Talk:John Murtha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Schmidt

The sentence "Angry Democrats shut the House down for 10 minutes until Schmidt herself requested that her statement be taken down." is ambiguous. Democrats asked the statement be stricken but Republicans "ruled that they would be reported"[1]. She then asked that they be "withdrawn." She also emailed a letter of apology to Murtha.--csloat 00:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I plan to review the more current information in the morning as the story develops and i have more time for research. Theasus 00:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Murtha's Comments

One line often repeated by the democrats and the media is that Murtha was not actually calling for a withdrawal, and that the Republican resolution was materially different in regard to the question of withdrawal. This is present in the wikipedia article as though it was fact. It has been thoroughly and indisputably refuted. The Murtha resolution says "earliest practicable date" which is synonymous with immediate, but is more ambiguous and open to interpretation, HOWEVER Murtha himself took this position:

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq"

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."

source: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

It is dishonest to state that the Murtha resolution was not the same as an immediate withdrawal. - Kaltes

[edit] User:RufusRoughcut's so called removal of PoV

Looking at the diffs it appears that he did little to remove any PoV, but instead added his own PoV. The revised text is overtly critical and misrepresents Murtha repeatedly.

I'd revert the whole thing, but I'm afraid of starting some stupid edit war. Can I get some opinions? --waffle iron 21:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This account seems to have some axes to grind--both ways. The discussion about "redeployment" vs. "withdrawal" takes up way too much time--Murtha may think the term "redeployment" works better for him, but the option of removing U.S. troops from Iraq is generally referred to as "withdrawal." Is there really more to say than that he prefers the term "redeployment"?

There's a reference to his "supporters" saying that he wants "redeployment," not "withdrawal"--I think it's a safe bet that his supporters on this issue support him overwhelmingly because he's for withdrawal, whether he calls it that or not.

The repeated reference to the failure to clarify just what "over the horizon" means, as if politicians who criticize military policy usually provide a war plan of their own that the Pentagon could use instead. It's a strange point to make once, let alone twice. Nareek

[edit] Noted is a weighted word

That's all that has to be said. 67.163.110.126 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abscam??

Why were some quotes I just put in from him removed? Is it because you liberals have a double standard? man wikipedia is such a liberal biased site it is crazy. if he was a republican u guys would have every god damn quote from the movie in.


Why were the following comments removed:

"In 1980, he only got 59.6% of the vote against Charles A. Getty. This low number, for Murtha, was due to the general Republican victory of that year and Murtha being targeted in the Abscam investigation[1]; it should be noted that Murtha was not indicted as a result of that investigation."

59.6% was a low number for Murtha (who went on to win by 2 to 1 minimum in the following elections).

There was a general Republican victory in 1980 (obviously).

Murtha was targeted in the Abscam investigation; the footnote shows Murtha's own comments on it. Further it notes that while targeted, Murtha was not indicted.

I was an area resident in 1980, and this was front page news for a week.

4.239.111.135 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)J. J.

Added a little more details about the ABSCAM issue, like the fact that the tape shows him refusing the first offer, but expressing an interest in negotiating. The charges were only dropped after his willingness to testify against Frank Thompson.

Saying he was cleared by the (Democrat controlled) House Ethics committe is disingenuous to say the least, as it was a party line vote (what a culture of corruption). Bigbadkeeper 13:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to thank whomever put the Abscam references back in.

--J. J. in PA 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lobbyists"

The reference to the Center for Responsive Politics data was so misleading as to be unsalvageable, I thought. The problem is that CRP uses "lobbyists" not in the commonly used sense of people trying to influence governmental decisions, but in the narrow sense of people who do so professionally on behalf of others, without having a particular issue of their own. If you take a look at CRP's data, you'll see that the money identified as coming from "lobbyists" is a small sliver of the money coming from various interest groups--it's basically an "other" group--but I don't believe anyone would realize that from the paragraph that was here. (Tom DeLay actually got about 25 percent more money than Murtha did in the 2004 cycle.) --Nareek 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I took out the part about Delay...even though I got it from a MSN story. If you think the facts are wrong..fine prove it.

The facts are as I wrote them. If you cant show they are false, dont delete them.

Press story.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06013/637267.stm


The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy. The Center conducts computer-based research on campaign finance issues for the news media, academics, activists, and the public at large. The Center’s work is aimed at creating a more educated voter, an involved citizenry, and a more responsive government.

