Quieting the homefront (3/1)

Republicans equate mild war criticism with "aid and comfort to our enemies"
By Bryan Keefer
[First published on Salon.com]

As Democrats launch their first criticisms of the Bush administration's war policies, several Republicans and conservative pundits have launched an all-out attack designed to frame virtually any criticism of the war on terrorism as illegitimate.

In a press conference Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., defended fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who criticized the Bush defense budget and conduct of the war on terrorism. Asked whether he thought the success of the war had been overstated, Daschle replied:

"I don't think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt. Whether we continue to succeed depends on whether we get the right answers to the questions Senator Byrd was posing yesterday. ... I will say that at this point, given the information we've been provided, I don't think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. I've said that on many, many occasions. But I think the jury's still out about future success, as I've said."

He also suggested Thursday that it was necessary for the United States to find Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders for the war on terrorism to be considered a success.

Daschle's comments are noteworthy--Democratic criticism of the conduct of the war has been extremely mild to date. But the points he made are well within the bounds of legitimate debate.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., however, fired back almost immediately by attacking Daschle's right to criticize the Bush administration's prosecution of the war. "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field," Lott stated. "He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united." Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called Daschle's remarks "thoughtless and ill-timed." Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., head of the Republican House Campaign Committee, claimed Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."

Conservative pundits also rallied to the sounds of the battle. Pundit and former Gingrich press secretary Rich Galen claimed that Daschle, Byrd and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., "have decided to declare war on President George W. Bush's handling of the war against terrorists," while Andrew Sullivan suggested that Daschle's comments marked the start of a campaign "to undermine the war in order to gain some political traction against the president."

Daschle's relatively mild statement, questioning the future conduct of the war and the administration's request for a large increase in defense spending, is the sort elected representatives have every right to make. Yet instead of even addressing Daschle's comments, his critics question their very legitimacy, suggesting that any criticism of the direction of the war is out of bounds and divisive as long as the war is ongoing. Since the conflict is open-ended and likely to expand, this logic would shut down debate indefinitely.

The campaign against Daschle's comments has already had a powerful impact. Daschle's spokeswoman defensively clarified Daschle's comments later in the day, insisting that, "In fact, the transcript [of Daschle’s remarks] ... indicates no criticism of President Bush or his campaign against terrorism." And in a sign of how even professional journalists can be taken in by the spin of the moment, Peter Jennings suggested in an ABC News.com e-mail that Daschle's statement represents "the sudden disintegration of loyalty and bipartisanship vis-a-vis the war on terror."

Davis' and Lott's suggestions that criticism of the conduct of the war undermines American resolve and aids the enemy are baseless attempts to bully their opposition into silence by suggesting that all such criticism is divisive. Sadly, given Daschle's reaction and Jennings' e-mail, it appears to be working already.

[This column was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days. Soon our work will become part of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription. We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) for immediate access to our newest work and to all the other good stuff on Salon.]

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

3/1/2002 11:40:07 AM EST |

An update on the Ken Lay/Lincoln Bedroom myth (2/28)

By Brendan Nyhan

The myth that Ken Lay stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the Clinton White House may be on its way to extinction. The Washington Times' correction last Friday has been followed by a number of others.

Here's a full chronology of the progression of the myth - note that the Los Angeles Daily News and Denver Post have published letters to the editor promoting this falsehood since my piece was published:

Here's a list of everyone's who has issued a correction, retraction or clarification (often at the prompting of angry readers of MediaWhoresOnline.com):

And here's your guide to the debunking of the myth:

As to how this falsehood made it into the mainstream press, Conason offers this account of what he was told by Frank James of the Chicago Tribune:

Mr. James denies that he picked anything up from the Drudge Report. Instead, he told me that on a tight deadline he had mentally "transposed" Bill Clinton's name into his memory of an article he'd read about another President who hosted Mr. Lay in the White House. That President was, of course, the father of the current President.

Let's hope that the public exposure of this myth will make the press more careful in the future.

Update - 3/4 4:16 PM EST: This post has been updated to include Alison Mitchell's February 1 New York Times article. See my post today for more.

Update - 3/5 10:43 AM EST: Tacoma (WA) News Tribune letter to the editor added to the list above.

