Reid and the Generals, Day Two

Following up on an item from yesterday afternoon, the interest in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s description of outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace continues to far exceed its significance. There have been some developments, though, that shed additional light on what was, and wasn’t, said.

Greg Sargent obtained a recording of the relevant part of Reid’s conference call with bloggers. Here’s exactly what was said:

BLOGGER QUESTION: What’s the next step on Gonzales?

REID: Well, I guess the President, he’s gotten rid of Pace because he could not get confirmed here in the Senate. Pace is also a yes-man for the President. I told him to his face, I laid it out last time he came in to see me. I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was. But he got rid of his Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, but he still hangs on to this failed Attorney General. And I guess he’s gonna [inaudible]. We’re gonna keep focusing on it. Every day that goes by, it seems he keeps giving. Now we’ve learned that the immigration judges are all graduates of Regent University I guess.

Now, it’s not entirely clear from the transcript who Reid was referring to with “he.” After the “incompetent” sentence, Reid said “he got rid of his Joint Chiefs of Staff chair,” which is obviously a reference to the president. Indeed, Rick Perlstein makes the case that Reid’s criticism was directed at Bush, not Pace.

But even if we put that interpretation aside — I kind of doubt Reid told Bush to his face in a private meeting “what an incompetent man I thought he was” — this is a tempest in a teapot. As Greg explained, Reid’s comment “was in the context of a discussion of Alberto Gonzales and other administration incompetents, not Iraq. The reference to Pace was an aside — brought up solely to highlight Bush’s loyalty to Gonzales. Reid’s focus here wasn’t on Pace or the commanders.”

Quite right. But that hasn’t stopped the GOP Smear Machine to get into gear.

At yesterday’s White House press briefing, before any reporters even had a chance to ask any questions, Tony Snow brandished his pitchfork.

We are a little bit concerned about some reports on the Internet that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a conversation with liberal bloggers, had referred to General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as incompetent, and apparently, again according to the reports, had said disparaging things also about General David Petraeus. We certainly hope it’s not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man who is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

Indeed, Senator Reid has, at some point, declared the war lost, and also has declared the surge a failure, even though it has not yet been fully enacted. I don’t know if it’s true or not. If it is true, I certainly hope he does apologize.

Slanders“? For goodness sakes, Reid questioned the competence of a man the president recently asked to step down from the Joint Chiefs. If that kind of rhetoric is “outrageous” and “slanderous,” perhaps we should draw up a list of harsher rhetoric from the Bush White House and demand a sweeping apology?

This is the quintessential manufactured pseudo-scandal. Reid’s comments were mild. Asked by reporters for clarification, Reid said, “General Peter Pace is a distinguished military veteran and public servant. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he was never as candid as he should have been about the conduct and progress of this war.”

Why is this even controversial?

And if Snow is right, and it’s unacceptable for a senator, “in a time of war,” to disparage “the man who is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq,” why was the White House silent when John McCain blasted Gen. George Casey, citing “failed leadership,” questioning his “judgment,” and holding him responsible for a “failed policy”?

One gets the sense that Republicans are allowed to criticize generals and Democrats aren’t.

Meanwhile the Middle East is totally going up in flames. Daniel Levy , whom I’ve been reading every day lately, reminds us that there have been three terrible blows to US policy, just in the last few days: the blowing up of the minarets in Samara, the anti-Syrian politician assassinated in Lebanon, and Hamas taking full control of Gaza. It’s clearly time for a full-scale national debate over what our goals are in the Middle East and what changes we need to make to achieve them.

But instead the right is focusing on whether the majority leader of the Senate (which funds the Defense Dept) called the JCS chairman (ie his employee) incompetent. Remind me again – which camp is the one that’s serious about foreign policy and national security?

  • to paraphrase a line from “a fish called wanda” — calling pace incompetent is an insult to incompetent people!

  • Let me try to play the antecedent match game…

    “Well, I [Reid] guess the President [Bush], he’s [Bush has] gotten rid of Pace because he [Pace] could not get confirmed here in the Senate. Pace is also a yes-man for the President [Bush]. I told him [Pace] to his [Pace’s] face, I laid it out last time he [Pace] came in to see me [Reid]. I [Reid] told him [Pace] what an incompetent man I [Reid] thought he [Bush] was. But he [Bush] got rid of his [Bush’s] Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, but he [Bush] still hangs on to this failed Attorney General [Gonzales].”

    All active military men are yes-men for the president. That statement was foolish. The whole statement seems incoherent, but maybe it made more sense in the context of the phone call.

    Also there’s a real difference between Reid saying “incompetent” and McCain saying “failed leadership.” Politically, I’m saying. They resonate totally differently. I can hear the difference.

    Democrats in this country who want to win elections should talk to me before saying anything. My consulting fees are very reasonable.

  • Apparently Snowjob forgets that our military is bound by the laws and leadership of our civilian government (“politicians in Washington, D.C.,” as the Usurper-In-Chief likes to obfuscate), not the other way around.

    To borrow from Theodore Roosevelt:

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the… [military leadership]…, or that we are to stand by the… [military leadership] …right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

  • I think the problem is that the Republicans think they own the military, that it’s their turf, and as such, it’s okay for them to criticize, but when Democrats do it, all of a sudden, the hair goes up on the backs of their necks and they go on the defensive.

    So, I think it’s time the Dems made clear – shouting it from the rooftops if they have to – that the Republicans do not own the military by virtue of the fact that we have a Republican president. Yes, I get that since a Republican president is at the top of the chain of command, they see criticism about the generals as just more criticism of Bush – but we’re allowed to level criticism at him, too.

  • So I guess Harry Truman trafficked in slander as well when he wrote — during WWII — about Gen. MacArthur:

    Mr. Prima Donna, if you don’t think Hobie is really beastly, you are not a beast. Brass Hat, Five Star MacArthur. He’s worse than the Cabots and the Lodges—they at least talked with one another before they told God what to do. Mac tells God right off. It’s a very great pity we have stuffed shirts like that in key positions. I don’t see why in hell Roosevelt didn’t order Wainwright home and let MacArthur be a martyr. We’d have had a real General and a fighting man if we had Wainwright and not a play actor and a bunco man such as we have now.

    And does the rightwing think it was treasonous for people to question Patton?

    You know, maybe we should make a complete list of military leaders who have been criticized during war just to prove that America somehow survived … probably because, last I checked, we don’t live in a military dictatorship where leaders are infallible and immune from being questioned.

  • The Republican approach is: Attack Attack Attack. It doesn’t really matter what the Democrats say. The Republicans will always find something to attack them for because they HAVE TO — they have nothing else to say. So they crank up their Noise Machine (Snow to FNC to Limbaugh, etc.) and just wait for the “mainstream media” to pick up the “controversy.” It’s a game they’ll keep playing exactly so long as the networks, etc., allow themselves to be played.

  • Mark D #6- Truman was the president, and he fired MacArthur.

    You guys are tone deaf. Obvioulsy Reid can say anything he wants as an American citizen. But there’s a difference between a senator criticizing a general and a president criticizing a general. It’s the president’s job to hire and fire the general, so if he’s going to fire him, the critcism backs up that action. When a senator criticizes a general, it looks confused and petty- he should direct his criticism toward the president, who will chose the general, not the general himself. It’s not about living in a dictatorship or any of that baloney. It’s about the perception that Reid is scapegoating the military for failing in the face of impossible civilain orders.

    Is it any wonder the right-wing noise machine shoves us around so much? We have to think about what’s the hearts of most Americans. People don’t want to hear Reid attack a general. Whether it really happened or not, that crosses a line. It just does. Reid should forcefully forcefully deny he ever said such a thing, if he really didn’t.

  • When a senator criticizes a general, it looks confused and petty- he should direct his criticism toward the president, who will chose the general, not the general himself.

    With all due respect, I call bullshit.

    Anyone can criticize anyone at any time for anything. Whether or not the criticism is accurate or heard is probably best left for another discussion. But last I checked, there’s no rule, law or even unenforceable code that outlines who can criticize who for what.

    People don’t want to hear Reid attack a general.

    Prove it.

    Seems to me that the only ones who care are folks from the right wing. Oddly, they said nothing when McCain criticized a general during a time of war (as CB has noted).

    Did you?

  • It’s SOP for the GOP. Outrage is their oxygen. Without it they wither and die. When they have none, they need to manufacture it.

    Whether it has any basis in reality matters not. They concoct this crap on a daily basis and throw it all at the wall in the hope they can get some attention – kind of like monkeys at the zoo.

  • Haik #8 & yesterday –
    The more critical point is that IS a “Wing-Nut Noise Machine” and the MSM plays along.
    The rest of us need a more forceful voice. If some ass-hat brought this up to me, I’d laugh in his face. I’d remind them about Bush & Romney’s idiocy about Sadaam “not letting the inspector in” and ask them about the outrage there.
    I’m tired of this crap. Kerry’s botched joke was more newswothy than deaths in Iraq?
    I see your point, Haik. But anyone that would swallow this malarky may well be lost anyway. They probably also think that Limbaugh is an intelectual, not an entertainer (and traitor, in my opinion).

  • I couldn’t disagree with you more, Haik (#8). The biggest mistake here is to even play the game that the right wants us to play. It should never have been attempted to deny what was said. As we’ve seen, it’s all open to interpretation and the right will interpret it in whatever way suits their cause.

    From the very beginning, the attitude should have been “and what of it?”. The quotes from past political leaders presented above, the history of criticism of generals and other officials, the very essence of our free society, should be enough. To hell with interpretation or whom Reid was criticizing.

    What’s so nasty about the political paradigm in which we find ourselves, is that they have picked now (when we have the most incompetent leadership this nation has ever known) to inform us that we no longer have the freedom to call our leaders incompetent.

  • With all due respect, I call bullshit.

    Ok. It’s bullshit. Good argument.

    Prove it.

    Prove that people don’t want to hear Reid attack a general?

    I guess you got me there, too.

    But what good does it do anyone if Reid does that? The president is going to do whatever he wants with his generals, and that decision is not up to Reid. So does it make more sense for attack the guy following orders, or the guy giving the orders?

    I know the answer, but I can’t prove it.

  • The biggest mistake here is to even play the game that the right wants us to play.

    As far as I know, it was the Politco and the Carpetbagger who asked me to play this time. I wouldn’t have heard about it otherwise.

  • Re: Haik @ #8
    It’s not about living in a dictatorship or any of that baloney.

    I guess you trust that Dear Leader will not declare martial law, use the National Guard as a police force in the United States, and establish military commissions to persecute political dissent. Because, that is what I would lovingly refer to as a “military dictatorship.”

    Impeach the bastards. NOW.

  • #15- Of course Bush is a Fascist who is trying to turn America into a dictatorship. That should be obvious.

    The issue of what Reid may have said and if he should have, is what I’m saying isn’t about dictatorship. Just this one little narrow bit of fake controversy. That’s all I’m talking about.

  • Ok. It’s bullshit. Good argument.

    I guess you just missed the paragraph that showed why your statement was bullshit? Or are you just being obtuse?

    But what good does it do anyone if Reid does that? The president is going to do whatever he wants with his generals, and that decision is not up to Reid.

    Well, sheesh, I can’t decide to impeach the president, don’t pick who the Kansas City Chiefs draft, and have no control over the weather. Using your logic, I should never discuss any of those things or offer my opinion upon them.

    Seems kinda absurd, doesn’t it?

    So does it make more sense for attack the guy following orders, or the guy giving the orders?

    Listen, I’ll blast Bush at the drop of a hat on a number of issues. But only if he’s, you know, actually responsible for whatever the issue is.

    Pace was an instrumental part of the Iraq planning. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he was the liaison between the military and the executive branch and was supposed to show true military leadership.

    He didn’t.

    Again, Bush definitely has the biggest hand in the whole abortion of a war that is Iraq. And as C-i-C he certainly does give a number of orders.

    But to state the nation’s top military leader was just a passive bystander in this whole mess and not worthy of criticism doesn’t exactly mesh with reality.

    Oh, and once again, it seems to me that most Americans don’t give a rat’s flea infested ass when a Senator rips into a military leader. And again, that’s probably because the military works for us, not the other way around.

    If you can prove to me otherwise, I’d love to see it.

  • Here’s my parsing of the ambiguous pronouns, given that the question was about Gonzales: By the time he got the the sentence containing the word “incompetent” he was talking about what he has said about Gonzales. He was saying he thinks Gonzales is incompetent. If that the case, then Senator Reid should be loudly and forcefully clarifying that.
    By the way, I’m not sure I can figure out who it was that came in to see him (Reid) [ref: “…last time he came in to see me.”] I’m not sure that matters.
    My analysis is based largely on my having watched on CSPAN the last part of the Senate debate on cloture for the non-binding no-coinfidence resolution. Reid was pretty blunt with allegations of Gonzales’ incompetence. For sure, the Judiciary committee hearings had provided lots of evidence to support an allegation of Gonzales’ incompetence. I doubt the senator would make such allegations about General Pace, certainly not in those blunt terms, absent any substantive investigation of the general’s job performance. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn’t make an irresponsible allegation like that.
    Tempest in a Teapot.

  • Comments are closed.