Pelosi Backs Murtha for No. 2: Iraq over Ethics?

posted by David Corn on 11/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (175)

Subscribe Now

This morning, I called Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, to ask about the potential congressional reforms House Speaker-To-Be Nancy Pelosi is expected to push on Day One. But before we got to that, Sloan teed off on Pelosi for having endorsed Representative Jack Murtha, the hawk turned Iraq war critic, in his fight against Representative Steny Hoyer to be the House Democratic majority leader, the powerful number-two job in the body. "Murtha has lots of ethics issues," Sloan exclaimed. "What the hell is she thinking? Corruption turns out to be a major issue in the campaign, and you endorse the guy with the more ethics problems?"

Sloan was referring to exit polls that noted that 42 percent of voters considered corruption and congressional scandals critical to their voting decisions. And she pointed to her outfit's Beyond DeLay site that lists the "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress." Murtha was not on that roster, but he garnered one of five "Dishonorable Mentions" (along with Republican Representatives Dennis Hastert, the outgoing speaker, J.D. Hayworth, who was defeated in Arizona last week, and Don Sherwood, who was accused by his mistress of choking her and who also lost his bid for reelection).

CREW's low-down on Murtha charges that he abused his position as the senior member of the defense appropriations subcommittee to steer contracts to military firms represented by his brother, a registered lobbyist. The report also notes that Murtha routinely inserted funding earmarks into defense spending bills for contractors that funded his campaigns and hired a lobbying firm run by a former aide on the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Murtha, according to Sloan, was also instrumental in undermining the House ethics committee. In the late 1990s, he successfully pushed (with other legislators) to change the committee's rules to prevent it from accepting ethics complaints from parties outside Congress. He also pressed Democratic leaders to name Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia the senior Democrat of the ethics committee. Mollohan has had his own ethics troubles--which have forced him off the ethics committee--and is a member of CREW's Top (or Bottom) 20. (See here.) "Murtha really doesn't like the ethics committee," says Sloan, speculating this may be due to Murtha's involvement in the Abscam bribery scandal of the late 1970s and early 1980s. (The ethics committee chose not to file charges against Murtha, after which the panel's special counsel resigned in protest.) "Murtha seems like a bad choice from our perspective," Sloan said.

The fight to be Pelosi's No. 2 has its odd dynamics. Hoyer is regarded as a centrist sort of Democrat. He's no virgin when it comes to the institutional corruptions of House, readily hitting up corporate interests for campaign cash. But Hoyer has not been accused of ethical violations. Though Murtha advocates a get-out-of-Iraq-now position, he is a hawkish conservative who has attacked Hoyer for being too liberal.

By publicly endorsing Murtha--who has voted more with the Republicans than almost every other House Democrat--Pelosi has backed the fellow who has been less loyal to the party, who has engaged in liberal-baiting, and who is widely considered to be the underdog in the race. Murtha is indeed the Democrats' leading critic of the war, and he and Pelosi, another war opponent, have found themselves in the same foxhole. (Hoyer, like Murtha, voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq, but he has not turned on the war and has criticized Democratic calls for withdrawal.) Perhaps Pelosi figured that with the Iraq war likely to be the major source of dispute between her and the White House (and congressional Republicans), she needed an antiwar hawk right by her side. But much of this present tussle might be more personal than policy. Pelosi and Hoyer have long been rivals; she defeated Hoyer to become the Democratic minority leader.

In the Murtha-Hoyer face-off, is the choice ethics versus opposition to the war? Conservative versus centrist? A Pelosi ally versus a Pelosi rival? Whatever it is, siding publicly with Murtha is risky for Pelosi. Should Murtha lose, Pelosi will look like a weak leader--at the start. This is a contest between two imperfect candidates, each carrying different baggage. It might have been wise for her to duck.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (175)

can't nancy do anything right?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 4:02pm
according to this website, it seems that she can't......

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 4:02pm
What did I say Mask? My money's still on Murtha for Majority Leader, despite the "underdog" status. Pelosi simply cannot have a pro-war majority leader and make her program stick. That means Murtha, ethics problems and all. Since most of his ethical failings are tied to things that are about to be eliminated anyway (like earmarks) I doubt that will be the same problem in the future. Sure, he'll still be problem for the party, but in time that can be changed too. For now, he's what the Democrats need to work the withdrawal magic. All else flows from that calculation by Pelosi, and she seldom fails at the political math.

Posted by Stwriley at 11/13/2006 @ 4:08pm
As unattractive as it sounds, Representatives are only doing what the nature of our system requires them to do. They must benefit their benefactors: whether it's the voters in their constituency through earmarks for their district or government largesse for their funders, they're merely playing the game. Chances are there are few if any representatives in the House or senators in the Senate who have not done what Murtha has - the only difference being that they haven't been identified.

If we're not willing to change our flawed system of government, we have nothing to complain about.

Posted by felicity at 11/13/2006 @ 4:22pm
Murtha and withdrawl now will help the label of cut and run stick..like dog shit on the shoes during the 08 elections....

I think the dems are setting up their own ouster before they even take power...I believe they are know for their circular firing squads... all I can say is, FIRE!!!!!

Posted by john maasch at 11/13/2006 @ 4:24pm
These next 2 years are going to be more fun than I thought...

Posted by john maasch at 11/13/2006 @ 4:25pm
"But on balance, he is much more know for his strong defense of the military and of national security. "

HUH? Do you think the military buys into this? I don't.

Posted by john maasch at 11/13/2006 @ 4:26pm
Jack Murtha made a great move by standing up to the Bush White House on Iraq, but other than that, I don't see why Pelosi has any reason to back him as the Democratic Majority Leader.

Just shows why Iraq is the defining issue of this generation.

Posted by friedmcc at 11/13/2006 @ 4:28pm
Maasch -

Given your forecasts recently, I am surprised to see you making predictions on 2008 already.

Re: Murtha. I am sure that the military "buys into this" given he consulted with many leaders in the military before making his position public.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 4:38pm
Rio -

I think it is hilarious that you seem to think the U.S. should heed the rhetoric coming from Islamic Jihad and Hamas on issues of foreign policy.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 4:42pm
rio bravo- as an america who supports the palestinian resistence that's music to my ears. however, there has been a palestinian resistence since israel was invented in 1948. I kind of doubt the iraq war confirmed anything about anything over there.

as far as an end to the "american empire"? great. we are a republic not an empire, as pat buchanan wrote. nothing would be better for this country than for us to get out of the middle east lock stock and barrel. full speed ahead then!

also, murthas obvious name recognition and credibility on Iraq make up for any ethics problems he has and then some i think. also, as far as democratic infighting, republicans are so utterly self absorbed I doubt they'll even notice.

Posted by lester1/2jr at 11/13/2006 @ 4:44pm
if opposition to the iraq war, and gathering all of the resources possible to get out, was the centerpiece of the left's recent rise in power, then murtha is an obvious choice for pelosi.

i'm curious as to why so much criticism is being heaped on pelosi, for months now.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 4:57pm
and my criticism of the criticisms is not based on the fact that nancy has XY chromosomes!

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 4:58pm
Rio, doesn't like democracy when it doesn't do what terrorists want.

Rio liked Democracy in 1980 when terrorists kidnapped our diplomats and held them hostage until we elected Raygun. Rio liked that example of democracy.

Rio liked democracy in 2004 when OBL told us to vote Kerry (knowing full well it would tip the scales to Bush). Yeah Rio liked that example of democracy.

But when the American people tell the terrorists that we refuse to be frightened anymore......Rio doesn't like democracy.

Posted by freedomplease at 11/13/2006 @ 5:15pm
Rio - Democrats are selling out to "our enemies", huh? Ironic that the only ones getting arrested for terrorist activities here at home seem to be your ideological soulmates like Chad Castagana.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 5:16pm
The Demoncrats will sell America out to our enemies and it is already beginning! I can see why it makes you so proud!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 5:08pm

Special to The Washington Post Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS -- During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," he said.

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 5:28pm
Chad Castagana.

Posted by HMAN23 11/13/2006 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person

??

