Recently in Murtha Category

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

That's what John Murtha said when he claimed that there was a coverup of the Haditha incident. The LA Times reports the Murtha was wrong:

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

I will add the cautionary disclaimer that this is based on a leak from "an official close to the investigation". Accordingly, I'll hold my thoughts until it's official release.

In other news, Reuters reports another incident where three troops are being charged with murder. The details being released reflect badly on those charged:

The three soldiers are accused of deliberately allowing three men detained during a raid on a former chemical factory to flee so they would have an excuse to shoot them, said a defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Regardless, these men are entitled to a fair trial without the disgusting and celebratory prejudgement afforded the Marines in the Haditha incident. The military justice system works far better than Murtha or the press will lead you to believe.