Youre giving this fellow a lot of credit. I don't think Jack Murtha is that nuanced. I think what he was trying (in his oafish way) to say was that he takes care of the needs of his district and if that is corrupt then so be it, but it isn't illegal. I don't think he intends at all to be saying he has broken any laws.

I'm not sure that his slimey associations are evidence of any wrongdoing. He may well be corrupt, but for some reason, Murtha has always been a guy that the media liked to put in a negative light yet he has never had any charges brought against him or had his career derailed by accusations and so on. Yes, he was at first accused in Abscam but that was dropped. I understand that he's had a history of, shall we say, living on the edge, but in much of Washington that's considered being a skilled player in the game because even though it may appear that he is being unethical, it may well be that his conduct is fully within the rules of the House and the law.

Additionally, he has been a well respected member of the House for many years and not because he was corrupt or a skilled at feathering his own nest. Unlike a guy like Cunningham, or Young or Stevens or Ney, Murtha has gained the respect of colleagues for his ability and expertise. It may turn out that he is corrupt, but if being associated with a corrupt lobbyist or corporation who has helped in bringing home the bacon for your district means you are guilty then we'll have to indict every member of the Congress in both houses with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich. I'll reserve judegment in Murtha's case before deciding if he's actually guilty of anything other than being good at providing pork for the folks back home. I think we just need to see more evidence as opposed to assuming the man has actually broken the law is all. If he has, then off with his head! Until then, I think the most prudent course is to wait and see if there's any there there.