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 5:31pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/13/2006 @ 5:28pm

isn't he the guy that was having an adulterous affair? Broomstick values has to be a small voting block.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 5:37pm
Posted by HMAN23 11/13/2006 @ 4:42pm

That's the expertise of reactionaries like Rio Bravo.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/13/2006 @ 5:49pm
The self-identified "conservative" arrested for sending white powder-laced letters to Pelosi, Olberman, Stewart and Letterman.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 5:56pm
Posted by CRABWALK 11/13/2006 @ 5:37pm

The man has enough skeletons to fill a graveyard.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 5:57pm
BEWARE THE MURTHA!

it legitimizes democratic claims to be manly hawkish enough, but it lurches and lumbers through ethics like an old style machine dem pol and votes like a pub...

well, if it is found to be too "ethically challenged" to stomach, let it get "investigated" along with the pubs. no reason for the dems to not trim their own ranks when needed. dems need to make a "no BS" deal with the country and walk the walk. and do so savily...savvily?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 6:18pm
Lastly, Fear. She's an incredibly pursuasive quality leader. Wingnuts are scared shitless of her.

damn right she is....and damn right they are.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 6:21pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 6:21pm

who? nancy pelosi?

man, that the most irritating pub talking point, "nancy pelosi blah blah blah nancy pelosi blah blah blah nancy pelosi blah blah blah"

over and over and over saying "nancy pelosi" ad nauseum as if coached by some propagandist to make sure to say "nancy pelosi" as many times as possible as if somehow to invoke some hillaryclintonesque male revulsion impulse by simply saying "nancy pelosi nancy pelosi nancy pelosi nancy pelosi" would do anything other than piss me off for any number of reasons.

well, to all who loved saying "nancy pelosi" so during the last days prior to the election, i offer this, to help you get used to the new reality...

NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSINANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI NANCY PELOSI

whew...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 6:36pm
NANCY PELOSI????!?!??

While I hope they do well, i am sure all that bi-partisan talk will go out the window pretty quick.

Speaker Pelosi is already setting off a fight within her own party...it is going to be intresting to see who wins out.

The conservative DEMS (which is how they took control, lets be honest) or the Moveon.org/Nation liberals.

The elected conservative dems to put extremist ones in power...as Sowell says.

As a political matter, IF pelosi comes off trying to shove her uber-libertine values down America's throat...then it could be the shortest Speakership ever.

Watch the tone coming out of their mouths...i bet it wont sound so unhinged as it used to.

Posted by CPT at 11/13/2006 @ 7:04pm
corn at least does a wonderful job of discussing policy, strategy, etc, whereas the vast wasteland that is the mainstream pundit-land prefers to discuss her clothing, tone, manner, voice, hair, face, teeth, lips, make up, and her height......and even when they DO discuss strategy or policy, they often fall back on that usual "she just doesn't understand" or "there's only one way to play this game." very rarely do the wise beltway pundits stray from that conventional, deep structured sexism which is so prevalent on the east coast---and talk about the effects of her decisions. it's her very sexual nature that is continually brought to the table, rather than how her real-time decisions have manifested in physical reality.

for some reason, pelosi's opposition to the war has passed right over zero's head....and into the land of oblivion. that she hasn't called for the president's head on a platter is enough to brand her 'one of them'. it simply isn't true. she.....to make a long story short.....won.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 7:06pm
and she's determined to investigate and punish, if possible.

and get the f*ck out of iraq pronto.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 7:07pm
and she's from my city, so i have a particular fondness for her....

yeah, yeah, she privatized the presidio, among other lamentable decisions, but as a whole, she's effective....and will be even more so now.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 7:08pm
It's one hell of a lame party that has to choose between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 7:08pm
Murtha may have all the problems you mention David - but who gives a crap? He's one of the ONLY dems who ever comes across as sincere in his media appearances - he's got a king high stack of pathos next to the piddling stacks most members convey. That counts for a lot more than you might think. Though his voting record sucks - so do those of practically every dem but kucinich - so "shrug".

Posted by Lindsey at 11/13/2006 @ 7:11pm
there is a certain amount of corruption that goes with power (really ibble?). how much is realistically acceptable? our politicians are extensions of ourselves.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 7:17pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:06pm

Too bad, isn't it, that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough or have enough character to back up Murtha when he advocated even a half step like redeployment?

But, then, I guess I should cringe at the possibility of being characterized as an "extreme leftist" if I don't think Princess Pelosi is perfect in every way.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 7:18pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 7:18pm |

so, you commie, what you think about that "truth and reconciliation" stuff? sounds like the best leninist doublespeak i've heard seriously in years.

maybe the dems DO have their act together...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 7:23pm
It's one hell of a lame party that has to choose between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 7:08pm

Which I guess gives us a pretty good measure of the actual power of the Progressive Causcus of the Democratic Party.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 7:26pm
Too bad, isn't it, that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough or have enough character to back up Murtha when he advocated even a half step like redeployment?

a predictably shallow understanding of the power dynamics within not only with respect to exit strategies, but in the more general respect of party unity--especially post-mid terms. FRB, can you actually articulate how pelosi's "ineffectiveness" since last november (when murtha took his current position) has manifested in terms of effective exit strategies?

Princess Pelosi

and yet another example of using her sex to evade articulating the real time effects of her voting record, policy proposals and party strategies......FRB cannot tell us how pelosi has been "ineffective" with respect to exiting iraq, other than mentioning that she didn't authorize the use of force back in 2003.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 7:28pm
as party leader, if pelosi were to singularly embrace a more hard left stance on everything from iraq to tax cuts, the possibility of moving the party forward, and holding the opposition accountable, would diminish significantly. the elections were still pretty close, and most of the country does not support an immediate withdrawal (nor do most iraqis). polls show that a majority of iraqis and americans support withdrawal, but on a timetable.

as party leader, how does one respond to the demand?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 7:36pm
well the divine ms. P will do her best to build a democratic majority that will last long enough to get some meaningful legislation passed. sounds like a good game plan to me...

in order to do so she will still have to reach out to possibly newly enboldened closet progressive republicans as well...

first things first...get set up and do so with style and dignity. the storm will begin soon enough.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 7:59pm
CPT:

Since you claim the conservative Dems are responsible for the shift in power, I take it conservatives are still the de-facto majority presence in Congress.

As such, I do not want to see you complaining about any legislation for the next two years. I'll be watching.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/13/2006 @ 8:17pm
HMAN23

It is no claim, but a statement of fact, many of the DEMS who won house and Senate seats ran as moderates or to the right on many issues.

Why do you think Ford in TN had such a strong showing though he lost. He ran right on many issues and was all about displaying his faith wherever possible.

Complaining????

Well i all can say now that the DEMs are "in charge" is:

It is much easier to complain and criticize when one is on the sidelines, now that you are actually in the game, it is a slight difference and things arent as easy as one thinks.

Dont worry i will be quick to point out their hypocrisey when and if they display it.

Posted by CPT at 11/13/2006 @ 8:25pm
Too bad, isn't it, that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough or have enough character to back up Murtha when he advocated even a half step like redeployment?

a predictably shallow understanding of the power dynamics within not only with respect to exit strategies, but in the more general respect of party unity--especially post-mid terms. FRB, can you actually articulate how pelosi's "ineffectiveness" since last november (when murtha took his current position) has manifested in terms of effective exit strategies?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:28pm

Do you have anything to say that has any relevance to what I said?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 8:35pm
With friends like the Demoncrats who needs enemies abroad!!!!!!!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 8:30pm |

How about a little civil war here, Rio? would that make you happy. Have America look like Iraq? You seem to think it is rosy over there.

What about spreading freedom? Why are you opposed to that? You hate democracy, we have established that. And Freedom of press and religion. Now you would go after the right to access to a court and ability to view evidence?

You really are a sad person.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 8:37pm
frb, how was pelosi singularly ineffective?

what do you wish pelosi would have done?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 8:37pm
Too bad, isn't it, that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough or have enough character to back up Murtha when he advocated even a half step like redeployment?

But, then, I guess I should cringe at the possibility of being characterized as an "extreme leftist" if I don't think Princess Pelosi is perfect in every way.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 7:18pm

and yet another example of using her sex to evade articulating the real time effects of her voting record, policy proposals and party strategies......FRB cannot tell us how pelosi has been "ineffective" with respect to exiting iraq, other than mentioning that she didn't authorize the use of force back in 2003.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person

as party leader, if pelosi were to singularly embrace a more hard left stance on everything from iraq to tax cuts, the possibility of moving the party forward, and holding the opposition accountable, would diminish significantly. the elections were still pretty close, and most of the country does not support an immediate withdrawal (nor do most iraqis). polls show that a majority of iraqis and americans support withdrawal, but on a timetable.

as party leader, how does one respond to the demand?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:36pm

Do you have anything to say that has any relevance to what I said?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 8:38pm
Murtha in charge would signal that it is bid-ness as usual. It's been a good six days. We at least have that memory.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 8:39pm
frb, how was pelosi singularly ineffective?

what do you wish pelosi would have done?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 8:37pm

DARLADOON, could you please point out exactly where I said, "Pelosi is singularly ineffective"?

If you want to invent quotes and talk to yourself about the invented quotes that's fine with me but please stop attributing the invented quotes to me.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 8:42pm
so pelosi was "ineffective" by not "backing up" murtha's plan for phased withdrawal?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 8:42pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 8:30pm

do a google video search - keywords "islam texas". watch the video...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 8:43pm
that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough

that was your statement. seems pretty clear to me that you're saying that pelosi was not effective, or ineffective....