--Gatxer 07:30, 30 January 2006

I've got a lot of respect for the Center for Responsive Politics--it's not that it's a bad source, or that the facts aren't accurate as far as they go. It's that they're utterly misleading. If you take money from a tobacco lobbyist, that isn't counted by CRP under "lobbyists"; it's tobacco money. If you take money from defense lobbyists, that's defense money, money from insurance industry lobbyists is insurance money. Lobbyists is just a category for generic lobbyists. There's nothing either politically or ethically important about taking money from generic lobbyists in isolation from lobbyists in general--in fact, it's because lobbyists in general are the only thing worth talking about that people will falsely assumet that that's what we *are* talking about. (The category makes sense when you see it listed among all the other categories on CRP's website--but not taken out of context here.)
If you wanted to write a balanced paragraph about Murtha's campaign contributions--of which he gets a lot--that would be fine. But the "lobbyist" thing is really not helpful.
Nareek 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


So...You agree the facts are right, but you dont like how they use the word "Lobbyist"? How about you write a line saying that.

How can you have a section about his time in congress and not talk about the fact that hes one of the top money takers?

They dont just count it for Democrats...the top one is a Gop. The fact that "you" dont agree with them on what a "Lobbyist" is donent change the facts. Just because it makes him look bad still doesnt change the facts.


As for no link...what would you like. I linked the MSM story and the center?

Instead of deleteing the word why not just add something like....Murthas supporter point out that......and then why "you" think the facts are misleading. --Gatxer 08:30, 31 January 2006


If you can't back it up with cold hard facts then it should not be in the article. period. --8bitJake 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The words in Wikipedia have to mean what readers of Wikipedia will think they mean--otherwise there's no point. Readers will certainly think, naturally enough, that a tobacco lobbyist is a lobbyist--but a tobacco lobbyist is *not* a lobbyist the way CRP uses the term. Therefore it's misleading to say that Murtha got the most money from "lobbyists," unless you immediately add that this excludes tobacco lobbyists and defense lobbyists and every other kind of lobbyist you can name, at which point you've made it clear that the "fact" is completely pointless. Pointless facts should not be in an encyclopedia article.

The idea of NPOV is not to have pro- and anti- sentences chasing each other around an article. Let's apply some common sense, figure out what each other is saying and put down some information that will be useful.

Nareek 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's not about the lack of a link--here's a link to Murtha's page on the CRP website. [2] There's plenty of useful information on the site that would contribute to this article.



Im not sure what word you would use then. CRP uses Lobbyist...the MSM uses Lobbyist. What would you like to call the people, no make that companys that gave him all that money? I dont really want to get in a delete and undue with you evryday...but I think it should be noted that he gets all that money. He got more than anyone else in the house for many years, that is important info for someone in congress.

You seem to agree he took the money but dont like the word Lobbyist...please tell me what word you would want to use. I wont put it back in till the weekend or I see a reply from you.

I have to wonder if this was about Delay if you would delete the facts everday? Im not anti-Murtha....its part of his life in congress, and a big part...it should be noted.

As for backing it up....I did. See the CRP site it clear he took the money.

--Gatxer 08:30, 31 January 2006

I feel like you're not really reading what I'm saying here. Let me try again: The majority of money from lobbyists is cartegorized by CRP under other categories--money from tobacco lobbyists is put under tobacco, money from defense lobbyists is put into defense, etc. They put into "lobbyists" only those people who just lobby on behalf of others--so it's just wrong to see it as a gauge of how much money someone is getting from lobbyists, since most lobbyist money is under other categories.

It's not unlike the Wikipedia problem where if you look at Category:Actors, it's a smaller category than Category:American actors--not because there's more American actors than there are actors, but because Category:actors is where actors go who haven't been categorized in some other way. What you're trying to do here is like trying to prove something on the basis of the relative size of those two categories.

