Hackett Trashes Murtha on Air America

Shit. I was hoping someone else would post this.

I was driving in SF at 9:50 P.M. PST and listening to Air America. Paul Hackett was being interviewed, talking about how he was suing on behalf of the veterans regarding the stolen info. When asked about Haditha, he said was representing James Kimber, the highest ranking Marine in the investigation, and that Murtha should "get back on his meds and quit shooting from the hip." I almost had to pull over. He intimated that he was dubious about the reported massacre.

Effin hell.

"shooting from the hip"

You realize we're going to have to kill the messenger for this one.

By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Capt. James Kimber is one of three Marines whose names emerged amid a military criminal investigation into allegations that Marines shot and killed two dozen unarmed civilians in Iraq .

"My purpose is to separate his name from the alleged war crimes that took place," Hackett told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday. "He‘s not under investigation for anything related to what has played out in the press."

Kimber, 33, who was nominated for a Bronze Star for valor in Haditha, was relieved of command last month because his subordinates in the battalion‘s India Company used profanity and criticized the performance of Iraqi security services during an interview with Britain‘s Sky News TV, according to Hackett.

The Pentagon has named two others who have been relieved of command: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the commander of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and Capt. Lucas McConnell, who commanded Kilo Company, the company implicated in the killings. Hackett does not represent either man but said neither was present for the shootings and he believes neither is a target of the investigations.

... http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-00191211.html

And Murtha has been an outspoken critic WRT the Haditha business.

WASHINGTON -- The US military investigation of how Marine commanders handled the reporting of events in the Iraqi town of Haditha last November, where troops allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians, will conclude that some officers gave false information to their superiors, who then failed to adequately scrutinize reports that should have caught their attention, an Army official said yesterday.

The three-month probe, led by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell, also is expected to call for changes in how US troops are trained for duty in Iraq, the official said.

Army General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, is expected to order today that all US and allied troops in Iraq undergo new ``core values" training in how to operate professionally and humanely. Not only will leaders discuss how to treat civilians under the rules of engagement, but small units also will be ordered to go through training scenarios to gauge their understanding of those rules.

Bargewell has pursued two lines of investigation: not only whether falsehoods were passed up the chain of command, but also whether senior Marine commanders were derelict in their duty to monitor the actions of subordinates. The inquiry is expected to conclude by the end of this week, the official added. He said there were multiple failures but declined to say whether he would characterize it as a ``cover-up" as alleged recently by Representative John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, a former Marine.

The Bargewell report, which is expected to be delivered to top commanders by the end of the week, is one of two major military investigations into what happened at Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, and how commanders reacted to the incident. The other is a criminal inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. That sprawling investigation involves more than 45 agents and is expected to conclude this summer, Pentagon officials and defense attorneys said yesterday ...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/01/marines_allegedly_misled_superiors?mode=PF

If I had to guess, I would imagine that Murtha has seen some of the preliminary, still closely held information coming over the pond re: this investigation, the stuff that is sitting on desks in the Pentagon. He does have a load of friends over that way. Most, if not all, are in uniform.

Hackett is working as a defense attorney, advocating for his client. He's just doing what lawyers do.

They aren't on the same "side" in this endeavor.

and the roles the players are playing.

The role of John Kerry circa 1971 is being played by Jack Murtha. It's a story about a soldier that transcends his uniform and has an epiphany wherein it is never okay to exact revenge on innocents.

Whatever tap-dancing ensues to excuse shooting an innocent child in the head is despicable.

I have reached a new level of disgust.

First, if Murtha said anything that referenced Kimber by name.

Second, if Kimber and Hackett ever crossed paths in Iraq or elsewhere--training, previous assignments, anything of that nature? Is this a strictly lawyer-client matter, or is it personal?

Hackett asserts that his client's difficulty extends solely to the insubordination and poor discipline of his subordinates while appearing on SKYNEWS. He says there's no allegation that his client shot anyone. Has anyone seen anything that would put a lie to this assertion?

Kimber, like everyone else, is innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, shooting innocent civilians IS dispicable, but rushing to judgment is what the other team likes to do. You don't serve justice when you put the conviction ahead of the trial.

I admired both Hackett and Murtha. I still want to.

I wonder what's up.

Murtha alleges a coverup by the uniforms, and Hackett asserts his client had nothing to do with the killings in Haditha. Hackett's client wasn't part of Kilo Company, was he? They're the ones in hot water.

I suppose a full transcript of the radio program Hackett appeared on would be helpful.

I'm a bit out of the loop on this one.

Even if the substantive part of Hackett's statements have some basis, there is no excuse for that.

I agree - I would like to see an entire transcript, and understand what statement by Murtha he was reacting to. But if he said what's in the op, then he needs to get lost. Any (D) he tries to put by his name in the future needs a big red X put over it.

Isn't Hacket part of a group promoting the Fighting Dems with Wes Clark and other Dems? I wonder what that group, and Clark, have to say about this - again, assuming the op heard correctly (but I don't think she would have posted if there was any doubt).

I was listening and I heard it too. It was pretty nasty. It's one thing if Hackett has a difference of opinion with Murtha or sees things from a different perspective but there was no excuse for taking after Murtha the way he did. It was pretty painful to listen to. Apparently it's not the first time he's publicly laid into Murtha either.

Not sure what you want Clark's opinion on, though. If you're wondering what he thinks about Murtha's statements about Haditha, I suggest you check out one of the Clark on O'Reilly threads and watch the video from that appearance. It's up on securingamerica.com and crooksandliars. If you're wondering what he or the Fighting Dems have to say about Hackett's comments on AAR last night, I doubt they're going to be coming out with any statements about it. It seems pretty absurd to me to expect them to. Hackett wasn't on there speaking for the Fighting Dems...I doubt they all agree on everything and I don't think they expected to when they set up the group but one thing they are committed to is getting more Dems elected and that seems like a pretty good goal to me.

for electing Dems, or for furthering the Demcoratic Party.

It's not that I expect a statement or anything. No, I'm just curious. But if this is typical Hackett behavior, I'd think they might be smart to start easing off their associations with him.

JMHO.

