Tag: saxby chambliss
Service Record: Trump, McCain, And Republican Contempt For Veterans

Service Record: Trump, McCain, And Republican Contempt For Veterans

As soon as Donald Trump brayed that John McCain is “not a war hero” and went on to mock his suffering in North Vietnamese captivity, the righteous reaction of Republicans was entirely predictable. Nearly every would-be presidential candidate in the GOP, humiliated and worried by Trump’s sudden rise in the polls, immediately sought to wrap the loud-mouthed celebrity’s gaffe around his neck. No doubt some of them, like Senator Lindsey Graham, a close friend of his Arizona colleague, were truly incensed by Trump’s slur. But either way, the incident presented an irresistible opportunity to stoke public indignation against an opponent whose taunting has become unbearable, even as his rise appears inexorable.

Whether this episode will cost Trump the admiration of the Tea Party horde remains uncertain. Many of them already dislike McCain and may hear Trump’s insults as brutal candor.  Yet in denigrating a war hero to advance himself, the casino mogul did nothing more or less than what other “conservatives” have done for political expediency in elections past. Nobody should be shocked to hear a right-wing chicken-hawk disparaging a worthy veteran at this late date. In the Republican Party, it is standard operating procedure — and for any Republican to pretend otherwise now is risibly hypocritical.

Need we recall every example of this profoundly distasteful and unpatriotic conduct? One of the most poisonous occurred in 2002, when a Georgia Republican named Saxby Chambliss ran ads suggesting that Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who had lost both legs and one arm in an accidental grenade explosion, lacked the guts to face down Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cleland, a Democrat who had served in the Veterans Administration under President Carter, had cast a vote protecting the rights of civil service workers in the new Department of Homeland Security, thus earning him a smear at the hands of Chambliss — one of those smooth favorite sons who had nimbly avoided the Vietnam draft.

When Cleland spoke up against President George W. Bush two years later, Ann Coulter sniped at him with an even nastier shot:

“Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam,” she wrote, describing his misfortune as “an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman …. Luckily for Cleland’s political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.” Ugly and appalling, even from her reliably foul mouth — and replete with lying insinuation. Although he lost his limbs in an accident — when a young infantryman dropped a live grenade that Cleland picked up — he is an authentic war hero who won a Silver Star for “exceptionally valorous action” at the Battle of Khe Sanh.

According to the official citation:

When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

That action took place four days before the accident that maimed Cleland and sent him into years of depression from which he emerged, with great courage, to lead a life of service to his fellow veterans and his country. He possesses a kind of nobility and grace that the likes of Coulter and Chambliss could not even comprehend.

Continue reading

The Cleland episode served as a prelude to the infamous “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” assault on John Kerry, another heroic veteran, who returned home to testify and organize against the same terrible war in which he had served with such distinction. Kerry’s brave dissent brought him the lasting enmity of the Republican right — and, when he ran for president in 2004, a litany of outlandish claims about his own highly decorated service, for which he had earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.

Those false charges were concocted and publicized, as I reported at the time, with money provided by Texas millionaires allied with the Bush family and their political boss Karl Rove. The Republicans led by Rove went so far as to mock Kerry’s Purple Hearts on the floor of their convention. Their aim was not only to ruin Kerry’s reputation, but to deflect attention from the highly questionable service record of George W. Bush — a subject about which he had lied shamelessly in his own 1999 campaign autobiography, A Charge To Keep.

Ultimately, Kerry and the Navy vets who had actually served with him refuted all of the bogus Swift Boat accusations. By then, however, the political damage was done. He had lost a close election to a man whose presidential candidacy was originally rejected by most voters, and whose presidency came to be seen as a tragic mistake by most Americans.

Among those who spoke up on Kerry’s behalf, unsurprisingly, was none other than his friend and fellow veteran McCain, who denounced the Swift Boat campaign as “dishonest and dishonorable.” Recalling how supporters of George W. Bush spread lies about his own service during the 2000 primaries, McCain told the Associated Press that the “independent” Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry were “the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” and called on the Bush White House to repudiate them. Equally unsurprisingly, Bush rejected McCain’s plea for decency. The Bush family, including Jeb — who once considered posing as a conscientious objector to avoid the Vietnam draft — quietly let the dirty tricksters do their dirty work, as usual.

That wasn’t quite the end, however, as blogger extraordinaire Oliver Willis reported over the weekend. On the day before his brother’s second inauguration in January 2005, Jeb Bush sent a groveling letter (on official Governor of Florida stationery) to George E. Day, one of the leaders of the Swift Boat campaign. “As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something.” he wrote pompously, “I simply cannot express in words how much I value the [Swift Boat Veterans’] willingness to stand up against John Kerry. Their efforts, like their service to their country, speak volumes about what matters most.”

On Saturday, Jeb quickly seized the chance to pose as a defender of those who have served, while bashing his rival Trump. “Enough with the slanderous attacks,” he tweeted. “@SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans – especially POWs – have earned our respect and admiration.”

