Pile of Schmidt

Jean Schmidt, who has not one minute of military experience, calls John Murtha, a 37-year Marine and winner of the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, a coward.  This is, obviously, extremely offensive.  It was designed to be offensive; she read her marks from a prepared statement. 

Veterans deserve and should get our respect, even when they're Democrats.  Republicans presume that they have a monopoly on patriotism and courage that gives even this administration of draft dodgers the moral standing to sneer at Democrats who served.

The debate about Schmidt's remarks is taking a familiar shape, becoming in some circles a conversation about the nature of patriotism.  Here's one argument:

Dissent is not unpatriotic or cowardly.  It is the ultimate act of patriotism...

This argument is wrong not because dissent is unpatriotic, but because dissent can be either patriotic or not, depending on the motivation of the dissenter.  Webster's defines "patriotism" like this:

Love for or devotion to one's country

If dissent is motivated by love of country, it's patriotic.  If it's motivated by commitment to an ideal -- say, that war is wrong -- then it isn't patriotic.

The same goes for those who support the war.  If their motivation is love of country, they're patriotic.  If their motivation is political, then support of the war is not patriotic. 

I would argue that there's a lot of support for President Bush that has nothing to do with patriotism.  Instead, supporters are engaging in a political argument; the war is key to the survival of the Republican majority and they aren't going to put their jobs at risk.

It is simply not credible to me that Jean Schmidt, who has a history of being an attack dog when it suits her political purposes, was not speaking politically when she attacked the courage of a decorated combat veteran.  It was pure politics, designed to inflame the base and smear the opposition.  It was ugly and unworthy and hypocritical.

She can't seriously believe that John Murtha lacks courage or patriotism.  If she does, she should call in the cameras and say it in a calm voice to his face.  She won't do that, though, because that would take a type of courage that she has never once in her life shown.  She's a political cheap-shot artist, reading prepared lines on the floor of the Congress.  She didn't even have the courage to put it in her own words. (She also had it removed from the Congressional Record immediately.)  Instead, she reads someone else's statement.  It's a technique prototyped in this administration when Condi Rice justified the use of faulty information in the State of the Union Address by saying that the President hadn't said Iraq had received yellowcake from Niger; he said the British said it, and therefore his statement was "technically true."

Jean Schmidt and her ilk may be "technically patriotic."  They wave the flag and love their country and think that justifies anything they do, the same way that the antiwar left justifies its outrages by saying they're fighting for what is right.  The supporters of the war are as often motivated by politics as they are patriotism.

I was raised to respect veterans, to honor their service and listen to their voices.  Jean Schmidt clearly was not.  She could have made her point without insulting the service of a brave man.  She could have explained in passionate words the importance of the war to this country and the world.  But she didn't.  Instead, in the service of politics, not patriotism, Schmidt said what she said.  Make no mistake about why she said it, and how little it had to do with patriotism.

Comments

[Dawgknot]

This is an utterably stupid essay. Let's get some facts straight. While I wouldn't have said it myself, Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward. She directed a message to him given her by an active duty Marine to warn him off his cut-and-run comments.

We could do hardly worse than what Murtha proposes. The easiest way to lose in Iraq is to merely quit as he proposes. It is profoundly unpatriotic to express one's opposition to the war in ways that give aid and comfort to the enemy while our troops are under fire.

Your comments here are just sophomoric silliness.

[Tom]

One of my points was that Schmidt hid behind the words of others in called Murtha a coward; you find it acceptable and I don't.

I specifically did not address the issue of whether was right. This was a posting about civility and respect, not policy. I haven't written much about Iraq policy because I am torn about which way we need to go. Cutting and running doesn't seem a realistic option; neither does a continuation of the status quo. When I figure out a path that seems reasonable to me, I'll post on it.

Thank you, Dawgnot, for proving my point about Republicans and civility. You didn't engage my argument, chosing instead to lash out. You Republicans make it too easy sometimes.

[Conrad]

As a consservative, pro-war, Republican and former marine, I literally cringed when I saw Schmidt's comments on CNN.

Disgusting.

And Dawgnot's parsing doesn't help her a bit. She was reading a prepared statement, it wasn't off the cuff. Either she understood the inherent implication of her words, in which case she's a loathsome slime artist. Or she didn't understand the implication, in which case she's dumber than a rock.

Either way. . . .