Doug Wiken, whose blog I frequently enjoy and with whom I have exchanged pleasantries in the past, took exception to my post of yesterday. I said this:
It is an article of faith in the Democratic High Church that the Bush Administration, along with Republicans and conservatives in general, question the patriotism of anyone who questions the Iraq war. ...So far, I have not seen a any piece of evidence that anyone in the Administration or any other reputable Republican questioned anyone's patriotism because that person opposed the war.
Doug's reply so thoroughly confirms my point that I can't resist going line by line. Here is his opening:
Good Grief, Nearly every current GOP attack and projection all crammed into one post. Quite an accomplishment.
Thank you.
No Bush administration attempts to paint war opposition as unpatriotic? Where has Blanchard been sleeping?
I will ignore the second question as an unprovoked attack on my morality. As for the first, I notice that when someone thinks he can back up an accusation he begins: "well just listen to this, and I quote..." That's what I did when I quoted the MoveOn add. When someone doesn't think he can back up what he said, he begins: "everybody knows it, or where have you been sleeping," etc. Well, I am awake now. But I am from just south of Missouri, so you have to show me most of the time.
"Patriot's Day" is one nice example and the use of it for purely partisan attacks was and is obvious. Bush,Inc. wraps its corporate greed in the flag.
Doug is a bit confused here. "Patriot's Day" commemorates the battles of Lexington and Concord. "Patriot Day" is Sept.11th, designated by Congress as a national day of remembrance for the dead of 9/11. I fail to see how the fact of the holiday is an example of an attack on anyone's patriotism, except maybe Osama bin Laden, and I do question his love of America. Whether or not "Bush, Inc." has abused the holiday, the above sentence is another allegation without evidence. What did Bush or someone else say on Patriot Day that challenged someone's patriotism merely because that person criticized the war?
And, [Blanchard] apparently missed the news that NY Times is billing MoveOn the full regular price for political ads. Some are wondering if the "Swiftboater" attack on Kerry were always purchased at the full rate. I hope Blanchard will dig right into that one.
What Doug misses is this: when the NYTimes sends MoveOn a corrected bill it confirmed the fact that the original bill was too low and amounted to a de facto political contribution, just as I said. Much the same was true when the Clinton campaign returned the contributions of Mr. Hsu, it confirmed that at least the former considered the money to be tainted. As for the legality of the Times' original bill, I am on their side. I don't think that campaign contributions should be illegal. But the fact that they corrected the bill doesn't get them off, just as bank robber doesn't get to walk if he returns the money. I just think it's important to note that the paper of record was complicit in presenting the message of the MoveOn ad: that General Petraeus may be accused of treason because he defended the war.
As for the "Swift boat" thing, this is more vague innuendo. Kerry made his service in Vietnam a major item his case for the presidency, but he had padded his resume a bit. The Swiftboat ads exploited the latter fact. I can see why the success of that ad campaign still stings.
And then there were the Bush attacks on Max Cleland, who lost several limbs as a solder, as being unpatriotic.
The Cleland/Chambliss campaign is the most frequently mentioned evidence of wounded patriotism, but I have never seen it grounded in anything other than a single campaign commercial. There is in fact not a single word in that commercial that questions Senator Cleland's patriotism. What it did question was his voting record. That is what campaigns are supposed to be about.
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and the Bush administration is full of them..starting at the top.
Actually, the last refuge of a scoundrel is for the scoundrel to announce he is suffering from some kind of addiction and then check himself into a clinic. Another refuge is to treat any criticism whatsoever as an attack on one's patriotism. It helps to build an image of wounded patriotism out of thin air by repeating over and over again the same charge without ever producing a shred of evidence. It doesn't help to do, flamboyantly, exactly what you accuse the other side of doing by accusing an American general of treason because you expect him to defend a war.
I would be amazed if there were not, somewhere out there, cases where Republicans have attacked the patriotism of someone because he or she criticized the war, or the Bush Administration's terrorism policies. Given the ineptitude of the latter on many fronts, you would expect them to make that mistake. But if they have, Doug Wiken doesn't seem to know about it.
Recent Comments