Broder: Democrats have little "sympathy for" the military
In his February 6 column, Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote that retired Gen. Wesley Clark was "[o]ne of the losers" among the potential Democratic presidential candidates who spoke before the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on February 2 because he forgot "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." Broder, who earlier in the column cited the "antiwar sentiments of this liberal-leaning audience," gave no support for his assertion that Democratic Party members lack sympathy for the military -- an assertion that reflects the assumption, expressed frequently among the media and documented by Media Matters for America, that Iraq war supporters are "pro-military," and conversely that those opposed to the Iraq war must be anti-military.
Media Matters has also noted that congressional Democrats who opposed the Iraq war resolution voted for legislation to increase spending for veterans and benefits for military families, legislation that was opposed by Republicans who voted for the Iraq war resolution.
Broder wrote:
Both of them [former Sen. John Edwards (NC) and Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)] played to the antiwar sentiments of this liberal-leaning audience by demanding that those now in Congress do more than pass resolutions decrying President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. Edwards wants to pull out 40,000 soldiers now; Richardson said that Iraq "is not worthy of one more lost American life."
[...]
One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military. The larger disaster was the long harangue of former Alaska senator Mike Gravel, a strident critic of almost everything and promoter of a folly -- a national initiative process -- that not even a deranged blogger could love. Someone has to give him the hook before the real debates begin.
In a February 6 entry to The American Prospect's Tapped weblog, writing fellow Ezra Klein challenged Broder's "invention of anti-military sentiment at the DNC winter meeting":
[Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] recounted a heartbreaking tale of a fallen soldier in Iraq, whom he kept calling "his friend." John Edwards -- who Broder names as the hit speaker of the weekend -- told Democrats that "We are here because somewhere in America a mother wipes her hand on a dishcloth to go answer a knock on her door ... and opens it to find an army chaplain and an officer standing there with solemn faces and her boy's name -- her patriotic son who enlisted after September 11 -- on their lips." Moreover, the entire meeting was kicked off by a presentation from the local ROTC color guard, in which fully uniformed recruits presented the flag in the traditional way favored by the military. The entire audience stood for the presentation, many of us with our hands on our hearts. Such displays and speeches, of course, didn't fit Broder's narrative, and so he didn't report them. But that doesn't mean they weren't there.
Good Gawd I hate this mindless inside the Beltway Groupthink. To go out of his way to show how "fair and balanced" he is, Broder must pull out all the canards about Democrats and ignore the glaring hypocrisies of the "pro military" chickenhawk Republicans.
I don't think he went out of his way. I think this is how David Broder really feels, deep down in his librul heart...
i know you're being sarcastic about liberal, but that is how he is viewed by the right. he trashed gore, he claimed the outing of valerie plame was no big deal [i guess helping destroy our intelligence capacity when one tip might avoid a terror attack is no big deal], and he called for an apology to karl rove when he was not indicted [even though rove did exactly what he was accused of, give her identity to reporters before novak's column].
There are ways to change that feeling deep down in his hollow heart, such as: to take out what canards he left to be reported and run him through with them.
Broder: Quit. You had your decades'run, you got your buy-off graft and cashed the checks, your self-smug flattery matters more to you than your love of country, now you traitor of our Free Press right to you for true reporting. You are a man now shunned by all who have the internet for news, not yours; democracy will out and all be ours, not yours; find yourself another country to be part of, America is not yours as you defame it, with your praise and protection racket for the murdering war criminals in The Fright House you extol. We are gonna Nuremberg 'em.
The following was additionally reported at the DNC event this weekend; Broder left most facts on the cutting room floor ... such as, Hillary's and Edwards's campaigns laying there ripped to ribbons, finished, now are futile frauds.
[ Wayne Madsen Report . com dateline ] February 5, 2007 -- Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's speech had the Democratic Party official's undivided attention .... Gravel said those candidates who voted for the war and who are now claiming they made a mistake do not possess the judgment to be president. Candidates who voted for the war in 2002 include Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. Gravel criticized them and their Democratic colleagues, who, while in control of the Senate in 2002, "provided political cover for George Bush to invade Iraq."[ Broder, too, and smeared his hands in soldiers' blood across the letters of his keyboard. ] Gravel, who was one of the architects of ending the draft and the Vietnam War, reminded some of the Democrats present in the Washington Hilton ballroom of their culpability in enabling the Iraq war. Gravel declared, "anyone who voted for the war on October 11th [2002] based upon what President Bush presented to them is not qualified to hold the office of the president of the United States." Gravel, who was the first major candidate to declare for the presidency last April and was largely dismissed by the Democratic leadership, is now tied with Biden in polls in Nevada, an early caucus state.
Somehow being tied with Biden is not overly comforting considering that many do not take Biden's bid all that seriously.
well now broder has been a reliable aspirator of vacuous D.C. bromides going on a steady 2 decades now. mostly he's been an eager but inoffensive antidisestablishmentarian. here it appears he might have brushed up against dick morris in some green room somewhere at contracted a touch of the man's oral syphilis. it's an ignorant and ugly remark, and can only presage more verbal nincompoopery. time for broder to shuffle off to some honorary role at the Newseum before he harms himself or someone else or his nose falls off in public.
The sad reality of this matter is that the VAST majority of the so-called "pro-military" righties do not have a DD214. I have mine, where is yours, Tommy, Doris, Rush, Sean, Bill-O, Weiner, Cheney, Rice, Leatherhelmet, Broder, etc., etc.?
Well, most Democrats probably support the military, but a few far left lawmakers like Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich definetely don't. They want to cut off funds for our troops in the field, depriving them of the equipment that they need to get the job done. It's one thing to question the mission that the troops are sent on, but it's quite another to refuse to support them in the battlefield.
The idea of cutting off funding is to force the president to withdraw troops, not to leave them unprotected in the field. If Bush keeps unfunded troops in the field, then what happens to them is his fault.
The troops are already unprotected in the field!! Classic reversal of logic to serve a selfish end.
Excellent point.
Congress should stop funding the Iraq War.
That will cause the troops to come home. They won't stay there without food and equipment.
Oh come on.
At least make an original argument.
"Mr. Feingold insisted that his resolution would “not hurt our troops in any way” because they would all continue to be paid, supplied, equipped and trained as usual — just not in Iraq."
But he's a lying Dem, so why believe him right?
yes, just like the republicans have done....no armor, extended tours, cutting veterans' benefits, cutting funds for army hospitals...
Oh lookie - a right wing talking point. Zzzzzzz.I'm sure out of consistency you said the same thing about REPUBLICANS back in 1993 when they voted to cut off funding for Somalia operations.
Deny funding for the troops? Maybe you forgot old Rummey's comments to the troops about 'being in the Army you'd like to have versus the one you really have.' While the troops parents were having to send them kevlar vests and nightvision googles; while the troops had to salvage scrap metal from broken down equipment in order to secure the equipment they had to work with. Maybe the Chickenhawks should've funded them properly in first place before sending them into this death trap.You, Mr. Rhino, are an idiot to the 10th degree and nothing but a troll with all rhetoric and no substance.
Way to put some effort into finding the correct quote. Ever heard of Google? The correct quote is: "As you know, you go to war with the army you have. They're not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Although Rino's statement is incorrect, at least he's not lazy like you, Demintx.
Good catch, JDC, Demintx completely twisted the meaning of that... no, wait, just paraphrased, kept the meaning intact, but put quotes around it.
Not Googling a quote isn't necessarily laziness, you have to realize that some of us post here while working and otherwise having lives, not while waiting for mom to pull the casserole out.
Oh you know so much about me! Actually the meaning of the supposed quote is quite different than actual quote. I'll cut you some slack though, since English obviously isn't your first language. HBL, you are the poster child for making the rest of us Dems look bad. In typical HBL style, you make some idiotic assumption about the post or make a personal attack when all that was required was for you to keep quiet or maybe put a little intellectual effort into your reply. Obviously, that's asking too much of your limited intellect.
could you explain how the quote is "quite different"? i did not think he had it exactly correct, but i knew what he meant.
JDC, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, hate to see hysteria like that.
I'll just ignore all your insults as letting off steam.
Now, will you explain what the difference between the meaning of the quote and the mis-quote was,or is that it for you?
Look, Rumsfeld could be the worst thing to happen to the DoD ever. In addition, his statements at the Q & A in question were insensitive, perhaps incorrect (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/10/us_stance_on_armor_disputed/), not to mention politically stupid. However, I find too much irony in Demintx's false quote being accepted by the posters on a site meant to "out" conservative misinformation. The misinformation of the conservatives is often forwarded by incorrect, partial, or out of context attributions. Although it is unlikely anyone outside the 100 or so regular posters sees or would give a s**t about what is posted on this site, it still doesn't serve the cause well to practice some of the same type of intellectual laziness or dishonesty (not dishonest in Dementix's case, but I often see it in the posts).
As for the different meaning of the quotes, the meaning of true quote (as seen in the context of the rest of the answer to the soldier) is that, as a nation, we usually do not have the luxury of having armed forces equipped or trained to perfectly meet the threat we face -- e.g. US Navy having mostly rustbucket ships, not the fast carriers we were rapidly building, at the beginning of WWII. Dementx's post, implies the DoD had no intent of ever "up-armoring" Humvees or providing body armor. There was a plan in place to provide all of the required equipment; it was just that the DoD was taking their sweet time completing it. To me, the misquote, in words as well as in context of the overall post, implies Rumsfeld believes the TROOPS are in the Army they've got, and THEY are going to have to put up with what they have, i.e. "you might like to fight with ray guns and invisible Humvees, but, hey, you're going to get M-16's and underarmored Humvees -- deal with it." In effect the misquote is calling the troops unrealistic whiners. I think the real quote is simply implying that things aren't perfect (and how), but there are logistic reasons for the problems. In many ways, I think the true quote is more damning because it states that the SecDef should be doing something about the problem a little sooner than two years after rolling into Baghdad.
Duty
Honor
Country
These words are empty sounds out of the mouth of a guy named broder...
They are the Heart behind the Actions which are manifest of the Orders of men like
General Wesley Clark
...what a stain broder makes, by thinking he has the sinews or the gohanas to equal Gen. Clark's Duty, Honor, or Service.
What a shameful stain, to confuse actual Service in the U.S. Army, in defense of the U.S., with the hacking rhetoric of worthless pukes like broder...
What a shame.
Where did you rate in your West Point class broder...
...anywhere near Gen. Clark?
Serve much did you broder?
It's a sickening comparison to make, between a man and a hack.
Dem02020
I had never read a column by Mr. Broder until today. So I checked him out on Wikipedia to see if he had ever served in the military. He apparently enlisted or was drafted in 1951 and severed two years. Just wanted to see what his knowledge of the military was before I gave my opinion.
I also found a quote attributed to Mr. Broder on Wikipedia; "[The] way we cover news is to dig for facts in hopes that they will yield an approximation of truth."
His generalization that the speech General Clark made was addressed to “few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military” is very hypocritical if he truly believes that you “dig for facts” and “yield an approximation of truth”. Did Mr. Broder question each and every individual there about their experience in or with the military? How disingenuous is it for him to assume that because it is a Democratic gathering then the “audience” must be anti war, and thus anti military? Until he can back this article up with facts; he is no better than the other right wing hacks who paint all Democrats with the same brush.
In other words the man needs to practice what he preaches.
As to the preacher broder:
I know so little about the guy, and care even less... but I'll take your word for it that he once uttered such insightful words that ended in the phrase...
"approximation of the truth"
...if he ever said such a thing, then for sure he was born to squirm about in the slime of our "media"...
"approximation of the truth"
As to Gen. Clark, he is a man much more worthy of finding out about, and repeating what has been found out:
Valedictorian of his class at West Point (do you know how competitive they are... how much a competition there is for that Honor?)
Awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam... also the recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal and the Legion of Merit (three times).
Commander of the United States Southern Command and the European Command both (do you know how competitive it is to receive those commands... the fitness reports that are required, by the highest ranking Army Officers?)
You mentioned that maybe maybe not, the guy named broder was maybe pressed into military service, or maybe not... if so, I'm sure his service was competitive and valiant... perhaps he made his bunk as well as anyone else in his platoon, and marched in as straight a line and stood as still as any other, at parade...
