Setting Priorities

If the voters of PA-12 wanted surefire proof that John Murtha's taking them for granted, he's just given them that proof:

"Today Jack Murtha begins his 'Cut and Run' Tour, campaigning for 41 different liberal Democrats around the country as part of his campaign to become Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. Could there be any greater proof that Jack Murtha has abandoned his constituents in Pennsylvania in favor of his OTHER constituents, the liberal Democratic Congressmen who make up the House Democratic Caucus?

Murtha's ignored his district's citizens by playing to the national press rather than talk to the citizens of PA-12. That's the personification of arrogance. In the post-election analysis, that arrogance will play a major role in his defeat.

Jack Murtha is helping to raise money for Charlie Wilson, a man who, while serving as a board member of the Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority, knowingly allowed millions of gallons of sewage to be illegally dumped into the Ohio River in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act, crimes that led to fines on the order of $750,000, and for which Mr. Wilson's greatest concern seemed to be the negative effect they would have on his political career.
"Is Jack Murtha so desperate to be Majority Leader that he's willing to campaign for a man who knowingly illegally dumped sewage into the Ohio River? Sadly, it seems that's the case.

Jack Murtha is trying to get as many potential congressmen indebted to him for his run as Majority leader. It'll be ironic when Democrats don't retake the House and Murtha's defeated. The boys of MMG will be smiling from ear to ear when that happens.

"In recent years, anyone who's looked at Jack Murtha's record could see a change, he's been voting more and more like he's representing liberals in San Francisco or Vermont, not conservatives in southwestern Pennsylvania."

I laid out the proof of that change in voting habits here, saying:

2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel's position, Representative Murtha received a rating of -2.

The 'parent' organization for Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel is United for Peace & Justice, which advocates, among other things, getting us out of Iraq. Immediately.
---------------
Notice the breathtaking similarities between UFPJ's official position and Murtha's 'immediate redeployment' proposal.

UFPJ: 1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.
Murtha: I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

UFPJ: 2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.
Murtha: We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.

UFPJ: 3. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed.
From Murtha's Press Conference:

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from a United States occupation.

UFPJ: 5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Murtha: I said two year ago, "The key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize."

Since when is it a southwestern PA tradition to agree with terrorist-sympathizing organizations. That is something I'd only expect from a Left Coast liberal.

Ms. Irey closes the case strong so I'll stay out of the way:

"Because he wants to be Majority Leader, he votes against toughening border security.
"Because he wants to be Majority Leader, he votes against protecting traditional marriage.
"Because he wants to be Majority Leader, he abandons our troops in the field, labels them 'murderers,' and demands we surrender in Iraq.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Left Coast, Pollution, Pennsylvania Politics

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Setting the Record Straight

Max Cleland appeared on Hardball Thursday night to swiftboat Vets for the Truth, which he claimed was part of "the Bush Slime Machine." I transcribed a portion of Cleland's diatribe so I could post on it tonight. I'll post the entire transcript when MSNBC posts it. Here's the part that I transcribed:

MIKE BARNICLE: John Murtha is not only getting sued; he's coming under fire from a group called Vets for the Truth. They're campaigning to redeploy Murtha from Congress but today Vietnam veteran and former Senator Max Cleland defended the Congressman at a verterans rally and condemned what he called the Swiftboating of John Murtha.
The attacks on John Murtha; what are they?
CLELAND: Well, it's the same kind of thing that the Bush slime machine did against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, what they did against me in Georgia in 2002, and what they did to John Kerry in 2004. They have not changed course. They're staying on course and that is to, when someone disagrees with the President and challenges his policies, especially his policies about the Iraq War, and making sure that we get the truth about the war, then they're swiftboated; then they're targeted. Jack Murtha was called a traitor. They're setting up a post office box in his district. They're organizing to oust him from Congress because he disagrees with the President and because he is actually advocating doing something sane and sound and that is redeploying our troops out of harm's way. Now for that, they're going after him and his character and that type of this is Swiftboating.
BARNICLE: So it's deja vu all over again, as far as you're concerned?
CLELAND: Yes it is and we can't let it happen again. What is happening to our country when a member of congress for over 30 years and is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, that is very close to the military and is a Marine Col. (Ret.)...

As I told Bones last night, that's the biggest pack of lies in that short of period of time that I've ever heard. Let me expose it line-by-line:

Well, it's the same kind of thing that the Bush slime machine did against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, what they did against me in Georgia in 2002, and what they did to John Kerry in 2004.

Excuse me but I'm not on the "Bush slime machine" payroll. I don't appreciate Mr. Cleland's sanctimonious tone, either. What the Swiftboat Vets for Truth did was tell the American public that John Kerry hides behind his military service when he's attacked but who had a history of trashing that same military when it was politically expedient.

They're staying on course and that is to, when someone disagrees with the President and challenges his policies, especially his policies about the Iraq War, and making sure that we get the truth about the war, then they're swiftboated; then they're targeted.

Mr. Cleland's version isn't that truthful. For instance, Leo, Bones, Ray, Lem, the Ohligarch and I didn't give a damn about Murtha's immediate redeployment policy because we knew it was a stupid idea that wouldn't get a second's worth of serious consideration. What tore it for Leo and I was when Murtha played judge, jury and executioner on the Haditha Marines.

It's also a stretch to say that we targeted Murtha because he was exposing the truth about Iraq. He said that there was a big coverup of the facts about Haditha. In fact, the investigation on whether the Haditha attacks were covered up concluded that there wasn't a coverup. Here's what the LA Times article said on that subject:

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

Here's what I said in my first post for MMG:

I've thought John Murtha had to go since he proposed "immediate redeployment" of our troops from Iraq. It was stupid policy. That showed a level of unseriousness on his part. There was more than a hint of playing politics with the issue, too. That said, that's one level of problem.

When he played judge, jury & executioner to the Marines before the investigation was complete, he didn't just propose a foolish policy. He placed every American serviceman in harms way for political gain. He also made it much more difficult for countries like Jordan, the UAE, Pakistan & Afghanistan to help us in the GWOT. In short, he's made the President's job of protecting America much more difficult.

I can (barely) tolerate moonbat Democrats making foolish policy proposals but I won't tolerate a cheap politician putting American soldiers in harms' way just so he can continue his anti-Bush diatribe. We're talking about national security now. Putting us needlessly, & without foundation thus far, in harms way is unconscienable.

I still feel the same way today. I'll also add that I don't remember giving John Murtha permission to ignore the sections of the Constitution that guarantee the right to a fair trial and the full array of due process rights.

They're organizing to oust him from Congress because he disagrees with the President...

We aren't "organizing to oust him" "because he disagrees with the President." We're organizing to oust him because: (a) he trashed the Marines serving in Haditha by playing judge, jury and executioner before the investigation was even completed; (b) he ignored two of the most important fundamental rights that the Constitution explicitly guarantees and (c) because he's done those things in an attempt to score cheap political points.

Furthermore, I resent the Sen. Cleland's pomposity in suggesting that citizens don't have the right to participate in the electoral process for whatever reason motivates us. The Senator would be well-advised to learn more about grassroots political activity. The last time I looked, the Preamble of the Constitution read We, the people of the United States. That means that the lowliest and the most exalted have the right, responsibility and duty to be involved in the electoral process. If Sen. Cleland doesn't like the reasons for our opposition to John Murtha, then it's his right and responsibility to campaign for Murtha in the hopes of persuading more people about Murtha's qualifications than we can persuade others about Diana Irey's qualifications.

and because he is actually advocating doing something sane and sound and that is redeploying our troops out of harm's way.

Since when is abandoning our pledge to a fledgling democracy "doing something sane and sound"? The Senator can attempt to spin Murtha's policy any way he wants but it won't fly with me. I'll expose the unseriousness of that in a heartbeat. I won't lose a second's worth of sleep over it, either.

Mr. Cleland is spinning things so that the citizens of southwest Pennsylvania are distracted from the central issues of the campaign between Ms. Irey and Mr. Murtha, which is that (a) Mr. Murtha represents Washington, DC more than PA-12; (b) because he ignored the Constitution while betraying the Marines and (c) because he did these things in a quest for power and the limelight in Washington, DC.

That's why I'm proud to be part of the team that's advocating Murtha's 'firing' this November. That's why I'll sleep soundly tonight. My conscience is clear.

I'd doubt that Sen. Cleland can say the same thing.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, John McCain, John Kerry, Constitution, Haditha

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Haditha: Murtha's Kangaroo Court

When Murtha fired his shot heard round the world-- when he declared that Marines killed "innocent civilians" in "cold blood", he admitted that he had not read reports of the incident before making the charge, but claimed that he received his information from sources inside the pentagon. Back when Murtha first made his seditious remarks, according to the Army Times,

“I do not know where Rep. Murtha is obtaining is information,” said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Central Command in Tampa, Fla. “Thoroughness will drive the investigation.”

Well, it may turn out that we may never know how Murtha got his information. But one thing appears for certain--Murtha received his briefing regarding the Haditha incident after he made his proclamation of guilt against the Marines!

WASHINGTON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Marine Corps briefed Rep. John Murtha on the Haditha case after the vocal war critic publicly said Marines had killed innocent civilians in that Iraqi city, the Corps said on Thursday.

A group of Marines, while suspected in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians, has not been charged, and official results from the military's investigation remain outstanding. A U.S. defense official said on Wednesday, however that evidence indicates Marines deliberately shot to death unarmed civilians.

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.

But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17. On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (emphases mine)

A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available.

Do you realize what this means? This story suggests that Murtha played judge, jury and executioner against fellow Marines, without reading any reports, and without even waiting to receive any official briefings! Rather than having "sources inside the Pentagon", it would appear that Murtha found it convenient to take the word of Time Magazine, who themselves later admitted that the evidence that they had for their story was not ironclad by any stretch of the imagination!

Murtha's irresponsible, unfounded, and premature accusations resulted in a usurpation of the Haditha Marines' rights to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. Thanks to Jack Murtha, the Marines at Haditha, if not the entire Corps, have already been tried in the court of world opinion. Even if they are found innocent of any wrongdoing, the Muslim world will continue to be inflamed, because Murtha chose to prematurely open his mouth. Murtha, in effect, stole the lives away from these Marines, inflamed our enemy with a new resolve, and made our soldiers' jobs in theatre that much more dangerous, all for what could only be ascertained as cheap political gain. For an elected official to engage in such behavior during wartime is unforgivable. For a veteran Marine to do that during wartime makes the act that much more heinous!

To make matters worse, Murtha continues to deny any wrongdoing!

In light of these damning circumstances, if Congressman John P. Murtha has any honor remaining with him from his service in the Corps, he will resign.

But I won't hold my breath.

Rally 'Round The "Traitor"

The Post-Gazette has fresh coverage of this afternoon's competing rallies in Murtha's Johnstown:

The competing passions of the Iraq War reverberated across Main Street as Rep. John Murtha was vilified as a traitor on one side and praised as a patriot on the other.

Passionate, but not violent. Thank goodness the hot weather hasn't inflamed those passions past the limits of rationality.

Outside the veteran Democrat's campaign office, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland brought cheers from Murtha loyalists as he vowed to combat attempts to "Swift Boat'' the outspoken critic of the Bush administration's conduct of the war.

Across the railroad tracks at the fringe of the Downtown business district, a handful of Murtha critics denounced his statements against the war, while heralding their plans for an October rally of protest against him.

There's something appealing about the idea of being "at the fringe" on the wrong side of the tracks, especially when the rallying cry of those on the "right" side of the tracks is "Swift Boat!".

The pro-Murtha demonstration, hastily assembled to counter the news conference called by his critics in a group called Veterans for the Truth, drew a crowd of between 150 and 200, who stood under a sweltering sun listening to a series of speakers praise the hometown lawmaker.

That's not a bad turnout on short notice, seeing as how this is Murtha's home turf. Note that the article does not give figures, not even an estimate, on the opposition's attendance.

Mr. Cleland, a triple amputee from wounds received in Vietnam, charged that the Bush administration had targeted Mr. Murtha because of his critique of the war. He said they and their allies were using tactics reminiscent of the attacks against Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina, Sen. John Kerry in the last presidential election and Mr. Cleland himself in his 2002 Senate re-election defeat.

"We're not going to let them Swift Boat Jack Murtha,'' he said. "Jack Murtha is right and the president is wrong and we're not going to let them assassinate Jack Murtha's character.''

