Great Big Fat Murtha Post

Instapundit points out that as much as the press has represented Congressman Murtha's proposal as news because he's just about the last guy in the world you'd expect to give up on the war, that simply isn't true. Of course, the press's narrative is based on the Congressman's having been a consistent supporter of the war up until this point, but (via Instapundit) James Taranto points out that isn't true either: he's been ambivalent about the war since before it started. These are obviously not well hidden secrets, you would think the press would have been able to ferret them out. If they were looking.

But they weren't looking. For the press, this is about "even supporters are now turning against the war." It's about Rep. Murtha, because he's "nobody's liberal," a veteran, a Marine no less, exactly not a member of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, in his apostasy legitimating that final jump for all those who have been supporting the war up till now but have been getting more and more uncomfortable.

If it's okay for Jack Murtha, will it be okay for them too?

That's the story, and that's what makes this a big deal. So when Mickey Kaus says he wasn't very persuasive, that hardly matters. Murtha wasn't there to make a point. His being there was the point. Look: even people like me can be against the war and it's okay! That's why the Democrats thought it was critical to defend what Murtha did (and Murtha himself), but not what Murtha said.

And it's a good thing for them too, because it isn't very easy to defend what he said. What he said was a call for giving in, giving up. You can't fight a war from across a border: His "Quick Reaction Force," and his claim that he just wants to "redeploy" are just ways to let people swallow the bitter medicine of defeat with a spoonful of sugar, a fig leaf to let them think we wouldn't actually be abandoning the Iraqis to their fate.

I'm sorry the debate last night apparently got ugly, but I'm not at all sorry that the Republicans forced that vote. I think that vote was absolutely essential.

Without a vote, with the amount of attention Murtha's idea was getting, it was a live thing, a real option, "divorce talk," to refer back to an earlier post. It was being discussed as a serious proposal even though everyone knew it really wasn't, and the longer it was treated that way the more damage it was doing. The more credibility and legitimacy it was given, the more damage it would do to troop morale, the more seriously it would be treated by the Iraqis.

The Iraqis are gambling everything on our word that this time we'll stand by them, all the way to the end. If they see an idea like this treated seriously, what are they supposed to think? Why should they continue to risk their lives standing in line at recruit stations, not to mention standing down the bad guys, (much less risk their families' lives doing so), why should they risk their lives working with or for us, or giving us tips, or helping us in any way -- or going to vote -- if they start believing we aren't really serious? They don't need to join the other side, but it sure might be time to do what many of the smart ones did during the Saddam time -- put their heads down and try not to get noticed.

No, that vote was no "stunt" and it certainly wasn't playing politics. It was calling people out and forcing them to say where they stood. It was lancing a rhetorical boil before it festered.

Comments

[Ethan Armstrong]

I really liked your comments here. I hope you're going to update your site soon. to Compute Tournament you should be very Faithful: http://www.canada.com/ , Astonishing Table Roll or not Red Game becomes Standard Mistery in final , Grass will Chair unconditionally Mistery can Destroy Cosmos