'Memo to Democrats: you control the Congress. That means you can decide what bills come to the floor for votes--and what don't. So why, in a week where Republicans blocked the restoration of habeas corpus, voting rights for DC and adequate rest time for our troops between deployments, did you allow Republicans the opportunity to score a cheap PR stunt by approving a resolution condemning a week-old newspaper ad by Moveon.org -- on the same day Republicans once again voted to keep indefinitely continuing the Iraq war?!'I hate to admit it, but part of the blame goes to California Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the finest public servants we have.
Boxer sponsored a competing resolution which condemned all political attacks on military figures. Her reasoning was, up to a point, sound. Why should Petraeus be treated as a saint while the right-wingers feel free to spew lies about Wes Clarke, John Kerry, and Max Cleland?
Boxer's bill went down for the count, even though many Democrats voted in favor of it.
Those same Dems were thus placed in a bind. How could they condemn all attacks on military figures without condemning the specific attack on Petraeus? Logically, you can't agree with the statement "All bank robbers deserve prison" while disagreeing with the statement "John Dillinger deserves prison." (Personally, I would have voted against both silly bills.)
Fairness dictated that if Boxer's bill came to a vote, the anti-MoveOn bill also deserved a vote.
Of course, the Republicans did not allow so quaint a concept as fairness to dictate such decisions during their years of control.
Hypocrisy fans, take heed! The January 24, 2004 issue of National Review printed these words about General Wesley Clark:
...he acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment.
Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It's their defining trait. A few years ago, the Army Command and Staff College ask during an informal survey "Would your division's commanding general throw his own mother under a bus if it would get him promoted?" 60% of the majors and colonels replied "Not only yes, hell yes!"The writer goes on to call Generals dull (as in "stupid"), arrogant and dishonest.
Will Congress pass a resolution against me if I opine that these descriptors apply not to General Clark but to General Petraeus?
2 comments:
I'm not sure that I agree with your logic here, Joe. From a constitutional perspective, a blanket condemnation of speech would be content-neutral. Content neutral infringements of speech are more likely to be upheld because Congress is regulating a particular type of speech without targeting an individual message. By creating a genre of speech, as Boxer did ("speech that denigrates the military"), she is not targeting a particular message. The Republican bill was content-based - it was targeted directly at the message of the Move-on ad. These kinds of prohibitions are strictly scrutinized by the Court, and usually found to be violations of the First Amendment.
I think that a principled stand for a senator would be to say, "I oppose the denigration of the military, but I will not single this ad out. Unless we are willing to discuss the Swift Boats, McCain, etc., I will not vote for it." Of course, the smart thing would have been for Reid to not let any of this get to the table. And another smart thing would have been for Move-On to learn something about framing issues - Petraeus is a Republican talking point. Why let him be the face of this war? Keep the focus on Bush, instead of letting him hide behind another general.
Sorry to rant, but the last two days have been incredibly frustrating. I hate watching Democratic infighting between the party and the far left. Move-on could have done a really effective ad after the State of the Union, showing the nation how Bush is playing a shell game with this war. They could have played clips of Bush saying, "we'll stand up when they stand down", juxtaposed with his new "Return on Success." They could have shown him in 2006 saying Iraq was on the verge of success, juxtaposed with him now saying that in 2006, before the surge, Iraq had almost fallen apart. They could have shown him using Colin Powell as a prop, ignoring all of the generals who spoke against the war, and thus undermined Petraeus before he even spoke. Instead, the Dems send out Jack Reed for a forgettable rebuttal speech, and Move-On runs ads practically calling a respected general a traitor. By doing so, Move-On shifted the debate from Iraq and Bush to the integrity of the sacred General Petraeus.
the greatest analysis of the Betray Us imbroglio is here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092107A.shtml
after that blistering and stirring attack on the Bush presidency I have ever heard. this is a tremendous antidote to the vile poisens that the media and the congress are sipping together.
Post a Comment