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 8:43pm
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." George W. Bush--Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Posted by crabwalk at 11/13/2006 @ 8:54pm
Too bad, isn't it, that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough or have enough character to back up Murtha when he advocated even a half step like redeployment?

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 7:18pm

frb, how was pelosi singularly ineffective?

what do you wish pelosi would have done?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 8:37pm

DARLADOON, could you please point out exactly where I said, "Pelosi is singularly ineffective"?

If you want to invent quotes and talk to yourself about the invented quotes that's fine with me but please stop attributing the invented quotes to me.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 8:42pm

that Pelosi wasn't "effective" enough

that was your statement. seems pretty clear to me that you're saying that pelosi was not effective, or ineffective....

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 8:43pm

No, DARLADOON, that isn't what I said as anyone can see. Chopping up someone's sentence like you're constructing a ransom note doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 8:56pm
does anyone hear actually believe that if pelosi had "backed up" murtha last november, when he broke ranks with the conservative side of the party, that we would be out of iraq by now?

this is where the term "not effective" doesn't apply.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:02pm
Let no one say that the Nation is loathe to criticize Democrats! No blind loyalty here. . . .

Posted by hhemwm at 11/13/2006 @ 9:03pm
FRB, are you ok?

here answer this:

how was pelosi not effective in not backing up murtha?

forget everything said up until now, just answer the question.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:03pm
The simple fact of the matter is that the average Democrat, in practical terms, has lagged far, far behind the wishes of the average American. They finally, after years and when the risks have reached the very apogee of risklessness, have developed the courage to say the "W" word.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 9:04pm
does anyone hear actually believe that if pelosi had "backed up" murtha last november, when he broke ranks with the conservative side of the party, that we would be out of iraq by now?

this is where the term "not effective" doesn't apply.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 9:02pm

Your reasoning is that taking the first step later is better than taking the first step earlier unless the destination is achieved by X arbitrary point in time? Do you think that has a logical ring to it?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 9:09pm
Your reasoning is that taking the first step later is better than taking the first step earlier unless the destination is achieved by X arbitrary point in time? Do you think that has a logical ring to it

it's not logical because the minority party never had the votes, and still don't. they will at the end of january, though....

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:13pm
in other words, there would have been no gain for pelosi, or the party, for her to have vocally supported the murtha plan when he first introduced it. nor the kerry/feingold plan either.

in january, she will be perfectly poised to take care of this once and for all, and then investigate.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:14pm
how was pelosi not effective in not backing up murtha?

forget everything said up until now, just answer the question.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 9:03pm

Forget everything said up until now? How long does this go on?

Are you really, truthfully having so much difficulty understanding that if the Democratic minority speaker had spoken out in support of a beginning of withdrawal from Iraq rather than standing mute and saying nothing, when a solid percentage of Americans wanted exactly that, then she would have been displaying the leadership Americans want to see rather than the political cowardice they have seen enough of?

I've had enough of this. Goodbye.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 9:17pm
She's doing the right thing. Nothing is more important than the war and Murtha is pugnacious on that subject. He also has more credibility than Hoyer.

Intrepid Liberal Journal [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]

Posted by trebor007 at 11/13/2006 @ 9:20pm
If the consequences of speaking out were so dire as you portray them then why is Murtha about to be elevated to majority leader? I'm sorry, but if you expect me to spend time responding to you you need to inject a little balance and logic into what you're saying.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 9:21pm
for pelosi to have stood behind murtha's plan last november, when his plan had no traction whatsoever, and when the concept of a phased withdrawal had not yet entered the discourse, mind you, and when no other viable alternatives had been proposed, would have been futile and perhaps counter-productive in the short term.

pelosi is not an isolated democrat: she is her party's leader.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:27pm
and is there any point in isolating members of congress when most americans want a unified opposition?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:28pm
FRB, i'm more curious in how the power dynamic plays out over time, then in particular members of congress having different understandings of viable exit strategies.

why, for example, did the feingold/kerry plan have no traction?

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:29pm
i agree with TREBOR. murtha is the man for now...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2006 @ 9:34pm
Why Murtha or Hoyer? How about Conyers, Rangle, or Waxman? I understand that these three are likely to be committee chairs, and their time will not be completely theirs, but shouldn't we put a majority leader that is at least somewhat progressive?

Posted by LarryB at 11/13/2006 @ 9:40pm
"Murtha has lots of ethics issues," Sloan exclaimed. "What the hell is she thinking? Corruption turns out to be a major issue in the campaign, and you endorse the guy with the more ethics problems?"

The line Melanie left out was...."But don't worry, I think we can cover for him...after all we're not a NON-partisan watch dog group!"

But what'd be funny is....

what if Murtha LOST his bid for Majority Leader?

First issue out to demonstrate "Speaker Nancy's" leadership and more importantly POWER...and she LOSES?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 11/13/2006 @ 9:45pm
when you look at where the party is split along iraq lines, it makes sense for pelosi to throw her support behind someone for whom the majority of party members are behind vis a vis iraq.

kerry and feingold got, what, 11 or 12 votes in the senate? that's not very many.

Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 9:49pm
Posted by ZERO 11/13/2006 @ 11:32pm

Exactly. When she had the chance to provide a little leadership she instead displayed an excess of fear. It's true, however, that the fear was only a reflection of the widespread cowardice and lack of progressive principles and character of the great majority of the Democratic Party.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 12:54am
Posted by ZERO 11/13/2006 @ 11:32pm

You're right about the other situation, too. It's "ring around the rosies" and a thread to nowhere. I think, for this one, the defining issue is first, israel, and then a Middle East policy that serves israel, and then ideological support of the politicians that are owned by israel.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 01:01am
on pelosi, btw, isn't it amazing how rapidly people forget that she was pro-war until only as recently as a bit earlier this year, when a combination of the polls and the strong impact Murtha had (apparently) convinced her high-paid consultants that it was it safe to change her mind for her? long before Murtha made his stand, during his stand, and even afterwards, the silence from her office was DEAFENING. the response from her office even as far back as the state of the union address has been the dim "the war must be managed better" line that comes from Hillary.

Posted by ZERO 11/13/2006 @ 11:32pm

She voted against the use of force resolution but did not speak out unequivocably and publicly against the occupation and, in fact, still is tongue-tied about it. Her local public meetings have been packed with constituents demanding that she speak up but she has stoutly refused to. That makes me wonder about the sincerity of the original vote. It isn't like they needed her vote to pass it.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 01:09am
it would be interesting to see pelosi forced to make a public statement on the ongoing slaughter in Gaza, and the siege of the Palestinian Authority. that rancorous situation has not changed and will continue to destabilize and inflame the entire middle east. it would be interesting to see pelosi forced to make a real stand in public on the situation in Gaza and with the PA because we could see whether in truth when push comes to shove she is about the current status quo or a positive change away from the status quo

Posted by ZERO 11/13/2006 @ 11:40pm

If she takes a stand on that she will simply provide more of the political and ideological propaganda cover for the Palestinian ethnic cleansing that she has so many times in the past. She gives the impression that she is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the israel lobby. It's noteworthy though that she didn't (so far) bend to their wishes on the Jane Harman committee chairmanship-for-a-free-pass-on-israeli spying deal.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 01:15am
All repubes should die from cancer of the face.

Hate is the only truth.

Pelosi did right. Dems have so few men who don't look and act like Jews they need Murtha.

Posted by jones at 11/14/2006 @ 01:32am
right on, zero.

hell, in terms of pelosi, she and lantos together are about as crazy far-right on israel as any "neoconservative" and in a very deep way are as dangerous on middle east policies as are the "neoconservatives" themselves. much of the impetus for the iraq war came from de facto israeli operatives working in and around the american government, and that same apparatus harnesses pelosi, lantos, lieberman, etc. just as it does republican politicians.

Posted by jones at 11/14/2006 @ 01:38am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 4:28pm

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 4:34pm

Rio -

I, for one, would appreciate it a great deal if I could read these boards without you providing aid and comfort to the enemy by forwarding us every scrap of terrorist propaganda you can find.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 02:30am
"But on balance, he is much more know for his strong defense of the military and of national security. "

HUH? Do you think the military buys into this? I don't.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/13/2006 @ 4:26pm

The IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) give Murtha's voting record regarding matters of concern to our troops a "B".

http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/?id=511&lvl=C&chamber=H

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 02:31am
Dems have so few men who don't look and act like Jews they need Murtha.

Posted by JONES 11/14/2006 @ 01:32am

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with looking (which indicates you don't know much about Jews) or acting (whatever that means to you) like a Jew. I know Jews who were absolutely opposed to the invasion of Iraq long before it ever happened, just like me and unlike Murtha.

Not every Jew in the world is guilty of advocating or failing to oppose the ethnic cleansing of Palestine just as not every German in the world is guilty of the crimes of the German nazis of the 1930's and 1940's.

