February 15, 2007: The House of Murtha by Anne Flaherty (redacted version)
Anne Flaherty of the AP fervently kisses the feet of John Murtha in her idolatrous news reporting today"Murtha Moves to Forefront of Iraq Debate." I doubt who John Murtha really is slipped her mind (even though it isn't in the article), but I will remind her. John Murtha is a creepy, corrupt politician who escaped an Abscam indictment by testifying against his peers:
And this isn't just Sean Hannity bloviating. You can see the full version here. Murtha is pond scum. The best you can say of him is that he is the kind of pol who - knowing full well he was dealing with corrupt criminals willing to give bribes- urges those same criminals to invest in his district before bribing him. ("Don Corleone, please invest in my sister's brothel...").
Now I am certain Flaherty knows all this, because she does allude to his loss to Steyn Hoyer for Majority Leader. As many readers will recall, this is when Murtha's unfortunate past popped up again and Pelosi didn't know what to do. Shame on Flaherty for bowdlerizing this all now. This was true criminal activity, not some sexual dalliance or free trip to play golf at the Four Seasons Maui.
Of course, Murtha's extreme seaminess doesn't make him wrong about Iraq. But it does tell us the kind of man he is. That he continued to run for Congress after being so unmasked is just despicable... and that the Democrats continue to play along, even worse.
Comments
Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.
Murtha is not a Republican so it does not count. And note the willingness, even eagerness of the Democrats to jump in there and defend Iran. Pelosi reminds us Bush can not invade Iran, in spite of the fact that he has not said anything about wanting to. However, he did say he was going to deal with the fact that Iranian agents are killing our soldiers, it seems the Democrats are more concerned with stopping Bush than they are with stopping the Iranians.
As for Murtha, I don't think he is a guy they want out front...but then again I guess the Demcrats just have different standards. That whole "slow Bleed" thing sounds so supportive of the troops.
"Pond scum" is a bit too kind. Murtha has no character. Regardless of your political stripes, character should be the first box on the diligence checklist. Murtha does not pass the smell test. Why his district keeps sending him back to Washington is a conundrum to me.
I realize that the recent mid-term elections reflect that many Americans are unhappy with the prosecution of the war in Iraq. We all know people who support Bush's foreign policy, but are disappointed with the execution of the war and the inability or unwillingness to stay out in front and tell the world why this is important.
Regarding the debate on Iraq, the Dems are painting their presidential hopefuls into a cut and run position that will be necessary to get the nomination.
My hope is that an articulate Republican with an intelligent mulit-faceted strategy for Iraq, Iran and North Korea will win the 2008 Presidential race. I am not sure who that is at this point, but I can think of a couple of people who could do it.
The question is will the American public - disenchanted by the status of the war in Iraq, bombarded by support for a cut and strategy by the MSM, and the natural desire for peace - be able to see how strategically important it is to win in Iraq (now that we are there).
The Islamists have told everyone who wants to listen that Iraq is the front on the modern war with the West (that has been going on since 1979 with the seizure of the US embassy in Iran) and that winning is the key to establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Please google Dar Har and Dar Islam.
A loss in Iraq will mean the loss of lives in the West on a scale I am afraid most will not comprehend.
My hope is that the speech and actions of the Democrats will cause and give enough Americans to think. Perhaps the majority will then see what is really at stake. Maybe this is the silver lining in what we are hearing from Pelosi, Murtha and their ilk.
Murtha is a former Marine, with a questionable and not fully disclosed record, like Kerry.
But that's enough for the Democrats. If Murtha was just another old ward healer in The House, he'd be whisking stray hairs and dandruff off the coats of his colleagues.
Someday, somehow we need to recover from this silly dishonesty about, and misplaced respect for war veterans. Nobody is truly honest about them, not Right or Left.
That's right, Curly. He got the usual TFSU (Thanks For Showing Up) commendations, a Purple and a Brozen without V-device. That's damnning with faint praise if you ask me. No V, no silver, just a "get outta here", for unspecified wounds (undisclosed medical records) for an Intel Officer. What a joke.
