"Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a usually hawkish Democrat who has called for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- criticized Bush's policy again ...."
"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can't do it."
Previously, the "hawkish" Representative mentioned:
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.'”
Matthew Rothschild asks idiotically in TheProgressive:
"Bush has trapped himself with his own rhetoric of “total victory” and “finishing the job.” And then, of course, there’s Cheney and Rumsfeld who still want that oil and those military bases.
The question is, how long can Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld defy a majority of the American public and an increasingly restive Congress?"
Today, CNN provides the answer:
"One final thing," writes Rothschild.
"While Murtha is not the bastard child of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, as some of Bush’s attack dogs snarled, it is gratifying that Murtha is making some of the very arguments that the peace movement has been advancing all along."
So does that makes Rep. Murtha another confused hawkish pacifist Democrat? Maybe. Or he could just be nuts.
It happens. My senator, Jim Jeffords, appeared in the House of Representatives one day, and was told that he was in the wrong chamber. Then he announced his retirement. (I would link this story, but all references have been purged from the MSM. The record survives only in blogs.)