A World of Political Hurt...

...is on its way to visit Jack Murtha.

I have it on good word that Justin Sharrat, one of the now-exonerated Haditha Marines, along with his father Darryl Sharrat, will be filming a segment on Friday with Sean Hannity to be played on Sunday's Hannity's America!

Set your TiVos for what will surely be an enlightening interview; the likes of which should send shivers down what's left of the spine of Jack Murtha, who will be discovering first-hand the concept of karma.

Sucks to be you, Jack.

Another Apology Required?

With Lt. Col. Paul Ware's recommendation that the murder charges against SSgt. Wuterich be dropped heading to Gen. James Mattis' desk, it's likely that none of the Haditha Marines will be charged with a single count of murder. That means that John Murtha's unambiguous declaration that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" because they "cracked under the pressure" will be proven totally false.

A Marine Corps official has recommended that murder charges be dismissed against a Camp Pendleton squad leader accused in the deaths of 17 civilians killed in the Iraqi city of Haditha two years ago.

The official, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, said in a recommendation obtained by the North County Times that rather than face murder charges, squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich should be tried for the lesser offense of negligent homicide in the deaths of five children and two women.

Ware recommended 10 other murder charges against Wuterich be dismissed.

"I believe after reviewing all the evidence that no trier of fact can conclude Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill," Ware wrote in reference to the women and children. "When a Marine fails to exercise due care and civilians die, the charge of negligent homicide, and not murder, is appropriate."

Ware's report, issued to prosecutors and defense attorneys this week, found the evidence against Wuterich contradictory. Ware's role as the case's investigating officer is akin to that of a judge presiding over a pretrial hearing.

"The case against Staff Sgt. Wuterich is simply not strong enough to conclude he committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt," Ware wrote. "Almost all witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

If Gen. Mattis accepts Col. Ware's recommendations, it would be a big embarrassment for Rep. Murtha, especially after all the definitive statements that he's made on the subject. More importantly, the cases against the Haditha Marines will have essentially fallen to pieces.

Something else worth noting is that, if Gen. Mattis accepts Col. Ware's recommendation, the only charges pending against the Haditha Marines will be the dereliction of duty charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani and First Lt. Jeff Grayson, accused of failing to investigate the incident. Since it will have been determined that a major incident hadn't occured, it isn't likely that they'll be able to sustain charges against First Lt. Grayson or Lt. Col. Chessani.

It's worth noting that the only statement that Rep. Murtha was right about was this one:

There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained.

Even that needs some clarification. The bomb he's referring to killed a Marine. Here's that statement in context:

“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

The first logical question after finding out that he hadn't been briefed would be to ask Rep. Murtha how he knew that it was "much worse than was reported in Time magazine". It's clear that Rep. Murtha was attempting to characterize the Haditha Marines as cold-blooded murderers. First, Murtha says that the Time Magazine article wasn't accurate, that the bloodshed was far worse than Tim McGirk reported.

Next, Rep. Murtha said that a firefight didn't happen. That's a bald-faced lie. Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore testified that he briefed the 3/1 Marines of a planned IED explosion and that a white vehicle would play a vital role in the ambush. That information proved accurate. That's now fact because of the video from the UAV and because Capt. Dinsmore listened to the firefight coming in on his radio.

Let's fill out the timeline a bit. Here's what I've pieced together:

Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, “All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they’re talking about.” Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, “It’s much worse than reported in Time magazine.”

That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn't it? First impressions can be deceiving. They are in this instance. Hint: Keep in mind that Murtha said that his sourcing was from commanders. You'll see why that's importantly shortly. Here's what Murtha later told ABC's Charlie Gibson:

GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there’s no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there’s drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?

MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.

That interview happened on May 30, 2006, meaning that the Marine Corps commandant gave Murtha his briefing well after Murtha first went public with his accusations on May 17, 2006. We later found out that Hagee's briefing happened on May 24, 2006:

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.”

A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available.

After Murtha's first round of accusations, he said that commanders who "knew what they were talking about" had told him what happened. When pressed on it, though, he said that the Marine Corps Commandant, then Gen. Michael Hagee, had briefed him. Here's why that's important: Commanders serve in the field, usually in theater. Murtha would know that. Later, he said that he got his information from Gen. Hagee, who was serving as Marine Corps Commandant in the Pentagon.

Isn't it odd that a old soldier like John Murtha would offer such contradictory verification? I find that extremely odd. My theory is that Murtha made his first claims hoping that he wouldn't get challenged. It's also my theory that he changed stories after the Marine Corps issued a statement saying that Murtha had his facts wrong.

There's more deception that Murtha is caught up in. He's also on record as saying that he "knew there was a coverup someplace." If you know that a coverup has happened, it's logical that you'd know where it happened and who was involved. Since he said that it happened "someplace", it's a fair bet that Murtha didn't knkow if a coverup had happened. At best, he might've guessed that these Marines had covered something up.

Having a hunch that something happened isn't the same as knowing that something happened, is it?

When you put all the pieces of this puzzle together, you realize that the pieces don't fit together at all. It's like Murtha borrowed puzzle pieces from other puzzles to make something work.

When a high profile case like this has this many pieces that don't fit, it's extremely likely that the puzzle will end up a disaster. That's certainly what looks likely to happen here. The only question left is whether Murtha will ever apologize to these Marines and their families and to the Marine Corps itself.

I won't hold my breath on that.

