Paul Krugman revisits a theme that will be a standard Democratic talking point for the next year - any attack on a Democrat's positions on national security is an attack on their patriotism:
... it's almost certainly wrong to think that the political exploitation of 9/11 and, more broadly, the administration's campaign to label critics as unpatriotic are past their peak.
...Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
The typically understated Prof. Krugman also made this point last week, when he said "Mr. Bush seems to have a serious case of "l'état, c'est moi": he impugns the patriotism of anyone who questions his decisions."
I reopen the challenge I posed then - can anyone find a suitable example of Bush doing such a thing, or is this just hyperbole? A bit later in this post, we peer at the transcript of Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks, and find them to be much less alarming than Prof. Krugman suggests.
Clearly, the Democrats would prefer to frame the debate as Republican McCarthyism, rather than Democratic weakness. Any Republican criticism on defense or national security issues will be met by vigorous protests (or, in the special case of John Kerry, heartfelt sobs) as the Dems denounce the attack on their patriotism.
Hence, the projected exchange:
Bush side: I am troubled by their candidate's postions on Iraq and Israel.
Democrat side: They are attacking my patriotism! What sort of a country will we raise our children in?
Ok, having outlined the basic game, we need to introduce a few caveats. First, there are Republicans who sincerely believe that criticizing the conduct of a war while our troops are fighting it is unpatriotic. My counter-prediction: some Republican somewhere will question the patriotism of his Democratic opponent; Prof. Krugman specifically and partisan Dems generally will claim that this "proves" that the White House is orchestrating an assault on free expression.
They will be sincere, since in their world, Karl Rove controls almost everything (but not them!). But they will be wrong - it will not be a White House operation. Free speech includes the right of Republicans to criticize the patriotism of Democrats - However, it is a bad idea when the President does it, and he won't.
Secondly, we have the regrettable Donald Rumsfeld statements. If Daniel Drezner is troubled, I am. Naturally, Prof. Krugman over-reached - did Mr. Rumsfeld really suggest that "if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy"? On any subject? Of course not. But what did he say?
The DoD transcript is a bit murky, since this was a press availability on the airplane flight home. Let's listen is as Donald Rumsfeld rips up the Bill of Rights:
Q: Mr. Secretary last year you had at least 9 Democrats on the news every night criticizing the decision.
Rumsfeld: I got it I think some will drop out.
[Laughter]
[Unknown media speaker]: For short Bill Clinton too.
Q: Criticizing the positions you and the President made on Iraq, criticizing the job that you're doing and I'm watching all of that. How does that complicate your effort to get this (inaudible) you're trying to get out on Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.
Rumsfeld: It makes it complicated it makes it more difficult but I guess that's life. I don't know what one could do about it. It doesn't make it enjoyable but what we have to do is think through to the best we can what it is we believe is in the best interest of the country, explain it to the extent we can to the American people and there's no question that, that - take the force level. There's a (inaudible) building up, more forces, more forces, more U.S. forces in Iraq and so you take a month of (inaudible), another month of (inaudible) planning and work with people and you explain what you're trying to do and you explain why it's important to go from to 55,000 Iraqis and why it's much better to have Iraqis take responsibility for their security and finally it gets through. Eventually if it doesn't - if the long argument doesn't sell, people stop using it because it doesn't resonate and it'll stop. Now in the process you take a lot (inaudible) over a period of time but when it's over if the critics are right then you learn more yourself (inaudible) what it is you're doing. And if the critics are wrong ultimately the people in the media will stop repeating what they have suddenly discovered - not suddenly but eventually discovered to be arguments that lack merit because they've heard the way and the reasons that lacks merit and if they don't stop repeating that stuff then the American people will turn them off and (inaudible) serve people in the Navy [sic: nation] to have people turn it off.
Q: (Inaudible) efforts on the ground or is this your political efforts?
Rumsfeld: I don't have any political efforts.
Q: Does this complicate the war on terrorism on the grounds?
Rumsfeld: Sure to the extent that there's no doubt but that terrorist - we know for a fact that people studied Somalia, terrorist studied Somalia and they studied instances when the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in. And persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to act (inaudible) in whatever it is they wanted to do. The United States is not going to do that, President Bush isn't going to do that.
Now to the extent that the terrorist are given reason to believe he might or that if he is not going to that the opponents might prevail in some way and they take heart in that and that leads to more money going into these activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement or leads to more staying power, obviously it makes our task more difficult. That does not mean there should not be a debate on these things (inaudible), there should be a debate in discussion on these things, we can live with that. We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible and as civil as possible.
Emphasis added to the bit that made news, and at least one of the qualifiers that did not. Here is the NY Times version:
Mr. Rumsfeld has been so barraged by critics that today, on his way home from a six-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, he spoke out against his detractors, suggesting that critics of the administration's handling of Iraq could be encouraging foes to believe that the United States might walk away from the effort.
"We know for a fact that terrorists studied Somalia, and they studied instances that the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said, echoing remarks Mr. Bush made on Sunday.
"The United States is not going to do that; President Bush is not going to do that," he said.
"Barraged". "He spoke out against his detractors". Fascinating. From the Times account, one might have thought he had a prepared statement. The transcript shows he was answering a question. Whatever.
Josh Marshall wrote at length about this in April. We had great fun discussing Sen. Kerry's statement here, and tackled the patriotism issue in an UPDATE. Now we see that the WaPo link has failed. Bother. Well, we try again here. But the basic theme is, Kerry was criticized for bad manners and judgement, not lack of patriotism.
Comments