I think it's IAVA PAC you're thinking of and not the Fighting Dems....And I don't think that Hackett's statements last night, although reprehensible, will have much of an effect on the Fighting Dems running for Congress....And if you're trying to associate Wes with Hackett's comments last night, again I suggest you watch the video of Clark's appearance with O'Reilly the other night. The whole discussion was about Murtha and Haditha.

If they disagreed about the state economy or some other issue, I understand this statement, but they should agree on telling the truth about the war. Hackett comes out in opposition of the war, speaks out against it and vows to support veterans who stand up to tell the truth about the war, then berates a veteran for doing so. That's like someone advocating for treatment of PTSD, then supporting someone opposed to it.

He can't have it both ways, and his position runs counter to what he is advocacy as a member of the Fighting Dems.

Hackett didn't have to accept this case. Accepting it is disgusting enough. He may truly believe this man had nothing to do with the incident, but berating Murtha is not defending the marine. Hackett intention seems to be to discredit the messenger, and that plays into denouncing that the incident happened.

THAT's what I am talking about, and it seems to have gotten lost because I *gasp* mentioned a sacred name in the same sentence.

your agenda comes out....

I made a simple comment that you took as an attack because jeez louise don't mention that Wes should take a dim view of his associates disrespect for other vets who speak out. My "agenda" as you call it, is that leaders of the Dem party should distance themselves from Hackett - and I wonder if Wes will. I have reason to believe that he won't. I hope I am wrong. I brought up Wes specifically because I believe he is closer to Hackett than most other leading Dems.

Just trying to respond to your post...Very telling that you would suggest I took it as an attack because I tried to provide you with some info...hmmmm....

and before that you seemed very defensive of Wes.

I'm basically fine with Wes, except on a few points like certain endorsements he's made (one hugely problematic one especially). But I am interested in who does what with respect to Hackett, and I see Wes as a significant player there.

quite telling that you would view an attempt to provide some info, including confirmation of what Hackett said last night, as being 'very defensive of Wes'...

Just sayin', you know.

Oh, your 'sacred name' comment was what tipped me off to the agenda...And I guess I did consider that to be a bit of an attack. Was that supposed to be some kind of a compliment that I misinterpreted?

Have a great day, OK?

breathtaking, wasn't it?

I was wincing as I heard it...I was happy Sam kind of cut him off a few times....and was glad when the interview was over.

ABC's "Good Morning America" a few mornings ago. At one point, Murtha looked like he was going to explode, he was so angry about this. Murtha reminds me of what I used to be like in the run-up to the invasion\occupation and for the next couple years.

he RW kooks I tried to talk to about this would always tell me I needed to take my meds too, especially when I would bring up the civilian casualties that were going unreported b/c as Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts."

Murtha's reached the point I was at two years ago. Next thing we know, Murtha will be attending a peace vigil every week. That was the first way I found to channel my anger and dismay. Now I'm volunteering on Marcy Winograd's primary campaign to unseat Jane Harman in the Calif. Dem primary next Tuesday.

with that.."Now I'm volunteering on Marcy Winograd's primary campaign to unseat Jane Harman in the Calif. Dem primary next Tuesday."

to post something about ..I don't like it when people refer to "getting back on meds" or "off" for that matter. It's disengenuous and lazy talk.

Course with bush it's true..but don't go sayin' that about Murtha who has been speaking against this bogus war since November, 2005..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700794.html

He tends to be quick to trash anyone who stands in his way of getting what he wants. His own personal agenda always come first. He did the same thing with his vicious (and dishonest) attacks on Sherrod Brown when he ran for Senate.

Brown wasn't as lucky as Murtha, not having as high a national public profile, but the Hackett treatment was the same. Those of us who know Brown and recognized Hackett's attacks as mean spirited and dishonest had to put up with quite a bit of bashing ourselves.

Glad the truth is finally coming out. Can you imagine what he would be like in the Senate? Ugh.

and was totally disgusted. He was praising the Generals who were coming out against the war. The problem was that he was ranting about none of the Democrats in Congress doing the same. He seemed to be following the RW theme of everyone was equally involved and complicit in the war - except for himself. His tone was arrogant and obnoxious.

The only reason he has a platform is that the Democratic party honored him with its nomination for the seat in Congress. There is nothing special that he did, above and beyond going to Iraq - like thousands of other men. I am far more impressed by many of the fighting Dems and by the young soldier (Powers) who spoke at Faneuil Hall before Kerry. Powers had been touched by the Iraqi kids orphaned by the war and he and his men had taken time to help them and play with them until they were warned that their present could lead to the kids being harmed. After working for Veterans for Kerry, he started an organization dedicated to helping Iraqi children.

With Hackett, I think we need to remember that anti-war doesn't equal Democrat.

Brown opposed it from the very beginning by voting against the resolution allowing Bush to invade.

Both have been attacked by Hackett, who claims to be an anti-war candidate. :shrug:

... and Paul Hackett isn't a candidate for anything.

Just trying to correct the record.

He bashes all Dems that get in his way. Is more of a reactionary and will defend various military fuck ups.

This is why he didn't do better. He was a one trick pony with no expanse of knowledge behind him.

And before I get flamed for this: all you Hackett supporters please tell me his stance on immigration before you start screaming at me. Or tell me his stance on the economy?

I can answer it for you, he has none. That's why he didn't get the numbers or raise the cash he needed to really compete in an election.

Paul has a very big ego.

kick them out.

:sarcasm:

I remember being one of the few Brown supporters who got badmouthed by fanatical Hackett suporters who hadn't the foggiest of who Sherrod really is.

Hate to see it coming out like this, but Hackett really isn't looking good for anything right about now.

about turning against good, hard working Democrats like Sherrod Brown who've had the guts and commitment to stick around during GOP control while still trying to make a difference for unknown personalities like Hackett. Substance over style.

WOnder if Murtha was one favoring Hackett step down for Sheldon Brown's candidacy for US Senate , Ohio? Hackett is just doing his job as the counsel for the accused Marines. Let's try and understand the position both find themseleves in. I hope Hackett will eventurally want some political position. All attorney's eventually do. When, he does, I hope Hackett is on our side.

Sherrod Brown was as undeserving of his attacks as was Murtha. The problem here isn't good, hard-working, principled Dems like Murtha or Brown - the problem is grandstanding, egotistical, self-serving political chameleon Hackett.

