Savage compared Zarqawi to Murtha, declared Zarqawi is "sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals"
On his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage reacted to a San Francisco Chronicle article bearing the headline "How Aide's Betrayal Doomed al-Zarqawi" by saying the article is evidence that recently slain Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is "sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals." Savage continued, saying that liberals "could turn him [Zarqawi] into a hero" even though Zarqawi "was an altogether piece of human offal, you know. He was like a [Rep. John P.] Murtha -- he was like a human Murtha."
On the June 9 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage reacted to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle -- "the shameful newspaper of the area" -- bearing the headline "How Aide's Betrayal Doomed al-Zarqawi," by saying the article is evidence that recently slain Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is "sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals." Savage continued, saying that liberals "could turn him [Zarqawi] into a hero" like guerrilla leader Che Guevara, even though Zarqawi "was an altogether piece of human offal, you know. He was like a [Rep. John P.] Murtha [D-PA] -- he was like a human Murtha."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has a history of attacking Murtha. During a June 7 edition of his radio show regarding the alleged killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines at Haditha, Savage attacked Murtha and CNN host Wolf Blitzer, stating that "[i]f I were running things," they would also be "in shackles" and that Savage would "make them prove that they're not working for the enemy."
From the June 9 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Here's the headline in the Chronicle, the shameful newspaper of the area: "How Aide's Betrayal Doomed al-Zarqawi." In other words, not the guts of the pilots, not the guts of the special forces, not a year and a half worth of work, but the betrayal of the aide. In other words, he's sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals, and he was turned in by an aide.
[...]
SAVAGE: I wouldn't be surprised if the left doesn't make a T-shirt out of it and use it as a fundraising tool for [Sen.] Barbara Boxer [D] in California or [Sen. John F.] Kerry [D-MA] if he should run [for president] again, or sell them around [former Vice President] Al Gore movie -- you know, the Al Gore movie theaters. Make him into a, like, Che Zarqawi. You know what I mean, that could be -- start appearing on college campuses. Che Zarqawi. They could turn him into a hero even though he killed thousands of people and was arrested for sexual molestation in Jordan. Little-known fact, but I do my homework. He was an altogether piece of human offal, you know. He was like a Murtha -- he was like a human Murtha.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Ahhhh How do you go from a journalist questioning whether an aide betrayed him to the Left comparing him to Jesus? Wow, nary a sentence in between. Do people really think the Left is upset he died. Even in the Moslem world the man was hated by many.
Talk about a load of bull. Where are these sympathizers? It's all nonsense.
and you will find plenty of people p.o.ed that al-Zaqarwi is dead. Many thought it was faked to give Bush a pump in the polls. They also claim he was just a common thug and that the U.S. built up his reputation so that when they finally caught him it would be a big deal.
Oh, I wondered how some of our Canadian posters are reacting to having their own alleged terrorists now claiming they are being tortured by the Canadians. Check Drudgereport out.
Even your own post makes a CLAIM where there is no logical backup FOR that claim.
You say: "you will find plenty of people p.o.ed that al-Zaqarwi is dead."
RESPONSE: OK, here come examples of "people PISSED OFF that Zarquawi is dead" ...
You say, "Many thought it was faked to give Bush a pump in the polls."
RESPONSE: How is speculation that the incident was FAKED any indication that these same people would be PISSED OFF if they thought the incident was REAL? You skip the explanation. There is no logical connection here.
You say, "They also claim he was just a common thug and that the U.S. built up his reputation so that when they finally caught him it would be a big deal."
RESPONSE: Again, this is no indication that ANYBODY is "pissed off" that Zarqawi is DEAD. This was your claim, and these are your "examples" that are supposed to prove your point.
Unfortunately for you, neither example shows people who would be PISSED OFF if this terrorist were dead.
Do you REALLY think such illogical presentations -- making a CLAIM that you fail to support -- helps to bolster your points? Hint: It does NOT.
what the hell are you smoking.
Wesley linked many times to Kos directly so there is no speculation.
Period.
None of the comments at Kos reflected somebody "p.o.'ed that Zarqawi is dead." Tex is right and you are wrong.
The front page of Daily Kos, immediately after the incident, had a post that cheered his death, saying "my only regret is that he didn't know what hit him".
That post garnered enormous support in the comments area.
LeatherHelmet, as usual, is full of it.
Maybe the helmet is strapped too tight on that peanut
is making its rounds among the usual rightwingnut noisemakers . . . this week, its "trumpet the death of Zarqawi, and anyone who doesn't - or speaks about the war/Bush in a negative tone - is to be automatically compared to Zarqawi."
