Informed Speculation

Rep. John Murtha’s ‘plan’ for Iraq (known affectionately as the SBPTD, or “Slow Bleed Path To Defeat”) has been eviscerated by first, the New York Times, and now the Washington Post:

[Murtha] would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said.

Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq “would be more stable with us out of there,” in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce “massive civilian casualties.” He says he wants to force the administration to “bulldoze” the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to “get our troops out of the Green Zone” because “they are living in Saddam Hussein’s palace”; could he be unaware that the zone’s primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha’s remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not “the real vote”? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

That Murtha’s plan is drawing such strong condemnation from even the semi-official voices of mainstream media liberalism is a strong indicator of just how cowardly his tactics are.  His ignorance about Iraq is exceeded by his ignorance of how fast news travels in the modern age: did he really think he could sneak this crap through without people catching on?

Speaker Pelosi will be presented with more than a few opportunities to embrace or repudiate the Murtha plan in the near future.  The fact that she has embraced it to date is a sad indicator of just how beholden she is to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  The voters indicated a desire for change in Iraq policy in 2006, to be sure, but I’m quite certain they didn’t vote to put John Murtha in the office of President.  There can be only one Commander-In-Chief, and if the Democrats want the position, they’ll have to win it in a fair election.

The icing on the cake is the incredible ineptitude of the Democrats in putting forward this ‘stealth’ agenda.  Within the last week, the whole facade has completely crumbled, to the tune of near-universal derision (matched in intensity, of course, by the knee-jerk applause of the Nutroots®, who are quite unaware of the giant iceberg they are steering their party towards)…