So, to recap:

Democrats continue to fight the "Bush Lied" and "Exit Strategy" front without having adduced one bit of new insight, intelligence, or evidence in two years. Yet repetition ad nauseum, repackaged by a compliant media as "newsworthy", "timely", etc. can and will, at some point, take a toll on public opinion.

In Mr. Murtha’s case, the media could have reminded the audience that he has been a long-standing supporter of "cut and run" strategy in Iraq and not a newly converted “pragmatist”. However, they have made sure to bestow him an aura of credibility because of his having served in Viet-Nam, while ignoring the multitude of active servicemen who have rebuked him. No wonder they are unable or unwilling to dig up a little deeper (as you all have) and see where Mr. Murtha’s past (and eerily similar) exhortations led us. And to be sure, they will certainly take a pass (and even put a lid) on any investigation to a more real timeliness behind Mr. Murtha’s pre-emptive attacks: laying the ground for a “defense” against any censuring that may arise from a series of ethical “mishaps” being investigated. (See Blogs for Bush, e.g., for more on this.) This has been a successful strategy for Democrats, and one that proves that the adage of “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” is overrated. If a Democrat attacks hard enough, first, any attack back will be discarded as "tarrying" the opposition or "payback". Admittedly, pursuing this angle would force the media to venture into some speculation, but speculation that compared to "Bush Lied" and "Haliburton this or that" is as speculative as the connection between smoke and fire and between gravity and falls.

Why in the world would they admit to facts other than theirs? The liberal media's agenda crumbles in the face of facts.