Oh this is just great! A big giant kudos to Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer for doing this. Dick Durbin walked onto the Senate floor yesterday and in no uncertain terms (in the comity of Senate language, of course) called John Cornyn on his bullshit amendment. I am, of course, referring to this amendment which condemns the Moveon.org ad. I mean, how any Republican can keep a straight face and read this -- "General Petraeus deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Forces" -- shows they've got a hell of a lot of will power. Durbin said what we've been saying now for days, on, ahem, the Right's record on attacking men in the uniform. Go watch the video, and read Durbin's brilliant retort below.
I want to reiterate Markos's take on the faux outrage. One could argue that the first day a few people might have been genuinely mad, but now we are in Day 10, and this is just getting to the point of becoming beyond ridiculous and a parody of itself:
Once upon a time, everything was going great in our country -- its finances, its wars, its economy, everything! -- then some organization placed an ad in a newspaper and it was the most horrible thing ever.
It was real bad -- there was an ad. In a newspaper.
And then everything went to shit and that ad was the only thing the pundits could talk about.
The end.
Within that fairy tale land walked John Cornyn to the Senate floor yesterday:
It is important for colleagues to recognize that this ad ran before the general came to testify, even though it had been well known the general would come back in September 2007 and report on progress on the fight in Iraq, both from a military as well as a diplomatic perspective.
So it is clear, at least to me, the purpose of this ad was to smear the good name of this four-star U.S. Army general, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, before he even had a chance to make his report to the Congress and to the American people on the progress of the surge of forces and of operations in Iraq.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Cornyn was so upset he couldn't sleep for days; the world had ended for Mr. Cornyn. Oh, why are people so mean, lamented John Cornyn. He concluded with this:
By introducing this amendment, I call on all Senators to tell America they do not condone such character assassination of those who are sworn to protect the very freedom we enjoy and the very system of government in which we all serve. Our military service members simply deserve better. I hope all Members of the Senate would join with me in supporting this amendment.
And so, it seemed another pointless, fake diatribe had been completed by another right wing Republican on the Senate floor. But then, it happened -- Dick Durbin strolled onto the Senate floor, and the chamber got a bit livelier:
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.
I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.
Oh, a virtual kiss to Mr. Durbin! This was so great, that Cornyn seemed a bit confused, babbling about how the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't actually from Texas, and being clear he won't amend it with Durbin's suggestion. Then he said this:
MR. CORNYN: Senator Kerry chose to run for President of the United States. You and I and others may disagree with the tactics employed by third parties in the course of a Presidential campaign, but this is not a Presidential campaign. General Petraeus did not volunteer to run for political office and subject himself to the spears we all sometimes catch as part of the political process. All this general has sworn to do is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect this country from attacks from our enemies.
So I would say it is apples and oranges to compare what happens in a political campaign with the attack on this general in such a premeditated and vicious way as MoveOn.Org did before he was to deliver his testimony before the Congress.
The short version to that goes like this: John Kerry ran for president and he's a Democrat. How the hell does that help our Republican agenda of distraction? It doesn't, so fuck him. Durbin knew an illogical fallacy when he saw it, and wouldn't relent:
MR. DURBIN ... I am troubled by the conclusion of my colleague from Texas that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could attack Senator JOHN KERRY for his valor and courage fighting for America in Vietnam and that for some reason we shouldn't repudiate that attack; that it is OK because it happened, as my colleague said, during a political campaign. If this is about the honor and integrity of our Armed Forces, past and present, whether it takes place during a political campaign or at half time at a football game should make no difference. If the Senator from Texas believes we should stand on a regular basis and condemn those who would attack the honor and integrity of warriors who have served this country with valor in past wars and present wars, then he should be consistent. It is totally inconsistent for him to pick one organization and to ignore the obvious: There are others who have done the same thing.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a classic example of an organization that distorted the truth about Senator JOHN KERRY and others who served our country during the Vietnam war. The fact that they did it during a Presidential campaign should have absolutely nothing to do with it, if this is a matter of principle. However, if it is not a matter of principle and something else, then you would pick and choose those organizations you want to condemn or repudiate. Unfortunately, the Senator from Texas has picked one organization. He doesn't want to talk about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He certainly doesn't want to repudiate them. I think they should be repudiated. What they did cast a shadow on the combat decorations given to others during the course of that war.
