Murtha Honored As Friend Of Labor
Murtha may be a true friend of labor; but with regard to American soldiers and Marines, well-- with a friend like Murtha, who needs enemies?POSTED: 1:36 pm EST February 23, 2007UPDATED: 1:43 pm EST February 23, 2007JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- Johnstown's Central Labor Council and the AFL-CIO honored veteran 12th District Rep. John Murtha.Murtha was honored as a "true friend of labor."He was cited as one of the co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to unionize by giving companies less control over the union election process.The meeting was one of four held across Pennsylvania thanking members of Congress who are co-sponsors of the act....
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.If the Washington Post (no conservative rag by any stretch of the imagination) has the balls to call Murtha for what he is, would it not also be incumbent on Murtha's hometown newspaper to present this side of Murtha to those who saw fit to send him to Washington for another term?
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?
Or would that be a bit too demanding of their "journalistic integrity" to do that to their delinquent, albeit favorite son?
I erroneously attributed the original story to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat.
In reality, it was a story from WJAC-TV in Johnstown.I apologize for the error.