For those who know the story behind Jeb’s feigned outrage, that tweet could evoke nausea, or laughter, or perhaps both. What it could not do is erase the stain on his character that this episode has revealed. Sure, Donald Trump is a demented, obnoxious character who lacks moral values. But somehow Jeb, a tough-talking weenie and sanctimonious fraud, seems even worse.

Senators’ Doubts Persist As Administration Explains Bergdahl Deal

Senators’ Doubts Persist As Administration Explains Bergdahl Deal

By Michael A. Memoli and Christi Parsons, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl appeared “drugged” and “very weak” in a Taliban video shown to senators Wednesday during a classified briefing, the administration’s most broad-ranging consultation with lawmakers after a controversial prisoner swap.

The Obama administration contends that there was increased concern that Bergdahl’s deteriorating condition could diminish any prospects for recovering him, prompting the decision to renew talks that led to his safe release.

Despite Bergdahl’s visibly poor state, lawmakers continued to express doubts that his health justified quick action to exchange five senior-level Taliban prisoners from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“I don’t think from a health standpoint there was any issue that dictated the release of these five nasty killers in return for Bergdahl,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

After three years of trying to negotiate Bergdahl’s release, officials began to worry that their window was closing when they received a proof-of-life video in late 2013 that appeared to show the sergeant’s health failing.

They worried that he was approaching a medical emergency, a senior administration official separately told reporters Wednesday night. Officials also worried that, if they couldn’t spring him soon, their ability to pull off a transfer might never happen. Past efforts had fallen apart due to leaks and other problems, the official said.

The short “proof-of-life” video was the most direct indication administration officials had of Bergdahl’s condition. Wednesday night’s extended briefing included administration, intelligence and Pentagon officials and was open to all senators in a secure room in the Capitol.

Senator Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), said Bergdahl, sitting on a blanket, made references to the death of former South African President Nelson Mandela, which suggested the video was shot in December.

“I definitely think it would have had an emotional impact on the president, which is probably why the Taliban released it,” Kirk said.

“He looked either drugged or tired or sick,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL). “This man was not in a good condition.”

Durbin suggested that the information senators received cast a different light on the events surrounding the recovery mission.

“I think it was a very hard decision,” said Durbin, the assistant majority leader. “If I had been challenged to make it myself, I might have come to the same conclusion under the pressure of the moment. But now that you step back and reflect on it, it’s easy to pick it apart and criticize it.”

Others were unswayed, and the White House’s decisions continued to draw fire from both parties.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said he saw “no evidence” that Bergdahl’s health posed an immediate danger that would justify swapping the high-level Taliban detainees. And Democratic Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia said the concerns over Bergdahl’s health “did not sell me at all.”

“We all agree we are not dealing with a war hero. … There’s a lot to be answered here,” said Manchin, who described himself as “very concerned.”

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) challenged the briefers to explain what assurances they could offer that the released Taliban prisoners would not pose a future threat to American interests or its allies.

“I was not satisfied from the briefing that I received today that the conditions that they’ve agreed upon are sufficient,” Ayotte said.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sharply criticized the administration for engaging in talks to release prisoners as part of possible reconciliation with the Taliban.

“The theory was that if we traded guys, that would show the moderate Taliban had clout,” Graham said, calling the concept “disturbing.” “I believe the decision to release these prisoners put our country in jeopardy.”

Direct talks with the Taliban were breaking off as Afghan President Hamid Karzai balked at signing a security agreement to allow the U.S. military to stay in his country beyond 2014.

But administration officials were surprised when some Taliban leaders expressed interest in indirect talks. The White House calls those elements of the Taliban “pragmatic.” In late April, the indirect talks began.

With that glimmer of hope, the U.S began moving as fast as the process would allow to put the deal together.

Administration officials got assurances from Qatar, where the five released prisoners are being transferred, that it would take responsibility for enforcing mitigation measures stipulated in the deal. However, as part of the agreement with Qatar, the Obama administration won’t say what those measures are.

The two sides struck a deal on May 31 to move ahead with the transfer. They kept the information about the operation within only a few people in the administration, as they worked toward drafting a memorandum of understanding with the Qataris about how the transfer would work.

Even so, U.S. officials weren’t sure they’d pull off the Bergdahl hand-off until about an hour before it happened.

In briefings with lawmakers, administration officials tried to persuade them of their genuine concerns for Bergdahl’s fate, and of their decision to keep such a close hold on the specifics. Top lawmakers didn’t know about the decision until shortly before — or after — the transfer.

Leaks had scuttled past operations, the official said, even as aides apologized for the secrecy.

Senators asked about a report in the New York Times that, among the items found among Bergdahl’s gear after he left his camp, were statements critical of the United States and the Afghanistan war.

“We were told that that was simply not correct,” Chambliss said, adding that the Army “does not play games with us on issues like that.” He added that emails from Bergdahl that have been published with similar language “may or may not be legitimate.”

Lawmakers expect further briefings over the coming weeks, some classified and others public, as the administration faces continued hostility from key members about why they were not briefed about the mission ahead of time.

“I think that they expected everybody just to fall in line,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in an interview before Wednesday’s briefing. “A lot could have been avoided had we been called and advised and talked with.”
___
Los Angeles Times staff writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Photo: Secretary of Defense via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!