This is an insult. Everything is a Bush administration conspiracy in the eyes of these guys. It's not. Ordinary citizens can do big things. This movement is coming from the grass roots.

The stagecraft of the Democratic event was calculated to rebut the question from some critics about Mr. Murtha's patriotism. The speakers' roster was dominated by Iraq and Vietnam veterans. Eighteen large flags stirred behind them while members of the crowd held dozens more miniature flags along with their bottles of water.

Mr. Cleland ended his speech and the rally by leading the crowd in the chant, "We've got your back, Jack; we've got your back, Jack.''

When in trouble, pose in front of an American flag. When in a lot of trouble, pose in front of a lot of large flags. They can re-imagine Murtha as Patton! Sure, that'll convince everyone.

Mr. Murtha, who is being challenged for re-election by Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey, wasn't there to hear the litany of praise. He was in
Eastern Pennsylvania, campaigning for Chris Carney, a Democrat challenging Republican Congressman Don Sherwood. Murtha has said he plans to be a candidate for majority leader should the Democrats recapture the House in November.

Halfway through the article, Murtha's opponent suddenly warrants a mention. Anyone not familiar with this race who has been reading this report might think that Murtha is running against George Bush. And, on some level, he is. But his real opponent is Diana Irey, a truly deserving candidate. Why does the Murtha team never seem to mention her?

The words of the his defenders echoed across the parking lot beside the Cambria County Republican headquarters where his critics described their plans for an Oct. 1 rally capping a local and nationwide campaign.

Craig Minnick, a Johnstown lawyer and Iraq veteran who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves, described Mr. Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, as "irresponsible and un-American.''

At a time of war, he said, "It is reprehensible to tell the greatest military in the world that they are not making progress . . . it's obvious that John Murtha has no respect for our men in uniform.''

So where is the "chickenhawk" slur now?

Along with about a dozen local supporters, he was joined by Larry Bailey, the former president of Vietnam Veterans for Truth and organizer of an anti-Kerry campaign on Capitol Hill during the 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. Bailey said he and other associates from that effort had joined in a successor group, Veterans for the Truth. He said the organization was a response to Mr. Murtha's comments in May in which he said that a Marine unit had killed civilians "in cold blood,'' in the Iraqi town of Haditha.

Mr. Bailey, who flew in from his North Carolina home for the anti-Murtha event, emphasized that neither his current group nor 2004's Vietnam Veterans for Truth were formally tied to the better known Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But while the organizations may be distinct, he said that he was happy to embrace the now generic term for the group's tactics.

"Of course we're Swift Boating him,'' Mr. Bailey said with a smile. "I love that term.''

How quintessentially American is that? The first citizens of a free and independent United States of America firmly embraced the derisive British marching song "Yankee Doodle" and made it their own. "Swift Boat" could be the new "Yankee Doodle".

Suddenly "Swift Boat!" doesn't have such a bad ring to it after all.

Murtha: I'll Surrender For Israel

Yes, that's a sarcastic take on another out-of-touch Murtha statement. (H/T: Captain Ed)

Mr. Murtha, speaking yesterday at a Post-Gazette editorial board meeting, was asked if he favored a cease-fire in the campaign north of Israel's border. "I think so," he said. "I think it would be very difficult to justify continuing on."

That's the epitome of intellectual laziness. It's simple "to justify continuing on." The justification is made by saying that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself against any foreign enemy, especially against a terrorist organization that's stated that it wants Israel eliminated.

It's time that the people of Pennsylvania's Twelfth District ask Rep. Murtha why it's difficult to justify the doctrine of self defense. I'd bet that the vast majority of CD-12 residents wouldn't agree with Murtha's statement.

What's more disgusting to me is that Murtha isn't satisfied with losing wars for the U.S. Now he's trying to 'help' Israel not protect itself. I'd doubt that Pennsylvania's voters want him worrying about things that don't pertain to representing them.

Murtha's arrogance is showing and it isn't a flattering picture. He's taken it upon himself to be a contrarian with anything that President Bush says. The American people know what he's doing. They know that he's changed his 'beliefs' for the sole purpose of grabbing more political power.

Comparing Murtha's diatribes with Diana Irey's composed, thoughtful rebuttals offer Pennsylvania's voters a stark contrast, a contrast that doesn't favor Rep. Murtha.

Referring to the Bush administration's position, he said: "You know, they say, 'Well, we want a long-term cease-fire.' It seems to me you start with a cease-fire, and then you try to work out the details long term. If you don't, and you continue to have heavy-handed military action, and I support heavy-handed military action because it saves your own troops, but it creates enemies, and that's the problem we have."

It's lost on Murtha that it's important that you dismantle an enemy's ability to kill you. It's also lost on Murtha that there isn't a way to fix this problem longterm. It's only possible to tamp it down from time to time.

Mr. Murtha said the fighting risked hardening against Israel the "hearts and minds" of Lebanese civilians within the general population, beyond Israel's entrenched enemies in the Shiite militia.

Israel has had the support of Lebanese Christians. It's worth noting that Lebanese entrepreneurs don't buy into jihad. They'd prefer living in a modern society rather than in the medieval society that doesn't hesitate in treating women like property. It's impossible to picture Israel winning the "hearts and minds" of Hezbollah. This argument isn't based in logic but is more rooted in being a contrarian to anything Bush.

Last but not least, there's this Murtha whopper:

Mr. Murtha expressed confidence in his re-election prospects, insisting that his position had been welcomed by military service members he had encountered in his district.

I don't believe that line for a split second. If I were a Murtha skeptic, which I am, I'd parse that sentence might mean that he's had to avoid most active duty, reserve and retired military personnel for that statement to be accurate. The other possibility is that he's only talked with military people who've written him expressing an anti-war attitude. Either way, it's alot of sidestepping to do.

These are just more reasons why Murtha Must Go.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Cut and Run, Hezbollah, Israel

Murtha's two-front war--a product of his own doing

From Tom Infield of the Philly Enquirer:

A two-front war for Murtha

He's under attack by those livid about his Iraq criticism.

By Tom Infield

Inquirer Staff Writer

In May, U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha roused the anger of some in the military and on the political right by saying that American Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" in Iraq.

