John Murtha on The Huffington Post

Pentagon Expected To Request More War Financing

2009-11-04T21:51:33Z

WASHINGTON -- The nation's top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget.

Seven Members Of House Defense Subcommittee Scrutinized By Ethics Investigators

2009-10-30T08:56:34Z

Nearly half the members of a powerful House subcommittee in control of Pentagon spending are under scrutiny by ethics investigators in Congress, who have trained their lens on the relationships between seven panel members and an influential lobbying firm founded by a former Capitol Hill aide.

House Report Reveals Details Of Investigations Into Lawmakers, Aides

2009-10-29T21:20:04Z

WASHINGTON — Dozens of lawmakers have drawn scrutiny from their ethics monitor this year for everything from financial dealings to travel and campaign donations, according to a leaked account showing an active House panel secretly at work.

Seven of the lawmakers – four not previously known – serve on a defense appropriations subcommittee that divvies up money for Pentagon contractors.

Robert Naiman: NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?

2009-10-22T10:21:54Z

If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an impact, that time is now.

The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal's proposal could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can "afford" to provide every American with quality health care, but every health care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than McChrystal's endless war. A recent CNN poll says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more troops.

Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern's amendment demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. Our troops are "exhausted," Murtha says.

Top administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin, an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American people and Congress won't support it; Biden on the grounds that it would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan.

Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at home, for many years.

Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion to move policy.

National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint website noescalation.org, we're posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000 more U.S. troops. We're asking Americans to call Congressional offices and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress stands. And we're asking for that information to be reported back to the website noescalation.org.

The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal's request. Some Members of Congress are saying, "We're waiting to see what the president decides." But that nonsense is an obvious dodge. The time to affect the president's decision is obviously before he makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.

Call now. The Norwegians are counting on you.

Rick Horowitz: Murthaville: Just Down the Road from Backscratch, Pa.

2009-09-22T12:00:57Z

"Good morning, everyone, and a warm Western Pennsylvania greeting to each and every one of you! My name is Carly, and I'm the assistant tour guide for the Murthaville Chamber of Continuous Commerce, and it's so nice to have all of you with us. Now, what brings you to Murthaville today?"

"A busted axle."

"Oh. Well, sorry for the inconvenience, but we're glad you chose to visit us anyhow while they're working on your bus. Some of the roads around here do get pretty chewed up, I have to admit, and we certainly see our share of flat tires and damaged rims. But here in Murthaville, we figure it's nothing that some more road-repair money can't fix."

"You repair those roads? It doesn't look like -- "

"Actually, the first thing we do is get the road-repair money. And thanks to Murthaville's great benefactor -- by the way, how many of you know his name?"

"Murtha?"

"Exactly! John Murtha is our congressman, and he's been in the House of Representatives for a long, long time, and he's a very influential man in Washington. Does anybody here know why he's so influential?"

"He's got pictures of the other congressmen?"

"What an amusing answer! No, the real answer is that John Murtha is so influential because he serves on the Appropriations Committee -- that's where the money comes from -- and he's even a chairman of one of the most important Appropriations subcommittees. And that's why we're standing here in the brand-new lobby of the brand-new John Murtha Institute for Applied Generosity."

"Earmarks."

"My, what a clever little boy you are! It's true -- some people call them 'earmarks.' That's when a congressman makes sure that a particular community -- and it doesn't have to be his own community, it could be anywhere -- gets its fair share of government spending. And John Murtha has always been very committed to this community, and this community is just as committed to him. Do you know what they call that?"

"Kickbacks?"

"Loyalty. They call that loyalty. And John Murtha knows some of the most loyal people you'll ever want to meet. And he's every bit as loyal to them as they are to him -- it's really heartwarming."

"What about -- "

"In fact, speaking of hearts, you may have noticed on your way into town all the big signs for the John Murtha Regional Cardiac Research Hub? Right across John Murtha Boulevard from the John Murtha High-Speed Rail Depot and the John Murtha Attack Submarine Test Facility and Senior Center? Well, the Cardiac Hub was all because of a little multi-million-dollar provision Mr. Murtha managed to tuck into one of those appropriations bills. And then he -- yes?"

"We saw the signs for the cardiac thing -- but where was the building?"

"Actually, the building is still in the planning stage. I understand they've even got some blueprints now. Meanwhile, though -- and this is the important thing -- the money from that provision in the bill? It's already bringing plenty of happiness to many of the good people of Murthaville."