I guess "Defend crazy Annie's comments" was last week . . .
Rile the base and divide the country. You are either with us or against us. There is only patriotism or treason with these loons. At long last sir have you no shame?
spent what - 37 years? - in the US Marine Corps. The Silly Savage spent no time whatsoever in military service.
Yet he badraps Rep. Murtha? Based on what - a couple of the pamphlets (Savage calls them "books") he's written?
When Savage was at HateTalk 560 in San Francisco, a co-worker peed into his leather hat. What a grand person!
Is simply a psychotic hatemonger without a shred of decency. In a just world he would be flipping burgers in East LA or doing a stint at abu Ghraib as an inmate
" Why should I argue a characterization that has no basis in fact that no one is saying anything like from my side of the fence. No one on this board thats for sure. "
Savage is again speaking his mind and again people are verbally attacking him without even argueing any kind of point.
I agree that Murtha needs to step up and tell the country which side he is on regarding the war on terrorism. He does seem to be supporting many of the causes that do the most damage to the image of the US military. Yeah, yeah... everyone knows he is an ex-military guy, but the guy is old and everyone also knows that as you get older you start to lose your mind and I think he has lost his. As a comparison to ex-military men...who is a better choice to be a spokesman during a war? Ollie North or Jack Murtha?
I know of the bay area and Savage is right, they will make zarqawi into some kind of icon. Those berkeley liberals make icons out of the worst of the worst. I once went to a "anti violence" protest in berkeley and there were actually liberals there that protested agaisnt the message of "no violece"! That's where Savage knows what he is talking about.
Savage makes no point to argue. He just pulls a completely ridiculous slander (liberals making a Jesus out of Zarqawi) out of his butt. That's not a point. It's fiction.
Ollie North is a disgrace to the Marine Corps and a disgrace to this country. He was willing to subvert the constitution for political reasons. John Murtha's crime was to speak his mind. So by your assessment, someone who subverts the constitution is a hero while someone who uses his rights under the constitution is a feeble minded old man.
I agree that Murtha needs to step up and tell the country which side he is on regarding the war on terrorism. He does seem to be supporting many of the causes that do the most damage to the image of the US military.
Are you effin' KIDDING me?!
I think Murtha's "side" in the war on terrorism is crystal clear. Murtha is an exceptional man, and if there were any sense left in this country, he'd be a leading Presidential candidate.
And the US military is doing its OWN damage to its image. Murtha points it out, but this Administration does the deed.
Who is more at fault, the criminal, or the witness?
Savage is again speaking his mind and again people are verbally attacking him without even argueing any kind of point....who is a better choice to be a spokesman during a war? Ollie North or Jack Murtha?
--------------------------
Savage is a redneck moron and Ollie North should be serving time in federal prison for his crimes. You have some weird heroes pal.
Looks like “they mourn his death” will replace “they don’t support our troops” as the new catch all category they will throw you in if you don’t walk in lock step. What is really amazing is people are still gullible enough to buy into this type of rhetoric.
Hate merchants like Savage and Coulter have given Red State America their only course in liberalism.
I listen and read pundits on both sides of the aisle. But I can't imagine what type of person could sit through Savage or Coulter. They have nothing to offer just the hate filled bile they spew. I have had a hard time recently listening to some of the rightwingers I use to tune into on occasion. Hannity and O'Reilly have been really hard to stomach lately. But Coulter and Savage are in a league of their own--they are the equivalent of having the Clan spokesperson have a show or column--noone would give the KKK air time so why does anyone give these two a platform?
After a while you become somewhat numb to what words really mean. Savage is so hate-filled, you almost become used to his rants and the mindless followers that call in to harumph on in.
Today, Savage was railing on Soros. I can't remember precisely what he said, but it was something like now I see how the Holocaust happened. It was very close to that. He was making the point that jews like Soros are why the Holocaust happened.
Savage says such idiotic things on a regular basis. It makes it hard to really think about how vile his message is. I know that is hard to believe.
This numbness leads to a kind of verbal nihilism of sorts, IMO.
I have this reaction when I listen to Rush...I tend to filter out that stuff. I just can't stomach anything that savage or coulter says so I have never been able to listen to them enough to become immune. I am not sure they HAVE anything left once you filter out the hatred and bigotry.