Now, the Western Pennsylvania Democrat - who hopes to become majority leader if his party captures the House in the fall election - finds himself under fire on two fronts as a result of his comment, which dealt with a still-unresolved incident in Haditha, Iraq, late last year in which 24 people died.

Politically, Murtha is under attack from a few of the veterans who during the 2004 presidential campaign led an assault on U.S. Sen. John Kerry's record in the Vietnam War. Their campaign - right down to images on their Web site, www.bootmurtha.com - deliberately echoes what Democrats have called the "swiftboating" of Kerry.

(Swiftboat Vets and POWs for Truth and Veterans for Truth are two completely different organizations, with different leadership--ed)

Legally, Murtha faces a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in Washington in which a 26-year-old Marine sergeant contends that Murtha defamed him and his unit.

Amid all of this, the facts of the Haditha incident remain clouded.

No one has been charged with a crime, although the Associated Press quoted unnamed Pentagon sources yesterday saying that evidence supports the contention that Marines shot the 24 people deliberately and that they were not killed amid a house-to-house gun battle, as was claimed in the libel suit filed by Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, a member of the 3d Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

Murtha, 74, a 26-year House member and the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, has become a lightning rod for Iraq controversy because of his persistent calls for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq.

"The war cannot be won militarily," he said yesterday.

Again??? Geeze--Murtha is reminding me more and more of an "Axis Sally" version of a "Chatty Kathy" doll!

But I digress:

He is a tough-talking Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War with two Purple Hearts for wounds received in combat. But some bloggers on the right have raised vague questions about the legitimacy of his combat medals, just as some questioned Kerry's three Purple Hearts from Vietnam when he was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004.

Murtha, in a phone interview yesterday, said such questions were "ridiculous" and nothing but efforts "stop me from talking" about what he sees as failed U.S. policy in Iraq.

In a prepared statement on the lawsuit, he commented: "I don't blame the staff sergeant for lashing out. When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident."

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks to smoke out the military officials who gave him the information on which he based his charge that Marines had killed innocent civilians.

Asked about this in the interview, Murtha said the information came from Gen. Michael Hagee, the commandant of the Marine Corps, in a one-on-one conversation the day before Hagee made a trip to Iraq. Hagee did not use the term "in cold blood," he added.

Naww, in a manner reminiscent of Axis Sally, Murtha probably thought he'd add that term for dramatic effect. After all, if you're going to throw your fellow Marines under the bus, you may as well do it up right, heh Jack?

In Johnstown today, a group calling itself Vets for the Truth planned to hold a news conference in front of Murtha's congressional office to announce plans for an anti-Murtha rally Oct. 1. Murtha's Republican opponent, Diana Irey, who faces an uphill battle, said in an interview that she, too, was upset by Murtha's comment about the Haditha Marines.

The veterans' group is led by retired Navy Capt. Larry Bailey of Chocowinity, N.C., a former Navy SEAL who once commanded the Naval Special Warfare Center in Coronado, Calif.

Bailey was president of the anti-Kerry Vietnam Vets for the Truth, which sponsored a 2004 rally on Capitol Hill. The group called attention to what it said were Kerry's lies in the 1970s about atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.

Its Web site carries an image of Murtha on a made-up book cover bearing the same title and same look as a book written about Kerry in 2004, Unfit for Command.

[SNIP]

Bailey said his group raised $150,000 in 2004, while the larger swift-boat group raised millions. The two were unrelated but worked in harmony, he said.

He said he was furious when Murtha "slandered" the Haditha Marines without knowing all that had happened.

"No intelligent patriot would make a statement like that until the facts were in," he said.

This time around, Vets for the Truth had just $15,000 in the bank as of Tuesday, Bailey said.

But he said his group has become part of another group, Iowa Presidential Watch, which is registered with the Federal Election Commission and IRS to accept contributions. That group is led by Roger Hughes, the Republican Party leader of Hamilton County, Iowa.

Hughes, in an interview, said, "I think there is a potential for many people in the country to rally to this cause."

In comments attributed to him on the Web site www.iowapresidentialwatch.com, Hughes says Murtha's ambition to be House majority leader gives him "the potential to hurt America's security more than in the past."

"He has taken upon himself the role of being in the front line of the assault on America's security," the Web site quotes Hughes as saying. "His 'fifth-column' efforts in former years have not resulted in any significant weakening of America's strength, but now it is different!"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines fifth column as "a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders."

Said Murtha: "To call me a fifth-columnist, I cannot believe that."

Well, Mr. Murtha... if the shoe fits...

(h/t Bear Creek Ledger)

Support for Irey is phenomenal!

From Rightroots (12:50pm, CDT):

The Rightroots endorsed candidates for the US House and Senate (and the amounts raised so far) are:

US House of Representatives	Raised
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)	$ 1,144.00
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6)	$ 615.00
Max Burns (GA-12)	$ 774.00
John Gard (WI-08)	$ 725.00
Diana Irey (PA-12)	$ 5,459.00
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03)	$ 659.00
Ray Meier (NY-24)	$ 689.00
David McSweeney (IL-08)	$ 740.00
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07)	$ 690.00
Peter Roskam (IL-06)	$ 615.00
Scott Tipton (CO-3)	$ 799.00
Van Taylor (TX-17)	$ 1,624.00
Chris Wakim (WV-01)	$ 610.00
Mike Whalen (IA-01)	$ 489.00
US Senate	Raised
Thomas Kean (New Jersey)	$ 925.00
Michael Steele (Maryland)	$ 1,935.06
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota)	$ 3,460.00
Mike McGavick (Washington)	$ 1,084.00

Again--all these candidates are worthy candidates--so why is Diana Irey getting so much more support?

I can't say for sure, but I'll bet anything it has to do with the sources of support. Again, I may be wrong, but aside from the fact that Irey is a more than worthy opponent, it is my guess that the lion's share of Irey's funding is coming from veterans, disgruntled with the way that John Murtha has sold out his fellow Marines.

Even though Irey is far behind Murtha with regard to campaign war chests (and given Murtha's girth, probably a bit behind in that area, too), people across the nation are taking notice of the Murtha-Irey campaign and understand what is at stake.

Murtha's Bedfellows On The Campaign Trail

The 2006 tour to re-elect Congressman John Murtha rolls on. Yesterday the Murtha bandwagon stopped in the heart of his district, Cambria County. From the Johnstown Tribune Democrat:

Gov. Ed Rendell might have been the marquee name on a swing through Cambria County on Wednesday, but fellow campaigner John Murtha was center stage.