"But if there's no -- "

"Here in Murthaville, federal money never sits idle for long. In fact, we like to say that in Murthaville our biggest cash crop is -- "

"Cash."

"Exactly. Whether it's a big payday for a well-positioned lobbyist or a juicy grant to a deserving relative, Murthaville is all about economic growth. And you know what that's called?"

"Corruption?"

"Leadership!"

# # #

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com

Murtha To Obama: No More Troops

2009-09-14T12:50:02Z

House defense spending cardinal John Murtha, an early bellwether of congressional opposition to the Iraq war, has made his strongest comments yet opposing more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, who plays a crucial role in forming the budgets that would fund an increased troop presence, is skeptical of the basic logic of adding personnel.

Murtha: No More Troops To Afghanistan

2009-09-14T12:44:14Z

House defense spending cardinal John Murtha, an early bellwether of congressional opposition to the Iraq war, has made his strongest comments yet opposing more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.

Republicans Fear "Crackpots" Becoming Face Of Party

2009-09-11T09:25:55Z

Joe Wilson's outburst Wednesday night earned more than a personal rebuke from the president and a dagger-eyed gasp from the speaker of the House; it drew winces from Republicans worried that their party is becoming known less for the power of its ideals and more for the pettiness of its vitriol.

The Murtha Method: Most House Defense Subcommittee Members Caught Up In Controversial Circles Of Lobbyists, Earmarks, Contributions

2009-09-09T09:36:46Z

For months, a cloud has swirled around Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, and the relationship that Murtha and other subcommittee members had with the PMA Group, a lobbying firm filled with former subcommittee aides.

Murtha and fellow panel members Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.) steered a host of earmarks to PMA clients, and those clients and PMA staffers gave campaign contributions to the lawmakers. Aspects of those relationships are the subject of a Justice Department probe, which is thought to be looking at whether there were explicit quid pro quo exchanges of favors for cash, which would make crimes out of relationships that are otherwise legal. The House ethics committee is also looking at the situation, and the PMA Group closed following an FBI raid late last year.

Now, a computer analysis by the Center for Public Integrity has revealed that fully three-quarters of the subcommittee members have been involved in similar patterns of behavior -- in circles of relationships fraught with potential conflicts of interest, involving former congressional staffers-turned lobbyists, earmarks, and campaign cash.

Ethics Panel Members Get Defense Earmarks While Investigating Them

2009-07-31T12:50:32Z

Members of the House ethics committee, who are investigating a pattern of lawmakers steering federal funds to generous defense contractors, have just had their own pet military projects approved by the same committee whose activities they are probing.

Rick Horowitz: If It Squeals Like Pork...

2009-07-30T14:28:58Z

You can always use an extra transport plane -- that's the way I figured it. After all, when you're thinking of moving a lot of people, or even a lot of cargo, from here to there, what's better than a C-17? And why not a brand-spanking-new C-17, instead of one of those ratty old used ones?

I knew just where to find one, too.

I called Congress.

And not just any old place in Congress. When you want to get things done, you have to go right to the particular people who make those particular things happen, so that's just what I did.

I called the House Appropriations Committee.

They weren't expecting me.

"I'd like one of your C-17s," I told them.

"Our what?" they asked. They sounded surprised.

"I hear you're ordering up a bunch of C-17s for the Pentagon. I'd like to put in a request for one of them."

"What do you need a C-17 for?" they wanted to know.

"What's need got to do with it?" I explained.

Now, it's not like C-17s were the only thing the Appropriations Committee had been ordering up for the Pentagon -- at least according to all the stories in the papers. Ships. Planes. Armored vehicles. Presidential helicopters. Hundreds of billions of dollars of stuff, the stories said, which is a pretty typical annual budget for the Pentagon -- but it included billions of dollars of stuff that the Pentagon didn't even want!

That's where I saw my opening.

"Look," I said to the nice man on the phone. "You're insisting that all these things get built, right?"

Right. It means jobs in the congressmen's districts.

"Even though the Pentagon doesn't want them."

Right. It's good for the economy.

"Even though Secretary Gates says he doesn't need them."

Right. It means contributions from defense contractors.

"Even though Secretary Gates says the same money you're wasting could go for other stuff, like counter-insurgency programs, instead of all this fancy hardware."

"What's your point?" (The nice man on the phone wasn't sounding all that nice anymore.)

"My point is you're just trying to keep the contractors happy."

So?

"So why not keep me happy?"

Are you a contractor?

"Do I sound like a contractor?"

I had him there.

