(Update) Unpatriotic, Servile and Morally Treasonable Bush/Surge Supporters
By Mona
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
With TR’s truly American words in mind, go read Glenn Greenwald today with his ample quotes from Publius, reflecting the sentiments that used to hold sway in this nation. Especially note Greenwald’s highlighting of Hugh Hewitt’s latest Stalinist ploy, and that “libertarian” Glenn Reynolds is all about it, because uttering “opposition to the surge is wrong” and Republicans who don’t see that must be punished.
As Greenwald puts it:
There are countries where citizens have a duty to affirm the Leader’s decisions and submit to the Supreme General’s decrees about war. The U.S. isn’t one of those countries (although, revealingly enough, that belief in submission to the decrees of authority and infallabile wisdom of Supreme Leaders is one of the defining attributes of “The Enemy” whom we are fighting). But as usual, the dwindling band of authoritarian extremists propping up this presidency don’t believe in American values of any kind. Those values are merely props they use to justify their endless wars and their endless demands that the Leader’s will be followed.
*********
Rick Brookhiser — in full-blown vileness mode at The Corner — cites TR’s contempt for Jefferson Davis, which he thought worse than the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, and Brookhiser figures TR would find Jim Webb just as treacherous as Davis.
No end to the noise from those “patriots” equating dissent with treason and betrayal, in the legal sense, as opposed to the metaphor TR employed when speaking of “moral treason” against the American people when dissent is quashed. (Via Andrew Olmsted, who finds Brookhiser’s Webb slur “scurrilous.”)
Comment by diana —
January 25, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Add to that this: Sen. John Warner was interviewed on Lehrer, the night of SOTU. Most of what he said was sycophanticish blather but he did say at one point that the Senate is an equal branch of the government, and they had an obligation to behave as such. I nearly fell on the floor.
It’s probably on the video part of their website.
Also you should check out Col. David MacGregor’s not terribly complimentary remarks about Petraeus, on their site.
Comment by Eric Martin —
January 25, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Yes but would it be relatively morally treasonable? Answer that smarypants.
Comment by diana —
January 25, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Here is the link to the audio (not video) clip that Col. Douglas MacGregor (not David) made on Lehrer.
It’s devastating. FF to 8:00.
Margaret Warner seemed shaken by his blunt assessment of Petraeus. She said, “That’s quite a litany. It sounds like a litany of failure.”
Have a listen. Quite a rebuttal to all the Petraeus worship being peddled.
Comment by Dennis —
January 25, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
The obsession with Webb, aside from the need to punish those seen as former comrade apostates, reminds me of sixties radicals attacking liberals. The nearer on the political continuum being the greater threat. That Webb has taken his act over to the Democrats magnifies this.
Still, Brookhiser veers into madness with this latest. The hard-core is now wounded animal-dangerous, seeing this thing slipping away.
Webb, with his populist conservatism (notice his mention of wealth disparity coupled with the omission of the obligatory reference to immigration “reform”) and military bona fides is a far greater threat to the War Party than any number of Dennis Kuciniches.
Comment by Madeline F —
January 25, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
By the way, Mona, I appreciate you blogging over here. Your stuff has the well-thought-out firey style of Unqualified Offerings, and you label it bold and up-front with your byline so I can tell it apart from Jim’s stuff if I cared to. Good show!
Comment by Eric Martin —
January 25, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Agreed.
Comment by Mona —
January 25, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Madeline F: Thank you. Jim and I agree on so much of the important stuff, and neither of us are known for pulling our rhetorical punches, so I’m quite comfortable here and grateful for his giving me a platform while I and my co-bloggers await the resurrection of Inactivist. (Shouldn’t be too long now.)
Certainly I’m not everyone’s cup of tea in terms of tone and style. I’m not always “nice.” When I genuinely cannot get my head wrapped around someone’s taking a position that is insane/immoral, well, I tend to let the sarcasm and venom spew. Was a time I was like that really only vis-a-vis two issues: people who advocated that anti-gay sodomy laws should remain in force, and drug warriors.
Then the George Bush and Bill Frist GOP came to be in power, and neocons and religious nutbars took over the nation and held the number 1 cable news network, and we went into an awful war and started making the President King, and torture and lawlessness were happening & etc…Ah, I look back fondly to sedate discussions of most things, back when the world was so unserious that we could be consumed with the subject of semen stains on a blue dress.
Comment by Nell —
January 25, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Thanks for the pointer to the interview with Gen. Nash and Col. MacGregor, Diana. The most unsettling moment is at the end, where both of them say that he’ll speak up to ask for more troops if(when) the “surge” doesn’t work.
Says as clearly as anything could that this is an escalation, and is set up to be a sustained one… with the teensy little problem that it’s not actually sustainable. Politically or logistically.