Technorati: John Murtha, Michael Hagee, USMC, Jeffrey Dinsmore, Jeffrey Chessani, Frank Wuterich, Stephen Tatum, Justin Sharratt, Paul Ware, James Mattis, Charlie Gibson, Haditha

Murtha Must Testify, Supply Deposition

According to this article, a judge has ruled that Rep. John Murtha must testify in a defamation lawsuit. That isn't his only obligation:

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

If Murtha is forced to giving a deposition, he'll likely be forced to say who, if anyone, gave him this information. If one of his cronies in the Pentagon fed him this information, it'll expose that person's anti-war (or possibly anti-Bush) agenda. If Rep. Murtha made this up, then he's in deep trouble. Even if another court rules that his accusations were part of his official responsibilities, he'll be exposed to the entire world as pitching these Marines' constitutional guarantees aside.

At that point, it won't matter if he's made daily trips to Walter Reed. It won't matter if he's helped win billions of dollars of funding for the troops. His railroading these Marines will be his legacy. PERIOD.

That's why I'm betting that Murtha will do everything in his power to quash this judge's order to have him give a deposition. The judge in this lawsuit is Rosemary Collyer, a Bush appointee. Here's what she said:

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.

A representative shouldn't be able to hide behind the Constitution to protect himself from a lawsuit after he's tossed the Constitution aside. That's like a lawyer hiding behind attorney/client privilege after he's joined his client in committing a crime.

When Rep. Murtha declared that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood", (Remember that he hadn't been briefed and the investigation hadn't been finished) he essentially said that Frank Wuterich didn't have any constitutional protections.

Furthermore, it's worth questioning at what point Rep. Murtha isn't protected by the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause. Should legislators be covered 24/7? Should they be covered when they're holding press availabilities? Should they be able to viciously slander someone, whether they're on the House floor or at a press galley, with full immunity? I'm certain that the Founding Fathers didn't intend on providing that type of protection when they wrote the Speech and Debate Clause into the Constitution.

I'd argue that the Founding Fathers wrote the speech and Debate Clause into the Constitution to protect them from lawsuits pertaining to their official duties. I'd be hard pressed to think that it was meant to protect congressmen when they defame a private citizen, especially without justification.

I'd further argue that this judge's ordering Murtha's testimony and deposition puts the House leadership on notice that they can't excuse Murtha's corruption and unethical behavior. Thus far, the House Democratic leadership has fallen far short of their promise to be the most ethical congress in history. In fact, it isn't difficult to make the case that they're the most unethical congress since the 1994 bloodletting.

Let's further stipulate that letting Murtha slide without starting an ethics investigation into his malicious attacks on the Haditha Marines would tell the world that the Democrats' culture of corruption runs deeper than did the Republicans'. I say that because they didn't try protecting Randy Cunningham and Bob Ney from prosecution. Will Democrats try protecting their 'cash cow'? I'd argue that they already did when Ms. Pelosi endorsed Murtha in his quest to be House Majority Leader.

Here's what's posted on CBS' website:

From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

John Bresnahan of CBS had the audacity to write this:

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

Mr. Bresnahan, Accusing these Marines of cold-blooded murder isn't saying "some inappropriate things"; it's malicious and slanderous. I'd further argue that the Speech and Debate Clause isn't absolute.

Finally, I'd challenge Mr. Bresnahan 's statement that Murtha was "clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments." When did it become part of a lawmaker's job to wrongly accuse genuine war heroes of cold-blooded murder before the NCIS had finished its investigation? I'm curious why Mr. Bresnahan thinks that that's "clearly part" of Murtha's job.

In fact, I'd challenge Mr. Bresnahan to publicly justify that particular statement. I wouldn't bet much that he could.

Let's stipulate that other constitutional privileges have exceptions, too. We hold the attorney/client privilege dear but that privilege isn't absolute. It can't protect a lawyer who willfully assists his client commit a crime. Lynne Stewart was convicted for assisting the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, in carrying out other crimes.

We hold the priest/penitent privilege dear, too, but that has exceptions, too. Even the First Amendment's protections aren't absolute. Should we then accept as absolute that the people's representatives protections be absolute? I think not.

For me, the bottom line is that Rep. Murtha shouldn't be allowed to make such statements with total immunity. This case screams out that either the courts or the House of Representatives deliver justice to Sgt. Wuterich, LCpl. Sharratt, Capt. Stone, Lt. Col. Chessani and all the Marines that Rep. Murtha defamed with his unsubstantiated and repeated statements.

Technorati: John Murtha, Elitist, Speech and Debate Clause, Nancy Pelosi, Ethics Complaint, 110th Congress, Haditha Marines, Frank Wuterich, Justin Sharratt, Randy Stone, Jerff Chessani, Constitution, Rosemary Collyer

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Hey FatBoy--I do hear the Fat Lady Singing...

And it won't be a pretty tune for you...

You see, Jack Murtha will be forced to testify in a defamation suit filed by one of the Marines that he accused (without justification) of murdering civilians in cold blood.

William Teach over at Pirate's Cove has the details.

Payback's a bitch, ain't it Jack?

Defiant Murtha Lashes Out

Based on John Murtha's op-ed in the Johnstown Tribune Democrat, it's obvious that, not only isn't he repentant; he's downright defiant:

Since 1974, I have had the privilege of serving the people of our area in the U.S. Congress. My title is representative, and I try to represent our area and people well.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility for appropriating funds to the executive branch, and, as such, it is my constitutional responsibility to direct those federal funds.

Earmarks are a tool Congress uses to change the budget in a way that provides a more positive and direct impact at the national and local levels.

That's spin of the highest order. It's also a pile of BS. Earmarks in the hands of men like John Murtha are re-election slush funds:

Every entity that got an earmark appropriation from Murtha this year gave him a campaign contribution, according to a survey by the newspaper Roll Call and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The lucky 26 groups gave Murtha campaigns $413,000. He ensured that these friends got $114.5 million worth of projects from his appropriations committee.

