John Murtha

Subpoena Powerless

Bob Fertik — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:05:50 -0400

When Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" during the 2006 campaign, what was her justification? She said the most important reason to elect a Democratic majority was to give them "subpoena power."

Well We the People beat the unbeatable Bush-Rove political juggernaut, elected Democratic majorities, and made Pelosi the Speaker of the House. And then the Democratic chairs of the various committees started issuing subpoenas. And then White House counsel Fred Fielding told the Democrats (politely and very slowly) to go Cheney themselves.

So now Speaker Pelosi has to make a decision - whether to enforce those hard-earned Democratic subpoenas, or simply throw them into the trash can.

So which decision do you think Pelosi will make?

House Democratic leaders have decided to postpone a vote on a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for several weeks, and possibly longer, according to top lawmakers and aides...

Democrats had vowed to take up the issue when Congress returned from its August break, with Democratic leaders declaring that any failure to do so would undermine the ability of Congress to conduct its constitutionally mandated oversight role.

“Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people,” Pelosi said back then.

But Pelosi decided to delay a vote until at least late September, and possibly into October. Democrats said they are not yet ready for such a vote because they have not briefed lawmakers on what it would mean and how the controversy would play out, both legally and politically.

“I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). “When you decide to do that, you have to make your best case. You want everyone to understand what’s happening and why.”

Emanuel said Pelosi and other top Democrats have not begun those consultations yet — and he was unsure when they would.

Conyers said it was critical for Congress to enforce its subpoenas against executive branch officials, including senior White House aides.

“Otherwise, we just become a [social] club,” Conyers said, adding that he would be reviewing the issue with Pelosi soon.

I really don't like to be critical of Democratic leaders, but Nancy Pelosi is making one catastrophic mistake after another. And when you try to figure out who's giving her such awful advice, it always seems to be House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel fancies himself as a really tough guy, but he's a pathetic joke. Remember how Emanuel was going to stop Dick Cheney's constitutional defiance by cutting off the funds for his office? Yeah, what a farce that was.

And now Emanuel says Democrats can't enforce their subpoenas because "You want everyone to understand what's happening and why."

What's happening and why? Hello?? George Bush committed innumerable crimes but he doesn't want to turn over the evidence or produce the witnesses because if he did he would be impeached, convicted, and then indicted and jailed for the rest of his worthless life. So instead of producing the witnesses and documents, he's telling Congress to go Cheney itself.

Is there a Democrat in Congress who doesn't understand that? What the hell does Emanuel think he needs to explain to them?

As of today I'm calling on Rahm Emanuel to resign his position as House Democratic Caucus Chairman, to be replaced by someone who will not run away with his tail between his legs whenever Dick Cheney growls.

It's time for a real tough guy (or gal) - someone with real combat experience with live artillery, not cloakroom backstabbing, which is the only form of "combat" Rahm Emanuel has ever seen.

With our Constitution in crisis, it's time to call in the Marines. Jack Murtha, your country needs you! Will you heed the call?

Murtha Keeps Impeachment On The Table with NPR

Bob Fertik — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:56:26 -0400

Doing the bidding of Karl Rove as usual, NPR's Melissa Block pressed Rep. John Murtha on impeachment.

A. There are 4 ways you can influence a president.
First of all there's the polls which didn't influence him.
Second of all there's an election, which should have influenced the president and had some influence- he fired his secretary of defense.
Third there's impeachment.
And fourth there's the power of the purse.
We're using the power of the purse to negotiate with the president.
And I hope we'll be able to work out a compromise.
We want to work with the president to end this long conflict where our troops are caught in a civil war.

Q. Congressman Murtha, when you include impeachment are you raising that as a realistic possibility of something that could happen here?

A. Well I'm just saying that's one of the options that Congress has on the table.
I'm getting more and more calls from the public about impeachment.
Realistically, obviously the power of the purse is the most powerful influence that the public has and we have to exert that influence to our utmost ability.

Q. You're saying you're getting calls from the public on impeachment, is the call for impeachment anything you would consider?

A. It's just one of the things that we always consider.
That's part of the process.
We're very careful about that.
I've been thru two impeachment proceedings.
It's a very difficult proceeding.
And I don't think it's appropriate at the time.
But it's one of the things certainly that I always consider.

