Via Josh Marshall, from the Washington Post:
“President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq — a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.
Appearing in the Rose Garden yesterday with Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, Bush said Kerry’s statements about Iraq “can embolden an enemy.” After Kerry criticized Allawi’s speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him “destructive” to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism.”
In addition to the comments just noted, the Post gives the following examples:
• On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said terrorists “are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry.” On Fox News, Hatch said Democrats are “consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.”
• On Sunday, GOP Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota said of his opponent, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle: “His words embolden the enemy.” Thune, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” declined to disavow a statement by the Republican Party chairman in his state saying Daschle had brought “comfort to America’s enemies.”
• On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: “I don’t have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops.” Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: “That’s my opinion, yes.”
• The previous day in Warsaw, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said terrorists in Iraq “are trying to influence the election against President Bush.” (…)
Earlier this month, Cheney provoked an uproar when he said that on Election Day, “if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating” and that the United States would not respond vigorously. Cheney later said that he was not suggesting the country would be attacked if Kerry were elected. But a few days later, he said: “We’ve gone on the offense in the war on terror — and the president’s opponent, Senator Kerry, doesn’t seem to approve.” (…)
In March, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told a group of Republicans: “If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election.” (…)
On Fox News, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said, “It’s unquestionable that Republicans are more likely to prevent the next attack.” Kerry, she said, “will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry.”
Let’s take the different strands of these attacks separately. First, there’s the claim that either the terrorists or Osama bin Laden are rooting for a Kerry victory. I have absolutely no idea how Orrin Hatch or Richard Armitage knows who the terrorists support in our election. To suggest that terrorists support Kerry is shameful, and gives terrorists an influence on our elections that they should not have.
Second, there’s the claim that John Kerry would do a worse job in the war on terror than George W. Bush. This is, in principle, a legitimate criticism. But it is not legitimate to distort his positions. Kerry has probably said that law enforcement is one among the many tools that we might use to fight the war on terror. That is true, and if he had said that he would never use it, he’d be stupid: this is not a good time to be taking any of the tools we might use against al Qaeda off the table. But Kerry has never said that he would limit himself to a “law enforcement approach”. In fact, he has specifically and repeatedly denied it. He voted to authorize the use of force in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He questions how the President used that authorization; but I cannot imagine on what grounds Bush and his surrogates can claim that he would be unwilling to use force if it were necessary.
Moreover, it’s not as though George W. Bush’s record in the war on terror is so stunning. He has gone into Iraq, which had no connection to al Qaeda. We can debate whether or not this was a wise thing to do, but there is, I think, no debate about the fact that he has done a terrible job in prosecuting that war. Moreover, as I have argued, he has not taken some fairly obvious steps to keep this country safe — steps like accelerating our efforts to secure Russia’s loose nukes or improving security for our rails, ports, chemical plants, and infrastructure. If Republicans are going to claim that Bush keeps us safer, they owe us an explanation of how they square that claim with his record on these issues, or why they think that Kerry wouldn’t do a better job.
But the third strain is the most troubling: the idea that criticizing the President’s policies during an election is unpatriotic. Just so we’re clear, here’s what Kerry actually said:
“”The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy,” Mr. Kerry said. “But the fact is that C.I.A. estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story.”
Mr. Kerry said he would do a better job of training Iraqis to provide security and rallying other nations to help. Mr. Bush’s obstinacy in the face of mounting violence, he said, was endangering American troops and dimming the prospects for the Iraqis to establish a democratic government.
“I want democracy to take hold,” Mr. Kerry said. But at the moment, he added, “I think most people would tell you that the United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq. There are ‘no go’ zones in Iraq today. You can’t hold an election in a ‘no go’ zone.”
If we should refrain from pointing out that Iraq is in trouble, that it has no go zones, and that this raises real questions about the possibility of having elections in January, all of which are true, then it’s not clear what we can say that’s critical of Bush’s policies in Iraq. And if we cannot criticize the central policy of his administration during an election, then we might just as well call the whole thing off and just crown George W. Bush directly. Criticism of a President is not unpatriotic; it’s an exercise of the very freedoms that President Bush claims he is trying to spread throughout the world. And we support the troops by honoring their service, but also by taking care not to ask them to give their lives without good reason, and by ensuring that we dedicate to them the resources they need to win. We do not honor them by using them as political pawns to advance a partisan agenda, or by making their sacrifice an excuse to cut off criticism of the person who asked them to make it. In the words of my favorite Democratic candidate, who regrettably did not win the nomination:
“Patriotism is not just about waving the flag and guarding our borders. It’s about guarding what makes us distinctive as Americans – our personal liberties, our right to debate and dissent. We are not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate, and stifles dissent. We are not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government. We are not a country that disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted. And we can’t have a government that stands for any of these things.
And that’s why I’m running for President – to return America to the core ideals of our democracy: personal liberty; service to country; respect for others; the right to criticize and correct the government — in time of war, especially. Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent — that’s not wrong — that’s not unpatriotic, that’s one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.”
I suppose it’s hardly worth pointing out how the Bush Administration’s actions might conceivably be taken to have already emboldened terrorists…
Apparently Sir Ivor Roberts thought it was worth pointing out, James… cite
Ah, our Italian Ambassador. Yes, rather embarrassing, that must have been.
No, they don’t.
I don’t recall anyone (I suppose I should assume someone will)saying Kerry’s comments are unpatriotic. The argument is that the enemy, given the news sourses and comments available, would prefer one candidate over another. What’s wrong with that? Kerry’s not unpatriotic for christ’s sake. It’s just that his view, his arguments, his position (see how avoid the cheap shot) seems to indicate he believes the war was a mistake, that our current efforts in Iraq are unfounded and unnecessary and that if he is elected the enemy may fair better. How can you be so against President Bush’s stand in Iraq, then howl when he uses that position as a positive (or negative, take your pick) campaign message. I’d think you’d figure that would ultimately be a weakness in the Bush campaign, to think they’d be able to turn Kerry’s plan into advantage Bush. If a majority of American’s agree with your anti-Bush vote, then his argument that Kerry’s plan would greatly change the direction of the effort in Iraq should fail.
The argument is that the enemy, given the news sourses and comments available, would prefer one candidate over another. What’s wrong with that?
“To suggest that terrorists support Kerry is shameful, and gives terrorists an influence on our elections that they should not have.”
I agree with this, actually. I know I cited Sir Ivor Roberts saying something very similar, but note that Roberts said it at a meeting he believed to be completely confidential and off the record: he did not say it for public consumption, let alone as a campaigning tactic.
Harry Smith and one of his softball hacks just proclaimed hurricanes as Republican operatives. If the Democrats ever want to capture Florida, now they have to legislate a change in the timing of the presidential election campaign out of the hurricane season. Because of the hurricanes, Kerry can’t poll there, can’t campaign in Florida. Bush is getting a 75% favorable rating for ‘handling’ the crisis, billions in government relief money is buying the vote. Face it hilzoy, politics stinks, it just does. It’s kind of like walking through the livestock exhibits at the fair. Live with it.
Given the fact Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have experienced a recruiting boom during Bush’s tenure–why wouldn’t terrorists support Bush?
Given the fact many observers (e.g., Robin Cook, Michael Scheuer, etc.) believe Bush aided Osama bin Laden’s objectives by invading Iraq–why wouldn’t terrorists favor a Bush first term?
Given the fact Bush has so grossly mismanaged the Iraqi occupation (no plan, not enough resources), directly leading to fragmentation of Iraq as well as Western alliances–why wouldn’t terrorists support Bush?
One also has to remember what the objectives of terrorism are. They are: to gain attention and to compel governments or societies to change. Clearly, they have our attention and they’ve driven this appointed administration to suspend civil rights and liberties.
If you’re a terrorist, what’s not to like about the prospect of a Bush first term?
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government,” Sen. Robert Taft, R-Ohio, said on Dec. 19, 1941 – almost two weeks after the United States entered World War II.
“Of course that criticism should not give any information to the enemy. But too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism,” explained Taft. “If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”
publius – “explained Taft. “If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned,…”
So Sen. Taft agrees with Bush and Cheney, the enemy may be comforted by Kerry’s opinions. All Kerry has to do is stand up like Sen. Taft and make exactly the same comment quoted above. No sweat!
Bring ’em on, Blogbudsman. Bring ’em on.
After all, it’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ and we’ll soon be holding democratic elections in certain, exclusive parts of Iraq!
blogbudsman: as Taft died over half a century ago, I don’t think he has any views about Kerry’s comments in particular, one way or the other.
When you say this: “The argument is that the enemy, given the news sourses and comments available, would prefer one candidate over another. What’s wrong with that? Kerry’s not unpatriotic for christ’s sake. It’s just that his view, his arguments, his position (see how avoid the cheap shot) seems to indicate he believes the war was a mistake, that our current efforts in Iraq are unfounded and unnecessary and that if he is elected the enemy may fair better.” — you conflate various different enemies. Most of the comments above are explicitly not about Ba’athists or Saddam, they are about terrorists. When we started the war in Iraq, it was not against terrorists; it was against Saddam.
You also conflate the question whether we would have gone to war in the first place with the totally different question who is likely to conduct the war best now. It would be interesting to hear you explain what about Bush’s prosecution of the war makes you think that our enemies would prefer Kerry.
In general, I think that some of the statements made by the Republicans quoted above would get someone banned from this web site. Of course Republicans have the right to make them, under the first amendment, but they do not have a right to make them and still get elected, and I do not see why we tolerate from them conduct we would not accept from ourselves.
