Democrats Should Attack Bush, Not MoveOn
Before a single Democrat condemns MoveOn's ad, they should insist that George W. Bush and the Republican Party repudiate the anti-military smears on war heroes that have been the hallmark of Mr. Bush's political career.
Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now.
Mr. Bush is, as he likes to say, a loving guy. But by golly the MoveOn.org ad criticizing Gen. David Petraeus has him madder than Larry Craig in a pay toilet.
When a "reporter" asked him a loaded question about the MoveOn ad (not mentioning, for example, that Petraeus wrote an op-ed in support of the Bush Iraq policy a few weeks before the 2004 election), Bush swung for the fences. But then again, he's always been pretty good at T-Ball - and this was definitely teed up for him.
He slammed MoveOn, repeating language he used Wednesday in a meeting with right-wing columnists, saying that criticizing Petraeus is tantamount to attacking the entire US military, and expressing astonishment that leading Democrats have not attacked MoveOn as courageously as Bush has.
Before Democrats fall all over themselves to agree with a president whose trust and honesty rating from the American people is even lower than his IQ, let's look at the real record of Bush's cowardice when it comes to speaking out against attacks on military heroes:
- In the 2000 South Carolina primary, George W. Bush stood next to a man described as a "fringe" figure - a man who had attacked Bush's own father - at a Bush rally. With Bush applauding him, the man said John McCain "abandoned" veterans. McCain, who was tortured in a North Vietnamese POW camp, was incensed. Five U.S. Senators who fought in Vietnam, including Democrats John Kerry, Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey, condemned the attack and called on Bush to repudiate it. When pressed on it at a debate hosted by CNN's Larry King, Bush meekly muttered that he shouldn't be held responsible for what others say. Even when he's standing next to them at a Bush rally.
- In the 2002 campaign, draft dodger Saxby Chambliss ran an ad with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then said Sen. Max Cleland lacked courage. Max Cleland left three limbs in Vietnam as an Army captain. Mr. Bush's political aide, Karl Rove, later refused to disavow the ad, saying, "President Bush and the White House don't write the ads for Senate candidates."
- Also in the 2002 campaign, the PAC for the Family Research Council, a close Bush ally, ran an ad in South Dakota that pictured Sen. Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein. "What do Saddam Hussein and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle have in common?" the ad asked. Apparently, they both opposed drilling in the Arctic wilderness. First, I had no idea that supporting drilling in the wilderness is a family values issue. Second, I have seen no reporting on the late Iraqi dictator's position on Alaska drilling. But I do know Tom Daschle is an Air Force veteran. Mr. Bush never disavowed the smear.
- But perhaps the worst was what was done to John Kerry. Kerry earned five major medals in combat: the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. And yet supporters of Bush and Cheney decided to smear his war record. The despicable, dishonest Swift Boat attacks alleged that Kerry fabricated reports that earned him the Bronze Star. The Swifties also suggested that Kerry's wounds were insignificant - and that one was even self-inflicted. Kerry's wounds were certainly more serious than Mr. Bush's, who suffered a cut on his finger from popping a beer can while avoiding his duty in the Alabama National Guard. At the 2000 GOP convention, rich, white Republicans were photographed gleefully putting Band-Aids with purple hearts on their chubby cheeks. Mr. Bush refused to condemn the attack - blandly noting he didn't like 527 groups generally - and later nominated one of the men who financed the smear to be Ambassador to Belgium.
Mr. Bush is a coward and a bully. He knows he'll never be the kind of hero his father was. He knows he lacks the heroism of John Kerry or Max Cleland, so he overcompensates with bluster and bravado. In fact, he told bloggers recently that he wishes he were fighting in Iraq. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin reported that Bush told a blogger in Iraq that he'd like to be carrying a 50-pound pack and an M-16, but, "One, I'm too old to be out there. And, two, they'd notice me."
So Mr. Bush is too old to fight in Iraq, and he was too rich and well-connected to fight in Vietnam. But he's itchin' for a fight with a progressive interest group. Does anyone believe he'd have the same outrage if a right-wing group were attacking war heroes? Of course not.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you Mr. Bagala. Sometimes I think I am going crazy because I am the only one that can see what a hypocrite Bush is. I was a Clinton Supporter in both elections. I am an independent, because I will not let a person's party affiliation effect my vote for the best person for the job. When G.W. came along I thought, okay, everyone is talking about this guy maybe he is for real, then I listened to one of his stump speeches and I couldn't believe it. While I won't let party affiliation determine my vote, command of the english language is one of my criteria. I hope we will never again elect a president on the basis of who we would rather have to a barbecue.
According Paul Begala, "Mr Bush is a coward and a bully. He knows he will never be the kind of a hero his father was. He knows he lacks the heroism of John Kerry and Max Cleland. So he overcompensated with bluster and bravado." What Begala does not say is that despite all that, Bush, overly underestimated, has vanguished and laid waste--- along the way to the presidency---to every Democrat of major political consequence, Al Gore and John Kerry call to mind with unadulterared and persistent reminder of a lot more Democratic casualties to come as long as Bush is president. Unless they resolve the leadership crisis, Democrats cannot even begin to adequately respond to the dictates of our political system. Hence premier political strategists like Begala could go a long way toward making that happen, bearing in mind that Democrats recaptured the Congress from Republicans in a sweeping wave of anti-war national fervor. But this powerful national sentiment may have been beyond the ineffectual and incompetent leadership of the Democratic Party to manage and translate into legislative accomplisments. Thus their inability to understand the dynamics dictating the national sentiments against the war undermined their ability to hone strategies that would have allowed them to mount effective countermeasures against the pro-war conservative tactics which found expression within the context of strategic and tactical settings that operated in favor of the Republicans: the seasoned and effective Republican leadership; ineffectual and incomptent Democratic leadership; the powerful conservative propaganda machine, as well as the unchallenged and skillful employment of the the procedural mechanism of the legislatlve process to filbuster Democratic sponsored bills, the presidential veto, as well as the utilization of the legislative process to promulgate and trumpet the Republican narrative.
The thing that really fries me about our nation's discourse is that no one in the public media or the congress is stating the obvious. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Gonzales and there corporate cronies are war criminals, plain criminals and guilty of high treason. And I supose, we, the people, are to blame as well for our apathy. Impeachment is not bad for the country. It is a constitutional process meant to save the country.
22 democrats were happy to bend over so far for Bush yesterday that they were actually able to see the light at the end of their own Aholes.
unfortunately the light at the end of the tunnel leading us OUT OF IRAQ is still hidden...
but the senate WAS able, with their votes, to protect and defend America from the scurge of
the constitutional right of the people to speak truth to power.
is it ANY wonder Bush's version of "democracy' isnt taking hold in Iraq...they must be thinking 'we already lived for decades under a government that would condemn us (to death) for daring to speak freely"
I cast my vote in support of MoveOn and I just want the Democrats to seriously consider whether devoting time in the Senate to condemning free speech helps this democracy in any way imaginable.
We are back to the same tired old argument to watch our rhetoric in order not to inflame the opposition. This is pure nonsense. Do they keep their rhetoric in check. ("Cut and Run",
"Flip Flop", "San Fran Nan", "Tax and Spend Democrats", etc.) I am sorry but I think that the reference to the good General is funny. Actually I thought of it on my own and some of my posts referred to him as General Betray us too. Even before the Move On. Org piece. In fact I was upset with them too for not giving me credit! Actually, I am sure many others seized the opportunity his name gave us. Poor bugger has a name that invites this. Bet he got the same thing in the Academy. The rhetoric may have been invective, but invective rhetoric is not unique to the "Democrat" party as the President calls the "opposition" which is really no opposition at all. He should be thanking the Dems for all their recent lap sitting. What a disgusting bunch of whimps! I am voting third party unless Edwards, Obama or Richardson is nominated. No Hillary for me.
