http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2727190-------------------
Personally, I find this to be an opportunity to prove we value ethics in Washington.
I watched the Murtha tape and have now reached an objective conclusion on it. After watching the tape and giving the accusations/denials due diligence by means of objective and fair thought process, I have reached the following conclusions:
1. Congressman Murtha did not do anything criminal, which explains why he was not charged.
2. Congressman Murtha undoubtedly, in my opinion, did completely cross ethical boundaries.
3. He may have done so with the best intentions for his district. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt there.
4. Regardless of good intentions, it still completely crossed ethical boundaries.
5. This was a long time ago. I'm sure he's grown much since and the impact of this 26 yr old incident is being grossly exaggerated.
6. Regardless of its current exaggeration, I cannot declare 100% approval of his actions done back then.
7. Congressman Murtha should not have to withdraw his candidacy for Majority Leader based on this.
8. Congressman Murtha SHOULD, however, acknowledge that his actions at that meeting, in retrospect, were not ethically sound but that he has grown since and recognized that. He should then refrain from publicly trying to assert that there was nothing ethically wrong with that meeting at all.
9. Congressman Murtha is a good man and a hero. This doesn't change that. We all know that there are many behind the scenes back door deals that go along with being in Congress. This doesn't make it ok.
That's a quick wrap-up of my views on it. For my conclusion in summary, I believe that this is being way over-hyped and that he did nothing criminal or that warrants his being admonished 26 years after the fact. But in spite of that, I find this to be an opportunity to show that we are a party of ethical standards no matter who is the violator of those ethics. If we want to put our money where our mouths are, we should be able to stand up firmly and admit that the meeting wasn't ethical. That admission in no way has to mean that his career is fraudulent or his reputation not deserved. It doesn't mean that he should then be chastised or cast out. It doesn't mean that we don't support him for all of the positive things he's done. It just means that we are true to our word when we say we value ethical standards regardless of party affiliation.
After watching that video, it is clear that Murtha was more than willing to use his political influence to do a favor for the sheik, dependent upon their large scale investments in his district. He did refuse a bribe, though I haven't reached a definitive conclusion on whether or not he was after one but doing it in such a way as to not get caught (hence the investments in his district). He alternatively may have just been asking for the investments for the betterment of his district. Like I said, I've not yet reached a conclusion on this and may not ever reach a factual one. But good intention or not, doing a political favor for somebody in return for some kind of reward, is simply unethical. There is no doubt in my mind after watching that video that what he did was in fact unethical. I don't, however, consider that violation to be something that should ruin his career 26 years later, or something he should be overly chastised for.
What I do believe, is that instead of his flat out denials of ethical wrongdoing, that he should immediately step forward and declare that the meeting of decades ago in retrospect was definitely not within the guidelines of ethics that he's come to appreciate, and that he's thankful he's grown in so many ways since to now recognize that. That's it. That's all he'd need to say in my opinion.
If we are serious about our ethical standards, then every one of us should be able to say that the meeting was unethical, while also followed by validation that it was a long time ago and he has learned much since. I find no flaw in that.
So I'm a man of my word. When I declare that I demand ethical judgment on all regardless of affiliation, I mean it. This was unethical: Period. But it is also a disgrace how the media are exploding it into an issue far beyond what it should be. I just think we could've spun it to our advantage by being up front and honest by calling it what it was, and having him step forward and admit it himself while confidently declaring how much he's grown wiser since.
That's my ramble on it, and I'm confident in my assessment of the situation after having watched the video.
Peace,
OMC
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
