A few weeks ago I expressed my disappointment about Joe Courtney’s vote to condemn Moveon. My wife wrote to his office about it, and today received an email response, which I assume is Joe’s boilerplate response to everyone who wrote. To his credit, he goes to great lengths to establish his anti-war bonafides. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is free speech rights and political savvy. The Democrats showed contempt for the former (a contempt they show only to their own supporters) and demonstrated none of the latter. The Congress of the United States should not be in the business of condemning anyone for exercising free speech rights, but if they’re going to do it, they should be equal opportunity condemnors.
Joe explains his vote against Moveon thusly:
..[F]or weeks those who blindly support the war have been using the MoveOn ad as a diversion from the real debate we should be having about the Bush Administration’s failed policies in Iraq. I supported the motion because I felt it was important to put this issue behind us and end the needless distractions from those who want to avoid answering the hard questions about our progress in Iraq.
Although I disagree with the strategy he is implementing in Iraq, I do not doubt the honor and integrity of General Petraeus or the countless men and women in uniform struggling to make the best of an unwinnable strategy. We have seen, far too often, the service and integrity of national leaders who have served our nation called into question for purely political motives. This is wrong, no matter who is the target.
This is a peculiarly unsatisfying explanation, inasmuch as it really makes no sense.
The explanation is dissatisfying, in the first instance, because it doesn’t explain the “yes” vote. The issue was going to end with the vote, whether Joe voted pro or con. There was no reason to vote “yes”. In any event, how is it justifiable to condemn someone for exercising their constitutional rights just to change the subject? Does Joe really believe that it is right to condemn other people just because he and his fellow Democrats can’t control the debate in a legislative body in which they are in the majority? Need we say again that the Republicans would have had no difficulty had the Democrats tried to mount such a distraction while they held the majority. Indeed, they had no trouble loudly defending Rush Limbaugh on constitutional grounds after ignoring the Constitution to condemn MoveOn. The minority Republicans had no problem changing the subject, something Democrats are apparently unable to do.
It also won’t do to conflate Petraeus with the “countless men and women in uniform” that Rush Limbaugh attacked without earning Joe’s or the Congress’ condemnation. Petreaus chose to enter the political arena to carry water for George Bush. He is, as the Republicans say about 12 year old children and undercover operatives, “fair game”. You can’t condemn one isolated example of what you might consider political overkill and ignore the rest. Or does Joe subscribe to some weird rule that political generals are exempt from the sort of criticism that Democratic politicians must endure on a regular basis, usually with far less justification.
No, the explanation won’t do, either morally or politically. The Democrats got played, and by the way, when did we hear the post-condemnation answers to hard questions that Joe expected to get? I must have missed it. The Republicans always avoid answering hard questions, and Democrats always let them get away with it. You can’t blame MoveOn for that.
It was a bad vote and it would be refreshing if Joe could admit it.
Here’s a suggestion for how he could make up for the lapse, which we devoutly hope was an aberration. He should put his John Hancock on a letter sent to the figurehead of the Bush crime syndicate from almost 90 Democrats saying they won’t vote for another dime for Iraq unless it funds an exit. On this issue, he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled. Anyone who gets out in front on this issue will only look better as time passes.
How about it, Joe?
One Comment