You know that earmarks are a form of legalized corruption when a Soros-funded organization like CREW says that Murtha belongs on their list of most unethical legislators in Washington.

It's understatement to say that Murtha's op-ed isn't showing him in his best light. In fact, I think it's an indicator that he's feeling the heat we've been putting on him. Check out this BS from Murtha:

In Congress, I also have the privilege of serving our military as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. In August, the House passed a $459 billion Defense Appropriations Bill, and as chairman, my name is the only one that appears on this bill. I take this responsibility very seriously and I believe the bill we produced this year is one of the best we have ever passed.

Let Rep. Murtha talk about the defense budget increases if that's what he wants to do. It doesn't change the fact that Murtha trampled the Haditha Marines' constitutional rights when he accused them of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood", then covering it up. I've watched public officials do some utterly despicable things in my lifetime. I watched LBJ lie to the American people about winning in Vietnam. I watched Nixon lie about the coverup of Watergate. I've seen Dan Rostenkowski literally brag about the gifts and trips he got from lobbyists because he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee.

With that said, I can state without hesitation that Murtha's tossing the Haditha Marines' constitutional protections under the proverbial bus for political gain is the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. Murtha deserves a serious reprimand for that alone. That's before considering his threatening Mike Rogers on the House floor. Rep. Rogers challenged the usefulness of the NDIC in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown. Rogers should know about that since he's a former FBI special agent.

It's time that Murtha was sent packing. It's time that We The People dumped a bunch of chlorine into the House's 'gene pool'.

Technorati: John Murtha,Corruption, Earmarks, Haditha Marines, NDIC, Mike Rogers, Constitution, Slush Fund, CREW

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Hey Tribune-Democrat-- What Took You So Long?

From the Tribune Democrat:

Mud thrown at Murtha stains all of us

John Murtha represents the people of this region in all that he does.

We can’t accept the congressman’s earmark dollars with one hand and brush off his alleged transgressions with the other.

When he steps in mud, or when others throw mud at Murtha, we all get dirty.

That’s why, when questions are raised about possible improper activities at a Murtha-created organization, we get anxious.

And when a watchdog group rates our local congressman as being among “the most corrupt” lawmakers in Washington, we are embarrassed.

We don’t like being characterized as folks who support questionable activities, or who endorse troubling behavior by our elected officials.

In the past week, Murtha has taken shots from two sides over the way he does business in our nation’s capital.

The nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, released its third annual report on lawmakers. The group said 22 House and Senate members - 18 Republicans and four Democrats - were listed because of “their egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities (as) the most tainted members.”

Specifically, Murtha was chosen – the group said – because of “abuse of his position on the (defense appropriations) subcommittee to benefit the lobbying firm of a former long-term staffer and for threatening to block earmarks of other members for political purposes.”

In 2006, CREW rated Murtha as a “dishonorable member” to be watched. CREW said he jumped into the “most corrupt” group in 2007 for “threatening a House member for criticizing earmarks ... a clear violation of House ethics.”

That incident was Murtha’s run-in with Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who unsuccessfully tried to kill a $23 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown.

Meanwhile, Roll Call, a Capitol Hill news organization, reported that a Murtha-backed nonprofit group received government contracts and works with other companies Murtha has helped to fund.

The Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities, or PAID, is run by former Murtha aide Carmen V. Scialabba.

Ex-U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., confirmed to The Tribune-Democrat that he had resigned from the PAID board of directors, saying: “Once I learned more about the organization, I just decided it was not for me.”

Cleland is Murtha’s friend. The triple amputee and Vietnam veteran came to Johnstown last fall to speak on Murtha’s behalf at a political rally in Central Park.

“I’m not associated with PAID,” Cleland said. “I am not interested in pursuing that relationship at all.”

In it’s report on PAID, Roll Call said the organization “can point to few successes that are unrelated to (Murtha).” Roll Call contacted various Pennsylvania disability organizations that said they never worked with the Johnstown-based charity.

In both cases – the PAID debate and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics report – Murtha would not comment.

That’s his prerogative.

But our prerogative is to say what we think.

We’re weary of hearing about – and writing about – accusations concerning Murtha’s character, and we wish he seemed more concerned about them.

And we’re angry that “corrupt” is how many people view our local congressman.

Why is it that after ABSCAM, after Murtha's reckless slander of the Haditha Marines, after his sweetheart deal with Nancy Pelosi's nephew, after all we've been reporting on this blog regarding Murtha since May, 2006, that the Johnstown Democrat is finally beginning to admit that they endorsed a slimeball to represent PA-12 in Congress. Don't get me wrong. Better late than never. But it's too bad that the editorial board at the Johnstown Democrat didn't take into account Murtha's shady character when they endorsed him in this last election

Or in the last 16 elections, for that matter.

Perhaps they will think twice before doing so in 2008.

***UPDATE***

The Johnstown-Democrat publishes yet another scathing article slamming their favorite son.

And it couldn't happen to a nicer fellow.

We just knew you could do it!!

Jack Murtha, who was on CREW's "watch list" last year, has finally made it to the big list of America's most corrupt congressmen!

I know that PA-12 is proud of you!

Acceptable collateral damage?

From here:

CNSNews.com) - If pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq results in "a bloodbath," the guilt will rest with the Iraqi people and not with the U.S. Congress, according to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading proponent of withdrawing troops.

"Many have threatened that there will be chaos, a bloodbath, when the United States redeploys from Iraq, and this in fact may be the case," Murtha said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Monday. "If they continue to choose to spill blood, it will not be on the conscience of the United States."

