Bozell twisted statements to claim Murtha has "been anti-war for years"

In his November 23 nationally syndicated column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III claimed that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) has "been anti-war for years." Bozell, however, omitted key details from the examples he cited of Murtha's supposedly "anti-war" rhetoric that directly refute his claim. In fact, Murtha, who recently voiced support for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, was a staunch advocate of the Iraq war but also an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's handling of the conflict -- positions on two separate questions, which Bozell wrongly conflated.

Bozell questioned why Murtha's call for the withdrawal of troops was newsworthy and cited two examples that purportedly demonstrate that Murtha has opposed the Iraq war for years: a May 10, 2004, press conference in which, according to Bozell, Murtha "said the war was unwinnable"; and a September 17, 2003, New York Times article in which Murtha "complained that the top Pentagon brass should be fired since they misled him into voting for the war."

From Bozell's November 23 column:

But weirder yet, what was new in Murtha's Iraq stance? Doesn't his feeling that the war is hopeless have to be new to be defined as "news"? Answer: Of course not. It's the crude liberal propaganda value that matters. On May 10, 2004, he stood next to ultraliberal aspiring speaker [House Democratic Leader Nancy] Pelosi and said the war was unwinnable. ([ABC News anchor] Ted Koppel liked that so much he awarded him a half-hour "exclusive" interview that night.) But wait, there's more. In the New York Times of Sept. 17, 2003, Murtha complained that the top Pentagon brass should be fired since they misled him into voting for war. In other words, Murtha's been anti-war for years.

At the May 10, 2004, press conference, Murtha did not simply claim the Iraq war was "unwinnable." Rather, he said the war would be "unwinnable" if the Pentagon's plan for conducting the war remained unaltered. Murtha advocated sending in more troops as a way to secure victory. He made this point clear on the May 10, 2004, edition of ABC News' Nightline, to which Bozell alluded:

KOPPEL: Joining me tonight, John Murtha, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who is serving his 16th term in the House. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and has been a staunch defender of the U.S. military. He supported the war in Iraq, but feels that the current strategy makes the war unwinnable. Is that a fair assessment of where you stand?

MURTHA: That's a fair assessment. We have to mobilize, and we have to get troops on the ground, boots on the ground, if we're going to prevail in this, in this deployment.

Bozell correctly noted that the September 17, 2003, New York Times article reported that Murtha "said that he had been misled into voting for the war by incorrect information from top administration officials." Murtha's statements, however, indicate that he was criticizing Pentagon officials and was not advocating withdrawing. The Times article was based on a press conference, held by Murtha the previous day, in which he opposed withdrawing American forces and declared that the Iraq conflict had to be "solved."

From Murtha's September 16, 2003, press conference:

REPORTER: Sir, when you say you were part of this, as you did, what exactly do you mean? I mean, what mistakes do you think you Democrats --

MURTHA: Well, I was one of the ones that said I think -- I didn't say there was imminent danger, but I thought there was danger, and I thought it was -- we should have gone to war. And I don't -- I don't see any justification that I believe was true come to reality.

In other words, I thought that there was some possibility of our troops being attacked. I thought there was destabilization in the Middle East, all those kind of things. Can you imagine if we leave there now -- whether I was right or wrong, whether we leave right now, the disaster we would have? We suffered from Vietnam for 10 years when we left there, and we were in there for 20 years, if you take the period of time where we put money in it. It would be an absolute disaster to our foreign policy if we were to leave there now.

So, this thing's got to be solved. We're in there now. Whether I was right or wrong, we're in there now; whether Nancy [Pelosi] was right or wrong, we got to get this thing solved, and we got to do it now, as if it's serious, for Christ sakes.