Navy naming warship the “John Murtha”?

Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters 10 Comments

Share

Incredibly, the Navy (yes, OUR Navy) is planning to name a warship after the late John Murtha — a contemptible human being who served many years as a U.S. Congressman. A ragtag but vocal opposition movement is developing on Facebook…
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=109473479090697

Most of the opposition is because of Murtha’s remarks calling military personnel cold-blooded murderers. You’d think that alone would be enough to keep the Navy from naming a ship after him.

But it’s not. It turns our that senior military and defense folks are whores — selling names of ships to career Congress critters (regardless of their character) in exchange for the politicians’ votes support of military appropriations bills.

So let me add a bit more ammo on why this incredible scumbag should not have a warship named after him:

1. This Wikipedia article details how Murtha (and others) was caught agreeing to take bribes in the Abscam scandal. He SHOULD have gone to jail — or at least thrown out of the House, but he was not — much to the shame of both Congress and the voters in his district.

2. Murtha is a stain on democracy. Watch this stunning video of him temporarily chairing the House of Representatives. It’s what one expects to see in Third World dictatorships.

3. Consider this “must watch” video (many of you have likely already seen it) on ABC News about the expensive but empty “John Murtha Airport” — one of those insane pork projects that deserves “Hall of Shame” status.

4. Murtha’s insolence is topped only by his corruption. Here’s a good website with several other examples demonstrating Murtha’s true character — or lack of same.

Yeah, some might say I’m beating a dead horse — but that’d be a gratuitous insult of all horses, both living and dead.

Dead Murtha’s despicable career in Congress is still an issue — but only because senior Navy numbnuts deem him worthy of a ship name.

Share

Comments 10

  1. Post
    Author

    Let’s be clear. I’m accusing those SENIOR military and defense bureaucrats of being whores — for selling out the honor of the Navy to gain favor with Congress critters.

    While we more junior military types have developed varying degrees of expertize concerning whores, it’s fair to say that we worked diligently on not being whores ourselves.

    If anyone mindlessly Twittering away finds it offensive that I label as “whores” the government officials — military and civilian — who want to name a Navy warship for John Murtha, frankly you can go to hell, for all I care.

    BTW, I’m a Navy Vietnam vet, and a retired Commander, Supply Corps, Navy Reserve.

  2. Oh dear! There goes my chance to get a warship named after me! I’m crushed!

    I don’t give Murtha the “benefit of context”?????? What the hell does THAT mean?

    If you have good things to say about this reprobate, post it here. If you think I was unfair with may assertions, rebut them here.

    The Navy f***ed up. And yet you defend both the Navy brass AND Murtha. Have you no shame?

  3. Post
    Author

    Dave, as you missed the emphasis of my comments — let me help you out.

    My personal concern was less the obvious slam about “cold blooded killers” than the fact that this Congressman represents all that is bad about our federal legislators. Murtha was dishonest, bullying, anti-democratic procedures and a king of wasteful vote-buying earmarks (“his” airport).

    And there was more I didn’t include — such as his calling Western Pennsylvania “a racist area.” Or his refusal to apologize to the exonerated Haditha servicemen. Or the fact that he issued his slurs before the Haditha accused had been tried — let alone convicted. Murtha was a piece of work.

    Still, I’m glad you stepped forward to defend the Navy and Murtha. Many people couldn’t imagine that anyone would defend the Navy and Murtha in this matter. You proved that, incredibly, some do. Thank you, Dave!

  4. My point was to call you out for being a hypocrite. Doing so doesn’t automatically make me a Murtha defender. Both of you can be reprehensible.

    Speaking of reprehension: Way to go in avoiding addressing the John Warner submarine. It seems like you’re OK with the Navy being “whores” with ship names when they’re honoring Congressmen who happen to be Republicans.

  5. Post
    Author

    So, Dave, because both Murtha and I are “reprehensible,” you oppose naming a ship after either of us. Right? Didn’t you say you’d tattle on me if the Navy deemed to name a warship after me?

    Glad to have you aboard the “Sink Murtha” movement!

    You never said WHY the Navy was ill-advised to name a sub after John Warner. Care to tell us?

    As for me giving reprehensible Republicans a pass, you need to do your homework. As readers of this DE FACTO GOP website are sometimes painfully aware, I hammer errant Republicans with glee. Included in the list of Republicans I have excoriated are George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Duncan Hunter, and MANY local GOP city and county politicos.

  6. “You never said WHY the Navy was ill-advised to name a sub after John Warner. Care to tell us?”

    I’m not making that claim. You’re the one who said:

    “It turns our that senior military and defense folks are whores — selling names of ships to career Congress critters (regardless of their character) in exchange for the politicians’ votes support of military appropriations bills.”

    Regardless of character, naming ships after Congressmen make military leaders “whores.” Your words, dawg.

    I’m not making any claim about whether or not a ship should be made after Murtha. I just found many of his actions reprehensible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.