Arab-Friendly Murtha - No wonder he wants us out of Iraq

[fossten]

JOHN MURTHA: CAVING IN TO ARABS SINCE 1980
by Ann Coulter
February 21, 2007

Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?

In case you missed the video on "I Love the '80s," Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans.

On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: "When I make a f***in' deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I'm doing and ... what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district ..."

It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.

Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done "legitimately ... when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so these bastards up here can't say to me ... 'Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,' then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart."

For those of you just joining us, no, this isn't a scene from "The Sopranos." It's an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.

Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, "after we've done some business, then I might change my mind." You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.

The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one "moderate" Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, "community outreach."

But Murtha was willing to trade favors in return for investment in his district — and suggested he might take cash down the line. In other words, Murtha wasn't calling for an immediate surrender of his scruples and principles, but rather a phased withdrawal of them.

In fact, according to a co-conspirator's affidavit, it didn't take long for Murtha to warm to the idea of a cash bribe.

About a month after the taped meeting with Murtha, the co-conspirator, lawyer Howard L. Criden, wrote in his affidavit: "Yesterday, Feb. 1, (Democrat Congressman Frank 'Topper') Thompson called and told me that Murtha was ready to go," adding that Murtha had indicated "during January that he was not ready to do business but would be willing to do so in the future."

Criden said: "Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania would be willing to enter into an agreement similar to that of the other congressmen" — i.e., taking $50,000 cash from the sheiks for legislative favors.

Criden's affidavit went unsigned, according to his lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste, solely because of the resulting publicity when the press blew the investigation, leading Criden to believe the prosecutors had broken the deal.

Criden was later convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, along with seven members of Congress (six of them Democrats). Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator. (Would that Patrick Fitzgerald were prosecuting the case!)

As an attorney, let me give you the technical legal description of what occurred: John Murtha was as guilty as O.J. Simpson.

Now Murtha issues high moral pronouncements on the war and denounces our troops, calling the U.S. military "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Gee, too bad there aren't any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes. Sounds like they could really use the money.

Murtha accuses Marines of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood" during an ongoing investigation. Semper Fi, Mr. Dirty Congressman.

Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.

The Democrats' cheat-sheet on Murtha demands that it be shouted out: "He didn't take a bribe on tape!" That's their defense. There is not even a pretense that he didn't talk to Arabs about a bribe.

He negotiated with a prostitute at the bar, but never consummated the deal. He's a saint! Let him be my congressman!

It's the Clintonian "incompetency" defense: Murtha was willing to be bribed; he just never got his act together enough to pick up the cash. I may not be honest, but I'm way too disorganized to actually take bribes!

Fine, Murtha was never convicted. Neither was Nixon. Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country's interests to Arab sheiks. This is the man Democrats have put up to lead the anti-war charge today, demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends.

If only this whole war thing would blow over, maybe that Arab is still waiting out there with a deal for him.

 

[Calabrio]

I did not know this.

 

[Marcus]

Murtha's involvement in Abscam is well-known. I'm not going to attempt to defend it.

But what is laughable is Coulter twisting this (as usual) to make it look like Murtha supports terrorists, which is complete horse sh|t. The fact that the sting centered around an Arab is all some of you need as proof. Truth is, as it pertains to the sting, the nationality of the guy was incidental. He could have just as easily have been a Russian. I realize that in the binary world some of you live in, Arab equals terrorist. That, and everything Miss Coulter says is absolute gospel. So I'm just talking to a brick wall.

 

[TheDude]

I think we should make Arabs (might as well clump Persian in there too) wear badges that state either "Good Arab" or "Bad Arab", because this is really getting confusing... I recall many pictures where the Bush's entertained many Arabs in the White House.

 

[fossten]

Truth is, as it pertains to the sting, the nationality of the guy was incidental. He could have just as easily have been a Russian.

A Russian sheik? LOL

 

[Calabrio]

O.K.- so you're argument is that he's corrupt, and he didn't care who was buying him off.... Anyone, Arab or Russian (DURING THE HEAT OF THE COLD WAR) could equally buy his influence. That's much better.

 

[Calabrio]

But, so you can't dismiss this thread by simply attacking Ann Coulter:

Murtha's Anti-War Stance Overshadows Abscam Past
By Randy Hall and Marc Morano
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200601\POL20060113d.html
January 13, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Members of the press have given extensive and glowing coverage to Rep. John Murtha's criticism of the war in Iraq, but have overlooked a number of other controversies the Pennsylvania Democrat has experienced over the past 25 years. This includes his reported role as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Murtha has denied any wrongdoing, but Cybercast News Service has learned that one of Murtha's former allies, a Democratic congressman who served on the House Ethics Committee in 1981 and says he lobbied colleagues not to censure Murtha, now believes Murtha lied to him about his role in Abscam.

Since Murtha's Nov. 17, 2005, call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one CNN anchor has called him "one of the most highly respected members of Congress," the Associated Press has referred to Murtha as "one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats," and ABC News has noted that he is "a decorated marine who served in Vietnam."

But a search of the Nexis online database by Cybercast News Service found only three newspaper articles over the past two months connecting Murtha with the FBI's Abscam (short for "Arab scam") sting operation that led to the arrest of several congressmen for accepting bribes.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington, D.C., townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States."

Noting that Murtha "is not squeaky clean," the Brattleboro, Vt., Reformer reported that the congressman "did not take the cash" offered by the agents. Instead, "he asked the fake sheik to consider investing some money in his struggling home town, Johnstown."

The Washington Post referred to the incident as "an ethical scrape" in which Murtha was "named as an unindicted co-conspirator and testified against two House colleagues."

But, a videotape of a Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha shows that the congressman's rejection of the offered bribe was less than definite. "I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point. See Video.

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

The congressman told the undercover FBI agent that he was a member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and acknowledged: "If you get into heat with politicians, there's no amount of money that can help."

In November 1980, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would not face prosecution for his part in the scandal. "I did not consider that any money was offered, and certainly none was taken," Murtha told reporters. "The FBI who taped the entire conversation knows damn well no money changed hands."

Eight months later, the House ethics panel also chose not to file charges against the Pennsylvania Democrat.

A July 30, 1981, article in the Washington Post quoted a committee source as saying that several allegations of misconduct against Murtha were rejected on a "near party-line vote." Since the panel was made up of six Democrats and six Republicans, seven votes were needed to file any charges.

Serving on the House panel in 1981 was Rep. Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who told Cybercast News Service that he was responsible for preventing the committee from punishing Murtha. "I saved his (posterior)," Bailey said.

"I worked hard, and I argued," and members of the committee "agreed with me," Bailey stated. "Part of my argument was that the FBI was overdoing it and there wasn't evidence that [Murtha] was doing anything wrong."

In 1982, as a result of congressional redistricting, Murtha and Bailey were forced to run against each other in a Democratic primary. Murtha emerged the winner.

In 2002, Murtha's ethics again became an issue in the congressional election. Bailey issued a public letter, the contents of which have been published on the Internet and confirmed by Bailey. In the letter, Bailey admits that his opinion about Murtha's involvement in Abscam had dramatically changed by 2002.

"I was, to be honest, critical about how you misled me about Abscam where you convinced me you had voluntarily told federal agents about the offer of money to you," Bailey wrote Murtha in the letter.

"I learned later, after I had successfully defeated the ethics charges against you, that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution," Bailey added.

On Jan. 9, Bailey told Cybercast News Service that he now believes Murtha was "pretty damn stupid" during the Abscam sting.

"The idea that somebody is going to trot out $50,000 in cash in front of you and you don't know that is wrong is pretty damn stupid to me," Bailey said. "What bankers or investors run around with $50,000 in cash?"

Just hours after the July 1981 House Ethic Committee vote sparing Murtha from charges, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., special counsel for the panel's Abscam investigation, abruptly resigned. At the time, Prettyman refused to discuss with the press his reasons for stepping down.

When contacted by Cybercast News Service regarding the investigation, Prettyman called the Murtha situation "very interesting," but declined further comment, citing the need to maintain attorney-client privilege.

Similarly, when Prettyman was interviewed by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1990, the former special counsel declined to comment on why he had resigned. But when pressed on whether the resignation was due to the Ethics Committee's vote on Murtha, Prettyman said that would be "a logical conclusion."

In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha confined his reply to the controversy surrounding his military service and did not address the accusations surrounding Abscam.

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear," Murtha added.

Murtha has thus far refused to release his full military records.

'One-man wrecking crew'

Since the Abscam scandal, Murtha has worked to limit the power of federal law enforcement officers.

In 1997, he spearheaded two measures -- one to prohibit non-members of Congress from filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee, and another to reimburse members and regular citizens for legal fees if they are ultimately cleared in a Justice Department probe.