So Sen. Taft agrees with Bush and Cheney, the enemy may be comforted by Kerry’s opinions.
Blogbuds, how on earth do you know that a man who’s been dead for 51 years “agrees with” Bush and Cheney? Out of what Ouija board are you pulling this?
Robert Taft said that that criticism in time of war “is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government”. Bush and Cheney and their coterie are saying that criticism in time of war equates to giving aid and comfort to terrorists. The only way you could jump from one to the other, unless you do have the help of a Ouija board, is if you think that the maintenance of any kind of democratic government equates to giving aid and comfort to terrorists. Is that your argument?
“In general, I think that some of the statements made by the Republicans quoted above would get someone banned from this web site.”
Not by my rules of thumb: Senator Kerry doesn’t read this blog, either, and he has precisely the same protection against personal attacks made in comments here that President Bush does. That is to say, none at all. Of your quotes, Hatch’s comes closest to being banworthy, but that “I think” was sufficient cover.
Moe
PS: I am still in hiatus; an announcement about why – and its future duration – will be hopefully made this evening. I am using ‘hopefully’ in several senses; my cobloggers know why… 🙂
my cobloggers know why… 🙂
it’s a secret?
guess I better take down the billboard in Times Square…
oops…
just kidding…God Speed and all that!
e
And no, I’m not saying any more, so wait, will y’all..dang!
Hi Moe — when I said that, I was imagining that someone here had said those things about someone else here. You are of course right that saying them about some other public figure is not grounds for banning, and not just because they’re your rules 😉 I do think, though, that there are things one should not say about one’s opponents unless one is prepared to back them up in a fairly serious way, and that these quotes cross the line; and also that making statements about Iraq that are true should not be described as ‘giving comfort to the enemy’, especially in an election.
Good luck with, well, you know.
“Hi Moe — when I said that, I was imagining that someone here had said those things about someone else here.”
Oh, OK then. You would be quite right, in that case.
Moe
PS: And thanks to both you and Ed for the kind wishes. 🙂
All Taft’s quote really did for me was invoke “politicians say the darndest things”. I didn’t play the Taft hand, I just read it in the plubius post and responded to it. If we’re really serious, we need to establish a political dirty tricks/outrageous statements police, assign some penalties and jail people for speaking out improperly. Oh yeah, Hussein tried that. Didn’t work. The number Kerry and Lockhart did on Allawi was far more disgusting than any Bush/Cheney comment. Wasn’t it Kerry who declared that world leaders prefered him? I wonder why that would be?
also that making statements about Iraq that are true should not be described as ‘giving comfort to the enemy’, especially in an election.
Do you mean that wartime criticism shouldn’t be described that way even if it does indeed give comfort to the enemy, or that that couldn’t possibly be the case and so anyone who says it is simply manipulating the public?
And Moe, good luck with whatever it is you’re hoping about (a tryout with the Redskins? an audition for a part on Broadway? interview for a Bush 2nd-term cabinet post?).
Hilzoy: also that making statements about Iraq that are true should not be described as ‘giving comfort to the enemy’, especially in an election.
KenB: Do you mean that wartime criticism shouldn’t be described that way even if it does indeed give comfort to the enemy, or that that couldn’t possibly be the case and so anyone who says it is simply manipulating the public?
Why assume Hilzoy meant anything other than what she said? She said “making statements about Iraq that are true should not be described as ‘giving comfort to the enemy'” – why try to manipulate that into meaning anything else?
And Moe, good luck with whatever it is you’re hoping about (a tryout with the Redskins? an audition for a part on Broadway? interview for a Bush 2nd-term cabinet post?).
Seconded!
Blogbudsman: I think it impossible to slander Allawi. He’s a thug and a terrorist. This is a person who used to assassinate Saddam’s foes. He got a better offer and was involved in bombing a movie theater and a school bus in Iraq.
We’ve all seen this movie before. When the US supports and promotes despots, it comes back to bite us.
Frankly, all Kerry and Lockhart did to Allawi was to dispute Allawi’s ‘all is sweetness and light in Iraq’ picture. And they’re not alone in disputing Allawi. Many security experts were harsher in their assessments of Allawi’s claims. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution called Allawi’s picture “misleading” and “pretty close to just flat-out wrong.”
Anthony Cordesman disputed Allawi’s contention that Iraq had 100,000 troops and security forces at the ready. Cordesman stated Allawi had under 5,000 and that the usefulness of these forces were highly suspect.
So Jadegold, what’s the final argument. We can voice our opinions (hoping they mostly pass the yelling fire in a crowded theatre test). Our opinions may garner agreement from folks we really wish wouldn’t. But that’s tough, that’s what makes us strong. In the words of that great philosopher P.T Sailor “I yam what I yam ! I’ve had all I can stand, I can’t stands no more!”
LinkOur opinions may garner agreement from folks we really wish wouldn’t. But that’s tough, that’s what makes us strong.
Exactly so.
Look, and purely for the sake of argument, what are two things that we know Osama bin Laden wanted, not since September 11 2001, but way before it?
He wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and he wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown and an Islamic regime to replace him.
What two things has George W. Bush accomplished…?
Now, as it happens, if anyone on the Kerry campaign tried to use that as an argument that voting for George W. Bush was the equivalent of voting for Osama bin Laden, they would be wrong to do so. Bush may not ever have considered Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda to be a threat he needed to give serious consideration to – indeed, from the evidence, we know he never has, neither before nor after 9/11.
But to argue that just because Bush has come very close to doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wants means that he’s an al-Qaeda puppet would be a lie – and a lie that would give aid and comfort to the enemy, at that.
Now claims that Kerry, by criticising Bush’s actions, is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” are a degree more heinous than pointing out the parallels between Bush’s accomplishments and al-Qaeda’s wishlist. But both are in the same ballpark, for the same reason: it’s not a good idea to tell your enemy that they control the results of the election.
The argument, Blogbudsman, is that there’s opinion and there is jingoism.
To claim dissent is unpatriotic or abetting terrorism is jingoism at it’s worst. The fact it’s coming from elected leaders and not people wearing tinfoil hats is alarming.
By virtually all accounts, Allawi’s picture of Iraq was false and misleading. Of course, Allawi is entitled to lie through his teeth if he so chooses. Of course, this should not insulate Allawi from being called a liar.
no, they don’t.
(Moe does though. I third the calls for good luck.)
Me: Do you mean that wartime criticism shouldn’t be described that way even if it does indeed give comfort to the enemy, or that that couldn’t possibly be the case and so anyone who says it is simply manipulating the public?
Jes: Why assume Hilzoy meant anything other than what she said?
I’m not doubting her meaning, I just wanted clarification on what the underlying principle is. Some people honestly feel that criticism of a war effort before it’s over helps the enemy, and in some cases they might even be right. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to say so? Sure, they’re saying it at least in part to hurt Kerry’s election chances, but then Kerry’s motivation for criticizing the conduct of the war is hardly pure.
My initial reaction was actually just like hilzoy’s (and others); but at the moment I tend to agree with blogbudsman (09:08 AM) that the best way to fight it is not to complain and try to shut the other side up but to explain, in a pithy and attention-grabbing way, why they’re wrong.
All this nonsense about “giving comfort to the enemy” or “who does Osama want elected” obscures the real issue, which is: Which of these candidates is going to do a better job dealing with all the responsibilities of being president, one of which is minimizing our chances of suffering more terrorist attacks like the 9/11 attacks. I don’t see that Bush has an especially good record on this.
What do you suppose we should do about Iran and North Korea building up nuclear arsenals? Are we more able to do this today than we would have been without invading Iraq? My feeling is that we’re less able to do this–it will be harder to build an international coalition to do anything about this, it will be harder to justify it to the American people (“trust us–this time, it really *is* a slam dunk”), and even if we want to, it will be hard to do it because we’re stretched pretty thin.
I think the Bush team understands that they’re going to have a hard time running on their prosecution of the war on terror, and that’s behind the Republican talking points along the lines of “A vote for Kerry’s a vote for Osama.”
–John
Again, Democrats are incapable of framing this debate correctly.
Rather than whining about discourse beyond the bounds, this is what Kerry and his supporters should say:
“Republicans claim terrorists would be gratified by a Democrat victory. If true, they better enjoy it quickly, because they’re mistaken. We’re going to bring the hammer down, and we will bring it down effectively, unlike the inept Bush Administration, who confuse stubborn foolishness for commitment.”
The problem with addressing this kind of calumny with a polite rebuttal is that it elevates their slander to an equal footing and treats it as something with enough credibility to merit such a response, rather than something beyond the pale which should cause any civilized person to shun and condemn those spewing this trash.
It also gives those who have a vested interest in helping purvey said trash an opportunity to do so with “kidding on the square” defenses or disingenuous claims that the comments aren’t beyond the pale–claims that rest on narrowly interpreting the wording without regard to the context or clear intent of the speaker. Case in point:
I don’t recall anyone (I suppose I should assume someone will)saying Kerry’s comments are unpatriotic.
Dishonest to the core. Who needs to use the word “unpatriotic” when you can clearly imply it by using the loaded phrase “giving [aid and] comfort to the enemy”, a phrase which you know full well is an allusion to the legal definition of treason? Who needs to say “unpatriotic” when you can clearly imply it by saying that Osama “wins the election” if Kerry does, or that he “doesn’t approve” of attacking terrorists?
You know /exactly/ what kind of image these people are trying to paint with their comments, blogbudsman, because it’s one you consistently try to paint too. Nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty can seriously claim that their comments were made with any intent other than to falsely associate Kerry with terrorists and impugn his patriotism.
