Where's John Murtha? Why is he being silenced?

[deacon]

John Murtha should have been speaker of the house...

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. House Democrats passed him over for Marjoirty Leader

One of the problems was some ethical issues in his past.

[dEMOK]

2. Yeah...

Jack got burned by Republicans for playing D.C. politics as usual -- the same game the sitting Republicans honed to a fine art..

(Pot & Kettle)

Jack should have known better though.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. Republicans seem to be setting Murtha up for a fall on earmarks

If Democrats go after Jerry Lewis (R-CA) for documented corruption, IMO they'll try to make Murtha the next William Jefferson (D-LA). In today's WP, Novakula calls Murtha "King of Democratic earmarks".

From http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/flake-challenges-murtha-on-earmarks-2007-06-29.html :

Flake challenges Murtha on earmarks, By Kevin Bogardus. June 29, 2007

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is targeting Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as part of his crusade against earmarks. Flake offered 12 amendments to House appropriations bills to cut 12 earmarks, a quarter of which were Murtha�s requests. No other lawmaker or state was hit as hard-- the Arizona Republican included two other earmarks destined for Pennsylvania. "It is tough to avoid them. It really is," Flake said of the proposed cuts to what he called Murtha�s "earmark incubators."

Murtha�s office declined to comment. His three earmark requests noted in Flake�s amendments totaled about $1.5 million and were directed to projects in southwestern Pennsylvania. Overall, Flake asked to cut more than $3.4 million in earmarks in the 12 amendments, averaging more than $290,000 per granted request. Altogether, 14 members� requests were caught in the crosshairs.

Both parties are scrambling for the moral high ground on earmarks. Democrats have said they halved spending for the two appropriations bills-- Interior, Environment and Related Agencies and Financial Services and General Government-- compared to last year�s legislation."

[Captain Hilts]

7. That's a really good explanation. nt

[Bitwit1234]

12. I read a report where the house democrats really liked him but

he was too confrontable. That he was hard to get along with.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. He's not being silenced

why would you think that?

[cassiepriam]

5. Seems like he has been very quiet lately. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

6. He's one of 435 congressmen....

How much do you expect to hear from him?

[cassiepriam]

9. A great deal since he has positioned himself as a strong war critic.

[cboy4]

8. He was on CNN on Thursday when Bush held that ridiculous news

conference.

He spoke out:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/12/sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: Democrats are lashing out at the White House report card on Iraq, saying President Bush is reading it through rose colored glasses. Some are calling him delusional.

Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania. He's one of the early voices calling for a troop pull back in Iraq.

Congressman, thanks very much for coming in.

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Nice to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm going to play a little excerpt of what the president said earlier today and get your reaction.

Listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through resolution is a -- is prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, what do you say to the president?

MURTHA: Well, it's delusional, to say the least. As I said earlier, and you heard me say, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing has gotten better. Incidents have increased. We've had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war. More Iraqis have been killed. Incidents are up. Unemployment is still 40 percent to 60 percent. Oil production is below prewar level. And this -- this rhetoric about the constitution and the changes -- they say, well, they're making changes. There's no changes that have been made. They haven't done the thing that's necessary in order to satisfy the Sunnis.

So our troops are caught in a civil war. As I've said over and over again, It can't be won militarily. There can only be a diplomatic effort. And I think this surge is a perfect example where we aren't making any progress and we've got to start to redeploy the troops as quickly as possible (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: But he says Congress should not be running the war -- that's a responsibility for the military commanders out in the field, as well as the commander-in-chief. You're stepping on his turf.

MURTHA: Well, the constitution is very clear. It says we'll provide for the Army and the Navy and, of course, when the constitution didn't have any other forces. But the constitution is very clear -- we're the people that decide whether we go to war. We're the people that decide whether the war should be funded.

Now, when they keep making mistakes, as they have made, we have to intercede. The public spoke in the last election and it said very clearly -- we want these troops redeployed. Congress has agreed with that, basically. But it's a matter of getting a resolution through to convince the White House.

Now, I see more and more people coming around. I'm more optimistic than I've ever been that we're going to start redeployment before long. The problem we've had, Wolf, and the thing that's happened that's so -- hurting the troops so badly is they extend these people and break all of the rules and guidelines they have because they haven't been able to raise the number of forces that they have.

So we're looking at a poorly managed war, a war -- we went to war unnecessarily.

BLITZER: All right --

MURTHA: We didn't have weapons of mass destruction. We no Al Qaeda connection. And now they're saying things -- that things are going better. There's no way you can measure things going better.

BLITZER: On a couple of the points, they say things are moving in the right direction. It says the government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. And then it says the government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress in ensuring the Baghdad security plan does not provide a save haven for the outlaws, regardless of their sectarian and political affiliations.

Do you acknowledge that some progress over the past several months has been made?

MURTHA: I don't acknowledge there's been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven't been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there's no progress being made. And the way you measure it is, is the security itself.

Are the incidents decreased?

No.

Have the civilian deaths gone down?

No.

Have the American deaths increased?

Yes.

That's the way you measure whether we're making progress. We need a diplomatic effort rather than a military effort. The chief of the Joint Chiefs said we can't win this militarily. The secretary of defense said it before our subcommittee, you can't win it militarily. I've been saying it for two years.

The only answer is to let the Iraqis handle this themselves. They have to step up. We can't intercede every time they fail.

BLITZER: Well, the president says if you do that, if the U.S. were to simply withdraw, as bad as the situation is now, it would be a whole lot worse, not only for the Iraqis, but for the entire region. And he also raises the specter of Al Qaeda having a base there from which to attack America.

MURTHA: Well, first of all, let me say there's more Al Qaeda because we're in Iraq. That's the incentive for the Iraqis -- for the al Qaeda. They see us as occupiers and they fire up the Sunnis and Shias. As soon as we leave, the Shias and the Sunnis will get rid of Al Qaeda, because they're such a small group. They actually incentivize them.

So, because the president and the White House says that we're going to have chaos, it doesn't mean we're going to. Heaven's sakes, the Iraqis want us out of there. They think we're occupiers. And they said there's weapons of mass destruction. They said there's an al Qaeda connection. They continue to say for four -and-a-half years there's progress.

So why would I believe that there's going to be chaos just because they say it?

BLITZER: Congressman John Murtha, thanks, as usual, for joining us.

MURTHA: Nice to talk to you, Wolf.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. You just can't have people like him running around all over DC...

telling the truth.

[madrchsod]

11. earmarks are why politicians are elected to the house and senate

i find it amusing when one attacks another over their earmarks. it`s just a good stage to ruffle up their feathers and walk around acting like the are biggest rooster in the coop i`m not saying there should be some oversight but they will never kill the golden goose.