Friday, November 18, 2005

"Hawkish Democrat" Surrendered 18 Months Ago

Drudgereport has this howler:
Friday, May 7, 2004


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A statement from a pro-defense Democrat that the Pentagon's current military strategy in Iraq makes the war unwinnable drew a sharp rebuke Thursday from Republicans, who accused Democrats of using the war for political gain.
The furor over the position taken by Rep. John Murtha, of Johnstown, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense panel, highlighted the increasingly partisan divide over the current course and future of the war in Iraq.

"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.

"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.

Republicans responded at their own news conference, with Majority Leader Tom DeLay, of Texas, saying that "this morning, in a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democratic Party declared its surrender in the war on terror."

He said Democrats "want to win the White House more than they want to win the war, and our enemies know it."

Democrats, said GOP Rep. Michael Burgess, of Texas, "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

Murtha, a strong supporter of robust defense spending, denied that he was criticizing the troops: "I know what affects them. They want to be taken care of and they're not being taken care of."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
This was how the AP headlined Murtha's latest jeremiad:
Hawkish Democrat Calls for Iraq Pullout
I presume the AP can research its own files without the expense of a Lexis/Nexis search. They didn't do that much--or, their definition of "hawkish" is pretty dovish.

Dafydd ap Hugh noted that Nancy Pelosi distanced herself from Blubberin' Martha this time around. Perhaps she has a better memory than the AP wire editors.

I guess we can count on Murtha to erupt again in May 2007...

As an aside, treason is the only crime defined specifically in the Constitution, in order that charges of treason be rare and specific--as they were not in Merry Old England. Treason is giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, and has been held to such strict definition that Aaron Burr's conspiracy with Spain to rule as King over Arkansas could not be prosecuted as treason, nor was John Walker's sale of Navy codes to the KGB during the Vietnam War.

But calling for all US forces to break off combat with an enemy, and withdraw, leaving him in unmolested possession of the territory in dispute--if that be not treason, what is?

No comments: