While the New York Times article you quoted shoves that little fact down to the fifth paragraph, under the Democrat's howling about a Marine reminding Murtha of what Marines do and don't do, that's the tally.

I think a lot of people missed what actually happened yesterday. Murtha, an honest person with a lot of integrity who has real concern for our troops, was set up as a political weapon. Up until a week ago, I doubt Nancy Pelosi even returned his phone calls. His only other sponsored bill this year was to amend the Constitution to allow prayer in schools.

The Democratic plan was to drop Murtha's proposal on the table, and let it sit there like a dead fish through the recess and beyond while the Democrats used it for talking points and to harass Republicans. It was NEVER supposed to actually come up for a vote, but be debated endlessly long into 2006. The Republicans carved all the fat off the bill, proposed their own simple version, and shoved it past a Democratic attempt to stop the vote on it.

The trap went off on the feet of the House Democrats.

Republicans could have played it smarter. They should have forced a vote on the original bill if they could have, and backed off into the alternative only if the original couldn't get past procedural blocks. They definitely should not be attacking Murtha personally, just his proposals.

I don't know how much more mileage Murtha's bill has in it now as a political tool. A question that seems to be noticably missing from many of the recent polls on Iraq is "do you think we should leave before the job is done?" There's a reason for this.

If Zarqawi was personally directing the current Democratic policies, what exactly would be different?