06 Jun The Onion on George Washington and the Iraq War
This is priceless — and uncannily insightful about the demonization of anyone who has the temerity to question the Bush administration’s policies:
WASHINGTON, DC — Breaking a 211-year media silence, retired Army Gen. George Washington appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday to speak out against many aspects of the way the Iraq war has been waged.
Washington, whose appearance marked the first time the military leader and statesman had spoken publicly since his 1796 farewell address in Philadelphia, is the latest in a string of retired generals stepping forward to criticize the Iraq war.
“This entire military venture has been foolhardy and of ill design,” said Washington, dressed in his customary breeches and frilly cravat. “The manifold mistakes committed by this president in Iraq carry grave consequences, and he who holds the position of commander in chief has the responsibility to right those wrongs.”
[snip]
The Virginia-born Revolutionary War veteran and national-capital namesake also expressed his worry over the state of the American militia, the unchecked powers of the executive branch, and the lack of a congressional declaration of war.
“The very genius of the American presidency is that it is an office held by an elected representative of the people, not by a monarch who can rule by fiat and enact policy at will,” Washington said.
The retired general asserted that many of the current problems in Iraq could easily have been predicted by wiser civilian leadership.
“I can say from personal experience that even a malnourished force with feet clad in rags should not be underestimated, even by a far superior power,” added Washington, who has disavowed further comparison between the Iraqi insurgency and the American colonists. “There is nothing a committed fighting force cannot accomplish if bolstered by the strength of its convictions.”
[snip]
White House response to the former general’s criticism was swift and sharp. Spokesman Tony Fratto dismissed Washington as “increasingly irrelevant” and “a relic” who “made some embarrassing gaffes” during his own military career, such as the Continental Army’s near destruction in the Battle of Long Island in 1776.
“The general’s reckless and irresponsible comments show that he clearly does not understand the realities of 21st-century warfare,” Fratto said.
Conservative pundits moved quickly to discredit the decorated general.
“I don’t care who you are — or if you cannot tell a lie — it’s un-American to question the president in a time of war,” Sean Hannity said on his radio program Monday. “Plus, I find it very interesting that a man who owned slaves and sold hemp thinks he’s entitled to give our Commander in Chief lessons on how to run a war.”
Now that’s journalism!
All that is needed now are interviews with von Moltke (the elder), von Clausewitz, Erwin Rommel, and Franz Halder. George Marshall and Georgi Zhukov could provide the final coup de grace to Tommy Franks and others.
Or, where are Sam Ervin and Barbara Jordan when they’re really needed? Sam Dash could also make an awesome contribution to a task that is long overdue.
The fact is that if General Washington or for that matter, virtually any of the founders were alive today, they would each and all of them be calling for impeachment.
Putting political opinions into the mouths of dead people is journalism!
Things I never knew.
Satire has a place in journalism. (And that place is the Onion).
It is a fair question: What would the political opinions of the founders would be as to current policies and events? Which view is most plausible? Yes, it is a parlor game, but it can be a useful exercise assuming you respect those dead people. There are many possible and defensible views; as President, Washington personally led troops to put down the anti-tax Whiskey Rebellion, but Washington’s views on Iraq would likely have been quite different than those regarding western Pennsylvania.
The author’s main point seems to be the comparison with the Carter sniping. Carter was no Washington, but this piece well illustrated the absurdity, predictability, and also unfortunately the effectiveness of making ad hominem attacks against critics, instead of addressing the subject matter of the criticism.
In sharp and refreshing contrast, John Bellinger (see Julian Ku’s link) addresses the actual subject matter of criticism. And he does an impressive job of it, though it seems a lonely task.