I second sidereal’s comment about the proper Democratic response. And I further add that it ought to be worrisome to people considering voting for Kerry that the proper response doesn’t occur to high level Democrats.
Let’s take the two countries separately. Our troops in Iraq have very little to do with North Korea. Dealing with North Korea militarily would be a Navy/Air Force issue of destroying the reactors. Our ability to do that remains unchanged.
Iran: I object to the format of “My feeling is that we’re less able to do this–it will be harder to build an international coalition to do anything about this” because it obscures far too much with ‘anything about this’. Are you talking about invading Iran? If so there was never any effective chance to form an international coalition in support of that. So that remains unchanged. Are you talking about bombing the plants. Never any effective chance of forming an international coalition in support of that. That remains unchanged. Are you talking about serious sanctions against Iran? Sanctions have fallen out of favor because they hurt the wrong people. But in theory there could have been a small chance of that. That small chance may be slightly smaller.
So in a world very much like ours, but where Bush was not president, what do you think the international community would be doing about Iran?
I suspect nothing or nothing useful. But I’d love to hear the answers of other people.
Oops how did this topic come into this thread. RE: Republican statements.
“consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.”
That is what I hear from the men and women I know serving. I think it is a legitimate objection.
“terrorists in Iraq “are trying to influence the election against President Bush.”
Over the top rhetoric. May be true, but unproveable so far as I know. It is bad to say things like this.
Hastert’s quip was crappy.
We’ve already talked about Cheny’s quote. I don’t think it was out of bounds, especially since a huge portion of the controversy about that quote came from an unfair snip by the AP.
“If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election.” (…)
That is going too far.
I’m not going to be sucked in to trying to defend Coulter so long as I’m not asking people to defend Moore. (But if you choose to open up a defense of Moore on your own I may swoop in). 😉
Do you mean that wartime criticism shouldn’t be described that way even if it does indeed give comfort to the enemy, or that that couldn’t possibly be the case and so anyone who says it is simply manipulating the public?
To begin with, no one knows what kind of statement gives comfort to the enemy. If Bush is making a mess of the WoT then expressions of support for him give comfort to the enemy, don’t they? If you want to argue that Bush will be better on terrorism than Kerry, go ahead. If you just want to say you think that, without giving reasons, go ahead. But that’s not what these statements do.
They make no argument or statement of that sort. They are contentless. They neither criticize Kerry’s proposals nor support Bush’s. They simply inflame opinion and imply that Kerry is treasonous, or close to it. I think Catsy’s analysis is correct.
Hastert is that buffoon of an uncle every family has.
And Catsy, words and their usage are extremely important in our society if I may be politically correct. Hell, in diplomacy, it’s all words. It’s just a big verbal chess game. I don’t think Kerry has been unpatriotic recently. But his words can give aid and comfort to the enemy. Scold all you want, but there’s a certain level of word smithing that evokes ‘sticks and stones’. And the same strategy is used by both sides. And the line is where the American voters god damned want it to be. It’s up to you to find it. Good luck, you rude little snipe. There’s those words again. Just being honest.
The appropriate response is not complaining about the state of our discourse–which is true but ineffective–or responding as if they have made a reasonable argument. We need to do less righteous indignation and more contempt.
I sort of like “I wish they would spend less time making up stories about what Osama bin Laden and Musab Al-Zarqawi think, and more time figuring out where Bin Laden and Zarqawi are, so that we can finally bring them to justice.” Fits with the whole “fantasy world” meme.
That whole “banning the bible” thing is in some ways even harder to respond to appropriately….it would be nice to work in “thou shalt not bear false witness” though.
Me arguing with myself. Maybe the real point is WHO is the enemy? If it’s Islamic Extremists, maybe they don’t care who is president. They can blow themselves up in a crowd regardless of what political party is in power. If Osama is still alive, he probably should fear either. I’m sure both parties are set on riding that mission out. If it’s Iraqi ‘insurgents’ – maybe they do make out better with Kerry. And if I follow a couple of arguments, maybe not. So giving aid and comfort may not even be an issue other than a campaign meme. Being unpatriotic now, that’s a horse of a different color. Thems fight’n words.
Problem is, the GOP has seen this kind of campaign rhetoric works. Witness the odious campaign ads Chambliss ran against Cleland.
All right, I somehow got sucked into Officially Noticing this thread, so Catsy, blogbudsman: moderate the tones, please. Catsy is in no way whatsoever a “rude little snipe” and blogbudsman was not being “dishonest to the core”; further examinations of these themes will not help make me be Happy Fun Moe.
The Trash Heap Has Spoken.
Moe, Catsy and I were just demonstrating the power of individual words. 🙂
This used to be such a cordial place; i guess the election is too close and too important for too many people for the posters here not to reflect the tactics of the candidates.