Murtha will attach his conditions for "surge" appropriations and the Senate may or may not go along setting up a Bush possible veto. This is a long time down the road. Just more of the media build up.
"...and that the Democrats continue to play along, even worse."
True enough, Roger. But when you've learned to swallow a former KKK Kleagle like Robert Byrd as your senior Party Senator for decades, a Murtha must seem like an angel.
So Murtha (as the video shows) was open to the possibility of a surge of money later on, presumably as business conditions changed and bench marks were met.
But the same Murtha is apparently unwilling to grant the troops the same magnanimous flexibility he sought for himself from his would be benefactors.
This is the guy Pelosi wants front and center on this?.... She might be first, but she is no Sandra Day O'Connor.
Back when Murtha was supporting the contras, or challenging Clinton from the right on various military issues, or voting for the Iraq war resolution, he was a courageous, mainstream, old-style Democrat, a lonely voice of reason in a party taken over by crazed liberals. Now he is a "creepy, corrupt politician" who didn't earn his Purple Hearts. If he really is that corrupt, how come the American Spectator waited until September 2006 to break the news?
I don't have time to watch the FBI video, and all the other goodies easily available via Google. Maybe this weekend. I assume that if he had broken the law in 1980, the FBI would have indicted six Democratic Members of Congress, rather than just five.
Also, as Roger says, his "extreme seaminess doesn't make him wrong about Iraq."
What I suspect scares war supporters about Murtha is what I like about him: he's NOT bloviating, he NOT blathering on in support of meaningless non-binding resolutions. Agree with him or not, he means business. He is going to try to get Congress to stop this war, using the power granted to it under our Constitution.
As John Yoo notes, Congress has the power to stop a war anytime that it wants to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/opinion/12yoochu.html
Markus writes "he's NOT bloviating, he NOT blathering." Please, Markus, he and Joe Biden are the quintessence of bloviation.
Your recitation of the Congressional prerogatives on appropriations are right. Just as you cite John Yoo as your authority for that, you may find it difficult to pay him the same respect for his courageous tho much maligned book on the war powers of the president.
But back to Murtha, as chairman of the subcommittee on defense appropriations, he has that power but first he has to get it out of subcommittee, out of committee to the floor and then to a vote and then to the Senate. Many are the slips between the cup of intent and the lip of passage, to steal a phrase from the Bible.
And all along the way, it will be challenged as
a veiled smarmy but clever attempt to cut off funding for the troops. It will in due course be seen as the Democratic mechanism to defund the war. Thus we will have in this country an unmasking of the Democrats for what they are;
the party of McGovern remade.
Jedrury -- As far as I can tell, Yoo is correct on Presidential War Powers. Precedence matters in all murky areas of the law, and Congress has basically rendered its power to declare war irrelevant by choosing to fund dozens upon dozens of unrelated conflicts initiated by various Presidents over the years. Thus, a Commander-in-Chief can order the military to do whatever idiotic, counterproductive thing he or she wishes (such as invading Iran, or Syria, or France) and the only thing that Congress can do about it is to explicitely limit the funds to carry out these plans.
"I assume that if he had broken the law in 1980..."
Unfortunately, he was caught on film stating his willingness to take bribes in the future. That was not thought worthy of indictment at the time, but it certainly doesn't pass the stink test, does it?
I confess that I am more intrigued at the moment by the legalities of presidential powers during wartime and the politics down the road than bashing John Murtha. It is like hitting a pinata. Humor aside: my Amazon review of John Yoo's book called "War By Other Means."
"John Yoo succeeds in explaining the legal and policy justifications for the major issues attendant to the war on terror. In careful prose, interspersed with copious legal case law, background and practical analysis, Yoo establishes in eight weighty but readable chapters the legal underpinnings for such hot button issues as the non-application of the Geneva Conventions, the Patriot Act, NSA and the recent allegations about wiretapping, the media myths about Guantanamo, interrogation and the need for military commissions. His unemotional treatment of these issues is far preferable than having these crucial issues politicized by media writers like Andrew Sullivan, politicos like Ted Kennedy, and the emotional silliness of Keith Olbermann. These are issues too important to be left to the sophomores."
Gumshoe, childishly thickheaded is as childishly thickheaded does.
Which of those comments do you take issue with? That Murtha wants Congress to do more than just vote for meaningless non-binding resolutions? That Congress has a right to limit war funding? That Yoo thinks this is the case?
"Back when Murtha was supporting the contras, or challenging Clinton from the right on various military issues, or voting for the Iraq war resolution, he was a courageous, mainstream, old-style Democrat, a lonely voice of reason in a party taken over by crazed liberals. Now he is a "creepy, corrupt politician" who didn't earn his Purple Hearts."
When one is used to making out Chuck Hagel to be a reliable conservative or thinking that the American people wouldn't fall for Clinton's "mean Gingrich shutting down the economy" media ploy, or other such things, the reasons should be obvious. Most Republicans expect more reasonableness out of the center and the center/left than history would support. As tending towards optimism, we make more out of such positive signs than is sometimes warranted in this area.
Besides, it's possible for a bloviator to be occasionally right, especially when the populace behind him happens to display good sense. My own congressman, Bud "weathervane in a storm" Cramer is a great example of the trend.
I note that Congressional approval rankings are still in the same basement that they've inhabited for most of the last 20 years, exceeded in depth only by the press.
Can anyone tell me what Murtha's views on Islamism are, or for that matter, Markus's?
Whatever the outcome of Murtha's fund redistribution scheme, or his honesty, or the Constitutional distribution of war powers, what do they suppose the consequences of withdrawl to be? Do they care?
That seems to be the one thing missing from this entire charade. But then, it has been all along. Whenever you ask one of them, all they can tell you is how Bush has failed.
Well if Murtha wants to run things markus he should run for the White House himself instead of acting like a loon and making his party look weirder than it already does.
FWIW - I listened to the whole tape while working on some other things. Some impressions:
1. Jack Murtha dances with the devil for an hour and sticks to his message of 'invest in my district and then maybe we'll talk'. He makes no promises. No kiss on the first date. Maybe no kiss is coming ever - who can say? Didn't our culture once admire Daniel Webster and others who fenced with the devil? Is Murtha going to hell for this? I'm not so sure.
2. Is this how American politics plays everywhere? I had a strongly reminiscent sense of listening to LBJ tapes.
3. The FBI guys and the go-between would have been perfect in a Coppola movie. Right out of wise guy casting. Again, is this how business is done in Washington?
Just me, but I got the sense that the FBI guy (Tony) respected Murtha and his position.
4. Very interesting bit at 31.27. Murtha says, roughly, "... you've got to look further down the road on this deal, I'm going to be in the damn congress for 20 years and I don't want to screw it up ... If I wanted to make a lot of money, I could have stayed on the outside and made a lot of money"
BS, hubris, prescience, or what?
Did he have a lock on the district? Had he been anointed by some machine? Why was being in the congress long term important to him? A curious statement at the least.
5. At 45.xx Murtha admires Murphy's balls and notes he (Murphy?) went to West Point with Samoza. Note: Murphy was convicted due to Abscam.
6. At 46.40 Murtha notes that 'he does business like this all the time' - I presume, meaning, soliciting business from less than squeaky-clean sources.
Again - Is this scummy, or is it hard headed business? The scenario painted to Murtha was of Arab's fleeing to the US with money that might be argued about, but not much worse.
7. History tidbit again at 47.xx where Murtha opines how the Shah of Iran was screwed by winding up in '2nd rate' Panama and the man on the right (FBI?) notes that the Shah was screwed by having the wrong team behind him and mentions (Nixon?) and Kissinger - 'Kissinger did more for him than anyone'
Also, apparently, Murtha's struggling coal mining companies were in the soup because of Federal regulations and their inability to install coal washing equipment. It was the (FBI?) guy on the right that rubbed Murtha's nose in this and Murtha played dumb - I would say, dumb like a country fox.
My conclusion; it's inconclusive, and not necessarily that damning of Murtha according to my Political Understanding for Dummies, edition 2.14. I mean, the guy was on the job for his district and getting more jobs there, 100% .
I get your point, jdwill--just observing that "stung" people almost invariably defend themselves as 'doing research' or 'investigating the scam' as a 'concerned citizen' or a 'diligent official'.
I don't know how Murtha represented himself after the sting was sprung. Clearly, the sting missed him.
But IMO, Murtha was fully aware of the 'line' and which side of it he wanted to be on. He wanted the fictional Arabs to plunk money into his district, to save businesses and jobs, in such a manner that he could claim credit behind the scenes back home. That is all I see in the tape.
Uh oh. Captain Ed posts that The WaPo has come down on Murtha, highlighting Murtha's general and disgraceful cluelessness about Iraq; not quite describing him as a numbskull, but close, and also deriding Pelosi's willingness to cut his leash and let him run with the defunding plan.
The concern at The WaPo is that Murtha and Pelosi will damage their party. Snort.
That's an incredible video. I find it fascinating that our mainstream journalists offer fawning coverage for Murtha. How is that not only the AP, but ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, the Times, the Post, Meet the Press, etc. can continually bob and weave their way around these important stories?
Mark Steyn says that whatever bobbing & weaving they do, the rest of the world still sees it all too clearly.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2634.php
FYI, the video quality on the Hannity clip is pretty crappy. If you go to YouTube and search on Murtha and Abscam, you find four clips which are much clearer.
Even if Murtha didn't break the law, he is just plain scummy bragging about his influence, going to the ballgame with the President and Tip O'Neil etc.
RHOD -- believe it or not, I completely agree with you, when you ask of the antiwar crowd, "what do they suppose the consequences of withdrawl to be? Do they care?"
If we were a more serious country, with a less dysfunctional political system and a better educated citizenry and a less patronizing political elite, we would be having this discussion, rather than idiotic debates about which party wants to cut off funding for soldiers in the field, and whether we want to fight radical Islamists in the streets of Baghdad or the steets of Topeka.
I believed in the Powell dictum of "you break it, you own it" until very recently. The counterargument is that the presence of American troops in Iraq acts as a disincentive for the various warring factions in the country, and the various nations surrounding Iraq, to engage in serious negotiations over how best to live together. Far easier to take pot shots at each other when you have a giant Goliath trying to referree a civil war.
I admit there are strong arguments on both sides, and I wish everyone would admit that NO ONE knows the consequences of withdrawal. We DO have a much better idea what the consequences of non-withdrawal are -- MORE OF THE SAME. Could things get worse than more of the same? Perhaps they could.
Hopefully, when we discuss the supplemental appropriations bill, we will have this debate, rather than the posturing we saw in Congress this past week.
My understanding of radical Islamism? It's a diverse movement, with many internal rivalries, and a few commonalities: it's reactionary (against modernism, secularism, and Zionism); largely defensive (wants non-Muslims and secular Muslims out of the Middle East, rather than trying to conquer Amsterdamistan); new and even faddish (it was politically marginalized among most Muslims until quite recently); and greatly encouraged by American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Well put, Markus. You have the right instincts on most things, and you're very good with the facts. I wish we could agree on the conclusions; this time we're pretty close. Thanks for a good response.
I'd say it's almost certain that Iraq will be a charnel house following an abrupt American withdrawl. It's quite likely the same forces would play themselves out just more slowly if we help to establish military and security forces that can stand on their own. These pressures will be relieved one way or another.
Look at the Great Middle East and we see nothing but kettles boiling slowly or boiling over, between Iraq and Syria, Turkey and Syria and Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iran and Iraq, Iran and Turkey, Iran and the Stans, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and those around the Caspian Sea, Egypt and everyone else, including Libya, Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Qatar and Yemen and SA, Hashemites against House of Saud, over border territories, water supplies, oil reserves, defense perimeters, tribal distribution, Islamic leanings, and more.
These are not the legacies of colonialism, they're the consequences of absolutism, dictatorships, seedy and decrepit monarchies and the bloody-minded religious extrapolations that justify the killing and torture. Leave Iraq? We'll only back, as long as we need oil
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
February 15, 2007: The House of Murtha by Anne Flaherty (redacted version)
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rogerlsimon.com/nav-commenters.gif)