Update 1: Greg Sargent misreads Murtha. No one claims Murtha was starting impeachment proceedings - just that he was putting impeachment on the table after a year in which Nancy Pelosi insisted impeachment was off the table. Sargent is openly hostile to impeachment - I wonder why?

Whoa! Murtha Puts Impeachment On The Table on Face The Nation

Bob Fertik — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:50:59 -0400

It looks like our impeachment efforts are making a real difference. Last week, when Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment for Dick Cheney, the Pentagon Post's Dana Milbank portrayed Kucinich as nuts. But if that was Karl Rove's way of trying to scare "respectable" Democrats away from Impeachment, that strategy backfired "bigtime," as Dick Cheney would say. Think Progress reports:

This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) expressed frustration with the White House’s public rhetoric about wanting to reach a compromise over Iraq funding. “They say we’re willing to compromise,” he said. “And then we don’t get any compromise.”

“We’ve already compromised,” Murtha said. “And we need to make this president understand, Mr. President, the public has spoken. There’s three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse.” Host Bob Schieffer followed up, pressing him on whether impeachment was a serious option on the table. Murtha responded, “I’m just saying that’s one way to influence a president.”

Obviously Murtha didn't call for Bush's impeachment today. But it is no accident that Murtha used the "I" word: he wanted to send a shot across Bush's bow, that he'd better start negotiating - or else.

And Murtha must have cleared his comments with Speaker Pelosi before his appearance, so one can safely conclude that impeachment is back "on the table" where it belongs.

If I were Bush, I'd start to worry seriously about impeachment. After all, it was Murtha who "walked point" on ending the war a year ago, and now the entire Democratic Party is united behind him. If Murtha says impeachment is "an option" today, tomorrow he could easily say impeachment is "under consideration," and before you know it, Articles of Impeachment will be introduced.

Murtha's comments are a huge step forward for the impeachment movement and for Congressional Democrats. Clearly Democrats believe the public is behind them, or Murtha wouldn't have floated the idea. Now if only progressive bloggers would echo Murtha's impeachment threats, the Corporate Media might start covering the nationwide impeachment movement.

Update 1: According to Night Owl, KPFA news producer Stephanie Hendricks says Rep. John Conyers is quietly working on impeachment.

110th Congress Buys the War

CactusPat — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:34 -0400

Certificate of Ownership: 110th Congress Buys the War by stacybannerman Saturday 24 March 2007
Busy week here on the Hill, and I’m sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty – the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at www.mfso.org)... (more)

Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform “patrolling and occupying” the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available here).

After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi’s office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war.

I was back on the Hill on Thursday for a Senate Armed Services committee meeting, followed by stops at several Senatorial offices. First was Sen. Akaka (D-Hawaii), to ask about my request for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee to hold a human cost hearing. Bad timing, no one was around to help me, will call next week, and go back. Next stop: the Senate VA committee office in the Russell building. I cc’d them on the hearing request, and asked if there’d been any movement.

The snarky staffer kept saying that they’d never gotten my e-mail, knew nothing about my request, but I refused to leave and, after some pressing, they whipped out the hard copy of my letter. Then the man with the bad attitude metaphorically patted me on the head, saying, “We have hearings all the time, and get expert testimony.”

I reply, “You mean like the expert testimony General Pace provided at an Armed Services hearing in early February when he assured the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee that he was fully confident in the readiness and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in the border states? And then, two weeks later, Lt. Gen. Blum of the National Guard reported that only 12 percent of Guard units were at readiness?” That kind of expert testimony?”

The man sneers, but remains silent.

“The only people who are experts at the realities and challenges and failure to care for veterans are the veterans themselves and the military families who love them. We need an open hearing.”

I repeated that to Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who is a member of the Veterans Affairs committee. Jeff and I talked about a number of things, and I hope to have some progress to report in the next week or so.

Back to the vote. Our people spent much of the day Thursday making phone calls and in meetings with members of Congress, their staffers or aides. It wasn’t looking good, but we knew it was over when the Out of Iraq - whoops, scratch that - the Stay in Iraq Caucus released it’s members to vote ‘yes’ on continuing the funding for the war.
Friday morning some military families and veterans sat in the gallery during testimony and the vote; others stood at the crosswalk that members of congress use to get to the Capitol. I spoke with some of the Representatives on their way to the vote, including Jim McDermott (D-WA), who has been against this war from the start. During my conversation with the Seattle liberal, I caught something in his eyes – remorse? - and I knew he would join the ranks of the dozens of others who were choosing to break their promises to us, the American people, and most disappointingly, the troops.