I wonder how long it will be before the supremacist groups gain more exposure in the mainstream media - Seeing as stuff by Coulter and Savage play so well to the right-wing extremists. I purposely categorize such because I do believe that not all republicans/conservatives are like that..
I do wonder sometimes though if it is really like the pundits are saying what they would be thinking/really like to say.
Does the right really feel that they are limited in what they say because of what they call "political correctness"
Or do they know that if they really said what they felt that many would be disgusted about what lies in the backs of their minds??
You raise some valid points. I think we do have to separate them out. I also think it is only natural (not saying correct; just natural) to project their views on to people who embrace them or share their political leanings. I may be paranoid but I do see the desensitization Openmind talks about in his post leading to an escalation of this type of rhetoric. I mentioned this in another post somewhere that there was a time that this type of hatred and bigotry was spewed on street corners and rallies (by people we correctly labeled crazy loons) not given a national platform on the airwaves. I don’t think it is unreasonable to think this could take us to extremist like white supremacist groups from getting a show to spew their vile. Personally I am very turned off from even the personal smear rhetoric—left or right leaning. It may be a little Pollyanna of me but I just enjoy real debate and as much as they say this is partly entertainment I don’t find it entertaining—frankly it makes me uncomfortable and turns me off. Savage and Coulter are in their own class but I have some issues with many of the pundits and talking heads and how low they bring the debate.
But Coulter and Savage are in a league of their own--they are the equivalent of having the Clan spokesperson have a show or column--noone would give the KKK air time so why does anyone give these two a platform? - lostlogic
--------------------------
They ARE the KKK. Now that the KuKuKlucks control the government they can take off the dunce caps they used to hide behind.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to think this could take us to extremist like white supremacist groups from getting a show to spew their vile.
------------------------------------
There are already several white supremcist shows: The O'Reilly Factor ad nauseum
It is a heresy not to have a spontaneous, fullbown orgasm over the things that excite the Savage Wiener.
By that logic, regardless of how gratifying someone like me might find Zarqawi's demise and the possibility that he may have suffered some beforehand (I've been a bad person and i've done bad things to other bad people so i'm a bit of a sadist at times) , the fact that i don't see it as a panacaea to the sectarian violence and the insurgency is deemed as a heretical lack of euphoria on my part which is then equated by people like the Savage Weiner with regarding Zarqawi as a "Jesus Figure"
On a side note, for someone with such a rabid hate-on for gay people, all of the pictures I ever see of him make him look like the kind of wanna-be macho middle aged queens that used to annoy the rest of the patrons when i used to work as a bouncer at a gay bar back in the early 90's. It's the damndest thing.
I think this piece of cow flop, Savage (who seems to be well-named) is jealous. He knows that when his time comes to die, no one except right-wing loons who sop him up like gravy, will shed a tear. Murtha has made a positive contribution to society and all we get from this bozo is gas.
Remembering, of course, that his real name is Wiener.
Michael Savage is another righist hoaxer,who can't argue logically,so he goes ALL out with personal attacks and OUTRIGHT LIES!!
Give an example of an "outright lies" that he has spoken. He may be good at the "personal attacks" but let's get some examples of lies on the table. I know it will be tough to keep from slandering his name while you search for a lie, but try to keep it more civil than what you demand of him! Of course if you can't keep from the "personal attacks" then I would be forced to believe that you are no different than him. And, since you are allowed to, he should too.
...he's sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals...
That's a lie.
Ha ha, that's good. But, you know that's just an opinion of his. Try again.
He states it as if it were a fact, not opinion. It is false and he knows it. Thus, a lie.
Well, if "In other words, he's sort of a Jesus figure now to the liberals, and he was turned in by an aide." is the best you can do, then Savage ain't so dumb after all.
But, keep trying, it'll be good for you to read more of his opinions.
You asked for an example of an outright lie, and you got one. As lies go it's no "many liberals hate Jesus" but it's still pretty good IMO.
It's my opinion that LL has sex with sheep.
It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.
See how that works?
Savage is a liar. Period. Your feeble attempts to legitimize his dishonesty with the ever-so-lame "just an opinion" defense are laughable.
Bring some worthwhile comments to the table, or don't come at all.
If you are a fan of this moron Mike Weiner and can't think of a lie he has told, you need to see a psychiatrist immediately.