And it certainly won't be Al Qaeda's fault either, will it?

Yeah, what's a few hundred thousand lives if you can win in your campaign for defeat of the U.S. and keeping democrats in power, eh Jack?

Yeah, I know... all in a day's work.

Truth is, their blood will be on YOUR hands Jack. After all, it was you, who got the ball rolling. You gave the rest of the "Fifth Column" faction democrats political cover to undermine our mission, our troops, and our national security; not to mention the security of the Iraqi people. It was your rhetoric that gave the message to the Jihadists that if they can just kill enough troops and innocents, then America would run away.

All as a means to endear yourself to the leftist George Soros bunch and brighten your chances to get Stenny Hoyer's job.

Hear this, Jack. You have failed on so many levels.

Not only did you not get Hoyers job, our soldiers in Iraq are getting the mission accccomplished, despite your best attempts to undemine their efforts, and despite your attempts to label them cold blooded killers.

Face it Jack--you're a loser.

And yet some more crow for "fat boy" to eat.

Another Haditha Marine, this one higher up in the chain of command, has been acquitted!

A US Marine Corps officer accused of failing to properly investigate the alleged massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha has been cleared of wrongdoing, the military said today.

The military said from its the Marines Camp Pendleton base in southern California that all charges against Captain Lucas McConnell stemming from the Haditha investigation had been dropped.

The charges against Capt McConnell had been dropped following a ruling by Lieutenant-General James Mattis, commander of the US Marine Corps Forces.

Lt-Gen Mattis "determined that administrative measures are the appropriate response for any errors or omissions allegedly committed by McConnell", the military said.

Capt McConnell was one of eight Marines facing charges in connection with the Haditha killings in November 2005, the most serious allegations of war crimes against US troops serving in Iraq.

Four Marines were initially charged with murder, while Capt McConnell and three other officers were charged with failing to properly investigate or report the circumstances surrounding the killings.

Where is the apology, Jack Murtha?!?

Certainly not here:

More On Next Year's *ahem* Democrat Victory

This morning's PGNow has an expanded version of the article that I referenced in yesterday's post. This time around, we get to hear the Republican response -- including a proposal by an unexpected Republican. Let's call it The Bad, The Good, And The Ugly.

First, The Bad:

He admitted that Democrats likely will be unable to win more support from wavering Republicans this fall for a change in the president's war policy. Some Republicans, he said, have come to him privately to express support for a withdrawal timeline. But he argued that many GOP lawmakers would hold firm in public at least until the presidential election is in full swing next year.

Anonymous Republicans. I do not doubt their existence, but I hope their constituents know who they are, and act accordingly in next year's primaries. On the other hand, those are the kind of Republicans who can drive a fickle voter into the hands of the Democrats and make Murtha's prediction come true. That's bad.

Next, The Good:

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm for House Republicans, countered that Democrats had also fallen short in other areas, including a pledge to make significant changes in how Congress distributes money for the lawmaker-sponsored pet projects known as earmarks.

Democrats have significantly cut back on the projects, which expanded in popularity and cost under Republicans, but Mr. Murtha himself has been the target of criticism for directing millions in federal money to his Johnstown district.

"The American public has quickly grown tired of this Democrat-led Congress, and John Murtha's unethical behavior certainly isn't changing any minds," Mr. Spain said. "Democrats should be worried about picking up their record low approval rating instead of making wild, grandiose predictions about how many seats they hope to pick up."

The Democrat-controlled Congress is unpopular. Republicans know it, Democrats know it, the American people know it. They keep re-electing the same corrupt fatcats like Murtha, then take control by running on a platform of ethical reform, and disappoint their constituency by failing to act on their promises. That's no way to keep a Contract With America. It's just the sort of thing that can drive fickle voters into the hands of the Republicans and put the lie to Murtha's predictions based on supposed voter sentiment. That's good.

Finally, the ugly:

Last year on the campaign trail, Democrats hammered Republicans on extensive spending, questionable ethics and the Iraq war to win control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 1994.

But the Democratic victory produced only a one-seat majority in the Senate, where at least 60 votes are needed to end debate and pass major legislation, allowing GOP lawmakers to block attempts to set a firm withdrawal deadline. (The Democratic majority in the House is currently 232-201.)

[...skipping a few paragraphs...]

Sen. Jim Webb, R-Va., has proposed a bill that would require all troops to receive equal time in Iraq and at home. Current tours of duty are 15 months long.

When did Webb go back to being a Republican? He didn't; this is just an error on the part of PGNow that will probably be corrected by Noon today. But it's a nice thought. If Webb were a Republican, there would not be a Democrat majority in the Senate. Things might not necessarily be better, but at least we'd have Dick Cheney as the tie-breaking vote to give us the edge. As it stands, Webb is a Democrat and his party is still in charge. We've been teased by a typographical error. That's Ugly.

With regard to Senator Webb's proposal, let's see what the Administration has to say:

Mr. Murtha said the bill could win support in the House, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that he would ask the president to veto it.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that," Mr. Gates told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdowns. Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground. We have to leave Iraq in a much more stable place than it has been over the last two or three years."

It's all about the mission, Jack. Or have you forgotten?

Murtha The Prognosticator

He's been yakking it up at the National Press Club:

WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania's Rep. John Murtha today predicted that Democrats would pick up as many as 40 to 50 House seats in the 2008 election because of the public's frustration with the Iraq war, despite anger among party loyalists with Congress' inability to set a firm withdrawal timeline.

Didn't this just happen last year? Wasn't there enough anger, frustration, and just plain old negative sentiment to drive Congress into the waiting arms of the Democrats in 2006? Unless George Bush goes to Iraq and personally starts killing American troops, I can't imagine the level of frustration is going to get high enough to deliver 50 seas to the Democrats.

