Posted by The Crux | Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment (72-25) sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX) that showed "support" for General David Petraeus and condemned attacks on his integrity and that of other military personnel (see roll call vote and NY Times).
The amendment's text is largely unhampered by substance. What does "support" mean: better working hours? And why mention other military personnel? Nobody attacked our troops' integrity (except certain officials who let order-following soldiers take the fall in torture cases, which is worth addressing but slipped Cornyn's mind).
Cornyn's bizarre amendment targeted MoveOn.org's ad, which questioned whether Petraeus would give Congress a fact-based report on Iraq. If only our media had asked similar questions while President Bush led the nation into war based on highly questionable "facts"....
Criticism of government officials, which English kings didn't allow, is precisely what our Founding Fathers sought to protect through the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court is so protective of free speech that people are allowed (in some cases) to get the facts wrong when criticizing public officials ( NY Times v. Sullivan).
That said, is it appropriate for Congress to condemn criticisms against government officials? If so, who's next on the condemnation list?
Might the Senate routinely condemn media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for launching nasty attacks against public officials? Given how often their attacks are based on falsehoods, at least the Senate could conceivably find grounds.
No, the rumbling isn't an earthquake: it's our Founding Fathers and deceased Supreme Court justices rocking their graves because over my last statement. They'll calm down when they recognize the irony in my tone.
It's no surprise that President Bush condemned Democrats who opposed Cornyn's amendment; Bush condemns everyone who disagrees with him -- even insulted his own party-base when it turned against him over immigration reform.
It is surprising that so many Senate Democrats lacked the fortitude to fight Cornyn's substance-free amendment. Love them or hate them, Dems have historically protected free-speech rights. Fortunately, not all Dems cowered in the corner while their Republican colleagues accused them of anti-military sentiments and (once again) tried to distract the public from focusing on the costly, messy, and questionably handled Iraq war.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), for example, said the following:
"'It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war.'” (Crooks & Liars)
Speaking of presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted against Cornyn's amendment, and Barack Obama didn't vote at all. Reactions to the amendment and vote are pretty interesting.
Lawyers, Guns & Money's concise observation:
"Turns out that the U.S. Senate has nothing better to do than to spend time passing a resolution to condemn free speech."
In a letter to Senator Bill Nelson, who voted for Cornyn's amendment and is also my senator, Scarabus wrote:
"What happened to Teddy Roosevelt’s assertion that 'To announce that there must be no criticism of the President [and by extension a man whose record demonstrates he is a partisan pawn for 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'?"
Newshoggers commented:
"Well, there are now three things certain in life. Death, taxes and the abject depravity of our current US Senate. They will dicker around for weeks on end, failing to bring forward meaningful consensus legislation on the most important issues facing us, but they can muster up enough steam in mere days to sell out our civil rights on FISA and pass a bone-headed resolution condemning constitutionally protected free speech? Words fail to convey my utter disgust...."
"I listened for six years to the Democrats whine that they couldn't move their legislative efforts forward because they were the minority party and the majority leader blocked it. So why is the minority party now able to continue dictating the rules of the game?"
Jane Hamsher took an army of politicians to task:
"Bush put Petraeus up there just like he did Colin Powell before him, hoping that he could hide behind a uniform he was never willing to wear himself and claim that anyone who wasn’t supporting his pet project was being 'anti-military.' It doesn’t matter who it was or what they said, ANYONE who questioned the word of A Man Called Petraeus was going to be pilloried for it. Nothing less than the complete silence of a domesticated animal would have satisfied them...."
"Part of the joy of being a right wing bully is standing up there and knowing you’re full of shit, and everyone listening knows you’re full of shit, and STILL you force the Democrats to their knees. And it works every time."
Ed from Captain's Quarters:
"The Senate passed the Jon Cornyn amendment condemning the MoveOn.org ad that called General David Petraeus a liar and potential traitor... All 25 Senators who voted in support of these smears against an American military commander that they unanimously promoted to four stars came from the Democratic Party.,,,
"Congress has the responsibility to defend the honor of the man they unanimously endorsed for the difficult task of bringing security to Iraq."
Done with Mirrors responded to Capt. Ed:
"Captain Ed, who usually knows better, falls into a Manichaean fallacy:... To vote against a negative resolution is not automatically to support the thing being condemned. There are all manner of good reasons -- sound conservative reasons, even -- to vote against such a resolution, including the one that it ought not to be the job of Congress to condemn advertisements or public political speech."
I enjoy reading Captain Ed's blog, but I disagree with him about Congress' "responsibility to defend" Petraeus. Our Constitution does not expressly confer on Congress the duty to protect any public officials' reputations. The Founders' affinity for checks and balances that pit Congress against the Executive Branch (which includes the military) suggests that they wanted Congress to question military leaders, not blindly defend them.
Comments