After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha..
Not unlike the Clinton "triangulation" strategy, the approach has been to attack an opponent's greatest perceived strength in order to diminish his overall credibility. To no one's surprise, surrogates carry out the attacks, leaving President Bush and other Republican leaders to benefit from the results while publicly distancing themselves from the actual remarks.
During the 2000 primary season, John McCain's life-defining experiences as a prisoner of war in Vietnam were diminished through whispers that he was too scarred by those years to handle the emotional burdens of the presidency. The wide admiration that Senator Max Cleland gained from building a career despite losing three limbs in Vietnam brought on the smug non sequitur from critics that he had been injured in an accident and not by enemy fire. John Kerry's voluntary combat duty was systematically diminished by the well-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in a highly successful effort to insulate a president who avoided having to go to war
In case you'd forgotten about the ugly smear campaign against McCain, supporters of Bush whispered maliciously that McCain's years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese-for which we should be in awe of McCain, as he endured it with honor-actually made him less qualified to be President since it may have "damaged" his mind. So don't think it's only Democratic veterans who get the smear treatment, though Democrats are certainly subject to it with more reckless abandon, hence the absurd attacks on Murtha's service in Vietnam:
And now comes Jack Murtha. The administration tried a number of times to derail the congressman's criticism of the Iraq war, including a largely ineffective effort to get senior military officials to publicly rebuke him (Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was the only one to do the administration's bidding there).
Now the Cybercast News Service, a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party, has dusted off the Swift Boat Veterans playbook, questioning whether Mr. Murtha deserved his two Purple Hearts. The article also implied that Mr. Murtha did not deserve the Bronze Star he received, and that the combat-distinguishing "V" on it was questionable. It then called on Mr. Murtha to open up his military records.
Of course, these "charges" are so much bullshit, as Webb states clearly:
The accusations against Mr. Murtha were very old news, principally coming from defeated political rivals. Aligned against their charges are an official letter from Marine Corps Headquarters written nearly 40 years ago affirming Mr. Murtha's eligibility for his Purple Hearts - "you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action" - and the strict tradition of the Marine Corps regarding awards. While in other services lower-level commanders have frequently had authority to issue prestigious awards, in the Marines Mr. Murtha's Vietnam Bronze Star would have required the approval of four different awards boards.
Mr. Webb wonders if someday the right is going to reject their opportunisitic use of America's soldiers and veterans:
The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.
A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.
Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves.
And if there's any justice in the world, that's exactly what'll happen. Unfortunately I'd say there are still enough suckers out there on the right to fall for this disgusting tactic, even among veterans who ought to know better (see my former post about arguing with a vet about Murtha.) But constantly repeating this attack against veterans whose records in combat are unimpeachable strains the credibility of not only those who in engage in it, but those who benefit from it (I'm talking to you President Bush.) People who aren't Bush apologists who are seing right-wingers embrace soldiers who toe the party line and smear those who don't, while men who've never so much as worn camo at a halloween party run the country, are going to start thinking that maybe the right doesn't "support the troops" as much as they say they do. And for any of those conservatives out there who are willing to believe these lies and repeat the defamations against these honorable soldiers simply because it suits their party line and it's easier to do that then argue with what these vets are saying...you're no better, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I agree with Webb that it's only a matter of time before this tactic backfires on the right-wingers. I think it'll be sooner rather than later, and I for one will be happy to be around for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment