Posted on 07/01/2006 11:21:30 AM PDT by Coop
Last weekend, it was widely reported, Jack Murtha was one of a handful of political leaders who called senior officials of the New York Times to urge them not to publish the story. But in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday, June 25, New York Times editor Bill Keller seemed to suggest that Jack Murtha had NOT, in fact, urged the newspaper not to publish.
So the following day –- Tuesday, June 26 -– we asked Jack Murtha a simple question: Did you or did you not urge senior officials of the New York Times not to publish the offensive article?
We have yet to receive a response.
On Thursday, June 29, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H. Res. 895, a resolution "supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances."
In other words, this was a resolution that would put the House on record in the matter of sensitive leaks of national security information regarding financial tracking of terrorist activities. A "YES" vote in support of the resolution would be an indication that a Member thought the decision of the New York Times editors to publish their article was the wrong thing to do.
Surely, a political leader who had called a senior official of the New York Times to urge him not to publish a sensitive article based on illegal leaks of highly classified material would vote in support of such a resolution, wouldn’t he?
And yet … and yet Jack Murtha voted "NO" on the resolution (which, despite his "NO" vote, passed by a 227-183 margin –- with 17 Democrats voting in the affirmative).
Today’s question for Jack Murtha:
If you DID urge senior officials of the New York Times not to publish an article based on illegal leaks of highly classified material, why would you vote "NO" on H. Res. 895?
*An ongoing investigation of Jack Murtha, brought to you by Diana Irey for Congress.
Original thread: Because We Don't Know Jack (6/28/06)
And don't forget that Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation. He's on tape discussing taking bribe money
(gee, wonder why the LameStream Media doesn't remember this? Ann Coulter is right - the LSM hates Lexus-Nexus!
ABSCAM is one of the key words.
And yet … and yet Jack Murtha voted "NO" on the resolution
Having not received an answer to the first question and him voting NO on the resolution, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for him to answer the second question. I don't believe we'll get an answer.
You're exactly right. A person with integrity has the courage to defend their actions, they don't just ignore them.
At this time fundraising is not a problem for murtha. The ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee knows he can count on his defense contractors to come through with the bucks and is already the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the 2006 election cycle. I won't mention his brother, the defense contractor lobbyist.
.
Wow, time for that old traitor to be put out to pasture.
since I heard the Keller interview clips, I've wondered: who in God's name authorized Murtha to call the NYT on behalf of the Administration ? Makes absolutely NO sense.
In fact, the inference based on the contex of what Keller actually said is that Murtha called and asked him TO publish it. I don't understand where this misinformation of the Admin asking Murtha to call the Times comes from. Nothing in the portions of the Interview I heard suggest that at all.
ping
"...he just arrogantly assumes the job is his by right? That it's "his district" no matter what he does?"
Uh, uh. Say it ain't so.
That was a very clever bit of misdirection by Keller at the Treason Times. In the Inteview in question he never actually states Murtha asked him NOT to publish. In fact he specifically states "Not everyone on my list here asked us not to publish the story". He put Murtha in context of with those who called him but never actually say Murtha asked him not to publish. It was just sloppy reporting on the part of Rush, BOR and Hannity. He never actually says Murtha asked him NOT to publish.
That's what Gary Condit thought about his seat out here in California's 18th Congressional district in 2002.
The voters are not as stupid as their representatives think they are. We know the difference between right and wrong. Personally, I feel the voters in Pennsylvania's 12th district are definitely smarter than their current, soon to be fired, congressman.
Give Jack his Pink Slip...Just change the name on the window...
Excellent point.
Good analogy, thank you.
| Murtha's "Cut & Run" Comments on Iraq: "there's no progress at all" "it's worse than it was prewar" "we should immediatley redeploy" "War cannot be won on the ground" "I have said it's a civil war" "We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," |
Murtha's Comments on our Troops: "Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview. "No," replied Murtha "And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued. "Exactly right," said Murtha "we have become a catalyst for violence" in Iraq Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." at Haditha "I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened" "This is worse than Abu Ghraib" "Hopefully, this is an isolated incident. But we're supposed to be selling ideas of America, ideals of America, and we're losing that war." "These kind of things have to be brought out immediately," he told "This Week," "because if the Marines got away with it, other Marines might think it's okay." "What they're saying to me is we're stretching the military too thin. The army is broken, and we couldn't deploy to a second front if we wanted to." "The troops don't know what to do. They don't have the direction they need in order to supervise the prisoners," |
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.