Murtha Briefly Sees Light, Pelosi Shoves Back Into Darkness
If the stakes weren’t so high, the recent headlines surrounding John Murtha would be downright hilarious in their illustration of Pelosi’s Principles of Partisanship. John Murtha just got back from Iraq and said a quite remarkable thing, given his history on the war:
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) acknowledged that the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is “working” after returning from a brief trip to Iraq last week, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The comments, coming from a harsh critic of President Bush’s Iraq war policy, suggest there may be a shift in Democratic rhetoric on Iraq in light of recent reductions in violence in Iraq over the last several months.
Murtha made the comments today at his district office in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
He added that the Iraqi government needed to better “take care of themselves” and achieve greater progress with political reconciliation, according to the Post-Gazette.
The statement is a marked shift from this July, when Murtha told CNN that he “dismissed” an op-ed by Brookings Institution analysts Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon that the surge was beginning to make progress, and said that their comments were “an illusion.”
The panic that broke out in Democratic ranks was pathetic, predictable, and prompt. Scores of lefty pundits raced onto the internet to point out Murtha’s comments on the need for the Iraqis to do more, while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla of Murtha’s about-face.
Fear not, though: showing her devotion to party over principle, Nancy Pelosi cracked the whip, and Murtha began to climb down like a good boy:
U.S. Rep. John Murtha yesterday insisted that he hasn’t changed his views on the Iraq war, despite telling a group of reporters on Thursday that a troop surge is “working.”
“We can’t win it militarily. It has to be won by the Iraqis, and they still are thumbing their nose at the United States,” Mr. Murtha, D-Johnstown, said last night on CNN’s “Situation Room.”
He still supports an “orderly redeployment” of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible.
Mr. Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a prominent critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, planned several television appearances yesterday, including a spot on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” and released a “clarification” statement after facing harsh criticisms from Republicans and war supporters who said he was shifting his rhetoric to reflect declining violence.
Now, read that last sentence again, and tell me if we’re in Bizarro World now! “[H]arsh criticisms from Republicans and war supporters”! On the contrary…why ON EARTH would war supporters not welcome an assertion from one of the war’s harshest critics that the surge was working? Let’s look at the ‘harsh criticism’ from Republicans:
A top House Republican said Democrats should now accept the president’s request for billions in emergency funding for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“With one of the Democrats’ leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it’s difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops,” said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the minority whip. “Our servicemen and women have made tremendous progress the past six months, with fewer attacks on our troops, greater security in historically insecure areas, and terrorist insurgents on the run.”
There’s ‘harsh criticism’ there, all right – of the Democrats’ withdrawal plan, not of Murtha’s surge comments! Now, let’s look at the REAL reason for Murtha’s quick retreat:
On Thursday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, said he and the White House Iraq coordinator Gen. Douglas Lute discussed a compromise in which Congress would provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if the administration accepted readiness standards for the troops sent into battle and a ban on the use of torture.
The Democrats’ part of the compromise would be to extend the time period in which they would demand that troops be withdrawn from Iraq, Murtha said.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no sign of accepting such a compromise and said the Democratic Congress would not pass a war funding bill other than the one that had already passed the House.
“We have provided every penny that is currently necessary to fund Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world,” Pelosi said. “It is President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate who are preventing extra funds from reaching our troops.”
On Friday, Murtha appeared to back away from supporting the compromise, saying “the fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily” and that the Iraqi government has failed to capitalize on “window of opportunity” created by the additional U.S. troops.
Murtha and called for “an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable.”
“The House of Representatives has passed a $50 billion funding bill that provides the president, our troops, and our nation with a responsible plan for bringing our troops home,” Murtha said. “The president should heed the advice of the American people and allow this funding bill to become law.”
It’s as plain as day, and only a fool could miss it: Murtha briefly told the truth about what he saw in Iraq, and suggested a compromise on funding could be reached. One day later, after comments from Speaker Pelosi demolishing any thought of compromise, he’s whistling a new tune.
