WASHINGTON -- In the 48 hours following U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha's call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, his views were described with words rarely uttered in the same sentence as his name: cowardly, extremist, complicit with the enemy.

Mark Wilson, Getty Images Rep. John Murtha speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday. Click photo for larger image.

But by exposing himself to that criticism, a once-crucial ally in President George H.W. Bush's decision to wage the first Gulf War and President Ronald Reagan's Latin American military endeavors also produced a seismic shift in the debate over the Iraq War last week in Washington.

Just days after a bi-partisan group of senators passed a resolution stating 2006 should be "a period of significant transition" in which Iraqi troops take the lead in their military operations, Mr. Murtha's announcement catapulted the debate over the Iraq war to the top of the House agenda.

During the fiery debate about the possibility of troop withdrawal late Friday night, House members from both parties acknowledged that the decision by the Johnstown Democrat had inflamed a previously muted debate on Iraq in a way they hadn't seen since the advent of the war.

When Mr. Murtha finally left the House floor just before midnight Friday -- after a dizzying three hours in which he was called a coward, but eulogized by so many colleagues that he jokingly urged them to skip his funeral -- he shook his head in disbelief.

"People told me that when I spoke out like that it would be a change in direction in the country," Mr. Murtha said. "But, by God, the kind of response I'm getting -- I'm really overwhelmed."

Few members of Congress, even in Mr. Murtha's party, have embraced his proposal: the withdrawal of troops from Iraq at the "earliest practical date" in combination with the creation of a quick-reaction force in the region to return if necessary. That measure never came up for a vote Friday. Instead, Republicans proposed a version, intended to fail, that called for the immediate withdrawal of troops. And it did fail, 403-3, with even Mr. Murtha voting against it.

But the lack of support even for his proposal did not seem to bother him. In an interview in his office Friday, he said he understands it could be a "quantum leap" for some but explained that his own unlikely conversion also had been gradual.

In the 2002 debate on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Mr. Murtha said he had misgivings but argued the country should back President Bush in an effort to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq.

He lamented the lack of international cooperation because, as chairman of the defense subcommittee on appropriations, he had watched President George H.W. Bush build a large coalition for the first Gulf War and collect assistance from allies for the $60 billion effort. The former president had also asked for his advice each week, and Mr. Murtha had shared Mr. Bush's conclusion that U.S. troops should not get mired in Iraq.

But as the months progressed in the second Iraq war, Mr. Murtha's concerns expanded beyond the question of tactics. He wrote numerous letters to defense department officials asking what was being done about shortages in body armor and special radio jammers that could prevent insurgents from remotely activating bombs planted to kill U.S. soldiers.

He also began to speak out against "faulty intelligence," and about the difficulty in explaining his initial vote to constituents at home. "I believed there [were] weapons of mass destruction. I believed there was an al-Qaida connection," he said in a March 2004 speech. "None of this has turned out to be true."

But even last year, he firmly defended the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"I have raised my concerns about many aspects of the administration's Iraq policy -- using poor intelligence, improperly equipping our troops, overstretching our military and ignoring the extensive warnings of its own experts on the challenge of the post-war environment," Mr. Murtha wrote in a 2004 epilogue to his book "From Vietnam to 9/11."

"Nevertheless, a war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable. An untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance."

But that view began to shift this year, Mr. Murtha said, as he watched attacks on American soldiers rise and became convinced U.S. troops "had become the target." His latest visit to Iraq two months ago reinforced his view about conditions on the ground.

When he flew to his destination, he was accompanied by two Black Hawk helicopters and flanked by two Apache helicopters on either side of his plane.

"I talked to the commander on the ground and he said every convoy is attacked," Mr. Murtha said. "So I knew the situation's not getting better."

Mr. Murtha also said his experience in Vietnam led him to carefully monitor the success in any "guerilla war" by measuring its success in winning over the people.

The images from the Abu Ghraib prison were a major setback in that effort, he said, but he continued to pore over quarterly reports from the defense secretary -- which Congress required in defense spending legislation passed in May 2005 -- charting the availability of electricity and potable water, as well as Iraqi unemployment and oil production.

The first report did not have enough detail, he said, and in the October report, "I saw no progress, the same static situation," Mr. Murtha said.

He also reviewed polls from abroad -- some of which have been discredited by the administration -- showing that more than three-quarters of Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq and nearly half believed it was justified to attack Americans.

"We have become the enemy," Mr. Murtha said. "Any way you measure it -- increased incidents or the fact that they wouldn't tell us where the insurgents were -- all those things were an indication to me that we were not winning the hearts and minds of the people. I came to the conclusion that it wasn't going to get better."

Most Republicans in Congress and many Democrats do not share that view.

A constant complaint among Republicans is that remarkable stories of progress in Iraq are not being reported to the public. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., plans to begin highlighting those stories on the Senate's Republican Web site.

Mr. Murtha says his views should not reflect on what he describes as valiant efforts by troops but merely on the reality of waging a war where some view them as occupiers.

And as phones rang incessantly in his office, camera crews tripped over one another and aides signed for yet another vase of two-dozen long-stemmed roses, he shrugged off the criticisms of his position with the detachment one might expect from a 73-year old Marine who has weathered more perilous firefights.

"It takes time to convince people that this strategy is the right strategy," Mr. Murtha said. "In the end, I'll prevail."