Sully on Murtha
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, WarSome perspective is needed in this new debate. Andy Sullivan gives it.
It seems to me it would be more helpful if Republicans and conservatives offered positive arguments for how to do better instead of attacking every critic as a wuss, unpatriotic, inconsistent, or worse. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marines. He voted for the war. But, unlike some, he kept his eyes open and he’s reflecting genuine, real, patriotic worries about the war among many Americans. If he’s worried, we all should be. It doesn’t speak very well of the pro-Bush right that their first instinct is to ignore him and their second to dismiss him.
Indeed. But hey, this is politics. They need to keep up appearances and fair enough. However, that doesn’t mean the blogosphere needs to follow their lead like a good little sheepdog.
In short, ask hard questions of our leaders. Make political hay. It’s your duty as an American citizens to make sure our leaders know exactly what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 18th, 2005 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. -Samuel Johnson
I think Bush et al are living, breathing examples of Johnson’s thesis. When a standup guy like Murtha challenges their policies they compare him to Michael Moore:
Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.
This is why Bush is at 34%. His arrogance and stubborness turn people off. If he doesn’t start to treat those who question his policies like adults then it will be a long three years in the WH for him.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:51 am
…and the Dem party is at a rating of 25% and the Rep party is at a rating of 27%……the people are pretty disgusted with everyone I would think…..
But back on topic:
Of course the attack is not on Murtha himself as a person but on the position he takes (“run away!”) by comparing it correctly with the position that the Far Left takes.
‘Blue’ simply does not want a debate about the policy, rather he wants it to be about Bush’s ‘arrogance and stubborness’ in not agreeing with the Far Left’s cut & run position.
Does ‘Blue’ deny that the ‘run away’ position IS NOT the policy of the Far Left & that Murtha’s re-statement of that “run away” policy (old, see he statements from 2004) is somehow different?
Calling the President a ‘scoundrel’ after complaining about personal attacks is funny too….
This&That
November 18th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Just because these two things line up does not mean it’s right (or fair) to bunch Murtha in with the anti-war, far left.
But hey, I don’t think we should have gone into Iraq because I didn’t think the intelligence was sound enough and thought it defocused us from the real threats. Does that make me a far leftie? I even supported Dean because he was the only one who said, “Hey, this doesn’t make any sense.” Looking back on it now, his rheotric was bloated and distended, but the core message was fairly accurate.
Listen, this issue has no easy answers. That much is sure. And I’ve given up on all the quotes about patriotism and what not. But I do think as Americans we have a duty to question our leaders. And I’ll continue to do it regardless of what anybody on the right or left may say about it.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
‘Blue’ simply does not want a debate about the policy, rather he wants it to be about Bush’s ‘arrogance and stubborness’ in not agreeing with the Far Left’s cut & run position.
First, I don’t happen to agree with Murtha. I think we should stay in Iraq until there is at least some reason to believe it won’t fall into chaos once we leave. If you want a policy debate about leaving right now you need to have it with someone else.
Second, the discussion can be about Bush’s arrogance/stubbonress and Iraq. The two topics are not mutually exclusive.
Does ‘Blue’ deny that the ‘run away’ position IS NOT the policy of the Far Left & that Murtha’s re-statement of that “run away� policy (old, see he statements from 2004) is somehow different?
I do not deny it. Why do you suppose McClellen mentioned Micheal Moore when he responded to Murtha’s comments?
Calling the President a ’scoundrel’ after complaining about personal attacks is funny too….
After reading your comment I can see how that would strike you as funny.
Thanks for responding to my comment. Have a great day ‘This&That’.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
No one is saying that one can not question one’s leaders. Point me to any quote by any Bush offical (or Bush himself) where this is claimed. In fact, Bush and others take great pains in saying that questioning leaders is a good thing. But questioning the policy positions of other politcal opponents is fair game (at least I hope it is).
Claiming that a statement pointing out that the policy an opponent is the same as an extreme fringe is not attacking the person, it is attacking the policy by pointing out that crazies hold this position also. The reasoning is that perhaps something is odd/wrong about the policy if the crazies are also supporting it. It does not provide proof of course, merely a correlation.
Claiming that this is the same as attacking the person’s right to question leaders, his or her patriotism, etc. is a strawman designed to take the heat off the actual policy in question. It is like the strawman from the Left which claims that Bush is personaly attacking anyone who questions the war tactics or purpose rahter than those who claim that “Bush Lied” about intellegence.
Holding the same position as the Far Left does not make one a Far Lefty; it merely makes one a Fellow Traveler on that one positon. I support the Iraq war but also support commonly considered lefty positions such as the right to chose an abortion. Does my Iraqi support make me a Far Righty? No, but it makes me a fellow traveler for the Iraqi war. Pointing out that my allies in this war support anti-abortion measures etc. is completly valid, is it not? I would have to explain why I think that being a fellow travler on Iraq overrides my concern about right to choose etc. That is, discuss why I think the policy is important enough to be a fellow traveler rather than whine about how ‘unfair’ my opponents are being.
I beleive I understand the point that the attack on the “run away” position by comparing it to fringe groups/people who hold the same views (and other more disgusting ones) can be considered “unfair” by some who hold that position since it paints with a broad brush by associating Murtha with those OTHER undesirable characteristics of the Far Left. I bet the perception of what is ‘unfair’ about this tactic is significantly correlated with how strongly one agrees or disagrees with the policy. And it applies for the same style of attacks on Bush’s policy. Politics is a messy game, always has been in a representative form of gov.
However, since Bush’s positions are commonly attacked as being the same as Imperialists of old, is just like the fascists, due to personal motives, due to his supposed low intelligence, due to his evil cunning, due to his being a puppet, or simply for being a “scoundrel” AND those attacks appear to be working (as measured by the polls on Iraq) why would an ‘tit for tat’ attack suddenly be a shocking suprise? Why should Bush disarm himself of effective counter attacks? Because they work and those opposed to Bush don’t like the possible outcome? He has done that for months and months with the “Bush Lied” meme and where has that gotten him?
There are plently of people who are making considered counter-arguements to Murtha’s current speech and past speechs (such as the consequences of quick withdrawl or the contridiction of our troops in the ME being terror targets that do no good yet Murtha’s willingness to go back in if civil war breaks out). Complaining about one sides attack style even though is factually true, does not attack the person’s various rights to question leaders etc, seems to me to be a strawman created to distract from the problems of that policy.
Again, it is not questioning one’s patriotism to point out who you are standing with policy-wise. If that is the ONLY line of defense/attack, then it is weak; but it is not somehow unfair. Certainly if both sides use it, how can one side’s use be unfair?
Question the leaders all you want, that is a good thing. Why is it a bad thing for leaders to question other leaders by describing their fellow travellers?
This&That
November 18th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I have to agree with Sullivan on this. Republicans need to do more to get out the story of what’s really going on in Iraq. The news media, for whatever reason, is presenting only one side of the story. Bush and company need to start leading and telling folks what’s going on over there or the war will continue to lose support. You can’t blame people for wondering if it’s really as bad as they see on TV when war-supporting politicians aren’t taking the time to show them otherwise.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Claiming that a statement pointing out that the policy an opponent is the same as an extreme fringe is not attacking the person, it is attacking the policy by pointing out that crazies hold this position also.
If I said something like ‘Bush agrees with the (KKK, Nazi’s, “Fill in Wacko Fringe Group”) that our country should defend the Mexican border much more vigorously’ would you think that I am not attacking Bush?
Again, it is not questioning one’s patriotism to point out who you are standing with policy-wise. If that is the ONLY line of defense/attack, then it is weak; but it is not somehow unfair. Certainly if both sides use it, how can one side’s use be unfair?
Life isn’t fair and politics is even less fair. The issue for me isn’t about Bush being fair. It is about Bush being too arrogant and stubborn to attack Murtha’s argument directly. Instead he attacks the man, and, IMO, his patriotism.
Why is it a bad thing for leaders to question other leaders by describing their fellow travellers?
Bad and good are relative things. My point is that comparing Murtha to Michael Moore is not attacking his argument but attacking him. If Bush wants to have the policy argument you mentioned above then he needs to address the points Murtha has made instead of comparing the Congressman to a left wing idiot.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Instead of pointing to you towards a few quotes, I’ll instead point towards the MASSIVE repeated meme/campaign strategy of “Criticizing the war is hurting our troops” that was said throughout 2003, 2004 and oh, wait…2005. Please.
You’re kidding, right?