If simple anti-semitism is your thing then you are no better than the israeli ethnic cleansers. I'm not accusing you of that but your terms of reference could be interpreted that way.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 02:41am
Hate is the only truth.

Posted by JONES 11/14/2006 @ 01:32am

Highly disputable but not in need of disputation because it's so self-evident.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 02:44am
well, the idea that there is to be some kind of great lefty revolution is either lefty fantasy or righty scare propaganda. if the dems do form a long term majority we will likely eventually see some action by government that righties will call socialist and real lefties will say is not enough.

most of the ideas the ayn randers demonize as "big gov socialist evil" are good for business in the long run, like health care reform...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2006 @ 07:02am
Posted by CRABWALK 11/13/2006 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person

Oh come on now, I have seen alot worse said about the other side here, and some of it was from you.

Is it RIO's comments or the you own hypocrisey that bugs you?

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 07:30am
CRABWALK

One need only look at JONES's 1:32 am post for an example.

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 07:32am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/14/2006 @ 12:17am

Wow, are you an idot or what?

Posted by CPT 11/14/2006 @ 07:30am

Have I ever supplied a format for the Islamists? Day after day after day? Have I ever expressed disdain for freedom and democracy? Or the judicial system?

Jones's comment was obscene and I condemn it. At the same time zero and Red are not far off the truth. Just think of the positive push we would get if we told Israel, "we have given you 50 years to get your house together and you have failed, we are outta here." Are we prepared to stay in Iraq that long.

And CPT, caught your performance on The Simpsons Sunday. Good job!

Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2006 @ 08:10am
and most of the country does not support an immediate withdrawal (nor do most iraqis)

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person

Where are you getting this information from? Most of the country does support a withdrawal, however immediate it may be........and if you look at any polls that werent done by a GWB think tank, the majority of Iraqi citizens wanted us out yesterday. Our presence is what fuels the fire over there, not to mention we are stuck in the middle of a civil war. If Pelosi doesnt work to get us out of there ASAP she knows her leadership will be short lived, hence the need to go with Murtha. Furthermore, if Pelosi doesnt deliver on her promises I will be extremely sad............better repeal the Bush tax breaks for the uber rich within the first week of the new term or she will just be another fraud.

Posted by jpolston at 11/14/2006 @ 09:32am
if you want to get out of Iraq anytime soon, back murtha

Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2006 @ 09:35am
and who names their kid Steny?

Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2006 @ 09:35am
everyone bow down before the almighty zero, who chooses to cherry pick anything to bolster his argument, rather than look at my full comments, and in context.

pelosi doesn't matter, and anyone with a keen sense of power dynamics that exist across the party's dense weave, would realize this.

to zero, if you don't fall in line with his beliefs on everything, let alone the war, you're the following:

*treasonous

*evil

*not to be trusted

and what does lantos have to do with this?

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 09:37am
here is the NUMBER ONE LIE OF ZERO'S POST, AND NOBODY SEEMED TO NOTICE:

NANCY PELOSI DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ.

but to zero, if you don't attempt to seize the president in a burlap sack, and cut his head off, then you're a traitorous zionist scum!

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 09:43am
Oh dear, the bloom is off the rose for the "Ignore Couple" romance....

"FRB: i had the same problem with that dimwit. she has sacred cows and an attitude, but not much else." (Speaking of DARLADOON)

Posted by ZERO 11/13/2006 @ 11:32pm

Poor DD, she's put everybody on Ignore but FRB (who thinks she'd be "comfortable being a Republican") and ZERO (who thinks she's a "dimwit").

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 09:46am
let's just piece through zero's arguments piece by piece, shall we? let's rate, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being truthfulness, and 10 being outrageousness), each piece.

statement 1:

hell, in terms of pelosi, she and lantos together are about as crazy far-right on israel as any "neoconservative" and in a very deep way are as dangerous on middle east policies as are the "neoconservatives" themselves.

let's score this a big, whopping 10. "crazy far right" like bill kristol? who is calling for the invasion of iran and syria, to bolster our support of israel? and who is also called for the invasion of iraq, and who wants more troops (like cheney)?

statement 2:

much of the impetus for the iraq war came from de facto israeli operatives working in and around the american government, and that same apparatus harnesses pelosi, lantos, lieberman, etc. just as it does republican politicians

another 10! in book and after book, it is now well known that the impetus for the iraq war came primarily from two sources: the neo-conservative inner circle, who deliberately leaves democrats in the dark (read: WMD). zero, you are UNHINGED if you think pelosi is part of the neo-conservative inner circle.

statement 3:

it would be interesting to see pelosi forced to make a public statement on the ongoing slaughter in Gaza, and the siege of the Palestinian Authority. that rancorous situation has not changed and will continue to destabilize and inflame the entire middle east. it would be interesting to see pelosi forced to make a real stand in public on the situation in Gaza and with the PA because we could see whether in truth when push comes to shove she is about the current status quo or a positive change away from the status quo

i'll be polite and give this a 9. why on earth would pelosi take on, in public, something as abstract and amorphous as "the situation in gaza and with the PA", as opposed to taking real, concrete steps to first get us out of iraq? what could pelosi, in and of herself, do to stop the US from supporting israel? and zero, do you actually advocate withdrawing all support for israel? and while you're bashing the united states, why don't you include every jew on the planet?

it is now clear, in retrospect, that the democratic party would have gotten nowhere had pelosi stood behind the murtha plan last november. now that nancy is in control, she can get her goal of getting out of iraq accomplished in a realistic manner.

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 09:52am
Posted by CRABWALK 11/14/2006 @ 08:10am | ignore this person

Yes the iconoclast animated tv show the Simpsons, no artistic liberal license there, they are a perfect mirror on society and reflect only abject truth.

Israel? not sure where you going with that comment.

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 09:58am
zero is what you might call an extremist: he wants the most extreme measures taken on everything from iraq to gaza to lebanon. anything that falls short he views as morally reprehensible, while not taking into account the very real effects of extremist positions.

we should all be glad that pelosi is pushing for a sweeping agenda, a reversal of tax cuts for the wealthy, competitive drug markets, out of iraq, investigations into iraq, implementing 9/11 commission regulations, and countless other positive social changes.

and for godssakes, she hasn't even had her first day yet!

zero's greatest shortcoming is believing in two things:

* politicians

* political parties

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 10:01am
btw, anyone who challenges zero's ideas is a dimwit. conversely, anyone who embraces his ideas is a friend.

now we know how horrible a politician zero would be, especially with respect to israel.

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 10:06am
just to prove how unpopular zero's ideas are, while at the same time demonstrating how diverse the democratic party is, here is an op-ed piece from the american prospect this morning:

Some Democrats want to expose the malfeasance and nonfeasance of the Bush Administration -- find out who really knew what and when with regard to weapons of mass destruction, Abu Graahb, Katrina, payoffs to Abramoff, and all the other rot. That's understandable, but it would be far better if Democrats used their new-found power to lay out a new agenda for America.

There's no point digging up more dirt. Bush isn't running again. John McCain, the Republican's most likely choice to replace him, has distanced himself so far from the administration that no amount of dirt will soil him. Besides, the public and the media are already suffering from outrage fatigue. And the Democrats wouldn't be credible, anyway. It will be easy for Republicans to dismiss their efforts as more of the same old partisan bickering. The fact is, the public is sick of mud-slinging.

Instead of dwelling on what's gone wrong, Democrats should focus on what to do right

anyone care to comment?

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 10:10am
they call them the do-nothing congress, but perhaps that's because they're all ZEROS!

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 10:11am
anyone care to comment?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 10:10am

Okay, I think DD is a doll, but ZERO nailed it...she IS a dimwit, because....

how is anybody supposed to be ABLE to "comment" to her...when she has practically EVERYBODY on "Ignore"?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 10:44am
Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 09:52am

DARLADOON, to be polite about it, you simply don't understand what you're talking about, you're biased against any change in that, and you have a persistent and peculiar habit of quickly trying to bolster your arguments by flinging insulting names.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 10:57am
anyone care to comment?

Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 10:10am | ignore this person

I would comment, but since you didnt respond to my last comment on this thread, it indicates that you must have me on ingnore also. The funny thing is.........Zero and DD are cut from the same cloth.......they act like open minded progressives, but ignore and dismiss ANYONE who doesnt agree with their ideology. I will give Pelosi three months after she takes control to actually do some of the things she stated she would in her first 100 hours. However, I'm not holding my breath.......she is a career politician at this point, and has done nothing in the last two years that deserves the respect she is currently getting. Where was she when we needed her most.............sitting on the sidelines and letting BushCo. get away with murder. Repeal the tax cuts for the uber rich and get us out of Iraq. Thats what the voters want, listen to them.

Posted by jpolston at 11/14/2006 @ 11:05am
and most of the country does not support an immediate withdrawal (nor do most iraqis)

Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 7:36pm

Where are you getting this information from?

