Sigh.

Okay. As you may have read, Congressman John Murtha of PA made a statement yesterday in which he said, among other things:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.

The main reason for going to war has been discredited.

This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Now, you may not have heard of Congressman Murtha before (I hadn't). So let's see what we can find out about him. The Moderate Voice has a good round-up of information and opinions about the man, basically, he is

the top Democrat on military spending — a longtime respected, decorated Vietnam veteran...hardly the kind of person that can be accused of being unpatriotic.

So for him to say these things is considered by most rather signifigant. Meanwhile, back at Blogs For Bush-the boys who think absolutely none of Mr. Bush's current problems are real--

And how, pray tell, was the war "advertised"? I don't recall an ad campaign for the war, so maybe Congressman Murtha will direct us in future to the relevant sources for this ad campaign.

It's called a "metaphor," dear boy, you wouldn't understand. Congressman Murtha was speaking of the selling of the war done by Bush, Cheney & Co; the reasons they gave for going to war that have now been discredited. Oh, but wait:

It is to be hoped that Mr. Murtha is not buying into the leftwing screed about "Bush lied" to get us into war.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Murtha. But no matter whether he thinks, as I and most Americans do, that Bush lied, or that he "merely" relied upon faulty and misleading intelligence, I think I know what he means: To all but the most starry-eyed, it's clear that the reasons given for going to war did not exist. At least, not in sufficent size or number to present an "imminent threat," or "clear and present danger."

And that's a Big Fucking Deal, to coin a phrase. But let's move on (to coin another):

In a nation of nearly 300 million people, how do we share the burden "equally", Congressman? Are we to institute a draft and raise an army of, oh, 30 million men in order to fight five thousand or so bitter-enders in Iraq?

Again--not speaking for the Congressman, but this is what it seems he meant, to me: How do we share the burden equally? We don't cut taxes on the people who can most afford them. If we're asking people to step up and sacrifice, we ask everybody to step up and sacrifice.

If we're going to fight a war, we do it with the best-equipped, best-trained Army we can get. As opposed to sending men and women into the field without armor and teaching them that torture is okay.

And if you believe this is a war fought for good reasons, then why the hell wouldn't you want us to institute a draft? If you have some hesitation there, it's for one of two reasons. Either you're afraid you might actually be called away from the keyboard and have to get bloody, or you know it isn't a war being fought for good reasons.

Or, as Murtha said:

Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments this week that Democrats were spouting "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges" about the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the war.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," said Murtha, a former Marine. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

ETA: Laura rightly quotes parts of Murtha's speech that should not be missed in all the hubbub about whether or not he's right about the war, right to dissent, or patriotic.

I go out to the hospitals every week. One of my first visits -- two young women. One was 22 or 23, had two children; lost her husband. One was 19. And they both went out to the hospitals to tell the people out there how happy they should be to be alive. In other words, they were reaching out because they felt their husbands had done their duty, but they wanted to tell them that they were so fortunate, even though they were wounded, to be alive.

I have a young fellow in my district who was blinded and he lost his foot. And they did everything they could for him at Walter Reed, then they sent him home.

His father was in jail; he had nobody at home -- imagine this: young kid that age -- 22, 23 years old -- goes home to nobody. V.A. did everything they could do to help him.

He was reaching out, so they sent him -- to make sure that he was blind, they sent him to John Hopkins. John Hopkins started to send him bills. Then the collection agency started sending bills....

There's more. Read it. And then ask yourself, if you need to, who is "not supporting the troops."