The Murtha legacy: A fitting honor
Given how much time the late U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha spent with wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., renaming that facility's cancer center in his honor is an especially fitting tribute to his legacy of concern for U.S. military personnel.
The John P. Murtha Cancer Center became the official name at a Monday ceremony. The Johnstown Democrat's widow, Joyce, their sons John and Patrick, and other relatives were on hand with members of Congress and federal officials at the medical complex that inspired and reflected his passion for aiding the military.
That was a calling throughout Mr. Murtha's 36 years in Congress, where the Marine veteran didn't just secure billions of dollars for military medical research. He also visited the wounded weekly at Walter Reed — but never allowed the media to cover those visits.
He wanted to avoid exploiting those patients, according to Mrs. Murtha, who said he had a knack for putting them at ease. Those Murtha visited surely remember — and miss — his presence there. Walter Reed nurses certainly do; they told his widow nobody has had the same effect on the wounded that her husband did.
Jack Murtha's efforts to meet America's sacred obligation to all who wear its uniform were nothing less than exemplary. Now, his name on the Walter Reed cancer center beckons others to ensure that this nation continues to fulfill that obligation.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Resist the temptation
- Sunday pops
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- THE BOX