Maybe Pace and Gates weren’t clear enough

For weeks now, the principal conservative talking point against a congressional resolution criticizing Bush’s war escalation is that debate undermines the troops and emboldens the enemy. The argument has been embraced by everyone from Dick Cheney to John McCain to Bill Kristol.

It is, unfortunately, demagoguery at its most insipid. War supporters can’t come up with a coherent defense of their preferred policy, so they’re left to question the patriotism of anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this week, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace and Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected the premise of the far-right argument.

Pace: As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.

Gates: I think they’re [the troops are] sophisticated enough to understand that that’s what the debate’s really about.

As if that wasn’t quite clear enough, Pace went on to say, “There’s no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.” He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they “don’t have a clue how democracy works.”

And speaking of not having a clue, the White House apparently didn’t care for all of this dissent-appreciating discussion, and as Greg Sargent noted, put their own spin on what happened.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace testified before Congress, saying that they didn’t think Senate debate of the anti-escalation resolution hurt troop morale. The news orgs played the story as such, playing up fact that the two men’s assertions went counter to GOP claims that Congressional debate undercuts the troops and emphasizing the fact that Gates and Pace were saying that such debate isn’t a bad thing, after all.

Today the White House communications shop blasted out an email questioning that interpretation of the event.

To hear the White House tell it, the most important part of the hearing was Gates telling lawmakers, “From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there’s going to be this kind of debate. But they’re going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided.” (emphasis in the original)

The White House really must think everyone outside the West Wing is a fool.

Maybe the Bush gang ought to re-read the transcript of the hearing — and pay special attention to the part about discussion “strengthening our democracy.”

so how long before peter pace gets fired for saying this dialogue strengthens our democracy……..

  • “they’re going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided”

    Yeah, they will. The “mission given” is “mission impossible”, and the resources (in particular the inferior body armor) BushCo has been providing is a problem too.

  • And now Republican Gangster Leader “Chinless” Mitch McConnell wants to have open debate. It is nice to see how quickly the GOP can do a major flip-flop and join us traitors.

  • Iraq tour 2005-2006: I can tell you that some of us do read the paper and watch the news (on the obscene TVs in our palatial tents and trailers). Although we go on with the mission despite the dialogue at home, it certainly does have an emotional impact on the troops.

  • Well that they should look to see if they are being supported considering the fact they were sent over there with incomplete resources and a “mission” based on false premises to begin with!

    Hey, Dick! How’s that unitary executive thing working out for you??

  • been there,

    Although we go on with the mission despite the dialogue at home, it certainly does have an emotional impact on the troops.

    Firstly, thank you for your service to our great country. Secondly, can you be a little more clear about the nature of the emotional impact on the troops? And would you please comment on how the impact differs when it comes to debating the escalation vis-a-vis providing body armor and veteran’s benefits (or not providing and cutting them as the case may be)?

  • I understand the Peter Pace quote to read, “talk all you want, just don’t change anything. Keeping the money coming and the troops over there.” Pace is acting like his is the 109th Congress with all talk and no action.

    To a soldier over there in the country they conquered and now occupy on their second, third or even fourth tour, wouldn’t the sound of legislators saying the mission is done, let’s bring the troops home do a world of good for the soldiers?

  • In January 1942 during World War II the English Parliament held a Vote of Confidence against Winston Churchill, who was Prime Minister at the time. The vote was held after the loss of France, the ongoing U-boat war, and the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore. Russia was in dire straights, the US Pacific Fleet was at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, and Japan was conquering all. In short, near the peak of Axis power and a dangerous time for England.

    Churchill said:
    “A debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any Member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the Administration or against the composition or personalities of the Government, to his heart’s content, subject only to the reservation which the House is always to careful to observe about military secrets.

    Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives.”

    I wish our government had similar faith in the strength of our institutions. Instead we are told that any dissent, any disagreement with the President’s chosen course of action will embolden the enemy and damage the troops morale.

  • Comments are closed.