Democrats Lose the "Patriot" Game

General Petraeus’ testimony on Capitol Hill last week undermined numerous Democratic talking points about the progress of the war and the situation on the ground in Iraq. But through their own behavior before and during the hearings, the Democrats themselves were responsible for exploding one of their most cherished myths: Republicans were the partisans prone to a particularly nasty form of character assassination – that is, challenging the patriotism of those who disagree with them.

Democrats have long claimed to be victims of Republican challenges to their love of country. As early as 2003, John Kerry told the Associated Press, “Republicans have tried to make a practice of attacking anybody who speaks out strongly by questioning their patriotism.” Presidential aspirant Wesley Clark whined in 2004, “How dare this administration make the charge that if you disagree with its policies, you are somehow unpatriotic!” Senator Barack Obama has condemned “the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies . . .” And Hillary Clinton herself famously screeched, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic.” More recently, in July of 2007, she told ABC News, “I deeply resent the administration’s continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions.”

Not surprisingly, the trope was enthusiastically embraced by the media. New York Times house liberal Paul Krugman wrote that "The Bush administration is always quick to question the patriotism of anyone who gets in its way." The Boston Globe’s Tom Oliphant faulted the President for permitting “his political pals [to] orchestrate a campaign to question the patriotism of those who urged a full national debate" about the Iraq war. And when CBS News portrayed Congressman John Murtha as the victim of scurrilous attacks on his patriotism in 2005, it identified John Kerry as “another decorated veteran whose patriotism has also been questioned.”

Kerry himself once wrote that “Patriotism also means dissent – when it’s hardest.” Remarkably, after spending years portraying themselves as courageous dissenters enduring unjustified attacks on their patriotism, Democrats were quick to impugn the character of General Petraeus -- a man who's nothing if not a dissenter from the conventional wisdom in the mainstream media and on Capitol Hill about the hopelessness of the war effort. Given their oft-stated sense of the injustice and gravity of an accusation of betrayal of country, it’s ironic that Democrats resorted so quickly to that tactic in an effort to blunt the effectiveness of General Petraeus’ testimony.

But they did. Democratic ally Moveon.org began the assault before the general’s testimony with an ad (provided by The New York Times at a reduced rate) questioning the integrity of “General Betray Us” – and most Democrats explicitly declined to condemn it. Leading Democrats questioned Petraeus’ integrity; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charged that “[h]e has made a number of statements over the years that have not proved to be factual,” while Senator Clinton characterized the general’s report as requiring “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin charged that Petraeus was guilty of “carefully manipulating the statistics” to support the surge, and Congressman Bob Wexler accused Petraeus of “cherry picking statistics or selectively massaging information.”

In calling General Petraeus a liar, Democrats by implication accused him of betraying his country by recklessly sacrificing the lives of American fighting men and women for strictly political reasons – a frontal assault on his patriotism and his honor. In doing so, they overstepped. In the wake of the general’s testimony on Capitol Hill, newspaper headlines noted the need for Democrats to find a new political strategy to end the war.

Worse yet for the Democrats, their attacks on General Petraeus offered Americans a moment of clarity. Democrats’ vitriol, their political gamesmanship, and their patent disregard for the substance of the General’s testimony opened an all-too-revealing window into the party’s soul – and showcased its stunning lack of seriousness about national security in general and the Iraq war in particular. Their behavior was a gift to Republicans, who need voters to understand that theirs is the party of national security in order to have any hope of winning next year’s presidential elections.

The testimony offered by General Petraeus certainly highlighted the shallowness of Democrats’ substantive claims about the Iraq war, but its symbolic value was every bit as great. The Petraeus hearings were a forcible reminder of the danger of trusting any party that would stoop to the character assassination it has long condemned in order to advance its own political interests, at the expense of America’s unity and its national security.

This is what I sent to crongress:

Something to Investigate

The current congress is one that thinks its job is to investigate every possible error that may or may not have been committed. Thus in keeping with that philosophy, I submit an item that really should be investigated to its fullest. I think we should answer the question of how many American and Iraqi servicemen and women have died due to congress’ continued attacks against them in the open media? This has given hope to an otherwise beaten enemy and is furthermore the major reason for continued fighting in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.

An enemy will not surrender if it feels it has a chance to survive to fight another day (has hope), or feels it’s enemy is losing the will or ability to fight faster than they are losing fighters or territory. If those that have been chosen to lead America did what they were paid to do; the war would, for the most part, be over with little more than clean-up left to be done. Instead they have done what is not best for America but what they believe is best for their party – hopefully this will be proven to be a false assumption and politically fatal.

If their actions cannot be called treason (and many believe it can and should be) it is the closest one could get – speaking legally – without crossing the line. Through their words and actions they have caused many more deaths than I think they are even aware of (as they must know their actions have directly resulted in increased numbers of soldiers and civilians killed in this war) by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They are being used as what is commonly called “useful idiots” and as recruitment propaganda to increase our enemy’s ranks with more foot solders for cannon fodder, in this case suicide bombers.

The investigation I propose could be done by comparing the times before a major political figure makes some statement that is then carried across the battlefields as propaganda against American interests; and immediately after a speech or article written against America by an American political leader. We would see who our enemy feels are allies or “useful idiots” here in America. Those whom they feel are fools selling out their country for some small sense of power; power that they would lose as well as their lives if our enemies should win.

The results of the investigation and the testimony of all that would have to defend their actions or lack there of, would make for an extremely important debate leading up to the 2008 elections. Then American’s would really know the truth about our leaders and not some bumper slogan, as well as if the 2006 elections were really about the war; which by the way, they were not. This is truly important for America, not only in this war but all that follow – show American’s the effects the so called leaders have on the ability of our war fighters to fight the wars they are sent to fight. Let the actions of those speaking out against the war know that they will not save life but will cause loss of life to be increased; and wasted if we should lose.

The “peace at any cost” crowd believe that if we were to just give the enemy what they want – pull our troops out of the Middle East –we would have peace. As proven throughout history appeasement’s only result is that it leads to a stronger more emboldened enemy willing to take even greater risks resulting in longer wars with a higher body count. It should also be noted that when the war does occur it’s on the appeasers’ lands. Wars can only be prevented though the knowledge and understanding that if one should be attacked that the attacker will lose more than they can or will gain. After 9/11 countries need to have an even clearer understanding that if they are perceived to pose a threat that they may be attacked. In this day and age to wait until attacked could mean the death of the nation or its way of life

Currently, like in World War I and II we are, for the most part, able to fight on the lands of the enemy. It is very probable if we were to pullout of the current battlefields then we would most certainly fight them on our lands, in our cites and in our streets; where the loss of our most innocent - our children - would pay an astronomical price, in blood. For what is happening over in Afghanistan and Iraq would happen here. Once the fight is brought to our homeland our enemy would be more emboldened, more bloodthirsty, willing to kill in even greater numbers – They consider us the “Great Satin”. Nothing would please them more than our total defeat and destruction of our way of life and no one would be able to stop them, as they would have seen us surrender, and would have reason to believe that we would summit to Islamic Law in time.

In closing, I again ask you to investigate this matter to its fullest and let the world know America is not just the members of congress. That what our leaders say is not always the true state of America. America is a country and although American’s are kind and compassionate we are not afraid to fight the long hard fight. Americans still believe in heroes and that the good guy always wins for you see AMERICA is the GOOD GUY. Let the world know that we Americans have not lost our will and will hold all that threaten us accountable, even if they were elected into office.

Signed,

An American Standing Up

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.