Trudy Rubin: White House Must Heed Murtha's Call
When historians look back at the Iraq War, they will divide it into the pre- and post-Murtha eras.
Before U.S. Rep. John Murtha called on Nov. 17 for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months, the Bush administration turned a deaf ear to all war critics, implying they were traitors. Since the hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania spoke out, President George W. Bush is extolling the need for "honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."
So what happened? "The Murtha intervention was a critical one [because] he is so respected as a person," says retired four-star Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey. "I would say it is a turning point." The general is right.
Murtha's call released a torrent of pent-up doubts from Americans who were initially willing to support the war but want to know why things have gone sour. He has made it legitimate to voice criticisms that previously would have been denounced as unpatriotic.
How Bush responds will determine whether and how long Americans are willing to stick it out in Iraq.
Murtha's treatment by the White House - before Nov. 17 - was typical of its response to critics. He is a decorated former Marine with close military ties and a strong congressional supporter of Pentagon budgets. Yet, the administration stiffed his request for private discussions about Iraq. The reply he ultimately received was from a Pentagon flunky.
When Murtha finally went public, White House spokesman Scott McClellan accused him of endorsing "the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Within days, however, the president was calling Murtha "a fine man" whose Iraq critique was done in a "careful and thoughtful way." Clearly, someone in the White House finally grasped that they were smearing the wrong man.
Before U.S. Rep. John Murtha called on Nov. 17 for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months, the Bush administration turned a deaf ear to all war critics, implying they were traitors. Since the hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania spoke out, President George W. Bush is extolling the need for "honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."
So what happened? "The Murtha intervention was a critical one [because] he is so respected as a person," says retired four-star Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey. "I would say it is a turning point." The general is right.
Murtha's call released a torrent of pent-up doubts from Americans who were initially willing to support the war but want to know why things have gone sour. He has made it legitimate to voice criticisms that previously would have been denounced as unpatriotic.
How Bush responds will determine whether and how long Americans are willing to stick it out in Iraq.
Murtha's treatment by the White House - before Nov. 17 - was typical of its response to critics. He is a decorated former Marine with close military ties and a strong congressional supporter of Pentagon budgets. Yet, the administration stiffed his request for private discussions about Iraq. The reply he ultimately received was from a Pentagon flunky.
When Murtha finally went public, White House spokesman Scott McClellan accused him of endorsing "the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Within days, however, the president was calling Murtha "a fine man" whose Iraq critique was done in a "careful and thoughtful way." Clearly, someone in the White House finally grasped that they were smearing the wrong man.