Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held a conference call with some liberal bloggers this week (I was not, for the record, on this call) and, according to a Politico report, the senator had some mild-but-unkind words for some high-profile U.S. generals.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “incompetent” during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.
Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.
The article is a little short on details, including the context of Reid’s remarks, a response from Reid’s office, or any kind of examples Reid might have shared during the conference call to bolster his assessment. All we know is that someone who heard the call told one reporter one disparaging word about Gen. Pace. It feels a little thin.
Conservatives don’t see it that way. You can peruse some of the far-right blog responses here, but this is a good example: “People who serve in our military do so at great sacrifice and risk. And they do the best they can under screwed up priorities and naive concepts that eminate [sic] from Congress like swamp gas. It is bad enough when the partisans are so poisoned that a man who did a fine job against a tough enemy is forced to step aside because of politics. But that is not an [sic] green light for personal attacks on our military members in a time of war.”
John McCain’s presidential campaign, perhaps sensing an opportunity, decided to try and get in on the fun. McCain released a press statement saying that it’s “incredibly disappointing that Harry Reid would make such disparaging remarks about both the highest ranking officer in the U.S military and the commander of our troops in Iraq. Gens. Pace and Petraeus are two leaders who have spent their entire lives in service to their country, and Sen. Reid needs to clarify his criticisms, which can only be described as highly inappropriate and regrettable.”
I realize that Harry Reid has quickly become Public Enemy #1 to the far-right, but all of this outrage seems wildly misplaced.
First, Reid may have questioned Pace’s competence on a private conference call, but it was Bush who fired Pace rather then have him defend the administration’s war policy. All things being equal, if conservatives have formed a We Love Peter Pace Fan Club, they should direct some ire towards the White House and the Pentagon, not Reid’s office.
Second, Reid’s comments — which, again, amount to a one-word quote — were not a “personal attack.” He questioned Pace’s competence. He’s not the first. It’s hardly scandalous.
Third, since when is it heresy to question the competence of military leaders? Pace’s tenure has, at times, been rocky. His relationship with congressional leaders has, at times, been awkward. For that matter, Petraeus’ judgment has come under question of late. There need not be a rule that military leaders must remain criticism-free at all times. As Kevin Drum explained, “General officers who support lousy policies deserve brickbats, and plenty of them have done just that in the Iraq war. If Reid has legitimate criticisms to offer, there’s nothing out of line about offering them.”
And fourth, if generals must be exempted from criticism, and those who spend their lives in military service should not be questioned, why is it that John McCain offered some harsh words, in public, for the last general to command U.S. troops in Iraq?
Opposing Gen. George Casey’s confirmation as the Army’s chief of staff, McCain cited the general’s “unrealistically rosy” assessments and “failed leadership” and told him: “I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq. And we have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy.”
Was this outrageous, too? Did conservatives condemn McCain for levying a “personal attack” on a general “in a time of war”? Was it “inappropriate and regrettable” for McCain to publicly blast a man who spent his entire life in service to his country?
Or is it more likely the case that Republicans are desperate to manufacture scandals about Democrats, whether the facts support them or not?