To be honest, if I saw a story about how DeLay took more money than anyone else from lobbyists, I probably would think that that deserved to be in his Wikipedia article. We all like facts that confirm our prejudices. But if someone pointed out to me that the story used a misleading definition of lobbyists, I wouldn't try to force it in DeLay's article anyway just because it made him look bad. Nareek 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sham"

I like BlueBoy96's edits, but in the section here [3] under line 76 I like the original better. The points that the Republican resolution was explicitly a political tactic, and differed from the Murtha resolution in lacking important features, have already been made in a NPOV format. Noting that in the Democrats' opinion this makes the resolution a "sham," rather than a legitimate political maneuver, doesn't add much and invites another round of "But they said..." "And then they said..." I'm going to switch that section back; if you want to revert, let's discuss it first. Nareek 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Swift boating Murtha"

I deleted that section because it was inherently POV and added by an obviously partisan IP. [4] Some of the info there could possibly be salvaged if returned in a NPOV form.--Jersey Devil 13:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsequently, I removed the criticism of criticism section. This is an article about the man, not about Limbaugh or Carlson or anyone else only tangentally related. If you want to repost those at their wiki articles fine, but this is not the proper place. Kyaa the Catlord 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small question

Would this person be the same as a "Jim Murtha" mentioned in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5030960.stm? Skinnyweed 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes it is, as proven in this earlier article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5022380.stm. The BBC are severely mentally deficient. Skinnyweed 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The above article doesn't refer to a Jim Murtha Nil Einne 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murtha calls U.S. Marines "cold-blooded killers"

Someone needs to type up a section on this. I think it's a pretty big deal when an elected representive calls our soldiers war criminals before their American right to a fair trial even begins. Regardless of your pro-war/anti-war position, Murtha is a total disgrace.

Regardless of your understanding of the facts, there is no reason to have an intentionally denigrating section in Wikipedia on a politician, or on anyone else, for that matter. I am removing the offending section on this article and recommending that it be locked. Wikipedia has a policy of "neutral point of view", and that means if you want to present information, you should do it without an obvious bias. Besides which, the formatting is atrocious. Wikipedia is not a forum for bashing public or private individuals; present the facts and keep your interpretations of those facts academic. --Deriamis 00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's bullcrap. A ranking house member calling an entire section of the US Military "cold-blooded killers" is a significant quote, right or wrong. It belongs on this page.

Kestrel 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is now an NPOV section on the Haditha controversy giving his quote in proper context. There's no need to mention it elsewhere in the article out of context. - Merzbow 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Kestrel 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, context is important for wikipedia, though it is not important for his critics. Murtha referred to those in the Haditha killings saying, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Meanwhile his challenger, a GOP backed-Bush supporter, tried to spin it to score political points.[5]
Disgusting that Diana Irey would try to say this former Marine was calling all Marines "cold-blooded killers," and it is not acceptable for wikipedia to pull that same garbage to libel Murtha. Arbusto 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, this article has now been protected to prevent edit warring from continuing. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have reached an agreement and no longer believe protection necessary, let me know or post a request for unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Does any of this discussion need to be in the Vietnam War and military service????

[edit] The Text In Question

The text below is the source of the recently-quashed revert war:

In 2006 he disregarded and spit all over his dedication to the United States Marine Corps and his fellow Marine - running his suck like a life-long liberal and forgetting his allegiance to his fellow leatherneck. His political career has obviously taken president over his Marine Corps brotherhood. While Marines die he announces his cowardly plan to run for higher office within his left-wing party. These disgusting acts, as they are being called by his fellow Jarheads have many wondering if he ever really felt an allegiance to GOD & CORPS! Some have gone so far as to call him a disgrace and a chump! What is found to be the most amazing text associated to Mr. Murtha can be found right here in WIKIPEDIA where he states, or suggests that the US consider diplomatic channels with Iraq warmongers; the same warmongers who placed nearly a dozen human heads on the side of the road this week (1st week of June, 2006). Diplomacy can be had among diplomats, not animals with no morality, no respect for women and children and no rule of law. It’s obvious Mr. Murtha supplied most of what can be found on this page; now America knows the rest of the story. Unless of course, this edit is deleted (as it has been 8 times in the last 24 hours).