Lost Logic has asked the best question: why do these people get airtime? There are not many shows on the air. Why do these radio and TV networks decide to fill the air with such filth? When we were younger there was this clown named Frank Collins from the American Nazi party here in Chicago. The guy would try to lead marches and whenever he spoke he made a complete fool of himself. The only time he would be on TV is when someone like Donahue would bring him on to tear him apart. Now, if he was still alive but directed the same vile, hate-filled rhetoric at "liberals" instead of minorities, FOX would be running after him to sign him to a big contract. This is not about censorship--I am not suggesting at all that these demagogues should be silenced by the government. But in the past networks would not give people like this a forum to spew their hatred. That has completely changed. Why? Would FOX be watched that much less if they had conservative commentators that did not say that all liberals were traitors? And now it has moved into more networks like CNN signing Glenn Beck. Beck, who referred to Jimmy Carter as "a waste of skin" gets a prime-time gig for his platform. Why have the networks so completely turned their back on decency?
" This is not about censorship--I am not suggesting at all that these demagogues should be silenced by the government. "
Oh?? What is it you are suggesting, then? Your whole post sounds like; if the right wing broadcasters don't start to talk more liberal they should be removed from the air. If that's your position, then Savage is right that liberals want to remove our freedom of speach, unless it agrees with the liberal agenda. What it sounds like is that the only ones who should be given air time are randi rodes and al franken and michel moor. You really think they don't "spew hate"? They do the same, only liberals agree with them so it isn't "hate".
that networks not give these haters airtime. Networks are not the government.
Well put, Rusty, but I'm afraid it won't do any good. LL-Time seems to be wearing a logic-proof vest.
I will give him this much credit in his silly little tirade: he spelled Al Franken's name correctly.
" I will give him this much credit in his silly little tirade: he spelled Al Franken's name correctly. "
Sorry, didn't mean to.
And, I never mentioned the government. I, too, was talking about the networks.
Money.
People listen and more ears means more money from advertising. The best way to get listeners is to be as far from mainstream as possible. It works for Stern just as it works for Limbaugh.
Where is the media outrage at this man? They spend all this time on a harmless twit in Ann Coulter, yet this man is heard by more listeners nightly than she would get in a week.
People like Savage are just trying to get attention/publicity by being as outragous as possible. If he was saying things like this as a major news anchor, then I would be worried about the state of our media. There are and will always be people like Savage that will say what he is saying.
The moral failure is on the part of the Main Stream Media. Are they responding with disgust to his sick rantings? Are they, through stories and reports, asking about the state of a nation that puts up with such people (buying his books and listening to his radio show). Are they reporting on the companies purchasing ad time on his show or on the publishing company printing his book? If Hitler were alive today and attempted to publish a book on killing various minority groups, would he find a publisher?
I have seen none of these things taking place by the MSM. When we allow someone to spew hate without response (and the MSM have the means to respond) are we as morally guilty as the one saying the things Savage is saying?
Of all the raving right-wing loons out there in talk radio land Michael Savage is the worst. He is just a babbling bigoted lunatic. I truly wonder what his core audience is like. (I'm guessing neo-Nazi's and KKK types.) Every day he froths at the mouth over some new "outrage". I don't understand where he got the idea that liberals look upon Zarqawi as a "Jesus figure". I'm a liberal and I think that Zarqawi was scum as do most of my liberal friends. I guess he just made it up as he does with most of his "facts". Personally I think he should go back to using his real name of Weiner. It fits him a lot better. The "Weiner Nation". His followers could be called "Weinies". LOL.
Perhaps Savage got the idea that zarqawi will be a 'Jesus like' figure because so many liberals (not all, but many that you know) hate Jesus too. So, using the logic (and facts) that many liberals don't like Jesus and you don't like zarqawi, it's only natural that zarqawi would be a 'Jesus figure' to them. And to think Savage is the one being called a nazi!
Hating the excesses of fundamentalist Christians is not "hating Jesus." But if you can give us some examples of liberals "hating Jesus," I'm all ears.
Michael Newdow (sp?)
And a good read....
" It's true that you'll probably find more liberal than non-liberal atheists. Atheism represents a challenge to or dissent from traditional beliefs and traditional religion. Liberalism, through most of Western history, has also challenged traditions and traditional ways of doing things. Liberalism has furthermore generally done more to promote the rights of various minority groups — something which atheists obviously benefit from, given how much discrimination they tend to encounter. "
from: [link to atheism.about.com]
Where's the hatred of Jesus in there? You switched the subject to atheists, who, as far as I know, don't hate Jesus any more than they hate Vishnu or hate Muhammed or hate Moses. You said "liberals hate Jesus." Let's see it.
I'm pretty sure that if you read what I said, it is "liberals (not all, but many you know) hate Jesus too." That would keep my arguement true and no further proof is needed.
