The “Insult-40-States Express” Rolls On

Note: Markos Moulitsas observed that he thinks that’s the Clinton “strategy” here; owing to Mark Penn I'm sure.)

In today’s Bucks County Courier Times, the senator from New York criticizes Barack Obama (and, by extension, Patrick Murphy) on starting to end the war in Iraq here…

On Monday, Clinton’s campaign and three high-profile military officers held a conference call where they criticized Obama’s plan for Iraq. Obama’s plan was crafted with Murphy, the first and only Iraq war veteran in Congress, last year.

Lee Feinstein, the chief foreign policy adviser for Clinton’s campaign, said Obama’s war policy has been "words only," and his record in the Senate "doesn’t quite match the hype" of his calls to end the war.

In a phone interview Monday, Murphy said Obama has been very clear about his plans to end the war while Clinton has not.

"I’m disappointed that the Clinton campaign has to continue to use these misleading tactics," said Murphy, who is the Pennsylvania state chairman of Obama’s campaign. "[Obama’s] been very clear that we need a change of strategy [in Iraq and Afghanistan]."

Obama’s policy is rooted in a bill unveiled by Obama and Murphy at a Feb. 6, 2007 press conference at the U.S. Capitol. Known as the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, the bill was an attempt to stop President Bush’s troop escalation plan and, instead, initiate a withdrawal of all American combat brigades from Iraq by the end of this month.

Murphy’s and Obama’s bill never made it to a Senate or House vote, although similar legislation was later vetoed by President Bush. Yet the bill has become a critical issue in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Given all of this, I decided to do what our media is apparently not willing to do, and that is to go to the web sites of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and compare their stated plans for getting our people out of Iraq.

First, I went to Obama’s site here and found out the following…

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Then, I visited Hillary’s site here and read the following…

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

I should add, by the way, that both plans feature a lot of good ideas about utilizing diplomacy to involve other states in regional talks to secure Iraq’s borders, keep out neighboring countries, support reconciliation within Iraq, provide financial support for reconstruction, and address the refugee crisis which, according to Obama, affects two million people inside Iraq and two million outside the country (basically, all steps taken by adult leaders in this crisis). You could support either plan and definitely be on the right track.

However, the difference to me between the two is that Hillary would convene the players who would tell her what to do, which is fine, but Obama already knows what to do (no doubt influenced heavily by Patrick’s recommendations).

I also took note of this language in particular in Obama’s plan…

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving.

That’s right out of the John Edwards play book, and I’m glad to see that Obama is saying the same thing.

Given all of this, I really don’t understand the petulant reaction from the Clinton people towards what Obama is proposing. Maybe they just can’t get it through their heads that, yes, he actually has some good ideas on this and other matters, and yes, those ideas deserve to be respected. And though Hillary’s White House experience carries a lot of weight (in an unofficial capacity, though, I’ll grant you), that doesn’t automatically mean that Obama could not match that were he given the opportunity.

Also, while I’m not surprised to see Joe Sestak lining up for Hillary (which is his right), this represents yet another reconciliation which will have to be achieved in the event that Obama wins the nomination (and even if Hillary does somehow, there will be a lot of residual bad feeling that will tar those associated with it from a seemingly never-ending series of statements from her supporters such as this one, and Our Gal Gerri has put her foot in it a couple of times already).

Update 3/11/08: I think this is fair, especially since Samantha Power left the Obama campaign for a lesser offense.

Update 3/12/08: Took her long enough...

And speaking of Patrick, this Guest Opinion appeared recently in the Courier Times from a lady named Margie Cantwell Colton of Churchville, PA, a social studies teacher at Richboro Middle School (I almost got to this yesterday, but the Spitzer thing took care of that)…

As a teacher of American history, it is my honor and privilege to help my students understand and appreciate the precious blessings of our American democracy, and the brilliance of our Constitution. Not all impulsive, fun-loving eighth graders, however, find studying the rule of law fascinating. Not all are thrilled that with freedom comes responsibility. Not all yet feel the need to clarify and cultivate values worth working and fighting for.

Good teachers are ever alert and searching for resources to excite their students about learning, to help them to connect with generations gone before and those yet to come. I believe that Patrick Murphy's book, “Taking the Hill, From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress,” is one of those resources.

Ever aware of my responsibility to keep my teaching free of personal political views, I can also recommend that my students read John McCain's “Faith of My Fathers,” or any of the other hundreds of worthwhile books written by our legislators — Democrats and Republicans.

Some of the most essential principles I am charged to teach are tolerance for diversity and respect for self and others, despite differences. To understand history is to recognize the needs, values and experiences that unite us rather than just the opinions that divide us. These are lessons not easily embraced by all adolescents. In my teaching years, I have been fortunate to see most of my young scholars mature into responsible, respectful, compassionate young adults — somewhere between September of eighth grade and June of 12th. For some, the process is slower than for others.

In their masked insecurity, teens are often quick to ridicule another for a mistake, a weakness, or a difference from “the crowd.” They often seek acceptance by practicing exclusion. Teachers and parents struggle daily to heal the damage done to our children and young adults by the bullying behaviors in which so many of them engage. Perhaps raising our children might be a little less difficult if our politicians and their supporters would model integrity and mutual respect, rather than rancorous, mean-spirited sabotage.

This past Presidents' Day, I was fortunate to be in attendance at the National Constitution Center for a conference and book signing by Congressman Murphy. His conversation with audience members was inspiring. The intelligence, candor, conviction, and humility with which he responded to people's questions led me to agree with Fred Allingham's Feb. 19 Guest Opinion: “Disagree with Murphy, but don't question his integrity.”

Throughout the discussion of difficult issues, Murphy created and maintained a heartening “No Friendly-Fire Zone” in the auditorium, as recommended by Allingham. The topics were tough — U.S. objectives and responsibilities in Iraq, rules of engagement, veterans' medical care and employment training, and environmental issues. The congressman addressed decisions for which he has been criticized or accused of “rookie mistakes.”

With courage he defended his early support for Barack Obama, despite his association with former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton. He pledged reduction of the enormous national debt to be inherited by our children. Perhaps most reassuring were his remarks about voting with his conscience, regardless of political consequences.

In his demeanor throughout the dialogue, Murphy showed depth of character and unwavering confidence in America. He also evidenced his nonpartisan spirit in discussing productive collaborations with Republican colleagues. Murphy has learned the value of those collaborations on a very personal level. His wife and mother are both committed Republicans. I know the latter well. We spent three precious years together at Immaculata and still treasure the bonds of friendship forged in those special years. Among the 114 then-young women in our class, Margie Rapone Murphy and I were two of the four Margaret Marys.

Reading “Taking the Hill” has renewed and strengthened my confidence that the future of America is bright because of young leaders like Patrick Murphy. Appreciating the values learned from his parents and teachers, he has been galvanized by coming of age in the dangerous and complex culture of our time. I am grateful to him, and to all of the courageous warriors who serve our country — in the barracks, on the battlefield, in the chambers of Congress, or in Bucks County.

And to help Patrick, click here.