For sure Gov. Rendell. Maybe Murtha? That was handled akwardly by professional dems. COuld be the source of Hackett's friction.?

It was his excuse... not something that was ever verified. Don't you remember that this was a major discussion here on DU at the time? Hackett blamed everyone but himself for his poor campaign.

Do you remember this thread, "How the Democrats Took Paul Hackett Out"??


http://tinyurl.com/llnmn


But, so what? He's not a candidate and some folks here on DU say he's not a Dem. He's still getting a lot of publicity.

I think a tough old Marine like Murtha can handle this trial lawyer situation all by himself, no help needed.

. But, from what I heard, I liked much what he had to say. Before the Democrats had SHeldon Brown they were pretty much pandering to Hackett. As to lousy campaigns. Active campaigns are a thing of the past. It is all tv hype.

I see you're still on the unsubstantiated "Trash Hackett" bandwagon.

Some things never change.

Lawyers defend their clients. Sometimes those clients are untoward.

Stanley Chesley, a lifelong Democrat, prolific fundraiser, a Cincinnatian and arguably the best personal injury lawyer in America, recently defended Mean Jean Schmidt. I suppose you feel Chesley is also a grandstanding, egotistical, self-serving political chameleon, too.

If he had simply said that Murtha needs to wait till the facts are in or reminded people that the soldiers were innocent until proven quilty - your comments would be fair. Smearing Murtha isn't. The other thing is that this happened in November - Murtha's mention of it is important as it is somewhat likely that without the demand that this be investigated and, if true, people UP THE RANKS be held accountable, it would likely have been either swept under the rug or the lowest people charged.

It is clear that Murtha is the one speaking out because he has the credibility to do it, as did a young war hero in 1971. Both took or will take an enormous amount of abuse for having the honesty to say that bad things have likely happened. Clearly the events in Iraq have to be investigated. I don't think Murtha accused individual people.

I don't know if Hackett really is on our side.

Perhaps the commanders are being investigated, not because they had any involvement in the incident, but because they may have covered it up.

Perhaps the commanders are being investigated...because they may have covered it up.

Which Hackett understands perfectly: His client is charged with being involved in the coverup, not the crime. Hackett is insisting that Captain Kimber should be "separated" from the alleged war crimes? That would be great if Kimber HAD BEEN charged with being one of the shooters. But why hasn't Hackett ALSO said, "My client had nothing to do with the coverup"? It's like when the lawyer of a manslaughter defendant says his client didn't mean to kill anyone. Manslaughter has nothing to do with meaning to kill anyone--murder does!

It's very disappointing to see Hackett exhibiting such cheap shysterism and being far less than an officer and a gentleman. I thought he was made of better stuff than that.

:headbang:
rocknation

Murtha was right to speak out like he did. What I have a problem with is, why do democrats complain because their representatives don't speak out and then get mad when they do? MURTHA WAS SPOT ON!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It was a gratuitous smear of Murtha.

There is no excuse. And, Hackett, as a lawyer, is NOT oon "our side". He's on his client's side. Remember that. This could get ugly.

TC

"Get back on his meds..."???? Gee, why stop there? How about calling him a "girlie man" and maybe doing a mocking voice rendition of Murtha? You know, like you might see on Young Turks TeeVee.

This guy wasn't Senate material. Gald he's out of that race.

Julie

I agree, he's a hothead and so uncouth. I think with some training and refining around the edges, he might make a good voice for our message, but not with the self-serving agenda he's displayed up to now.

But I doubt they'll get one.

BTW, I'm proud of both of them for not getting down into the gutter with Hackett.

and was dismayed that Mr. Hackett felt the need to publicly rebuke Mr. Murtha. Obviously these two men are coming from different directions on the Haditha incident. Also, Mr. Hackett accused Murtha of "shooting from the lip" (at least thats what it sounded like to me)although he may have said "shooting from the hip" at some other point in the conversation.

I lived in Cincinnati and was active in the Hamilton County Democratic Party. I was acqainted with just about every Democratic office holder and activist. I relocated to Wisconsin just before the special election, but when I heard that Paul Hackett was running, my first response was, "Paul Who?"

I can tell you this much: he was never actively involved in the Democratic Party before he decided to run for Congress. So don't expect him to display anything that smacks of party loyalty or discipline. My opinion is that he's in it for Paul Hackett and not for the party; and if that means trashing other Democrats in the process, then so be it.

When it comes to who I would be more apt to believe I will choose Murtha. I greatly admired Paul Hackett when he was running for the senate spot but now with this incident I think his true colors are showing.

I will be reading more about it. So far, I know of nothing that justifies these Marines' actions, and am dismayed HAckett chose to represent one of these guys. He's reverting to his lawyer role, but trashing such a distinguished man as Murtha? Stupid move, Hackett.

I'm not defending Hackett's remarks last night because there is no excuse for the way he acted...but, in fairness, he wasn't trying to justify the Marines' actions. He claims the guy he's represented wasn't involved in the incident and was wrongly named in a piece by Time, I think. He did keep referring to the "alleged" incident and won't say at this point that for sure anything wrong took place...but he's not denying for sure that it did either. At least that's what he said last night.

claiming Kimber was miles away. If that's so, I wonder why he's been relieved of his command?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606010169jun01,1,343732.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

snip//

Officers relieved of command

Three officers have been relieved of command recently at Camp Pendleton. The Marine Corps has not publicly described the reasons for that action. An attorney for one, Capt. James Kimber, said his client had nothing to do with Haditha and was in charge of another company that was miles away.

"He was India Company commander," said Paul Hackett, a Cincinnati attorney who was a Marine major in Iraq and who recently made an unsuccessful run for Congress as a Democrat. "The Marines under investigation are Kilo Company. Unfortunately, as result of the events that took place in Haditha, when pressure started getting pushed down on the Marine battalion, Kimber was actually relieved of command as a company commander once he returned to the States in March."

The military wouldn't work very well if commanders didn't have to be held responsible for the actions of their troops. They're in charge and they give orders and if those orders aren't being followed, the commander has to answer as well as the troops.

Relieving them of command sounds like its part of standard procedure in an investigation.

