This was posted over at Josh Marshall's TPM:
Joe Lieberman has decided to join the GOP Smear Machine, which kicked into high gear this week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered some fairly mild criticism of outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace during a conference call. From a radio show in Connecticut:
Q. There was a big flap yesterday about some comments made by Harry Reid concerning Gen. Petraeus, and the outgoing Peter Pace, saying they were incompetent, basically. Is that useful, and do you know that to be true or not... It's generally being reported in a lot of places.
LIEBERMAN: I don't know what Harry Reid is up to. I was very upset, even offended, by what he said about General Pace and General Petraeus. Look, you call General Pace incompetent? That's abs - this is a man who has devoted his entire life to the Marine corps, the service of our country, defense of our country.
Hmm, the president fired Gen. Pace, after he devoted his entire life to the Marine corps, the service of our country, defense of our country. Did Lieberman find that offensive? Put it another way -- which is more "upsetting" to Lieberman, a senator's mild, one-sentence criticism of a general's judgment, or the president firing that general in the midst of a war?
Lieberman wasn't quite through:
Q. Why is he doing this? Why is Reid doing this?
LIEBERMAN: I have no idea. Then to say that Petraeus is out of touch? I mean, Harry Reid in Washington says David Petraeus, who's in Baghdad, away from his family, heroically trying to rally our forces and succeed over in Iraq... that he's out of touch? I mean, it's just - the danger here - my colleagues who have been opposed to the war have said "we're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." But when you start to attack the top two generals, you know, that's... that's wrong.
That's been the standard right-wing line for a couple of days now -- if you disapprove of a general, then you're necessarily anti-military and deserve to have your patriotism questioned. Yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a statement saying that Reid "attack
our military." Conservatives online are following along, insisting without reason that Reid made "anti-military slurs."
Since when is it heresy to question the competence of military leaders? Pace's tenure has, at times, been rocky. His relationship with congressional leaders has, at times, been awkward. For that matter, Petraeus' judgment has come under question of late. There need not be a rule that military leaders must remain criticism-free at all times.
Indeed, if generals must be exempted from criticism, and those who spend their lives in military service should not be questioned, why is it that John McCain offered some harsh words, in public, for the last general to command U.S. troops in Iraq? Opposing Gen. George Casey's confirmation as the Army's chief of staff, McCain cited the general's "unrealistically rosy" assessments and "failed leadership" and told him: "I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq. And we have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy."
Was this outrageous, too? Did conservatives condemn McCain for levying a personal attack on a general in a time of war?
Or is it more likely the case that Republicans and Lieberman are desperate to manufacture scandals, whether the facts support them or not?
-- Steve Benen
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_06_10.php#014655In view of the fact that Lieberman is now clearly no longer pretending to be a Democrat, should he be allowed to continue to caucus with the Democrats?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
