever heard. As if the 58000 plus low life Americans who died there, could not have found some thing better to do. How any Nam vets could support someone like that boggles my mind. I guess they are still trying to win one for the Gipper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer To "Why Do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?"
Posted by: Louisa on Jun 27, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because when a military person is actively fighting for their cause, they need them. And when they go home and become a mere vet, they don't need them. Simple.

A Vet is an unneeded expense. In all reality, the Republicans are probably miffed that Vets just cost money without any further return on a continuing investment. If every Vet just up and died, the Republicans would be giddy with the windfall - thats just more money for war contractors and their oil-energy buddies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE SEXY MEN IN UNIFORM
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 27, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not hate-it's jealousy. Men in uniform regardless of age are those who take care of us. They have sex appeal. It's always been that way. Soldiers, sailors, marines are welcomed with opened arms. A nice guy in a uniform scores.
Women love them and history tells us it's always been that way. Neocons-not sexy at all and I can't speak for the women in uniform. I am grateful to all of them. Thanks. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support Murtha
Posted by: lafrance on Jun 27, 2006 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, the people who express ourselves here, need to make sure we support Murtha at every turn. Let him know of the towering support he has. And fire back at the hateful scumbags.
Last night I was flipping around channels and came across Scarboro Country. There was someone from Air America on who was doing a fun job heaping insults on the republican mouthpeice. Well, the mouthpiece tried to fire off one of the new Murtha-swiftboat volleys and was shut down immediately. All Democrats need to do this.
I find the main reason for the chickhawks to slam vets is that deep down they are ashamed. They did not go. They shirked when thier turn came. Ever noticed how many Democrats are vets and how few are repubicans? They will start wars and send others to die to feed thier machoness, need to feel they were part of war and did thier duty in order to puff themselves up. They slam the vets because these are the men to did while they didn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Support Murtha Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Support Murtha Posted by: babs
Slander
Posted by: rudystahrman on Jun 27, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans you mention in the above article, should be sued for slander against Murtha. To question a man's valor in war, when he now bemedaled for exceptional service, is no less than "SLANDER" and should be exposed as same.
I apologize for repetion, but the statement stands.

Rudy McGillvray
Ketchikan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Slander
Posted by: rudystahrman on Jun 27, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans you mention in the above article, should be sued for slander against Murtha. To question a man's valor in war, when he now bemedaled for exceptional service, is no less than "SLANDER" and should be exposed as same.
I apologize for repetion, but the statement stands.

Rudy McGillvray
Ketchikan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

other priorities
Posted by: jeffersonian on Jun 27, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney had "other priorities". I agree totally, what a total asshole he must be to think that the 58,000 who died DIDN'T have "other priorities".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: other priorities Posted by: johnmccarthy
» RE: other priorities Posted by: Doubtom
History Lesson
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 27, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the honor of serving under one of our nation's finest soldiers ever, Col (then Lt Col) Robert Howard. Awarded the Medal of Honor once, he declined a second & third award of the medal. He also rose through the ranks from Private through Sergeant First Class, then Lieutenant through full Colonel. 5 tours in Vietnam in Special Ops. Otherwise, he knew the Army and war as few have known it.

This highly decorated soldier was no braggart, war hawk or politician. He was a professional soldier of the first order and would be the first to tell you that war is something to be avoided unless there is no other option. He also put great emphasis on taking care of soldiers-- that everything that could be done to prepare, equip, train and support troops was the minimum those in command or authority should do.

As a former NCO (Sergeant), he knew and lived by the credo that along with leadership and authority came obligations. Obligations not to abuse the oath of service soldiers take by using them as cannon fodder. By not employing them for political means. By not equipping them with the best available equipment. By not deploying them in a manner that exposes them to undue danger. By encouraging them to violate the laws of land warfare. By supporting those injured and felled in combat after the fact. By supporting their families. By telling them the truth. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd have failed on every count.

It was once said that America is great because America is good-- not America is good because America is great. The same is true of the Army and our soldiers. Bush and his cronies can lie all they want and the truth is not changed. I and others know the difference between defending our nation and warmongering for profit and politics because I have served. Congressman Murtha is right. General Shinseki was right and got run over by the political hacks running the Pentagon.

An accountability is coming and I sincerely hope it is on election day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: History Lesson Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: History Lesson Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: History Lesson Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: History Lesson Posted by: Doubtom
Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Jun 27, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ran across that attitude just last weekend. I changed the meeting day for the local Green Party because a band I am in was playing at the local VA hospital. Some expressed surprise that I would do that. I explained that Greens are the opposite of Republicrats. We oppose war and support veterans, they support war and abandon veterans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should send THEM into combat in Iraq!
Posted by: Voicedude on Jun 27, 2006 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an abomination! I don't think I was ever as outraged with this administration (and, in perspective, that's out of a giant source pool) as I was during the 2004 GOP convention when they wore those purple heart band-aids mocking Senator Kerry's service. This was a blatant slap in the face to ALL the soldiers in Iraq and ALL of those who had ever served - particularly those who either died or were wounded. It's hard for me to imagine why ANY vet would support Bush after that one act when he and his party attacked the patriotism, as well as that of Max Cleland and ALL veterans. I just wanted to scream "You and your Band Of Brothers were just attacked by two men who went out of their way to NOT serve! The same men who sent more of your brothers into this war that we still can't seem to justify! Why in the memory of all who have fallen would you EVER support an administration so callous to those who serve?" I would have had to have screamed it since that's the only way those Neo-Con supports seem to 'communicate'.