It doesn't excuse Hackett's behavior or remarks.

the atrocities as well as the soldiers involved. But if this guy's company was miles away and not involved, I still wonder why he was relieved of command.
Sure sounds like Hackett is not sharing the whole story.
And I also agree, Hackett's remarks, RE: Murtha, were way over the line and uncalled for. So much for respect.

In a point made further up in this thread, the incident happened in November, but wasn't fully investigated and the people involved weren't held accountable according to the military code.

that he would be responsible for, and can't decide if that's more or less despicable than the crime itself.

There was an incident in the Navy down in Charleston S.C. and somehow a missile went off when the ship was docked, luckily no one was hurt. I can't remember all the details but the Captain was not aboard at the time, but he was relieved from his command. As my husband puts it he is in charge of his command and responsible for the actions of those underneath him.

Kimber was in charge of India Company while Kilo Company is the unit under investigation. If that proves to be true, what would Kimber have to do with it? I don't understand the correlation between the two.

"He was India Company commander," said Paul Hackett, a Cincinnati attorney who was a Marine major in Iraq and who recently made an unsuccessful run for Congress as a Democrat. "The Marines under investigation are Kilo Company. Unfortunately, as result of the events that took place in Haditha, when pressure started getting pushed down on the Marine battalion, Kimber was actually relieved of command as a company commander once he returned to the States in March."

We definitely need more details.

that this guy wasn't even in any chain of command involved....How true that claim is, I have no idea. And nothing excuses Hackett's remarks. No question there. The guy's obviously a bit of a loose cannon.

then it may be that he is wrongly being accused. However, Hackett cannot attack Murtha for stating the facts: Kimber was relieved. Everyone should understand that this is a discovery process, to learn the facts. Hackett doesn't have to attack Murtha to defend Kimber. If Hackett believes Kimber is innocent, defend Kimber. If Hackett knows the incident happened, but is standing up for an innocent man, then he shouldn't try to discredit anyone for talking about the incident. He can say Kimber was miles away with out doing that. He can even point to the discrepancy in any statement without bashing the person making the statement.

In fairness, I will grant that, if Kimber was in no way related to Haditha, Hackett does have a point that Murtha's "three marines relieved" comment makes it seem as if he did. That said, he certainly could have expressed that in a much more respectful way, no doubt. I've said before that the exchange was painful to listen to....And, again, I have no idea of the validity of Hackett's claims about Kimber's non-involvement.

says wrongly, but that has not been determined. He can say it without bashing Murtha. There is also another issue, the cover up:

Do you see that I am agreeing with you? And that I am not excusing anyone for what happened at Haditha?

Yes, Murtha is stating a fact in that they were relieved but Hackett was saying, as far as I can tell, that Murtha was insinuating that the three actions were all related to Haditha. I do not know the full text or context of Murtha's particular statement so I don't know if Hackett's right on this or not...but, if he is, I can see that he has a point, that's all...

I'm not saying that Murtha shouldn't be speaking out or that there wasn't a cover up or anything...just that I can see the point if everything Hackett's saying is true....

Just wondering, did you hear the interview on Majority Report that's being discussed here? Hearing the whole thing might put this a little more in perspective.

have to be a witness to have an opinion about whether or not Hackett should bash Murtha. If he didn't bash Murtha, then there is nothing to discuss. If he did and the accounts are correct, I can say without hearing the actual report, that he shouldn't have. My statements are somewhat hypothetical. If it didn't happen, the accounts are wrong. If this turns out to be false, Hackett didn't bash Murtha, then I'll take that into consideration when these posters relay another account of something I didn't witness!

And yes, I'm aware that you agree that there is no reason for Hackett to bash Murtha. Where we disagree is that somehow Murtha owns the facts. He is reporting what is known: marines were relieved because of the Haditha incident. In fact, the criminal probe and the cover up probe are separate, but both relate to the Haditha incident. I don't know which probe resulted in Kimber being relieved, and we don't know if he was wrongly relieve or not, but he was relieved!

I'm trying to find agreement and you seem to be looking for a confrontation -- which you won't get from me (although perhaps I am reading the wrong thing into your posts).

I'm not suggesting you can't have an opinion without hearing it. A whole bunch of people have expressed opinions on this thread and I believe very few have actually heard the exchange. I just asked if you heard it because I'm thinking that if you heard the whole thing what I'm trying to say might be a little easier to understand.

What I'm trying to say is that Hackett was saying that Kimber was not relieved as a result of the criminal or the cover up probe. I don't know if what Hackett is saying is true and I've said that in every post I've written about that here...I'm just saying that this is what he said and if indeed Kimber's being relieved was not in any way related to what happened in Haditha or the cover up of what happened there and Murtha is making statements that suggest that it was, I can see Hackett's point. That's I think the third way that I've tried to explain and I can't imagine that trying yet again if you don't understand this time will help at all...so that's my last word.

Peace, OK? We really are on the same side with this.

Hackett has been wrongly perceived as a liberal demi-god in many progressive forums and blogs, but those of us familiar with his ill fated race for the Senate in Ohio know better.

He's a hot-headed, egotistical libertarian who changes parties frequently to suit his nascent political career. He made similar attacks on Sherrod Brown, only some mistakenly thought he was telling the truth.

Let's hope you don't get flamed. As progressives, we need to be careful about throwing our support behind charismatic candidates about whom we know little and especially careful about letting them trash good Dems in the process of promoting their own careers. No matter how seductive their rhetoric is, we need to hold them to a higher standard of accountability until we know them better.

I only hope DUers and other Dems will remember these facts about people like Hackett. Shooting people sleeping in their beds and standing 7-9 year-olds up against a wall and blowing their brains out does not a hero make.

as saviors without scrutinizing them.

who endorsed Bush and Allen in 2000 and trashed John Kerry dishonestly in 2004, although he now claims to have voted for him.

I did phone bank work for him here in California and would have continued to support him in any of his political endeavors. He handled the Brown race badly, but I chalked that up to inexperience.

His attack on Murtha, however, was the piece de resistance in my downward trend of opinion of him.

.... than a lawyer representing anyone.

until proven quilty and reminded people that all the facts aren't out. They deserve representation, although if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't want to do it. What is wrong is the way he trashed Murtha. There is no excuse for the comment he made. In fact, it's not very professional. I think his 15 minutes of fame has gone on too long and his ego far exceeds his accomplishments.

