Dear Republicans, your convention was repulsive and you do not own patriotism

[ProSense]

September 05, 2008

Angry

by hilzoy

A commenter at the Monthly noted that my last post was "surprisingly snarky" for me. I meant it, and I stand by it, but I take his point. There was something else, which I wasn't prepared to write about. Maybe I'm still not. But what the heck:

I was primed by watching the RNC's 9/11 tribute. It revolted me: both the idea of using 9/11 in this context, and the idea that it should be used by the party of George "All right. You've covered your ass, now" Bush. But then came McCain, saying:

" I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination. I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has."

I remembered this:

"Within hours , Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. (...)

Within a month he made clear his priority. "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: "Next up, Baghdad!""

That's a very peculiar way of hating war and preventing other families from risking their loved ones.

During the debate over the Iraq War Resolution, John McCain said this:

"We have a choice. The men and women who wear the uniform of our country, and who might lose their lives in service to our cause, do not. They will do their duty, as we see fit to define it for them.

We have a responsibility to these men and women to judge responsibly when our security is so threatened that we must call on them to uphold their oath to defend it. When we call them to serve, they will make us proud. We should strive to make them proud by showing deliberation, judgment, and statesmanship in the debate that will determine their mission."

He then proceeded to show none of these virtues, and to collude in making the worst foreign policy judgment in decades.

<...>

I didn't want to write about that. It's still pretty close to the bone. But I have never thought that I had a monopoly on honor and decency and love for my country. I wish more prominent Republicans would stop assuming that they do.

(emphasis added)


Maybe it's time to remind McBush about John Kerry's words, from his "Dissent" speeck

Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.

It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn’t know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a “decent interval” between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.

I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to “support the troops”—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

<...>

We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President’s position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.

Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.

more

(emphaisis added)

[NJmaverick]

1. Patriotism? there VP doesn't even want to be an American

[ProSense]

2. And that should be repeated as often as possible. n/t

[NJmaverick]

3. I agree the Palin's membership and association with the AIP

is a winning issue, in my opinion.

[ProSense]

4. Agree,

especially since they continue to attack Obama's patriotism.

[Solomon]

5. They confuse nationalism with patriotism.

They're so ignorant they don't know the difference between the two.