Update - 3/15 7:32 PM EST: Added repetitions by John McCaslin of the Washington Times and radio host Paul Harvey, the New York Times and McCaslin corrections and several new articles I've written about the myth.

Update - 3/29 10:27 AM EST: Added repetitions in a letter to the editor in the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) and an article in Seattle's Eastside Journal, and corrections by both.

Note - 4/3/02 10:32 AM: A reader points out that the Eastside Journal circulates in the Seattle suburbs east of Lake Washington, not Seattle proper. The post has been edited accordingly.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

2/28/2002 08:22:07 PM EST |

Mail fraud (2/25)

The GOP's attempt to mail Social Security guarantees turns postal workers into campaign operatives
By Ben Fritz
[First published on Salon.com]

In a new twist on the Social Security debate, some House Republicans are pushing legislation that would issue a certificate to Social Security recipients falsely claiming to guarantee that their benefits cannot be cut. This legislation takes dissembling beyond what we have come to expect from politicians, making the federal government itself just another instrument for false rhetoric.

Two versions of the bill -- The Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act of 2001 and The Social Security Guarantee Act of 2001 -- are before the House, sponsored by Reps. James DeMint, R-S.D., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., respectively. Both propose the same thing: that senior citizens shall, as soon as they become eligible for Social Security, receive certificates from the secretary of the treasury guaranteeing that they will receive the Social Security benefits promised under the law and that those benefits will be indexed for inflation.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, promised a vote on the DeMint bill in a recent memo to fellow Republicans. As reported by the Washington Times, the memo outlines the political reasoning behind this legislation. "[It is needed to] assure Social Security recipients," Armey writes, "that their retirement security will be protected by a Republican Congress -- while we begin making the case, forcefully and without fear or apology -- for wide-ranging reform of the system."

John Feehery, a spokesperson for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, backed this up, telling the Washington Post that "[s]eniors need to know that Republicans are going to fight to preserve Social Security, no matter what Democratic ads will say."

The clear purpose of this bill is to provide political cover for Republicans in the 2002 election cycle. "If you are attacked by your opponent who says you want to cut Social Security, all you have to do is hold up this bill and say you voted to guarantee that no one's benefits will be cut," a House Republican official told the Washington Times.

Regardless of political motivations, however, the fact is that the bill will not do what its sponsors claim. Jones, for instance, said in a statement that his bill creates a "property right" for Social Security recipients. A property right, however, is a claim on resources that can be enforced in court. But these certificates are as valuable as ... well, the paper they're printed on.

That's the conclusion of an analysis of the DeMint bill performed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security. CRS points out that any future change in the law would supersede these supposed guarantees.

"While [the bill] appears to set forth an absolute 'guarantee' of a certain amount of Social Security benefits ... " CRS states, "a future Congress could change or repeal the underlying statutory guarantee. Thus, while an individual may have the right to enforce the provisions of [the bill], such a right would remain subject to future Congressional enactments which could amend or repeal such rights."

Translation: The only real promise that the federal government is making is that Social Security recipients will receive all of the benefits guaranteed under law--unless the law changes. As CRS points out, "[a]s a general matter ... Congress is always free to amend or repeal prior legislation." In short, the certificate guarantees nothing.

It's unlikely that a Social Security "guarantee" will become law this year. In a letter to Hastert and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.C., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said that such a bill would only be considered in the Senate along with a full debate over President Bush's proposals to privatize Social Security, something many Republicans are loath to do. Furthermore, the Bush administration has indicated in numerous media reports that it does not support the proposal.

Regardless of whether a "guarantee" becomes law, though, these bills are worrisome. Politicians make promises with no guarantee beyond their word all the time, and so the Republicans' desire to assure Social Security recipients that they won't lose any benefits under a reform proposal is not unusual. What is unusual is that this time, the Republicans don't just want to make an unenforceable campaign promise, they want the federal government to make it for them.

[This post was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days. It is now available on our site. Please note that after an initial free period our articles will become part of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription of $6 a month, $30 a year or $50 for two years. We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) but you don't have to. After two calendar days, our content will always be available for free on our site.]

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

2/26/2002 01:11:55 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS