Shailagh Murray Live Chat: Murtha

Well, far into a live chat with the Post's Shailagh Murray that was pretty much a universal John Murtha Lovefest, she answered my question: 

Manassas, Va.: Why won't the Post tell its readers about Murtha's mixed record on the Iraq War? For example, he said two years ago that he'd been misled about WMD and joined with Rep. Pelosi in calling for high-level administration resignations; he accused Bush of delaying a major military callup until after the presidential election (a callup that never happened); he joined a small minority in voting against a resolution declaring the world safer for having been rid of Saddam; and voted in favor of Rep. Rangel's (in my view, bogus) resolution to reinstate the draft. He's entitled to these views -- but aren't the Post's readers entitled to know about them, as opposed to the simple "hawkish Democrat" narrative you and your colleagues are presenting? 

Shailagh Murray: That's a fair point, and I think we as a paper should address it.

(Technical note to readers: Typepad failing again. Hoping this gets through, with further comments)

Update: Credit to Murray for taking the question--I discovered the live chat when it was about 40 minutes along a one-hour run, and she answered it very quickly. This kind of exchange is more typical:

Ellensburg, Wash.: As a Republican, [if you say so--PW] what a disgrace for my party to put up a sham bill before the house that they intend to vote against. What is happening with the Republicans? They seem so out of touch with reality and with the citizenry of this great country.

Shailagh Murray: You may not realize it, but you are exactly the person that Republicans fear most going into next year, and how you decide to vote in 2006 will determine who controls Congress.

and

Winnipeg, Canada: Immediately after Rep Murtha's speech, the Republicans attacked him fiercely. Then Bush made a conciliatory speech in which he praised Murtha but respectfully disagreed with his position.

How do you read this? Do you think that Republicans got a lot of blowback for attacking a person with a strong reputation for supporting the military, and therefore decided that they had to soften their opposition? Or do you think that they realized that Murtha's position gave them a starting poiint from which thay can change the course without losing too much face?

Shailagh Murray: Republicans ought to be concerned about Murtha, because there is no question that he echoes the emotional pitch of the debate among many members of the military, and continue down the road of discrediting him as an unpatriotic coward would have likely brought some formidable Murtha supporters out of the woodwork, whether soldiers, or their families, or prominent military brass.

and (my bold)

Sims, N.C.: Pelosi totally dropped the ball last week when she did not support Murtha. When will the Dems get a real leader in Congress. As a Dem voter I am fed up with our weak leadership.

Shailagh Murray: You are expressing the perils that many Democrats believe they face as they try to figure out what to do/say on this subject. Sounds like you are one of many Dems who applauded Murtha -- you're called the base of the party, and you are glad to see prominent and credible people speak out aggressively. Pelosi's problem is that there's a whole different view in the party, that leaving Iraq would be a disaster because it would throw the region into turmoil. Wes Clark is one of many Democrats who think this way. The underlying problem here is that both views are legitimate, and can be argued persuasively by credible, influential people, and that makes it very difficult to be a party leader.

Begs the question--prominent and credible with whom, and why? Most Americans never heard of Murtha. If the Post and the rest of MSM tell the nation he's a "hawkish Democrat" and portray his call for an immediate withdrawal as some kind of major reversal, well that's a good short course how to manufacture credibility. I await not only a one time correction--Murray's answer shows at least somebody at the Post understands there's a problem--but a new, permanent shorthand description. Every time, from now on.

And to clarify my comment about the chat being a "Murtha lovefest"--it was, when Murtha was discussed. There was an interesting sidebar, however, with Murray defending House members' vote for a pay raise.