Now, I think we can possibly find something in here that is of use to the article. I'd like it if we could all agree that some don't like Murtha, some do, and most others don't care. --Deriamis 02:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's mashed-up, unsourced diatribe. Not our responsibility to dig anything worthwhile out of it. The page should be immediately unprotected so legit edits can occur (I'll add a paragraph on the Haditha controvery). - Merzbow 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was only trying to be helpful! :-) I think it's safe to unprotect it again as well, since the comment User:Mythology8 left on User_talk:Mr.Lefty shows he is probably willing to accede to the paragraph you're thinking of. The idea was to halt a revert war, anyway, and it would seem that goal has been accomplished. --Deriamis 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you privide a diff from the edit in question so that I can verify that before unprotecting? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Found it, will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on the Haditha controversy. If somebody can find a response from liberals or Murtha himself to the conservative criticism that I quoted, please add it. - Merzbow 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove weasel words and create better encyclopedia feel

I think we should try to start finding sources (or better sources) for a lot of the statements on this page. As well as trying to remove any weasel words and to be more specific. Anyone with me? Stanselmdoc 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As always, the devil is in the details. Specifics? - Merzbow 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying there's a HUGE problem throughout the article, but I do think that some things need to be sourced (I'll do my own searches when I get the chance), like his biography and his opinions on things, etc. Also, any broad reference like "Democrats said" or "Republicans responded" and things like that are awfully broad. It'd be great to find specific people who said and responded to things regarding Murtha. That way, we're not generalizing as much and we're doing more documentation. Stanselmdoc 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rm "Reagan Democrat" Statement

I removed the following sentence:

Murtha is representative of the classic Catholic Democrat of the 1930s to 1970s - a constituency that later came to be known as the "Reagan Democrats."

I think it is a bit of a stretch to make the connection between Murtha and "Reagan Democrats". Post any objections here.--Jersey Devil 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My only objection is that you left half a sentence that no longer makes sense on its own. Nareek 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and run

IP user 208.100.9.118 has stated that Murtha believes in "cut and run." While this is technically true, I feel that it violates NPOV and ought to be changed, any suggestions? Emmett5 03:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it violates NPOV; I disagree about it being "technically true." There is nothing true about it. One might as easily say Bush advocates "cut and run" from domestic issues like education, or that he advocates "cut and run" from al Qaeda and the Taliban when he embarked on the Iraq misadventure.--csloat 04:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, while it is an spin-phrase (and thus to be rejected), it is indeed technically true, and your claims are patently false. Bush does not advocate cut-and-run from any of those things. Further, cut-and-run is distinct from merely practing poor policy, and from introducing distractions as policy fails to yield visible levels of desired results. The United States has not withdrawn from Afghanistan, nor abandoned attempts to counter al-Quaeda. It is even more important to avoid the sort of mushy thinking that you are here offering than to avoid spin-phrases per se. —12.72.74.17 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you actually read Murtha's arguments, you would see that the "cut and run" designation is just as applicable to Bush in the examples I gave. He does not call for abandoning Iraq; his argument is that the troops being there are actually impeding Iraq's progress and are becoming a catalyst for violence. So his argument is that to support Iraq's progress toward self-governance, and to ultimately defeat the terrorists, a troop pullout is necessary. So it all depends how you frame what he is "cutting and running" from -- sure, he wants to cut and run from a counterproductive policy that helps the terrorists win. In doing so, he is avoiding cutting and running from the difficult work of defeating the terrorists. This is not "mushy thinking"; this is an explanation of how the language works. That's why politically charged terms like "cut and run" do not belong here any more than they do in the article on Bush, discussing his "cutting and running" from Osama at Tora Bora. (Obviously, we should quote other Representatives when they use the term, but it should not be a term used by Wikipedia as descriptive).--csloat 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No; again, you are offering mushy thinking. Cutting-and-running is about dramatically withdrawing from what you are-or-were doing, not about fundamentally changing what you were seeking. Many advocates of cutting-and-running are not advocating a change in fundamental goal. (Sometimes they are even right in thinking that cutting-and-running will accomplish the basic goal.) If anything the Bush administration seems to do the exact opposite — continuing actions while changing rationale. Again, Bush plainly did not advocate cutting-and-running nor practice cutting-and-running where the earlier poster claimed. You can in fact find where Bush practiced cutting-and-running elsewhere, but doing so won't vindicate the mushy thinking here to-date. —12.72.74.17
Nothing mushy about my claim; I was very clear on what I mean, as you correctly sussed out. Your definition of cut and run may be different from mine, and that is all is all well and good, but someone who continues doing what they are doing even when they realize it is totally destructive of the goals they are seeking is, by definition, insane. But that is neither here nor there -- Bush plainly cut and ran from confronting Osama in Afghanistan (even though we are still stuck there; we're talking about Tora Bora here). All of this is not relevant, however; the point is that wikipedia should not endorse the view of murtha or bush as advocating "cut and run" when neither they or their supporters would agree with that label.--csloat 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree kinda. Whether or not it is true, it is a term that has come to have a pejorative meaning, and thus unencyclopedic outside the context of a quote from a critic. - Merzbow 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Murtha stands for