This drew fire from Gary Ruskin, who at the time was director of the Congressional Accountability Project. "When it comes to institutional policing of corruption in Congress, John Murtha is a one-man wrecking crew," Ruskin said.

In response, Murtha argued that the legal fees amendment would "serve as a warning to the Justice Department to no longer interpret House rules to suit its own needs."

The Fiscal Year 2005 defense appropriations bill also created problems for Murtha. He helped write the bill, and it reportedly contained millions of dollars in federal funding for at least 10 companies represented by KSA Consulting -- a lobbying firm that includes the congressman's brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, as a senior partner.

Murtha has denied any wrongdoing, and an Ethics Committee investigation into the KSA Consulting matter may be conducted later this year.

'Instantaneous hero'

Anyone who calls for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces in Iraq "like Murtha and (peace activist) Cindy Sheehan becomes an instantaneous hero," Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report, told Cybercast News Service, while "the media regard supporters of the war as fools and dupes."

To many in the media, Kincaid noted, the failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq "was absolutely convincing evidence this war was dishonestly sold.

"They're not going to let that happen again. In order to get back at the administration, they're going to try to undermine the policy with constant gloom and doom and negative news," Kincaid said.

However, Jim Naureckas, editor of Extra!, the bimonthly magazine of the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), disagreed that Murtha was receiving special treatment from the press.

"For someone who is considered, at least on military issues, to be a fairly conservative Democrat, to come out and say what he said, that's a pretty newsworthy thing," Naureckas told Cybercast News Service, referring to Murtha's call for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"Up until Murtha's statement, very few people in the opposition party had signaled that getting troops out of Iraq was a priority, and the people who had were generally on the left end of the party and could be more easily marginalized," Naureckas said.

Meanwhile, Bailey -- Murtha's former ally turned antagonist -- told Cybercast News Service that he is not bothered by the establishment media's decision to ignore the congressman's link to Abscam or any of Murtha's other troubles.

Murtha may be "a wise old sage" by now, Bailey said, pointing to what he called Murtha's real area of expertise -- proposing "pay increases in the United States Congress.

"He does that well," Bailey concluded.

 

[Calabrio]

The Rest of Murtha's FBI Tape
By David Holman
Published 7/12/2006 12:09:33 AM

What is on the rest of Congressman Jack Murtha's now infamous FBI tape? Much more than the available video reveals.


Thanks to the diligent efforts of conservative media and blogs in January and February of this year, many readers now know or remember that Congressman Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the "Abscam" investigation of the late 1970s and 1980. (I wondered where the mainstream media's outrage was over Murtha's murky lobbyist relationships, besides the L.A. Times's lone, forgotten piece on the subject.)

In recent weeks, Murtha's Abscam past has enjoyed renewed attention in the higher echelons of conservative media, with even Rush Limbaugh and Bob Novak joining the chorus.

Still, only a brief, 13-second snippet of a tape of the FBI's undercover meeting with Murtha is widely available. The agent tells him, "I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know...." Murtha replies, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry. At this point [emphasis Murtha's]."

In his column, Novak hinted at the content of the tape. "The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence." We have seen him declining the cash and expressing interest, but not the bragging. What is on the rest of the tape?

An article from the August 6, 1980, Washington Post, inexplicably unavailable on LexisNexis, fills in some of the gaps. Written by Jack Anderson, the sometimes controversial yet Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative columnist, the article details Murtha's conversation with the investigators and sheds further light on his status as an unindicted co-conspirator. Anderson's reporter, Gary Cohn, apparently reviewed the tapes.

Anderson framed Murtha's performance as "perhaps the saddest scene on the secret Abscam videotapes.... He refused to take the money, but his reason was hardly noble." The column continued:

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."

..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

The dialogue continued as follows:

Amoroso: Let me ask you now that we're together. I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard [middleman Howard Criden] what we were willing to pay, and [This is where the available videotape begins]I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know....

Murtha: I'm not interested.

Amoroso: OK.

Murtha: At this point, [This is where the available videotape ends] you know, we do business together for a while. Maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't.... Right now, I'm not interested in those other things. Now, I won't say that some day, you know, I, if you made an offer, it may be I would change my mind some day.