Posted by JPOLSTON 11/14/2006 @ 09:32am

She cherrypicked the one poll that lent some support to her statement while ignoring two others that utterly repudiated the one she cherrypicked.

everyone bow down before the almighty zero, who chooses to cherry pick anything to bolster his argument . . .

Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 09:37am

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 11:06am
Okay, I think DD is a doll, but ZERO nailed it...she IS a dimwit, because....

how is anybody supposed to be ABLE to "comment" to her...when she has practically EVERYBODY on "Ignore"?!?!?!

Posted by MASK 11/14/2006 @ 10:44am

Oh, poor ittle MASK. Now he's calling DARLADOON names because he keeps trying to whip up hatred of FRB by urging her on but she isn't nice enough to even take him off the ignore list and hear what he has to say. LOL.

It's hard, isn't it, being a "conservative Democrat" (according to you) whose single goal in life is to attack anyone in the Democratic Party who is anything other than a Republican inside the Democratic Party?

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 11:15am
CPT

Why do you think Ford in TN had such a strong showing though he lost. He ran right on many issues and was all about displaying his faith wherever possible.

That undercuts your point. He was arguably the most conservative of the Dem Senatorial candidates and the only one who lost. You are also ignoring the passage of minimum-wage resolutions and the success of anti-Iraq war candidates (as opposed to Tammy Duckworth).

Posted by brunowe at 11/14/2006 @ 11:19am
zero is what you might call an extremist: he wants the most extreme measures taken on everything from iraq to gaza to lebanon. anything that falls short he views as morally reprehensible, while not taking into account the very real effects of extremist positions.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 10:01am

You mean the very real effects like America taking measures to end the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? If you consider that extremist then there's something wrong with you regardless of how often the New York Times serves up moral rationalizations for you.

Why is ethnic cleansing in Kosovo so bad that the US bombed Yugoslavia to smithereens to stop it yet ethnic cleansing in Palestine is so alright that the US ships billions upon billions of America's hardearned taxes to israel to support it to the hilt?

Why the exception for every single human rights issue for Palestinians by the "liberals" of the Democratic Party? That's exactly what the rot is in the Democratic Party that infects everything else.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 11:25am
now we know how horrible a politician zero would be, especially with respect to israel.

Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 10:06am

That's really what it's all about for you, isn't it? Every human rights standard in the world has to be ignored by America in the sole, exceptional case of israel's ethnic cleansing even if it means foreclosing the progressive political development of America forever. That's what you're on the warpath about since the Democrats won the election and why you're duplicating ultra right-wing talking points on the Middle East.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 11:33am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/14/2006 @ 09:29am

so is Europe, S. America and 57% +- of Americans.

CPT, in case you missed it the last 3 times I wrote this...I am a hypocrite. I make no bones about ti.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2006 @ 11:41am
BRUNOWE

Undercuts??? He ran as a quasi righty and yet in TN and got 44% of the vote.

I am not ignoring minimum wage issue, where did that pass again?

But i am paying more attention to the 7 states that passed gay marriage bans and the affirmative action ban in MICH. and the tough crime bill in CALI....and though it was a loss an abortion law in SD that got 44% of the vote, and that law outlawed almost every abortion, and it lost because of the health exception that was not in there, but still garnered alot of votes.

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 11:42am
And Rio, any consideration that maybe the Islamists are happy because the guy that started Crusade 4 got his clock cleaned in an open election, and maybe, just maybe, it will mean an end to some occupations by the US in the ME.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2006 @ 11:53am
CPT, Michigan also elected a dem guv, eschewing a Bush clone, a dem Senator, voted against hunting doves. We are a confused lot, better to not read the tea leaves here.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2006 @ 11:55am
The terrorists are so happy with the election they decided to halt the attacks in Iraq,

Dozens Are Kidnapped at College Office in Baghdad

By ALI ADEEB and JOHN O'NEIL

Published: November 14, 2006

BAGHDAD, Nov. 14 -- Several dozen employees of a university office were kidnapped here today, in a methodical daylight raid that prompted the minister of higher education to berate Parliament and threaten to shut the nation's universities until security improves

Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2006 @ 11:57am
Getting back to the thread topic,there are plenty of reasons [tinyurl.com] to not support Hoyer against Murtha in addition to Hoyer's sabotaging of a withdrawal position by the Democrats.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 12:08pm
But i am paying more attention to the 7 states that passed gay marriage bans and the affirmative action ban in MICH. and the tough crime bill in CALI....and though it was a loss an abortion law in SD that got 44% of the vote, and that law outlawed almost every abortion, and it lost because of the health exception that was not in there, but still garnered alot of votes.

Posted by CPT 11/14/2006 @ 11:42am

It's encouraging the way people like you shoot yourself in the foot after taking careful aim. People get fed up with politically and socially backward red states and move to more civilized areas of the country, like California. Red states lose population and Congressional representation and California gains. Thanks.

Not to mention that the population of your red states aren't quite so red anymore.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 12:16pm
It surely must bite to know that Islamic Facists promoting worldwide terrorism wholeheartedly and unequivically support the Demoncrat party and their American election victory!

Everyone of their leaders and the middle eastern terrorist supporter states are cheering the victory! I doubt you do wish to hear about it!!!!!!! Little wonder why!!!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/14/2006 @ 09:29am

Because, as I've previously stated: unlike you and your scared-shitless ilk, I do not inadvertently support terrorists by forwarding their propaganda to others.

You seem to delight in telling these boards what "Islamic Facists [sic]", worldwide terrorists, their leaders, and the "middle eastern terrorist supporter states" think (like who? Saudi Arabia? Syria?). You stop thinking yourself, however, when it comes to considering and accepting what your fellow Americans think. Why, Rio, do you hate America and your fellow Americans so much that you ignore their voices while simultaneously endorsing terrorist propaganda as your new gospel?

You do know that America recently kicked the Repubs out of power, right, regardless of where they stood on Democrats? Most of us don't care what makes terrorists happy anywhere near as much as we care about how to make them as marginalized and ineffectual as you and your kind have proven to be with your last five years in power.

How sad that you still don't seem to realize that your continuing to come here and spew your side's talking-point drivel after your side got drop-kicked out of power for that very drivel... simply makes you look even more foolish than before.

I've been reading your (same old) crap for a long while now, and it's become clear that you are nothing more than a senile, marginalized pinhead who wouldn't know what was good for America if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

But hey, better get back to work on finding the next piece of terrorist propaganda you can share with us - you've got nothing else worth sharing, anyway.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 12:30pm
because he keeps trying to whip up hatred of FRB

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/14/2006 @ 11:15am

?!?!??!...why do something that's already been done?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 12:34pm
Apparently, the "Democratic" in the Democratic Party...is just for show....hehe

The Hill

November 13, 2006

Pelosi 'will ensure' Murtha win, Murtha ally says

By Josephine Hearn

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will ensure that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) wins his race for majority leader, a key Murtha ally said Monday night.

"She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] win. This is hard-ball politics," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime Murtha supporter. "We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it."

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 12:36pm
RIO BRAVO,

As usual, you have manifest your utter lack of education, instead illuminating with prodigious voltage your poor stock and impressive lack of wits. That people in the US actually speak in such terms is an indictment of the brigands you so poudly defend in your moronic cliff-jumpings such as your latest here. I can just picture you while online, a dumb, disheveled dog wagging its tail aimlessly while licking off your splutterings of echoes from the boob tube and lackluster catchphrases tied in a lousy montage of cornfed idiocy. I'd be ashamed to possess such obviously Liliputian logic as that which you evince here, mixed with a twist of ignominy hungering for respect in what is clearly a life full of wasted time and bad decision, no doubt marred by a monumental absence of talent, culture, decency and ambition. You remain one of the biggest flakes on this site and continue to serve as yet another specimen of americano in decline, diagnosing the ills of the world from the back of a pickup truck in a dirty t-shirt...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 12:52pm
"Anybody care to comment?"...while I block my ears and stomp around so I can't hear anyone anyway.

Posted by urmygyro at 11/14/2006 @ 1:11pm
where in the hell have you been, chimi?

rio, chimi just said that you are so stupid that it is actually impressive. you cannot form a single thought by yourself so you let others dictate your thoughts to you. you've had a painful life with a painfully low self esteem. and you are a filthy beast. oh, and your existence makes the existence of terrorists easier to understand. the demons i work with just told me that you will never be able to grasp the meaning of that last sentence....

darla, why did you say that pelosi has xy chromosomes?

very funny, newdawn.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 1:19pm
FRB

Actually they are still fairly red.....and with guys like you being the activists for the other side.... I have no fear that they will remain as such.

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 1:25pm
CHIMI/Loveloki

Well at least RIO isnt squat shitting in some third world jungle bitching about what America has and what the rest of the world doesnt.

