Reprinted by permission of Ray Abernathy. Ray's website is available at: http://www.rayabernathy.com
Clinton, Petraeus, Moveon.org
San Francisco – Waking up in San Francisco on a Sunday morning has its advantages, but one big downside is that the network talking head shows begin at 8 a.m., thus an entire day is fouled with cynical thoughts instead of just an afternoon. This past Sunday, Hillary Clinton ruined my day by appearing on all three network shows to explain to unctuous Tim Russell, innocent George Stephanopoulos and unflappable Bob Schieffer how she voted “yes” to launch the war on Iraq, but has now changed her mind. She then condemned the infamous Moveon.org “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” newspaper ad without explaining why she voted “no” earlier in the week on a non-binding Senate resolution doing just that.
As usual, Hillary proved she’s the Fred Astaire of American politics, able to tap dance to almost any music without moving her head or upper body. Actually, that talent may be the chief virtue recommending her to be President of the United States, and one should certainly vote for her over Mitt Romney, whose parallel talent seems to be bobbling his head left and right while keeping his feet firmly planted in conservative concrete. But the challenges to her flawed explanations were tepid, or non-existent. And missing from “Meet the Press,” “This Week” and “Face the Nation” were any sorts of opposing views on whether it is appropriate to question the intellectual integrity of a military leader who has served his country long and well. To see if anyone of stature had ever taken such a view, I assigned my young associate, Eric Googlemonger, to conduct an Internet search.
Eric found an observation about General Douglas MacArthur by his colleague and comrade, General Matthew Ridgway, which certainly seems to argue the case that military leaders can be so flawed they demand public examination:
“The hunger for praise that led him on some occasions to claim or accept credit for deeds he had not performed, or to disclaim responsibility for mistakes that were clearly his own; the love of the limelight that continually prompted him to pose before the public as the actual commander on the spot at every landing and at the launching of every major attack in which his ground troops took place; his tendency to cultivate the isolation that genius seems to require, until it became a sort of insulation (there was no telephone in his personal office in Tokyo) that deprived him of the critical comment and the objective appraisals a commander needs from his principle subordinates; the headstrong quality (derived from his success in forcing through many brilliant plans against solid opposition) that sometimes led him to persist in a course in defiance of all seeming logic; a faith in his own judgment that created an aura of infallibility and that finally led him close to insubordination.”
The intrepid Mr.Googlemonger found a passage from a speech by another notable army man, which more profoundly addresses the appropriateness of questioning the information delivered by military leaders:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
This military leader was, of course, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the quote is from his farewell address, in which he warned of the growing threat of a military industrial complex seeking to perpetuate itself through perpetual war. The key admonition here is taking “nothing for granted,” especially when stakes are as high as they are in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton invited examination of every nuance of her character, ability and integrity when she decided to run for President of the United States. General David Petraeus asked for the same degree of criticism when he stepped out of his role of commander of our troops in Iraq into his current (and some military officials say, inadvisable) role as spokesman for our Commander-in-Chief. Hillary gracefully accepts her position in the public dock by subjecting herself to withering criticism every day. General Petraeus has so far refused to acknowledge his new role and accountability, and his supporters have yet to stop whining.
Hooray for Hillary. Hooray for moveon.org. Raspberries for David.