Exactly, that's my take on these two articles as well.
Here's the kicker from the WSJ article, IMO....
As drafted the amendment would require the administration to submit within 60 days a “regional stability plan for the Middle East” including a detailed description of the projected U.S., military force presence in the region for the five year period beginning October 2008.
In the same 60-day period, which most likely terminates in December, the administration would be required to begin an “orderly redeployment” of U.S. forces in line with the stability plan. Troops who have been serving more than a year already would be given priority coming home, but no firm date is set for the withdrawal being completed.
Mr. Murtha said antiwar forces in his caucus may oppose his language as not going far enough, but that he has discussed it with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who has been his strong ally. “Maybe we’ll start some movement. Get some time of agreement,” Mr. Murtha said.
So for AP reader consumption, he's playing to the moonbats, but for the WSJ, he's playing to a more moderate crowd. A sorta limited cut and run from his cut and run.
That's a good way of putting it. The Pols on the Hill don't come any slipperier and slimier that Fat Jack murtha, I guess that's how he's managed to survive all these years.
I'm anxious to see how he's gonna slip and slime out of his cold blooded murder thing if the charges against Sharratt, Tatum and Wuterich are dropped and I think they will be.