Change of heart? |

Change of heart?

Dear Editor:

When I read the article on U.S. Rep. John Murtha’s demanding that “Heads should roll” in the ranks of the military advisers to the Bush Administration, I was a bit taken back. Why would a well-known pro war “hawk” with a finger on the throttle of the Defense Appropriations Committee, suddenly go liberal while our servicemen and women are in harm’s way. Isn’t this the same Murtha who decried such criticism during the Vietnam Conflict• Isn’t this the same Murtha who supported war in Desert Storm, Haiti and Bosnia?

For a congressman who owes his career to two Purple Hearts for minor scratches to his cheek and forehead while touring Vietnam for intelligence, his sudden change of heart makes sense.

After having voted with the President to go to war with Iraq and the $87 billion that Bush requested to finish the job, the only plausible answer has to be political.

The Democrats have been planning to win back some of the power they lost to the Republicans with what could become the largest expansion of federal entitlements since LBJ. The Democrat plan to federalize the costs for prescription drug benefits under Medicare is now off the table due to the steep costs of war.

And that means big trouble for politicians who depend on retired voters.

Bill Choby,



TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.