As Rush Would Say, This Is A Big Deal, Folks

Republicans have wasted no time in responding to Rep. John Murtha's (D) call for American troops to withdraw from Iraq. Rep. David Dreier (R), in a statement, said he has "the utmost respect for John Murtha and his service to our country" but said his speech was "absolutely wrong" and added he was "baffled by it." He adds: "I would hope that my Democratic colleagues would refrain from further dismissing the accomplishments of our troops and start channeling their considerable energy into supporting victory rather than defeat."

Without mentioning Murtha by name, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) added that calling for immediate troop withdrawal is "reprehensible and irresponsible." And Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) said such a plan was "wrongheaded at best and dangerous at worst."

Watching Murtha at his a.m. presser followed by the tough yet respectful GOP response (see Dreier's quote above), we were again struck by a pattern that has been mentioned in the past, but ought to be explored further. Among policy makers, there are few louder or more consistent blocs of war critics than that of Vietnam veterans. [JONATHAN MARTIN AND JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

Yes there are exceptions -- McCain leaps to mind -- but it is striking that regardless of party affiliation, those who served in uniform in America's last controversial conflict are now among the most vocal in criticizing the current one. And even though some of that criticism may be founded more in a personal dislike towards those in the Pentagon civilian leadership or in a larger aversion to interventionism, the announcement today by Murtha for immediate withdrawal of our troops cannot be dismissed as being rooted in either of these categories.

True, Murtha has been tough (and getting tougher) on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al since the war began, expressing his dismay about equipment shortages and on what he perceives to be the lack of post-war planning. And Murtha is no reflexive hawk and certainly not a neo-con. Under Pres. Clinton he opposed sending U.S. troops to both Bosnia and Somalia.

But Murtha is also not an Anthony Zinni or a Larry Wilkerson. He has not had the mano-a-mano tangles with, nor does he seem to harbor any real personal bitterness towards, the civilian "vulcans" in the administration. And unlike, say, a Chuck Hagel, (who endorsed a "principled realism" that avoids "the traps of hubris and imperial temptation" in a speech this week) Murtha has traditionally been supportive of a muscular and forward-leaning foreign policy, willing to deploy boots on the grounds. Indeed, he voted for both Iraq wars.

Murtha, a highly decorated Marine and the first Vietnam vet to enter Congress, also has no real political concerns driving his newfound position. As a pro-labor, pro-military cultural conservative, Murtha has been re-elected with ease from his blue-collar Western PA district for over 30 years. And as the ranking Democrat on the earmark-dispensing Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Murtha, at 73, is not bucking for any leadership post or seeking to curry favor with any constituency. He has what he wants.

So why, 2 1/2 years into the war, is this venerable Man of The House saying it's time to get out of Iraq? Only he can answer that. But whatever the reason, Murtha's move today makes it much easier for a lot of moderate or conservative Dems to reevaluate their own support for the war going into '06.