That would be the same Ed Rendell who, as DNC chairman, sought to disenfranchise voters serving in the armed forces during the 2000 presidential election. Now here he is, shoulder to shoulder with the guy who claims to care about our troops.

With little input from the campaign of the congressman’s opponent, Diana Irey, Murtha this week has come under heavy fire for his positions on the war in Iraq.

This shows that MMG, Rightroots, etc. are successfully getting the message out. We are more than happy to make the Irey campaign's job easier.

Wednesday, he fought back – enlisting the assistance of Rendell and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a disabled Army veteran of the Vietnam War.

Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam when he went to examine what turned out to be a live grenade on the ground. By doing so, he may have saved the lives and limbs of other soldiers, so for that he should be respected and honored as a soldier and as a man. Politically, however, Max Cleland jumped the shark at least two years ago. Keep in mind that, at present, he is (like Murtha) first and foremost a politician.

And, nine months after Murtha first spoke out against the war, veterans groups are turning up the rhetoric in both defending and disputing his comments. In response to harsh criticism from a veterans group earlier this week, other former soldiers are rallying to support the embattled lawmaker. “This man knows more about military, war and the national security of our nation than anybody on Capitol Hill,” Cleland said.

That's arguable, and even if it were true, it does not mean that Murtha is using that knowledge to make the right choices.

Cleland said the “Veterans for the Truth” organization – modeled after the Swift Boat veterans crusade used during the 2004 presidential campaign against Democratic candidate John Kerry – said the opposition against Murtha should stop. “It’s a new band, with a new band leader, but it’s the same old crowd,” he said. “Don’t let them ‘swift boat’ Jack Murtha.”

Well. Pro-Murtha organizations are "a new band, with a new band leader". They only know one tune, and it's called "Swift Boat!". That's nice. The substance of their argument is "people who oppose Murtha are liars!". Where's the beef?, as Walter Mondale would say.

Getting back to today's events:

Today, opposing veterans groups are scheduled to rally outside of Murtha’s Johnstown office, 647 Main St. Rendell said the anti-Murtha faction will meet opposition at today’s press conference. “Boy, are they in for a surprise,” he said. “If they attack Jack Murtha, they are going to be attacked back.”

Given Rendell's history of associating with leftist organized labor thugs going back to his days as Mayor of Philadelphia, this sounds like a threat of violence. Look out for baseball bats and 2x4s when the pro-Murtha faction arrives.

Terry Menear, from the Somerset Vietnam Veterans Association, will be there. “I think they ought to stay where they belong,” he said. “I am all for John Murtha.”

He makes a good point. Perhaps he could kindly suggest that Max Cleland turn around and go back to Georgia.

Murtha said critics are trying to take attention away from his mission to redeploy troops away from Iraq. “I try not to be distracted from my mission, which is to change the direction of our country,” he said.

Seriously? Do you know what you are saying? We, your critics, are directing attention to your misguided "mission". We don't like the direction that you want to steer our country, so please do stay on message, Mr. Murtha.

“It’s great to see so many people support me in my district.”

It's great to see so many people oppose you in your district, too.

Dot Helsel, a resident of Stonycreek Township, supports Murtha and believes most residents in Johnstown still do. “I think he’s done an outstanding job for the Johnstown region,” she said. “You don’t always agree with somebody, but I would say most people in this area like him.”

What can I say? Pork sells. This just makes our work that much harder.

Helsel said she does not think protesters or negative attention will affect Murtha’s campaign. “He’s been there too long now,” she said. “You can disagree with somebody but you don’t have to be disagreeable.”

Not being disagreeable means being passive, and passivity, in politics, is impotence. That gives Murtha a free ride to re-election, and we can not stand for that. Welcome to the world of politics.

Mary Miller of Johnstown, national president for the Association of Vietnam Veterans of America, said Murtha protesters have taken his words out of context. “A lot of these people who are outing him have never served in the military and they don’t understand what it’s like,” said Miller, whose group is a service organization for the Vietnam Veterans of America. “It’s just upsetting, really. He’s always been for the veterans and the families. He’s done a lot.”

Done a lot? In recent months, he's done too much. I have never served in the military, but I know people who do and the last thing they need is media and politicians who make the enemy's job easier. My father was a World War Two veteran, and he told me during the 1980s that if the contemporary media had been around in the 1940s, they'd have given it all away to the Axis. We don't need that in the 2000s, either.

Note Ms. Miller's use of the term "outing". This implies that John Murtha has something to hide. Would she care to tell us what that would be?

Today, Murtha is scheduled to be in Clarks Summit, outside Scranton, campaigning for Democrat Chris Carney, who’s running against incumbent Republican Don Sherwood in the 10th district.

John Murtha: Coming to a town near YOU.

Murtha: I've Been Vindicated

It's hard imagining how Murtha believes that but that's the impression this Washington Times article suggests. This part of the opening paragraph gives us the news:

Democratic strategists yesterday said a revised proposal to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end is a more appealing campaign position than an immediate pullout that draws little voter support. "That is how the Democrats are going to frame this debate for the voters and that's the choice before them in this election," former Clinton administration official John Cowan said of the proposed withdrawal, which was outlined Monday in a letter to President Bush from top congressional Democrats.

Here's why they've gotten a new direction:

"Only 19 percent of Americans favor an immediate pullout" and "only 30 percent of Democrats favor that option," Gallup reported at the end of last month. That poll also found that 38 percent of Americans support staying in Iraq "as many years to do this as are needed" and an additional 7 percent want to send in more troops.

When a fifth of the population wants an immediate pullout and half the people want to either increase troops deployed in Iraq or at least staying as long as it takes, the electoral message was clear. This re-inforces a longheld belief of mine, namely that Democrats are for the inevitable. Democrats can be in favor of a policy that's the polar opposite of Republicans right until they see a poll showing the public siding with Republicans. Then they believe the same thing as Republicans.

That isn't the picture of leadership that's needed to win undeniable mandates, which is what Democrats need this November. Voters won't take them seriously when they're seen as panderers without a set of core beliefs. That's why the so-called value voters voted overwhelmingly for President Bush and Republicans in 2004. That margin isn't likely to shrink much this time around. You might say that this is the Democrats' latest 'cut-and-run' plan, with them doing the running.

