A report in the July 14 issue of The Economist about Democratic efforts to end the Iraq war asserted that after congressional Democrats first proposed limiting the number of U.S. troops available for the conflict -- in part by giving troops more time off between tours of duty -- one of the authors of the Democrats' approach, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), “admitted that it was a slow-bleed strategy to end the war.” As Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly (here, here, and here), Republicans seized on the phrase “slow bleed” to attack Democrats after it first appeared in a February 14 Politico article by John Bresnahan, but the phrase was not used by Murtha or other Democrats to describe Murtha's proposal. In fact, Politico editor-in-chief John Harris "confess[ed]" that Murtha “had nothing to do with” the phrase “slow-bleed” and that Harris was “the author of the Democratic Party's 'slow-bleed strategy' for ending the war in Iraq.”

From the July 14 Economist:

Sensing weakness, Democrats are surging to the microphones. Campaigning in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said: “It is time to begin ending this war. Not next year, not next month, but today.” John Edwards, another would-be president, said that Congress “should no longer facilitate the president's stubborn allegiance to his failed strategy”. Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, have been mulling five ways to tie the hands of the commander-in-chief.

All five are amendments to next year's must-pass defence appropriations bill. One was sponsored by Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, and Mr Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska. It called for American troops to be given a longer respite between tours of duty because, Mr Webb said, soldiers are burning out. If passed, it would have forced a reduction in troop levels in Iraq. When the idea was previously proposed, by Jack Murtha, a House Democrat, its author admitted that it was a slow-bleed strategy to end the war. Mr Webb withdrew his amendment on July 11th. Mr Hagel has proposed a much tougher one.

As Media Matters documented, the Republican National Committee (RNC), citing Bresnahan's February 14 article, falsely claimed in a press release that Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to the Democrats' strategy to end the Iraq war as “their 'slow-bleed' plan.” In a February 16 Politico article, Bresnahan clarified that the term “slow-bleed strategy” was The Politico's “characteriz[ation],” and “was not a term used by any Democrats or the antiwar groups supporting their efforts.” He also noted: “The RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert.” A Nexis search by Media Matters of articles containing “Murtha” and “slow bleed” did not find any reports in which Murtha subsequently “admitted” to proposing “a slow-bleed strategy.”

In fact, as Media Matters has also noted, Harris wrote a “confession” for The Politico on February 28 in which he stated: With a mixture of pride and remorse, I have a confession: I am the author of the Democratic Party's 'slow-bleed strategy' for ending the war in Iraq." From Harris' February 28 Politico article, headlined “An Editor's Confession: I'm the Source of 'Slow Bleed' ”:

With a mixture of pride and remorse, I have a confession: I am the author of the Democratic Party's “slow-bleed strategy” for ending the war in Iraq.

I had nothing to do with the details of the plan that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) floated two weeks ago. His plan was crafted to use the appropriations process to limit President Bush's options for mobilizing more forces in Iraq, while trying to protect Democrats from the accusation that they were abandoning troops in the field. As it happens, Murtha's idea is itself bleeding support, hit by a barrage of denunciations from people who say it does indeed amount to abandoning the troops.

In retrospect, it probably has already occurred to Murtha and his supporters that from a public relations perspective, “slow-bleed” was not the most winning description. How could they have been so stupid?

That's where I come in. “Slow bleed” is my phrase. Murtha had nothing to do with it. Neither did John Bresnahan, the reporter whose name was on the Politico story in which the “slow-bleed strategy” made its debut.

[...]

[Politico executive editor Jim] VandeHei and I read the article and were impressed by the detail of Bresnahan's reporting. But, as editors always do, we had our quibbles. Like the lead paragraph: Too bulky, and too bland. The story was a good bit better than the introduction.

We rushed the patient to the operating table for emergency surgery. With VandeHei hovering over my shoulder, this is what I came up with:

“Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.”

That is not exactly prize-winning prose, but it seemed a little snappier to us -- and more on point. Please note the context: What is slowly bleeding away is the administration's political support to keep fighting the war. Republicans pounced on the phrase because of the ease with which that context could be shorn away, to give the impression that what Democrats were slow-bleeding were the bodies of troops in Iraq.

That willingness to wrest words from context -- and to attribute the phrase to Democrats even though it was not theirs -- was demagogic on the part of Republican operatives. But it was never my plan to make their work so easy.