:thumbsup:

.. I had high hopes for him but if he continues to bash folks with accomplishments he's unlikely to ever claim, I agree with you.

Being in politics, like being a lawyer, means not being able to say everything that you think all the time.

There's either a personal relationship, a personal disagreement, or Murtha said something that Hackett felt was "lumping" his client, who, according to him, is only in hot water because his subordinates swore on Sky News, in with babykillers.

Hackett always talked that way, sort of rude, with the odd swears, but no one minded it so long as it was directed at the GOP. He certainly is supportive of veterans and their issues, like Murtha, as he is also the one who is taking on the VA and suing them on behalf of vets for damages due to the stolen data business.

For the record, Murtha's language can get rough at times, too. He's no wilting pansy. He's just an older guy, and better at knowing when the cameras and mics are on.

I happen to like Jack Murtha, I think he's a fair-minded guy, open and honest, even though I don't always agree with his views, which are in some respects quite Reaganesquely conservative.

that puts a bullet in a child's head?

Yes, they deserves representation, but not any consideration.

Hacket is the legal representative of a Capt. Kimber. Kimber is one of three Marines recently relieved of command. Two of the three were somehow part of the Haditha mess. Kimber is the third, but is **not** part of the Haditha mess (although he and his unit were in Haditha, they did not have anything to do with the actual Marine unit that did the atrocities.)

Kimber was apparantly relieved of command after one of his Marines said something out of place to a SkyNews(?) British teevee reporter. In short, Kimber was relieved for 'bad leadership' that allowed a US Marine to swear on teevee and, maybe, to also have said something that was against the Corps. In any case, it seems that Kimber's fate is completely unrelated to the Haditha atrocities.

Hackett's saying Murtha's conflated these two unrelated events in continually saying 'three Marines were relieved of command'. And *that* is the crux of any disagreement. Hackett's doing what lawyers do - advocating for his client. And since he has a bigger soapbox than many (AAR and guest hosting for Ed Schultz) he gets heard more. I didn't hear Hackett say anything against Murtha with respect to the bigger Haditha story, only to what he thinks Murtha's been saying (actually, the better word is 'implying' or 'insinuating') that is against his client.

And lastly, keep in mind ....... Hackett is a **former** candidate for office running as a Democrat. He's not part of the Democratic Party. He can say any damned thing he wants to.

I agree that all of this is a needless distraction and may be a bit over the top and inopportune, but it isn't wrong and he owes nothing to anyone .... except his client.

on the possible involvement (or not) of Kimber.

That said, Hackett has demonstrated a pattern of attacking elected Dems who oppose the war. It would be easier to write this off as a distraction if it weren't for the fact that Hackett has a pattern of attacking good Dem elected officials who happen to get in his way. He's done a great deal of harm.

...... with Hackett.

The other stuff about Hackett and his 'patterns' ..... I won't even weigh in except to say that he's an egotistical amateur.

I'd also suggest that were it not for Murtha's single issue (right now) of the war, he'd be, still, a largely unknown back bencher from some unknown CD in Pennsylvania with a **very** conservative voting record.

Heros are where you find them. And most are replaceable. That's not to put anyone down, but it sure is something to keep in mind.

I agree with everything you said up to the point where you excuse Hackett for that statement.

Sorry, we are talking about basic respect and decency - or lack thereof, in this case.

I didn't even **mention** that statement.

I took your post to be inclusive of all of Hackett's comments referred to in the op...in that light, the bolded part of your comment excuses all of Hackett's comments, including the meds thing.

If I misunderstood your post, my apologies.

In fact, I didn't hear any of a formal 'AAR interview' and didn't claim to have heard it. I got my understanding of what I know from Hackett's having called into the Ed Schultz show yesterday at about 5.00 pm EDT while driving home. I didn't hear any 'off his meds' remark in that particular interview.

But you are right, I misunderstood, I thought you were responding to the op and as such were commenting on what the op said, which included the meds comment by Hackett, but I understand now that you weren't.

So, I am fine with your post in that context, now that I'm clear on it.

FWIW, elsewhere on this thread others have confirmed what the op reported about Hackett's comment.

The problem with discussions on message boards! You and I would have had clarity far faster if we were speaking instead of typing. I reread what I posted and your view is as right as mine. I know what I *intended* ... whch was to provide some background, not to comment on what was said in one AAR segment or another. You rightly saw my reply for what it actually was .... a comment on the OP, and in *that* context, you're perfectly correct to have made the assumption you did.

I suspect a boatload of DU 'disagreements' are based on similar circumstances and not on any *real* disagreement.

In fact, while mention was, indeed, made of the 'off his meds' comment, I didn't really pay attention to that, choosing instead to see it as simple hyperbole, and choosing instead to focus on what I saw/heard/understood to be the facts.

In the end, I think you were right to say what you said and I was right to say what I said, and we were *both* right to sort it out.

:thumbsup:

Give Murtha the respect he deserves, and explain his problem with Murtha without saying something like that he should go back on his meds.

That's all I ask.

I heard him on Schultz's show, not on the later interview cited in the OP. I heard no 'off his meds' comment when he called Shultz's show.

Hackett, did, indeed, approach the limits of propriety with respect to his comments on Murtha, but I took it as hypewrbole and Hackett being Hackett.

I'm not in any way defending Hackett .... or condeming him. I'm simply stating the facts as he described them. And if those are the facts (I have no reason, at this point, to think they're not) then I can excuse even more based on an advocate advocating for his client. And since Hackett is a private citizen, he's free to do that, his bigger-than-most soapbox notwithstanding.

And as I have so often stated ..... I wonder how many have taken the time to look at the entirety of Murtha's record. Not to put him down, because I have ***no*** particular issues with him, but he's a pretty conservative Dem more prone to hawkishness than not.

Should he repsected? Of course he should.

He's trashing Murtha and anyone else that gets in his way... always his problem. Now he's trashing them for money. Great.

Again, for the brazillianth time in this thread, I am neither defending nor condemning Hackett, but why in the world would he have to state any bias (which, for the record, he did in the call-in to Schultz that I heard - I never heard the intyerview cited in the OP)? He's a private citizen with no offical portfolio than to advocate for his client, in this case one Marine Captain Kimber, seemingly falsely associated with the Haditha massacre.

