An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Talking Back to the Talking Heads

The Afghanistan Debate. (Yes, There Is One.) »

The Long Arm Of The Law Reaches For Jack Murtha

Posted by DAVID ADESNIK in Politics, War.
Jul 19th, 2009 | Comments

The editors of the NYT (of all people) say that Rep. Murtha is becoming a dangerous liability to the Democrats. An ongoing investigation has found that

[Confessed bribe-taker Richard] Ianieri’s company hired the lobbying firm of Mr. Murtha’s brother Kit. The company soon was blessed with money from an $8.2 million defense earmark. The Capitol newspaper Roll Call reported last month that Representative Murtha, using a 2005 tsunami relief bill, took the $8.2 million from another contractor that had severed ties with his brother’s lobbying firm. The Department of Justice alleges that Mr. Ianieri’s company then illicitly distributed $1.8 million of the money to other companies, some of them represented by Kit Murtha’s firm.

I must confess to bit of schadenfreude. Just two years ago, Jack Murtha was a fixture on the Sunday morning talk shows. With the indignation of the prophets of old, he thundered against the folly of those who would sacrificing his beloved soldiers and Marines on the altar of a futile war in Iraq. Apparently, Mr. Murtha knows first hand about betraying the best interests of our military.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GeorgeSorwell

Did the sacrifice of our soldiers and Marines stop being worthy of indignation?

Anna

I agree that if Murtha is convicted of being a crook (and he sure seems like a crook to me), he should be tossed out of the Senate and go to jail. Criminal activity shouldn't be determined to be criminal by party designation. That being said, your comparison of Murtha speaking out on the sacrifice of the soldiers in Iraq and his alleged criminal activity are apples and oranges, unless of course you have actual evidence that what Murtha allegedly did caused soldiers in Iraq to lose their lives. I won't hold my breath that you do.

jwest

The one thing that is certain – if Murtha was a Republican, this would only be one of a dozen articles each day on the subject.

SteveK

The one thing that is certain – if Murtha was a Republican, this would only be one of a dozen articles each day on the subject.
Yep... Just like all the press Tom DeLay getting, eh?
In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period. DeLay denied the charges and pled not guilty, saying they were politically motivated and the law he was indicted under did not apply until later, but Republican Conference rules forced him to resign temporarily from his position as Majority Leader. However, as of yet, the prosecutor has still not brought the case before a jury.

jwest

SteveK,

I don’t know if you’re agreeing with me and being sarcastic about DeLay or if you believe there is some comparison between the two.

DeLay was indicted by a hyper-partisan prosecutor named Ronnie Earl, who had asked two grand juries previously to bring an indictment against DeLay but refused because there was no case.

True to the maxim that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor wants it, the third time was a charm. As you mentioned, this case has not been brought to court yet, even though it has been sitting there for years. This is truly a case of abuse of office by Ronnie Earl for political purposes.

DeLay stepped down from his leadership position because of the accusation, something no Democrat would ever dream of doing.

I’m sure if you look back in the TMV archives, the authors here probably wore out a number of keyboards making sure everyone knew DeLay’s name was linked to an indictment.

SteveK

jwest wrote: "I don’t know if you’re agreeing with me..."
No, I was not agreeing with you.
jwest wrote: "DeLay was indicted..."
Yes jwest, DeLay WAS INDICTED... John Murtha WAS NOT. Not yet anyhow.
jwest wrote: "I’m sure if you look back in the TMV archives, the authors here probably wore out a number of keyboards making sure everyone knew DeLay’s name was linked to an indictment."
I'm sure 'a number of keyboards' will be worn out IF John Murtha's name is linked to an indictment, too.

At some point in the future John Murtha may, or may not, be indicted but it will be investigators, prosecutors, and the court based on actual FACT that make that determination... NOT you or me.

adesnik

Anna, perhaps if I clarify my point, it won't seem like I'm comparing apples and oranges. Murtha presented himself as an uncompromising defender of what's in our troops' best interests -- in his opinion, a withdrawal from Iraq. What I question is whether someone who apparently misappropriated millions of dollars intended to support our troops has any right to talk about what's in their best interest.

Naturally, Murtha's criminality doesn't have any bearing on the abstract question of whether, in late 2006 and early 2007, it would have been wiser to withdraw from Iraq rather than initiate a surge. But Murtha's emergence as key spokesman for the anti-surge position rested very much on the perception that he (a Marine veteran, I should add) sincerely loved the troops and was speaking from the heart. If Murtha's other activities were subjected to a bit more scrutinity at the time, I don't think that either his fellow Democrats or the Sunday morning hosts would've treated him as a credible spokesman.

blog comments powered by Disqus