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. My Keloland and NSU Emeritus colleague, David Newquist, gives us a good example.
The B[ush]-Corps says that if presidential candidates do not denounce MoveOn.org, they are insulting every American soldier and harming America. Do not doubt for a moment that their accusations of being unpatriotic and against the military are not effective. The U.S. Senate bowed down and peed its collective pants. At least 72 of the Senators did.
Typically, Professor Newquist provides not a single citation to back up his claim. So far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that anyone in the Administration or any other reputable Republican questioned anyone's patriotism because that person opposed the war. Sometimes faith is what Mark Twain said it was: believing in something you know ain't true.
But we now have a pretty good example of a powerful group on the left questioning the patriotism of an American general because he was expected to defend the war. MoveOn.org, a major financial backer of the Democrats, placed an add in the New York Times in advance of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress. The add ended with these words:
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
MoveOn is unambiguously, if in a goofy way, accusing General Petraeus of treason for offering a different view of the Iraq war from their own. If that isn't an example of attacking someone's patriotism because of his view of the war, I can't imagine what one would look like.
But the story gets better. The NYTimes has grudgingly admitted, according to the AP, that it violated its own policy by publishing an add "involving attacks of a personal nature." That is a matter of self-imposed standards and hypocrisy. It may well be a matter of legality that the Times also gave MoveOn a sweet deal, charging them $65,000 instead of the standard $142,000 for the add. That $77,000 discount amounts to a de facto political contribution, and may have been illegal. Now I am opposed to limits on campaign contributions, but the NYTimes is in favor of them. Ain't politics entertaining?
There is also the not so small matter that the NYTimes is going belly-up financially. But apparently they can still afford 77 big ones to attack the patriotism of an American general.
Recent Comments