Some examples: Rep. Wynn (D-Maryland) has made a public commitment to defunding the war. Last month, Congressman Wynn signed onto the Declaration of Peace and publicly committed to defund the war, withdraw US troops, and support a sustained peace process and the reconstruction of Iraq. As part of this, he signed on to Jim McGovern's bill, HR 4232, End the War in Iraq Act, to use the Congressional power of the purse to get our troops out of Iraq starting now. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Wynn was the only member of the Maryland delegation who said he would not vote for continued funding of this war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Even more unbelievable is Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced HR 4232, and has spent years publicly proclaiming his opposition to the war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

The bill does have a timeline, one that brings troops home at the end of 2008, unless they are engaged in training Iraq forces or killing or capturing terrorists. Which means this goes on for another year and a half, and there’s no real timeline at all. Another year and a half where we will see an average of three soldiers dying every day. The bill does place restrictions on the president, and includes a loop hole that lets the president send the troops to Iraq, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and without proper rest, as long as he tells Congress in writing why it's in the interest of national security to do so.

Earlier this year, Congressman Markey (D-MA) signed a pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq coming before Congress. Representative Markey has stated he would vote against all supplemental funding. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Who else failed miserably in the integrity department and bought the war yesterday, after getting elected largely because of their opposition to funding it?

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), whose campaign website states:

"The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq. Americans have spent billions on this unnecessary war only to see tragedy, fraud, and waste."

I guess Carol thought we should spend another 100 billion more, so that America could add to the tragedy, fraud, and waste while Keith Ellison (D-MN) who ran on an anti-war ticket, and posted this on his website:

"I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

Now that Keith’s not a candidate, his true colors come out, and he’s decided that rather than supporting the troops, he supports some sort of withdrawal at some point in the distant future – or not.

Campaign’s over, folks, back to business as usual.

Other disappointments include: Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), another outspoken war critic,
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), et. al.

Of the 14 Dem’s who did NOT vote to fund the war, New York Congressman McNulty’s website statement is particularly noteworthy:

"In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York. Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.

As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.

In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970."

Yesterday, every member of Congress that voted to fund the war bought – at minimum – another year and a half of pain, sacrifice, and suffering, which will be paid for by thousands of American troops and military families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

note: CP here, I took the liberty of converting the original pdf files of the Certificate of Ownership to jpg form. The certificate is embedded above and below is the reverse, warranty. You can d-load the original pdf's for printing at mfso.org or directly here and here...

The Friday Political Grab Bag

Bob Geiger — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:07:15 -0500

If it's Friday, it's time to take a look at what's been floating around the political world this week and that I haven't commented on, might have slipped under your radar or has just flat-out been too silly for you to notice…

Nancy's Got Guts - House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi’s choice of John Murtha to be the new House Majority Leader, her steadfast support of his candidacy and Murtha's loss to Steny Hoyer, hardly spell an initial political defeat for the most powerful person in the new House of Representatives. If anything, it bodes well for the kind of true leadership we can expect from Pelosi, who had to know Hoyer would win and, accepting the political consequences, stuck by Murtha right up until the vote yesterday.

We may not always like everything Pelosi does over the next two years, but I'd bet anything she sticks to her guns in the face of even tougher stuff from the other side of the aisle.

* * * * *In addition to being a great guy and one of our favorite editorial cartoonists, the Houston Chronicle's Nick Anderson is also getting into doing animated political cartoons. His latest is a snarky take on how the GOP politicized the entire immigration issue leading up to the midterm elections.

Please go to Nick's site to check it out.

* * * * *
Following Bush's Bad Act - Which Republican will be the standard bearer -- lack-of-standard bearer? -- for the GOP in the 2008 presidential race? We're pretty damn sure that two former governors are running: Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and George Pataki of New York.

If one of them makes it all the way to the nomination and begins trying to act like a moderate, let's not forget the e-mails they sent out in the final week of the midterm-election campaign this year.

Here's Romney:

"My administration said 'no' to the Democrats' favorite revenue-raising tool: higher taxes.

"President Bush faced similar opposition from the Democrats when he cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 for all taxpayers. In fact , more than 90% of congressional Democrats voted against cutting federal income tax rates. Now some Democrats are calling for the tax cuts to be rolled back if they win control of Congress in November.