To whom, exactly, does he owe this statement of bias?

He'll pay the price for his actions next time he decides to try to run .... under whatever party label of convenience that might be.

But for sure he doesn't, at this point, owe you, me, or anyone else shit with respect to his biases.

was so respected and revered here on DU... he says what he feels in his gut at any given moment and it comes out of his mouth unfiltered by the thought of consequences. It's what made him the candidate he was. And, it's probably what makes him the lawyer he probably is, too.

I mean no disrespect for any lawyers present, but trial lawyers are required to say some pretty disgusting things on behalf of their clients at times. It's why they are called "advocates" -- which is probably the case here. In Murtha's defense, I believe it is probably Hackett who is "shooting from the hip" here, and he is doing it on behalf of a client that would be well served if Murtha were made to look like a doddering, old bigmouth.

I am not excusing Hackett, even a little bit... I'm just sayinghe might just be doinghis job as he sees it.

TC

His willingness to put his own personal agenda ahead of principle.

As a trial attorney, it may be acceptable to smear and lie about your opponent, but in the world of politics and governing, it doesn't work as well. When you put someone like that in public office, they become a loose cannon, with no allegiance to any issue or ideology but their own. Someone like that is easily manipulated to turn on his own allies if it serves his own short term interest.

This is a guy who, in less than 10 years has jumped from being a Democrat to Republican to a Perot supporter to a Dem and is now flirting with Libertarianism. He should stick to being a radio jock.

I wasn't defending him at all.

Suitable or unsuitable for public office is one thing, but his absolute right to say anything he pleases is absolutely (as I write this, at least) guaranteed by the Constitution.

TC

at least you know this was an honest reaction from Hackett. But it also shows that at some point he was going to stick his foot in it BIG time when he ran for the Senate. I have observed that such a personality does better in the House. I wish he would have waited and tried that avenue again.

This kind of crap is exactly why DU shot its collective wad over Paul Hackett months ago. Now that his "straight talk" (which is just a euphemism for red-faced ranting) has been turned against a DU God like Murtha, he's not so popular anymore. He was a HERO when he was calling Bush names, but now that he's directed his crass vitriol toward Murtha, he's fallen out of favor.

That's the problem with venerating ill-tempered, loudmouth ranters, and that's why I roll my eyes in disgust whenever DU starts idolizing one just because they called Bush a "chickenshit cocksucking son of a bitch" or whatever on AAR.

when you don't have the facts on your side.

entirely. It is a ploy to deflect possible guilt.

TC

that Murtha was hitting the bottle when he
called for withdrawal?

in a recent interview he had a month or so ago.

His repuke blood is bubbling up.

asked him to do a recount in his first race that he lost due to
election fraud. He refused citing a wish to run again.
If he was such a fighter, he would have fought to
challenge his election results.. instead he ditched honesty for a 2nd run
at the office.

he's power hungry like most democrats and seems to have lost his way.

my theory is that marines like police officers go to great lengths to protect their own.
They reason, 'there but by the grace of god go I" and try to help their fallen brothers.

Regardless of whether these India company marines are taking the fall, or if Hackett is accurate in his assessment, Murtha, is truly America's GREAT HERO and has more guts and more 'old school' military honor and integrity than the likes of Hackett...

i'm not a Paul Hackett fan and Dems should not fall in love with dems just cause they have a military background...

to focus on Iraq War Vets for Rep/Sen.

Would it not be better to assess each candidate on their merits and then, if appropriate, add some 'bonus points' for military service?

The fact is, when one looks back over the last three, four, or five decades, one finds many more Dems with military service than Repubs. Why is that? One of my personal heros and a long standing darling of the antiwar left is Geroge McGovern. Look into his military background.

And one need look no further than our last two presidential candidates versus the last two repub candidate(s). Good guys both ... with extra credit for service.

How is that judging candidates on issues? It was the exact opposite and was a failed strategy.


What has Hackett done to further the Democratic agenda?

Here, locally, Andrew Horne ran on an Iraq War veteran stance and lost decidedly to John Yarmuth, a good strong liberal.

.... we have more than enough knee jerk stuff to go around ..... and not just on this one issue. Herd mentalities, no matter which way they run, are just silly.

Actually, herds may not be so bad when one thinks of what is perhaps an even better term ... the flock mentality .... as in ..... sheep.

On edit ......

I'm also not sure I agree that they were sold solely on their war vet status. To be sure, that was the focus of the Band of the Brothers, but when one looks at each man in more three dimensional ways, one finds a variety of views. A variety of reasons for running ... and indeed, some with actual politcal experience. Behind the monodimensional trait of being vets, each man is an amalgam of views and as such deserves to be assessed based on those views. The 'vet' thing is simply a way to take the extra points up front by positing some sort of strength in numbers framing. And the fact they're almost all Dems is kinda telling. I'm okay with that.

You're being honest, insightful, and fair.

Glad you're not jumping on the "I never liked Hackett in the first place" band wagon and are willing to step back and take a level-headed approach.

Last time I checked (and I'm a Buckeye) Hackett wasn't running for office and yet he still gets so much publicity. Brown, who is our candidate, does not.

Hackett may have been a decent candidate to run against Mean Jean but I was never 'married' to him as a rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.

I always saw him as something of a loose cannon, although, against Schmidt I was fully in for him.

Not that I need to, but I will admit to a knee jerk initial choice of him over Brown. That, however, didn't last very long, based almost exclusively on what *he* did rather than anything about Brown, per se.

In the end, he's just another flash in the pan 'class favorite' based on one issue.

And as I said upthread a bit ..... I wonder how many who are now celebrating John Murtha on the war issue would be so quick to fete him as much if they took the time to look beyond this one issue and looked at the whole of his voting record. He's pretty conservative and very much a hawk. (I wold be remiss were I not to quickly temper that 'hawk' label to say he's always been pretty reasoned about it; but likley not in line with many here on DU.)

Granted, his lambasting of the Senate was a thing of beauty but, to borrow a term you used, he's another loose-cannon.

I think we're just SO desperate for a true icon to lead the Democratic Party that many people are willing to latch onto coattails of the first thing that looks hopeful.

But, for one, I'm very glad is Dean at the helm of the DNC. He's brash but he's doing what needs to be done.