What Senator JOHN KERRY did was to volunteer to serve our country, put his life on the line, face combat, stand up and fight for his fellow sailors on that swift boat, and then come back to the criticism, the chief criticism of a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
It was at this point, when the lovely Senator Barbara Boxer entered the discussion, and expanding the Right's hypocrisy by talking about how this wasn't just about one Democrat who had been in the uniform, and been attacked:
MRS. BOXER: ... The fact of the matter is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went after a war hero and told stories to the American people that were not true and tried to sully a hero's reputation.
But he is not the only Senator who was attacked, as my friend remembers what happened to our colleague, Max Cleland. I know he does. Here is a veteran who gave three limbs for his country--three limbs. It is harder for him, for the first 2 hours of every day, to get ready for the day than it is for the Senator from Texas or myself or the Senator from Illinois to do our work for a month. Yet this man was viciously attacked and his patriotism called into question. Oh, yes, my friend might say, it was during a political campaign. It was disgusting. So we raise these issues.
What I wish to ask my friend is this: I was thinking--as the Senator from Texas, my friend and colleague, was speaking--I was thinking about some retired generals who spoke out against this war and said they were called traitors and worse. So I am looking at ways to incorporate into this a condemnation of anyone who would attack a retired general for speaking out against a war because I think that was low and it was horrible. It was frightening because, in a way, it was saying to these retired generals that they had no voice, no independent voice.
So I wish to thank my colleague, and I wonder if he recalls these generals. I will have more details as I put together my second-degree amendment as well.
Ah, the second degree amendment. That'll stick in Cornyn's craw, now won't it? Durbin concluded, summing up how, IF Cornyn wants to go forward with the amendment, he's going to have to go after his own side for their past transgressions, too:
MR. DURBIN: ... I don't think the fact that it happens during a campaign absolves anybody from the responsibility of telling the truth and honoring those who served. In this case, two Democrats, Senator Max Cleland and Senator JOHN KERRY, were attacked, and there wasn't a long line of people on the floor to condemn the attackers. Now that the Senator from Texas has decided we should bring this up as part of the Defense authorization bill, I hope he will be consistent, and I hope he will consistently stand up for the reputations of the men and women in uniform, starting with General Petraeus but including those who served in this war and other wars in the past.
Each of them deserves our respect. I might add, parenthetically--it is worth saying--even if we disagree with their political views, they still deserve our respect. To attack their honor and integrity is wrong.
Again, watch the video. And then go thank Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer.
Update 1: Sen. Boxer and Sen. Durbin on CSPAN2 NOW (11:41 AM EST)
Update 2
The Cornyn amendment passed, and passed overwhelmingly. I cannot tell a lie about my disappointment in this. But understand that what Boxer and Durbin did was very important. First of all, the Cornyn amendment was always going to pass. I keep forgetting about our moderate Democrats, who prefer moderate language. They didn't like the language of the Moveon.org ad, and wanted to show with a sense of the Senate vote that they did not like it. So if that was a foregone conclusion, how do we show that Cornyn and his Republican colleagues are a bunch of hypocrites? Well, Durbin and Boxer performed wonderfully in pointing that out; something that will now be in the official record. We also got 51 votes for the Boxer amendment. If we were operating under real rules in the Senate, instead of this now supermajority filibuster-proof rules, her amendment would have passed. So this needs to also be projected out that the Republicans are filibustering everything, even sense of the Senate throwaway amendments.
Roll Call for the Boxer amendment (rejected with a vote of 51 - 46, and 3 not voting)
Roll Call for the Cornyn amendment (agreed to with a vote of 72 - 25, and 3 not voting)
Remember this entire thing was a publicity stunt. It does not affect Moveon.org at all, who will continue their work, unfettered by shamelessly political non-binding Senate resolutions. I sincerely do think that the publicity stunt did not go as well as the Republicans had planned. Boxer and Durbin made sure their plan has in part backfired.