"That's why it is absolutely critical we elect Republican majorities to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate so taxes aren't raised and our economic growth isn't stifled through overregulation.

"We are fortunate to have a President who has made clear that he will give terrorism no quarter. President Bush and the Republican Congress are unwavering in the War on Terror and defending our country from future attacks. Despite the successes we've had apprehending terrorist operatives and preventing another strike on our homeland, some Democrats are now calling for President Bush to be impeached for his efforts to protect America from further terrorist attacks."

And George Pataki:

"When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman asked me to help make sure our Party's Get-Out-The-Vote programs are fully funded, I jumped at the chance.

"Maintaining control of the U.S. Congress is crucial to helping President Bush finish the job he started six years ago. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are poised to lead a Democrat House and Senate that will stop our agenda cold in its tracks.

"If we fail to win, liberal Democrats will take over every committee in Congress and undo everything President Bush and the GOP Congress have accomplished -- including rolling back the landmark tax cuts and reducing our commitment to winning the War against Terror."

It's pretty routine stuff: Democrats will raise your taxes -- despite the fact that no Democrat running for Congress in 2006 ever advocated across-the-board tax increases. So, in other words, Romney and Pataki lied by omission at the very least.

Oh, and they also go with the usual smears, implying that electing Democrats means we get overrun by terrorists.

File this stuff away for 2008.

* * * * *For sheer stupid fun, GSN, the Network for Games, gives us a Flash game called Foley's Follies, in which disgraced Republican Mark Foley chases young Congressional Pages around the corridors of power ala Pac-Man. Players guide the former Congressman through a maze while trying to chase down the Pages and, whenever the Foley head hits an IM bubble and he catches a Page, actual Foley quotes from the infamous IM transcripts appear at the bottom of the screen.

You can play here. Go on… You know you want to.

* * * * *Sometimes I Get More Than Hate Mail - Earlier this year, I did a dumb story about a live, two-headed snake that was discovered and made wise-guy comments about naming the two heads 'McClellan' and 'Mehlman.'

Almost a year later, Mr. Vishwanath Maddhukuri, from somewhere in India made me an offer I'm going to have to refuse:

Hi

My relatives have found Two headed snake in India. It is there in India, if you are interested to buy, let me know

Regards
Vishwa

Besides, Vishwa admitted that the two heads are already named Coulter and Malkin.

* * * * *As if Fox News didn’t do enough damage to itself this week, here they are reinforcing their ongoing, McCarthyite question -- "Are liberal blogs sending the same message as terrorists?"

Could be… I think even nutcase religious fanatics also think the people at Fox are idiots.

* * * * *Knucklehead Corporate Media Person of the Week - It's "Lester" who asked White House Spokesman Tony Snow the question that was obviously on everyone's mind Monday:

"In the primary election in Connecticut, the Democratic Party, as you know, repudiated Senator Lieberman who went on to be the winner as an independent. And the Democratic Party did not even have a nominee for the U.S. Senate in Vermont. Yet, they are claiming these two winners helped them constitute a majority in the Senate. And my question, doesn't the -- doesn't the President believe this Democrats-claim- everybody theory should and could be tested in court?"

But Snow set him straight: "Lester, as you know, when it comes to the organization of Congress, people get to decide with whom they will caucus. And the indications are that Bernard Sanders and Joe Lieberman would caucus with Democrats. This is not something subject to court order, it is their personal choice."

Note to Lester: Go to Amazon.com and pick up a copy of 'Congress for Dummies' before the next press briefing.

* * * * *Hypocrites r' Us: The Republican Superstore - Here's outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on the Senate floor Monday talking about the need to heal wounds and work across the aisle:

"But as we move forward -- and that really does officially begin today -- we begin with finishing the business of the 109th Congress, and we must work together to overcome that partisanship we have seen in the past, that crippling partisanship that has plagued us in the recent past.

"America wants results and America wants solutions, and it is with that focus we enter the waning days of the 109th Congress. We must return to an era of working together in a civil, bipartisan fashion. It is my hope both parties, Republicans and Democrats, will work toward governing together to produce those solutions, to produce those tangible results for the American people. That begins here, and it begins now."

Excuse me… I'm a little misty-eyed.