"You're going to see a big Democratic win," Mr. Murtha, D-Johnstown, told reporters after a speech at the National Press Club.

...while wearing a ridiculously oversized turban.

He acknowledged that there was deep dissatisfaction among anti-war activists and independents who helped Democrats win control of Congress last year, but he said their anger with the Bush administration was greater.

Originally, Bush administration policies were "chilling". They were afraid then; now they're angry. What did Yoda say, about hate, fear, and anger leading to the Dark Side? These jihadi sympathizers were already on the Dark Side.

Mr. Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, made an appearance at the press club to give a negative assessment of Gen. David Petraeus' report last week on the troop "surge" and President Bush's decision to gradually pull back the size of the American force in Iraq to its pre-surge level of 130,000 troops by next summer.

Is there any reason to pretend that Murtha didn't know what he was going to say about Petraeus' report before now? He's been holding out until he could have a forum all to himself. He told us last week that he wouldn't comment until today. It's not about the war, or the troops, or the Democrats, or the Republicans. It's all about Murtha being in the spotlight and cruising to an easy electoral victory. Again.

Mr. Murtha dismissed reports of progress in Iraq, arguing that U.S. troops were still refereeing a bloody civil war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and cited a string of negative statistics: only two to six hours of electricity in Baghdad each day, a national unemployment rate of 50 percent, and two million Iraqi refugees.

Quoting a body of statistics is well and good, but there's no meat on those bones; or, as an old German teacher of mine would say, it needs "mehr Blut". Who's out of work? Why are those people leaving Iraq? I'd like to hear details to back up those stats, Jack.

He also said the strains of four years of fighting would require the U.S. to begin a limited pullout in the coming months, with or without the approval of the president.

Whoa. Is Murtha going to lead a military revolt against the Commander-In-Chief? Short of a major offensive on the part of the enemy, the military can not pull out "without the approval of the president". Either Murtha is hoping for a major Jihadi advance, or he is exhorting the U.S. forces in Iraq to stage an uprising.

"They can't sustain the troops in Iraq," he said. "It's just a fact."

In the mind of Jack Murtha, "fact" is just another word for wishful thinking. It's a fact that we can't sustain him in Washington. Can we have Diana Irey run again? Please?

Charity Begins at Home

It isn't surprising to find out that John Murtha has found some creative ways of avoiding FEC regulations. It isn't even surprising that he's tried establishing a slush fund for his campaigns using his defense contractor cronies. While these things aren't surprising, they are disgusting. Thanks to the bloggers at Redstate, we now know about the slush fund known as PAID (Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities). Here's what's happening:

GuideStar, an organization that tracks charitable organizations, reported the group’s accomplishments were "construct(ing) a new Website to accommodate diverse client needs in conducting a search for employment," and "recruit(ing) new employer partners committed to interviewing and hiring individuals with disabilities."

But neither PAID, GuideStar, nor any other organization tracking charitable organizations has reported on what appears to be major part of PAID’s mission: voter registration.

As a tax-exempt charitable organization, PAID is required to file an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990, "which provides the public with financial information about a given organization, and is often the only source of such information. It is also used by government agencies to prevent organizations from abusing their tax-exempt status."

PAID’s tax documents report the organization spent a total of $600,138 between 2003 and 2005 for "training and securing employment for disabled individuals," as well as "assisting disabled individuals with voter registration."

It isn't surprising to find out that that's just the tip of a very big iceberg:

According to a report in Roll Call earlier this week, PAID has had questionable success as a job training and placement organization. Disability advocates in Pennsylvania told the paper they had never heard of PAID.

"Since its creation, PAID claims to have helped 237 people with disabilities obtain permanent jobs," they reported. "But the organization has never been mentioned in a local newspaper and it does not appear to have ever been awarded any of the myriad citations given by agencies that employ people with disabilities."

In other words, it's useless in doing what it reportedly is supposed to do. It isn't a stretch to think that this is essentially a shell company used to funnel defense contractors' money into voter registration drives in John Murtha's district. This is at least as sleazy as Murtha's Abscam folly. Here's how it works:

An invitation obtained by majorityap.com reports that the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities (PAID) will sponsor a charity golf tournament priced at upwards of $10,000 on September 24, 2007, at the Argyle Country Club in Silver Springs, MD.

The group first came under fire in December, 2006, after the Washington Post reported "PAID has become a gathering point for defense contractors and lobbyists with business before Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee, and for Pennsylvania businesses and universities that have thrived on federal money obtained by Murtha."

In other words, a 'charity' funded by John Murtha's defense contractor cronies pays for regularly scheduled voter registration drives in John Murtha's district. What's worse is that, because the money is going into a 'charity', that 'charity' doesn't have to report who's giving how much to the charity. Here's some more PAID funny business:

As late as June 25, 2007, PAID’s website named Murtha as its Honorary Chairman. His name has since been removed from the group’s Internet homepage.

PAID’s stated claim of representing "60 million persons with disabilities" was questioned by Roll Call’s Paul Singer, who reported that well-established organizations aiding Pennsylvania’s disabled "had never heard of or worked with PAID."

A study by the U.S. Census Bureau found that roughly 50 million Americans reported some level of disability; meaning that if PAID’s claims were accurate, they represented more than the entire nationwide population of the disabled.

It's time to shut PAID down. It's time the people of PA-12 dumped this serial ethics violator. There's a reason why even Soros-funded CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) put him on their list. It's because it's difficult to find proof that there's even a single ethical bone in Rep. Murtha's body.

Frankly, this reeks of the type of cronyism that Dan Rostenkowski built up during the time he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee. Rostenkowski didn't even bother hiding it. In fact, he bragged about his golf trips with lobbyists, possibly because he thought of those trips as a status symbol. The only difference I see between Murtha's 'charity' golf tournament and Rostenkowski's lobbyist-paid golf trips is that Murtha is attempting to hide his involvement in this unethical game.

I strongly recommend you read both of MajorityAP's reports on Murtha's latest scandal.

Will Jack Murtha Apologize Now???

Jim Addison over at Wizbang has this very interesting post (read it--please!) that underscores the fact that only one Marine continues to face charges in the alleged "Haditha Massacre," and that the case against that Marine is crumbling.

Gary Gross, as well as myself, have contacted Murtha's office for a statement each time one of the Haditha Marines had been acquitted of charges; only to be hung up on at the least, and/or given short shrift at the most, saying that Murtha's choice was to wait until all proceedings were done.

When this last Marine (Sgt. Frank Wueterich) is finally exonerated, where will John Murtha (D--PA-12) hide?

Another Marine Deserves a Murtha Apology

The Washington Post is reporting that Lt. Col. Paul Ware is recommending that LCpl. Stephen Tatum shouldn't be court-martialed. LCpl. Tatum is yet another Haditha Marine that Rep. John Murtha accused of cold-blooded murder. As such, Rep. Murtha owes yet another Haditha Marine an apology.

The shootings began after a bomb blast killed one Marine and injured two others as the unit drove a convoy through Haditha. The Marines then killed a group of men who were in a car nearby before heading into two houses in the vicinity. Ware found that Tatum was following his rules of engagement when he fired his rifle in the two houses.

"What occurred in house 1 and house 2 are tragedies," Ware wrote. "The photographs of the victims are heart wrenching, and the desire to explain this tragedy as criminal act and not the result of training and fighting an enemy that hides among innocents is great. However, in the end, my opinion is that there is insufficient evidence for trial. LCpl Tatum shot and killed people in houses 1 and 2, but the reason he did so was because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder."

Col. Paul Ware doesn't deny that LCpl. Tatum killed civilians in "House 1 and House 2." What Col. Ware is essentially saying is that LCpl. Tatum killed these innocents because the insurgents amongst the innocent civilians. As such, LCpl. Tatum did what he was trained to do. Ware is saying that Tatum obeyed the ROE.

Col. Ware's recommendation doesn't automatically mean that LCpl. Tatum won't be court-martialed. That decision rests with Lt. Gen. James Mattis. However, considering the strong wording of Col. Ware's recommendation, I can't see how Gen. Mattis could justify the court-martial of LCpl. Tatum.

This is just more proof that John Murtha's accusations of May 17, 2006 weren't based on facts that surfaced as part of the initial NCIS investigation. Murtha's allegations are the result of Murtha's willfully ignoring the US Constitution's guarantees of the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and due process. Murtha's accusations are now being exposed for what they are: an appeal to the anti-war extremists known as the Nutroots Netroots. It doesn't appear as though Rep. Murtha thought twice about throwing these Marines under the bus in his quest for power. That's unforgivable.

A congressman's oath of office includes the pledge that they will uphold the Constitution. Clearly, that oath meant little, if anything, to Rep. Murtha. Rep. Murtha didn't care that he was destroying the reputations of Justin Sharratt, Stephen Tatum and Capt. Stone.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Rep. Murtha should resign from office or be involuntarily driven from office for violating his oath of office. He's disgraced the Marine Corps. He owes Mssrs. Sharratt, Tatum and Stone personal apologies. He also owes the USMC an apology, too.

I'm calling on thoughtful people of all political persuasions to pressure Rep. Murtha into resigning. If Rep. Murtha doesn't resign, then I'd call on these same thoughtful people to call their representative and demand that they file an ethics complaint against John Murtha. Once that complaint is filed, I'd ask these people to demand that the House of Representatives vote for Rep. Murtha's expulsion.

That's the only honorable thing for them to do. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi will ever let it go that far.

When voters go to the polls in November of 2008, we should hold anyone that shields Rep. Murtha from ethics sanctions. Anyone that willingly protects a man who disdains the US Constitution isn't fit for elected office.

Technorati: John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Scandal, Haditha Marines, Stephen Tatum, Justin Sharratt, Randy Stone, Paul Ware, James Mattis

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Sucks to be you, Jack.

Not only is Jack Murtha running for cover after falsely convicting Haditha Marines of cold blooded murder, now he's being bitten about the ankles by some dirty little things called earmarks.

Murtha's defense of earmarks questioned

By S.A. Miller
August 9, 2007

Mr. Murtha, who is one of the most prolific sponsors of earmarks in the Democrat-led Congress, defended the practice during debate Saturday night when questioned by Mr. Campbell and Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican.

“I think people around the country will be appalled ... to see Mr. Murtha stand up and say these contracts are competitively bid. They are not,” Mr. Flake said by telephone after returning home to Mesa, Ariz.

Mr. Flake commended new ethics rules passed this year that disclose more earmarks, but he lamented that the lawmakers allow the practice to flourish, regardless of what is disclosed.

“Ultimately, the system will change when people on the outside say, ‘This is enough," ” he said.

The bill contained 1,337 earmarks worth $3 billion, with $150 million in pork sponsored by Mr. Murtha.

Under the new rules, the number of earmarks in the defense bill dropped from the $10 billion in last year"s bill, but Mr. Murtha"s share of pork nearly doubled now that he is chairman, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Of course, true to the weasely nature of brave, brave Sir Murtha

Mr. Murtha did not respond to requests for comment.

