ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 21, 2005
WASHINGTON - - Watching the White House try to deal with criticism of the Iraq war is like watching a punch-drunk fighter careening from one side of the ring to the other.
You watch the current White House communications effort and you say to yourself, "What has happened? These guys used to be champions! These guys used to be somebodies!"
The Iraq war has happened. It has dragged down President Bush's approval ratings to record blows and it has made him look weak and a prisoner of events taking place in a far-away land. (Sound familiar?)
This has made the Republican Party restive and nervous and has emboldened some Democrats.
You watch the Democrats and say, "Gee, if the Democratic leadership could come up with a coherent alternative message, they might actually do something."
Witness the power of just one Democrat who has come up with a coherent alternative to the Iraq war.
U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Penn., a Marine veteran and usually hawkish on matters military, has long been critical of the war in Iraq. But last week he called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of this year.
His reasoning was simple: We are not winning the war, he says. Our presence in Iraq is making the situation worse. And the war is straining and harming the U.S. military.
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily,' " Murtha said. "I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress….Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency."
The first thing the White House did, of course, was to smear Murtha. This has become standard practice no matter whether it is a Republican White House or a Democratic White House. (Bill Clinton was not exactly gentle on his enemies.)
And so Bush spokesman Scott McClellan sent out an e-mail saying: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
Surrender to the terrorists! That ought to smear him good! (Remember how easy it was to smear John Kerry with the Swift Boat veterans' attacks?)
But the mood is different now. The war is far more unpopular than the White House recognizes. And Murtha does not strike anybody as a coward or friend of terrorism.
The smear not only failed, but it made the White House look bad, so three days later, President Bush took the high road and called Murtha a "fine man and a good man."
"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."
But wait. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was unleashed to say Murtha was aiding and abetting the terrorists. Rumsfeld dusted off the tired argument that any criticism of the government in time of war helps the enemy.
"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday."
"We have to all have the willingness to have a free debate, but we also all have to have the willingness to understand what the effects of our words are," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."
Got that? Free speech is just fine as long as you don't exercise it.
Murtha is such a powerful critic because he knows where he stands and what he wants for this nation and he is willing to pursue it whether it is popular or not.
What kind of Democrat does that make him? A rare one.