Comments on: Reporter’s Notebook: Murtha Speaks

By: Bill D

Bill D — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:44:50 +0000

Both the F-22 and JSF are obsolete. The F-117 has been retired and for good reason. The B-2 is now obsolete and will be retired soon as well. We need additional nodal connectivity and a larger stick. Not JSF or F-22 they are now worthless and everyone knows this as a fact. Both of these platforms have went via the way of the Dinosaur. Stop Spending Billions of Dollars on obsolete platforms!!!!!!
BD
USAF, Ret.

By: KR

KR — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:17:48 +0000

Murtha, He has proven that he talks out of both sides of his mouth and his party the same. They are in charge now so whatever happens is the Dems fault. Murtha has got to go.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:54:12 +0000

I really don’t have much respect for Murtha. I really dislike Spector too. They are there too long, and need to GO. Sell the F-22 to the Japanese. Why not? It would keep the line running and give an ally a great capability. We WILL need capable allies in Asia one day soon. Same with Australia. The Chi-coms are ramping up, and the Russians will ALWAYS behave like Soviets. Not to mention NK and Iran. As for the EFV, did not know the bottom was ALUMINUM. Its also flat. I don’t think I would want to be in one of those in an urban environment. There’s gotta be a better way.

By: jim

jim — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:42:53 +0000

Gildas asked: “Ex marine chaps, please explain why his ideas are bad, not why you don’t like his shirt. I want and need to know why some ex military don’t like his IDEAS and PROGRAM.“
#1 — You are wrong. The great majority of former Marines know that Murtha is a damn fine congressman who has the best interests of the military and country at heart.
#2 — The majority of the people here throwing insults at Murtha are not former or current Marines or former or current members of any military service. They are feather merchants, sand crabs, and dittoheads that parrot the words of Limbaugh and LGF.
#3 — The reasons Limbaugh and the whackos try to put him down are primarily:
a] Back in 2005 he submitted a resolution in Congress calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq and that we establish an “over-the-horizon” presence in countries nearby to Iraq.
b] Also in 2005 at a press conference, he brought up the Haditha incident previously reported in the press. Even though his statements were based on a report prepared by the military, he was lambasted — perhaps rightfully so or perhaps not — for mentioning it before the individuals had their day in court.
c] In 2006, Murtha was incorrectly quoted as saying that the U.S. was a greater threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran. He never said that. O’Reilly apologized to Murtha for repeating the untruth, but Drudge, Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Newt Gingrich did not.
#4 — BTW, there are no ex-Marine-chaps, there are Marines and former-Marines.

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:48:34 +0000

“Ad Hominen it is…
BdWilcox, of the links provided, only MSNBC tries to neutral and stick to the facts. The others are just too busy being partisan to give meaningfull info.“
–I see. To you “Ad Hominem” = “Facts you don’t agree with.” Your response sounds rather ad hominem itself. Once again, thou doth protest too much.

By: gildasd

gildasd — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:22:00 +0000

Ad Hominen it is…
BdWilcox, of the links provided, only MSNBC tries to neutral and stick to the facts. The others are just too busy being partisan to give meaningfull info.
All in all, we still are learning about a man, politician, who not as discreet about his slease as others are.
Does that teach me anything about his current proposals? No. Nothing. Bullshit info.
Thanks Will and Byron for the insight.
(PS the best warfighters I ever saw, or heard about, where also near criminals in all aspect themselves…)

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:12:58 +0000

Good Afternoon Will,
Lets see the generals want the EFV, why. Oh gee Will, let me make a wild guess here, could it be that many of those now retired, and soon to be, U.S.M.C. Generals are now, pr will be, or in the case of the 25 years of the development of the EFV have been employed by BAE/General Dynamics/FMC or the other pre merge companies and make a factor of 2X or 3X or more then what they were paid on active duty.
As fort Rep. Murtha, as you say the Democrats are still on the seniority system, maybe it’s time to change.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Will

Will — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:19:54 +0000

Murtha chairs the Defense Subcommittee of the HAC because he has seniority so he gets his choice of assignment. It works the same way for Reps & for Dems & it’s not going to change.
USMC generals decided that the Corps needs vehicles that can get to the beach on their own rather than by way of an LCAC. Anybody know why?

By: JH

JH — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:51:10 +0000

Thanks for asking him about the boondoggle FCS…

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:20:58 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
Other then the EFV most of the issues have been decided, Rep. Murtha is just trying to show that he is relevant, President Obama will veto the whole DoD budget if it doesn’t have what Sec, Gates wants, it real simple.
The EFV should be canceled. The statement that Rep. Murtha was shocked that the under plate of the EFV was aluminum and would “Melt like butter to an IED/(EFR)” makes one wonder what marine Corps he was in. I know it’s unreasonable to expect a Congressman to know about Navel Engineering or even basic metallurgy but his “surprise” is curiously reveling about his ability to realistically assessments, and pass judgement on even the most basic weapon systems.
Congressman Murtha has traded on his exploits and experiences as a Marine Officer (Colonel) as a Congressman, but he has worn out any value of that knowledge. It’s time the House Democrats find a younger, and more knowledgeable of current technology, Veteran military officer to lead this committee.
The dual roles of an amphibious landing vehicle and an Armored Personal Carrier are vastly different. The misguided use by the Marines of the AAV& Amphibious Vehicle in the Anbur was a costly in Marine lives lost in these totally unsuited vehicles.
The amphibious warfare mission of the Marines will continue and the AAV7 is an aging platform and not suited for over the horizon landing operations, it’s just to slow to cover the increased distances at sea. The Marines should build a dedicated amphibious vehicle that I’m sure would cost less then the $10 million per copy price tag of the EFV and buy a dedicated AFV, perhaps an already developed “off the shelf” vehicle, the combined costs of the two should be far less then the EFV.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner