DovBear vs. Truth

DovBear copied a piece from the DemocraticUnderground today. Sadly, however, both the DU piece and DovBear are rewriting history, claiming that the Republican resolution in the House (which was rejected 403-3) to carry out Senator Murtha's plans was not the same as what he actually said.

So, decide for yourself: The Republican Resolution -

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Murtha's website has the press conference where he detailed his plan:

MURTHA: I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy.

No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.
....
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
....
The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home.
....
Setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn't work, because they always find an excuse not to get them out.

QUESTION: Mr. Murtha, you say that -- your first point about bringing them home, consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters. What is your sense as to how long that would be?

MURTHA: I think that you get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you have to do it in a very consistent way, but I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.
...
We've done our job militarily. It's time for us to get out.
....
QUESTION: So you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible and that all these troops can be brought home within six months, or that's your hope.

MURTHA: I say, they could be brought back -- I'm saying, within -- the safety of the troops. But I project it could be six months.

QUESTION: Six months to start it or six months to have them all back?

MURTHA: I think, in six months, you could have them all back.

Immediate redeployment; troops all home within six months, limited only by the practicality of doing so in a safe fashion... Does that sound like a request for immediate withdrawal? Presumably, immediate termination would not require that every US soldier run to the border to get out - it means taking them all out as soon as possible in a safe fashion.

Instapundit pointed out Discriminations' dissection of this. A key point he makes is the differentiation between the news reports before the Republican resolution and the Times' change immediately following.

For example, here is the lede of the NYT article by Eric Schmitt that appeared, according to a Google News search, about 12:30 PM Friday afternoon:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration's critics. [Emphasis added]

Here is the lede of the version of the Schmitt article that appeared about 7:30PM Friday night:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - House Republicans are attempting to split the ranks of the Democrats tonight by offering a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately. The Republican-controlled House is expected to defeat the measure in a vote that the Republicans hope will leave the Democrats in disarray.

So, you may well ask, what's the problem? The "newspaper of record" says, initially, that Rep. Murtha proposed "immediate withdrawal" and in a following version that the Republicans, albeit with the motive of splitting the ranks of the Democrats (how dare they!), offered a resolution "to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately." But an evening of Democrats howling foul changed the tone of Schmitt's next version, which according to Google news appeared about 10:30PM Friday night. Here is the description of the partisan conflict that appears there:

The battle on Friday came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha's measure and left little time for meaningful debate. [Emphasis added]

So, after an evening of Democrats accusing Republicans of "a cheap political stunt and a personal attack," the New York Times description of Murtha's proposal shifted from "immediate withdrawal" to "swift withdrawal."

Sigh. If the next excuse is "having them all home in six months is not the same as immediate withdrawal", I think I'm going to go nuts. Try to explain to me what the "practicable" difference is.