So I pressed my advantage. It wasn't just about making me happy, I told him -- it was about keeping the C-17 happy, too. Why keep saying yes to building all those planes, and making sure they're built in strategically located factories all over the country, if they're only going to sit in some Pentagon warehouse somewhere?

So?

"So I'm willing to take one of the planes off your hands," I said. "You know, give it a good home."

And this happiness of mine, the man wanted to know --

And the plane, too, I reminded him. Don't forget the plane's happiness.

"And this happiness of yours," he tried again. "What's it's worth to you?"

It would mean everything, I told him. I've never had a transport plane. I've --

"You don't understand," he said. "What would it be worth to you...in numbers?"

"It's a 10!" I told him. "Definitely a 10!"

"With how many zeroes after it?"

"Zeroes?"

That's when he hung up on me.

I'd have settled for a battleship.

# # #

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Former Drug Dealers Tied To Murtha-Backed Firm

2009-06-05T17:27:42Z

WASHINGTON — Rep. John Murtha steered millions of dollars in defense work to a campaign donor and the Pentagon went along with it, even though two convicted drug dealers had been deeply involved with the company.

Records filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh starting in 2005 raise questions about whether the government ever checked into the background of William Kuchera of Windber, Pa., a constituent who has been doing government work for over 20 years.

Bob Edgar: Campaign Finance Reform: A Matter of National Security

2009-05-28T15:05:50Z

Between now and October, Congress will authorize and appropriate money for the 2010 defense budget, for which the Obama Administration has requested $534 billion. With the federal deficit skyrocketing, the economy ailing and questions raised about some major weapons programs, both the president and the defense secretary have signaled a willingness to reform, if not reduce, Pentagon spending. But if history is any guide, the Obama Administration will fail in its effort to eliminate wasteful programs and kill individual weapons systems the military no longer needs.

One reason is because many of these defense programs directly benefit certain members of Congress, who see to it that Congress continues funding them year after year. Perhaps the most visible practitioner of earmarking spending for dubious defense programs is the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

Rep. Murtha has received considerable press for adding so-called earmarks to defense spending bills that benefit large campaign contributors and sending no-bid contracts back to his district in Pennsylvania, many of questionable value to the taxpayer. A review of campaign finance data by Common Cause, however, shows that the practice of inserting earmarks on behalf of campaign contributors is far more widespread.

Just the 18 members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense inserted more than $355 million in earmarks into the 2008 defense spending bill on behalf of their campaign contributors. Those contributors, according to campaign disclosure reports, donated a total of $1.3 million to the members who sponsored the earmarks. Fortunately for the earmark seekers, none of these approved contracts went through the normal vetting process, as some would have been difficult to justify publicly.

Our bloated defense budget is another example of how campaign finance skews policy and spending priorities towards those who give the most and often have significant influence. In his farewell address in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

When questioned about his proposed 2010 budget for the Pentagon by skeptical members of the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary William Gates suggested lawmakers were too eager to defend their parochial interests and were ignoring the bigger picture, saying: "I know that some of you will take issue with individual decisions. I would, however, ask you to look beyond specific programs and instead look at the full range of what we are trying to do -- at the totality of the decisions and how they will change the way we prepare for and fight wars in the future."

There is no arguing the undue influence of military contractors in our current system. In the 2008 election cycle, defense contractors gave more than $23 million in contributions to Members of Congress and spent $277 million lobbying during that same time. Past administrations, Democratic and Republican, have tried and failed to get a handle on wasteful Pentagon spending. It is difficult to imagine contractors receiving such lenient treatment under different circumstances. The New York Times reported in an editorial on May 21 that, "96 major new weapons programs are running almost $300 billion over estimates and averaging 22 months behind delivery."

If we can all agree that defense contractors are influencing our defense spending in order to continue funding for projects the military leadership does not want, then is it crazy to suggest that campaign finance reform is an issue of national security?

I don't think so.

The solution is changing the way we pay for federal political campaigns by creating a system of small donations and public dollars, a proposal known as the Fair Elections Now Act in Congress.

Until we get defense contractors and other special interests out of the business of paying for the bulk of our political campaigns, we will not have policies or federal budgets in the best interest of the American public.

Jerry Leichtling: In Defense Of John Murtha

2009-05-15T15:50:08Z

This is both a defense of a centurion and a private perspective on a public man. First, two disclaimers: I'm proud to count Chairman Murtha as a personal friend. I will also acknowledge that on one occasion I accepted a fee from his campaign committee for writing a speech for him. This was only after it was my honor to freely and gladly offer him writing help on a number of occasions.