Perhaps broder learned the meaning of Duty, Honor, and Country as well as Gen. Clark did...
...perhaps it was such experiences and service as that, in defense of his country, that led broder to seek out a career as a hack in the "media"...
To seek out an "approximation of the truth"
Dem,
I have a great deal of respect for and will support General Clark should he receive the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President. We need men like him who have been there and done that. Not the chicken hawks who have over the last six years completely screwed up our government, our military, and respect for our country through out the world.
Let us not forget that Clark commanded NATO troops in the illegal bombing campaign on Serbia and Kosovo in the late 1990's. His bombing of passenger trains, tv stations, and other such non-military targets led the Yugoslavians to attempt to bring war crimes proceedings against his master, Clinton. Let us not put too much faith in a man who has bombed children for Brussels and a Democrat president. His hands are not clean.
"not even a deranged blogger could love..." I'm not sure if he's implying there is another type of blogger (that would be unusually kind of him) or if it's just one word in the Dean's noble mind: derangedblogger. Like damyankee.
Actually, the National Initiative idea doesn't seem all that out there, pretty much a national version of what we have in California. If there's a downside, it's all the petitioners the rest of the country will have to deal with.
People who opposed the Iraq War from the start are "deranged" per Broder, while people like John McCain and Joe Lieberman who supported it are wonderful.
Damn liberal media...
E-mail to Broder
Dear Mr. Broder, In your February 6th column you sneer at the Democratic National Committee gathering, and state, “that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military.” How the hell do you know? Who the hell gave you the right to arbitrarily decide who loves our military, and who doesn’t? I guess your default position is that any gathering of flag-waving, right-wing chicken hawks must automatically be more “patriotic” than a Democratic gathering.You disgust me with your asinine comments. You are the very poster boy for the contemptible Washington insider hacks who spew out nothing but their biased filth on the American people.
Broder should write about the trillion dollars the DOD cant account for instead of giving his version of this "support the troops" fallacy. He is able to say such things because its a monologue...like many of these "commentators" they couldn't survive a real argument with someone willing to point out their incideous bullsh*t.
Rumsfeld spent the first nine months of Bush administration think-tanking ways to cut the military and cut military bases. And all this with the decider's blessings. Now you hear these bozo's tring to rewrite historical facts. Lucky for Bush , Rumsfeld hadn't been given enough time to be successful in his quest to gut the military by the time of the 9/11 event.
David Broder in that picture looks like one of those old men who lived alone down the street--and your mother used to warn you to stay away from them when you were young. He also reminds me in that picture of that guy in New York who was in the news in 2003 who kidnapped teenage girls and and kept them in his basement for months or years and did certain things to them.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
This has become a somewhat sad state of affairs concerning Broder. He earned his reporting stripes in the jungles of 'Nam and other war zones while providing thought provoking insights on a daily basis in both print and television. Perhaps he has taken to heart all the references to him being the "dean of Washington reporters."
I think his time has passed.
Ugh, how disgusting! Broder should be shunned and removed from public life after making statements like this.
Where was he? Each meeting began with a silent military presentation of the colors that took minutes. Check him for Alzheimers.
Boy did this one steam my arse! I don't usually fool with letters to these people, but couldn't avoid it this time:
Dear Sir:
I take exception to a statement in the referenced column, and request an apology. You wrote: "One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." As the son of a career Air Force officer/WWII fighter pilot, as an Army officer for 7 years before leaving the military only to permit my wife to have a career as well, as the brother of an Air Force NCO, and as the friend of many veterans, all of us Democrats, I hope you understand my angst over that statement which you back up with no statistics. I anticipate that you will be blistered in the liberal blogs by those who may have either much or little "experience" in the military, but virtually ALL of whom have the utmost sympathy for men and women in uniform.Sorry about the font...it didn't do this to pasted content before the tools were upgraded, next time I'll know better.
Regarding the "army we have" and related comments posted above, hope everyone saw yesterday's Progress Report link to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901584.html . PR wrote: "The Army and Marine Corps "are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply" the extra 21,500 troops President Bush plans to send to Iraq. "It's inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees">[link to www.washingtonpost.com] fall out of the sky," one senior Army official said."