There has been NO proof of your argument. You said "many liberals hate Jesus" but you cannot even name one. (Michael Newdow is an atheist, which doesn't equate to "hating Jesus.")
you provide nothing. What you say is not backed up. It is an opinion based on false information. You are just trying again to link liberals/democrats with terrorists and then go off-topic when you cannot provide any basis for that besides some opinions.
Come on, guys. You just need to follow the logic and get with the program. The reasoning here is quite simple.
1) If there are more liberal atheists than non-liberal atheists, then...
2) Liberals hate Jesus, thus...
3) Liberals view Zarqawi as a Jesus figure, therefore...
4) Liberals hate Zarqawi.
Wingnut logic at its finest.
Better than my formulation. The only logic I had been able to detect in LL's reasoning was:
(1) Liberals hate Zarqawi, and
(2) Liberals hate Jesus, so
(3) Zarqawi = Jesus
I want anyone who says theylove Savage and Jesus out loud on the "potential terrorist-do not board" list at every airport in the US.
you sure as hell know squat about the religion you claim to be a member of. Recall those 10 things your god burned a bush to tell you about? Your are breaking a couple here in this thread.
Liberals hate Jesus, yet they seem to believe in his teachings (my reference being the Sermon on The Mount).
Of the eight truths that Jesus spoke of during his sermon, please point out which of his statements is a conservative view and which is a liberal view.
You have to prove Jesus existed before you can prove anyone hates him.
Yes, you are right.
Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
The Beatitudes: (Matthew 5:3-11
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Republicans/conservatives have some real differences with Jesus on this stuff. They definitely don't respect those that mourn (Sheehan, 9-11 widows), they believe almost universally in the bullying of the strong over the meek.
With policies of rendition, abuse and likely use of torture, I don't think 'blessed are the merciful applies either".
Blessed are the peacemakers...LMAO! Yeah right!
All you are really left with are the most general Beatitudes that could apply to just about any person, who calls themself a Christian, assuming that person believes they are following Jesus' path.
A good liberal should be able to apply every beatitude to what they believe.
I don't want to carry this too far, but which one is a "good liberal" going to use to excuse abortion? Which one is a "good liberal" going to use to excuse homosexuality?
Who would I be to bully the meek into doing what I believe is right?
As a Christian, I believe the soul enters the body at first breath. A fetus is just flesh to my religion. An empty vessel. Ask yourself why does the word spirit[us] mean "breath" in Latin (the Greek new testament word pneuma means the same in the Greek New Testament). The bible says "For as the body without the spirit [breath] is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2 2:26 Does a fetus breathe? Think about that.
As for homosexuality, get back to me when you can find a specific instance of Jesus preaching against it. You are aware that Christianity is named after Him. Aren't you?
" As for homosexuality, get back to me when you can find a specific instance of Jesus preaching against it. "
Matt 19:4,5 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
Jesus is obviously teaching that a man and woman are to be married. He does not teach that man and man or woman and woman can marry. He also teaches that only in marriage is there to be sex, so to have gay sex or marriage goes against what Jesus teaches.
I repeat: As for homosexuality, get back to me when you can find a specific instance of Jesus preaching against it.
I saw nothing in your post not "a specific instance of Jesus preaching against [homosexuality]." Jesus was talking about heterosexual divorce and how it was wrong unless there was immorality.
BTW, homosexuals are not looking for church sanctioned marriage, and I can understand Christian disapproval. The problem is that there is no compelling reason why the state should not allow two people to join into a contract that they find mutually beneficial. There are two different arguments there that need to be addressed.
Nice try.
little points to discuss about. That liberals hate jezus is something that you cannot back-up. One link does prove nothing of the like. You make the point and it is up to you to provide good evidence for it; now you ask others to provide evidence to debunk it. And you are being totally silly by comparing jezus with zarqawi. You have a warped mind.
JESUS WAS A LIBERAL.
One, Murtha is a brave and honest talking hero. Two: If anything was learned by this past weekend and the bloggers coming together is that Democrats are from all walks of life and ideas. None of us fits with the sterotype of the right. They try to tag us as a bunch Living in the 60s ultra lefts. They don't see that most of us are probably more in reality than conservatives are these days. Most conservatives seem to live in an alternate reality. Three: Hate mongering rather than making a legit point will eventually come back and bite them in the ---
This guy is funny to listen to if you get the chance. He hates his callers, Bush is too liberal, Reagan was a pandering liberal, etc ... Liberal is a hate word. Goebbels would be proud of his efforts. Makes you want to drink some German Ale at a Beer Hall and start a street fight with some Communists.
is the Modern Day Goebbels. Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh are just Rove's Parrots.
John Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corp. He fired a weapon in combat. All Savage has fired is his mouth. I get sick of hearing his kind saying we should stay in Iraq while he sits around raking in money while spewing his hate. Savage would not make a pimple on John Murtha's butt.
Murtha was a war hero. That's not in arguement. The problem is that he isn't in the military any more. Now he serves the people, and he is failing at that. Calling our servicemen murderers before charges are even leveled. Perhaps he did the same thing in 'nam? Only got away with it and that's how he 'knows so much' about the stress's they are under.
I agree with you. The problem I have with Salvage is that he didn't apply "innocent before proven guilty" for the black stripper in the Duke Rape case BEFORE a trail occurred. Not only is he bigot, but he is a hypocrite.
Your above response is cowardly, which is typical of the right wing. You state that John Murtha was a war hero and then you rip apart his service to his country with your supposition and innuendo. John Murtha's service does give him insight into the stresses a human being bears in combat. Tell us, LL, what expertise do you bring to the table? What experience did you have that gives you this incredible insight into the American Servicemen's minds.
LL is wrong Murtha IS a war hero. He is not dead…you don’t lose that distinction as time passes. Murtha still IS a war hero. I agree with you that Murtha through his own experience brings a unique perspective to the Haditha debate. My problem with how Murtha has handled this issue is the words he chose to use. First he needs to remember that these allegations are not proven and the circumstances have not been proven. There is an active investigation going on and it should bring some circumspection to his rhetoric. He speaks as if the facts and circumstance have been proven and verified. They have not. It is natural to speculate and discuss these issues but it needs to be done with caution. My second issue is his own words contradict themselves. On one hand he says that the soldiers are under to much pressure and it is not unexpected that this could cause these breaks. In the next he says they shot the people in cold blood. Forget the fact that he is stating it as fact before we know exactly what went down. Cold blood means you were of a clear mind without mitigating circumstances and if you are saying they are breaking psychologically then they weren’t doing it in cold blood. So he needs to decide was it the pressure of the environment or was it cold blooded.
than a swift boater. Interesting how y0u try to link a shooting of civilians to Murtha. You are disappointing me. I like all kinds of opinions and am willing to listen to it and perhaps learn from it, but provide some credible evidence and base there your argument on.
LL-Time, can you really be serious about your post? Whether you think that Murtha was right or wrong to make his comments before the investigation is completed, how can you possibly float a "trial balloon" suggesting that John Murtha killed civilians in Viet Nam? Isn't that incredibly irresponsible on your part? This is exactly what so many posters here point out about Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.: when you disagree with someone do not deal with what you disagree with; instead, attack them personally and savagely to try to demonize them. Your post is a blatant attempt to "swiftboat" Murtha, and any point you are trying to make is irrelevant following such a cheap attack.
I'm not being facetious or rhetorical: is Savage medicated?
Obviously Savage is on dope.
If you look past all the negativity he has a point.We live in a society where we choose our words carefully.The newspaper choose to use the word betray instead of helped.Such choice of words gives the impression that the writer may have not been in favor of Zarqawi dying.
He also has a point that people often glorify mass murderers by putting them on t-shirts.They did the same thing by Putting Charles Manson's picture on a T-shirt and they did the same thing by putting Che Guevara on t-shirt.He may right in his assumption that they may do the same thing with Zarqawi.
With glee..............
LL is wrong Murtha IS a war hero. He is not dead…you don’t lose that distinction as time passes. Murtha still IS a war hero. I agree with you that Murtha through his own experience brings a unique perspective to the Haditha debate.
Can anyone point me to a valid like with his heroic feats?
You know, I went to his web site and he doesn't have any medals from action. All his awards are for "being a nice guy". I guess that makes you a hero to some. After all, Kennedy caused the death of an inocent woman and he is idolized, too. Kerry admitted to committing war crimes, yet he was their "main man" in the last election. So, it must not take much to be a war hero in liberal-land.
[link to www.house.gov]
I have to apologize. I didn't explore his site far enough. Murtha DOES have 2 purple hearts, a Bronze Star with Combat V and the Vietnamese Cross of Galantry while fighting in the Vietnamese war. Which were earned in combat. Please accept my apologies for missing this. And ignore my statement about Murtha's awards.