OK. This would be fine and dandy if Frist didn’t say this after two years of making Harry Reid's life hell, threatening to kill the filibuster -- one of the few procedural tools available to the minority party -- and shutting down almost every Democratic initiative, regardless of merit, on purely political grounds.

Spare us the histrionics, Billy, and just clear out Harry Reid's new office.

* * * * *Wyden Hamstrings EPA on Unacceptable Benzene Levels - Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden has had enough of Bush administration environmental rules that actually hurt people and the earth -- go figure! Specifically, Wyden objects to a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling on the amount of the cancer-causing chemical benzene that can be in gasoline and he's willing to put a Senatorial hold on the confirmation of EPA General Counsel nominee Roger Martella unless the rule is changed to protect people in his state.

Any Senator can place a long-term hold on a nomination and, while it can be done in secret, Wyden always announces his holds publicly along with his reasons. You can read about it here.

Come January, Wyden will just be able to round up the Democratic caucus and vote Bush's nominees down if the EPA doesn’t want to do the right thing.

* * * * *Bush Eats The Young - Yes, I know this is just so wrong…

And yet it feels so right…

Eat well this weekend!

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Its Steny Hoyer

wahoo — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:34:41 -0500

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats on Thursday chose Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer to be House majority leader over Rep. John Murtha, the choice of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in line to become speaker.

Hoyer was elected on a vote of 149-86.

The balloting marked a personal triumph for him, but also a snub to Pelosi, moments after the rank and file selected her unanimously to become speaker when the House convenes in January.

"We made history and now we will make progress for the American people," Pelosi told the party caucus moments after her selection.

She vowed that after 12 years in the minority, "we will not be dazzled by money and special interests."

Pelosi also called for unity in the party, but within moments she put her prestige on the line by nominating Murtha for majority leader.

Murtha is a powerful lawmaker on defense matters, and he gained national prominence last year when he called for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

He and Pelosi have long been close, and when Pelosi issued a statement supporting Murtha on Sunday, it raised the stakes in a leadership election within a party that is taking control of the House in January for the first time in a dozen years.

Pelosi and Hoyer have long had a difficult relationship. The two ran against
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/congress.leaders.ap/index.html

Congratulations Speaker Nancy Pelosi

wahoo — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:41:35 -0500

Democrats this morning unanimously selected Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to be the speaker of the house when the new Congress meets in January. But voting still is to come in the bitter fight for majority leader, the second-ranking position for Democrats.

That showdown involves Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and has divided House Democrats only a week after their party won elections that will give them control of Congress. It has also prompted numerous complaints that Pelosi and her allies are using strong-arm tactics and threats to try to elect Murtha.

Murtha, 74, a former Marine who was among the first on Capitol Hill to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, may have hurt his own chances Tuesday night when he derided the Democrats' ethics and lobbying package before saying he will push for its passage anyway out of deference to Pelosi. His statement, at a gathering of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, was cited by backers of his rival, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), as further proof that Murtha's controversial ethics record disqualifies him to lead the party in a new political era.

Pelosi's aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha has baffled and angered many Democrats, who think she has unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip. Pelosi has pushed Murtha's candidacy at social events, in private meetings and with incoming freshman Democrats; they have been called to her office to discuss committee assignments, only to hear first that she needs Murtha in order to be an effective leader.

------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR200611...

Make John Murtha Majority Leader

thepen — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:10:18 -0500

TELL OUR DEMOCRATS THAT JOHN MURTHA DESERVES TO BE HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER

ELECT MURTHA LEADER: http://www.peaceteam.net/leader_murtha.php

There are two candidates in the running for House Majority Leader this Thursday, and they are both fine men. However, by his strong stand on reploying our troops out of Iraq, and by doing so at a time when many others were just going along with the Bush administration's stay the atrocities policy, John Murtha has earned the right to be selected for this position. Simply put, John Murtha deserves to be leader because of his LEADERSHIP.

John Murtha has stood up for us with courage on this issue. That's all we care about. Now it's time for us to stand up for him

If you have a Democratic member of the House of Representatives in your district, please submit this form to send them an instant message by email. Please also call toll-free at 800-828-0498 or 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and ask for your house member by name.

The one click form below will send your personal message to your Democratic House Member only selected below, with the subject "John Murtha deserves to be majority leader." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

ELECT MURTHA LEADER: http://www.peaceteam.net/leader_murtha.php

Taylor Marsh on The Swiftboating of John Murtha

Bob Geiger — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:50:55 -0400

Even those of us who have watched the Republican smear machine for years have been sickened at how the GOP has coordinated its attacks against Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) for the crime of speaking out against our continued involvement in Iraq. After all, Murtha is only a highly-decorated combat Veteran, with 37 years in the Marine Corps, so who better to go after his patriotism and military record than a bunch of Republican Chickenhawks who have never served our country themselves?

Taylor Marsh comes to the rescue today on the subject of these attacks with an incredible piece of work called The Swiftboating of John Murtha and spells out in fascinating and repulsive detail what Murtha has endured over the last year.

An excerpt:

If Rep. Murtha didn't have real military clout, being the first Vietnam veteran elected to the House, the Republican Party wouldn't have bothered with him. But he does, so they did. It has now escalated into a conservative campaign to swiftboat a decorated Marine veteran.

Once called one of the most hawkish members of Congress, Rep. John Murtha is now being presented as some anti war coward. His remarks about Haditha have unleashed just the latest salvo in the swiftboating strategy invented by conservatives, which they are now being forced to defend and explain.

Prior to 2005, The Cybercast News Service (CNS), purveyor of all things conservative and run by L. Brent Bozell III, had only one article about Rep. John Murtha. The headline was laudatory: Congressional Bill Would Establish Memorial for Victims of 9/11 (March 8, 2002). But on November 18, 2005, Bozell's team shot into action and hasn't stopped attacking Rep. Murtha since.

For better or worse, Taylor doesn’t miss a disgusting trick, including attacks by the likes of Ann Coulter -- in which Coulter questioned the legitimacy of Murtha's many war medals -- Newsbusters, which did much the same thing and fellow Veteran Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who is more loyal to the sick GOP cause than another Vet and, as Taylor says, "is selling out a fellow brother in arms."

Taylor also covers, Diana Irey, Murtha's opponent for this year's election, who isn’t missing a chance to join the swiftboating and who happens to be married to someone profiting immensely from the Iraq war -- go figure.

If you only have time to read one thing this week, http://www.patriotproject.com/2006/07/the_swiftboatin.php " target="_blank">Taylor's article has got to be it.

Please go here to read more.

You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com

Murtha Opponent Irey Continues Lying to Voters

Bob Geiger — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 11:39:21 -0400

By Bob Geiger

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/irey_campaign.gif " alt="" border="0" /> In addition to the smears I http://www.democrats.com/node/9378 " target="_blank"> described yesterday by Diana Irey against Congressman John Murtha, the Irey campaign also sent out an e-mail blast last week denouncing Murtha for allegedly saying that "the United States poses a greater threat to world peace than nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran."

The problem is, they did it long after the newspaper that originally published the story http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/custom/corrections/sfl-628correx,0,4239... " target="_blank"> printed a correction saying they had misrepresented Murtha's remarks.

The Irey campaign sent an e-mail to supporters at 5 PM on Thursday, June 29, castigating Murtha, gushing about Irey's appearances with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and praising the talking heads' goal of continuing "…to focus on exposing Jack Murtha's latest outrageous statements."

"Between you and me, I don't know which one was worse," wrote Irey in the e-mail. "Was it saying we could 'redeploy' our troops from Iraq to Okinawa and still defend our interests just as well? Or was it his declaration that the United States poses a greater threat to world peace than nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran?"

A little detail that Irey didn't bother to mention was that the http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/custom/corrections/sfl-628correx,0,4239... " target="_blank"> South Florida Sun-Sentinel had already corrected its story the day before with the following statement:

"An article in Sunday's editions misinterpreted a comment from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town hall meeting in North Miami on Saturday. In his speech, Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq ,and the perception that the U.S. is an occupying force. Murtha was citing a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea."

So Murtha was citing a poll using that language and not making that statement himself.

Despite the fact that even the likes of Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly -- both of Fox News -- and The Wall Street Journal gave grudging retractions on their similar attacks against Murtha, Diana Irey saw fit to send out an e-mail citing the erroneous story and presenting it as truth.

So we can believe one of two things about the Irey campaign: That a Republican Congressional campaign that undoubtedly knows every move made by John Murtha and every word printed about him, didn’t know that what they were offering was provably untrue. Or we can infer that they did know, but decided that the lie would be so much better to slime him with than the boring truth.

Not a tough call, is it?

You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com