My father was a proud vet who was also anti-war. He was a local chapter president of the Chosin Few, and delivered the keynote address on Memorial Day at Riverside National Cemetary, also known as 'Arlington West'. It was covered by local TV and newpapers; we were very proud of him that day. He died later that same year, and was eulogized in the same ampitheater he spoke in. BTW, mention the 'Chosin Reservoir' to any Marine or any war historian and you'll get their immediate attention and respect. They were outnumbered ten to one in that battle, and politicians at home started up with the same 'cowardice' crap at the time, causing outrage in the military community. Those statements were later retracted as false and ill informed, but the sting remained.

All I could think of when watching that insensitive slap in the face at the GOP convention (along with Zell Miller's foaming at the mouth about 'supporting our troops', something the adminstration he was backing has blatantly FAILED to do!) was 'what would my father think of all this?' Despite his pride in his service and support for all troops, he was against war. He was also apolitical, leaning toward the right if in any direction at all. But the conservative leanings he had was for an older party that no longer seems to exist. I've spoken with my mother about this and we agree: THIS action alone would've REALLY pissed him off! I'd love to know what he'd say! He was a 15 year radio veteran, so he could be quite eloquent. I want to know how far he'd go against this administration and their obvious contempt for those who have served. He would have also been outraged by the fact that Bush was the first wartime President in history NOT to have visited a soldier's hospital bedside or funeral (until his handlers insisted on it years too late!) The consequence of his actions are apparantly too much for him.

So let me propose this in his memory:
Let's send those chickenhawks into the war they so dearly love! I'd be very curious to see how THEY would react in combat in Iraq! After they dare chime in on cowardice and such, we sould send Cheney, Schmidt, Sampley, Doss, Thibault, Coulter, and their ilk - PLUS any children they have old enough to serve - to Iraq and follow them around with a video camera so we can see their true colors: YELLOW! I'd say MOST of them would never get past basic training - BUT SEND 'EM ANYWAY!

Now THAT would be 'must see TV'!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why neocons hate veterans: the simple answer
Posted by: HughEScott on Jun 27, 2006 5:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neoconservatives hate veterans like John Murtha and Max Cleland because their honorable military service shows how spineless rightwingers can be.

The most prominent neocon cowards are Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove. Rather than fight for freedom during the Vietnam War, they dodged the draft. But that’s not nearly as unpatriotic as their behavior in Washington, which places them alongside Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose.

For the truth about the treasonous neocons, visit:
www.FreedomCentraUSA.com

Hugh E. Scott, author, investigative journalist, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Goldwater conservative and ardent Ronald Reagan fan with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murtha's not the only vet they hate...
Posted by: bogtrotters on Jun 27, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
• With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families.

• This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.

--Veterans for Peace 11/26/2003

• Military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help” in President Bush's tax cut. “More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty.”
– Children's Defense Fund, 6/6/03

• The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.

--Tacoma News Tribune, 2/25/2005

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

less obvious damage
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jun 28, 2006 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By insisting on continuing a pointless campaign, the war promoters damage our military in some subtle ways as well.
Several years of exposure to American tactics and superior hardware have taught the adversary some innovations which will likely be used against Americans elsewhere. An example:
the use of stacked artillery rounds, big ones, buried under roadways. The primers are popped out to allow for placement of whatever type of fuse. Various remote ignition triggers have evolved in response to US countermeasures. The upshot of all this is that the adversary is now able to blow a 65-ton Abrams tank apart like a tin can using low-tech, low-cost surplus materiel. Our extended stay in Iraq will only serve to create more such innovations for future opponents to use against our forces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trashing Military Service
Posted by: bowncr1212 on Jun 28, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://kankakeevoices.blogspot.com/
2005_12_01_kankakeevoices_archive.html

scroll down. It's obvious by the actions and shouting of the Right Wing, that it is NOT the military service of a veteran they admire, it IS their politics and whether or not they still "fall in".

Now imagine a soldier today serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere who is fulfilling their commitment of duty, if they agree or not with American policy and today's wars. Do they ever wonder if down the road be it tomorrow or next year or 10, or 20, or 30 years that their military service will be be-littled and degraded to a farce?
It is the rhetoric of words that have spewed from the Right regarding military service that guarantees "spitting on the troops" is not over. For them anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it your/our fault too
Posted by: cold2touch on Jun 28, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for being so timid to go on counter attack.
These people are absolutely disgusting lying cowards.
Why doesn't anybody with a public voice stand up and say it out loud, that while people like Jack Murtha, Jack McClelland and John Kerry volunteered to risk life and limb (dramatically so in case of McClelland), those vomitheads who viciously, lyingly criticize them today, never collectively put a foot near Vietnam, Korea or Iraq.
And THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS??
Oh yes, by sending them to die in foreign oilfields while they themselves sip martinis in country clubs while signing away giant no-bid, no-look contracts to their kickbacking cronies, ripping off billions of taxpayers' (i.e., middle class) money.

What is the standard Democrat response?
Oh, please, don't slime us, why can't we just be bipartisan friends, PUHLEEEZE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]