My Letter to David Broder

While this may be a few days late, I've finally had time to respond to Columnist David Broder's offensive and idiotic comments in his February 6 column.  For those few who missed it, Broder wrote a column about about the recent DNC conference where all ten 2008 presidental contenters spoke.  

In writing about Gen Wesley Clark's speech, Broder wrote:

"[o]ne of the losers" among the potential Democratic presidential candidates who spoke before the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on February 2 because he forgot "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

Broder wrote several other idiotic things in this column, but this was personally the most offensive.  I've written a letter to him copied to Ombudsman Deborah Howell concerning this statement.  I do want to thank several DKos members  Newsie8200 and BornAgainDem for providing info that helped support my statements here.  

Dear Mr. Broder,

In your February 6 column, you wrote that retired Gen. Wesley Clark was "[o]ne of the losers" among the potential Democratic presidential candidates who spoke before the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on February 2 because he forgot "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

As a veteran, and a Loud and Proud member of the Democratic Party, and in fact a card-carrying Liberal, I take great exception to your statements.  Never mind that every other person who attended Gen. Clark's lecture reported that the audience was wildly receptive to the General's statements supporting the troops.

Never mind that during my 22 year navy career, from 1974 to 2006, all the significant pay raises and quality-of-life improvements occurred during the administrations of Democratic presidents.  

Never mind that during the past six years of unchecked Republican Party rule, funding for the Veterans Administration was cut every year.  Funding was cut even as the demand for services, caused by a vanity war started by a Republican President, dramatically increased.

Never mind that this same unchecked Republican party rule allowed our troops to go into combat without proper equipment, and blocked efforts by Democratic party representative to obtain this equipment.  The Republican's even blocked efforts by Democratic members to investigate why our troops were dying due to lack of proper equipment.

Beyond all that, Mr. Broder, the reality is that we have more elected officials in the Democratic Party than we do in the Republican Party with active combat duty.  Look it up - if you're not sure how perhaps you can find a real journalist who can.

We have a Republican president whose daddy got him into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam.  We have a Republican Vice-President who openly acknowledges he had "Other Things to do" than go to Vietnam.  We had a Secretary of Defense who used the Air National Guard to avoid active duty in Vietnam.

And I note that you yourself seem to be lacking in military service.  Did you have more important things to do when you were of draft age?

So kindly take your "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." and stick it where the sun don't shine.  Then go find a line of work you might actually be effective in.  You're not effective as a columnist, unless you think your role in life is to be a shill for the Republicans.

Signed,

•  Excellent!

  Broder should be hereby known as 'Choder.'

  by fabucat on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:02:37 AM PDT

•  A Tip Jar...

  ...for actually reading David Broder.  

  by redtravelmaster on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:04:30 AM PDT

•  Your letter educated a lot of people but

  the sclerotic Mr Broder is beyond any appeal that is fact based. good one....

  by duckpin136 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:10:50 AM PDT

  •  I didn't expect...

    ...that this senile old fool would actually learn anything.

    Thanks

    by redtravelmaster on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:23:37 AM PDT

•  They might print my letter!

  I wrote to the Post about Broder's idiocy.  I write angry letters to them maybe every other month if that often.  Yesterday I got an email that they might print it, and they wanted to know several things:  did I use my real name (yes), did I write the letter myself (yes), had I offered it to any other publication OR BLOG (!), was I connected to any military support group or encouraged by them to write the letter (no to all that).

  My letter was way shorter and much less intellectual than yours, I just basically said Broder had his nerve, that we sure as hell sympathize with troops made to fight this idiotic war.

  I had been tempted to post it here but never did; if I had I guess they wouldn't print it.

  I'm curious about the question about being connected to a military support group - would that disqualify a letter?  would that just mean you'd state the connection with the signature?  Do they want to know what groups may be operating out here?

  I barely read the readers' letters in the Post and I don't know how much attention anyone pays to them.  But I do believe push-back is worth the effort.  I believe it was on "On the Media" one time, I heard some op-ed writer say that writers actually do feel intimidated by critics (these were right-wing critics) and could be affected by reader reaction.  In his case I believe he actually felt physically threatened at times.  Obviously that stinks.  But we can put moral pressure on them to at least be accurate and careful, which Broder so clearly was not.

  by norabb on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:59:39 AM PDT

•  Broder is on XM Bob Edwards show every week.

  I sent Edwards a E-Mail asking Broder to explain his stand.  Suggested he check out the Chickenhawks site before hand.

  by namnick on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:42:34 AM PDT

•  this was my letter to him I doubt he responds

  Dear Mr. Broder: to quote you "One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

  Here is a text of his speech:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  He used the term "duty, honor and country" exactly once in this paragraph

  For me, those words of sacrifice were spoken long ago by one of our great military leaders, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

  I don't agree with his politics.

  < CLARK: I don't agree with everything he did. But I'll tell you this: He put it in words for those of us who went to West Point, who are still there, in his last speech.

  He came and told the corps of cadets, speaking to the sacrifice for American soldiers, he said: "I do not know the dignity of the birth, but I know the glory of their death.

  "They died unquestioningly, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts and on their lips, the hope that we would go on to victory.

  "Always, for them, duty, honor and country. Always their blood and sweat and tears, as they saw the way and the light."

  This year, as we struggle in Iraq, let's remember who we are as Americans and the ideals we represent.

  Let's commence to building the only memorial that can match the sacrifice that so many of our men and women have made. That's a stronger, safer and more just America.

  (APPLAUSE)

  Mr Broder in your article on  Feb 6, 2007 you stated this "One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."  exactly stating "duty, honor and country once is not constantly repeating it.

  It was a statement of fact that military men and women live by, a worthy and noble life, if I may say. I am a 100% P&T disabled veteran, so your distortion of General Clarks speech was especially egregious to me. I am one of the Noncommissioned Officers who once served under Brigadier General Clark, so I am more than a little upset by your bold misrepresentations. You sir, are a nationally known writer and in this case you have abused the trust of the readers, your editors, and shown your character to be less than sterling. If you have distorted this speech, what else have you distorted in your professional career.

  Your words have an effect, and you Sir owe General Clark an apology and a retraction of your misleading statements of the 6th of February.

  Michael G Bailey

  by testvet6778 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:51:50 AM PDT

•  Broder Is an Old Style Establishment Liberal

  As we know, establishment Democrats have chosen their candidate. Any other candidate represents a challenge to their authority. A people-powered candidate like Clark does not serve their narrow, selfish interests, so they must find some way to dismiss them, or at the very least damn them with faint praise. I'm not blind. I see the establishment trying to marginalize Wes Clark by saying he doesn't have a good shot at winning the nomination. I see them attempting to call him anti-Semetic, even when the man's half Jewish himself! The only way we the people can get the MSM to take him seriously is to get out there and support him. When he moves up in the polls, they have to take him seriously.

  by YestoWes on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:07:06 AM PDT

•  Very good

  Some seem to confuse Broder's soft-spoken presentation with wisdom. Another example: Thomas Friedman.

  by Steve53 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:48:00 AM PDT