I reworded the section about what political stances Murtha takes because it sounds better to list it under "Like other democrats..." I also for some reason couldn't find a source for it, so I couldn't expand it (which is what I originally wanted to do). So I just moved it. It doesn't change the meaning of the phrase, and I think my version sounds better. But if no one else agrees with me, I guess I can keep trying to find a source for his stances and expand on them. Stanselmdoc 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Political Views (hawk?)

Is this assertion "He is generally more hawkish, or supportive of military excursions, than the typical Democrat" correct? What was Murtha's position on the 1st Gulf War? Somalia? Afghanistan? It's true that he is a veteran and has served on Congressional committees related to the military but I know he was not at all a hawk, for example, on Somalia.

[edit] “which are backed by the Pentagon”

Someone at Chico is attempting to spin the report of the libel suit by injecting that the charge “are backed by the Pentagon”. Now, the fact that a DoD team has concluded that the charges are true doesn't mean that they are “backed by the Pentagon”. It means that some Pentagon investigators back the charges. The Pentagon is not a monolith. One part has reached conclusion; another part will review the investigation. If the soldiers are charged, then one part will prosecute, another defend, and a third judge.

It would be more than appropriate to report on the conclusions of the investiagting team, not as “the Pentagon”, but as investigators from the Pentagon. Of course, to do this properly, in well-orgainzed sentences and paragraphs, would not provide the spin that was sought. —71.154.208.74 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Cycle

Not only is someone at Chico systematically moving through Wikipedia attempting to give articles a pro-Democrat or ant-Republican spin — BTW, spinner, I am neither — he or she has even resorted to editting my comments in discussion. Let me explain two things to the spinner: IP numbers are logged exactly to allow otherwise anonymous, problematic editors to be traced. Second, he or she will find that my reference to his or her university location is now embedded in the “history” of the discussion page. —71.154.208.74 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Cycle II

Urgh. First we had a left-wing howler trying to make it seem as if the Pentagon had, en masse, concluded that Murtha was right about Haditha. Now we have a right-wing howler trying to erase the fact that an official Pentagon team has found support for some of the charges. —12.72.71.31 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What? What is that about howler one, howler two,... Can you reality - ify that amorphousness?? —Hopiakuta 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Um…
  1. The words “real” and “amorphous” are not antonymns.
  2. Any word that is not a proper name has the same sort of amorphousness to which you refer; discourse cannot be exclusively in terms of names. Please don't be abusive in your use of the word “amorphous”.
  3. Using the article history run through the edits made in the period before the above comment. It was the commentor's prerogative to assume a familiarity on the part of the reader with recent edits.
  4. Nothing stood in need of reïfication.
—12.72.72.87 01:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Irey: birthdate, birthplace??

Hopiakuta 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

It's not helpful to put on such a tag without an explanation. Is the section supposed to be too pro- or anti-Murtha? And could you make a change to the passage that would fix the POV problem rather than putting on a tag? Nareek 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abscam

anything about the abscam tape, where murtha was involved??--Bairdso66 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 17 lines about Abscam in the article. Nareek 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Woodward on Abizaid and Murtha

Here's how Arbustoo wants the subsection “Bob Woodward on Abizaid and Murtha” to read, with underlining on my part added where there something already said is repeated:

