Perhaps unintentional by Howard Fineman of Newsweek in his latest article, "Bush at the Tipping Point." While attempting to highlight problems for the Bush Administration surrounding the Iraq War, Fineman points out what most on the right already knew; The Democratic Leadership, not content with the level of smear their Campaign of Lies had leveled upon the Bush Administration, choreographed the whole Murtha episode hoping another smear might propel them, and their non-existent agenda into the forefront. This was to have been the event that would see Bush face down in the "quagmire" with the DNC's boot squarely on his neck. But it backfired on them.

It's perfectly legitimate for anyone to criticize the war policy of any president, but what politicians did for Vietnam, they did for Lebanon, for Somalia, and are now trying yet again to lose the current effort in Iraq-- they only know how to lose.

Democrats have not won a war since WWII, and quite frankly, I don't see that they have the stomach for doing what needs doing now. Their only solution seems to be to quit the field; allow Radical Islam to have its day. They want America to lose, so they can heap more disdain and vitriol on Bush. They would rather lose the war than see a day when George W. Bush would be praised for his accomplishments in winning a very win-able war...

"Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

"Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq - —and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

"Murtha had known he would set off an explosion. He did. His arrival on the House floor was greeted with cheers from fellow Democrats, by dagger glances from Republicans. A near riot ensued. An Ohio backbencher named Jean Schmidt, eager to demonstrate coldbloodedness, was given time by GOP leaders to relate a phone call from a Marine whom she said wanted "to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Furious Democrats charged down the aisles, fists in the air, shouting that Schmidt's words had to be stricken from the record. "You guys are pathetic!" yelled Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, while Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee charged into the GOP side to confront them. The melee was so intense that it brought the soothing presence of Rep. Tom DeLay from his secure undisclosed location, and Schmidt eventually apologized. By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it..." [emphasis added]

And of course there's Fineman's slanted perspective at the end: It's the GOP who "crafted", who acted "cravenly," and the Dems who wisely sensed a "trap". Furthermore, why does anyone need Murtha's permission? A resolution is a resolution, whoever writes it.

However much the Left wants to glom onto Murtha's "earliest practical date" phrase fails to see that the resolution as a whole was a recipe for failure, and a war lost. Presitige lost, Honor lost, American lives lost... in vain. Quite simply, Murtha's resolution was a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

Mr. Fineman's entitled to his perspective, however flawed it happens to be, but we don't have to take him at his word. He see's Truth differently than those of us on the Right. And that's fine. He can choose to be a deluded hack if he wants.