So, I'll come to his unfortunately necessary defense. Rather than rallying around John Murtha, too many Democrats, many of them "guilty" of similar earmarking, are looking the other way or worse, making him the whipping boy for decades-old flaws in the system.

Just this week Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics In Washington (CREW) issued a call to urge citizens to petition that John Murtha step down as Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee. I've long been an admirer of CREW and what they do.

I understand, to a point, their stance on Chairman Murtha, but I believe their perspective and that of many of his other critics to be both narrow and shortsighted. The criticism of Mr. Murtha has gone on for a number of years, with increasing clamor born both of the recent investigations by the F.B.I. of lobbyists associated with the Congressman and allegations about Mr. Murtha's nephew, Robert Murtha, a defense contractor. These investigations, while certainly casting a cloud over Mr. Murtha, haven't named him as a target. But "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't nearly do justice when defending a great American.

John Murtha is a big target. Think back just a few years, to the darkest days of the previous administration, when Cheney, Bush, Rove and Tom Delay had America trapped in a brutal, costly quagmire in Iraq, quaking with fear, with much of the public, press and Congress fully and pathetically intimidated. John Murtha stood up in the House on November 17th, 2005 and issued a call for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He was the first to do so.

Mr. Murtha not only had the courage to carry the flag, he had the credibility to back it up. As a longtime member of the Defense Appropriations Committee and thirty-seven year veteran of the Marine Corps and Reserve, Mr. Murtha had bona fides that some others say, Dennis Kucinich did not have. Yet Mr. Murtha immediately came under intense, hostile fire from Republicans both in and out of government.

But Mr. Murtha, a five times decorated war hero, would not be intimidated; when Dick Cheney questioned his patriotism, Mr. Murtha's reply was, "I like guys who got five deferments, and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." That actually shut Cheney up -- Mr. Murtha was the first to do it.

John Murtha's passion and valor in leading that uphill charge is well known. But much of the criticism of Mr. Murtha has centered around his steering lucrative Defense contracts to his Western Pennsylvania district. In 2007, the Wall Street Journal led off a front-page story datelined Johnstown, Pa. -- "If John Murtha. were a businessman, he'd be the biggest employer in this town" It went on to detail how Representative Murtha "used his clout on Capitol Hill to create thousands of jobs and steer billions of dollars in federal spending to help his hometown in western Pennsylvania recover from devastating floods and the flight of its steelmakers." The story, meant as a hatchet job, seemed like a helluva compliment to the man who had steered more money, more companies and more jobs to his constituents than any other member of Congress. Isn't that what a Representative is supposed to do? What District in America wouldn't want that now?

Now, less than two years later, desperate Republicans like Cong. Pete Sessions of Texas, are actively looking to turn Mr. Murtha into a Democratic Tom DeLay. And if the eventual outcome in Iraq turns out to be worse than expected, you can expect a Republican blame game along the lines of the "Who lost China?" battles of the Truman era.

This week Dan Henniger in that same Wall Street Journal (or maybe the realpolitik Murdoch Journal isn't the same?) offered up a huge (albeit backhanded) compliment to Mr. Murtha. Henniger, justly lamenting the spendthrift culture of Washington, wrote "John Murtha of Johnstown is the canary in the mine shaft. In politics, the canaries don't die. They adapt and learn to live with the toxic fumes of public spending on scales beyond morality or understanding." I won't argue with that - not in the face of the obscene trillions of dollars appropriated to replenish the coffers of AIG, Barclay's Bank, First Credit Suisse etc. Whose District is Zurich in?

John Murtha didn't invent massive public spending, nor the culture of lobbyists and lawyers who grease the wheels. He managed to accumulate power and move the right levers to benefit his constituents. But when CREW named him one of the ten most corrupt members of Congress, that grossly distorted the idea of corruption.

As far as I know, there are no allegations that John Murtha is a corrupt thief like Randy Cunningham, nor has he ever been accused of personally profiting like Ted Stevens. Those are orders of corruption that simply do not apply to Mr. Murtha. John Murtha has a modest home in Johnstown, a small condo in Arlington and drives a Buick. He will only drive American cars. And, as I've been told, he's working for thirty thousand dollars a year -- as a seventeen-term Congressman he could retire today with a pension almost equal to his salary. CREW's expanded definition of corruption may often be necessary to stoke the fires of public outrage, but useful distinctions have to be made. I hope I've made one.

Would that that were the end of my defense of a patriot. But CREW criticism of Mr. Murtha comes today in the luxury of current Democratic dominance in Congress and the White House (by the way, some of that Democratic majority comes from Mr. Murtha contributing his supposedly tainted campaign funds to needier Democratic candidates).

