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.

Comments

[fletchlaw]

This is depressing. Once again the Dems allow themselves to be put on defense. The MoveOn.org ad is a non-issue, but it becomes an issue for a Hannity-style smear attack. When will we wise up? The most effective response to a demand that someone else's statement be repudiated is to ask the demander ... why? Why should we play this game where I am supposed to respond to any statement you cherry-pick and, if I don't or if I don't distance myself or otherwise respond in a way you think is appropriate, I end up looking like I endorse the statement. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Maybe some of it I do, maybe some of it I don't. What the hell difference does it make? Shouldn't I be held accountable only for what I say or do, or sponsor, not what some other person or organization says or does? Turn the table on the questioner. Otherwise, the game goes on forever, real issues don't get discussed, and real solutions never get proposed.

[Not Blind]

In their eagerness to NOT appear as "soft" on terrorism, the Democrats AND media have been "too soft" on this administration, and has allowed Bush to elude accountability throughout his "reign." If the administration and Congress are so concerned about the military, why did they not pass the bill to allow service personnel to have a break (home-time) at least as long as they are in a war zone? Why are the V.A. and military hospitals in such deplorable condition? Why are our enlisted personnel being denied adequate pay, benefits or adequate equipment (armor, etc) with which to protect themselves from death or maiming? Why do these brave people in uniform find themselves denied post-service benefits (G.I. bill for education or disability benefits)? How and why did nearly 200,000 weapons disappear (under Patreas' watch) from the arsenals, which are probably being used to kill our own U.S. troops? Where is the $18-billion Paul Bremmer said was "lost" which could have been used to provide better equipment, pay and benefits for our troops?
Mr. Bush "pimped" Patreaus as being the author of the assessment (written by the White House) knowing his own credibility is nill. Bush is the coward who can't stand with a backbone and peddle his own snake-oil. Bush's politicizing the military and using the reputation of the once-honorable Patreaus (who is "just following orders" akin to the Nuremburg Nazi defendants) for his self-serving political aims is what triggered the response. While the ad's tone was harsh, the facts (evidence) is accurate, according to the National Intelligence Agency and Government Accountability Office. Their facts don't come close to the hand-picked story of "progress" Patreaus presented. Like Colin Powell, David Patreaus allowed himself to be used as a pawn in this "game" and used skewed, inaccurate or false information to sell the administration's agenda and perpetuate a catastrophe for the sake of stalling until the next administration comes into the White House, and will have to deal with the fallout. Talk about cowardice and "passing the buck."

[Bondaroid]

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.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Hitler was as much a Socialist as Bush is a Compassionate Conservative.

Playing with words does not change FACTS.

[Meatloaf]

They weren't socialists, they were fascists. Look up fascism in a dictionary and you'll find it's a merger between state and corporate interests, kind of like whct Bushco is up to with Halliburton and co.

Look in a mirror beofre it's too late.

[daddysboy]

Someone that pays for illegal prostitution and continues to work for the senate shouldn't be cosigining a bill limiting free speech.

[Raster]

Coward oozes from every pore of too many Dem politicians. Dems as a party have no serious unity of purpose.

[mtburke59]

Here is a list this group may find fun to read:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
From a comment on: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/senate-hypocrisy-moveon/

The 23 names here include Lieberman, officially an independent. I have seen this list elsewhere and believe it is accurate.

A very disappointing list. By the way, the site I got this from starts with a discussion about how many in the Senate complain of wasting time on useless resolutions. Go figure.

Question: How many of these are up for re-election in November 2008? "My" senator on the list, Salazar, is not and if he thinks I will forget this and other things he has done, he is wrong even though he is not up until 2012. I urge all of you to remember this when these shining examples of Democratic adherence to constitutional rights appear on the ballot again.

[daddysboy]

Why are any liberals, Democrat party members, independents, or progressives talking about this at all? Americans should be continuing to criticize the lies and uncovering the additional treachery that is no doubt taking place unabated while we ponder the civility of speaking out against the propaganda machine. Let the "pundits" on fake noise continue to blather about honor and integrity knowing they have none and let's get back to the issues.

[Dansden]

Why would the uniform of a general in the U.S. Armed Services make a person immune to the basic human integrity and credibility of truth and honesty? General Petraeus has proven BY HIS OWN WORDS and DEEDS that he was A WILLING POLITICIAN IN THE PURSUIT AND PROMOTION OF THIS WAR...His superior, General Fallon, spoke his mind freely because of his integrity and credibility and called Petraeus a 'ass-licking chickenshi­t'...NOW, that's a GENERAL I can respect- one who speaks the TRUTH to FALSEHOOD and DECEPTION!

MOVEON.ORG did AMERICA a service by speaking TRUTH TO FALSEHOOD and DECEPTION of PUPPY DOG PETRAEUS and KING GEORGIE!

[mtburke59]

Yep, they did a service and should be applauded for it. Trouble is, they made a fundamental error. Calling Gen. Petraeus by the too-clever-by-half nickname Betrayus simply gave the right wingers and the administration as well as a craven clatch of congresspeople an excuse to attack the form rather than actually deal with the substance, which is that this whole flipping mess is blowing up in our faces. More than 7 out of 10 Americans want us out and even more of the Iraqis want to see the back of us.

Now, I am not so foolish as to believe that if MoveOn.org had dropped the name-calling and only stuck to the facts, they would not be under the puerile attack of this pack of hyenas. But they would have been forced to attack facts, which can be shown correct, rather than hide behind a sham.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Mr Bush is the best President the US has ever had.

He found a place of safety while the 911 attacks were happening so that he could appear later for a photo op. After a foray into Afghanistan he ordered the attack on Al Queda in Iraq so we don't have to fight them over here. So far more American youths have died and been dismembered there than on 911, which means we are winning the war on terror. And the price of oil has gone up to an all time high. Very profitable.

Don't you see that more young Americans must be sacrificed to justify the deaths already incurred ? You liberal and progressives just do not get it. Put your faith in God and remember
"yours is not to reason why, but do or die"

[BostonPatriot]

The hypocracy of this President and his party knows no bounds. It is disgusting how he politicizes the military. How does he sleep at night? This blog is DEAD on!!! Where was the indignatio when Kerry and Cleland were criticized??? Jeeesh.

[Nyla785]

The public has already been 'colin-powelled' once--do the Republicans think that putting a man with a lot of repute and a lot of medals on his chest is enough to guarantee integrity? Not anymore. Petraeus was clearly being 'the good soldier' as Powell was. He was pleasing his boss.

[The Collinbrandt]

It looks like the the Bush people can lead Democrats around in some sick twisted game of follow the leader and who cares about the rest of the American people. Each capitulation to Bush brings the Democratic party closer to defeat next year, just as it did when the Democratic Senate voted to let our leader take our nation into an unending no win war.

Democrats are foolish to believe that attacking Bush is going to make people upset. It will make people upset but, the people who are upset will never vote for any Democrat ever so who cares about their feelings. The people offended will do anything for power and should never be underestimated in their mastery of propaganda and spin.

If Democrats and Independents are going to win this ugly battle of freedom vs. Bush et. al., then we can acknowledge no weakness and must use every opportunity to fight back.

Each time Bush hides behind the soldigers in the field, then his own military records should be brought up along with the deferments of our Vice President.

[FranktheDem]

Paul, you are absolutely, unequivically correct in your assessment of Bush. I would differ with you regarding him as the stereotypical bully. Granting that a bully is spineless, he attacks personally anyone smaller than he, but ole Bushy is even more spineless. He uses surragates and hides behind them. In my opinion, Bush has surrounded himself (a money grubbing traitor) with a complete cabal of like minding draft evaders who would have others to do their fighting for him.
It kinda brings to mind when I and a hundred thousand other protestors were marching in Washington, there were a few hundred other cowards slinging words like "wusses", "love the USA or leave it", etc., etc. One such directed at me "Gramps, you are a &#@* and you should go back home and knit!". I walked over to him and said "You twerp, I served in the military during Korea. Why aren't you in Iraq, if you feel so strong about it?" He became strangely quiet. (And so it goes with these chicken hawks.)
As my wife so aptly puts it "The neo-cons can dish it out, but yell 'foul!' when it is fed back to them."

[TellitLikeItIs]

Loved your response to the punk, "Gramps" :-)

[DanielJP]

You said it all here. I think a message should be sent to these sudio-democrate's. "REMEMBER NOVEMBER." Their approval rating is lower than Bush's. I think it is time in 2008 to vote for 3rd party canidates for both House and Senate.

[coloneblog]

You've got to be kidding, 22 Democratic Senators sided with Republicans on the "MoveOn" resolution? The Democrats are amazing, they're all still acting like the minority party; they all suffer from the Kerry Syndrome. First-off, the "Betray Us" ad was both effective and correct. Secondly, bush and the Republicans continue to politically play the Dems all like a violin; they continue to make them look like losers. Geez! I won't donate to the DCCC but I fully intend to support "MoveON." End the friggin war; it's killing us!

Albert Colone
Oneonta, NY 13820

[Podewumun]

Maybe we need to pass a LAW giving our elected Senators the right to ABSTAIN from voting!...­oh, they do...never mind.

[irishmail42]

Democrats should condemn the MoveOn spot at the same time they condemn Bush and his supporters smearing the military service of his political opponents. Democrats should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. Even though it will probably be too late with too little. The sad fact is that if the Democrats had condemned the Bush tactics with vigor when they began years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion it at present.

[wilburbudd]

They should not only NOT be going after MOVE ON, but they shouldn't be going after Patreaus either. He is military man, and from I can see, a pretty damn good one. And he is following orders. GOOD! I don't want guys in charge of my military, or even in my military, that don't follow orders, or PLAN for war.
The General is doing his job. BUSH and CHENEY are the ones who should be horse-whipped about the face and head for a minimum of 14,000 lashes each for putting him that position in the first place. The military's job is NOT diplomacy. IT'S DERFENCE and WAR. Bush's Freaking job is diplomacy, and he and DICK don't possess a nano-byte of it between them. They are both balligerent little pricks who have limp little pricks, and the sooner the American people wash this filth from our White House the better. Why do we ALWAYS forget that the damn President is an EM-PLO- YEE! GET IT, FOLKS? HE WORKS FOR US.
And it's high damn time we fired him. Them.