I know who i blame for the coarsening of the dialog; i also know that the odds of my persuading any republican is precisely zero.
so i’ll play cassandra today: much of politics is precedent, so be careful how you play this game. Soros, Air America and the democratic party are not going away even if bush wins. As much mileage as the republican party has gotten out of the Bork nomination, the democrats will get far more out of the Bush campaign, especially if iraq collapses.
think about a campaign with a red-meat democrat waving ann coulter’s book and saying “they called us traitors! and look what happened! iraq is a quagmire and our debt is exploding! iran has nukes! north korea has nukes! send me to washington to kick the true traitors out!”
lovely, isn’t it. if elected that candidate would get along oh so well with members of the opposition party.
and sebastian, please point out one quote from Moore’s movie where he accuses bush of treason. what’s the title of coulter’s book again?
Francis
“and sebastian, please point out one quote from Moore’s movie where he accuses bush of treason.”
You’ve seen it right? The movie which suggests that Bush sold out the American people to the Saudis?
Be good, Fwaggles.
The movie which suggests that Bush sold out the American people to the Saudis?
Ummm, those were pretty much the conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee WRT 9/11.
You know, the report with all the redacted portions–28 pages? I’m sure those redacted pages would provide a Mecca of information.
“I’m sure those redacted pages would provide a Mecca of information.”
Me too, and since we can apparently use pages devoid of information as a news source I want to mention that those pages clearly established a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, showed that Saddam and bin Laden were wife-swapping, and that Gore had been personally informed about 9-11 but chose to hide the story. They also revealed Michael Jackson’s real parents, but that is slightly off topic.
But his words can give aid and comfort to the enemy.
You do realize, as I pointed out, that the words “aid and comfort” have a very specific legal meaning and that the use of them against political opponents to evoke imagery of treason is well beyond the bounds of what any civilized person should consider acceptable?
Seriously, Sebastian, do you believe the redacted pages of that report don’t deal with Saudi Arabia?
Surely, in the name of bipartisanship, you’ll join me in demanding the WH declassify those 28 pages so we can see your link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Now that I’m home from work, a few responses. First, blogbudsman wrote: “If we’re really serious, we need to establish a political dirty tricks/outrageous statements police, assign some penalties and jail people for speaking out improperly.” — Not at all. I was not suggesting that we should make these statements illegal. I imagined that I was addressing not a body of lawmakers, but a group of citizens contemplating an election, who might take the conduct of various people running for office to be relevant to their votes. And I was saying: while these people are entitled, under the first amendment, to say these things without being prosecuted or jailed, each of us is entitled to ask ourselves, is this the sort of political discourse we want to reward with our votes? To say this is not to ask for the creation of speech police; it’s to ask each of us, as citizens, to consider whether there is any sort of speech that might make us think: this crosses the line that separates (what I think of as) legitimate and illegitimate criticism, and the fact that someone is willing to cross it matters to me.
I have no idea what ‘the Democrats” response to this is, and whether it’s the same as mine. Luckily, I only have to speak for myself.
I do, of course, think that there are times when someone’s speech is correctly described as giving aid and comfort (in a non-legal sense) to the enemy. If Kerry had said “Hey, I have found out that the army plans to attack city X tomorrow; here are the plans”, for instance, that would obviously be ‘aid’.
But think about what Kerry actually said (that’s why I included it). He said that “the fact is that C.I.A. estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story” from the one told by Allawi and Bush. That is pretty clearly true. (From the NYT: “Dr. Allawi’s optimism was also at odds with the private view of some of Mr. Bush’s senior advisers, who have said in recent days that the American military’s main problem is that it is not full control of Baghdad.”) He said that we have retreated from areas of Iraq. That is also true (Fallujah, much of al Anbar province.) He said that there are ‘no-go zones’, also true, and that you can’t hold an election in a ‘no-go zone’, also true, and acknowledged by such aiders and comforters as Donald Rumsfeld (“Let’s say you tried to have an election, and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great,” Mr. Rumsfeld said at a hearing on Capitol Hill. “Well, that’s so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life.”)
Does anyone think that stating true claims, and claims which, moreover, the insurgents already know to be true, gives aid and comfort to the enemy? Is anyone willing to say that Rumsfeld and the President’s unnamed ‘senior advisors’ are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Do you want to live in a country in which accusations of aiding the enemy are taken (by voters) to be acceptable when applied to this sort of statement?
hilzoy,
excellent comments (5:57).
Hastert is that buffoon of an uncle every family has.
Yes. But only a family of buffoons would make him their leader.
hilzoy – “this crosses the line that separates (what I think of as) legitimate and illegitimate criticism, and the fact that someone is willing to cross it matters to me.”
We’re acting like we’re disagreeing, and I’m not sure we are. And why does it just have to apply to nationalism. Bush did not ban stem cell research. The Republicans are not advocating the draft. Bush did not legalize machine guns. But Kerry’s campaign rhetoric charges such. Political campaigns are just like editorial cartoons, ‘acceptable’ exaggeration and hyperbole. I suppose it is shameless and indecent, but it’s silly to act surprised about it. If a candidate goes over the top, they will lose the election. Bernard agrees with you too. But then, he thinks Hastert is the only buffoon in politics.
Strawmen, blogbudsman!
One, I don’t recall Kerry saying any of those things.
Two, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” IS a term of art, DOES have a specific meaning, and is tantamount to calling a man a traitor to his country.
Three, the GOP means exactly what it sounds like they mean when they say it. They’ve said, explicitly, that “terrorists want Kerry to win.” They’ve worked tirelessly to promote the notion that running for President “in a time of war” is unpatriotic.
The GOP is doing its loathesome best to convince Americans that true patriots don’t disagree with Bush, don’t citicize Bush, and certainly don’t vote against Bush.
But then, he thinks Hastert is the only buffoon in politics.
Once again: Hastert is Speaker of the House. He’s not some random buffoon, he’s the third most powerful Republican in the country. There simply isn’t an equivalent on the Democratic side.
CaseyL, this is your one warning as per the Posting Rules: please read them before commenting here again.
Hi Moe. How was your evening?
I read the rules. How did I violate them? I used no profanity, was not disruptive for disruption’s sake, and didn’t vilify any posters. So, please, explain what I DID do.
I have to say I don’t understand CaseyL’s violation. Is it calling the arguments from Blogbud’s of 8:31 strawmen? Even though reasons were given, that were not ad homs?
In any case, I’ll respond to BB’s on this thread a little differently. Calling someone a traitor is different from calling him/her in favor of the draft, in favor of legalizing machine guns, or in favor of banning stem cell research. Because on any of these other issues, reasonable citizens can disagree on what is the correct policy for the good of the nation. This is not the case with treason, so when you call someone a traitor, you are moving him/her beyond the pale.
Some dishonest statements are so bad that they are libelous per se — so inappropriate that decent people do not utter them, and shun those who do. And shun those who tolerate them. We can each draw the line wherever we want, but no one should be surprised to find that calling someone a traitor is widely considered to be over the line.
Nor should anyone be surprised that when someone crosses the line, and then says “just kidding” that all is not forgiven. “The line” is safely beyond where a decent person would kid. (It’s also somewhat suspect –often the statement lacks indicia, when made, of genuine humorous intent, but seems an attempt at convincing on the merits. Or the humor is mean spirited.)
Now, I do not believe that Bush, Cheney, or Hastert actually believe that Kerry is a traitor, wishes the country ill, or does not love America. I think, though, that their willingness to float the thought, to act as if it might be so, shows a fundamental lack of character on their part.
Then again, we often see that some conservatives prefer cleverness to character . . . ;- )
CaseyL: Not being Moe, I don’t know what he meant, and I wouldn’t want to put words in his mouth. So I’ll divert you with some stories from my past…
Once upon a time we were studying ancient Egypt in school (I was seven), and I thought their system of canals was really neat, so I made one myself: a huge network of trenches, about a foot wide and a foot deep, crisscrossing the pebble driveway. I was just beginning to construct smaller trenches and contraptions involving Dixie cups to get the “Nile” onto the “fields” when my parents came home. Oops.
Once when I was sixteen I had a horrible, desperate crush on a boy, and I ran into him at lunch, and he said “so, what have you been doing this morning?” and I had been sleeping, and then lying around, and in one of those horrible moments of verbal ineptitude that get engraved in your memory forever, I said “I’ve been sleeping around.” Truly, I wanted to die.
And once, long before I got posting privileges here, I wrote a post in which I referred to “the Republicans” as having shamed this country (it was around the time of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and I was referring to that), and I got called on it. I hadn’t particularly meant to refer to, e.g., Moe, but to the leadership, but on reflection I could see why he took it that way.
Ah, memories…
Bernard agrees with you too. But then, he thinks Hastert is the only buffoon in politics.
No. What I said was only a family of buffoons elects a buffoon as its leader. That implies the House Republicans are all buffoons, or worse. That is pretty much what I think, allowing for the possibility that there are a few who aren’t, but merely lack the guts to stand up to their colleagues.
In my opinion the current makeup and “thinking” of the Republican majority in the House is a serious threat to the country.
Bush did not ban stem cell research.
He came as close as he could. And then sent Laura out to claim credit for his being the first President to fund it all. What scum these people are.
Nicely done, hilzoy. I’ll merely add to that a gentler observation than my first impulse: to wit, that if one does not wish to have one’s comments about the part be taken for the whole, then don’t use terms for the part that are usually reserved for the whole. If you mean, say, that the GOP leadership is loathsome, say so; if you mean, say, that one man in the GOP leadership is loathsome, say so. I won’t ban somebody for spleening about Bush, Kerry or the Easter Bunny: but I’ve fulminated over painting with too broad a brush for quite some time now, so there’s no excuse for it.
Moe
PS: As usual, if somebody thinks I’ve missed something along these lines, feel free to drop a note to the email address up at top left.
I understand your point, Moe, and didn’t mean to paint you with the “loathesome” brush. But it’s the GOP leadership, and the GOP spinmeisters, and the GOP pundits, and a fair number of GOP bloggers (not you). So maybe I should say “most of the GOP,” since it *is* most of the GOP.
And I second CharlieCarp’s comments regarding why charges of treason are a different animal entirely from challenging policy. That the charges are being presented, not because the people presenting them actually believe them, but “merely” for campaign purposes, makes it even worse.
The New York Times weighs in:
blogbudsman, I offered you an example of how (IMO) Kerry and his campaigning team could step over the line in the same way as Bush and his campaigning team have done: they could call Bush a traitor (in the pretty clear terms of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”) and use as an excuse the fact that toppling Saddam Hussein from power was on Osama bin Laden’s wishlist.
You’ve defended Bush & Co calling Kerry a traitor on the grounds that this is “‘acceptable’ exaggeration and hyperbole” during a political campaign. Now be honest with yourself: if Kerry were campaigning on the same terms, would you find this ‘acceptable’? Because, by your standards for Bush, it would be. I’m not, in fact, asking for a reply here – I don’t expect to get one. I’m asking you to think about it in those terms – do you find that level of “hyperbole” acceptable when it’s aimed at your side? If not, then you should not be defending it when it’s aimed at the opposition.
I don’t find it acceptable. Especially not when it’s sourced, as the GOP leadership have sourced it, in nothing more that Kerry’s criticism of Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war. Public criticism is a public right in the US – to call it “traitorous”, as Republican leaders have done and some Republican supporters, is vile.
Kerry’s Diplomacy Wizards
That Kerry team is pretty good at diplomacy: While Kerry was relatively restrained in disputing Allawi’s upbeat portrayal, some of his aides suggested that the Iraqi leader was simply doing the bidding of the Bush administration, which helped arrange h…
I second sidereal’s comment about the proper Democratic response. And I further add that it ought to be worrisome to people considering voting for Kerry that the proper response doesn’t occur to high level Democrats.
Oh, it does, but they know that if they did that, Ed Gillespie would have talking points faxed out the next day showing some statement by John Kerry ten years ago that appears to have contradicted it preemptively, giving the media another chance to run “flip-flop” headlines, so why bother? Easier to just work the refs.
Tangentially, I want to ask a question. I understand Moe’s (and OW’s) rules regarding how one should talk about the parties and party members and so forth. But at some point, doesn’t it have to be allowable to refer to “the Republicans” or “the Democrats” as a whole doing things that the poster considers bad, wrong, despicable, etc.? It’s fine in general terms to require posters to limit such comments to the party leadership, or the campaign, or what have you. But at a certain point, we’re all going to go vote, and some of us are going to vote Republican and some are going to vote Democrats, and some are going to vote other. If the bad, wrong, despicable things that a poster has referred to are not sufficiently bad to cause you to vote for another candidate, or simply withhold your vote from that party, then it becomes reasonable to assume that you at least tacitly support those tactics or do not find them particularly unobjectionable , so why would it be wrong to attribute them to the party generally?
jesurgislac – “I don’t find it acceptable.” The ethical question is whether the effect of Kerry’s campaign statements do ’embolden’ the enemy and whether or not the enemy, whoever that may be, would consider their situation improved by a Kerry presidency. I still think the campaign needs to be very careful about the words they use, regardless of Catsy’s protest, but if the shoe fits, it must be worn. And there are plenty of other issues, calling Bush AWOL and the like. I agree with hilzoy’s retort to my exaggerated response on the rhetoric police, but it does get policed, either through stinging headlines, plunging pole numbers or extended blog threads. Embolding the enemy is a far cry from traitorous as is taking advantage of National Guard fulfillment loopholes is AWOL. I believe Kerry does campaign on the same terms and I howl like a banshee every day. My regards.
“pole numbers’. Now there’s a slip, as in pole cat?
taking advantage of National Guard fulfillment loopholes is AWOL.
Boy, that’s creative spin.
To paraphrase Lawrence Korb–if you cheat on your taxes and don’t get caught, you still cheated on your taxes.
And a quote:
“There is no ‘sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don’t,’ ” says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and Duke University law professor. “That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it.”
I believe Kerry does campaign on the same terms
No, Blogs: Kerry doesn’t. If Kerry campaigned on the same terms as Bush, rather than simply pointing out that the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraqi occupation leaves so much to be desired, Kerry would be calling Bush a traitor for giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda – and he’d have a much better material case in doing so than Bush does.
Because all Bush is doing is claiming that criticising the President’s policies is equivalent to treason: which appears to be the argument you and Sebastian are sticking to.