I was going to let this go, but the more I think about it, the more irritating it gets.
Former President Jimmy Carter spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq late last week, saying he believed the war was “ill advised and unnecessary and based on erroneous statements, and has turned out to be a tragedy.” Sounded right to me.
In response, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay decided Carter’s well-founded criticisms deserved a cheap shot.
“I’m just glad President Carter wasn’t in charge after Valley Forge, Bull Run or Pearl Harbor,” reacts House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, a Republican. “Unfortunately, this is becoming a dangerous pattern. Democrat leaders continue to undermine our troops and our coalition’s ability to win the war and bring peace and stability to the Middle East.”
In some ways, responding to such nonsense is an exercise in futility. DeLay’s mad and bizarre rants are so common, it would be a full-time job to catalog and respond to each of them.
But something about DeLay’s comments were so frustrating, I decided I’d feel better if I explained how insane he really is.
First, it’s sad that DeLay, who dodged the draft and has opposed veterans’ benefits, would feel justified in attacking Carter, a decorated veteran and Nobel Prize winner, in this fashion.
Let’s not forget that DeLay, when asked about his lack of military service, offered a nonsensical “reverse discrimination” explanation:
He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention.
Meanwhile, DeLay believes Carter’s comments “undermine our troops and our coalition’s ability to win the war.” If that’s true, DeLay may want to explain some of his own comments that criticized a different president during a different conflict.
In 1999, during Clinton’s war in Kosovo, DeLay took to the House floor to denounce the military campaign, its goals, and its leadership. DeLay called the effort war a “quagmire” and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would “drag on,” costing billions of dollars. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw them “before the body bags start coming home.”
DeLay said that Clinton “has bombed its way around the globe,” and added, “International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” DeLay even urged Congress to de-fund the war and “pull out the forces we now have in the region.”
As if that weren’t enough, DeLay accused Clinton of orchestrating a dangerous occupation in a far-away land.
Once a U.S.-led coalition “starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?” he asked. He charged that we were “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army” and portrayed our mission as an “occupation by foreigners.”
Did DeLay’s criticism “undermine our troops and our coalition’s ability to win the war”? Carpetbagger reports, you decide.