In State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III (as excerpted in Newsweek magazine), journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post writes
On March 16, General John Abizaid, the commander of CENTCOM and thus the top military officer for the Middle East, was in Washington to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He painted a careful but upbeat picture of the situation in Iraq. Afterward, he went over to see Congressman John Murtha, the 73-year old former Marine who had introduced a resolution the previous November calling for the redeployment of troops from Iraq as soon as practicable. Sitting at the round, dark wood table in the congressman’s office, Abizaid, the one uniformed military commander who had been intimately involved in Iraq from the beginning and who was still at it, indicated he wanted to speak frankly. According to Murtha, Abizaid raised his hand for emphasis and held his thumb and forefinger a quarter of an inch from each other and said, “We’re that far apart.”[6]
On October 1, 2006, an interview of Washington Post journallist Bob Woodward by CBS reporter Mike Wallace was broadcast on the television show Sixty Minutes. The interview was about Woodward's new book State of Denial. Wallace said that Woodward reported that CENTCOM General John Abizaid had stated privately to friends that "we had to get the "F..." out of Iraq." Wallace continued to summarize material from the book. He said that when John Murtha, the soul and conscience of the military, made his 10,000 volt statement about troop redeployment- this act caused Abizaid to see Murtha in March, 2006. Wallace went on to say that Woodward wrote that Murtha said that Abizaid held up his thumb and forefinger about a quarter inch apart and said we are about this close on Iraq. Woodward nodded his head in assent and said yes.[7]

Further note that, in this ill-written passage, the reader must struggle to determine whether “the soul and conscience of the military” represents Woodward's words, Wallace's words, or the assessement of Wikipedia. Likewise the description of Murtha's statement as “10,000 volt”. And the handling of “we are about this close on Iraq” is simply illiterate.

In other words, the whole thing is just bad all around. —70.166.5.157 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could be written better. Why not fix it? Why did you remove it? Arbusto 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't removed; the fix reduced it to one sentence. What is removed was:
  • redundant content
  • unattributed editorializing
With respect to the latter, it's not clear that this editorializing belongs in this article even if properly attributed (this article isn't supposed to contain a comprehensive assembly of opinion on Murtha), but the onus of attribution would be on those who want it included. —12.72.73.61 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Imagine, BTW, that a passage in the article on Tom Delay reported an interview of some other author, and read
On October 1, 2006, an interview of Beaverbrook Times journallist Snidely Whiplash by KKEY reporter Thorblat Housely was broadcast on the television show Fifty-Seven Minutes. The interview was about Whiplash's new book State of Delusian. Housely said that Whiplash reported that DNCC Secretary John Foobar had stated privately to friends that "we had to get the "F..." out of Social Security." Housely continued to summarize material from the book. He said that when Tom Delay, the soul and conscience of the welfare state, made his 10,000 volt statement about spending increases- this act caused Foobar to see Delay in March, 2006. Whiplash went on to say that Housely wrote that Delay said that Foobar held up his thumb and forefinger about a quarter inch apart and said we are about this close on Social Security. Whiplash nodded his head in assent and said yes.
Only an insanely partisan editor would insist that such a passage stand as-is until-and-unless it was mpdestly cleaned-up. Most of it should go; probably all of it should go. —12.72.73.61 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “We need to get the F... out of Iraq”

In an edit summary, for a reversion, Arbustoo writes ‘Wallace quoting "We need to get the F... out of Iraq" is not in the section so stop removing it; clean it up some’. However, the version that he reverted had that quote.

Questioned by Mike Wallace on a 1 October 2006 broadcast of the television show Sixty Minutes, Woodward stood by this version of events, as well as a claim that Abizaid had stated privately to friends that “we had to get the f… out of Iraq”.[8]

