« “Like a dull boxer punching blind in all directions.” | Home | Headline of the Day »

Friday, November 18, 2005

The Confused History of John Murtha (D-PA)

The mainstream media has been utterly ruthless in promulgating without apology Democrat lies—English provides no more diplomatic noun for their acrid rhetoric: not ‘canard’, not ‘inveracity’, not ‘equivocation’, not ‘misrepresentation’ but out-and-out lies—to the point of re-writing Vice President Cheney’s speech so that he, somehow, attacks the patriotism of those sour on the war (he railed against revisionist history and hypocrisy, not dissent), and of revising the history of Representative John Murtha, who like the rest of his party rode on the war bandwagon when such a position was politically expedient and became anti-war when the party needed to differentiate itself from the GOP.

Let’s cruise the archives.

On 9/18/04, the AP reported that Murtha was backing up Kerry’s conspiracy theories that the White House had secret plans to call up extra reserves right after the election.

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and a former Marine who served in Vietnam, said he had learned through conversations with Pentagon officials that beginning in November, “the Bush administration plans to call up large numbers of the military Guard and Reserves, to include plans that they previously had put off to call up the Individual Ready Reserve.”

It never happened.

On 5/13/04, the AP reported that Murtha had declared the war unwinnable.

“The way we’re going, I don’t think it’s winnable,” he said. “We have completely misjudged the opposition and planned for the best case scenario, and we really are talking about the worst case scenario. … We’re bargain hunting. What we’re doing is trying to fight a war with what we have available, rather than what we need.”

The report continued that other Democrats refused to follow Murtha’s distinctly Vietnamesque dour.

“There is partisanship at work, which I hate to see,” said Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., a former Democrat who switched parties after serving in the Vietnam war. […]

At least one Democratic hawk is reluctant to follow Murtha’s lead: Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri. Though he describes himself as a close Murtha friend, Skelton said he doesn’t “entirely” agree that the war may be unwinnable.

“I hope he’s wrong,” Skelton said. “I hope there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.”

Another Democratic hawk, Rep. Jane Harman of California, said she fears the partisanship over the war could prevent any constructive compromises on Iraq.

One week later, on 5/20/04, the Frontrunner summarized a Star-Tribune report on Senator Norm Coleman’s riposte. Coleman observed accurately that such reckless calls of failure make the situation on the ground more difficult. Democrats did not respond to Coleman’s observation, but instead brayed that he was questioning their patriotism.

Sen. Norm Coleman irritated Democrats on Wednesday in a floor speech criticizing Rep. John Murtha and his comment that “the war in Iraq ‘unwinnable.’ Coleman said, “This war is winnable. But if insurgents heard his words, it was harder to win than before he spoke.” The MST notes, “Coleman’s remarks prompted an outcry among Democrats, who accused him of trying to muzzle dissent. … Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle…described himself as ‘stunned’ by Coleman’s remarks. He entered a statement into the record saying, ‘If there is one individual whose support for our troops and their effort I never thought would be subject to attack, it is John Murtha.’ Coleman said that while there is ‘room for debate’ on Iraq, members of Congress need to be careful about what they say in public.’

On 5/12/04, the AP dispatched an article almost identical to those seen today—“Defense hawk lawmaker’s doubts signal brewing fight over Iraq”—making it plain that Murtha is being essentially re-used for the same purpose today.

Last June, when Democrats put together a press conference to repudiate a Bush speech (given later that evening) on the war, they chose Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. Murtha used letters from constituents to accuse President Bush of War Crimes, to propose impeachment, and to withdraw from Iraq immediately in light of the now-forgotten Downing Street Memo.

On 6/28/05 the presser took place in H-204 of the Capitol Building. Asked why a timetable for withdrawal is a good idea, he replied:

Let me tell you something. There’s a big difference between a timetable — General Zinni says I wouldn’t have a — I don’t think there’s any military guy that thinks you should have a timetable withdrawal. But we should have a timetable — something we can measure. The — we get so many different stories, hell, we don’t know! We don’t know when they’re telling us truth or not telling the truth. We need them to say, “Okay, we get this many people trained at this level, we’ll then be able to pull some troops out of there…

Murtha dipped perilously close to the tin-foil regiments that evening, and it is worth noting that on 5/6/04, Roll Call, after Murtha declared the war unwinnable, balanced their report with apprehensive Democratic officials.

Political worries are circulating among Democrats as well, especially moderate and conservative Members who fear a louder anti- war position and even the use of the term “unwinnable” could hurt the party down the road.

“It does cause some heartburn,” said one moderate Democratic lawmaker, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

One senior House Democratic aide, however, noted that while the sentiments aren’t helpful politically, Murtha doesn’t “speak for the Democratic Party.” His public statements, while heavy in the minds of Pelosi and others in the Caucus, don’t necessarily reflect the direction of the Caucus overall. Murtha also spoke on the topic before the Center for Strategic and International Studies in an off- the-record speech Tuesday night.

It is actually quite unclear whether Murtha is much of a hawk. When it came time to vote, his name was in the ‘yea’ column. But a 10/2/02 Washington Times report contained this language:

Opposition to an Iraqi invasion includes Democratic Reps. John. P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Silvestre Reyes of Texas and Mike Thompson of California. Mr. Thompson was in Iraq last weekend along with Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and David E. Bonior of Michigan.

But one day later, the Wall Street Journal reported on the House’s Iraq War Resolution, and Murtha was sold:

Mr. Gephardt’s allies predicted a solid majority of House Democrats will support the language, and both the Democratic leader and Vice President Dick Cheney telephoned Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), a pivotal player who now shows more inclination to support the revised resolution. Negotiations on the resolution began soon after the White House sent lawmakers a tough first draft on Sept. 19.

And then, of course, as early as September 16 of 2003, Reuters was able to report Murtha’s call for “somebody” to be fired over Iraq.

What does it all mean? Immediately, it means that the press’ attempts to gin up Murtha’s pro-war bona fides so as to bulwark his call for surrender are horrendously disingenuous. In the longer outlook, I think we might see more reports like these, with the Iraqi majority asking the US not to leave. Is that the secret Murtha plan: reverse psychology? If his see-saw history on Iraq is any indicator, it’s possible.

Posted on November 18, 2005 09:09 AM. Permalink