Are we going to betray our soldiers once again?

Uh, we have a war going on?

Pelosi's Endorsement of Murtha Draws Criticism

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 13, 2006; 4:58 PM

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) yesterday as the next House majority leader, thereby stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland's Steny H. Hoyer.

The unexpected move signaled the sizable value Pelosi gives to personal loyalty and personality preferences. Hoyer competed with her in 2001 for the post of House minority whip, while Murtha managed her winning campaign. Pelosi has also all but decided she will not name the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair that panel next year, a decision pregnant with personal animus.

The choice of Murtha drew strong criticism today from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a legal watchdog group dedicated to fighting corruption among public officials. In a statement, the Washington-based group, which describes itself as a "progressive" counterweight to conservative watchdog groups, called Murtha "one of the most unethical members of Congress" and charged that Pelosi's endorsement of him raised questions about her own commitment to ethics reform.

There was no immediate response from Murtha to the CREW statement.

Pelosi had been outspoken about her frustration with Murtha's declaration that he would challenge Hoyer, currently the House minority whip, for the majority leader post long before Democrats had secured the majority. Many believed she would remain on the sidelines, just as Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) did earlier this year when three Republicans vied for the post of House majority leader.

But in her first real decision as the incoming speaker, Pelosi said she was swayed by Murtha's early stance for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Her letter of endorsement yesterday made clear that she sees Iraq as the central issue of the next Congress and that she believes a decorated Marine combat veteran at the helm of the House caucus would provide Democrats ammunition in their fight against congressional Republicans and President Bush on the issue.

CREW is worried about earmarks, I'm worried about dead and wounded GI's. I can see their point, I just don't give a shit about it.

If they want to worry about earmarks, fine. But to me, I am sick and fucking tired of seeing teenagers getting their skulls replaced and learning to walk on artificial legs. I'm tired of PTSD stories from kids who aren't old enough to rent a car. I am tired of seeing grieving parents collapsing at their teenager's grave side.

If making Jack Murtha majority leader will make that clear, to Bush if no one else, that the priority is Iraq, and that the war MUST end, then I'm for Murtha or anyone else who can make that happen.

I think CREW's report is designed to help their backstabbing buddy Hoyer. Hoyer has repeatedly undermined Pelosi. So now he gets rewarded? Election reform is important, but so are armless 19 year olds.

But that isn't the issue. It is the wounded and dead in Iraq. We may not be able to help the Iraqis for years, but we can get out of their country.

It's really quite simple, if you want to help end the war, e-mail your Congressman and ask them to support Murtha, not Hoyer. And when both sides start dragging up votes, ask what they really mean.

Because Hoyer is the DLC candidate and they don't really care about Iraq, their kids aren't fighting there.

What I wonder is what scares them so much about Murtha that Hoyer has to seek to use his friends to tear him down.