|
It can not be surprising to anyone that Murtha operates like a gangster. The Democrat Party has been operating like this since at least the 1950s. The Democrat Party is filled with thugs. |
|
liberal voters do not expect or demand ethical leadership from liberal politicians. Nancy and John know that they have nothing to fear from acting as they do, because their constituents will never call them on it.
Face it people, we need to clean House, on both sides of the aisle. |
|
|
I am amazed at how fast Murtha went from the TH darling and friend of the military to a target of whining freshman. LMAO |
|
Murtha is a bully?
Shocker.
He looks like such a sweet old man.
This is most definitely a violation of house rules.
He should face some sort of consequences.
I'm not sure why Hal and, I'm quite sure, most liberals defend this sort of behavior.
But this is in clear violation of house rule 23 clause 16:
http://www.house.gov/ethics/Rule23.htm
"16. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or joint resolution (including an accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this clause and clause 17, the terms `congressional earmark', `limited tax benefit', and `limited tariff benefit' shall have the meanings given them in clause 9 of rule XXI."
Dirty leftist behavior - agree with me or face the consequences.
|
|
|
Defend? Nope but laugh at the whining. Near as I can tell Murtha just stated what the R's have been doing for years and now flip they whine and whing. Can't we have some substance. |
|
|
So why should we be surprised by recent actions. Nancy owes Murtha big time and this thug is going to use Ms. Nancy like a B**** well you know what I mean. |
|
|
Like we expected anything less from these losers? If there is no R next to the name everything is alright |
|
|
"Like we expected anything less from these losers?" Wrong this time around they are the winners your guys lost |
|
"Near as I can tell Murtha just stated what the R's have been doing for years and now flip they whine and whing. Can't we have some substance. "
an example please?
Or are you just stating what you assume to be true.
Provide an example of a time when a republican walked up to someone who opposed a bill and told them they would never receive any earmarks for their districts.
Please.
And, to make it easier, let's try to keep it in this decade.
Seven years ought to make your search a little easier.
So - provide an example if you can.
Also, it is WHINING when someone points out that a senator with power threatened another senator with no earmarks for questioning a bill?
Interesting theory.
I call that 'whistleblowing'.
More importantly, I find it reprehensible that items like this - that is items that expose liberals for the tactless monsters many of them are - are ignored by the MSM and excused by people like you.
Hal blindly supports any veterans political runs, don't you hal?
Isn't that what you do?
From his huffandpuffpost profile:
"He now to devotes his time to assisting military veterans and working to elect veterans and supporters to all levels of political office."
So isn't it possible that since Murtha is a vet, you are willing to blindly support him now?
I guess you don't care much that the person he attacked served his country as well, albeit only as an FBI agent.
Too bad. Maybe if Rep. Mike Rogers had served in the military, you might view this as not only disrespectful - BUT BLATANTLY AGAINST HOUSE RULES.
Of course, none of this matters.
There is only one aspect, which you carelessly deflected and ignored.
house rule 23 clause 16.
Which Murtha violated.
I don't care what you suspect republicans did in the past.
It is of no consequence.
The very argument is childish.
In THIS case, Murtha violated a rule.
He is getting called on it.
If the media had any intentions on reporting real scandals, they would report this.
Instead, it is buried because Murtha the surrenderist did it.
According to your flawed logic, that's okay because outwardly, you believe that Republicans have done it in the past and inwardly, you would blindly support anything liberal and anything done or said by an elected veteran.
Very partial.
You want substance?
Fine. Then stop ignoring the fact that MURTHA violated a house rule.
That's the substance. Stop excusing bad behavior because it's happened before. You were in the military for a long time: Did you accept bad behavior that violated military code because it happened before? |
|
One Word K street that was the sum and substance of the whole project and abramoff.
Murtha has always, always supported the troops amd veterans. His politics are way to the right of mine on many issues. But I will cover his back as much as I can for two reasons: He has supported troops for his entire career not just when fashionable. Two, he has been viciously and repeatedly attacked for taking a position of principle concerning the war in Iraq. A rules violation? Talk to me about something serious. Rogers is whining. |
|
|
Oh I forgot! Nice rant though..... |
|
|
I remember when the REPS were in charge the DEMS were on the steps of Congress everyday crying that the REPS want let us play and when we get back in charge things are going to change. ie Nancy P. thereis a new congress in town but the games will rwmain the same. Why arent Libs up in arms about being lied to on the first 100 Days after they are in charge. Oh im sorry they are no better than the REPS when it comes to spending. WHERE IS THE CHANGE???????????? |
|
A rules violation.
That may be all it is to you, but it is indicitive of the way in which this 'ethical' congress does business.
Which is as dirty as possible.
Murtha was attacked, but not because of a principle, rather because he stood for bringing troops home to win votes.
He knew that the soldiers on the ground, for the most part, wanted to stay and win.
Instead of supporting the troops the way they need to be supported - with no talk of defeat, no blame placed on them and financial support that includes armor and ammunition- he supported them the way most of the left does, by making it impossible for them to succeed and bringing them home prematurely.
"In an interview yesterday with MoveCongress.org, a Web site for a coalition of anti-war groups, Mr. Murtha, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, explained that by placing conditions on $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would make be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said. "
So he intentionally attempted to tie impossible to hit training and equipment conditions to artificially influence the course of war.
In 1974, Murtha said:
""I felt that the criticism at home, in and outside Congress, hurt the war effort. I still believe that very strongly."
Now, Murtha has a different opinion of the way the military should be handled:
“There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House.”
So spare me this nonsense about him being to the right of you.
If that's the case, then you are a communist through and through and I don't believe that.
He is a lefty.
He is against the use of the military.
He thinks that things are far simpler than they really are and regularly criticizes the commander in cheif, the military, the strategies, and the way things are being handled.
Yet in 1974, he was clear in stating that criticism of the military during war time hurt the war effort.
Again, you see it as a minor rules violation.
I see it differently.
Here we have a member of Congress threatening, sorry - PROMISING, that another member of Congress will never receive an earmark as a result of a difference of opinion.
That is not only against congressional rules, but evidence of corruption and intimidation.
You know who else violates business etiquette rules like this?
The mob.
|
|
Where to start:
"Murtha was attacked, but not because of a principle, rather because he stood for bringing troops home to win votes." Actually, Murtha had no votes to get. His mainly R supporters including Bush were in shock; Moderates like me were at best distrusting and his staff was in shock and speechless. Actually what turned him was the soldiers on the ground. Murtha has the absolute best military intel network I have ever seen and it goes from 4 stars to E-1's. You can disagree with the man but do not slander him. What you are saying is simply not true. He had no votes to win only votes to lose.
The troops did there job and is never was to sit in the desert and attempt to referee a civil war |
|
"So he intentionally attempted to tie impossible to hit training and equipment conditions to artificially influence the course of war." Because to hit those targets and goals bush would have to ask the American people to sacrifice thru a limited draft and higher taxes. And Murtha knew Bush's whole appeal was built on the free lunch
|
|
|
Every political arm capable of adding earmarks has done so for a long time. They needed to come with proof the earmark was for the greater good of the United States. It had to be a benefit for all. About the time the personal,human services,human rights, issues came up on the American agenda, earmarks took on a new face. Politicians could link a turbulant situation of singular groups,organizations, to America as a whole. This is where the pot of gold lies for factions connected to any human passion. The politicians secure their power, and strength,with the earmarks they can provide. The proof is in the pudding. Which party supplies the gold, from the American melting pot? I hear someone liberally ringing the dinner bell. |
|
"He is against the use of the military.
He thinks that things are far simpler than they really are and regularly criticizes the commander in cheif, the military, the strategies, and the way things are being handled." That is his job and I meant what I said Murtha's whole career is built upon supporting the troops and the military. How is it when Generals like Batiste, Eaton etc and strong military Congressmen speak out against all tradition to condemn a failed president and strategy You don't question the President? What will it take to convince you that you aren't Lincoln Standing firm but Jefferson blindly following a strategy to chaos? Is blind obedience a good thing?
|
|
San Fran Nan promised us that once the gavel was back in the hands of the children we would see the most ethical congress ever.
She lied????
Noooooo!!!!!
I can't believe it.
You mean to tell me that San Fran Nan Pelosiovich isn't going to keep the promises she made during the campaign??
And the main stream media isn't taking her or Murtha to task?
I'm crushed. |
|
|
If this new leadership in the House of Reps. is going to be the "most ethical" in history, Rep. Murtha should step down and resign his seat. He broke the House Rules, plain and simple. I am not enamered by either side of the aisle. When the R's were in power, they took it too far. Now that the D's are back in power, they are proving Lord Acton to be absolutely correct. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term Limits are necessary in some fashion. Perhaps we need to do what happens in Virginia. You can be governor as long as you are elected time and again but you just cannot succeed yourself. We desperately need to have a citizen legislature again. Rham Emmanuel referred to somebody as "blockheads" recently - if not today - in reference to an amount for entitlement spending. Perhaps if our elected representatives and senators would have to live under the very laws they pass we would be in a much more "responsible" situation. |
|
|
|
Murtha should stay if for no other reason than his courage speaking out against the war in Iraq
We have term limits they are called elections
"Perhaps if our elected representatives and senators would have to live under the very laws they pass we would be in a much more "responsible" situation." I agree entirely |
|
Murtha's courage??
How much courage does it take to switch positions on an issue when doing so puts you in agreement with 80% of your party? Was Mitt Romey showing "courage" when he changed his mind on abortion? |
|
|
Murtha was GW's and the pentagon's go to man on all matters defense or veteran related. He has been that for over 20 yrs R or D. He was seen as whatever a D rhino is. No Murtha had a real profile in courage moment. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. |
|
|
Absolute power corrupts absolutely |
|
|
|
Did you ever see a windbag? Well I have.
Did you ever see a bully? Well I have.
Did you ever see a has-been? Well I have.
Did you ever see a dirt-bag? Well I have.
Did you ever see a greedy-gut? Well I have.
Did you ever see anybody without a shred of courtesy? Well, I have.
Did you ever see somebody about to bust a vein? Well, I have.
Did you ever see the blood pressure rise so fast in someone's bloated, shrieking, fiery face? Well I have.
All that you can find right there. In the form of the disgusting subject under discussion here.
By the way, just in case it is not crystal clear, I don't like him, either.
|
|
"Murtha was GW's and the pentagon's go to man on all matters defense or veteran related."
Ummm... no.
"He has been that for over 20 yrs R or D."
Ummm... no.
"No Murtha had a real profile in courage moment."
Uhhh... not really.
He was NEVER the "go to man" for either this administration or for the previous Bush administration because of his position on military reductions since the Reagan era. Clinton used him because it put the imprimatur of military experience on his military cutbacks. The result? The lowest state of readiness that our military faced in the past century. And his so-called "network" inside the military consists of people fed to him by groups like MoveOn.
Beside the point anyway. This is a man who, operating from a position of power, threatened a junior member of Congress. Murtha demanded a quid pro quo. ANYBODY who exhibits that kind of behavior publicly deserves rebuke (at least!). |
|