Now for Murtha's whopper:

Murtha said in a statement Tuesday that the party's campaign position on Iraq validated his earlier position and that he was satisfied that his colleagues agree "we must change course in Iraq."

Here's more of that statement:

Murtha, in a statement released by his office today said he was satisfied that his colleagues agree "we must change course in Iraq." He noted that his was not a popular position when he first stated it in November, "But I’ve thought all along, it was the right thing to do for our country, particularly the courageous fighting men and women in our military.
Murtha said, "Things are not getting better and what we Democratic leaders are saying is that we must set a new direction in Iraq. America is not safer today because of the war there, we must refocus our resources on fighting terrorism more effectively."

Jack, Your position still isn't popular. Only a fool thinks that garnering 19 percent of the voting public's approval qualifies as verification of one's position. If that statement had any more spin on it, it'd corkscrew Murtha into the ground.

As for this perceived new direction, that's utter nonsense. Troops will eventually start coming home when Iraq is able to defend itself. That's hardly a change of plans. It's just an eventuality that hasn't happened yet.

Technorati Tags: Murtha, Stay the Course, Gallup, Democratic Leadership

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Resuscitation of Murtha...

First I direct you here:

Johnstown -- Thursday morning, members of the veterans group Swiftboat will meet in front of Congressman Murtha's office in downtown Johnstown to announce a national veterans rally that will be held in Johnstown this October. They are holding the rally to show their outrage at what John Murtha has been saying about the war. This, an an attempt to oust him from office. A lawsuit was also filed against Murtha by Sargeant Frank Wuterich of the Marine Corps. He's one of the marines accused of shooting 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq. Wednesday, Wuterich's attorneys bashed Murtha, they say, for tainting the American public and therefore potential jurors.

"Potential court martial members have already heard Congressman Murtha declare that these marines are cold blooded murderers," says one attorney.

Murtha responded saying the marine will face a military jury, not a civilian one. He says the reason he spoke out about the incident in the first place is because he felt it was being covered up.

"The Iraqi people knew about this," he says. "So consequently it puts our troops in jeopardy."

Well, it seems that nobody can get it right. Swiftboat Vets and Veterans for Truth are two totally different entities! But I digress...

And now for the resuscitation:

There are several groups that are standing up for Congressman Murtha. They include Senator Max Cleland, the Veterans Alliance for Security and Democracy, as well as numberous (sic) democratic congressional leaders. Even Governor Ed Rendell has announced his support for the Congressman.

Max Cleland, and even Governor Ed Rendell? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're both democrats, would it?

And let's take a look at the Veterans Alliance for Security and Democracy... seems to me that they tend to exclusively support far-left democrat candidates. Somehow having "security" in your title while supporting far-left antiwar candidates smacks me as being a bit oxymoronic, but again I digress.

Don't let the puff pieces fool you. Murtha is in for the political fight of his life, and he's beginning to realize it.

***UPDATE***

Veterans for Truth give their side of the story here.

Great Irey Video Newscast!

From KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh....

Click here!

(Click here for the full, uncut interview)

Transcript:

(KDKA) PITTSBURGH The attention on Rep. John Murtha and his strong stand on the way the war in Iraq is being conducted has some Republicans out to defeat Murtha in the next election.

KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano sat down with the congressional candidate who wants to do exactly that.

Her name is Diana Irey.

Voters in Washington County know her very well as one of their three county commissioners.

But in fourteen weeks voters in nine southwestern counties will have the chance to send her to congress -- and if they do, it will send a loud message about the war in Iraq.

"The wrong thing to do is to withdraw right now because if we withdraw from Iraq," said Irey. "The terrorists are going to see it as a surrender."

On the issue of Iraq, Irey couldn't be more different than the man she wants to replace.

While Murtha calls for a change in direction, Irey is blunt.

"We have a strategy in Iraq, and we have to stay the course with the strategy," she said. "I'm not saying that everything has gone as well as it should, but what I'm saying is that we have to complete the mission."

Like President Bush, the republican candidate says she will take her lead from the military and she says the folks she talks to think an increase of troops, not a decrease as Murtha wants, may be required.

"All the feedback I am getting from soldiers and military that have been there is that we need more troops on the ground," said Irey.

The 12th Congressional District stretches through nine counties from the Ohio border to Johnstown.

And because Democrat Murtha has become national spokesman against the Bush administration's conduct of the war, groups supporting the president are embracing Republican Irey as a way to get Murtha and send a message.

"We've gotten a lot of attention nationally which was unexpected," said Irey.

Including Rush Limbaugh's national talk show where the 41-year old woman got an unusual compliment.

Limbaugh called her a babe.

"Well, it's a little humbling. I know my three children thought it was hilarious -- three teenagers," she said.

Diana Irey is intent on defeating Murtha which would obviously send a message about how voters in Southwestern Pennsylvania feel about the war in Iraq.

A wonderful interview and story! If this story is any indication, and given Murtha's recent and not-so-recent legal entanglements, it would appear that the media may be ready to jump on the Irey bandwagon. One could hope, anyway.

***UPDATE***

I just got done viewing the full interview
. The differences between Murtha's seditious, defeatist rhetoric and Diana Irey's positive regard for the troops and their mission could not be more stark, nor more different.

Pennsylvania 12th CD voters--you do have a clear choice to make a positive difference, not only for your district, but for our entire nation. Between now and November, please think long and hard about your options.

The Beverly Murtha?

Semper Gratis has a great song parody (and some funny photoshopping) featuring Murtha, sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies!

Check it out!

Give it up for the right stuff!

On the sidebar of this blog is a clickable link to Right Roots, an effort by conservative bloggers to support select conservative Republican U.S. Senate and House candidates who are trying to unseat democrat incumbents. Click on the link, and you'll see that a woman near and dear to our hearts, Diana Irey, is one of the candidates being supported. Not only is she being supported, but she's being supported in a big way, in a 2-1 ratio over the other races!

Now each race being supported by Right Roots is an important one, but wouldn't it be sweet if we can keep up the kaching to the point of being able to hand Jack Murtha's "big fat backside" back to him in November?

Click on the link, if you're so inspired, and spread the love!

