Yesterday, he was called a coward.

Yes, as Dana Milbank reports the chicken hawks were out in force calling John Murtha a coward.

In his 37 years in the military, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V," and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. As a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania for the past 31 years, he has been a fierce hawk, championing conflicts in Central America and the Persian Gulf.

Yesterday, he was called a coward.

This of course was not a surprise and unfortunately neither was the unmasking of the "real" cowards. I'm not talking about the Bush administration or the congressional Republicans, I'm talking about Murtha's Democratic collegues who were presented with an opportunity to do the right thing by Murtha's statement but instead chose to distance themselves from him.

It was a lonely day for once-mighty Murtha, who has long served as Democrats' conscience on military matters because of his moral authority on the subject. But Democrats were cutting and running yesterday -- not from Iraq, but from Murtha.

"I don't support immediate withdrawal," came the statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Aides to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hinted that she would back Murtha, but when she finally spoke, it came out as "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself."

Murtha being to the left of his Democratic caucus on military affairs is like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) being to the right of the caucus on gay rights. But Murtha seemed unconcerned. Asked if he had any co-sponsors, he replied, "I didn't ask for any."

[......]

Murtha had said he got a "standing ovation" when he announced his position to colleagues in the morning.

Evidently, they were just being polite. At her afternoon news conference, Pelosi was meticulous in avoiding any agreement with Murtha's "very provocative" statement.

"But do you agree with the call for immediate withdrawal?"

"As I said, that was Mr. Murtha's statement," she replied.

Just when I though the Democrats in Washington might be getting a backbone they show they are spineless once again.

Update
Jeff Bull has some thoughts over at My Very Brain and these thoughts in the comments section:

As for the issue with backbone, I'd argue the Democrats have very real, very deep issues with foreign policy, particularly military foreign policy (for the latest version LINK). And it's deeper than having a backbone. To my mind, it's having some idea of what they want, as either a party or individuals, America's role to be in the world. The GOP has "strong military," a theme the Dems borrow in campaign seasons heavy with foreign policy issues, but beyond that, it's make it up as we go, but don't rock the boat. There's nothing inherently wrong with the latter, either; it's just an Achilles heel, electorally, when it's not an explicit part of a coherent worldview.

In the above he links to this observation on the problems the demcrats have with foreign policy.