Sunday, November 20, 2005
# Posted 2:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Anyhow, all I want to in this post is take a somewhat closer look at what Murtha said in an interview with CNN (Hat tip: GP) in May 2004, shortly after he first described the war as "unwinnable". Here goes:
At first glance, one might say this excerpt vindicates the media's decision to cover Murtha's conversion as a major change of heart. After all, what Murtha is calling for here -- an extraordinary increase in US manpower -- is the polar opposite of withdrawal.
But on the other hand, Murtha seems to recognize that this kind of increase in manpower is simply impossible. Thus, the real choice to be had is between withdrawal -- an "international disaster" -- and "struggl[ing] along, get[ting] more and more young people killed.
But what is the point of struggling along in an unwinnable war with mounting casualties? Murtha's logic clearly points to withdrawal as the least-worst option. But he wasn't ready to say it in May 2004, so he kept his options open by going on record in favor of the impossible option, a Shinseki-style occupation.
So, yes, one can argue that Murtha's decision to call for a withdrawal is news. But it is hardly a revelation. (4) opinions -- Add your opinion
Keep it up. I was watching Murtha on the second run of MTP tonight and he was full of indignation that the Bush administration had betrayed him, yadda yadda. He's milking the media's spin for everything its worth.
He was just pulling the "The first Bush knew not to go into Iraq, etc." The fact is, he should have. Momentum was going our way, Iraqis were rising up against Saddam both north and south of Baghdad, but guess what held us back? That gigantically large coalition of states that didn't really play much of a role in the actual fighting yet was (and still is) supposedly symbolic of the foreign policy wisdom of Bush/Scowcroft.
Let me get this straight. You're "extraordinarily frustrated" that the media is "spinning" Murtha as a pro-war Democrat who changed his mind. And the reason this is spin is because even though last year Murtha called for an increase in US manpower, he didn't really mean it. Well, I think you frustrate too easily.
Don't confuse the media with the facts. All wars are Vietnam, and in this Vietnam replay, it's time to cast the Cronkite role. Murtha has been chosen as the trustworthy, seasoned warrior who according to the script must now reluctantly conclude the war is a lost cause, giving the whole nation a chance to re-assess.
There must be a Cronkite, and any facts that get in the way of that will be ignored.
The facts are even more damning than David explains. Murtha called the war unwinable in September 2003. And so, the media is even more deceptive than claimed here.Post a Comment
The day of Murtha's pronouncement this past week, the hourly syndicated radio news (ABC?) trumpeted the stunning turnaround as the lede item for several hours. Right.
I smelt a fish right away. They believe we're so gullable - and to read the polls over the past calendar year, they might be right.