Congressman Murtha, the Dems' new favorite war hero (now that they've given up on Senator Kerry), is concerned that it might look like a victory for us in Iraq. Yes, that would be terrible. How would the Democrats make gains in the House next year if that happened?

A few months ago, the President dare say that some of these bozos are really unAmerican. The MSM and DNC were astonished.

Murtha is no patriot, and I need only point to his comments in Virginia to illustrate that. A politician hungry for power? He is that. I won't quite say he's a traitor, but he's a lot closer to crossing that line than Leiberman or even Clinton.

Murtha and his ilk can go straight to HELL as far as I'm concerned. The sooner the better.

Though I'd settle for Gaza. With no Secret Service or IDF protection.

Can we call it treason yet? >:-(

Given the various actions over the past few years by several people none of whom have been charged with treason I don't think its possible to charge anyone with treason anymore. Sadly the word and that part of the constitution have become meaningless.

Michael, I'm with you. I'm not sure what it takes to charge someone with treason, short of being found with a gun in hand fighting for the other side (uh wait, didn't John Walker Lindh just get 20 years... I guess not even that is treason).

I won't call Murtha a traitor simply because lack of evidence that his actions are based on having the enemy win or having the DNC win at the poll. The latter is bad politics, while the other is clearly sedition.

I don't read his comments that way. I read "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory" being undesirable as equivalent to "executing a slow withdrawal and pretending we've actually won a victory without the facts on the ground to back that up is negligent."

And I think it is.

I'm not sure that what Murtha appears to be suggesting, which is as near as I can tell "move to nearby countries from where we can put out fires in Iraq quickly while the Iraqis learn how to do it themselves" is entirely unwise as a policy.

Speaking of traitors, does Senator Brownback qualify because of this, or not.

Just asking.

Amazing, the guy toils in obscurity for years and makes one comment the press just loves and now he's popping up everywhere with sheehanesque sound bites. Want to be famous? Criticize the war/Bush and you'll be a media darling.

The answer is "no," Bill.

It's really kind of a dumb comparison.

What countries would you like us to move into Jane? Syria? Iran?

Iraq is doing just fine. However, until their government has had an opportunity to institute the new law of the land, US forces are still needed to help keep the peace. The good news is that process is almost complete. Indeed, their are already plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq.

I know this is not lost on Democrats. They just want to position themselves so they claim credit in convincing Bush to do something that he already planned to do. Unfortunately, there are a few that are afraid of reality. That even if they can take credit, if Iraq is peaceful, then Bush and the RNC is going to be looking pretty good. All Murtha can hope for is a continued insurgency in Iraq throughout the 2006 election cycle.

Leland, I believe the countries Mr. Murtha has in mind are Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and perhaps the UAE, Diego Garcia, and aircraft carrier decks. I am comfortably certain that neither Syria nor Iran would welcome American troops in any quantity.

I also think that it's perfectly defensible to argue that removing American troops from Iraq proper gives the Iraqi government the opportunity to look after its own domestic security, and it separates the insurgents into the opponents of democracy, who will probably continue their activities, and the opponents of occupation, who will probably not. This lets the Iraqi security forces, such as they are, focus their activities on the former group, and perhaps even recruit some of the latter, though I wouldn't necessarily count on that last point.

Finally, I think that Iraqi law and peacefulness and sovreignty are an Iraqi problem. To the extent that their inability to do so leads to the rise of terrorist organizations that can actually threaten the US, I'd reserve the right to smack them from over the border until the problem is one the Iraqis themselves are fully able to deal with.