Last week the Honorable John Murtha (D-PA) detailed the following plan for withdrawing U.S. service men and women from Iraq:
- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
In an emotional speech, the retired 37-year Marine corpsman and colonel asserted...
The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."
These are the words of man, who, according to the bio on his website...
... is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is ranking member and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective.
Clinton Goes Her Own Way
Today, Hillary Clinton called Jack Murtha's assertion, "a big mistake".
She went on to say that "the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq `until the job is done' amounts to giving the Iraqis `an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.'
What Senator Clinton did is wrong for a number of reasons:
- First, Senator Clinton is undercutting the most persuasive and credible Democratic voice against the war.
- Second, judging by the two quotes from her above, she seems to want to triangulate herself between Murtha and other Democrats on one point and the Bush Administration on the other.
- Third, the Senator is giving the Republicans a talking point and playing into their frame of the issue.
The talking point is that Democrats are essentially not speaking as one voice on the withdrawal issue. While it is true that we don't all agree that there should be withdrawal tomorrow or next week, we've seen that Murtha's plan isn't an "all or nothing" proposal, it is quite comprehensive. Still, the Republican frame of the issue (which the media seems to be buying) boils down to
irresponsible immediate withdrawal vs. finishing the mission.
This frame works really well for the Republicans because they can pretty much define what completing the mission means whenever it is convenient for them to do so. Heck, they could decide that the December 15th election signifies that the mission is complete, and it's possible that Senator Clinton would agree with them:
Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over.
"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.
So Senator Clinton has played right into Republican hands, providing more evidence that she is increasingly irrelevant in the post-DLC Democratic Party; that she is comfortable going her own way on issues even she hurts the Party; that she has little respect for the Party, and even less for the Party's grassroots.
SIDE NOTE: As I write this, I see that Senator Biden came out and said essentially the same thing. While just as galling, Biden's action is less relevant because he isn't considered the favorite to win the Party's nomination in 2008.