The appropriateness of this quote to this article is very questionable, but it happens to be here. So the basis for reversion is perfectly specious. —12.72.73.69 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable in what way? A bunch of arm waving won't get it removed. Arbusto 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about Jack Murtha, not more generally about the Iraq War, nor about everyone who might happen to have the same position as Murtha. It's doubtful that Abizaid made the quoted remark with Murtha in mind, doubtful that Murtha had previously been informed by that remark, and so forth. (No one waved hands; don't fling out such claims without basis.) —12.72.73.69 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Doubted what? Murtha said Abizaid personally told him. And if you want to cut down on the material on Iraq that's good. I plan on doing some cleaning up of the sourced material soon. In the meantime, removing cited material will get you BLOCKED. Arbusto 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The edit summayr said to see the talk, but there is no reason given for removing a source. Strange? Arbusto 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a need to repeat the points already made here. You are just trying to work the system by demanding that your exploded claims be rebutted again. —12.72.72.238 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not confuse the quotations: This sub-section is about the quote in the subsection title. Nothing in the ill-written passage to which you are clinging has Murtha claiming that Abizaid told him that a few days earlier he'd said to friends “we had to get the f… out of Iraq”. —12.72.72.238 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You are removing the citation and other things like Woodward saying "that Murtha was the "heart and soul of the military" which isn't in the above section. That's is rather important when discussing Murtha and Woodward in an article about Murtha. Arbusto 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it didn't say that Woodward said that. It said that Murtha was the soul and conscience. It was simply rubbish for you to insist that such a claim should stand as that of the Wikipedia until someone else identified who had actually said it. —12.72.72.238 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that, early in the argument over that dreadful passage, the point was explicitly made
Further note that, in this ill-written passage, the reader must struggle to determine whether “the soul and conscience of the military” represents Woodward's words, Wallace's words, or the assessement of Wikipedia.
Again, you work the system by reiterating exploded claims, hoping that you'll get intervention by a lazy administrator who won't look very deeply into things. —12.72.72.238 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Responding to "No, it didn't", it mentioned "soul and conscience" and had a source to it. Perhaps if you wanted to improve the section you would have gone to the original source instead of deleting material. Arbusto 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it mentioned “soul and conscience”, which wasn't even an accurate quote. Nor did it have those words in quotes, nor otherwise indicate that it was attempting to quote. Evidentally, you wanted a Wikipedia entry to baldly claim that John Murtha is the soul and conscience of the military; I want the entry to be factual and NPOV. Any passage, including those that you have removed from articles, could in theory be edited into something of merit; that doesn't mean that editors must allow every wild passage to stand until it has thus been editted. —12.72.72.122 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • HELLO. I started the section. First I saw the video clip on youtube.com and transcribed the best I could. I know the grammar is atrocious. And thanks for cleaning it up. I"ll port it over to the Abizaid site where applicable. Then the Newsweek book excerpt came out and I stuck that it too. After over 2,700 dead, over 20,000 wounded, and a trillion dollar real cost of treasure blown, Murtha and Iraq is serious stuff. Thanks for taking the time to edit it and clean it up. As a disabled Vietnam vet I appreciate it. Will314159 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. That's how wikipedia works: information get added, and cleaned up. Keep contributing! Arbusto 04:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Understand that this site does not attempt to be Democracy Wall; it is trying (however well or poorly) to be an encyclopedia. Try to present material in a way that leaves normative judgment to the reader. And note that if you have material that you think belongs yet needs more polish, then you can put it on discussion pages such as this, so that it can be cleaned-up before being incorporated in the article. —12.72.72.122 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see: WP:DICK. Don't tell other good faith users to not add material to the article. Arbusto 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That link isn't meant to be used to circumvent the rule against personal attack. No one told him not to add material in general, and no one accused him of not acting in good faith. However, he did seem to have treated Wikipedia as Democracy Wall. The world needs Democracy Walls, but this site isn't appropriately treated as one. —75.18.113.152 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Note now that if you'd not encouraged him to proceed as he was, then he might have avoided the latest of his three blocks, which is a whalloping 10 days. —12.72.71.79 11:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb and Forefinger

Alright, now: Why do we have the thumb-and-forefinger story told twice, one time right after the other? That redundancy needs to go. —12.72.72.238 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dead ELs and copyedit

I started a copyedit on this article tonight, and tried to fix a few serious problems. All the links from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Cincinnati Enquirer are dead, so I tried to find replacements using Google and the other links as starting points. Some of the external links were both referenced in citations and listed in the 'External links' section, so I fixed that redundancy, and I made other ELs into inline citations. One section was essentially a repeat of the section above it, so I cut one of them out but left the references.

The article needs a lot more work (how many sections does an article really need?) and I'll try to do more in a couple of days. I thought I'd leave a note here first, to make sure no one thinks their favorite ELs are magically eliminated by a POV editor – the only ones that I cut were dead, broken, and/or 404 Not Found. I hope everyone is happy with the substitutes I found to take their place; if not, let me know. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABSCAM section

