-
Soundbyte Patriots
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
| ||||||||||||||||
Six months into the post-9/ll era, GOPers and conservatives have conniptions whenever Democrats and others dare to differ with -- or ask questions about -- the war on terrorism.
A few weeks ago, when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle noted he was concerned Bush "is cloaking the war on terrorism in secrecy" -- hardly a sign of taking-it-to-the-streets opposition -- Republicans went ballistic. Senate minority leader Trent Lott said such remarks broke a tradition of maintaining a united front while U.S. troops are in harm's way. "Any sign that we are losing that unity, or crack in that support, will be, I think, used against us," Lott complained. Lott and other Republicans argued that criticism of war -- even Daschle's mild rebuke -- would impair what's known as "national resolve."
The "national resolve" gang got its own lobby recently, when William Bennett, past education secretary and self-proclaimed virtues-czar, announced the formation of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism. At the outfit's unveiling in Washington, Bennett expressed his great fear: "professional and amateur critics of America are finding their voice."
By his side stood two prominent get-Saddam hawks, R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, and Frank Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of defense. Their point, Bennett maintained, was not "to silence people; we wish to answer people." Bennett vowed that the group will challenge critics of the war "through free and open debate and discussion." As Woolsey put it, "we're not here to shut anybody up or to impugn anybody's patriotism or anything like that."
But Bennett and Company are not interested in a vibrant and vigorous debate. Sure, they're willing to slug it out with those who criticize or question the war (or aspects of it). But what they desire is that critics of the war shut their traps. This group does intend to portray critics as dangers to the country for, yes, weakening national resolve. Loose lips sink ships and all that.
This is a campaign of intimidation. As Bennett said about the war's critics, "Your words can be interpreted in such ways that they hurt national resolve." He cited Jimmy Carter, who called Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric simplistic and counterproductive. It's not only that Bennett disagreed with the former president's assessment, but he asserted that Carter's remark will "weaken the resolve of others." This is a rascally attack, suggesting that Carter's criticism will cause harm.
But Bennett did not state plainly what damage would be done by Carter's words. Will U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan think twice before assaulting a Taliban redoubt because they read Carter's comments? Will the leaders of other nations change their opinions about the use of the "axis of evil" label after learning of Carter's opinion? Will they be less inclined to join Bush's expanding war on terrorism? Whose resolve is weakened? The real question is whether Carter is correct or not in his evaluation, not what impact his statement has. If others abroad and at home find his criticism valid, then the problem will be Bush's use of the term. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the marketplace. Does that not cover ideas?
Gaffney went beyond Bennett. He conceded congressional Democrats have the right to be critical of the President and the war -- not that many have been -- but he said "the test of [criticisms] is how others, particularly our enemies, perceive the second guessing, the questioning, the criticisms, and I think there is reason to believe that that may be in a way that emboldens them, causes them to think, as they have perceived in us before, that a divided America will lack the resolve" -- there's that word again -- "to stay the course and to achieve the victory that we clearly require." How else to interpret this other than, if you question the war, you could be assisting America's enemies, so zip it?
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
