Kerry Attacks MoveOn

The criticism of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry of MoveOn.org's ad criticizing the Congressional testimony of General Petraeus was particularly interesting. According to CNN, Kerry called the ad:

"over the top." "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.

"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.

These comments are extraordinary. This is an Administration which consistently implies that its critics do not support American soldiers. As reported by MSNBC, the President in a speech in Pennsylvania on 11/11/05: “As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them...” In his speech last month in Kansas City, Mo. to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush charged that his critics "would pull the rug out from under U.S.troops." And The Washington Post reported on November 17, 2005:

Speaking before a Washington dinner of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative research organization, Cheney said last night that Democrats who say they were misled by the administration are "making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war." The criticism, Cheney said, threatens to undermine the morale of U.S. troops while "a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

Kerry's comments also call into question the proper role of a United States Congressman in confronting an important issue. No Senator or Representative should be intimidated by any witness offering testimony to Congress. And that includes anyone in uniform.

At least now we understand better how pre-war claims made by the President and his supporters escaped scrutiny. And how Kerry remained passive in the face of Swift Boat claims about his war service while his opportunity to be President sailed away.

MoveOn Ad

MoveOn.org is receiving a lot of criticism for the ad, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", it posted in today's New York Times. Subtitled "Cooking the Books for the White House," it charged "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."

Predictably, as ABC reports, White House spokesman Tony Snow called it a "boorish, childish, unworthy attack." CNN notes a letter distributed "among Senators" and sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charging "the ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned." House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio contended "Democratic leaders must make a choice today: either embrace the character assassination tactics MoveOn.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful." (emphasis mine- without our knowledge, Petraeus apparently has been commanding American soldiers in the Khyber pass.) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, according to Politico.com, intoned "these childish attacks are an insult to everyone fighting for our freedom in Iraq" (our freedom?). Never one to miss an opportunity for demagoguery, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I.-Ct.) urged Democratic leaders to "denounce MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus." Even Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts joined in with "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that calls into question any active duty, distinguished general..."

So what is lacking in all the criticism? That would be any description, claim, or allegation that anything asserted in the ad is inaccurate. For good reason- MoveOn broke it down into nine different claims and cited reference(s) for each. The organization's critics, however, wisely adopted the characteristic style of this White House and avoided any uncomfortable association with the facts.

The Offensive John McCain

We all knew that John McCain was out of touch about the Iraq war, but this is ridiculous. At a Concord, New Hampshire high school on September 4, 2007, the 71-year-old Arizona Senator was asked "If elected, you'd be older than Ronald Reagan, making you the oldest President. Do you ever worry that, like, you might die in office or get Alzheimer's or some other disease that might affect your judgement?"

CNN reports that after making a self-deprecating joke and describing himself as a "24/7 worker," McCain ended by asserting "thanks for the question you little jerk, you're drafted."
Doesn't this guy know there is no draft? (And wasn't this in some form a predictable question, which the elderly McCain has been asked before?) Really, if we had a draft, the response still would be inappropriate to the question, obnoxious, and offensive, but also almost somewhat amusing. With none, the comment is merely inappropriate, obnoxious, and offensive, and not remotely amusing.

Quote Of The Week:

"Somebody besides corporate America has to start making policy in this country."

Lou Dobbs
"Lou Dobbs Tonight"
September 6, 2007

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a federal immigration judge in New York City on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 ruled that 33-year-old Zhen Xing Jian, formerly of mainland China and now of Philadelphia, Pa. will be allowed to remain in the U.S.A. Ms. Jian entered the United States illegally in 1995 and helped her husband run a restaurant they owned. Arrested unexpectedly by immigration authorities on February 7, 2006, Jian suffered a miscarriage in the process of being deported but has two sons who were born in the U.S.A. and therefore are American citizens. Less significant than the decision was the context: Jian and her husband (whose case is pending) had applied for political asylum because they feared repercussions, because of the Communist dictatorship's "one child" birth-control policy, if they returned to the mainland.

