Miniter's revisionist history: Cleland "was voted out of office for being too soft on the war on terror"; Kerry lost after "allegedly inflating his service on a Navy swift boat"
SUMMARY: In his latest column, The Wall Street Journal's Brendan Miniter claimed that former Sen. Max Cleland "was voted out of office for being too soft on the war on terror" and that Sen. John Kerry lost his 2004 presidential bid "after being savaged for calling for a 'global test' in the use of American military power, waffling on the war in Iraq, and allegedly inflating his service on a Navy swift boat."
In his August 15 column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com assistant editor Brendan Miniter wrote that "the American voting public" has "tended to side with the War Party," and presented as evidence the claim that former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), "a Democrat with an honorable military record and who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was voted out of office for being too soft on the war on terror." Miniter also claimed that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), "another softy," lost his 2004 presidential bid "after being savaged for calling for a 'global test' in the use of American military power, waffling on the war in Iraq, and allegedly inflating his service on a Navy swift boat." In fact, the reasons Miniter offered for Cleland's and Kerry's electoral defeats were actually the byproducts of the Republican smear campaigns aimed at both men.
Miniter claimed that Cleland lost his Senate seat in 2002 because he was "too soft on the war on terror." No mention was made of the attack ads put out by Cleland's opponent, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), linking the Vietnam veteran to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. As The New Republic's "Notebook" reported (subscription required) on December 2, 2002, "attacks on Cleland's patriotism formed the subtext of virtually the entire Chambliss campaign, as noted by innumerable press accounts leading up to and following the election." Chambliss attacked Cleland, claiming Cleland opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, even though Cleland was a co-sponsor of legislation introduced on May 2, 2002, calling for the creation of a cabinet-level DHS. As Media Matters for America has noted, it was the Bush White House that opposed the creation of DHS, until Bush reversed position in June 2002 and promoted a different bill that included provisions opposed by Democrats, including Cleland.
A July 3, 2003, Washington Post article described a controversial Chambliss ad that attacked Cleland:
It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"
Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, criticized Chambliss's attack, suggesting that it was as disingenuous as it was vicious:
In the beginning, Bush didn't even want a homeland security department. He fought it tooth and nail --- opposing a bill offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- until Karl Rove figured out that Democrats were gaining popular support in their efforts to get one started. Then, Bush flipflopped and quickly put together legislation to create a homeland security department; but the bill was salted with minefields, including a provision that infuriated employee unions.
When Democrats fought the labor-bashing provision, the GOP accused them of stalling the creation of a homeland security post. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., then a congressman, defeated then-Sen. Max Cleland by portraying him as unpatriotic; Cleland's opposition to the labor provision somehow got twisted into proof that Cleland opposed the homeland security act and also America.
Miniter also claimed that Kerry "call[ed] for a 'global test' in the use of American military power" -- echoing the distortions of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign and other conservative media figures. As Media Matters noted at the time, during the September 30, 2004, presidential debate, Kerry did not call for a global test on U.S. military action, but rather said that he would pre-emptively act to protect the United States, while stressing that the president must be able to demonstrate the necessity of having done so:
KERRY: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, [moderator] Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
As for Miniter's assertion that Kerry lost after "allegedly inflating his service on a Navy swift boat," Miniter neglected to mention that those allegations came from the widely discredited Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth).
Miniter wrote:
This is about where the American voting public is asked to weigh in and for the past two election cycles, they've tended to side with the War Party. In 2002 Georgia's Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat with an honorable military record and who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was voted out of office for being too soft on the war on terror. In 2004 John Kerry, another softy who had nonetheless served in Vietnam, lost after being savaged for calling for a "global test" in the use of American military power, waffling on the war in Iraq, and allegedly inflating his service on a Navy swift boat.
Oh, come on, 2004 is over, there's no need to repeat such obvious lies. Unless you actually believe your own crap?
As Kerry repeatedly noted, he had one clear and consistent position throughout. It took more than ten words to explain, and I don't completely agree with it, but it was there, and it's a gross insult to everyone's intelligence to suggest that voting for the IWR but opposing Bush's invasion is contradictory.
...but leaves the replies, it can be very confusing!
Then it took more than ten seconds.
If it took more than ten seconds, then it didn't get to be a soundbite.
If it didn't become a soundbite, it didn't get repeated by a politician.
If it didn't get repeated by a politician, it didn't get repeated by a talkinghead pundit.
IF IT DIDN'T GET REPEATED BY A TALKINGHEAD PUNDIT, IT DIDN'T GET REPEATED TIME AND AGAIN ON THE NEWS.
These people work on low information voters, those with short attention spans and those with poor memory retention. The dumber people are, the more they get away with.
These people work on low information voters, those with short attention spans and those with poor memory retention. The dumber people are, the more they get away with.
That's true, and well said in so few words.
As for the "pithy phrase" and the "ten second sound-bite", those things are truly the currency traded in by these "media" hacks alone.
Few people actually speak that way. Most people today, when they discuss national politics, have both the time and the inclination to go way beyond simple phrases and ten second limits; they may start out discussing "stay the course" and "fighting them over there, so we don't have to here", but after so many minutes, those people naturally evolve to discussing a strategic (and ultimately necessary) redeployment from Iraq, and the National Security issues served by an invasion and occupation of Iraq (of which there are none!).
The hack "media", with their phrases and soundbites, intentionally head off any serious and evolved discussion of national policy; as a matter of fact, if you watch for example chris matthews, you'll notice that the rapid-fire dialogue of abbreviated thoughts, is not only what makes them so cleverly misinformative, but it can give you a headache trying to keep up with the nonsense; so that you find yourself mindlessly nodding in affirmation to the talking-points, or else you've tuned them out in frustration.
And that's what's presently happening: An extraordinary number of the American People are tuning out these "media" hacks; the level of trust placed in these hacks by the People has dwindled to an all-time low...
The most recent "media" campaigns to dazzle and distract the American People from Iraq have all failed miserably.
As led by (and incessantly harped on by) Fox, the issues of "gay marriage" and "hordes of illegals storming the border" have crashed and burned; of late we had "world war III on the Israel-Lebanon border", and the people just didn't buy it, not for a minute; and the most recent "beverage terror" out of Britian is likewise a "media" flop.
These people work on low information voters, those with short attention spans and those with poor memory retention. The dumber people are, the more they get away with.
It's true. But the low information is becoming more information, over time; and the short attention spans are becoming longer, as the dialogue evolves.
The poor memory is being annoyed into a better recollection; and the dumb are getting wiser, each and every day.
I think the Internet Wire has a lot to do with it.
I think the extraordinary erosion of trust in the hack "media" is a good thing for Democracy...
It's a good thing for the American People.
I had mentioned that the various "media" campaigns being used to distract the American People from the death that is Iraq (campaigns such as "world war III" on the Israel-Lebanon border) have been flops.
That was before the newest "media" campaign dawned, where we have the murder of a little girl ten years ago, and the strange freak (in Thialand?) claiming to have some part in it.
Gee, we'll see how they run with this one, the "media" hacks...
It'll be 24-7, no doubt... But for how many days can the American People be subjected to the incessant talk of the murder of a little girl, before they revolt, and shut the "media" out, completely and forever?
Boy, right about now, Fox et al sure could use a good hurricane, but there aren't any (and even if there were, it's a double-edged sword to run with, because it also serves as a reminder of Katrina).
The murder of the little girl will just have to do, 24-7, until a good hurricane comes along I guess.
I'd much prefer to continue to see Fox hacks flinching from loud sounds at the Israel-Lebanon border, than suffer this talk of the murder of a little girl.
Anyday.
1.) Smear your opponent
2.) Smear your opponent
3.) If the first two fail, smear your opponent
Just kidding.
Instead, repeat rule #1.
bush?
..it's not going to stick in people's head.
quite a nice cover, actually. From Websters, "An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but against whom no charges have been proved. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified." Swifties make a false claim and reichwingers make the charge stick by saying Allegedly. Slimballs they are, but quite a disingenuous approach. Fools stupids all the time...
that their smear 'em good tactics would eventually run thin, so they passed HAVA, mandating the use of their electronic voting machines. Dan Rather is back on Mark Cuban's network. Sorry, Karl. See you in civil court, where hearsay is welcome and a preponderance of evidence is all that's required.
Yes, I am looking forward to Karl and Cheney and the rest on Liars Island taking the stand in the Plame civil case and explaining to a judge and jury how Valerie Plame was some low level clerk for the CIA yet had the power to send her husband to Niger on a "vacation". Which is it, fellas? Is she THAT powerful therefore in all probability someone best left anon or is she a little nobody therefore incapable of authorizing her husband's trip? One of your assertions is a lie. Which one?
Fun times are in store.
or try to forget it, the whole swift boat and purple heart stuff.
I think I'm just embarassed for my country when I think about it. A bunch of rich kids who avoided serving in the military mocking another rich kid who decided to do his time,but who didn't sustain enough injuries to impress them.
That's when I thought the GOP had achieved the impossible goal of underestimating the American public.
The smile on my face when I saw those fat pansys with the purple band-aids on their fingers !
"this" I thought optimistically "is where Joe average American catches on"
I watch bad TV shows like "Cops" and "Judge Judy", so I know that a certain area of every part of the US is made up of walking rebuttals to Darwin, but I thought the Repubs had set the bar too low in 2004.
I live in very conservative Orange County, Ca. I try to be friendly to rightys out of necessity.After 2000 I tried to be civil. If 8 years of this isn't enough, if my fellow Americans don't get it,2008 is going to be the year I need medication.
I live in Tennessee. Almost as bad as Alabama and Georgia, but not quite. I have cousins who believe that Rush Limbaugh is a harbinger of truth...I have an uncle who wants the Poll Tax reinstituted...my sister in law voted for Bush because "at least he has values"...
Being a blue dot in a swamp of red really sucks.
The middle state, where the Dixie Chicks are still going to play, or Harold Ford Country where inexplicably they cancelled, or in the eastern state, Howard Baker, Jimmy Duncan Lamar Alexander country, where my tickets have been refunded? Argh!