... :)

Your point is very well taken. We're pretty desperate for heros and icons. And the ones we have who are at least worthy of that high esteem we continually shoot down for one imagined transgression or another while the flashes in the pan we hoist on high without a send look.

It might help us if we looked at what we have, and not what we wish we had. There's not one of the 04 primary people who I would dismiss. Not even the ones with no chance in hell like Mosley-Braun or Sharpton. But to look around here, one would think, depending on the flock's direction on any given day, each one is a bigger embodiment of evil than the next.

The Repubs have no monopoly on one dimensional absolutism, it seems.

we should go to war with the army (of candidates) we have?



:evilgrin:

By the way ..... 'brash' is good. :thumbsup:

:D

if I was SELFISH which I am, and had to choose a candidate with strong fiscal / money management versus military, I'd choose the strong money/fiscal candidate...

why?

because you need money to buy missiles and weapons and protect yourself

and this 9 trillion dollar deficit is much bigger a problem than our military being outta control all over the world.

we can repair international relations with a good Dem team in office, we cannot put money that doesn't exist back into the coffers...

I think we need someone that is a civil leader who HIRES MILITARY people to advise him but a military person, much like a police officer, often projects the violence they experienced in their past into their office as President.

I loved Clinton's specific money orientation and his unwillingness to waste our time and money on useless wars.... his war in Bosnia was brilliant... how military should be used, tactically and not the focus of the entire strategy of the White House...

I'm selfish..
I want my democracy back
I want US economic power back
I want to travel to London and not lose my shirt on the lowered American dollar

I want US out of Iraq

I want a president that consults with the CIA and state department for about 20 minutes daily, not 24 hours a day!!!!

screw the military candidate.. we need a money man in the WhiteHouse now...

we need Russ Feingold.. another good fiscal management guy.. Dean would be best but we can't have Dean.....

Good try at what?

What are you saying I'm 'trying'?

I especially enjoy your wit and intelligence and insight...

Often I find your biting sarcasm fun and enlightening, a kind of mental puzzle for me to discover if I understood all the points you so subtly make....

I think you are one of the funnest posters on DU...
I actually seek out your posts most days.....

I am shocked you would think a military candidate is what America needs right now...
so I was just encouraging a 'try harder to post something that makes me think harder' post, that's all.....

my only question:

what war is so pressing we need a military man in charge?
Who is threatening the US at this moment? besides china threatening us economically, I don't see any wars requiring the particularly compartmentalized and violent mind of a military strategist...

I miss your witty, make me laugh posts.... sparkly......that's all.....

First of all, Sparkly's my wife. She's the fairy princess in the family. Me? I'm the ogre.

How did you come to interpret my post as being one advocating for a military candidate over a non-military candidate based solely on military service?

I am not. To do so would be to be a sheep or a fan of fantasy image over substance. I think to do either is stupid. I'd like to think I am neither.

Second, it would be equally stupid to discount a candidate solely based on past military service. I won't do that either. I am not saying this is fact, but, based solely your post, and not having read anythng else you've posted anywhere, and not knowing even your gender, age, or background, let alone your politics, and therefore jumping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusion, I am inferring that you are of such a mind. If you are - and I'm not saying that's fact - then you would be doing yourself a disservice in making such a one dimensional choice.

There are a few things we can probably be safe assuming based on a single criterion.

Democrats, generally, are good.

Republicans, generally, are not so good.

Exceptions to both generalizations, however, abound ..... particularly in the case of the former; less in the case of the latter.

wes clark or Dean for pres. in 2004...

I chose Dean.

I ran a kick butt campaign for the man, raised him thousands of dollars in personal house parties gave liberally and often of my time, my house, my bumper sticker passing out pain in the ass, in your face, put a sign in your friggin' yard, grassroots in the trenches hardwork to install a candidate..

my #1 favorite thing about Dean was his balancing vermont's budget from a 70$M deficit left over from the republican and also that he can use that same money management to make welfare programs (like medicaid) squeeze further and help more people..

I did not dislike Wes Clark and had he the same financial skills as Dean (he may have had, i just didn't see his past about that) I would choose a Military + Financial guy over a military only guy or financial guy only.....

but what makes me really nervous is that I see uniforms everywhere..

I see imilitary uniforms:
a. front row of American Idol (yuckk)
b. at the airport all the time (enroute to some stupid war I did not consent to pay for)
c. on my local TV news it's an almost daily occurrence

about the only place I don't see military uniforms is in hurricane situations.. then I see the usual heroes, police officers and fireman.. so i'll probrably regret saying so , but can we put a police officer or fireman in the whitehouse??? they seem to be the only ones protecting Americans for the real problems facing Americans.. 9/11 they were the true heroes and the military/CIA Fed up beyond a doubt and some would say the cops and firemen were the only ones helping Katrina.. (not saying there were not some misguided accidental racial stuff going on by cops, just in general, I feel more protected by a cop than I do a military person)......

this is no slight to folks in the military but a huge slap in the face to those who manage the military.. I'm sure our very brave soldiers want to protect Americans, but they are being put in harm's way for no reason, risking their lives for nothing and I"m afraid for a future where young kids won't want to enroll in the military, at some future time or 'real need' we will have no army left to fight...

agreed
Democrats "generally" better than Republicans

but I would not label 35 Democrats voting for General Hayden GOOD... no in fact, I would label them a lesser of 2 evils...

we need progressives to win democrat seats...

Progressives Good
Democrats (few good, mostly bad)
Republicans (mostly bad, few good)

let me present a scenario.

A. NO PRESS that honestly reports the news (this is a fact)
B. Legislature result of years of ELECTION FRAUD (so no representative government)
C. 2 stolen preidential elecions now
D. 20,000 bricks saying "stop the invasion"
E. 40,000 petitions from Sheehan saying "No to Iran"
F. 500,000 petitions on 9/24 saying "US Out of Iraq"
G. 5,0000 protestors last March at Fayetteville saying "Out of Iraq" and 50 pro-war protestors (10 to 1 against the war)
H. Over 1 Million protestors time and again AGAINST THE WAR and many MILLIONS against the latest "illegal immigrant" senate bill

bottom line folks.

we have a peace loving, immigrant loving country in a world where a corporate owned press and criminal elected officials magnify the WILL OF THE PEOPLE as exactly the opposite.

i live in redneck GA and I can't tell you how many rednecks hate George Bush right now.

and nobody is fooling themselves that our economy is booming.. most people are bracing for a market to crash.....