November 18th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Blue: If I said something like ‘Bush agrees with the (KKK, Nazi’s, “Fill in Wacko Fringe Group�) that our country should defend the Mexican border much more vigorously’ would you think that I am not attacking Bush?
This&That: Sure it would be an attack….and only ‘unfair’ if it was false. It would require Bush to either explain how his position is not the same (that is, it is a false attack) or how KKK’s position is not why he supports that position. Same for Murtha, instead of calling Bush a chickenHawk, he needs to say it is false (which it is not) or explain why Moore’s position is not relevant to his. Or he can let it slide (hurts the poll numbers) or counter-counter attack with a personal attack (ChickenHawk!). As I wrote before, this style of attack is not a strong (or logical) one, only a politically effective one. After all, if the KKK agrees with you or Moore does; shouldn’t that make one pause to make sure you are correct?
Blue: It is about Bush being too arrogant and stubborn to attack Murtha’s argument directly. Instead he attacks the man, and, IMO, his patriotism.
But your claim that Bush is not attacking Murtha’s policy of “leave right now” by focusing on only the one WH statement is misleading. For example, “We have nothing but respect for Congressman Murtha’s service to his country,” White House communications director Nicolle Wallace told NBC’s “Today” show Friday. “And I think he spoke from the heart yesterday. We happen to have a real serious policy disagreement with him.”
That does not sound like a personal attack nor an attack on Murtha’s patriotism. Bush certainly has repeatedly (abet poorly) laid out his rational for why we have to stay in Iraq.
There are other recent comments also by various people that directly disagree with Murtha’s policy.
Blue: My point is that comparing Murtha to Michael Moore is not attacking his argument but attacking him. If Bush wants to have the policy argument you mentioned above then he needs to address the points Murtha has made instead of comparing the Congressman to a left wing idiot.
This&That: He is not “comparing Mutha” to Moore, or saying that Murtha IS Moore (just as your example with the KKK was not saying that Bush IS the KKK), rather the WH said that they hold the same position on this topic. That is a big difference & if one fails to understand that point then confusion about what the attack is doing occurs.
I agree that a policy debate would be lovely and I think it does occur on some levels. Bush (and various dems) do not just use personal attacks. But for Bush NOT to use the effective tactics (regardless if one thinks this style of pointing out who is agreeing with your positions is a personal or a non-personal attack) while his opponents do that and worse (e.g. ChickenHawk! Liar!) ALONG with his other defense/attacks about Iraq is asking for one side to disarm.
When Bush did not fight fire with fire the Iraq war support dropped in the polls & he perceives that an important policy that he believes in is losing public support. Now he is fighting fire with fire and the Left is very unhappy about that. True, it could be that Bush’s policy is objectively wrong (I don’t think so) but he does not believe that so why should he concede effective tactics in continuing what he believes to be the best course? Should a leader not follow his convictions? Should he not use the effective tactics & weapons that his opponents use against him?
This&That
November 18th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Justin
I would argue that while there are people who argued using personal attacks the way you state the meme you cite (Criticizing the war is hurting our troops) is a mis-statement. One is allowed to be critical of the war policy, tactics, etc. it is the manner in which those criticisms are presented that is harmful.
For example, disagreeing with the VP on his position about use of extreme interrogation methods for the CIA is different than calling him the VP of torture.
Claiming (aka Durbin) that US troops are the eqvilent of Nazis does hurt the troops.
Didn’t Bush just say in a speech, “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ” ?
I suppose a specific Bush quote saying that simply being critical of the war (or him) hurts the troops as opposed to the way that critism is presented is a lot to ask for. I would be interested in seeing one or two. Surely if it is so commone some lefty somewhere has a collection.
An example of what I mean by hurting the troops: “Saddam’s prisons are now re-opened under US management.” does hurt the troops in the field due to the exaggeration but, say, supporting the McCain amendment to prevent abuse does not.)
This&That
(who has to stop posting now. I did enjoy the discussion and will check back for quotes…and will do a google search…sorry if I was snarky in my first post to Blue….)
November 18th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
holy moly….
The GOP is forcing a vote on the “Run away” policy of Murtha’s!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/congress.iraq.ap/index.html
Now there will be a debate!
November 18th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Damn Republicans!! How dare they silence the dissent of Murtha by voting on his proposal in the congress!!
If voting isn’t a clear obstruction to freedom of speech, I dont know what is!
August 7th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Good job.