Paid For By "Mikey '08 For Congress"

This letter appeared Monday in the Bucks County Courier Times (a little more catch-up to do for yours truly)…

This week, the Democrats announced their Iraq war De-escalation Act of 2007 and the Courier Times published a front-page story featuring our own congressman Pat Murphy.

The Democrats announced a bill already introduced in the House on Jan. 31, reportedly their solution to the Iraq war. Co-sponsored by Murphy, the bill answers critics who said the Democrats have no specific plan for extricating the United States from Iraq.

I checked Wikipedia, WashingtonWatch, and the press release announcing this bill (H.R. 787 and S. 433) by Sen. Barack Obama and Reps. Patrick Murphy and Mike Thompson, and absolutely nowhere can I find any references to prior legislation of this type that preceded H.R. 787 (and here’s a Kos link also).

And as always, the Repugs blame the Dems for not having a plan to get us out of Iraq and bring sweetness and light to that now-wretched place, which is kind of like the kid getting his hand caught in the candy jar and, when the jar breaks spilling candy all over the place, complaining that the problem occurred because the jar wasn’t strong enough.

Notably, it blocks the deployment of 21,500 new troops as recently requested by President Bush. Let’s revisit the congressional campaign of 2006. Congressman Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, made the war a centerpiece of his campaign against incumbent Republican Mike Fitzpatrick.

Of course, our red-state president ignored the bill’s timeline (capping the troop levels as of 1/10/07), which I realize is his right according to the separation of powers, particularly since the bill was not signed law, though it reflects his typical tone deafness to what the vast majority of the people of this country want.

The candidate had many positions on the war.

That’s a typical lie from Mikey and his people. Patrick adjusted the timelines for his original proposal during the campaign to accommodate the reality on the ground, though he has been steadfast in calling for a phased redeployment to maintain an “over-the-horizon” force for Iraq while refocusing on Afghanistan and bin Laden (assuming he’s still there - remember him?), which should have been our priority all along.

Midway through 2005, Murphy released his “Soldier’s Plan for Iraq.” He advocated the removal of all troops by December 2006, notably with no demands on the Iraqi government. That date, however, was later amended to December 2007 – again, no constructive benchmarks for the Iraqis.

From Patrick Murphy’s old campaign web site…

Patrick believes in a responsible exit strategy, with benchmarks and a timeline, which encourages the Iraqis to stand up on their own, brings our men and women home, and most importantly, closes this chapter of our history and refocuses our efforts to win the War on Terror.

At the time, Patrick was campaigning for Congress of course; he had not been elected yet. How could Patrick come up with benchmarks at that point on the war when, still as a private citizen, he was not in an “advise and consent” position in government? How does Mikey get a total pass on that here, since he was still serving?

In reading about the grand De-escalation Act of 2007, I recalled that in August 2006, then-Congressman Fitzpatrick took aim at Murphy for his so-called “cut and run” plan, as well as President Bush’s own “stay the course.”

“Cut and run” being political jingoistic crap that even Repugs have disowned at this point, by the way.

Since I was a member of the Fitzpatrick re-election campaign team, I clearly recall the congressman urging a new strategy for success in Iraq that included benchmarks or clearly defined goals for the Iraqi government. There would be no exact timeline for troop withdrawal, rather, it would come in phases, Fitzpatrick said, inextricably tied to meeting certain benchmarks. (As they step up, we step down).

And herein, to me, lies the reason why Mike Fitzpatrick is a private citizen now and Patrick Murphy is serving in Congress.

We kept hearing all through the campaign about Mike Fitzpatrick is supposedly “calling for a new strategy” or criticizing both Dubya and Patrick simultaneously. But as Patrick and others pointed out repeatedly, including your humble narrator, reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on Iraq and other matters. But when you disagree without offering a plan of your own or endorsing someone else’s, particularly on the issue of the Iraq war, then that is a fundamental failure of leadership.

Instead of running kicking and screaming to the Iraq Study Group (the author will get to them next) and asking “hard questions” and demanding “hard answers” or whatever, you’re supposed to craft legislation and sponsor it in Congress seeking a change if you don’t like the status quo. That is what Patrick did along with Barack Obama and Mike Thompson, but Mikey refused to do that because it ran contrary to the wishes of his Repug “betters.”

Fitzpatrick also supported many of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group in August 2006 and advocated a broadening of diplomatic action, greater resources for training Iraqi troops, and greater accountability for contractors rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure.

And which political party does it reflect badly on again that these remain as issues?

But when Fitzpatrick called for a new strategy for success in Iraq, Murphy criticized, Murphy politicized. In reading the Feb. 7 news story, I see that the proposed De-Escalation Act includes recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and, lo and behold, there are requirements for benchmarks and specific goals for the Iraqis. It also includes the gradual redeployment of combat troops, with March 31, 2008 as the date when it is expected for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq.

Yes – see, it’s called Congress doing its job and performing its function of oversight (of course, not that Dubya or any of his cronies would listen to the recommendations the author is talking about anyway). But again, this bill wasn’t called the Hagel-Weldon-Fitzpatrick bill (though I could see Hagel supporting at least some of it).

I can only imagine what Mike Fitzpatrick was thinking when he read that front-page story about (finally) the Democrats’ solution for Iraq. I think he may have said, “Hey, that sounds familiar.”

Pat Wandling
Middletown Township, PA

Oh yeah, Pat, I almost forgot – how funny is it to hear you complain about Murphy “politicizing” on Iraq when Mikey allowed Young Philadelphia Repug Kevin Kelly to politicize Patrick’s service?