It is damning stuff. But the mainstream media has yet to question Murtha aggressively about that short snippet of tape, much less the full reel. After my February article questioned Murtha's ties to defense contractors while chairing the defense appropriations subcommittee, John McLaughlin interviewed Murtha on his obscure One on One program. Besides suggesting that my article originated with a "sinister genius at the White House," McLaughlin asked Murtha about the tape:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: ...Murtha was approached by an undercover FBI agent, and you're on tape telling the agent, quote, unquote, "I'm not interested." Is that true?

REP. MURTHA: Not only that, John; they pulled a drawer out and they had $50,000 there and I said, "I'm not interested." I said, "I'm interested in investment in my district, period."


Not interested, period? The only "period" that Anderson reported Murtha using in the conversation was, "I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transaction at all, period." No wonder Murtha has kept a generally low profile through most of his political career.


David Holman is a reporter for The American Spectator. He may be reached at dave[dot]c[dot]holman[at]gmail[dot]com.

 

[Calabrio]

Would you like to watch the video too:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2131539854655700584

The complete and unedited video of Congressman John Murtha's January 7, 1980 meeting with the FBI's undercover Abscam investigation. At Abscam's W Street townhouse in Washington, D.C. With FBI Special Agent Anthony Amoroso, informant Mel Weinberg, and Howard Criden.

Here's a transcript:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10426

 

[Calabrio]

And, in classic Democrat fashion, the move isn't to distance yourself from this corrupt politician. It's circle the wagons and defend him. A tactic that liberals are able to get away with ONLY BECAUSE they have an eager liberal media waiting to ally themself with them.

In 1980 we were still living under the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which essentially was just a conservatism censorship bill. But to this day, if any high profile Republican were thinking of running for a leadership position with Murtha's background, it would be the front page of every newspaper and news magazine. IT WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE PRESS.

Now, go on, TommyB, defend him. Tell me why he shouldn't have been convicted in the court of public opinion and why he shouldn't have been run out of D.C.

BY THE WAY, they knew CLEARLY that this was a deal with Arabs. The conversation is VERY specific.

You can't hide from the video.

 

[Marcus]

Read the first line of my first post again, dipsh|t:

Murtha's involvement in Abscam is well-known. I'm not going to attempt to defend it.

I was already familiar with the history of this long before ever you posted those articles. If you're just now becoming aware of this, then congratulations.

The ONLY thing I take issue with in Coulter's piece is the ridiculous suggestion that he's some sort of Arab collaborator because he came close to taking a bribe from an FBI man posing as an Arab. He may be a corrupt motherfcuker (as are 95% of politicians - he just got caught and somehow got away with it), but I don't believe for a second that he'd base his decisions on some sort of allegiance to terrorists. It's ridiculous to the extreme. Which is exactly what I expect from Coulter.

 

[Calabrio]

Read the first line of my first post again, dipsh|t:

Asshat, by not condemning him, you are tacitly defending him. And you know that. "Oh well that's old news. Everybody does it. He just got caught" are permissive ways of defending him.

And everybody DOES NOT know. I bet if we ran a poll, maybe 1 out of every 20 would have been aware of this. And even fewer would know the details of the Abscam investigation.

The ONLY thing I take issue with in Coulter's piece is the ridiculous suggestion that he's some sort of Arab collaborator because he came close to taking a bribe from an FBI man posing as an Arab.

You've already stated this incorrectly. You said that the origin of the people involved was unknown to Murtha.

He may be a corrupt motherfcuker (as are 95% of politicians - he just got caught and somehow got away with it),

SEE... you are defending him again. Despite the fact that we KNOW he is corrupt, you use the word "may" and then go on to use the "everybody is doing it" defense. You're being dishonest.

Why is the Democrat Party having this man as the face of their party. He is the MAJORITY LEADER of the party!

but I don't believe for a second that he'd base his decisions on some sort of allegiance to terrorists. It's ridiculous to the extreme. Which is exactly what I expect from Coulter.

Well, it certainly indicates that he can be bought. And that he should be discredited. Yet, the main stream media remains conspicuously quiet regarding his grossly corrupt and disturbing past.

I don't see anywhere Coulter's piece where it says that he has an "allegiance" with terrorist. There are some tongue in cheek jabs, but your claim is not made.

Also to note- MURTHA WAS ON THE ETHICS COMMITTEE at the time of the video and he was closely aligned with Tip O'Neil and Carter. Furthermore, this deal is being down immediately following the Iranian Revolution and the surge in Islamic Radicals that came about at the turn of the decade.