More on the Murtha lawsuit...

The Washington Post reports:

The case, to be filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says Murtha's statements in the press about the case have pressured the Pentagon to pursue charges against Wuterich and other Marines, and to use them as "scapegoats" to prove that allegations of atrocities committed against Iraqis will be pursued, "no matter how baseless."

"The false, misleading and defamatory statements disseminated by Mr. Murtha portray ... Wuterich as a cold-blooded killer, untrained and falling victim to stress, as well as being involved in a cover-up of the tragic events of November 19, 2005," the Marine's lawyers say in the court filing.

"Mr. Murtha has intentionally disseminated with malice his hearsay version of the events of November 19, 2005 with knowledge of the false and libelous nature of the statements contained therein and/or with gross negligence or reckless disregard for the truth," the suit states.

A spokeswoman for Murtha declined to comment, but said the congressman would release a statement later on Wednesday.

[SNIP]

Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has commented extensively about Haditha. In May, he told ABC News there was "no question" the U.S. military tried to cover up the Haditha killings, and that he would not "excuse murder."

In the court filing, which Wuterich's attorneys said would be filed on Wednesday, many of Murtha's comments in the press are recounted. According to the filing, for example, Murtha said on NBC, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (read the whole thing)

Instant karma, Mr. Murtha. Instant Karma.


***UPDATE***

Michelle Malkin points to a Hannity interview with the Wuterich family here.

What goes around comes around--eh Jack??

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Ev'ryone you meet

-John Lennon-

...and it appears that Congressman Jack Murtha, in his haste to play judge, jury and executioner without the benefit of due process for those who fight for our freedoms, is about to get a taste of what "instant karma" is all about:

A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.

Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.

Murtha argued that the questionable deaths of 24 civilians were indicative of the difficulties and overpowering stress that U.S. troops are facing. The congressman, a former Marine, has been a leading advocate for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after being briefed by Defense Department officials who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman.

Telephone calls yesterday to Murtha's office in Washington were referred to his district office in Pennsylvania, and calls there were not returned. A Marine Corps spokesman declined to comment yesterday on the Haditha investigation or the lawsuit.

The suit could have interesting legal ramifications because Wuterich and the other members of his squad have not been charged and have not received any official investigative documentation about the Nov. 19 incident. A Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation is expected to determine possible charges this summer, said officials familiar with the case.

Zaid said the filing is designed partly to force Murtha to disclose what information he received from the Defense Department and the Marine Corps commandant to form his opinion, essentially trying to speed up the discovery process in a potential criminal trial.

"This case is not about money; it's about clearing Frank Wuterich's name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from," Zaid said in an interview. "Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He's created this environment that really smells, and he's the only one who has done that."

The move by Wuterich is rare, as statements made by members of Congress generally are protected under the "speech or debate" clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. But legal experts said the clause grants immunity only for what lawmakers say in legislative proceedings and does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments.

Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a libel expert, said yesterday that Wuterich would have the burden of proving that he is innocent and that Murtha's statements were false, but he added that the quotations appear to be actionable in court. He said the suit shows that Wuterich probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

"Part of the subtext of this is it's a showing of confidence and a preemptive strike of sorts," Smolla said. "The congressman's statement does not sound as if it is merely hyperbole or opinion or name-calling. Instead, it conveys the idea that the Marines violated professional standards and perhaps the law."

Wuterich, through his attorneys, has maintained his innocence and has said that the Marines killed two dozen people that day because they were engaged in a firefight with suspected insurgents. He told his lawyers that he and other Marines used grenades and rifles to clear two houses they thought were hostile. Another Marine's detailed account of the incident, obtained by The Post, corroborates Wuterich's version. (emphasis added)

Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have. He said the most famous case was in 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) was not protected when he made defamatory statements to constituents in a newsletter. (READ THE WHOLE THING)

So eager was Murtha to score political brownie points with the leftist power brokers of the democrat party, so eager was Murtha to further his political ambitions, even to the point where he would willfully sully the reputation of fellow corpsmen, that his "big fat mouth" engaged before there was even a trial, or even before there were official charges!

One thing's for sure--Murtha's gonna have some 'splainin' to do when he gets on that stand, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Yep, what goes around certainly comes around. Murtha is not only going to find that out now, but karma will certainly find Jack P. Murtha come November's elections.

Murtha: Lebanon redux?

Murtha likes to boast of his "strategic prowess" when he stated that he advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1983:

He warned the Today show in September 1993, “Our welcome has been worn out.” A month later, he assured the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he could not “see any achievable goal or national security interest in this operation.” And Murtha boasted on “Meet the Press” Sunday, “When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, ‘Get out.’” (emphasis added)

As history has shown, Murtha's advice netted disastrous consequences:

Both retreats emboldened Osama bin Laden to strike the Great Satan in the belief no serious consequences would follow. More than 5,500 American deaths later, Jack Murtha still thinks this was capital statesmanship.

And now Jack Murtha is repeating his "grand strategy" advice to Israel:

Murtha wants an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon

Once again, Pennsylvania Democratic congressman breaks with Bush

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania's Rep. John Murtha said yesterday that he favored an immediate cease-fire in the fighting in Lebanon.

His stand places the veteran Johnstown Democrat at odds with the Israeli government, and -- on yet anther major Middle Eastern policy issue -- at odds with the Bush administration as well.

As the ex perpetrator commander-in-chief William Jefferson Clinton once stated on the campaign trail,

"One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results"

By those standards, Congressman Jack Murtha is truly certifiable.

Allies from across the pond...

Since MMG has been in operation, freedom-loving folks from across the pond have taken notice, and have asked to join our blogroll. Yes, despite all the moonbat handwringing we see in Europe, there are many Europeans who know what is at stake, and are firmly behind our efforts as we root out terror, and support our efforts to defeat those who spout off anti-American rhetoric like Murtha (God only knows they have to listen to enough of it over there).

Two such freedom loving bloggers (from Italy) that are now on our blogroll are The Right Nation and Robinik. Oh, and don't forget our dear British friend, Tristan Murphy over at Western Defence.

Please visit these great allies and spread some love!

****UPDATE****

Now Mariniello.net has joined the fray--welcome!

The CAIR love affair with Murtha...

