Monolithic Patriotism?
As I started to say yesterday, it looks like we're going back to the future. Everywhere you look these days, there's a spirited effort by agents of the Right (including their media mouthpieces and blogosphere echo chamber) to bring up the old charges about those opposed to the war being unpatriotic or "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." From the quotes I included in my last entry, you have a good idea on what I think about that. Did I forget to mention the charges of treason? That's another gift that keeps on giving.
The whole charade of crying "unpatriotic" is always suspicious. The people making the charge doth protest too much, methinks. It's like something right out of The Manchurian Candidate (the original). It started out as a simple message - you have to back your president, his decision to go to war and his execution of the war, or else you hate your country. The problem with that message is that people have been reminded that it wasn't really heeded by Republicans (including Bush himself) during the Clinton years. They were also reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's words: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." So the message has been tweaked - healthy dissent of the war is okay (whatever that means), but those who claim that the administration lied or misrepresented intelligence in the leadup to the war are lying and politicizing the efforts of the brave fighting men and women. There's that projection thing again.
Look, there has been a lot of back and forth about what the Democrats who supported the war knew, and if they are going back on what they previously stated for political expediency - or maybe their original support for the war was for political expediency. I suspect that there are a few like that, and I hope Democrats hold them accountable. But the oft-repeated talking point that they "saw the same intelligence as the president" is sheer nonsense, as explained here and here. Plus, no matter what statements were made by Democratic politicians years ago, or what authority they gave the president to use force (for leverage), it was Bush's decision to actually go ahead and use that force. And it is on him if he misused intelligence, a charge for which there is ample evidence. I know people who supported the war and believe that the administration did indeed exaggerate the WMD threat, but that there were other good reasons to go to war and the ends justify the means. I suppose they also think that it's okay for police to plant evidence on their suspects in order to garner a conviction. I just don't buy any of that. As for the charge of politicizing the war, there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides, from the military and administration right to the Democrats. I'm not defending anybody who does it, but that seems to be the reality these days.
Since the deed has been done, it is vital to find the right way to complete the mission. I'm not a proponent of cut-and-run, but I do think that objectives need to be clearly defined. Sen. Russ Feingold had the right idea, in which you set those objectives in a timely manner. It seems to conform more with the respected Powell Doctrine than the chaos that is happening now. The point is, there is nothing unpatriotic or treasonous in saying that staying the current course in the war is wrong. And there's nothing unpatriotic or treasonous in questioning how the war was started. History might be the ultimate judge, but it will be too late for justice.
posted by Jaymeister at 11/15/2005 09:12:00 p.m.
5 Comments:
Jay,
I think in many instances, Democrats jump to the defensive and indignantly whine that their patriotism is under attack. Not all Republicans are questioning their patriotism, but rather their lack of judgment in how they express their dissent.
Even if the Bush critics are right in calling into question, such matters as pre-war intell as well as, say, prisoner abuse and the way the conduct of the war has been managed, I don't see why it is so hard to connect the dots that some of the way in which this Administration has come under fire by its own citizens does in fact affect the way in which the enemy engages us; and affects the morale of the terrorists.
But the oft-repeated talking point that they "saw the same intelligence as the president" is sheer nonsense, as explained here and here.
By custom and essentially by law, the PDBs cannot be shared outside of the White House and outside of a very small inner circle. The PDBs that President Bush received, if anything, were more certain of the weapons.
The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Judged Not To Have Different Intelligence Than The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Provided To Congress, Which Represented The Collective Opinion Of The Intelligence Community.
The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not "Markedly Different" Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. "It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, p. 14)
* The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In "More Alarmist" And "Less Nuanced" Language. "As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community's biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, p. 14)
Hi Jay,
Yeah, I agree it's dumb to label questioning authority as unpatriotic. But what I'm personally opposed to is the public assertions by Democrats--e.g. Ted Kennedy--that the current situation is a "quagmire" and that the troops must "immediately withdraw" (his words).
Just to be clear, do you believe that this does _not_ give "aid and comfort to the enemy?"
Wordsmith:
Either of us can cut and paste stuff that supports our claims. I think we'll probably agree to disagree.
Ryan:
Refer to my Taft quote.
Jay,
Again, I agree wholeheartedly with Taft's (and your) assertion that the right to criticise must be maintained. Absolutely.
However, what I was asking is if you believe that the statements by Ted Kennedy and others--that Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire--is of no benefit to the enemy?
I am not arguing the right to criticise, but rather the substance of the criticism.
Ryan.
If your question is whether Kennedy's comments (and those of Clinton et al.) might serve to embolden the enemy in the short term, then I'd say they probably do. But these are people who want to steer policy in a way that they believe will cause things to work out better in the long run and ultmately defeat the enemy. They may be right, and they may be wrong. But that is why I referred to Taft's quote specifically.
Post a Comment
<< Home