>And Doug wrote:
>-Ok, but what are your apologetics for FIghting Nancy Pelosi's
>-attempts to distance herself from Murtha?
>
>You mean this distancing by Peolsi:
>http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57000
>"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today spoke late this evening in
>strong opposition to a sham Republican proposal to smear Congressman John
>Murtha of Pennsylvania, who has proposed immediate redeployment of troops
>from Iraq...
>"Mr. Murtha has dealt the mighty blow of truth to the President's failed
>Iraq policy. The American people have rallied to Jack Murtha's message of
>truth. But (to Republican colleagues) 'you can't handle the truth.' Why are
>the Republicans so afraid of the facts?"
>
>Yes-- I'm sure Doug can find some quote where Pelosi disagreed with Murtha
>on some specifics, but it is exactly the Left antiwar folks' approach of
>searching for heretics, rather than celebrating close allies, that explains
>the launching and continuation of a war in Iraq that never had real support
>by the American people.
I was quoting today's New York Times. Do you have better information than their Congressional reporters? Sure looks like they're scared shitless of taking an actual position beyond a "Nyah! Nyah!"
Doug
----
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/national/19military.html?pagewanted=all>
[...]
The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.
"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha's patriotism.
The parliamentary maneuvering came amid more than three hours of often nasty floor debate and boisterous political theater, with Democrats accusing Republicans of resorting to desperate tactics to back a failed war and Republicans warning that Mr. Murtha's measure would play into the hands of terrorists.
[...]
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote - and reject - their own nonbinding alternative resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Democrats denounced the Republican measure as a fraud. But Democrats privately acknowledged that they were seeking to escape a political trap set by the Republicans to box them into an unappealing choice: side with Mr. Murtha and face criticism for backing a plan that American commanders say would cripple the mission in Iraq or oppose their respected colleague and blunt momentum for an overhaul of the administration's Iraq policy.
House Democrats greeted Mr. Murtha with a standing ovation on Friday as he entered the chamber.
"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House, and it is outrageous," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.
While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha's plan, many of his other party colleagues appeared to harbor doubts. To a member, Democrats said they respected the counsel of Mr. Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who has earned bipartisan respect in his three decades in Congress as a champion of American service members.
But many senior House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, have distanced themselves from Mr. Murtha's resolution, saying a phased withdrawal is a more prudent course. The House debate is likely to stoke an intensifying partisan debate on Capitol Hill over the administration's handling of the war, including how it used prewar intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.