Rep. John Murtha is really beginning to rue the day he made disparaging remarks about marines involved in the Haditha Incident where Iraqis in a home were killed. Murtha had called the actions of the marines "cold blooded murder" although the facts of the incident were not known at the time. Murtha had stated that the people killed were innocent Iraqi civilians but, again, the complete facts of the incident are not completely known.

One of the marines whom Murtha referenced as a killer, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has filed a defamation of character suit against Murtha. Murtha sought to have the case dismissed, but according to the AP the judge, Rosemary M. Collyer, has refused request.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Murtha will now be required to make a deposition in the case.

According to the article, Murtha's primary purpose was to draw attention to the pressure the troops in were under and to show that there were efforts to cover up the incident. What Murtha failed to take into consideration was the fact that the case had not been tried and all the facts had not surfaced. By jumping the proverbial gun, Murtha stated untrue allegations about the marines and did so on television. Ultimately, the charges were outright dismissed against several of the marines.

The decision of the judge not to dismiss the case comes on the heels of Murtha's embarrassing performance when a college student cornered the congressmen and asked him point blank and asked him if he would retract his statements. Murtha responded that the trial was not over yet.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to call ex-Marine John Murtha that. I respect anyone who has served...at least until the point that they take off the uniform and demean our troops like Rep. Murtha and Sen. John Kerry did.

John Murtha said shortly after several Marines were charged with murder in Haditha Iraq that they killed "in cold blood" when the hadn't even gone to trial. Most of the charges were dropped including the most serious charges and the Marines have effectively been cleared. So why hasn't Murtha apologized for his comments and why didn't the media question why a sitting congressman would first portray our troops as murderers than not apologize when it became clear they would not? That was a rhetorical question.

I guess if you can't get the old media to do the job, it falls to new media bloggers to ask the corrupt congressman the pertinent questions:

It seems that at that exact moment Murtha would like to have redeployed himself to Okinawa. Murtha loathes those who he once belonged to and he should be ashamed of himself. Unfortunately shame is not something Murtha knows anything about.

Congressman John Murtha is an absolute disgrace and he is exulted by the Democrats. He accused our troops of committing a vile act and when they are proven innocent, he runs away. Ladies and gents, enjoy your new Congress, the Most. Ethical. Congress, Ever.

The Hill is reporting that one of the leaders of the anti-war movement in the House, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha, is claiming that Republicans will join him against the Iraq war -- next year.

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Monday that he expects that Republican lawmakers will begin abandoning President Bush's Iraq policy after the GOP picks a presidential candidate next year. "As soon as the primaries are over, you'll see Republicans start jumping ship," Murtha said in remarks at the National Press Club.

Murtha also is predicting that Democrats will pick up 40 to 50 seats in the House next year. To put his predictions in context, might I remind readers that Murtha, one year ago, was predicting that by this time (September '07) we would have surrendered in Iraq and our troops would be "redeploying" to areas outside of Iraq where we could provide "quick response" strikes on terrorists -- from bases as close as Okinawa, Japan, 4899 miles away.

I believe that Murtha's predictions this year are also in error. Iraq will be in play next year, but will be more of a problem in the general electorate for Democrats than Republicans. And with Congressional approval lower with a Democratic Congress than it ever was with a Republican one, I don't think you'll be seeing any Democrat landslide in '08. What are the Dems going to do, run against themselves? (Oh wait, there's MoveOn.org...)

If (a big if) Republicans clean up their act and pledge fiscal conservatism under new leadership, I think that the Senate will remain in the Democrats' control, but the House might switch again. If Iraq is going particularly well, however, that might change - Republicans could win the Senate as well. All bets are off if the Republicans continue to act like idiots. I think that the House Republicans have, for the most part, learned their lessons. The Republicans in the Senate, as of yet, have not learned theirs (as evidenced by Larry Craig and Ted Stevens), and might not until after 2008.

This was really a stretch. Even for the likes of Sean Hannity. Watch Ted Nugent, brandishing machine guns on stage as he spews adolescent obscenities and vitriol at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A few days ago, Nixguy pondered the entertainment value of the "Motor City Madman" running for governor of the state of Michigan. Yeah, it's real entertaining, alright. Kind of like a making popcorn and watching a Ku Klux Klan rally, fun stuff. Uh, I guess you could say that whatever chances Nugent had of running for office are now officially over.


Update: YouTube appears to be experiencing technical difficulty, so I apolgize if the clip that I used doesn't seem to load. Essentially, for those who missed Nugent's original antics, Ted was giving a concert, took out two machine guns and let fly with the following:

"I was in Chicago last week, I said, 'Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these [machine guns], you punk!' Obama, he's a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let's hear it for them. I was in New York and said, 'Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless b*tch. And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!"

Nice stuff, huh? And then Sean Hannity tried to wash away his friend's behavior by throwing out nonsense ad-hominem attacks against Barack Obama and John Murtha. The talk-show host refused to distance himself from Nugent's remarks. This from the same man who fueled the outrage against the Dixie Chicks for saying they felt embarrassed to be from the same state as the president.

The Republicans could do worse than make Rep. Jack Murtha the poster boy of what they're trying to defeat in 2008. Over the past few days, Bob Novak has used his sources on Capitol Hill to give us a look at who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls on when things get a bit touchy with the ethics and earmarks subject on the House floor -- good old Jack Murtha. He's apparently now referred to openly by his nickname: "King Corruption":

Republicans returning to the House floor on Friday morning Aug. 3 after their walkout the night before were surprised to find as presiding officer the Democrat they call "King Corruption": Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, master of earmarks and backroom deals.

...Murtha's performance as non-partisan presiding officer ran true to form. On a voice vote, Murtha ruled for Democrats when obviously more Republicans were on the House floor. He subsequently ordered a roll call vote, though members rising in support clearly fell short of the 44 required. After that ruling was challenged, Murtha declared: "The chair's decision is not subject to question."

Nice guy. And one ripe for defeat. Now we fast forward to this morning's Novak column in the Washington Post, House of Corruption?, for an update on the fight against secret earmarks attached to unrelated appropriations bills in the House. Incidentally, this is an embarrassment for both parties, not just Democrats.

No one argues that many of the spending measures that get approved via earmarking aren't worthy. It's that without information and debate on the spending, no one really knows has enough facts about the earmark to make an educated decision. An earmark could be a very important repair project that wasn't foreseen when the highway bill was written and passed, or it could just be a payoff to a political crony. However, one would hope that the chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee that is ultimately responsible for earmark project would have more information on it than, say, the average representative.

Not so, apparently, especially when it comes to a $1 million earmark for Jack Murtha. From The Crypt blog at The Politico:

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue. After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

Brilliant. Oh, and Flake's bid to strike the earmark for the Center that may or may not exist lost 326-98. Hey, what's a million dollars?

Here's Jack Murtha in May of 2006 regarding a just commenced investigation of an alleged shooting of civilians in Haditha, Iraq:

A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.

...On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the accounts are true.

Here's an AP report out today on the recommendation of the hearing officer involved in the case. He states that all charges should be dropped because whatever existing evidence that exists shows clearly that no murders of innocents ever took place. This comes over a year after Murtha's aforementioned scurrilous comments:

The government's case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

I wonder when Murtha is going to issue his apology? For that matter, I wonder when MSNBC, the AP, and Reuters are going to tell us the names of their "military sources" that gave them false information on this case, if they even exist. And what was their, and Murtha's, motivation in falsely accusing Marines of a heinous crime?

Mad Jack Murtha survived a possible reprimand in the House last night, in a very short-sighted move by the Democrats. He and his fellow Dems seemed cocky about it as well. The Politico's take:

During the vote, Murtha sat in a darkened corner of the House floor, laughing with colleagues who surrounded him during the vote. As the clock wound down, other Democrats him to congratulate the senior member of the Appropriations Committee who oversees a massive defense spending bill every year.

This is nothing for the Democrats to be proud of. And it happened as we learned more about the earmark that caused Republican Congressman Mike Rogers to object (Murtha sent earmark letter five weeks after deadline) -- it seems that Murtha broke just about every rule in the House just to get it to the floor in the first place. From The Hill:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) submitted an earmark certification letter for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) May 1, more than five weeks after the Intelligence Committee's deadline and the day before the panel marked up its authorization bill, according to copies of the letter and the notice of the deadline sent to the entire committee. Murtha addressed the letter only to Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), not Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the panel's ranking member. Hoekstra has said he was not given a copy-an apparent violation of House rules. All earmarks must be disclosed in writing to both the chairman and ranking member.

..."There was a process put in place to handle earmarks," one staffer asserted. "It happened before Murtha's letter even came here."

When the Democrats forcefully re-took control of Congress, they did so with promises to "drain the swamp" of the culture of corruption. With stern new legislation, we would rid ourselves of the likes of Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and Tom Delay. Specifically, they pledged to address the evils of the lobbying industry and its untoward influence of our lawmakers. Since taking power, there have been some victories on this score:

House Democratic leaders say they have already adopted tighter ethics rules than Republicans managed to approve, including a prohibition on receiving gifts and trips from lobbyists. Another new rule requires the identification of the sponsors of earmarks, the special projects inserted at a member's request into complex spending bills.

OK. A fine, if not modest, start. But if Democratic members of the House think they've somehow done enough, they are in for a rude awakening. As right-wing blogger Patrick Casey points out in a recent post, some in the party are simply behaving in a way that is all too reminiscent of their predecessors. John Murtha, in particular, seems forever lost to the smash-mouth, ends-justify-the-means, brand of politics that has dominated Washington for too long. If, as some in the party suggest, they do not limit the lobbyist-fundraising connection, they will be seen as nothing more than blatant hypocrites. And deservedly so.

Note to Democrats: Really follow through on your promises to drain the swamp, or prepare to be drained, yourselves.

Mad Jack Murtha is about to become an even bigger problem for the Democrats, as the Associated Press is reporting that there is going to be a House vote later today on whether or not to issue an official House reprimand for Murtha's recent bullying tactics against Republicans.

Ironically, the supposed Democrat ethic "reforms" that Pelosi and Murtha passed earlier this year is making this vote possible. The House Democrats put in effect a rule that prohibits members from threatening to block other member's bills, amendments, or earmarks as payback for any perceived transgression. There are YouTube clips that show Murtha berating a Republican congressmen on the House floor, and witnesses say he was threatening to withhold funding. So it's going to be hard for Democrats to do their usual "the Republicans are lying" shtick.

The AP article does suck up to the Democrats by saying that the GOP "accuses" Murtha and never mentions the videotapes -- but it also includes the fact that Murtha doesn't dispute what happened.

House Republicans angled Tuesday to put Democrats in a no-win position: reprimand a senior colleagues or be seen as blindly excusing legislative bullying for partisan reasons.

House leaders tentatively scheduled a late Tuesday vote on a Republican move to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and close ally of House Speaker Hancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The GOP accuses Murtha of making a blatant threat against a Republican who challenged a pet project that Murtha wanted.

Democrats are crowing that they have the votes to kill the official reprimand. I invite them to -- it makes for a perfect 2008 election issue. Even if they do not block it, and vote to reprimand Murtha, it's going to be like manna from heaven. Murtha's never going to shut up, a reprimand is just going to make him angrier, and having him in Democrat House Leadership is like having a gift that keeps on giving.

Here's the story in this morning's The Politico, which includes the text of the reprimand resolution, and a few other tidbits.

I received an alert e-mail about 11:30pm last evening to tell me about this little article from "The Politico" about one of my favorite congressmen, Jack Murtha. It seems that he got a little hot under the collar when one of his pork barrel spending projects that he attempted to slide into a bill last week was criticized. And, like the thug that he is, he responded:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened to deny any further spending projects to a Republican who challenged him over an earmark last week, the GOP is charging – a potential violation of House rules that could cause a spike in partisan tensions.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who questioned money that Murtha inserted into an intelligence bill last week, turned the tables Thursday night by saying he would call for Murtha to be reprimanded for violating House rules.