So the next time a politician, corporate mogul, or economist attacks opponents of the U.S. trade policy with our "partner," remember the mainland's great social experiment in controlling their population: in the words of one geographer, "abortion, neglect, abandonment and even infanticide" of female infants. And that democratic China sits just across the Taiwan Strait.

Just when you thought Mike Huckabee was starting to make sense or at least show some compassion, he pulled us back to reality when the discussion turned to Iraq at last night's Repub Presidential debate, sponsored by GOP TV. Recalling the political hay Rudy G. made when he faced off at an earlier debate and ridiculed Ron Paul's views on Iraq, Huckabee himself provoked Representative Paul on the war:


HUCKABEE: Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word...

(APPLAUSE)

... because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend.

And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there.

We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

PAUL: Can I respond...

(APPLAUSE)

HUME (?): Go ahead. You wanted to respond. He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond.

PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.

(APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.

(APPLAUSE)

So there you have it. We must remain in Iraq. Not because of national security, freedom of the Iraqis, nor (with apologies to delusional non-Zionists) because of Israel. No, more Americans must lose their lives as a sacrifice "to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military."

This is one of the arguments George W. Bush has trotted out to rationalize his war policy and was described originally in the Washington Post, and here reprinted in Slate.com, by Swarthmore College psychology professor Barry Schwartz as the "sunk-cost fallacy." Schwartz offers these "trivial" examples of the sunk-cost fallacy:
a)You have good tickets to a basketball game an hour drive away. There's a blizzard raging outside and the game is being televised. You can sit warm and safe at home by a roaring fire and watch it on TV, or yo can bundle up, dig out from your car, and go to the game. What do you do?
b)You've ordered too much food at the restaurant and there you are, completely stuffed, with a pile of pasta sitting on your plate. Do you clean your plate or not?

Psychologists and economists, Schwartz states, believe that the "right way to approach questions like these is only by looking to the future" and determining "what will give you more satisfaction." And in Iraq, he deduces, "the best way to show how much we respect and value (those who have died or been injured) is by refraining from sacrificing other lives in their name unless future prospects fully justify putting more people in harm's way."

But- and I don't say this often- credit must go to Mitt Romney. A few moments after the former Massachusetts governor stated "the surge apparently is working," John McCain argued "governor, the surge is working. The surge is working,sir." Romney shot back, "that's just what I said," to which McCain retorted "it is working. No, not 'apparently'; it's working."
It tells you something about the Repub Party, the Repub primary voters in New Hampshire, and, finally, Senator McCain himself, that a politician actually saying (with a straight face) "the surge is working" is deemed insufficiently hawkish. Eventually we'll find whether Romney, who was suggesting that we should approach General Petraeus' upcoming report with an open mind, is regarded as too thoughful by the Pepub electorate.

Senator Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) deserves credit for one thing. He was, as far as I can tell, the first individual publicly to note that Senator Larry Craig (R.-Id.) did not announce his resignation on Saturday, September 1, 2007, but merely his intent to resign. So on Fox News Sunday, Senator Craig stated "I'd still like to see Senator Craig fight this case... to go back to court, withdraw this guilty plea and fight this case."

If Specter had argued that Craig should not have been forced to resign because the people he represents- the people of the state of Idaho- should have been given the opportunity (at, say, an election, perhaps the upcoming one in November, 2008) to decide his fate, I would have agreed with him. Instead, the Pennsylvania Senator, citing his experience (years ago as District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia), contended "on the evidence Senator Craig wouldn't be found guilty of anything." What Specter left out- which he would understand better than most- was that if Craig were to have been found not guilty, it would not have been based on the evidence, but because Craig could have afforded an expensive and skilled lawyer who would have committed himself to his client. Not so most of the individuals, disproportionately poor, prosecuted by Specter's office in his previous life.

And while the former prosecutor is at it, perhaps he shouldn't claim Craig's "life is on the line." Some of the defendants facing serious felony charges pressed by Specter's office may have had their lives on the line, but not so his colleague- who at worst, will lose his job and face the ignominy of life as a well-paid lobbyist for the drug, insurance, or gun industries he has so vigorously carried water for in the United States Congress.