From GOP, Zero Tolerance For Democratic War Critics
By Charles Babington
Sunday, May 16, 2004; Page A05
Republicans have adopted a scorched-earth strategy toward Democrats who challenge the wisdom of the way the war in Iraq is being conducted. Such critics, GOP officials say, are not merely misguided but are craven cut-and-runners who help the enemy and put politics ahead of U.S. troops' safety.
Democrats say the Republicans are twisting facts and trying to stifle debate through intimidation. Not so, say the Republicans, who insist they are not questioning Democrats' patriotism, only their judgment and resolve. If accuracy and nuance sometimes fall victim to all this rhetoric, well, there's a war on, folks.
The ruckus began May 6, when Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) -- a hawkish, longtime defender of the Pentagon -- told reporters he believed the war in Iraq could not be won without sending in significantly more troops and equipment, which he advocated. "Our failure to surge in terms of troop level and resources needed to prevail in this war" has resulted in "what appear to be unattainable goals in our current path," Murtha said at the news conference, hosted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
House Republicans responded within minutes. "This morning, in a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democrat Party declared its surrender in the war on terror," said Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). "Out of sheer, brazen partisanship," House Democrats have "undermined our troops." Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.) said Democrats "are basically giving aid and comfort to our enemies."
Reporters pointed out that Murtha has consistently said the war was unsustainable only under the current policies, and that he urged massive troop buildups as a remedy. DeLay was unmoved. "If you don't give solutions," he said, "that is saying, 'Cut and run.'
Posted by P6 at May 16, 2004 12:02 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1847
Comments
DeLay's commment was unfair, partisan rhetoric - but that's part and parcel of Congress.
Democrats very successfully demagogued Republicans over Social Security/Medicare in a similar manner from about 1980-2004 to the point where it it is now extremely difficult to even propose modest and beneficial reforms or even have an intelligent discussion on the issue.
Does that make it right ? No, however in politics you need to be very careful about any campaign tactic you initiate because eventually, inevitably, it will come back to zing you. Democrats are getting zinged right now on the war because there is a grain of truth to the criticism - just like there was always a grain of truth in Democratic charges on SS/medicare.
Posted by mark safranski at May 16, 2004 12:30 PMWhich charge is there a grain of truth to? Treason? (giving aid and comfort to the enemy)? Being calulating and craven?
Nevermind that last one, that's just politics.
Thing is, there's demagoging and then there's demagoging. I don't remember any Democrats accusing Republicans of treason and as you may have noticed I have a startlingly good memory.
The fact is, what the Demoractic folks in Congress are saying about this international debacle is not a grain of truth but the simple truth. One that can't be denied. And THAT is why the Repuglicans (like DeLay) aren't trying to deny it, and why Republicans (like McCain) don't join them in their sliming.
"Thing is, there's demagoging and then there's demagoging."
And there's special-pleading as well ;o)
All politicians must be, if they are to be successful ones, calculating. Craveness is optional but all too common.
Actually, I hear the " treason " charge regularly being aimed at Bush over on Kevin Drum's comment boards- and if I'm not mistaken I recall impeachment articles being filed against Bush I over the Gulf War by Henry Gonzalez ( D-Tx.)
The point being that each party has it's partisan equivalents of hockey goons, it's corrupt pols, high minded statesmen and one-issue ideologues. In terms of functionality they operate in more or less the same fashion to serve differing constituencies with different philosophical premises.
You can try to make a case that behaviorally one party is " worse " than the other but it's not true except for the finite example you chose to select and becomes less true as you increase the time frame or widen the field of comparison. You say treason charges are reprehensible ? I say the 2000 commercials implying Bush was responsible for the dragging death of Byrd are beyond the pale.
Overall, despite ideological polarization, both parties are relatively cleaner, less corrupt, more transparent and more small "d" democratic than they ever have been. You only have to go back to the late 1960's and early 70's to be in the era where politicians took campaign donations in the form of briefcases full of cash from secretive billionaires.
Posted by mark safranski at May 17, 2004 12:49 AMActually, I hear the " treason " charge regularly being aimed at Bush over on Kevin Drum's comment boards
Hell, at least we have a reason. If Bush had merely gotten some head instead of sinking us into this Middle East madness, he'd have my full support.
I say the 2000 commercials implying Bush was responsible for the dragging death of Byrd are beyond the pale.
Yeah, in this particular case, I'd say the problem was more Texas than Bush.
Overall, despite ideological polarization, both parties are relatively cleaner, less corrupt, more transparent and more small "d" democratic than they ever have been.
True, but the Republican ideology is dangerous since the neocons took over.
You only have to go back to the late 1960's and early 70's to be in the era where politicians took campaign donations in the form of briefcases full of cash from secretive billionaires.
Here you're wrong. You don't have to go back more than four years.
Posted by P6 at May 17, 2004 12:00 PMWell there's a difference between the FEC regulations and declared contributions, however byzantine and the hijinks documented by Robert Caro in his LBJ trilogy or Stanley Kutler's books on Nixon when it was literally grocery bags full of cash from unknown sources. Or organized crime participation in union and/or local politics. It was a different era.
Posted by mark safranski at May 17, 2004 04:13 PMDifferent era. Okay. I judge pre-Civil War folks by different standards than current ones so I can get with that.
Judging by the standards of this era, Republicans suck. The whole bit of preventing Democratic senators from even reading the bills they have to vote on is extarordinarily manipulative and foul. Not to mention stupid for the very reasons you cite above.