And as far as ‘cut and run’ goes, I’m no longer interested in semantics. You push for immediate troop withdrawals, you better be prepared for some political blowback.

How is my perhaps unfair wording any different from the rhetorical games Democrats play? It’s all politics. The important thing is the consequences of the actions (and the votes), not the partisan rhetoric…

Post 23: you prove my point. A 22 year old who gets a girl pregnant and moves away to avoid the consequences can be said to cut and run. After four years and over 3,000 dead, nobody can accuse us of cutting and running. We tried and failed. There are no tangible indications of progress: things continually get worse. The likelihood of success, no matter how loosely defined, is slim to none. At some point, you have to know when to fold them. In my view, we reached that point long ago. To take a clear-eyed look at the situation on the ground and decide that it is time to go is in now way equivalent to the 22 year old. (Nor is “slow bleed” what anyone suggests: this is another way that a principled stand is distorted into something it isn’t). However, in the shorthand of 30 second attack ads, this is what happens.

A fool’s dream, maybe, but not an impossible one – of course, it depends on the Iraqi government doing the right thing and that’s no sure thing, either…

There are plenty of instances where Democrats have done the principled thing and lost their positions due to Republican demagoguery. (Just ask Max Cleland, for one example). One of the unfortunate legacies of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove is that politics is now a sport of gotcha, and not one of trying to find the best course for the country. The catch-22 which the Democrats find themselves in is that it is a virtual certainty that things will get worse once we leave, at least in the short run. Hence you have Republicans from George Bush on down daring the Democrats to defund the war, so there is someone to blame for the inevitable bloodshed which will follow. Bush is kicking the can down the road so the conflagration to come is on his successor’s watch – but whether we leave this year, next year, or the year after, the last vestiges of restraint preventing Sunni and Shia from killing each other will be dissolved. So what do you do: throw more American lives on the fire to delay the inevitable, or pull them now and try to survive the inevitable attack ads which will state that it’s really the Defeatocrats – and not the phony cassus belli and mismanagement of the occupation — which are the cause of the bloodshed?

Here’s what the Washington Post editorial board said:

[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.

You can’t say that Murtha is not trying to be sneaky here: just constantly saying ‘we can’t defund because of Republican demagoguery’ is a cop-out. What that really is saying is we can’t just defund because that’s not what the American people want, despite their desire for a change of direction.

Since when was the demagoguery of the opposition a meaningful reason not to do the right thing?

Well, because it’s dishonest, and this is the most important issue facing the country today. Murtha’s tactic is not about readiness, as you seem to freely admit, but about ending the war.

I don’t think it’s dishonest. Murtha is not pretending that his plan has nothing to do with ending the war. He’s up front and honest about his intentions. What he’s trying to do is kill two birds with one stone. He thinks the armed forces are in bad shape, that they’ve been stretched too thin by repeat deployments and are not currently in the state of readiness they should be (he’s right about all those things, by the way). So he sees his bill as a way of addressing that problem, and by doing so, force the President to change course. He thinks is is preferable to cutting of funding because 1) he’d actually like to see more money go to the military (just not to this war), and 2) Republicans have already demogogued the hell out of the more defunding option, thereby making it politically unviable.

Show me a quote were Murtha denies that his bill has anything to do with ending the war and I’ll concede that he is being dishonest. Meanwhile, the Republican claim that Murtha’s plan is somehow unconstitutional or puts troops in danger IS dishonest, to the extreme.

Fine, then, let the vote be on ending the war. Face the music and the criticism and do the right thing, if it is the right thing.

And like I said, I was in a cranky mood last night after arguing at Greenwald’s (I don’t know why I bother, frankly – a bit masochistic of me)…so yes, I was a bit snappy. No big deal.

You did the right thing by reminding me that everyone wants the best thing for the country. It’s easy to lose sight of that sometimes…

I’m having a hard time seeing how Murtha can participate in a conference call where he outlines a strategy of denying our troops equipment and reinforcements under the guise of ‘readiness’ instead of flat out pulling the funding, which he is too cowardly (politically) to do, and have that called a particularly patriotic act.

Look, this has nothing to do with political courage. Murtha has been mercilessly vilified ever since he came out in favor of withdrawal last year. His personal political courage has nothing whatsoever to do with what he’s doing. If he didn’t have courage, in spades, he would have given up a long time ago.

The reason Murtha is trying this more roundabout way has everything to do with results. If he put his efforts into cutting off funding–which you suggest is the more honest and “courageous” route–he would fail. People like you and Rich Lowry would demogogue his plan to death; you’d accuse him of endangering troops, etc. He would never have any prayer of getting the votes he needs. And the war would rage on. So instead, he’s trying a different route, a way with at least a marginally greater chance of success. Is that really so hard to understand? If you think it is really imporant that Bush’s policy change, doesn’t it make sense to pursue the means most likely to bring that about? Why “courageously” pursue legislation that will never have the votes to pass?