Yesterday, I was sent a link to this SF Chronicle article. I would've written about it then but there was so much spin to it that I got a headache from it. Here's an example of that spin:

The number of House Republicans who voted for the resolution, 17, was smaller than some had predicted. Nonetheless, it was Congress' first condemnation of Bush since the war began and another triumph for Pelosi in her second month as speaker after the swift passage of the Democrats "100-hour" domestic agenda in January.

Talk about charitable spin. Almost every Agenda Media account figured 30-40 Republican defections. Seventeen isn't smaller than some expected. It was dramatically smaller than most expected.

Secondly, this is hardly a win for Pelosi. The truth is that this galvanized GOP activists to the point that NZ Bear created Victory Caucus website. It's also a defeat for Pelosi because only 17 WFR's joined Defeatist Democrats, leaving Democrats extremely vulnerable of the charges of being anti-victory and anti-military.

In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill, an action Congress is clearly empowered to take, rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Don't look now but I think that Mr. Murtha just gave GOP strategists everything they need in making their charges stick. It won't be difficult to "find fault with" what they're attempting to do. It'll be easier than talking an erstwhile hawk into authoring another earmark for his district. If you're thinking that that's their harshest criticism for Murtha, you're wrong:

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

I'd hardly call this a victory for Pelosi when the Washington Post tells the world that Murtha is ignorant about conditions in Iraq. This isn't good for her because she's propped him up as the Democrats' expert on Iraq. It isn't good because the Washington Post cites specific examples of Murtha's ignorance of some of the most basic facts about Iraq.

The near unanimity of Democrats, just two of 233 voted against the resolution, and the willingness of 17 Republicans to vote for the resolution encouraged many war critics that changes in Bush's war policy are inevitable.

This movement is the political equivalent of a dead man walking. They think they're winning but they've sustained a mortal wound. The truth is that they've overplayed their hand again. They were so full of fire and brimstone that they thought the American voter was defeatist like they were. People were upset with the war because they expected victory.

Originally the strategy had been to allow the Senate to build a broad bipartisan consensus for a resolution opposing the president's decision to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and let the momentum sweep through the House for a large bipartisan victory. But Senate Republicans used procedural measures to prevent the resolution from coming to a vote. Ironically, Senate Democrats now will try to ride the momentum of the House victory to push a vote through their chamber today, a prospect that appears unlikely to succeed.

Enough Senate Republicans voted against cloture yesterday to kill what little momentum of Friday's 'victory' was left. Putting it mildly, that 'momentum' died a painful, agonizing death in plain sight. Another thing that this did was expose all of the so-called 'freshman hawks' as being defeatists. That won't play well in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Florida and Texas. I'll guarantee that it won't play well in MN-1 where Friday's vote will be seen as the unofficial end of Tim Walz's congressional career.

To summarize, here's what happened as a result of this resolution debate: Pelosi's Democrats have exposed themselves as defeatists; they've overplayed their hand; the 'hawkish' freshman class was exposed as a fraud and the Washington Post ripped Pelosi's closest Iraq ally as being a doddering old fool who's ignorant of what's happening in Iraq.

If this is what constitutes a win for Ms. Pelosi, then I'm all for her stringing more 'victories' like this together. If that happens, she'll soon be Minority Leader Pelosi again.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4699

---

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

What is the Vice-President's last name?

(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)