However, Murtha did "explain" himself

He told the chamber that the pork spending, known as earmarks, is awarded in a competitive bidding process by the Pentagon and that the technology developed with federal dollars would be the property of the U.S. government.

Errr...nice try Jack:

“He"s got to know that"s not true,” said Rep. John Campbell, California Republican. “Clearly, the point of earmarks is they avoid the competitive bidding process.”

He also doubted that an earmark could establish a contractual agreement for product ownership, as did Steve Ellis, vice president of the government-watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“I"ve looked at hundreds of thousands of earmarks over the years, and I"ve never seen one that stipulates ownership,” Mr. Ellis said.

Mr. Campbell said he was seeking documentation from the Defense Department to refute Mr. Murtha"s claims and force him to retract the statements.

But again,

Mr. Murtha did not respond to requests for comment.

Me thinks me sees a pattern here.


Seems as if Jack Murtha's credibility bubbles are popping about him, leaving behind a thick coat of slime.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Still Running For Cover

Yesterday, Gen. Mattis dropped all charges against Capt. Randy Stone and LCpl. Justin Sharratt of the so-called Haditha Marines. In light of this fact, does Rep. Murtha wish to make a statement about this development?

When I posed this question to Rep. Murtha's DC office, the woman answering the phone said that Rep. Murtha didn't have a comment. Before I could ask another question, this woman hung up. That's when I called Murtha's DC office back and asked this question:

Considering the fact that Rep. Murtha accused these men during the initial NCIS investigation, why doesn't Rep. Murtha have a statement?

Her steely-voiced response was "There won't be any statements until all of the investigations have been completed."

Undeterred, I asked why they were taking this approach. The woman essentially gave a 'no comment' answer. I said that I'd keep checking back until Rep. Murtha did make a statement, to which she replied "That's just fine, Sir." before hanging up on me a second time.

Murtha's staffer is essentially taking an indefensible position because Rep. Murtha has repeatedly made irresponsible and indefensible statements about these Marines. This highlights an obvious double standard on Murtha's behalf. He didn't think twice about making these unfounded accusations while the initial NCIS investigation was being conducted but he won't say a word now when two of the men he accused of cold-blooded murder have been totally exonerated.

Rep. Murtha's actions throughout this make believe scandal have been reprehensible. As I've stated before, his accusations were made before charges had been filed against any of these Marines is a clear violation of their due process rights. Similarly, he violated their right to a fair trial. To top that off, he attempted to have them presumed guilty instead of giving them the benefit of being presumed innocent.

It's time that this corrupt politician to resign his seat in the House of Representatives and to apologize to the Haditha Marines and their families. Finally, it's time he apologized to the Marine Corps itself for assuming the worst behavior of these Marines.

Technorati: John Murtha, NCIS, Corruption, Scandal, Haditha Marines, Randy Stone, Justin Sharratt

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Gen. Mattis to Justin Sharratt: Case Dismissed!!!

My good friend Darryl Sharratt just posted the good news on Freepers. Here's what Darryl posted:

At 7:00 PST, 9 August 2007 Justin and his attorney met with a Marine Corps representative in an office at Camp Pendleton, CA. At this time, my son LCpl Justin Sharratt, was handed an official Marine Corps Disposition of Charges document declaring the charges stemming from the 19 November 2005 Haditha engagement have been officially dismissed. The last line of the two page Disposition Of Charges document ended with these words from the General, "And as you have always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, you remain in the eyes of the law- and in my eyes- innocent." Lt. Gen James T. Mattis

Jim Robinson—My family would like to offer you a sincere and deep felt thank you. During our darkest days you allowed us to publish our story here on Free Republic. When others went deaf, you listened and you heard. Our belief in God, our belief in the innocence of our son and the support and prayers of the American people helped us through this rough ordeal. Our family has met a group of American patriots here on FR that my words fall short in thanking. You helped us through these trying times with your support, thoughts and financial assistance. My family is truly proud to be an American family. You took us in and made us part of Your Family. For that I can never thank you enough.

With the General’s announcement of the exoneration of my son, LCpl Justin L. Sharratt, part of our journey has ended. Another has just begun. We will put our lives together and continue the fight for the remaining Haditha Marines. By now, you know these men. They are part of my family and I know you have made them part of yours. My son served with these men and he would have given up his life for them. I hope to find justice for these Marines and the battle has just begun. God Bless.

Redrover, Madison Marine, Girlene, Marine Uncle, Eagles6, Semper Fi Mom, Jazusamo, 4 woodenboats, LanceyHoward, brityank, pinkpanther, Chickenhawk Warmonger, RaceBannon, xzins, velveeta, freema and others- names, with no faces. You helped my family through this and we may never be able to express our gratitude. Thank You!!!!!!

I can't wait to talk with Darryl again. I can't imagine the joy that's sweeping through the Sharratt family this instant. This has been an arduous, emotional ordeal for their family, especially since the charges appeared shaky from the beginning.

Knowing Darryl a little bit, I know that he's committed to getting justice for all of the Marines in Kilo Company. Capt. Randy Stone also had his charges dropped:

All charges were dropped against a captain accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, the Marine Corps announced Thursday. Also, all charges were dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.

Capt. Randy W. Stone, 35, a battalion lawyer from Dunkirk, Md., was one of four officers charged with failing to adequately probe the killings. "It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Capt. Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote.

Talk about good news coming in bunches!!! This is indeed great news. This is also proof that seemingly ordinary men who tirelessly seek the truth will be rewarded. One man that fits that description is Tim Harrington. Tim has worked so hard on digging out evidence of these men's innocence that he's become an 'adopted' member of these Marines' families. Justice-loving people should thank Tim for his role in exposing the holes in the prosecution's cases.

Gen. Mattis did the right thing in dropping the charges against LCpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Stone. I wish he'd just done it sooner.

There's more than a few 'down arrows' to go around. One of them goes to Rep. John Murtha. On May 17, 2006, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." We now know that that's been proven false beyond all doubt. Furthermore, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had covered this up and that "It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine."

Two groups of people deserving of swift boots in the pants are the NCIS investigators and JAG prosecutors. They've wrongly accused these American heroes of horrific crimes. What's worse is that they kept going after hearing Jeffrey Dinsmore's testimony:

As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.

Here's what we know from Capt. Dinsmore's testimony:

• Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
• Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
• The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company, including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
• Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
• The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
• As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation. None!

This begs several questions of the JAG prosecutors:

• Considering they knew about Capt. Dinsmore's testimony, why did they continue onto other Article 32 hearings?
• Considering Capt. Dinsmore's testimony, isn't it impossible to sustain the charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani for dereliction of duty?
• Considering the fact that LCpl. Sharratt and Sgt. Frank Wuterich are accused of the same crimes, shouldn't his charges be dropped, too?

Shouldn't John Murtha (a) apologize to these genuine American heroes, (b) apologize to their families, (c) apologize to the Marine Corps and finally (d) resign from the House of Representatives for having leveled these charges without so much as even been briefed on the results of the investigations?

Technorati: Justin Sharratt, Darryl Sharratt, Randy Stone, Frank Wuterich, Jeffrey Chessani, Jeffrey Dinsmore, Tim Harrington, John Murtha, NCIS, JAG, Corruption, Scandals

The Kook Left's Divorce with Murtha...

...is now final






Since his announcement of surrender to third world thugs in November of 2005, Jack Murtha has been the darling of the left-wing fever swamp. Basking in the adoration of the leftist elements, Murtha felt emboldened to continue unabated his diatribes against the war, and felt so emboldened as to throw fellow Marines under the bus with impunity, as a means of burnishing his credentials with the kook left base of the democrat party. Feeling his oats, he overplayed his hand in vying for the majority leader position in the House. But even the endorsement of his partner-in-crime Nancy Pelosi couldn't cement the gig. Dejected, but prideful, Murtha continued his seditious path, accepting and advocating for nothing less than the prospect of unconditional surrender of the United States to third-world savage psychopaths, and was thus still accepted in the fringe of left-wing circles.

But there's one thing that his storied career in the House of Representatives has proven axiomatic: Nothing, but nothing gets in the way between Jack Murtha and money.

So when it came time to approve the measure signed into law by President Bush to accept the 9/11 commission recommendation that defense appropriations become above-board, Murtha politely said, "Crap!"

Of course, Murtha's long history of shady deals and earmarks, along with his recent eschewing of earmark reform suggests Murtha's decision had absolutely nothing to do with keeping defense secrets. Rather, it had everything to do with keeping his earmarks and sweetheart defense deals far from the eye of public scrutiny.

This, of course, was the last straw for the moonbat faithful, who had heretofore hitched their wagons to a self-serving gasbag ex-Marine to lead them to the promised land of a failed, subservient, land flowing with political correctness and socialism for all:

mikelgb (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 12:23 PM Response to Original message

11. Murtha is covering up his earmarks

I saw the floor debate when Issa offered his amendment... and I saw Murtha accepting it without even letting Issa mention the title or substance of the amendment but it was already after the FISA bill had passed so nothing much mattered anymore

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

babylonsister (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 12:28 PM Response to Reply #11

14. That was my first thought, too; makes you wonder if everything is

aboveboard, why does he need to cover them up? I don't want to accuse Murtha of anything, so will just wait and see how this shakes out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kagemusha (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 12:36 PM Response to Reply #14

15. There's no need to accuse Murtha - he has a well earned reputation for this.

The ONLY reason that he got on the good side of the base is because he came out against the Iraq war, which shocked people because he was such a good soldier, so to speak. But where appropriations are concerned, he never changed his spots, not one bit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

NoodleyAppendage (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 12:24 PM Response to Original message

12. Blackmail to keep his earmarks under wraps. Yet another DEM WHORE? Be gone asswipe!

Murtha is the king of earmarks, many of which are probably for private firms working with the intelligence community. Alternatively, it's also possible that Chimperator has dirt on Murtha and Murtha isn't man enough to buck his blackmail attempts. Gone are the days of honor. J

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

redqueen (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 12:27 PM Response to Original message

13. Unbelievable...

just... ugh. *sigh*

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

donkeyotay (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 01:04 PM Response to Original message

18. I can see where the opposing view would merit debate

"The opposing view," according to Aftergood, "adopted by the 9/11 Commission and endorsed by Congress last month, is that budget disclosure is an indispensable precondition to broader accountability and that it is essential to restoring the credibility of a defective classification system." Accountability. Restored credibility. Naw. Let's just keep on with more of the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Vidar (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 02:01 PM Response to Original message

20. Fuck that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

AX10 (1000+ posts)

Tue Aug-07-07 02:08 PM Response to Original message

21. Murtha, now there's someone I trust with accountability.

Murtha doesn't want us to see the pork he's bringing home. That pork is not going for things such as roads and hospitals, but to his defense contractor buddies.

Never let it be said, Mr. Murtha, that I am an uncaring, unfeeling lout.

I know that your now-severed relationship with the moonbat faithful must be very difficult for you.

So as a token of compassion, I leave you with this:



And just remember, as you wax poetic of the bygone days when you were the darling of the fever swamp left, though you will never again have the moonbat faithful groveling at your feet,

At least you'll always have your earmarks.

:::sniff::::