The reason I ask is that the WaPo editorial board disapproves of Rep. Jack Murtha’s “slow-bleed” scheme for Iraq:
He 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…
At which point the editors get really critical of Murtha.
Yet a day earlier, the paper ran a piece titled, “Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says,” by Ann Scott Tyson, which is chock-a-block with nuggets like these:
[Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker, in one of his last congressional testimonies as Army chief, also made it clear that he had raised concerns in advance about President Bush’s plan to increase troops in Iraq because it would further deplete Army units at home.
***
Virtually all of the U.S.-based Army combat brigades are rated as unready to deploy, Army officials say, and to meet the immediate needs in Iraq and Afghanistan they are finding it necessary to transfer personnel and gear to those units now first in line to deploy.
“I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non-deployed forces,” Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee, noting that the increased demands in Iraq and Afghanistan “aggravate that” and increase his concern…
It is an article that directly advances the theme offered by Murtha, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Sen. Edward M. Kennedy-Christopher Dodd sandwich, Sen. Carl Levin and others pursuing the slow-bleed scheme the WaPo’s editors find so dishonest and cynical.
I’m sure anti-war types would respond that this merely shows that the WaPo’s editors are disconnected from the real news being reported in their own paper.
But they would be wrong. Somehow, Ann Scott Tyson’s article missed the part of the hearing where Schoomaker testified protective gear for troops in Iraq was not a problem: “Obviously, we are not going to put any force into theater that isn’t properly trained and equipped,” Schoomaker said. Indeed, a day earlier, Schoomaker and Army Secretary Francis Harvey told the House Armed Services Committee that all of the 21,500 troops deploying under President Bush’s “surge” will be fully trained and equipped. Harvey went so far as to say that “when a brigade combat team deploys … it is the best trained, equipped, organized Army in the world with the best quality soldiers we’ve ever had.” Moreover, with readiness becoming a front-burner issue, the Army put out a lengthy press release on the subject earlier that week.
So you might think that if the WaPo’s editors actually edited their paper, they might have wondered whether Schoomaker and the others actually did a massive flip-flop on the issue over the course of a week—because that would have been big news.
If the WaPo’s editors actually edited their paper, they might have considered that Ann Scott Tyson writes pessimistic pieces on recruitment year after year in hopes of being right some year.
If the WaPo’s editors actually edited their paper, they might have considered that Ann Scott Tyson was busted by WaPo ombudsperson Deborah Howell for falsely pushing the “military recruits are poor hicks” message of an antiwar group.
If the WaPo’s editors actually edited their paper, they would have realized that Tyson was again taking data—in this case, testimony—out of context as part of a pattern of antiwar bias. Indeed, had they checked, they would have found that Tyson was reporting on troop morale in Iraq hitting “rock bottom”… in July 2003, before they ever hired her.
Having taken the time to formulate the opinion that the “slow bleed” scheme is dishonest and cynical, you might think the WaPo’s editors would take the time to recognize those qualities in Ann Scott Tyson’s reportage.
If the WaPo’s editors actually edited their paper, that is.
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.”
Funny, the consensus in the Middle East is exactly the opposite.
So Murtha’s real crime would seem to be that he doubts Bush’s intelligence chiefs.
How ironic.
great post. It makes me wonder if Murtha is even lucid, even if in a murky Black Russian sorta way.
Should a democracy be allowed to elect a rubber chicken if it so chooses? Because you know…just asking.
Outside alphieworld, the six foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council, along with those of Egypt and Jordan endorse Bush’s new Iraq strategy.
But regular PW readers know that alphie has a habit of making things up.
Rather than slow bleed the troops I would move them all behind a Mile High Dirt Bermâ„¢ surrounded by a Balloon Fence Missile Shieldâ„¢ and allow the Russians, with all of their experience doing all of the heavy lifting in WWII, to take over and deal with it.
The alphie/Neville/monkeyboy plan.
So Murtha is a cynical political hack more interested in political revenge and ego-boosting than in what is best for the country. We already knew he was senile what with last year’s plan to withdraw the troops from a bad situation, leaving behind an over-the-horizon rapid reaction force based in Okinawa to be sent in if the situation gets worse.
And this is the Democrats’ top military guy.
God help us all.
Mikey;
Did any of us know or care about John Murtha before he became the “pro defense hawk” Vietnam vet who loudly proclaimed his opposition to Iraq back in ‘04?
He’s managed to go from a relatively obscure W. PA congressman to anti war poster child and milk that position for over 2 years. Up until then many considered him a borderline corrupt political insider/tottering old fool who was extraordinarily adept at sucking money out of DC for his district.
Which, as we all know, is all that matters.
Last week:
But alphie’s real point was—as always—to try to change the subject, which is the way that even a paper that criticizes the Dems’ slow bleed scheme nevertheless publishes inaccurate, dishonest stories tacitly promoting the scheme.
Nope, BJ, never herd of him before he went full-throttle loon.* Not surprising, with 435 representatives in the house, and only being concerned about who my representative is.
*A hawk in the Democrat Party is now one who steers defense dollars to his or her district, but doesn’t want the military to actually do anything. Except buy stuff from his or her district.
Exactly, Mikey! We have two new “blue dog” ex-military democrats from East PA. Patrick Murphy is an ex Airborne Captain who has been fairly muted in his criticism of the war. Joe Sestak, a former Rear Admiral, has been much more vocal in his complaints although I wonder what his expertise would be in strategies for ground insurgent surpression. Rep murphy may have more credibility in this field.
We’ll see how the mix of military service and partisan politics plays out over the next several months. Will they be McCain or Murtha or something in between? Stay tuned.
Karl—Alphie is still waiting for the Arab street to rise! Rise! I say! over the imhumane execution of Saddam…
There will be massive civilian births? There will be millions of civilian undead? There will be massive civilian healings?
What really is exactly the opposite of massive civilian casualties?
Alpee, you’re an imbecile.
TW: My neo-con marching order48 says to make fun of alpee today.
Great post about the seeming disconnect between a Washington Post editorial, which excoriates Murtha for his cynical obstruction of the war effort, and a “news” article that’s in sync with Murtha’s cynacism. I have long observed a huge difference between the Post’s OpEd pages, which are reasonably balanced and fair, and its so-called news stories, which reek of bias and viewpoint.
Maybe the standard corruption–money issues, bribes for earmarks, trips on the lobbyists’ dime, etc.–make other kinds of corruption easy.
Why should somebody who is consistently corrupt and dishonest get religion in matters of foreign and military affairs?