WSJ Taranto: "108 Dems are now on record opposing victory"

In his December 19 "Best of the Web" column, Wall Street Journal opinionjournal.com editor James Taranto** claimed that 108 Democrats "are now on record opposing victory" for voting against a Republican resolution (House Resolution 612) "expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq." Taranto referred to these Democrats as "pro-surrender Dems." Democrats attacked the resolution as a "political stunt" and offered a competing resolution (House Resolution 613) -- immediately blocked by Republicans -- that praised the Iraqi elections, but made no mention of "victory" or an end to the conflict.

Taranto also falsely referred to a previous proposal (House Resolution 571) for immediate withdrawal as Rep. John P. "Murtha's" (D-PA). The proposal that Taranto labeled as "Murtha's" was, in fact, a one-sentence Republican proposal sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that news reports described as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." As Media Matters for America has documented, Taranto has also falsely attributed this position to Murtha in the past.

From the December 19 edition of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web":

Watching President Bush's political recovery on Iraq, one is tempted to think that this has all been part of a rope-a-dope strategy. In recent weeks Democrats have taken a host of outrageous positions on Iraq: John Kerry* accuses our troops of "terrorizing kids and children." Howard Dean says victory is "just plain wrong." On Friday the House voted 279-109 in favor of a resolution "expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq," which means that 108 Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders are now on record opposing victory. (Fifty-nine Dems voted for victory, and 32 of them, along with two Republicans, voted "present.")

Most of the pro-surrender Dems--including last month's media darling, Jack Murtha--also voted against Murtha's proposal for immediate withdrawal, so it seems they want to turn tail and run, but not before taking some more casualties--a position they seem to have calibrated carefully with an eye toward completely discrediting themselves.

* Did we mention he's French-looking?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210003

** Did we mention that James Taranto is just another BushCo mediawhore suffering from diarrhea of the mouth? And that he's Limbaugh-looking?

we've already had victory {mission accomplished} ring a bell. I want the illegal occupation to end.

I don't want victory-- this war is a crime against humanity.

I can't stand these sanctimonious punks.

First off, I don't support withdrawal, but Taranto's full of crap. The resolution he mentions was not the Murtha resolution, but the Republican stunt, much like this one. Like I said, I think Murtha's wrong on the issue, but to call him pro-surrender is absurd. What do these stunt resolutions accomplish anyway, except to advance the cause of dirty politics?