Murtha doesn't like it when daylight is shone on his little empire. This ($23 million) argument has to do with Murtha attempting to re-fund a thing called the National Drug Intelligence Center in Pennsylvania. The reason why it was being shut down was that it's duplicative and useless, especially in its location.

The Politico has a good article this morning (Dems bend rules, break pledge) that follows up on my post from last night about Speaker Pelosi. The article mentions the upcoming repeal of the minority's right of offering Motions to Recommit, but also adds a few other tidbits to what the Democrats have recently been pulling, including an interesting item about secretly bending the rules to throw out $23 million to a John Murtha sponsored pork project. Perhaps that was Murtha's price for keeping his mouth shut last week, but I find it interesting that whenever the national media does talk about Democrat corruption, earmarks, pork spending, shady back-room deals, or family lobbyist connections, Murtha's name is always in the thick of it.

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power. So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

So, the Democrats lied. No surprise there, but what is of note is that they continued to lie even after the election, when they didn't have to:

Just last December, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared that Democrats "intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House."

I was hoping that this wouldn't happen, but I guess expecting reasonableness from the Democrats is out of the question. Just a short while after having a similar emergency war supplemental bill vetoed and having that veto sustained, the Democrat leadership in the House, partially responding to threats from organizations like MoveOn.org, are planning to introduce a bill that will provide funds for the troops through July. If the Dems don't like how things are going in Iraq then, they can cut off all funds immediately.

House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.

If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management. We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said.

The Democrats are acting like petulant children. They don't have the guts to come out and try to cut all funds now, which is the only real constitutional way they can go. Instead, they appear to look reasonable by saying that they'll fund the troops until they see the results of the surge in July. Problem is, the surge won't fully be in place until June, and that was if funds were given to the Defense Department by April 15. General Petraeus has indicated to Congress that he won't even be able to begin to tell if the surge is having the intended effect until at least September. And certainly the combat operations won't be over by then. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha want to pull out the funds mid-battle.

Realizing that it is politically untenable to not pass an Iraq funding bill, the Democrats think they found a way to appease the base and not look like they are yanking funds from the military in a war zone:

In a flash of defiance, House Democratic leaders on Thursday weighed a proposal that would guarantee the war money only through July. After that, Congress could block additional money from being spent if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals.

The proposal, not yet endorsed and outlined for only a few members, would be a direct challenge to the president and could prompt another presidential veto. This week, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, views a short-term funding bill as a nonstarter, said spokesman Brian Kennedy.

This strategy is not half bad, although still quite vulnerable to bashing from the President and his allies in congress along the lines noted above; that this is a rehash of Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy and that they are, once again, playing political games with the war.

This strategy is not half bad, although still quite vulnerable to bashing from President Bush and his allies in congress along the lines noted above; that this is a rehash of Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy and that they are, once again, playing political games with the war.

Impeachment.

Despite everything else that John Murtha said on Face the Nation, this part will be what carries the headlines.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

"What I'm saying, there's four ways to influence a president. And one of them's impeachment," Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Incredible. With his years of experience, Murtha should understand that the "impeachment as a weapon" gambit works only when the president has given enough ammunition to his opposition to make it work. Impeachment for the purposes of pressure works only when you can count on half the House and two thirds of the Senate to follow through on it.

Short of this, Bill Clinton showed that impeachment is very survivable, so good luck with that Mr. Murtha. In fact even saying this may signal that the Democrats are bluffing and that President Bush should call them on it. Impeachment? Get real, they don't have the juice.

Beyond the impracticality of the impeachment procedure, the only Democrats talking about it should be the ones who have a squeaky clean past, and Jack Murtha is not one of them. It's looking more and more that the House Democrats saved Nancy Pelosi a lot of trouble when they declined to support her choice of Murtha to lead the Democrats in the house and chose Steny Hoyer instead.