I agree with AMY GOODMAN: "We are the silenced majority" and when dems cowtow and pander to right wing religious or military interests.. I think, that represents 5% of the total population and represents no kind of majority in my book....

You are onto something Roland99... thanks!

http://www.reformparty.org/platform.htm


I agree with most of that (with some exceptions on zeroing the deficit, kicking out all illegals, and some other minor issues)


It's time to FIX America and the two parties that have been in control are pretty much corrupt to the bone and focusing on corporate entities and not human lives and welfare.

Trouble is, the 3rd parties try to go for the gold instead of building up a foundation from the local level.

he started with the grassroots, and raised millions more than any other dem candidate $60 at a time..

whosoever shall ignore the grassroots does so at the peril of their own election to office...

I will check out the reform party... thanks for the link.. I'm fascinated by the many diff. forms of independent, 3rd party and progressive movements...

i hope a candidate can come and unite all that for 2008....

we have to stop the democratic splintering.....

I agree with most of that (with some exceptions on zeroing the deficit, kicking out all illegals, and some other minor issues)

Those seem very substantial issues - zeroing out the deficit would at this point likely cut all social programs.

And I didn't call the deficit or immigration issues minor. Those are the two big exceptions I had and I mentioned there were other minor issues.


Zeroing out the deficit is possible but it's not in our best interests. At least not right now. As for social programs, there's going to have to be sacrifice on many fronts in order to salvage the US Govt's solvency.


Almost Unnoticed Bipartisan Budget Anxiety
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701238.html

money being the key to everything....

if we don't straighten that out, everything else is a mute point...

I can imagine a day in the not too future where the govt' budget is sapped and we
don't even have the plane fare to get our soldiers back from Iraq...

9 Trillion is a lot of dough...

the chinese understand the power of dough....

I thought Hackett came off as too emotionally involved to have his remarks taken seriously. I don't think he did his client any good by engaging in nasty verbal attacks. It would have been much better for his client if he coolly stated the facts of the case and reminded listeners that those involved are to be given the presumption of innocence unless proved guilty.

Two of our heros going at it.

People like Paul's outspokenness, normally.

Let's see how they like it now.

But I like Spiderman better. :)

and he was telling a politician to butt out.

We must consider what hat Hackett is wearing when he speaks, a situation not unlike the one many of us face every day when we must put personal opinions aside and carry on with our duties.

about the particulars of Smirk's Iraq disaster isn't a horrible thing in and of itself. As long as the big picture remains that 1. Iraq is a disaster, and 2. it's the Repubs' fault.

The part baout the meds was a cheap shot, but this is healthy, IMO.

... without Personal Injury lawyers. Lawyers like Paul Hackett, Stan Chesley, John Edwards...

Everyone has a right to make a living as they see fit. And IG is right... Hackett was defending his client. I'd certainly attempt to hire a high-powered attorney like that to defend me.

The "meds" comment was untoward, but other than that, I don't understand why folks have difficulty understanding the "hat" Hackett was wearing, as IG eloquently stated.

that all attorneys are bound to provide their clients. Hackett is trying to prevent Murtha from prejudicing public opinion were his client become a defendant in the case.

I am speaking of Hackett the attorney, not Hackett the former Democratic candidate.

For more information on the duties of attorneys:

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (2004)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM#reasonably_should_know

He can defend his client - which attorneys do and everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense - without trashing Murtha gratuitously.

We really do understand the "hat" Hackett is wearing; that was not the point.

Murtha has stepped out of his comfort zone on more than one occasion to do the right thing and deserves some goddamn respect. There is no excuse for being summarily kicked to the curb by a pissant defense laywer.

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in the apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

...

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person;

...

Rule 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

...

He's a mean SOB. It comes out and it's not pretty.

I'd be curious to hear Randi's thoughts.

saying ALLEGATIONS...not REPORTs because that is what they are;;; REPORTS of a massive fuck up.. and now, a cover up...

Who was in charge of those renegades who went beserk?

How could this happen?

Dammit, the more we stay there...the more damage we do...

is going down faster than a broken elevator.

God save us all if this is the kind of "hero" DU wants.

to dismiss his gratuitous nastiness towards Murtha based on the fact that he is the defense attorney for the top Marine implicated in the disgrace.

At some point, people need to open their eyes and think long and hard about hero worship.

He gets no pass from me for attacking Murhta that way. None, whatsoever.

TC

And I was a big supporter of his.

He could do his job as defense attorney without insinuating that Murtha is loony. I find that particularly egregious because Murtha had the integrity to step forward on this and the war.

This is reminiscent of the vets that are in complete denial about My Lai and instead took their anger out on Kerry for being a hero in his testimony before Congress in 1971.

Hackett's defense tactics are "ambulance-chaser" cheesy.

Don't get me started! Some brilliant person in this thread (sorry don't remember who or in which post) said lawyers use tactics like this when they are without the ability to win the case on its own merits. -- I agree with that assessment.

TC

just like DU'ers hurl insults when they don't have a substantive argument, but I digress ...

:hide:

LOL!

TC

Well I never really did like Hackett from after the first time I actually heard him speak. Back then my first impression of him was of someone who came across as a little bit too arrogant and who didn't seem to have a good grasp on issues -- even the Iraq issue. I thought he displayed an attitude that he knew it wasn't going well in Iraq, and that it was causing a lot of hardship on the military and that he wanted to do something about it -- but didn't know much of anything else.

Now after hearing him a few more times since, I have to say that I don't like him one bit. I think he's arrogant, biased toward the military, a blind flag waver and not mature enough to serve in public office. That's just my opinion of him and if the fighting Dems were smart, they'd not have anything to do with him IMO.

Don't I remember something about Hackett and Falluja, or am I dreaming?

He's become an entertainer. I'm guessing he hasn't actually listened to what Murtha has been saying...

one that fails to amuse anyone except right wingers.

Thank goodness he didn't run for Senate.

That's not the first time Hackett has said something that got him into trouble. I like him, & all, but I'm not sure how sucessful he'd be as a politician.