 

[Marcus]

Asshat, by not condemning him, you are tacitly defending him. And you know that. "Oh well that's old news. Everybody does it. He just got caught" are permissive ways of defending him.

Ooh, talk dirty to me Calabrio. I LOVE IT! :gr_devil:

Anyway...

If there was justice in the world, then Murtha would have gone to prison. But he didn't. What more do you want me to say? The fact that YOU just discovered this 30 year-old information doesn't make it worthy of a FOX NEWS ALERT.

You've already stated this incorrectly. You said that the origin of the people involved was unknown to Murtha.

No I didn't. I said that the man's origin was incidental, as in irrelevant to the case. Of course Murtha knew who he was dealing with (or thought he did). What the man was asking for had nothing to do with jihad. He was asking for asylum in the U.S. and to get them involved in some sort of investment scheme.

SEE... you are defending him again. Despite the fact that we KNOW he is corrupt, you use the word "may" and then go on to use the "everybody is doing it" defense. You're being dishonest.

Good grief, do I really need to explain to you that using the word "may" in that context means the same as "is"? I may not be the best writer but I think the statement was pretty clear.

Why is the Democrat Party having this man as the face of their party. He is the MAJORITY LEADER of the party!

As was Tom Delay, and you'll have a hard time showing me that Murtha's misdeeds even approach Delay's. The fact that Delay resigned had nothing to do with Republican surprise or outrage or anyone "doing the right thing" . It was because it was no longer possible for anyone to cover for him--which the Republicans had been doing for years.

If someone wants to open an investigation into Murtha, have at it. But rehashing Abscam isn't gonna do much for you.

Well, it certainly indicates that he can be bought. And that he should be discredited. Yet, the main stream media remains conspicuously quiet regarding his grossly corrupt and disturbing past.

The mainstream media covered it extensively... in 1980. And what Abscam has to do with his position on the war still escapes me unless you're buying Coulter's BS.

I don't see anywhere Coulter's piece where it says that he has an "allegiance" with terrorist. There are some tongue in cheek jabs, but your claim is not made.

You want to call it tongue in cheek, that's fine. But there are many of her drooling fans who, like one unnamed individual here, are incapable of distinguishing between sarcasm and objective facts.

The fact that she never uses the word "terrorist" doesn't mean that she wasn't making a concerted effort to imply that he was dealing with a terrorist, even if a fake one. Never mind the fact that, in 1978, if the word "Arab" was brought up, most people's minds conjured snake charmers and flying carpets rather than Jihad. But Coulter plays up the "Arab" scare-word at every opportunity:

Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?

...Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980.

...knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.

...a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.

You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.

Gee, too bad there aren't any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes.

Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.

There is not even a pretense that he didn't talk to Arabs about a bribe.

Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country's interests to Arab sheiks.

...demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends

 

[fossten]

Ooh, talk dirty to me Calabrio. I LOVE IT! :gr_devil:

Anyway...

If there was justice in the world, then Murtha would have gone to prison. But he didn't. What more do you want me to say? The fact that YOU just discovered this 30 year-old information doesn't make it worthy of a FOX NEWS ALERT.

Hey, Dipsh!tforbrains...

The fact that he's now the FACE of the Democrat Party in the House bears mentioning, especially when his goals for our military parallel the goals Al Qaeda has for our military.

Good grief, do I really need to explain to you that using the word "may" in that context means the same as "is"? I may not be the best writer but I think the statement was pretty clear.

Where have I heard this argument before? Hmmm...let me see...Bill Clinton, arguing over what the definition of "is" is? LOL be careful Tommy, you might shoot yourself in the OTHER foot next time.

As was Tom Delay, and you'll have a hard time showing me that Murtha's misdeeds even approach Delay's. The fact that Delay resigned had nothing to do with Republican surprise or outrage or anyone "doing the right thing" . It was because it was no longer possible for anyone to cover for him--which the Republicans had been doing for years.

DeLay was selflessly putting his party's best interests over his own. You have zero evidence that the Repub party covered for DeLay. You ignore the fact that the prosecutor in the DeLay case was in the middle of making a movie and had to hurry up and get any indictment he could find so the capstone could be written on the screenplay. And there is zero hyperbole in this paragraph.

