Dave pulls a turkey on John Murtha

Even without the extra helpings of turkey, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie, it would’ve been hard to stomach Dave’s column on Thanksgiving slamming Congressman John Murtha, and his plea to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Perhaps Dave’s not aware, but there is a new consensus forming in regards to Iraq. Somebody should wake him up and tell him. When the Senate votes by an overwhelming 79-19 margin that 2006 should be a ‘year of transition in Iraq,’ when a retired General from the far-right Hudson Group circulates a document titled ‘What’s Wrong with Cutting and Running’, when, as Reinhard’s infinitely superior counterpart David Sarasohn points out, 57 percent of the American people feel that this administration was ‘dishonest and reprehensible’ in how it led us into the Iraq war- that’s a solid footing for a new consensus developing saying that the current Iraq policy needs to be re-examined and some possible solutions need to be proposed. But along comes Dave with his trade-marked Republican pratice of playing partisan politics. Rather than discussing the quagmire Iraq has become, Dave instead chooses to smear a 37-year decorated Marine and Vietnam vet, who just so happens to be Democrat.

It seems awfully repetitive to state that Reinhard’s case is weak. But it is. As columnist E.J. Dionne pointed out: “[Bush] attacking Democrats who voted with him on the war and now have grave doubts about his policies, as Murtha does, is hardly a way for the president to buy himself maneuvering room in Iraq. It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippy protester.” Reinhard proceeds to do exactly that- attempt to portray Murtha as the hippiest of partisan leftists that the Democrats have in Congress.

This hippie Murtha was referred in the past week as a ‘patriot’ by Dick Cheney. In fact, Congressman Murtha might be the only Congressman to be able to call the Vice-President a ‘friend.’ The senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Murtha became known for his opposition to defense cuts, and his willingness to draft troops, if necessary. With strong ties to senior military officers and The Pentagon, it is little wonder that, as the Seattle Times points out, when Murtha spoke, people listened.

But Reinhard diminishes Murtha’s track record, using quotes when he refers to Murtha as a ‘hawk.’ Funny, I do the same thing when I refer to Reinhard as a ‘patriot.’

Reinhard points out that Murtha didn’t even vote for the resolution in the house that he proposed. Well, of course not. Why would he vote for a GOP-proposed, watered-down version of an amendment whose sole purpose for being proposed was to make him look bad? That would seem kind of silly, wouldn’t it? What Reinhard fails to say is that Republican leadership of the House forced Republican House members to stay late in the evening on Friday the 18^th- an evening that most Congressional leaders were hoping to leave town early for their Thanksgiving holiday- to vote on an amendment that smacks of political posturing. When Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass, yelled out “You guys are pathetic, pathetic!” at the Republican leadership, he sure hit the nail on the head.

Dave, ironically, goes on to list the various reasons why we can’t pull out of Iraq currently: it would risk creating a failed state; it would embolden terrorists. Funny, I could’ve sworn that’s what the Democrats were warning about before the Iraq invasion occurred, and were scoffed at with various dismissive comments such as “our troops will be there for weeks, not months”, “oil profits will pay for the invasion’, and, my favorite, “our troops will be greeted with candy and flowers.” Now, we’re supposed to take Dave seriously when he advises us to buck up for the long, hard slog? That any talk of immediate redeployment- even if its for the sake of making Iraqis realize that, golly, its their country and they better start standing up to take care of it- is too soon, despite the fact that a new consensus is forming that leads to an opposite conclusion? In his warnings that we bit off more than we can chew when it comes to invading Iraq, Dave sounds awfully like a Democrat, circa 2002.

Dave says: “We need more real debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. Not the fake debates of news conferences and talk-show chatter. Not more hollow talk or political sniping. We need debates of consequence and accountability. We need people to vote on their brave proposals. Why? Because the stakes are too high in Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general.” It would be nice if Dave followed his own advice, and abstained from partisan gain-saying. Otherwise, it’s impossible to take him seriously.