I reckon he can git in that ole pickup and drive wherever he needs be!

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 1:30pm
i wonder if some of the states labeled red really are not so republican. historically, montana is not that red, for example.

from a recent newspaper article by charles johnson:

since 1916, montana's two senators have served a combined 180 years. republicans burns and ecton have served 24 years or 13 percent of the total, while assorted democrats have occupied those two seats 156 years or 87 percent of the time.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 1:35pm
very funny, newdawn.

Posted by LOVELOKI 11/14/2006 @ 1:19pm

Thanks, dear Loki. But when it comes to Rio Braindead, the comedy writes itself.

;)

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 1:39pm
cpt, let me see here if i can comprehend what you are saying.

because rio lives here and can get in his truck and drive around he is good and right. people who are born in places where lots of them starve to death somehow proves rio is good and right. because people are dropping dead for lack of food proves rio is a chosen one of god. because rio can be a glutton with natural resources, he is good and right. because rio can throw in a landfill what might save a life or two, he is good and right.

does that sum it up cpt? because i don't really see what else you could have been alluding to, with your comment.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 1:47pm
Ouch, Loki. Very astute - I got pretty much the same thing from CPT's last post.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 1:57pm
FRB

Actually they are still fairly red.....and with guys like you being the activists for the other side.... I have no fear that they will remain as such.

Posted by CPT 11/14/2006 @ 1:25pm

Except for that total f*** up last week? LOL.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:03pm
cpt, let me see here if i can comprehend what you are saying.

because rio lives here and can get in his truck and drive around he is good and right. people who are born in places where lots of them starve to death somehow proves rio is good and right. because people are dropping dead for lack of food proves rio is a chosen one of god. because rio can be a glutton with natural resources, he is good and right. because rio can throw in a landfill what might save a life or two, he is good and right.

does that sum it up cpt? because i don't really see what else you could have been alluding to, with your comment.

Posted by LOVELOKI 11/14/2006 @ 1:47pm

That's their replacement for the US Constitution. It's easier to understand.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:06pm
europe was living with terrorism long before 911. did any of them totally dismantle their forms of government and institute a police state? no. just the pathetic little love-to-be-persecuted fundyvangelico-fascist bastards here. as more true americans wake up, the blue wave will grow.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 2:11pm
LOVELOKI,

Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight and slaying the dolts of this page.

CPT

I could have swarn you boasted about returning to the sandbox months ago. Well, what gives? The war isn't going to be one without your bravery in action, I mean why let the terrorists have their way while your country awaits your heroic apparition and an end to the evil? Don't tell me your still bawling about victory here, denying the dismissal of Rumsfeld as insignificant while working up a sweat over your tall tales about guns and rockets. But if you're still anxious to see some action, why not come down here and battle the FARC or ELN, the former being the largest and most well-armed insurgency group in the hemisphere? Ah, but acknowledging them and the danger they pose would mean one, you know something beyond the idiot box and two, your nation sponsors terrorism by consuming more cocaine than any nation on earth, thus filling the cofres of the FARC and funding their regular terrorist attacks on the military, police and civilians. There are still ways for the US to save face and do some good with their military. Why it chooses to continue digging holes in the Middle East while its power and reputation diminish is beyond me...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 2:12pm
CPT:

Following up on Brunowe's very good comeback to you. Sounds like you are using Ford as some sort of "moral victory" while ignoring the real results of who actually won. At best for your point, it was a mixed bag of Democrats - certainly not unexpected given the differences in ideology on particular issues from regions to region.

Pretty ironic you now cling to Ford's loss in Tennessee (likely due to the shameful "Call Me Harold" ad) - yet only a few months ago, conservatives on this site mocked KVH and other Nation writers for claiming "moral victories" when discussing progressive losses during the primaries (maybe not you, but I recall some by mask, among others, preaching about results rather than vote margins and close calls).

The shoe is on the other foot it seems.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2006 @ 2:15pm
because he keeps trying to whip up hatred of FRB

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/14/2006 @ 11:15am

?!?!??!...why do something that's already been done?!?!?

Posted by MASK 11/14/2006 @ 12:34am

It is manifestly evident that you are the one always whining about being ignored, not me. The last time was like . . uh . . two hours ago? LOL!

Okay, I think DD is a doll, but ZERO nailed it...she IS a dimwit, because....

how is anybody supposed to be ABLE to "comment" to her...when she has practically EVERYBODY on "Ignore"?!?!?!

Posted by MASK 11/14/2006 @ 10:44am

Jesus! Is MASK planning to change his handle to EVERYBODY? LOSING on the election and WHINING about being ignored, too. You're becoming a real punching bag. You can still celebrate your victory, though . . Pelosi isn't planning to submit a bill to increase military aid to Hamas. Congratulations! You really, really did win, didn't you? LOL!

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:18pm
thanks chimi. glad to see you're not in romania. i was starting to worry.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 2:19pm
Hey,

Does JROLF still post here?

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 2:23pm
Hmmm. More of DARLADOON's and MASK's "extremists" giving Nancy Pelosi low ratings [tinyurl.com].

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:24pm
The shoe is on the other foot it seems.

Posted by HMAN23 11/14/2006 @ 2:15pm

More like up their back end. It isn't all bad though. It apparently does wonders for their rhetorical creativity

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:28pm
FROMRED said he'd keep me off his "Ignore List" until it stops "being fun".....I'm guessing that will be a while...hehe.

Meanwhile, despite him and "tinyurl"....me and DARLA and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of us "comfortable as Republicans" keep enjoying OUR victory!

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/14/2006 @ 10:10am |

i EXPECT investigations when things have settled a bit. i believe crimes were commited by suited sociopaths and should be known by all and punished. and if i am wrong i want to know for sure.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2006 @ 2:39pm
MASK, you do a hell of a lot of whining for a victor.

Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 2:40pm
Rio - so are middle eastern states the constituency that republicans are looking to build on?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/14/2006 @ 3:25pm
RIO,

Do yourself a favor, look up the work 'Manichaean' and then see what an ass you are attributing this and that to Beelzebub while painting horns on anyone who doesn't agree with you and your pugnacious god. Casting blame the way you and your flock of scoundrels do here, while contriving the most puerile labels when it comes to your antagonists would be comical if you weren't so deadly serious. You're no better than the preacher who threatens the unrepetant blasphemer with a divine bolt of lightening from above. "Demoncrat" - wow, how grossly original. Tell me, what do you call a Republican pedophile, gambler, closet-homosexual, meth-addict or grafter? Do these actions not constitute a devilish oeuvre?

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 3:36pm
And before anyone calls me a homophobe, I only include homosexual in my list as it is often a condition ascribed to unholy beings by Republicans. I myself could care less if someone is gay or not...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 3:39pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 11/14/2006 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person

Well that isnt what i said, you just assumed it. But of course you jumped to that conclusion. I guess it helps to assume the worst about your ideaological opponents.

I directed my comments at your friend CHIMI....you remember the one who wishes death to america and the great satan that we are.

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 3:44pm
yes chimi, johannesrolf still posts here regularly. he takes the occasional break. we all need those sometimes.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 3:45pm
cpt, i would hope you didn't have that belief system, at least not consciously. but rio and the extremist fundamentalist religious wackos of our country do have that belief system. i can't imagine feeling relief at the thought of a baby starved to death. but that is the ugly conclusion of their ugly belief system.

Posted by loveloki at 11/14/2006 @ 3:48pm
you are the one that cherry picked the poll, FRB. my poll says clearly: 35% country-wide want immediate withdrawal. you poll says: 80% of baghdad (not country-wide) wants immediate withdrawal.

all in all, though iraqis want us out, many are wary to want out us pronto. that is just plain common sense, as many are so vulnerable that they live their days in constant fear.

does anyone dispute this? immediate withdrawal = doom for the most vulnerable of iraqis

a 12 month phased withdrawal will put pressure on the iraqi forces to step it up, otherwise we are there forever. but this plan has its drawbacks as well.

each plan is a total disaster, but we need to get out. and then we need to punish those who got us in.

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 3:48pm
people, give pelosi one year, and let's see what she's accomplished. she's aiming big, and i'm right behind her.

no politician will ever satisfy anyone on this board, but they are all we have. so the best thing to do is work with them: call their offices, write them letters, give them hell if possible. but whining and complaining all f*cking day, like zero, will get us nowhere.

as for you FRB: i re-read your poll, now you should read mine. as i said, your poll in baghdad only. my poll is country wide. both polls show very high numbers in favor of withdrawal. however, as for immediate withdrawal, the numbers go way, way down in mine, and partially down in yours. but again, mine is nation wide, and yours is baghdad wide.

but, the bottom line, can you please admit that for the most vulnerable of iraqis, who live along or near sectarian divisions, an immediate withdrawal would spell certain catastrophe, especially when even the iraqi forces are contributing to the slaughter and harassment of innocent iraqis?

