Listen To A "Grunt" Who Knows

This Guest Opinion from Patrick Murphy appeared in yesterday's Bucks County Courier Times (I second, third, and fourth Patrick's words).

Leaders must have a position on Iraq.

Fewer than 10 percent of Americans have great confidence in their congressional leaders.

I can sympathize with those who feel betrayed, those who feel that our current elected representatives care more about political gain than about the people they represent. I can relate to them because I felt the same way three years ago in the middle of Baghdad, Iraq, which is why I’m dedicated to changing the direction of our country.

In 2003 and 2004 I was with the 82nd Airborne Division in al-Rashid Baghdad, a section of Baghdad that is about the same size as Philadelphia. But whereas the city of Philadelphia has more than 7,000 police officers, my men and I in Baghdad were shortchanged with 3,500 troops struggling to protect the peace in the middle of a war zone. President Bush claimed that if officers on the ground asked for more troops they would get them. Sadly, that was not true.

The troops on the ground were let down in other ways as well. I drove in a Humvee without doors and I knew soldiers who walked patrols without body armor. President Bush even had the audacity to propose cutting our combat pay as we were risking our lives overseas. My men and I knew that our government should have done more – and if it had, maybe 19 men I served with over there would have made it home.

This is why I was particularly troubled when my opponent, incumbent Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, recently conducted one of the most transparent and shameless acts I have ever seen in politics. Exactly 93 days before the election, Congressman Fitzpatrick suddenly broke from his two-year “stay the course” pledge to the current administration and, in an act of political desperation, tried to distance himself from President Bush and his failed policy in Iraq.

I doubt that Congressman Fitzpatrick will ever be nominated for a “Profile In Courage” award if he continues to pander to poll numbers.

Worse, this is not an honest reconsideration of his position on the war. Congressman Fitzpatrick refused to embrace any timeline, any phased redeployment, or, in fact, any plan at all regarding the war in Iraq. This paper even noted that “the congressman has no plan of his own.” (Bucks County Courier Times editorial, Aug. 9)

Reasonable people can disagree about the best course of action in Iraq. But when Congressman Fitzpatrick announces that he “disagrees” with the president, also “disagrees” with my plan, and then fails to outline a single alternative, it is not a courageous disagreement, it is political pandering, using our military men and women as pawns.

Our community needs leaders who say what they mean and mean what they say. That is why I am proud to have announced in December of 2005 – against the advice of the pundits and professional politicians – a plan to change the direction in Iraq and start bringing our men and women home. I stated then, just as I have every day since, the need for a responsible exit strategy, a plan with benchmarks and a timeline that encourages the Iraqis to stand up on their own and that brings our men and women home. Most importantly, I introduced a plan that refocuses our efforts on winning the War on Terror by capturing Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terror network, and securing our borders and mass transit.

Our brave men and women in harm’s way deserve more than empty rhetoric, and our country deserves more than politicians who flip-flop with the prevailing political winds. There is nothing more disgraceful than my opponent’s ploy, which plays politics with American soldiers. It is beneath the office of a United States congressman.

We need to change the direction of our country. That starts with electing leaders who stand for what they believe in their heart and make decisions based on what they believe is best for American families both abroad and here at home.

To help out Patrick, click here.

And by the way, as I alluded to yesterday, the campaign season has begun in earnest; one indicator is the debate yesterday between Santorum and Mr. Casey Jr. on "Bleat The Press." I didn't watch it partly because Santorum's voting record is so odious that I would vote for a King Charles spaniel instead if it were running against him (and I've heard mixed reports on Casey's performance - have to check it out more for myself).

Another indicator is the quantity and virulence of the freeper-generated letters pouring into the Courier Times all of a sudden (I have a Guest Opinion in their queue, so I can't respond to the paper at the moment). I'm not going to comment on the idiotic hosannas to Dubya from Eugenio Albano and Tom Humphrey, but Larry Weinstein of Northampton, Pa. wrote a particularly bilious letter against Patrick, saying that he would "turn his back on Israel" (particularly stupid since Patrick has stated emphatically that he supports Israel's right to exist and defend itself).

I'll tell you what, Larry: try reading this and let me know why we should continue to support Israel's wars of aggression (and since Dubya helped plan the attacks with Olmert, this is merely an extension of the Iraq war as far as I'm concerned, which was fought for oil and in the sick, twisted belief that Democracy could be established from Baghdad to Tel Aviv and all points in between).

I know it's incredibly screwed up that I've linked to a column by Patrick Buchanan at the RealUnclearPolitics site, but guess what? Despite all his "Fortress America For White People" rhetoric which scares the hell out of me actually, I believe he's one of the few people in this country who calls out Israel in a manner which is completely deserved.