As President Obama is set to give a speech tonight marking the end of the combat mission in Iraq, one of the elephants in the room is his Senate vote against the "Surge" in February 2007.

Many now view the surge as a tactical turning point in the war.

In fact, as President, Obama is now going with a similar strategy in Afghanistan under the  the leadership of Iraq Surge Gen. David Petraeus.

And who else voted against the surge? US Sen. Patty Murray.

Today, the National Republican Senatorial Committee hauled out Murray's 2007 statement against the surge, calling on her to "admit that she was wrong and apologize to General Petraeus, and especially the brave men and women who served under him, for working to undermine their mission in Iraq[.] Tonight’s speech should remind all Americans that if Democrats like Patty Murray had their way in 2007, they would have wasted the sacrifices of our troops to satisfy their far-left base, and Iraq would today be controlled by terrorist networks instead of on the path towards democracy."

Terrorist networks are still wreaking havoc in Iraq. Last week, coordinated bombings killed 56 people—and August was the deadliest month in two years .

Here's Murray's February 2007 statement against the surge:

Mr. President, if the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing us to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of questions we have to ask - What would the impact of a surge be? How would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? . . . Mr. President, in conclusion, I strongly oppose the surge. Escalation is the wrong direction. I will vote to put this Senate on record opposing the surge, if the Republicans will end their filibuster. And I will continue to fight for a new direction in Iraq.” (Senator Patty Murray, “Iraq: Senator Murray Speaks Out Against The Surge And Urges Republicans To Stop Blocking Debate On The Iraq War.

We've requested a comment from the Murray campaign.

UPDATE:

Murray's campaign spokeswoman, Julie Edwards, put Murray's anti-surge vote in context, alluding to Murray's minority 77-23 vote against the war itself in 2002—along with her subsequent troop funding votes, saying:

Senator Murray...has consistently stood up and voted for our troops at every turn, despite her concerns that we have sacrificed far too much in blood and treasure in Iraq at a time when we are hurting at home. She won't ever let Dino Rossi or any Republican in Washington D.C. accuse her of not backing our troops. And Senator Murray won't back away from her opposition to a war that has cost our country so much.  She believed from the beginning that we needed to keep our focus on going after the terrorists where they live and that is still the case today.

Edwards also sent along a copy of Murray's full speech from the floor debate before she voted against the surge. Murray's main point (this was immediately after the blue wave election of 2006) was: Voters wanted a new direction in Iraq and wanted a floor debate on the war which the GOP filibuster was preventing.

It's worth reading Murray's entire speech. Here's a defiant excerpt:

I've been looking forward to finally having this debate here in the Senate, but some Republicans have a different strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want us to consider the resolutions that have been offered. I'm not going to comment on their motives, but I will point out the consequences. Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of the American public.

I'm on the floor today because I know this debate is long overdue. And I'm not going to let anyone silence me, the troops I speak for, or the constituents I represent.

Ever since the start of combat operations in March 2003, I've been frustrated that we have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask the critical questions, to demand answers, to hold those in charge accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is costing us terribly. And I can tell you one thing: We are going to have that debate whether some in this body like it or not.

Four years ago, I came here to the Senate floor to discuss the original resolution that gave the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What will it require? Who's with us in the fight? What happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How will it affect the broader War on Terror? And are we being honest with the American people about the costs of war?

Today, four years, $379 billion, and more than 3,000 American lives later - the President wants to send more Americans into the middle of a civil war - against the wishes of a majority of the public and of Congress. As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I'm left with the exact same conclusion I reached 4 years ago. I cannot support sending more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined, solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered.

And like 2002 all over again, Murray voted on the 'Yea' side of a lopsided 80-18 'Nay' vote in May 2010 re: U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's call for a timeline on withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Footnote: U.S. Sen. Maria "Learned her Lesson" Cantwell voted with Sen. Murray.)

Reps. Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee have also soured on President Obama's strategy in Afghanistan.