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 3:54pm
CPT,

Everyone knows the "devil" has a prospering workshop in the US. You've been contracted by him before, and will probably carry out more tasks for him before your time is done. Being convinced he only exists where the US flag doesn't fly is yet one more achievement of the propaganda that bends your brain and guides your tongue. You're no better than the nuts who blow up abortion clinics and site God as their defender. Go on, CPT, and shine in your capacity as lacky for flawed men with vested interests...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 3:57pm
CHIMI

Your rant is can always be summed up rather easily, everything America is bad.

You dont live here anymore, you chose the "pure" life of living abroad.

Your jealously of America's prosperity is kind of sad.....sorry our officials are not as corrupt as our South American counter-parts that steal every single dollar they can to enrich themselves , sure they are not perfect...but to compare the two is like comparing a mike tyson vs Buster douglas fight to celebrity boxing greg brady vs danny bonaduce.

If you are missing life back here, then come on back.....it is as interesting as it is sad that you mention Americas addiction to drugs....tell me SHIMI how is that south american shit-hole that you are stuck in prospering because of all that drug money???? Is the standerd of living increasing for all, infastructure? health care? schools? roads? rural towns and villages? due to all that drug money we pour into it? or is it simply that only a few drug lords are becoming extraordinarily wealthy and in the process creating a narco-terrorists state?

You have no right to call anyone an idiot with the logic you just displayed, and you claim to be a socialist true to the vision of the common man? Arrogance will always be your undoing

Posted by CPT at 11/14/2006 @ 4:01pm
CPT,

How about actually visiting here before you go braying on about what Colombia does and doesn't boast as a nation? Ever been to Bogotá, Cali or Medellín? Sure, there's poverty, but there is also a very high level of culture in development in a city like Medellín, do some research and discover for yourself. But bragging about your collective drug addiction is very indicative of the nature of your society, for if everything is so good, why do people resort to drugs? Is it to mask the pain, anxiety, angst and fear so prevalent in your Shangri-la? Why does the US consume more than half of both the illicit and pharmaceutical drugs produced by humanity? Surely your excellent healthcare system, which cares for so many millions in excellent physical condition couldn't possibly be a sham, operating under a system where people are taught to make bad decisions while abusing their bodies with chemicals, thus engendering and perpetuating their ailing and suffering, so the corporations can filch them of coinage and well-being.

Yeah, your country is so grand. Your just spouting like the other 86% of Americanos with no passport and therefore no view of the outside world save for the manufactured words and images produced by television, that gleaming box said to be a window on the world, but really more of a blinder to it. At least I can forge my thoughts and opinions on real knowledge and experience. You CPT are just shooting at the hip and driveling. You're no better than a chofer who thinks his master is the greatest, despite never having really known or driven anyone else in his lifetime.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 4:16pm
BTW CPT,

I'd like to see how you'd fare in a foreign country, with different customs, values, language and priorities. You prove time and again that you have nothing even remotely close to an adaptive nature, which is why you may as well disparage every other nation on earth, because you could never make it anywhere but America, where you, like many others, prove that even the most prosaic and brainless can earn a living, so long as you have a pulse in your body. Don't forget your nation was spawned by plenty of people who couldn't get along in their homelands, the wretched and rejected of the world. Sure, there were plenty of honest, hard-working sould among them, but throngs and throngs of bushleague bandits came along too, of the same stock as the conquistadores who polluted the hemisphere before them. My daily life is interesting and challenging, monotony will never find me, while novelty enters my life on a daily basis. And at least my time overseas has been constructive, unlike you who have only sailed the seas with armed men filled with implanted worldviews and borrowed words, learning more about bringing death than admiring life.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 4:24pm
Would Murtha be right for the job? I don't know. For the time being, he is a vocal opponent of the Iraq War and right-wing radio talk show hosts bash him whenever they can. But, he does have a record that makes him look a lot like Zell Miller. She may need to consider somebody else.

Posted by Tepahtiani at 11/14/2006 @ 4:26pm
Chimichenga - do you have this opinion of all Americans, or just the CPT types?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/14/2006 @ 4:28pm
Like Hastert, she'll be held accountable for (fill in the blank), right?

Posted by woodyee at 11/14/2006 @ 4:34pm
I'm American and will be so until I die, though my idea of "American" is much broader than most people's in northern latitudes. I despise Ugly Americans, which is the species CPT represents.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 4:43pm
Rio never knows when to quit sticking his feet in his mouth and going for a brisk jog:

"Yeeaaa, you can just feel the "?love?" proceeding from the mouths and hearts of those who hate GOD, their country, their government, and its citizens, almost as much as their own empty souls!"

When you actually identify one of these fantasy folks on this board, please point them out to us, oh senile one.

I happen to

a) acknowledge a creator (what you call "God"), just not the same one as you - so I should burn in Hell, right, along with every other spiritual person who does not agree with you?

b) love my country

c) realize that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is a Constitutional mandate, and appreciate that for what it is - if government is corrupt and incompetent, it is up to the people to own it and change it

d) acknowledge the input of our country's people (see C above, and please hurry up and stop whining and mewling because "the people" drop-kicked your kind out of office)

"You have surely noted that NONE of the national liberal media has reported the responses of the middle eastern states whose leaders sponser Islamic terrorism, or the Islamic terrorists themselves since it would detract so much from the "supposed" liberal Demoncrat victory!"

You stupid, ignorant, senile old moron - no one here should have to point out to you that hundreds of media outlets have joined you in rebroadcasting the terrorist propaganda you so dearly love. Open a newspaper, turn on your TV - stick your head outside of your trailer.

None so blind as he who will not see...

By the way, please enlighten the board as to which "middle eastern states" support and sponsor terrorism. Your truncated pick-and-choose list of who to call "enemy" should be amusing, if not enlightening.

Posted by New Dawn at 11/14/2006 @ 4:45pm
She may need to consider somebody else.

Posted by TEPAHTIANI 11/14/2006 @ 4:26pm

She can't....the Bloggies want Jack...and (cue "Damn Yankees" soundtrack)..."Whatever Bloggies want...Bloggies get..."

Plus to back away from her endorsement now...would show her weak. Though Murtha subpeoned for bribes in six months might not be much better!

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 4:47pm
The best part of this palaver is how it evinces the hatred, distrust, disparity and disunion so typical of today's USA, and these characteristics are well-known and discussed abroad, I can assure you. This is why so many people have to laugh when you send out armed ambassadors from both sides in hopes of bringing together people like those in Iraq, as if one fighting family can redress the rifts of another - but one more complex and more fraught with danger and disorder. Surely the scope of American idealism has peaked long ago, as the limits of the empire are being seen at home and abroad, while chicken after chicken comes home to roost in a nation growing evermore bitter behind its veil of conceit. The US needs to learn to understand and deal with failure, otherwise the world is in for even more intense tantrums from the wild child who cannot have all it wants...

Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2006 @ 5:13pm
CPT:Your rant is can always be summed up rather easily, everything America is wonderful.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/14/2006 @ 5:42pm
You have surely noted that NONE of the national liberal media has reported the responses of the middle eastern states whose leaders sponser Islamic terrorism, or the Islamic terrorists themselves since it would detract so much from the "supposed" liberal Demoncrat victory!

We all will of course suffer the consequences of it!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/14/2006 @ 2:59pm

hey rio. how's it going?

gotta say, the logical progression of your deconstruction of recent geopolitical events was a bit incoherent.

so...none of liberal media...report responses of...middle eastern states...terrorist blah blah...because would detract from demoncrat victory...

what? please clarify...

and find a way to throw "nancy pelosi" in there somewhere if u can...

you keep getting back in that ring and mixing it up, man...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2006 @ 6:05pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/14/2006 @ 4:28pm

chimi breaths hot latin fire, hates gringos, and loves latinas.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/14/2006 @ 6:08pm
You have surely noted that NONE of the national liberal media has reported the responses of the middle eastern states whose leaders sponser Islamic terrorism, or the Islamic terrorists themselves since it would detract so much from the "supposed" liberal Demoncrat victor

imagine the mind of one who says such things! these comments are so incredibly shocking that it's a wonder why some people choose to pick on me!

Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 7:37pm
BLOG | Posted 03/14/2005 @ 4:08pm Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant

by Katrina vanden Heuvel

"At a time when we need accountability more than ever in Washington, when corruption and ethical violations are sweeping our capital, we must turn to groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)."

but now....

"How can Americans believe that the Democrats will return integrity to the House when future Speaker Pelosi has endorsed an ethically challenged member for a leadership position?" Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked in a written statement. "Rep. Murtha is the wrong choice for this job."

Poor Melanie...from "watch dog" to "vicious right-wing ATTACK dog" now.

