Posted on 11/22/2005 9:00:07 PM PST by smoothsailing
John Murtha, overnight American idol
By Brent Bozell
Nov 23, 2005
Making a mountain out of a molehill is becoming a national media specialty. The news media ought to be awarded advanced degrees for fixing their political microscopes on whatever amoeba of a story will serve their stubborn template: The Iraq war is hopeless; it's Vietnam in the desert. Mr. Murtha boldly declared that the Iraq war could not be won militarily, going so far as to say America was making it far worse -- that we were "the problem," not the solution. Suddenly, by Thursday night, he was leading the nightly TV newscasts. ABC called him an "influential Democrat." CBS said "on military matters, no Democrat in Congress is more influential." NBC's Brian Williams put it this way: "When one congressman out of 435 members of Congress speaks out against the war in Iraq, it normally wouldn't be news. But it was today, because of who he is."
Really? Let's start here with some Journalism 101. How is Murtha actually the most influential Democrat in Congress on military matters? The networks certainly didn't think so before last week if we measure him by his TV time. They've been much happier discussing Iraq with Sen. Kerry over the last two years, and if you're not counting presidential candidates, Murtha can't hold a candle to Sen. Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi, or a number of other Democratic leaders. What they were trying to say was Murtha had sudden clout because he was, they say, a "hawkish" House Democrat for withdrawal.
But weirder yet, what was new in Murtha's Iraq stance? Doesn't his feeling that the war is hopeless have to be new to be defined as "news"? Answer: Of course not. It's the crude liberal propaganda value that matters. On May 10, 2004, he stood next to ultraliberal aspiring speaker Pelosi and said the war was unwinnable. (Ted Koppel liked that so much he awarded him a half-hour "exclusive" interview that night.) But wait, there's more. In the New York Times of Sept. 17, 2003, Murtha complained that the top Pentagon brass should be fired since they misled him into voting for war. In other words, Murtha's been anti-war for years.
But the really amazing turn in the rapid ascent of John Murtha, our instant Exit-Iraq-Now hero, was what happened next. On Friday, House Republicans finally showed some spine and did something wonderful. They called for an up-or-down vote on withdrawal, and put everyone formally on the record. But no. The next morning, the newspaper spin was bizarre. The New York Times headline was "Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout." Uproar? The story by Eric Schmitt didn't get to the overwhelming majority vote until paragraph five. Schmitt considered it more important to highlight obscure newbie Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio, who relayed to Murtha a message from a soldier suggesting that "cowards cut and run, Marines don't," and how when, Democrats screamed and howled, Rep. Schmidt withdrew the implication that Murtha was a coward.
The Washington Post story by Charles Babington began with news of an "explosion of angry words and personal insults" over Jean Schmidt's remarks. The vote was then summarily dismissed in the third paragraph: "The Republican-proposed measure was rejected 403 to 3, a result that surprised no one."
Amazing. After glorifying the prestige and influence of the man whose idea for rapid withdrawal is absolutely crushed, reporters declare there was now nothing of interest -- of news -- here. Even more bizarre: Babington strangely insisted Murtha's plea for withdrawal nevertheless "struck a chord" in the party that wouldn't vote for it.
The whole experience inspired Howard Fineman to write an article titled "Bush at the Tipping Point." The "political center of gravity" shifted," and liberal hero Murtha, the "gruff, taciturn pasha," was tipping Bush over. The vote was meaningless, a "trap" made to make Democrats sound "as cravenly anti-war as possible."
No, the vote was designed to make anti-war Democrats put up or shut up. Final vote: Bush 403, Murtha 3. Now it's time for reporters to shut up, too.
.........................................
Find this story at:
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2005/11/23/176554.html
John Murtha is Cindy Sheehan in drag.
Ping for additional ammo
No, No, No,..... thcorrect title is "John Murtha, overnight American idiot!"
This is why the Old Media and Network News audience is dwindling... nothing more than shills for the Dems.
I bet Murtha's got bigger boobs
Naw, Teddy Kennedy wins hands down.
Dems were embarassed that the public has learned that "Loose Lips" Rockefeller told foreign leaders that Bush was determined to invade Iraq.
One word: "Somalia."
They have promoted him as a Hawk, but he is not.
I think the correct title would be, "John Murtha, Overnight AlQueda Dupe".
can we change Due to Quisling?
as was George McGovern.
since real men don't have boobs.......that sure explains why they do.........and for the record both ARE boobs.
If we cut and run as the idiot Murtha has suggested, the troops aren't going to have a country to come home to. The Islamic fanatics have already set their minds on taking over America as well as the rest of the world. I hope the 'RATS like Murtha have a plan were we can meet up with our troops somewhere and we can all stick our heads in the sand until the Islamic terrorists show up and make us MoveOn.
Absolutely!!
Of course changing Dupe to Dope would work too, as well as Dork. The choices are endless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.