Nathan Newman wrote:
>And Doug wrote:
>-Ok, but what are your apologetics for FIghting Nancy Pelosi's
>-attempts to distance herself from Murtha?
-I was quoting today's New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/national/19military.html?pagewanted=all> "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."
Doug-- You may think that there is no difference between Pelosi disagreeing with the approach of a particular RESOLUTION and "distancing herself from Murtha", but Pelosi was very clear that she agreed wholeheartedly with the general thrust of Murtha's resolution, saying "The American people have rallied to Jack Murtha's message of truth."
But you want to highlight tactical differences in approach to ending the war, rather than emphasizing unity. Of course, the New York Times has the same goal, so they choose to play up relatively minor differences in tactics on the resolution.
Which is my original point-- folks here on LBO are mouthing the talking points of the pro-war forces.
And they love you for it. If you all didn't exist, the folks who brought us the Iraq War would have had to invent you as useful foils.
-- Nathan Newman