In today's online Washington Post, Staff Writer Shailagh Murray's article, "The About-Face of a Hawkish Democrat,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
profiles Rep. Murtha, his call for withdrawing the troops, and last Friday's debate on the House floor. Unfortunately, she gets it wrong in a few places:
"Last week, as Congress was preparing to leave town for a two-week Thanksgiving break, Murtha told a gathering of colleagues and, later, reporters that -- although he had voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion -- he now wants American troops withdrawn immediately."
Now, I watched that debate, and I listened to Mr. Murtha read his resolution, and to the best of my recollection, he said he wanted the troops withdrawn "as soon as was practicable." C-Span even put up a graphic with that portion of the resolution quoted.
A little further down, Ms. Murray states:
"House GOP leaders hastily drew up a watered-down version of Murtha's withdrawal resolution, and made Republican lawmakers remain in town for a bitter and emotional Friday night session to vote it down."
I'd call Mr. Hunter's resolution anything but watered-down, seeing as how it called for an "immediate withdrawal," was meant to fail, and was intended as a tool to obfuscate, confuse and divide the Democratic representatives and reframe the debate favorably to the Republicans.
Here is my letter to the WP Ombudsman, Michael Getler (ombudsman@washpost.com):
"Dear Mr. Getler:
I am writing to you with regards to the Shailagh Murray article titled "The About-Face of a Hawkish Democrat" published in today's online Washington Post. Unfortunately, I have to wonder as to the diligence of Ms. Murray's fact-checking, as I watched the debates of Friday, November 18th, 2005 on the House floor, and I can assure you that the events of that night are not as laid out in Ms. Murray's article in at least two key particulars."
Ms. Murray states that Mr. Murtha's resolution called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "immediately" - that is not so. Mr. Murtha's resolution called for U.S. troops to be redeployed "as soon as is practicable" - a huge difference when one considers the logistics of moving a force the size of the one presently occupying Iraq."
Mr. Murtha's resolution was never brought to the floor. The resolution that was debated was authored by Mr. Hunter of California, which did call for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Mr. Hunter's intention was to split the Democratic representatives over the issue - a purely political stunt. The Democratic contingent of the House recognized this ploy for what it was, and fought vigorously to prevent it being brought to the floor."
Ms. Murray's article calls Mr. Hunter's resolution "a watered-down version" of Mr. Murtha's - this is a false characterization. Mr. Hunter's resolution was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, as was evidenced by C-SPAN commentators, and even the presiding speaker, Mr. Terry's confusion over which resolution was being debated. Mr. Hunter's resolution was voted down, and rightly so - it was introduced for spurious reasons, was never intended to pass, and was useful only as political fodder."
I have always held the Post's editorial and news staff in high esteem, and believe this is an honest mistake on Ms. Murray's part. In the interests of maintaining the Post's high standards, I feel that a clarification of these statements would be advisable."
Mild revisionism, but revisionism all the same. Are other papers across the country slanting the story in this manner?