The fact that she never uses the word "terrorist" doesn't mean that she wasn't making a concerted effort to imply that he was dealing with a terrorist, even if a fake one. Never mind the fact that, in 1978, if the word "Arab" was brought up, most people's minds conjured snake charmers and flying carpets rather than Jihad.

Gee, I wonder why that was. I mean, it's not like we had a President (Jimmuh Cahter) who was constantly cozying up to terrorists like Arafat and who was anti-Israel. </sarcasm off> We never had a chance to become aware of any jihad back then b/c our President was a terrorist supporter.

 

[Calabrio]

If there was justice in the world, then Murtha would have gone to prison. But he didn't. What more do you want me to say? The fact that YOU just discovered this 30 year-old information doesn't make it worthy of a FOX NEWS ALERT.

I see, so since Murtha did this in 1980, there's no reason to bring it up again? As I acknowledged early in this thread, I was not fully aware of the details of the Abscam scandal. Of course, one of things that makes me different than, say, you, would be the fact that I know MORE about it now than you do.

The scandal is old news, but Murtha isn't. He's one of the faces of the Democrat party. He's the majority leader. Don't you think it's a bit odd that the news media has seemingly forgotten this significant part of his history? That certainly isn't a courtesy they extend to the Republican party.

This is a story. This is something that should be noted. The fact that I wasn't aware of the fact, despite having a background in this stuff, demonstrates how little attention this story has gotten in recent years.

I think it's incredibly significant and newsworthy that the very prominent leader of the House Democrats, someone who was being considered for the position of Speaker of the House!

No I didn't. I said that the man's origin was incidental, as in irrelevant to the case.

For the most part, I'll agree. But keep in mind, 1980 was not a terror free year either. The Iranians were holding hostages, there was a gas crisis in 1979. The Abscam situation doesn't mean he was a terrorist sympathizer, but it does show, not just corruption, but extraordinarily bad judgment and willingness to form very questionable and dangerous alliances..

Good grief, do I really need to explain to you that using the word "may" in that context means the same as "is"? I may not be the best writer but I think the statement was pretty clear.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is... Words have meaning. Try to use them correctly. "May" does not mean the same thing as "is." The statement was clear, you may have made a mistake, but it was the kind that completely changed the meaning of your statement.

As was Tom Delay, and you'll have a hard time showing me that Murtha's misdeeds even approach Delay's. The fact that Delay resigned had nothing to do with Republican surprise or outrage or anyone "doing the right thing" . It was because it was no longer possible for anyone to cover for him--which the Republicans had been doing for years.

...I'm going to call "bull:q:q:q:q" on that claim. If you would like it be taken serious, why don't you post exactly what law that Delay was either convicted of, or caught on tape doing, that even comes close to what is on the video tape of Murtha.

And I would ask you to watch that video tape, not just the sort 12 minute version, but the link I posted. It is chilling.

But, it is humorous, you've now resorted to defending Murtha again by saying "but he did something worse."

If someone wants to open an investigation into Murtha, have at it. But rehashing Abscam isn't gonna do much for you.

You don't think people should be aware of this story?

If you were so acutely aware of Murtha's history, why didn't you ever voice your disapproval of the man as he was ascending through the party leadership? When he was challenging Pelosi? Why the deafening silence?

Don't you think this story would have really thrown a wrench in the whole "culture of corruption" bullcrap that the Democrats tried to run on?

The mainstream media covered it extensively... in 1980. And what Abscam has to do with his position on the war still escapes me unless you're buying Coulter's BS.

Your reading comprehension is limited. Coulter's piece doesn't link Abscam to international terrorism. It's simply readdress and reintroduces the issue to the public.

You want to call it tongue in cheek, that's fine. But there are many of her drooling fans who, like one unnamed individual here, are incapable of distinguishing between sarcasm and objective facts.

Why don't you provide some specifics in your response? What specific comments in that article do you think are dangerous or misleading.



The fact that she never uses the word "terrorist" doesn't mean that she wasn't making a concerted effort to imply that he was dealing with a terrorist, even if a fake one. Never mind the fact that, in 1978, if the word "Arab" was brought up, most people's minds conjured snake charmers and flying carpets rather than Jihad. But Coulter plays up the "Arab" scare-word at every opportunity:

Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?

...Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980.

...knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.

...a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.

You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.

Gee, too bad there aren't any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes.

Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.

There is not even a pretense that he didn't talk to Arabs about a bribe.

Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country's interests to Arab sheiks.

...demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends[/QUOTE]