Comment by sean —
January 25, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Are you seriously claiming that Rick Brookhiser is accusing James Webb of treason in the legal sense? Since I know that you would never in hysterical, unjustified rants, can you point to the specific rhetorical features of Brookhiser’s and Roosevelt’s sentences that enable an educated close reader to determine that Brookhiser is making a serious legal claim, while Roosevelt is engaged in pure metaphor?
Comment by Madeline F —
January 25, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Have you ever responded to one of the debunkings of your comments here, sean? I can’t recall a time you didn’t shit and then run screaming in fear from the contents of your bowels. Must be a hard life you lead, choosing between tappens and terror.
But as long as I’m mocking you, the rhetorical features you’re looking for can also be found in the distinction between “a commenter” and “an ignorant commenter.”
Comment by Tequila —
January 26, 2007 @ 4:46 am
Note: Col. Douglas Macgregor has something of a history w/regards to Iraq himself. He was a major influence on Rumsfeld’s theories of “transformation” and at one time he taught that Baghdad could be taken with 25,000 troops. He’s since said that he never meant that Iraq could be OCCUPIED with that many, but he was a major influence on Rumsfeld, both in terms of “transformation” (the idea that technological integration, better joint operations, etc. could lead to much more effective, smaller ground forces) and the idea that the old Army (see: all the generals who came against Rumsfeld or were retired, i.e. Shinseki and others) was impervious to necessary reforms.
Comment by ajay —
January 26, 2007 @ 7:07 am
sean: Are you seriously claiming that Rick Brookhiser is accusing James Webb of treason in the legal sense? Since I know that you would never in hysterical, unjustified rants, can you point to the specific rhetorical features of Brookhiser’s and Roosevelt’s sentences that enable an educated close reader to determine that Brookhiser is making a serious legal claim, while Roosevelt is engaged in pure metaphor?
Roosevelt wasn’t engaging in metaphor. When he said “he [Jefferson Davis] did not, like Benedict Arnold, receive money for his treason – he received office instead” he actually meant that Jefferson Davis, like Arnold, was a traitor against the US “in the legal sense”.
And by quoting this remark and saying “sounds like Webb”, Brookhiser is saying the same thing about Webb that Roosevelt said about Davis and Arnold – that he is a traitor.
Comment by Mona —
January 26, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Here is how Andrew Olmsted — whom few would ever accuse of being shrill or engaging in rants, and who dislikes what he regards as excessive nastiness from “both sides” of a polarized polity — puts it:
I didn’t link to it, but find and see Brookhiser’s post of the 23rd which sets the stage for the one I and Olmsted do link to. It is clear Brookhiser is alleging that per TR Webb is a traitor.
Comment by sean —
January 26, 2007 @ 11:13 am
ajay, the quote from Theodore Roosevelt with which Mona begins her post clearly uses the “treasonous” in a metaphorical sense. Roosevelt doesn’t mean that if you state that people should not criticize the president, you should be criminally tried for treason. He means that you are not being faithful to the highest American ideals.
Similarly, Brookhiser doesn’t mean that Webb is legally guilty of treason. He means that Webb is putting personal advancement ahead of the public good. Which may or not be true, or fair, but it is a metaphorical use of the term treason, not an actual accusation of a crime.
Comment by ajay —
January 26, 2007 @ 11:29 am
sean, pay attention. You’re looking at the wrong Roosevelt quote. Click through and read the post from the Corner. Or don’t – here it is entire.
A Friend Writes… [Rick Brookhiser]
“He did not, like Benedict Arnold, receive money for his treachery, but he received office instead.”
Gee, that applies to Webb as much as it ever did to Jeff Davis…
The Roosevelt quote equates Arnold and Davis as (non-metaphorical!) traitors. Brookhiser then says “that applies to Webb”. In other words, “like Davis, Webb achieved office through treason”.
Comment by Mona —
January 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
sean spews: Brookhiser doesn’t mean that Webb is legally guilty of treason.
Riiiight. That’s why Andrew Olmsted — who dislikes strong, inflammatory rhetoric that is harshly directed at opponents, including some of my rhetoric — slams Brookhiser. Who, you see, compares Webb to an actual traitor of the United States, Jefferson Davis.
Just a metaphor, is all. [rolling eyes]
Comment by Underpants Gnome —
January 26, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
As Jefferson Davis himself said, he would sooner leave the Union with the Constitution, than remain in the Union without it. Lincoln was the traitor who cast aside his oath of office, suspended the Bill of Rights, and destroyed the Republic the Founding Fathers created in order to “save” it. Google Davis’ writings, and the correspondence between Lord Acton and Gen. Lee.
Comment by dasher —
January 26, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
For the record, John Walker Lindh never took up arms against the United States. He served in the Afghan army (under duress from the Taliban) against the Northern Alliance, pre 9/11. He was captured by a Northern Alliance war lord and was seized by the CIA from that war lord’s infamous prison camp.
His constitutional rights were flagrantly and shockingly violated by the CIA and John Ashcroft’s Justice [sic] Department and he was railroaded by a judicial system in the throes of post 9/11 hysteria.
His case is an embarrassment to American justice.