Political Cut and Paste

Accurate representations of situations and events seem increasingly harder to come by.
The latest example of inaccuracy, or "nuance" as some would have it, involves the assessment of the US military "surge" in Iraq. Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn), a well-known critic of that war, said "I think the surge is working, but that's only one element." Commenting on this, the conservative blog Hot Air emphasized the first part of the statement, then added "he qualifies it by insisting the Iraqis need to do better on political reconciliation, a conclusion also reached by, um, everyone."
But is this a "qualification"? George Bush said the intention of the surge was to give the Iraqi government "the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas." Rather than a qualification, it is actually the purpose of the surge.
According to the Wall Street Journal (via Huffington Post), Murtha's concern with the surge was that it would affect "readiness at home or extend the tours of troops now in the war zone." Said Murtha at the time, "most of the military commanders say we can't afford to send more troops." In neither of these comments did he suggest or imply that the US military was somehow incapable, or that the surge would fail because of the inability of the military.
I'm not the least bit interested in defending Murtha or anyone else. I am interested in seeing a debate accurately represented--all issues, both (or more, as the case may be) sides--a debate on how best the US can encourage outcomes whether in Iraq or elsewhere.