In the populist, reformist fervor of Barack Obama's ascendancy, and with the country and the world subsumed by economic crises, we forget that we are, in two countries at least, still at war. We are also in the ugly backwash of a war we are attempting to withdraw from. We need experienced warriors as much as we need high-minded reformers. Or is "high minded" as offensive a term as "corrupt?"

At almost 77, old soldier John Murtha has a few important tasks left for him. His stewardship of the Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee is one of the most complex, vital and least understood jobs in the Government. He's helping to manage our current defense and, equally important, the re-building of our military readiness, which was shockingly depleted by Iraq.

He's also deeply personally committed to the welfare of veterans and military families and to our wounded. One small anecdote -- I remember him in tears telling me how, on one of his weekly visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he witnessed a father holding the hand of his comatose son. There were no reporters present and the tears weren't for show.

John Murtha is a great American, a patriot and a man of both duty and honor. These are old fashioned and often devalued terms from an era where words like corrupt were rarely used as loosely or over-zealously as they are now. Let the investigations take their course; history will judge John Murtha as a hero, a public servant and a Marine. This country is profoundly lucky to have him on the job.

Melanie Sloan: Rep. Murtha Should Step Down from Chairmanship of Defense Appropriations

2009-05-15T11:22:31Z

In light of continuing stories exposing Rep. John Murtha's egregious activities, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called on Rep. Murtha to step down from his position as chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee pending the outcome of a federal grand jury investigation into the lawmaker's earmarking practices. Although the congressman has repeatedly denied wrongdoing despite an ever-mounting number of stories exposing his habit of trading taxpayer dollars for campaign contributions and for using his position to financially benefit friends and family, the Washington Post has obtained documents showing that a contract to fund a biological materials detection test shifted to three companies over a ten-year period, but that companies in which Rep. Murtha's nephew, Robert Murtha, had an interest nevertheless maintained subcontracts on the project though they did little to no work. In addition, at Robert Murtha's insistence, some of the work was moved to Rep. Murtha's district.

CREW has been calling attention to Rep. Murtha's earmarking practices since 2006, when we first included him in our yearly report on the most corrupt members of Congress. When the Democrats regained control of Congress after campaigning against the "culture of corruption," CREW was quick to point out that Rep. Murtha was the wrong choice for majority leader. We warned Rep. Murtha's brand of cronyism made him unfit for a leadership role when voters had firmly rejected DeLay pay-to-play politics and were seeking a new era of government accountability. We also predicted Rep. Murtha's antics would tarnish the Democrats' shiny, new image and they might eventually rue their rush to embrace him. At the time, because Rep. Murtha was a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's war with Iraq, many liberals were willing to overlook Rep. Murtha's shady dealings and instead, reviled CREW for calling him out.

CREW's position has remained constant: Rep. Murtha's policy positions do not excuse his abusing his office to financially benefit himself, his friends and his family. The U.S. Treasury is not Rep. Murtha's personal piggy bank. Funding decisions should not be made based on who has paid fealty to Rep. Murtha, regardless of the utility and wisdom of the project. It is impossible to understand why - particularly in light of the ongoing federal criminal investigation - the House allows Rep. Murtha's conduct to continue unchallenged.

It is past time for Congress to put and end to Rep. Murtha's friends and family program. At a time when there are so many competing priorities for scarce taxpayer dollars, we cannot afford to let Rep. Murtha continue wasting our money on unnecessary projects that do little more than secure his power base. Although the House has long turned a blind eye to Rep. Murtha's feckless conduct, thankfully the Justice Department is on the case. How many more stories must appear before Rep. Murtha is forced from his perch as chairman of Defense Appropriations and denied further opportunity to feather his own nest?

Eyck Freymann: John Murtha and the Culture of Corruption

2009-05-05T13:21:00Z

"If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district."

-Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Quoted by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 29, 2009

Corruption: I'm sick of it, and I think the nation is too. Ever since we threw out the Republicans in 2006 for Abramoff and the so-called culture of corruption, we've seen far too many questionable ethical decisions on both sides of the aisle. John Murtha, a senior Democrat representing a swath of southwestern Pennsylvania, is a prime example. Known for directing earmarks to companies and institutions run by family members, his questionable ethics are public knowledge to the extent that he doesn't even bother trying to cover them up.