Giordano
Chambliss can attack a war veteran, triple amputee and we hear nothing out of the GOP or the feds, but this is supposed to be beyond measure?!?!
]"Not saying to much for the Democrats are you? And you need another reference because Hitlers party was a Socialist party which is the cousin to the Democratic Party."
Wrong, Bondaroid. Hitler's NAZI party was right wing. Your side of the aisle. His was a fascist party, that hunted down and killed socialists, and constantly called them enemies of the state. He was always in direct opposition to the left. Always. He never wavered from that.
Righties need to accept the truth. They are on the same side of the aisle as Hitler. Period.
MoveOn has a petition on this, as you know - go over and add your view and signature. Here's what I wrote:
Our Founding Fathers, who were light-years ahead of today's congresspersons in awareness, knew of the Hermetic Virtues: to Know, to Will, to Dare, to Keep Silent. MoveOn represents the Democratic wing of the the Democratic party - we Dare to stand up against the Dark forces that seek to Keep us Silent. Our time has come... The opposition dark ones, the vampires, cannot stand the light and you know the old saying, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" We dare you ... and will keep on daring you to do the will of the people whom you are charged to serve.
Wow Paul - Right on with this one - I think we all know where the Roves. Wolfowitz, Hannity and the rest of their ilk are coming from. Certainly far more dangerous are the so called independents or a certain type of democratic who still enjoy spouting the repug party line: "Finish our mission" - "We just can't pull out our troops" on and on. These so called progressives are our true fifth column and maybe our Quislings (remember him). HILLARY WHO ??
Paul...why don't you send a copy of this article to all of those Senators who voted to censure moveon.org's Petraeus ad. I saved the list and will show it to my grandchildren when they are old enough to understand the definition of a coward: in his case, one who eschews doing the right thing so he/she can remain in office. What cowards. Makes me feel a lot better about Clinton.
You got that right, they are cowards.
How did a Congress controlled by Democrats vote overwhelmingly in favor of Gen. Petraeus to take on the surge without any questioning of his past actions, like his partisan-timed op/ed just prior to the '04 Presidential election?
How did that same Congress, controlled by Democrats, end up holding hearings on Iraq on 9/11?
How did that same Congress not ask the penetrating questions necessary to get Gen. Petraeus to admit, under oath, of the role the White House played in orchestrating his report?
How did that same Congress not ask the General whether he believed the new tactic of cutting deals with Sunni insurgents, who had previously been murdering American soldiers, was morally right and, if it was acceptable to him, how cutting deals with people opposed to a Shi'ite-led national government advanced the likelihood of a resolution to the warfare between and among Sunnis and Shi'ites that is currently going on?
Why is it that no Democratic candidate for President, let alone a generic Congressional Democrat, has the guts to take a podium and slam the President for insulting the troops with his treatment of them, including:
the lack of protective armor
the lack of fair pay
the lack of fair time off from combat
the lack of proper health care and the now infamous Walter Reed affair
and much more....
When will the Democrats stand up and be counted?
The Demopublicans have let us down on every issue. Where are the real Democrats? I appalled at the Demopublicans betrayal of what they were elected to do in the last election. Mr. Begala, you are exactly right!
I am in total agreement with your sentiments BUT... Liberals and progressives have to keep their eye on the prize, Election Night 2008. The demographics say that the middle, undeclared voters still hold the sway. THEY are the real deciders. Ads and commentary like the one that Move-On ran pushes those voters away, in what numbers we don't know. It's a risk we shouldn't take.
Can we afford Guiliani or Romney? How about losing even one legislator? Anybody checked the Supreme Court lately? The last election ruined this country for my children and yours for decades to come. We have to play to the middle, its the only chance we have.
Ghouliani has made millions with his security company.
Wake up.
Security = Mercenary
No wonder he wants the war to continue.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