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 9:18pm
Posted by MASK 11/14/2006 @ 9:18pm

Where does Corn say that? Or are you just making up positions again?

Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2006 @ 9:58pm
Posted by HMAN23 11/14/2006 @ 9:58pm

Sorry for the misunderstanding....wasn't referring to Mr Corn.

Referring to the Blogosphere...go over to HuffPost and check out the attacks on poor Melanie from Murtha'ites.

Posted by Mask at 11/14/2006 @ 10:17pm
Posted by MASK 11/14/2006 @ 10:17pm

Are those attacks from conservatives and right-wingers trying to rock the boat?

Posted by urmygyro at 11/14/2006 @ 10:44pm
Sorry, URMY...not the Right....Murtha defenders going after fellow liberal Melanie in order to defend "Fightin' Jack".

Posted by Mask at 11/15/2006 @ 07:19am
Can't think of a more appropriate thread to ask this legal question on....

From a PURELY LEGAL standpoint...who's more "innocent"?

John Murtha, an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in ABSCAM?

or Karl Rove for "Plame-gate"?

Posted by Mask at 11/15/2006 @ 4:24pm
Mask -

Are they really calling her a "right wing attack dog" or is that just a Maskian quotation?

Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2006 @ 6:03pm
Posted by MASK 11/15/2006 @ 4:24pm

From a technical legal view - neither. They are both equally innocent because neither was proven guilty of anything.

From a more practical viewpoint (which I think you probably are really digging at), it is really splitting hairs, but I would have to say Rove. In my opinion, I think it is better to be someone investigated and not charged than to be someone investigated, not charged, BUT in alleged in a complaint as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2006 @ 6:08pm
Posted by HMAN23 11/15/2006 @ 6:03pm

HuffPost bloggers, not me

Posted by Mask at 11/15/2006 @ 6:37pm
murtha didn't accept any bribes in abscam

he's not a co-conspirator

Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2006 @ 10:23pm
Was anyone really surprised by the political mugging of Jack Murtha? Or the fact that the Big Media have been active co-conspirators in that process? This new Swiftboating merely indicates that pro-war Democrats are determined to do the bidding of their K Street masters -- and that the influence of those pro-war lobbyists reaches to the highest levels of the MSM.

Now that the election is over, the pro-war crowd wants to quickly quash any effort to significantly change course in Iraq. Gen. Abizaid's testimony today was the start of the quashing; it will continue with the reports by the Iraq Study Group and the Bushies' own review team. Continuing the war in Iraq obviously has the highest priority for the powers-that-be, and Murtha had to be dispatched early on.

Posted by aamurphy at 11/15/2006 @ 11:02pm
Was anyone really surprised by the political mugging of Jack Murtha? Or the fact that the Big Media have been active co-conspirators in that process? This new Swiftboating merely indicates that pro-war Democrats are determined to do the bidding of their K Street masters -- and that the influence of those pro-war lobbyists reaches to the highest levels of the MSM.

Now that the election is over, the pro-war crowd wants to quickly quash any effort to significantly change course in Iraq. Gen. Abizaid's testimony today was the start of the quashing; it will continue with the reports by the Iraq Study Group and the Bushies' own review team. Continuing the war in Iraq obviously has the highest priority for the powers-that-be, and Murtha had to be dispatched early on.

Posted by aamurphy at 11/15/2006 @ 11:04pm
Murph, the elephant in the room is that no one wants to say that the war was a mistake. so they pussyfoot around the edges, saying it was badly executed, bla bla bla. but the very core of it was wrong, in stark contrast to Clinton's action in Serbia, which stopped a genocide campaign.

the Iraq war was entered into for one reason and one reason only. to whitewash Bush's failure to do anything about the warnings of 9/11 and to make him electable in '04. I know looks like two, but is the same reason. everything else is ex post facto, also known as lying rationalizations. until the country realizes this, and punishes those responsible, there will be no healing, not here and not in Iraq.

Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2006 @ 11:51pm
Loyalty is an admirable trait, however, in her position, shouldn't loyalty to the American people be most important to Nancy Pelosi? She promised to fight corruption in Congress, yet it appears that she want to give additional powers to fellow representatives with shady pasts. I lived in Miami. I know all about Alcee Hastings. I am pleased that Jack Murtha came out strongly against the war in Iraq, but I remember ABSCAM, and I remember Murtha's disloyalty to his constituents and to his party. I am an Independent who, fed up with the Republicans, voted a straight Democratic ticket this time around. Will the Democrats now disappoint me by just being Tweedle Dum to the Republicans Tweedle Dee?

Posted by michaeld at 11/16/2006 @ 08:56am
Joshua Zeitz "The Case Against Jack Murtha"---HuffPost

"In 1980 the FBI attempted to bribe Jack Murtha, who was then serving his fourth term in Congress. The surveillance tape, which you can view by clicking here (link), runs about an hour long. It's not pretty. While Murtha refused the bribe, he made it clear that his reasons for doing so were trust and appearances. He explained to the undercover agent, who was posing as a middleman for a wealthy sheik, that he intended to serve a long tenure in Congress, and since he was not personally acquainted with the parties in question, he was reluctant to accept money from them. Moreover, he explained that were he to start doing favors for a sheik who had no connection to his district, the authorities might become suspicious."

"Instead, Murtha suggested that if the sheik's representatives deposited large sums of money in banks located in his district, and if they invested equally large sums in local Johnstown businesses, he would be willing to assist the sheik and his family in establishing legal residency in the United States. He also indicated that he might be interested in accepting a gratuity, somewhere down the line. In Murtha's own words: "There's some places I'd like you to invest some money, in the banks, in my district. I'd say some substantial deposits." Murtha explained that the "secret to the whole thing" was to establish a connection between the sheik and Johnstown. Once that connection was established, he could assist the sheik without raising suspicions, and he could accept a bribe without attracting scrutiny."

"To give Murtha the benefit of the doubt, these were the bad days of stagflation and de-industrialization, which hurt western Pennsylvania with particular force. Perhaps he was only trying to drum up some capital for small businesses in his troubled district."

"But, no. Watch the tape. At the fifteen-minute mark it gets interesting, and at about thirty-two minutes it gets scandalous. Murtha could have stood up, walked out of the room, and called federal authorities. Instead, he indicated a future willingness to accept the sheik's bribe, provided the sheik first make a show of good will by dropping some money in the local economy."

"In light of his flirtation with the undercover agents, Murtha was named an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam. Though the House ethics committee elected not to take any action against him, as Justin Rood of Talking Points Memo explains, the committee's decision was the result of a backroom deal between then-Speaker Tip O'Neill, one of Murtha's mentors, and Rep. Charlie Wilson, a flamboyant Texas congressman with a less-than-stellar reputation for ethical conduct. To drive the point home, when the ethics committee dropped Murtha's case, its special counsel resigned in protest."

"Even before Abscam, Murtha already had an appalling record on ethics. In 1978 he teamed up with Reps. Dan Rostenkowski (who later went to prison for buying stamps with his government office allowance, selling them, and pocketing the proceeds) and Mario Biaggi (who was later convicted of over fifteen felony counts of bribery and obstruction of justice) to remove a recently-passed cap on congressmen's outside earnings. The year before, in return for voting itself a pay raise, the House agreed to cap outside earnings at $8,625 per year and to require members to issue yearly financial disclosure reports. Murtha, Biaggi and Rostenkowski tried to remove these provisions."

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 10:06am
Oh well....time for a new posting Mr Corn...

AP just reported Steny Hoyer won it.

Posted by Mask at 11/16/2006 @ 12:10pm
Nancy must learn how to be wise as a serpent and clam as a dove.

Posted by Richard E. at 11/16/2006 @ 2:52pm
The summary of the battle for the Dem's leadership that I have read. Excellent work.

Posted by ecthompson at 11/16/2006 @ 4:31pm
There is another way to see Nancy Pelosies endorsement of Murtha. Pelosi is a lot less liberal than the Republicans make her out to be. Before entering the House she was considered a relative conservative and unifier in her local politics. She knows that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a no winner. But she has many of the new Representatives feeling that they were elected on an End the War Now platform. It is important that she maintain unity among Dem's in the house in order to pass legislation. Murtha represents the End the War Now group. If Murtha won he would represent a boulder in the path of a more centrist agenda. Mutha had no chance to win because in truth the Democratic party is not a liberal party but is a centrist party, it represents ALL the people. By endorsing Murtha she became a friend to the End the War Now camp and established their support, even though she knew Murtha had no chance of winning. In other word Nancy Pelosie won by the endorsing Murtha and seeing him defeated. That's Politics Folks!

Posted by David Heyer at 11/16/2006 @ 8:38pm

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Pelosi Backs Murtha for No. 2: Iraq over Ethics?

posted by David Corn on 11/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Pelosi Backs Murtha for No. 2: Iraq over Ethics?

posted by David Corn on 11/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!