>>>>>>>>>>John Murtha's an idiot for a lot of reasons, but he's not entirely wrong on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have read his wikipedia biography ;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>... and au-contre he looks like quiet deacent person (for a politician especially) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am quiet puzzled with the way your evaluation system works, Would you care to explain why is he an idiot ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>TIA
>>>>>>>>>Sergio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Starting with taking money from the the Arabs in Abscam? Or subsequently in his Cindy Sheehan-like irrationality on dealing with the facts on the ground in Iraq?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, he never was convicted of anything, and it seemed as though he wasn't interested in lining his pockets at all. he offered them legitimate business investment information that he thought would bring jobs to his district. So "taking money from the Arabs in Abscam" might also be a little too strong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was my impression as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>After watching the video again I tend to agree that he was not accepting a bribe - though he did try a "bank" shot by suggesting investment in his district (which would benefit him) rather than direct payment to him.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it would have benefited him, but by the reflected benefit to his constituants, which is what politicians are supposed to be all about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess my question is, the day after being approached with a clearly illegal proposition did he contact the FBI to report it? If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>>He's a politician. I'd be willing to bet that in the same situation, a very small percentage of politicians would have informed the FBI - especially if they thought they would lose the perceived benefit to their districts.
>>>
>>>Is it not a lame argumentation? When their guy caught then he should be judged by the high standards of the public trust, and when it is our guy then ready-to-use "every politician does it" comes in play. Please, don't tell now that Murtha is not your guy. It would be just another round of lame argumentation.
>>
>>Sorry, but whether or not you think it's lame, he's not my guy. Outside of his name being linked with Abscam, I really know nothing about him. I should also point out, not that you're interested, I'm sure, but whether or not you think my arguments are lame is not at the top of the list of things that matter to me.
>
>I have never had different expectations in regard to your list. However, you should admit that I knew your line of argumentation even before you pronounced it. It is a sign of lameness. It is not required for you to drink with Murtha on multiple occasions to have him as your guy. It is quite enough that you know his party affiliation.

Of course. Whatever you say.