I condensed the ABSCAM section because it was dominating the article with posted transcripts of the FBI tapes. Abe Froman 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the recent version was too bloviated...but now it is too whitewashed, providing little background or context on Abscam. A 5 Nov 2006 edit by arbustoo removed a section I wrote which had stood for several weeks "this quote makes it appear as if he was taking a bribe when that wasn't the case, this probably has to do with the political campaign so its been removed)" The quote removed did not make Murtha appear to be taking a bribe - he refued the bribe. In my opinion, what Murtha offered was a kickback scheme where the money would be given to Murtha's friends, the investment providing him a "justification" for the political favor...Murtha rejected the cash bribe because he was not familiar enough with the people, and someone might talk in the future which Murtha thought would derail his ambitions to be in "the f---ing leadership of the house."Blcartwright 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this section in order to help it more closely conform to NPOV standards. I know this is a contentious issue, and I do not want to initiate any edit warring, so I will explain myself: 1) Formerly the last sentence of this section's second paragraph contained an approximation of the following phrase in relation to Murtha's "bragging": "his ability to direct money where he chooses, and notes a specific bank for this purpose." Murtha does positively estimate his own prowess as a congressman in the video, however the meaning of his comments regarding money are not clear, and in general his comments pertaining to his efficacy do not refer to money. Furthermore although he alludes to specific banks he does not at any point in the video name or identify them. I changed the sentence to accurately reflect the content of the video. 2) The phrase "the very premise of the investigation" in the first sentence of the third paragraph seemed to imply that the FBI eventually concluded that Murtha was demonstrably guilty of exactly what they had investigated him for. It is patently false to state that the FBI was investigating Congressmen who hoped to secure foreign investment in their districts. That is a legal activity and in many cases part of a Representative's job description. The phrase was misleading, so I removed it. 3) The following statemtent and link are redundant, so I removed them: Full length viewing of the tape reveal Murtha citing prospective investment opportunities that could return "500 or 1000" miners to work.[9] 4) In general, the video is clearly inconclusive. Whether Murtha was hoping to fool the operatives, to coax them into an arrangement that would be legal without insulting them for their crassness, or he was hoping to fool the system, to coax a bribe from the operatives that would not seem like a bribe to anyone else, the point is that there are no clear tracks. Any assessment that lends an impression that Murtha is either guilty or innocent is un-encyclopedic. 4) On this talk page there are 3 different sections devoted to ABSCAM. Perhaps they should be combined.Brrryan 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article Brrryan. However, since this has its own article it would be best to cut down this section to a summary and let the link take care of the rest. The posted links to youtube videos are against policy if I remember correctly. Also, I am going to remove the unsourced statements. Jasper23 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of name

Does anybody know what ethnicity the name Murtha would be? 75.162.19.68 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

'Murtha' derives from Gaelic 'O Muircheartaigh', and is most often found in county Kerry in Ireland. (An alternative spelling would be 'Moriarty', btw.) 62.158.85.93 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds like an opinion

Thoughtman added this item to the Haditha section:

As details of the Pentagon investigation's findings have emerged, however, they have been consistent with Murtha's characterization.

It cites a link to this BBC article. It might have seemed at one time like the charges would be consistent with Murtha's characterizations, but I think even then that BBC article wouldn't have supported it. A bigger problem is that the article was from April 2006. Something we cite as the "Pentagon investigation" would have to include the Article 32 investigation currently underway, and it's shaping up as completely different from Murtha's characterization.

Even if the other two marines are convicted, it then becomes a case of individual marines committing crimes -- and not having "overreacted" the way Murtha put it. Too much has already come out that contradicts Murtha's story, or whatever people would have liked to believe in 2006.

Since Thoughtman reverted my revert, I'll put it out here for discussion.
-- Randy2063 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News

Just as a Devil's Advocate: Murtha got a focus on Fox news, focusing on his comments about the Marines; one of the Fox peeps was talking to some of the Marines and family affected. Lots42 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Which specific issue are you referring to? --Loonymonkey 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Hannity's America that interviewed Justin Sharratt and his father. Sharratt was cleared, as were a couple of other Marines.
If the three Marines who do face trial are convicted, it will likely be on lesser charges. Even if it's worse than is now believed, it still won't be the way Murtha described it. The truth turns out to be far different than the tale that Murtha was putting out when he screwed those Marines.
-- Randy2063 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you're looking for a forum in which you can air your personal criticisms of Murtha. There are much better options for such things than Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm showing too much frustration, but this is related to my comment in the section above this one ("Sounds like an opinion") where news sources from 2006 were trying to dispute what is now known to be otherwise. I may be a bit too anxious about Murtha supporters coming in to re-spin this story.
-- Randy2063 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)