Thursday, June 22, 2006

Jack Murtha, Some Kind Of Hero

Jack Murtha, a House of Representatives Democrat, has been a very verbose critic of the war in Iraq. Mr. Murtha voted for the resolution to use force, if Iraq did not disarm or allow inspectors to verify that it had disarmed. But somewhere along the way, he became a mouthpiece for those that have never supported this action, and it is my estimation that they support no war of any kind, at any time. Which is fine and dandy, but the methods he has used have been highly questionable.

Not wanting to miss a golden opportunity to politicize the war with bad press (for the sole pupose of embarassing the President), the anti-war crowd has certainly made full use of his inconsistency and that he served in Vietnam, like it were some kind of honor badge that should automatically give him instant credibility. The man that voted for the operation and served in another, has not been shy about the publicity it has generated for him either. He has basked in the limelight for the sole purpose of gaining more power within the government, all while he has denigrated the mission and therefore encouraged the enemy to feel even more emboldened, in their cause.

That's politics, I guess. At least that's what it has devolved to, in this day and age.

But with that limelight (that a politician basks in when he gets a group of radical organizations and like-minded people that identify with that groups' ideology behind him), often comes scrutiny from those whose policies that you voted for and now condemn.

Take Mr Robert Novak for instance. He has an audience. Why? Because he makes sense most of the time. Here is his recent article entitled,
"Murtha's Second Act". (I suggest reading this one, it's good.)

Jack Murtha proves there are second acts in American politics. I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House. In a long political career, Murtha has made bitter enemies inside his party who are alarmed by his new stature.

Nothing happened 26 years ago, because he was a no-name. I do not remember him from then and I was a pretty astute follower of politics back then, too. Now that he is someone that has aligned himself with fringe elements and made accusations against the military (and the Adminstration), he himself has become a target of sorts. He got his favorable press from the MSM and the leftist think tanks, but now his actions will be looked at with even more scrutiny, than before. And Mr Novak has called him on it.

If that's not enough, let's have you take a look at this article from yesterday's Washington Times, entitled,
"The Real Jack Murtha".

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

Sounds fishy to me, does anything remind you of anyone recently sent to jail and was a war hero?

Look, when you make noise, you attract attention to yourself. When you make noise about the wrong things, you get more scrutiny. And if you are looked at closer and it's found that your past is checkered, it doesn't look good on a resume, nor to others that already do not like you. In fact, let this be a lesson to all of those that want a future in managing campaigns and/or providing counsel to elected officials. Because if you do not heed this advice and throw stones while living in a glass house, your sin will find you out.


Mr. Murtha's dirty deeds may very well be about to come out, to the forefront. If he wasn't squeaky clean, he certainly had no business criticizing others. Because now, he is fair game. He has put himself on display for all to behold. He may have served honorably, but so what? And if this is true, ( I say if) what is the difference between him and Cunnigham?

Answer: Murtha has not been convicted, nor has he been charged, yet. It will probably need to be decided by the voters of his district, because unless the MSM starts to hound this like the Cunningham scandal, this may not have time to come to a head, by election day.

8 comments:

All_I_Can_Stands said...

You are right I try to be consistent on the innocent until proven guilty. There is a little more leeway when you see a video such as in William Jefferson's case and now with Murtha.

Hey, it's more damning than anything I've seen released on Tom Delay. It is no evidence of a crime since he passed on the bribe "at this point", but that last part certainly does not look good. Definitely a job for the voters.

It certainly is foolish with this in the background to raise one's head to the national stage and get in people's faces.

Always On Watch said...

AICS said, It certainly is foolish with this in the background to raise one's head to the national stage and get in people's faces.

Anybody here that politicians have enough common sense?

kev said...

Good article. My only disagreement is where you state that you suspect these people would be against a war of any kind. To my best recollection, they were all strangley silent when clinton got us involved in Bosnia, when he lobbed his missiles, and when he sent troops into Somalia. I think their anti-war position is "flexible." Murtha is another example of the "cindy sheehan syndrome," wherein a relative nobody loses his or her mind commensurate with the amount of fame he or she receives. Not only is this guy a thief, but his voting record has never been what one would expect from a pro-military person.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Kev, as a side note, it was Murtha who urged us to pull out of Somalia when things got a little rough. This high level display of weakness was one of the top items to encourage OBL to make his attack on 9/11.

Time after time we are handed the lesson against a display of weakness and low resolve. Time after time there are those who do not learn the lesson.

G_in_AL said...

Murtha was in his twilight in Washington, and figured he would rather burn out than fade away.

Big dummy wanted to make a name for himself, and now he's going to get the other side of that stick.

Always On Watch said...

AICS,
it was Murtha who urged us to pull out of Somalia when things got a little rough.

Really??? I'm not questioning your facts, but I didn't know that!

All_I_Can_Stands said...

AOW, Here is a NewsMax link discussing it:

NewsMax Link on Murtha Calling for Somalia Pullout

kev said...

AOW--yes, he admits it while being interviewed. He claims Bush should have reconsidered as Reagin did at murtha's urging, and as clinton did in Somalia at his urging. He points to this with pride even though this was one area terrorists pointed to as displaying our weakness, as AICS also points out.