As I have reported before, Jack Murtha has received a 100-percent rating from CAIR, meaning that John Murtha's voting record has reflected the interests of CAIR 100 percent of the time. I also reported that, far from being a mere public relations organization, CAIR's membership has been demonstrated to have ties to terrorist factions--the same type of folks who promote terrorism as a means of achieving their ends. Here is another source that makes the connection--this time with some of CAIR's most high-profile leaders:

Mousa Abu Marzook – Grandfather of CAIR

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was founded by HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, a man who was deported by the United States to Jordan in 1997. Marzook, who may very well be, today, second in command of HAMAS, also founded, in 1981, CAIR’s parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine.

This is important, when considering the previous questions asked, but – but – there is a much bigger connection to CAIR, with respect to the Holy Land Foundation.

Ghassan Elashi – CAIR Board Member

The Chairman of the Holy Land Foundation, before the group’s closure, was Ghassan Elashi. Elashi, in December of 2002, was charged with “selling computers and computer parts to Libya and Syria, both designated state sponsors of terrorism.”

Besides the Holy Land Foundation, Ghassan Elashi was also involved with CAIR. In fact, Elashi was one of the founding board members of CAIR’s Texas chapter. What this means is that CAIR didn’t just stick a link to the Holy Land Foundation on its website, but instead, CAIR was directly linked to the Holy Land Foundation itself!

Rabih Haddad – CAIR Fundraiser

Rabih Haddad was a co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation. Before being deported by the United States to Lebanon in July of 2003, Haddad had held various positions with Global Relief, including that of Executive Director and Public Relations Director.

And like Ghassan Elashi, Haddad was also active in CAIR. According to the Quaker organization, the group that runs the large charitable foundation, the American Friends Service Committee, Haddad had served as a fundraiser for CAIR.

These ties to terrorism go beyond CAIR's ability to claim plausible deniability with regard to these ties:

Just as in the previous case, this shows that the Global Relief Foundation was not only a link on the CAIR website, but that CAIR was directly involved in the organization.

Considering this evidence, it would be somewhat difficult for CAIR to deny any knowledge of the two pseudo-charities’ nefarious involvements -- involvements that directly led to the murders of innocents abroad. This includes the December 2, 2001 suicide bombing of a bus in Haifa, Israel, murdering 15 and wounding 40 others… and the suicide bombing in an entertainment area in Jerusalem, which took the lives of 11 young people, just a day earlier.

Both incidents occurred, while CAIR was soliciting funds for the terrorist charities on its site. If CAIR was indeed involved, under the Justice Department code stated earlier, it could result in life imprisonment for all implicated.


But while it’s hard for CAIR to run away from its connections to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, because of the connections, it’s easy to understand why CAIR tried vigorously to defend and protect the groups.


CAIR called the closure of the Holy Land Foundation “unjust” and “disturbing.” And CAIR described the closure of the Global Relief Foundation as the racial profiling of an organization that “had established a track record of effective relief work.

"Effective relief work," eh? I suppose so if your idea of "relief" is providing support for suicide bombers. Read more (much more) about CAIR's ties to terrorism here and here.

Now back to Murtha... if one of CAIR's patently obvious (though unstated) missions is to provide financial and other support to terrorism around the world, and if Jack P. Murtha has a 100% rating with regard to voting in CAIR's interests, than again I ask the question: Just whose interests does Jack Murtha really represent?

Are the interests of CAIR really in line with those who reside in Pennsylvania's 12th CD? Could the 100% favorable rating from CAIR be related to Murtha's seditious rhetoric and antiwar stance? Could Jack Murtha's seditious rhetoric be playing right into the terrorist game plan for these United States?

At this juncture, would it really be a stretch to make such a connection?

I think not.

(topic bumped)

On CAIR's love affair with Murtha--Part II

Remember Murtha's sweetheart deal with his brother in the KSA affair? You know, the same affair (out of several) in which he may face ethics investigations?

Further reported by the LA Times is that KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office for funding on behalf of 7 of its clients and that a Murtha aide advised a defense contractor that it needed to retain the services of KSA Consulting.

Zieve also dug up a recent editorial appearing in Investor’s Business Daily that stated: “The newspaper Roll Call reported that there might be a House ethics committee investigation of Murtha's apparent improprieties. But, is that possible now that Murtha has become the media's ‘hawk with a conscience?’ Come to think of it, could Murtha have been thinking about a possible ethics investigation when he decided to throw himself into the public limelight last week?”

Well, it just turns out that KSA also has sweetheart ties with none other than SEDCO (the Saudi Economic and Development Company), an organization that--surprise--is suspected of supporting Osama bin Laden's operations. In fact, the Islamic Finance Forum gave SEDCO and KSA an award for being a fund sponsor:

5. Fund Sponsor
-Existence for 5 years
-Minimum of 5 funds with various mandates
-Minimum AUMs of $500M
-Supporting of Islamic Finance
Winner: SEDCO, KSA

Now I'm not going to stick my neck out at this point by saying that Murtha intentionally aided and abetted two organizations with potential ties to terrorism, but man, the coincidences are uncanny, are they not?

(topic bumped)

Vets set their sights on Murtha...

From the Tribune Democrat:

Vets set sights on Murtha

By SANDRA K. REABUCK
The Tribune-Democrat
The “Swift Boat” veterans who grabbed national headlines in 2004 when they attacked John Kerry in his failed presidential bid now are turning their sights to Johnstown.

Their target is U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a critic of the Iraq war and a de facto spokesman on the subject for the national Democratic Party.

Armed as a new group – Veterans for the Truth – they’re bringing their campaign to “Redeploy John Murtha From Congress” to his backyard.

They plan to hold a national rally in Johnstown in October “to show their outrage at John Murtha over what he is saying about our troops,” state chairman and former Johnstowner Mark Parker said in a release.

Details of the rally will be outlined at a news conference at 11 a.m. Thursday in front of Murtha’s office at 647 Main St.

Murtha, who will not be in his district office Thursday, appears unfazed by the pending “Swift Boat’’ campaign.

He is scheduled that day to be in Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County, campaigning for Democrat Chris Carney, who’s running against incumbent Republican Don Sherwood in the 10th District.

In a statement released by his office, Murtha said, “Nobody has done more for the troops than I have." (emphases added)

Interesting choice of words. Was that "for" the troops, or "to" the troops, Mr. Murtha?