Today, the New York Times reports that his nephew, Col. Brian Murtha, has been made a lobbyist for the Marine corps. For me, this raises two questions: Is nepotism this blatant even legal? And why does the Marine Corps need lobbyists in the first place?

The answer to the first question is an unequivocal "yes." The Times article details Murtha's scurrilous history of awarding contracts to institutions that employ his family members. But he is high in House leadership, and neither party has actually expelled any of its own members for corruption.

You know your bureaucracy is too big when it has to spend millions of dollars lobbying itself to get stuff done. This leads to the meta-question: Why does the military even need lobbyists in the first place? In Obama's new budget, the Department of Defense gets 533.7 billion for 2010, not counting an extra 200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military isn't exactly strapped for cash, but it's their money (we gave it to them, after all), and they can choose how they want to spend it. Even still, I have some better ideas for how the military can spend its extra cash. These include fighting terrorism, finding bin Laden, buying the troops some new and better body armor, and re-hiring the Arabic translators who were fired because they were gay and putting them to work translating Al Qaeda documents.

On principle, I resist the temptation to join the chorus against government bureaucracy. This is mainly because I understand that our government provides crucial social services even though it may be bloated with bureaucracy. No government can operate with perfect efficiency, and it's ridiculous to insist that such a large institution run with no wasted dollars. But when economic times get tough, you have to stop playing the devil's advocate and look for any corners you can cut without diminishing your returns of social services.

Murtha is a crook, and if the House Democrats were really serious about fighting corruption, they would have expelled him from the caucus when the first definitive corruption stories broke. The fact that he is continuing to use his position to benefit family is disgraceful, but more disgraceful is that he is getting away with it.

A congressman was once quoted as saying about the budget, "A billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later it adds up to real money." In the end, Murtha himself is not doing major damage to the country. He's not killing people or making billions of dollars disappear. But he is a symbol of the greed and waste of the old boy's network Washington that Obama promised to take down. And for the millions at risk in this recession who are relying on Washington to provide honest leadership and meaningful services, a symbol is a powerful thing indeed.

Rep. Murtha's Nephew Got Defense Contracts

2009-05-04T23:02:40Z

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.

Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He's the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.

Airport In Murtha's District Gets $30M In Wartime Upgrades From Pentagon

2009-04-29T15:56:07Z

At the behest of House Defense Appropriations Chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the Pentagon has spent about $30 million equipping a little-used airport named for the congressman so that it can handle behemoth military aircraft and store combat equipment for rapid deployment to foreign battlefields.

Vikrum Aiyer: Selling War: Struggling to Make the Case to Fight Terrorism, Again.

2009-04-17T12:50:38Z

American proposals to root out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (AfPak) have largely been shielded from criticism as everyone from policy makers to pundits has regarded it as a war of necessity. Unlike the pinnacle of the Iraq war, where polls opined that mobilizing resources was a never-ending drain on American forces, the need to contain the swelling insurgency in Afghanistan and oust militants in the porous regions of Pakistan's northern border has largely been viewed as critical for both Western and global well being. From the days of the campaign trail to President Barack Obama's March press conference detailing his AfPak strategy, proposed tactics in the region have certainly been scrutinized, but truly vocal criticisms -- questioning whether the area should even be engaged to begin with -- have maintained low decibel levels...until now.

Last week, when the Administration marched up the steps of Congress requesting $83.4 billion in supplemental funding for ongoing operations in 2009, legislators started to tense up. From Members of the Progressive Caucus such as Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), to more conservative Democrats such as John Murtha (D-PA), a symphony of skepticism started to resonate in the halls of Capitol Hill. With overtures demanding to know just how far down the proverbial rabbit hole this endeavor will take us and what an exit strategy may look like, President Obama faces the unique political battle of having to re-convince the American people that the operations maintains a clear set of measurable objectives, just as the heart of the mission is about to get underway.

Unfortunately, the constituencies that still require convincing aren't exclusively stateside. Increasingly, more audible criticisms of Western operations have emanated from the AfPak region itself. At a recent presentation hosted by the Atlantic Council, the Pakistani Ambassador to Washington, Hussain Haqqani, voiced concern that the Obama administration appeared to be dictating conditions from a top-down approach instead of collaborating with the government of Pakistan as a coalition partner. The propensity for America to meddle in others' affairs leads to the mentality, "that the world is a problem for America to fix...Please, do not try to fix us," Haqqani said. Even in Afghanistan support is starting to tumble. A February 2009 ABC News/BBC/ARD poll indicates that only a little more than a third (37%) of Afghans in their area supports Western forces; that support was at 67% in 2006. The poll also notes that "25% now say attacks on US or NATO/ISAF forces can be justified, double the level, 13%, in 2006."