I hear Republicans criticize the war every day…too bad a Democrat can’t say a word of praise towards our military without being blackballed…
Oh, come off it, will you? Tell me when Democrats have emphasized anything but the nonexistent political progress that was supposed to be the point of the surge? You’re really reaching here, Mark. Your comment about Democrats blackballing anybody who says something good about the military is particularly pernicious.
Yes, I made it all up. Murtha did an about-face in 24 hours for no reason, no reason at all…certainly he wasn’t pressured by Pelosi.
Good thing I didn’t provide any sources or excerpts, either…
It might be easier to find a case of a Dem that hasn’t been blackballed for not towing the line………. Still looking, I’ll have to get back when I find one.
As for Murtha, it’s really simple Mark;
1) The surge IS working and Murtha wants to get in front of it before Reid & Pelosi. That he flipped is irrelevant because,
2) It’s a stratergeric powerplay for when he runs for House leadership next year. He’ll be able to point to that day as a demonstration of his acuity and superior leadership compared to the clueless Pelosi. Letting Pelosi look like she manhandled this is just a trap that she waded into with full force. Does anyone really think he’s cowed by her?
3) Flipping had nothing to do with placating Pelosi and everything to do with extracting a quid pro quo with the Clinton machine – it’s a catfight thing, Hillary is not going to stand for sharing the spotlight wit another powerful woman. He gets back on message and,
4) Not only will his power increase with her backing, he’ll become the supreme earmark king maker, while Pelosi is thrown under the bus.
Andy: Do you really think Murtha is going to get all Brutus on Pelosi? It seems to me like he owes too much to her politically to try something like that.
Sean, are you sure it’s not the other way around that he’s been boosting Pelosi for his own purposes? She owes her speakership to him, otherwise, it’d be Steny. I say that, not because I’m being partisan, I think most of the DC politiciians are all about the money, even more so with longtime incumbents. They NEVER do anything w/o a “what’s in it for me” angle. The latest example is Trent Lott, and Murtha already has proved he’s available for the right money as far back as Abscam.
He’s been around a long time and has been content to be the shadow kingmaker. Now that’s he’s getting up there, why not take the limelight for a while before retiring and cashing in.
As for following the money, now that hostilities are winding down, it’s time to shift gears and start earmarking his friends for plum reconstruction jobs, hence, the “surge is working” proclamation.
Fargus, tell me what happened to noted Democrat war supporter Joe Lieberman – or have you already forgotten? Now tell me how many other Democrats have dared to support the war after that…
Fargus-
Not to pile on, but “Tell me when Democrats have emphasized anything but the nonexistent political progress”?
Really?
You can’t think of any time when any prominent Democrat has, say, suggested that the Surge had failed militarily?
A few lowlights:
- A public Letter from Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid on June 13, 2007 — urging the President to end the Surge immediately:
(emphasis mine)
Yes, they do refer to political reconciliation, but it’s a stretch to say they aren’t emphasizing the violence, which we now know the Surge (**) has been remarkably successful at curbing.
- Senator Clinton’s Remarks during the Petraeus-Crocker hearings, September 12th, 2002:
Again, she does not limit her remarks to political progress. A great many of the “metrics” she referred to reflected the decreasing violence and the dramatically increased public support in Iraq for the Coalition effort.
That’s just two, but includes the three most powerful Democratic politicians active today.
(** I hate calling it the Surge, since it lends itself to the mistaken impression that the important part of the change in strategy was the 20% bump in troop numbers…)
Mark, you disrespect yourself and your readers by distorting in this way. “The Surge,” as you well know was a plan to increase the our troop strength in order to calm the violence and allow for political progress. As I recall, this was supposed to happen in 6 months. In fact certain benchmark goals were set at the time. These benchmarks mostly consisted of the political progress.
Murtha, who has often made convoluted statements, separated the two apects of the plan in his description. For whatever reason, he used the term “surge” to describe the military action and then went on to describe the lack of political progress. Nonetheless, he was clear the the overall plan is and will be a failure. Your opportunisitic attack of his integrity speaks more about yours than his.
Mark- Looks like the spam-filter doesn’t like comments with links in them… just posted a longish response with links to original sources for quotes of prominent Democrats referring to the Surge as a military failure and as failing to curb violence.
Two quotes from John Maynard Keynes:
1) “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
2) “There is no harm in being sometimes wrong — especially if one is promptly found out.”
Re Clint’s post: without getting into an argument about whether the escalation has been successful or not, there is no sin if Democrats who thought the surge to be a failure earlier change their position if they think changes on the ground warrant it.
Scott, I did not attack Murtha’s integrity so much as Pelosi’s – Murtha’s political cowardice, maybe…Clint, I will look for your comment in the spam filter and free it…
One more thing, Scott – no one, myself included, has ever argued around these parts that the Iraqis don’t need to do more, and more quickly. I have been a quite outspoken critic of the Maliki government.
Nevertheless, it has been democratically elected, and it has indicated it wants the Americans to stay – and stay for a good long while, as the recent ‘agreement in principle’ laying the groundwork for a long-term troop presence showed us.
That might not be good enough if casualties continued on the scale that they did as recently as 6-9 months ago…you may recall that I was about ready to pull the plug myself, as casualties then were seemingly getting worse and were already far too high.
Nevertheless, conditions HAVE changed. It’s unavoidable…and under the current circumstances, talk of a quick withdrawal is irresponsible and harmful to national security. Many Democrats now sense this, but Pelosi and Reid have made their deal with the ‘progressives’, and they will NEVER give an inch. That’s partisan, petty, and dangerous to our national security. That’s my view… yours may differ, and that’s your right. I always strive to call ‘em as I see ‘em, and I see no reason to revisit anything I have written in this post…
Ew. Have you not considered, Mark, the widespread and credible claims that a lot of violence is down because displacement and ethnic cleansing has been so successful? Are you so eager for everything to back up your opinion?
Fargus, have you ever considered the fact that violence being down is an unmitigated good, regardless of the cause? I could care less if the violence is down because everyone is playing in a checkers tournament in Paris – the point is, the violence is down. Is the surge the ONLY reason? Of course not – is it A reason? Of course…but the larger point is that our continued presence is more feasible with lower levels of violence…
Aha, you give up too much. See, you give away that you’re only looking for excuses to justify “our continued presence.”
No, I’m interested in ‘winning the war’…leaving now will throw away the gains we’ve made…
Fargus,
Any response at all to the specific examples of Democrats emphasizing the supposed failure of the Surge to curb violence?
Peter,
No sin at all in changing one’s mind. The sin I object to is trying to rewrite history. When you change your mind, say so. You don’t get to pretend you never thought differently.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but we all have to work from the same set of facts.
See Romney on abortion as opposed to Clinton’s pronouncement that he was always strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.
Peter:
Would you still feel the same if either or both positions are rooted in generating earmarks to their constituents? The better porkers have a win-win plan for DOD regardless of political outcome, and I don’t mean something dumb like a peanut warehouse back home. In fact a good porker strategist would drag the game out, as circuitously as possible, to ensure every pocket gets stuffed rather than just push for the quickest, efficient route to completion.
Clint: I’m not sure if Clinton opposed the war from the outset or not. If he was opposed, I don’t think that he could have voiced his opposition publicly, as it would seemingly violate the protocol which ex-Presidents typically observe not to actively oppose a decision to go to war. As for Romney: it seems to me that he is spending a lot of time and effort trying to distance himself from what he did when he was governor — e.g., health care, gay rights, abortion — so I wouldn’t hold him up as an example of strongly held conviction.
Andy: Of course not — and I recognize that Murtha is a porker extraordinaire — not here to make excuses for that.
Peter, glad to hear that. I presume that whenever Murtha speaks, his motives will be suspect, right?
If what he speaks about concerns his district or his ability to get re-elected, then absolutely yes — he’s not my favorite person in Congress –