Friday, August 10, 2007

Sucks to be you, Jack.

Not only is Jack Murtha running for cover after falsely convicting Haditha Marines of cold blooded murder, now he's being bitten about the ankles by some dirty little things called earmarks.

Murtha's defense of earmarks questioned

By S.A. Miller
August 9, 2007

Mr. Murtha, who is one of the most prolific sponsors of earmarks in the Democrat-led Congress, defended the practice during debate Saturday night when questioned by Mr. Campbell and Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican.

“I think people around the country will be appalled ... to see Mr. Murtha stand up and say these contracts are competitively bid. They are not,” Mr. Flake said by telephone after returning home to Mesa, Ariz.

Mr. Flake commended new ethics rules passed this year that disclose more earmarks, but he lamented that the lawmakers allow the practice to flourish, regardless of what is disclosed.

“Ultimately, the system will change when people on the outside say, ‘This is enough," ” he said.

The bill contained 1,337 earmarks worth $3 billion, with $150 million in pork sponsored by Mr. Murtha.

Under the new rules, the number of earmarks in the defense bill dropped from the $10 billion in last year"s bill, but Mr. Murtha"s share of pork nearly doubled now that he is chairman, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Of course, true to the weasely nature of brave, brave Sir Murtha

Mr. Murtha did not respond to requests for comment.

However, Murtha did "explain" himself

He told the chamber that the pork spending, known as earmarks, is awarded in a competitive bidding process by the Pentagon and that the technology developed with federal dollars would be the property of the U.S. government.

Errr...nice try Jack:

“He"s got to know that"s not true,” said Rep. John Campbell, California Republican. “Clearly, the point of earmarks is they avoid the competitive bidding process.”

He also doubted that an earmark could establish a contractual agreement for product ownership, as did Steve Ellis, vice president of the government-watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“I"ve looked at hundreds of thousands of earmarks over the years, and I"ve never seen one that stipulates ownership,” Mr. Ellis said.

Mr. Campbell said he was seeking documentation from the Defense Department to refute Mr. Murtha"s claims and force him to retract the statements.

But again,

Mr. Murtha did not respond to requests for comment.

Me thinks me sees a pattern here.

Seems as if Jack Murtha's credibility bubbles are popping about him, leaving behind a thick coat of slime.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.