Time for another entry in the history of the nation's most hacktastic newspaper, the Washington Times, whose inspired brand of "journalism" kept us busy at Spinsanity for years.
Their latest offense comes in an article disclosing a private memo distributed to Senate Democrats, which calls for senators to hold town halls at military bases. As the Times points out, this is prohibited:
Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
... However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings."
The problem, however, is that President Bush holds explicitly political events at military facilities all the time.
How does the Times get around this? By dissembling about what Bush does in front of the military:
As commander in chief, Mr. Bush has made frequent visits to military bases in the United States and abroad. His remarks are generally limited to explaining his war policies and encouraging the troops.
Generally limited? President Bush has given more divisive speeches in front of military audiences than any president in recent memory. Here's one example, which I wrote about last year. In November 2005, President Bush came under fire from Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat who reversed his support for the war and called for the US to withdraw from Iraq. President Bush's response, delivered at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA, was harsh and political:
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Earlier that month, as I also pointed out, Bush delivered a similar attack on opponents of the war in Iraq to an audience at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska:
Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.
Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now.
The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, "Iraq was in clear material violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal."
Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, "Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when the sanctions were lifted."
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
We all have our ways of "encouraging the troops." Apparently Bush's is to try to silence dissent in the democracy that our soldiers have sworn to defend.
Good point on the Bush-straw man point.
However, the assertion at the end if this rant about Bush trying to silence dissent is silly. He is trying to score political points. He can't silence dissent more than you or I can (especially as a 36% approval president).
Posted by: Jamie | March 20, 2006 at 12:24 AM