The Chicks speak and sing in too many syllables to be understood in doing their non-soundbite discussion of the man who said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 [link to politicalhumor.about.com]
(Were you there?)
The chicks got their share of it, and now the original group that justified their lies about Kerry on the basis of the inaccurate insinuations that he had labeled all participants in the Viet Nam conflict as war criminals are coming directly after Murtah in his home state. (Anybody see the recent release of the information on how many VN war crimes were covered up? [link to www.latimes.com]
I fear that as a nation we'll never be able to differentiate ourselves from Bush's inability to admit imperfection (yes, that is intended ironic understatement) when the admission is timely, instead of forty years later, and those who believe that the only way to improve is to admit past errors and move on toward greater civility will often be in the minority.
Yeah, I too thought for sure that the Swift boat debacle would be a big blow to the Bush campaign. But I guess you can never hit too low below the belt.
I had a Kerry sticker on my car at that time. One morning I came out and someone had printed out stuff from the Swift boat liars. I have rarely been so infuriated about anything political before... it bugged the hell out of me that this anonymous neighbour took it upon themselves to apparently "educate" me about Kerry, and I couldn't even respond to the lies.
I'm guessing there were enough of them out there that wanted to be duped.
I meant to write "One morning I came out and someone had printed out stuff from the Swift boat liars, and put the printout under the wipers on the windshield of my car."
Makes more sense now I hope. :)
the power of stupid people acting in large numbers.
The entire swift boat episode in the 2004 election is IMO the low point in politics in my lifetime. After taking the time to actually read the accounts of Kerry's experiences in Nam one learns that Kerry VOLUNTEERED for hazardous missions... such as floating down a river in a Boston Whaler in order to draw enemy fire. IMO Kerry deserved a medal for that act alone. It was shameful the way his record was tarnished by a bunch of loser wackos. But, hey... what do expect from the Republican Party these days?
Is there any hope that voters this November will have wised up? How many of them will actually believe that Bush has improved conditions in the middle east? Do any of these fans of his war mongering policies understand how Bush's policies are building hatred against us? Or how our $3.00 a gallon gas money is flowing into oil rich countries (most of whom hate us) and giving them tremendous power and feeding radical revolt against the west? Do any of these Bush lovers think John Kerry would have created a bigger mess? If the Republicans win in November I'm going to give up and crawl into a hole and pull the ground in over me.
The defeat of Lieberman in CT and several other races, such as the close challenge to Curt Weldon in PA by a retired admiral who has taken a strong position that we need to be out of Iraq by the end of '07, give me hope that many voters have wised up. That said, we know that the Rovian party is desperate, well funded, willing and capable of sinking to any depth of deceit to win.
Kerry and Cleland lost because the smear machine worked to misrepresent their positions to voters. It's already begun with Ned Lamont in CT. The only tactic the Repubs and Bush supporters have this year and in '08 is to malign, misrepresent and smear, because for them the isseus are crashing down around them. July had the highest Iraqi casualty numbers since we invaded. Some success!
I know you all are above smearing..... LOLOLOLOLOL
I see it go both ways, and it is very childesh. Face it, those states wanted new blood, just like the Leiberman squash. You can not win them all, thank god......
As vicious, and dishonest as the Swift Boat Liars for rent or what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000. If you can I would love to see it. If NOT you have no point
Note the evolution of rightwing tactics.
Used to be, DENIAL was the ticket. Diebold machines are not trustworthy? PROVE IT! they would claim.
At least NOW, they have evolved to admitting but rationalizing. OH YEAH? they say, well, JFK won the presidency by stealing the votes in Chicago!
By such claims, they justify any and all Republican tactics, accepted as not just expected, but THEIR DUE. Thus, there is NO corruption to which the GOP can stoop that will not be gleefully applauded by their "base", because they have convinced themselves that their party is the "victim fighting back", rather than craven corrupt partisan criminals.
Just today on C-SPAN, a caller justified Valarie Plame's outing by diverting to the Clinton issue of the FBI Files. "Clinton used those files for political purposes, so don't tell me about Bush's political abuse of secret information!" she said. Uh, the FBI File thing was fully investigated and found to be baseless. No matter; the rightwing has no need to deal in actual FACTS to achieve justifications in their "minds".
But why do they want new blood? Do you think they might want someone with new ideas on Iraq and the "war" on terror?
It always boils down to Iraq. Don't get me worng, I feel terrible for the deaths our Millitary men and woman. But, most people know it is a disaster. Yeah, maybe the new blood will want to pull out. And surley we can find a new way to fight terrorism. I feel we need new Dems and Repubs in office.
Wow! Reminds me of "Planet of the Apes", where the gorillas were mindless and violent, and had no developed brains.
Brawn alone will win the day. If you don't understand it, CRUSH it. If you can't read it, BURN it. If it's not just like YOU, blow it up.
One would hope we would have evolved from this concept, but apparently there are still a lot of primate instinct operating in the human animal, and those knuckle draggers who fear and distrust knowledge gravitate to the Republicans -- the "WAR PARTY".
But they're mostly the cheerleaders for war. When it comes to actually fighting the war, they're content to leave that to others.