There is no reason to believe that opposition in the US House of Representatives to extend funding will carry enough votes to reject the appropriations request. Nor is there a belief that the waning sense of Western approval in the AfPak region will take the form of requests for America to retreat altogether. But, as a Senator who consistently rejected Iraq War spending bills, the President understands that brewing opposition can corrode public support for military engagements (both at home and abroad). Consequently, financing, resources and resilience for operations expected to last at least through his first term could be shortchanged if Afghans, Pakistanis and Congressional representatives see anything less than a winnable task at hand. At the risk of the kicking things off in the region with a trust deficit among the very people Barack Obama seeks to protect, the Administration must embark on a renewed campaign: (a) to persuade the people and institutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that our presence is necessary and (b) to persuade the United States people and lawmakers that our efforts will be sufficient.

Neither of these conditions can be addressed with one-size fits all band-aid solution. But in recent years US foreign policy seems to tout a doctrine of sorts that more troops will always be solvent in turning quagmires around. There is no doubt that the American military -- encompassing some of the world's bravest and finest men and women -- is a formidable force in stalling insurgencies and stabilizing regimes. However, concerns stirring opposition overseas are not ones that can be redressed just by placing more boots on the ground.

Beyond just Taliban security concerns, corruption is so rife in Afghanistan that people are losing faith in governing bodies and officials at all levels. As Richard Oppel of the New York Times reports, "... better policing may be impossible for Afghanistan unless government officials at all levels stop cannibalizing their civil administration and police force for a quick profit." Even those wishing to seek a more honest route end up participating in the Taliban's corrupt ways since abstaining can result in punishment or the threatening of loved-ones. First Lieutenant Craig Porte, an intel officer in the Ghazni province, notes that, "You could say that the corruption...is an investment in your future, and your family's future. It is fairly common to buy your position...[and] if you are not involved...you are seen as an enemy of those who are, which has a tendency to get you fired." And in neighboring Pakistan there is an increasing mentality that this war belongs to the US, not to them. Jane Perelez, reporting from Islamabad, grounds that concern in the fact that, "...many Pakistanis have concluded that reaching an accommodation with the militants is preferable to fighting them. Some, including mid-ranking soldiers, choose to see the militants not as the enemy, but as fellow Muslims who are deserving of greater sympathy than are the American aims." The mindset (that this fight is out of Pakistanis' hands) is also furthered as every penny of aid proposed for Pakistan is attached to a variety of strings and conditions, terms that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani expressed would generate ill-will among his people. The US government has held legitimate concerns with how aid money in the past has been handled in the region, and even tied the Pakistan's intelligence services (the ISI) to militants. But as the former director general of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ashraf has said, "You can't start a successful operation with a trust deficit...The serving army people will say, 'To hell with them if this is what we are going to get after laying down more than 1,500 lives.'" Matters of corruption and distrust among militaries and Muslims unwilling to fight other Muslims are certainly epic in scope, with no easy solutions. But they are telling of a reality demands more than just military might.

Some legislators in the United States also remain haunted by recent memories of Iraq where troops were piled into areas with seemingly no end in sight. Let alone they feared putting young Americans in harm's way, the issue was also politically thorny as authorizing money and extending the war could cost them votes back in their districts. Similarly, that is where much of the anxiety about the AfPak supplemental appropriations request originates.

Simply put, increasing doubt among the very people we are trying to liberate could feed the doubt that Congress (aka the bank) has about a clear way to win at this effort. But President Obama must allay these fears by re-selling the war in a way that moves away from messages that just discuss war solutions in terms of troops. Now he must make the pitch for operations with messages focused on: rooting out corruption, turning the tide on distrust and assuring Afghans and Pakistanis that Americans won't be setting the terms from the top-down, but as collaborative brothers in arms.

Surely this is ambitious. But attempting to remake the national psyche is critical for what the United States is about to undertake. First, the Administration should make it painstakingly clear that we are not calling the shots in this operation exclusively on our own terms. On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama passionately plead that we must restore the world's faith in the US by building coalitions and partnerships. Yet, with Pakistani soldiers starting to doubt whether "America's war" is even worth the fight, it is clear that no matter how hard the President may be trying, we have not sufficiently undone the Bush-era aura of unilateralism. Therefore, the US should consult with the AfPak governments & NATO allies, and include them in their policy reviews. President Obama should engage individual concerns raised by Afghan or Pakistani leaders -- even if not compromised on -- in order to assure them that this is a joint effort, not a singular one.

Second, a small discretionary spending fund should be allocated within the total budget to allow both governments a slight degree of autonomy in how they spend their aid. This is not to say that conditions on aid should be forgone altogether. Yet a baby step of setting slightly broader parameters with less dictatorial oversight with money can help ease Pakistan's pride, demonstrating that we are willing to trust one another.

Third, Obama should speak to improving civilian institutions in both countries by placing more of an emphasis on economic development outside military-controlled areas of the economy. These efforts could yield a civilian-military pact that could outline each country's interest on a regional level, bolstering a blue print for long term stability. This will move the ball on dialogues regarding outstanding territorial issues involving India. But it could also start to address Al-Qaeda's exploitation of the largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns. As the Asia Society points out in a recent report, "Al-Qaida has exploited [their] lands to establish a safe haven among people who do not support its ideology but whose poverty, isolation, and weak governance leave them vulnerable." If the West can, "open the Durand Line as an official open border, guarantee Afghanistan's access to the port of Karachi, and assure free land transit of products," it would enable an economic livelihood alternative to corruption and extremism.

Lastly, Administration shouldn't just allocate money and supplies whenever it decides to, but actually lend a hand when genuine appeals by AfPak leaders are made. Pakistani military officials have been asking for more helicopter gunships, night-vision goggles and other tools to fight in tough terrain for years, but claim Americans have slighted their requests. Even Afghan Defense Minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak told the Council on Foreign Relations that requests for more equipment (from US and NATO) have largely been ignored. "At the moment we are still lighter than light infantry...I was much [better] equipped when we were fighting the Soviets," in the 1980s, Wardak said. Thus, Obama should revise the currently proposed $11.6 billion proposed in the supplemental bill for equipment in order to respond to the needs of the AfPak government, as currently that amount has only been appropriated to "refurbish or replace" worn out equipment. By doing this Obama can better posture America as attentive to the requests and desires of the AfPak people, while also calming the nerves of Congress who saw the failures in Iraq in large part due to a lack of adequate supplies and armor.

If undertaken, these steps can help curry favor among leaders, and as the efforts become more collaborative, they will slowly but surely engender a mindset in the AfPak that the war effort is very much a part of their survival too. That will help beat back brewing opposition; it will also allow Congress to realize that the strategy in this region is one that actively engages the root causes that have led to the current distress in this area. This will help alleviate fears from Iraq that haunt legislators who felt that blindly deploying troops, swept insurgents under the rug, but did nothing to change the mentality of the country altogether. These steps are difficult and ambitious, but as President Obama increasingly has to make his pitch to two constituencies, he must realize that the case for war begins by building partnerships.

Thanks to Thomas Brugato for contributing insights to this article.

Frank Wuterich Murtha Defamation Suit Dies In Court

2009-04-14T12:14:30Z

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. John Murtha cannot be sued for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood," remarks that sparked outrage among conservative commentators.

The appeals court in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a Marine who led the squad in the attack. The judges agreed with Murtha that he was immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.

Murtha: "If I'm Corrupt, It's Because I Take Care Of My District"

2009-03-30T16:55:04Z

This city once had a steel-based economy and critics now say it has a John Murtha-based economy but, in what used to be the 11-inch rolling mill of Bethlehem Steel, nobody's apologizing.

Obama Urged Not To Scrap Presidential Helicopter Altogether

2009-03-16T18:03:45Z

Thirteen House lawmakers are pressing President Obama to buy a cheaper, less sophisticated version of the controversial new presidential helicopter.

Kos: Time For Democrats To Drop Murtha

2009-03-16T17:45:44Z

House Democrats have been blocking an ethics investigation into this matter. That has to stop now. It was shit like this that helped Democrats lose control of the House in 1994, and Republicans in 2006. I've got no interest in giving Republicans easy ammunition.

Read more: John Murtha, Daily Kos, Politics News

Murtha Had Nearly $250 In Federal Funding Channeled His Way By Penn. Research Center

2009-03-16T13:54:04Z

A Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as it collected nearly $250 million in federal funding through the lawmaker, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and sources familiar with the funding requests. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.

Robert Naiman: Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?

2009-03-09T11:34:54Z

A progressive presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes for the Obama administration were squandered in Afghanistan?

Members of Congress who want the Obama administration to succeed won't do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure.

Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports. Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.

But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation.

Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask your Representative to sign it - here.]

There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.

Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports, no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased.

If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation.