The New McCarthyism

It is impossible to discuss the war in Iraq.

A meaningful discussion would focus on alternatives to the present administration's current policy. It might recommend modifications of or reforms to the intelligence community. It might suggest changes in current force structure or composition. It might propose realignment of the military assets of the United States. It might argue for immediate and unilateral withdrawal, and consider the costs and benefits of such an action.

But such a debate is impossible.

In today's Washington Post, Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt has a column citing deficiencies of both Congressional Democrats and the administration, both in debating the war and in communicating with the public respecting the war. He criticizes Democrats for failing to propose rational, practical alternatives to the present policy, instead repeatedly returning to the argument over the 2002 decision to go to war in the first place. Hiatt explains:

[Democrat's]focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.

Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for [Iraqi vice-president Adel Abdul] Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.

There is sufficient blame to go around, Hiatt makes clear:

President Bush can lash out at the Democrats, as he did Friday, but ultimately they are mostly exploiting public opinion; he is largely responsible for shaping it. And had he been more honest from the start about the likely difficulties of war, readier to deal with them and then more open in acknowledging his failures, the public likely would be more patient.

A true wartime president, [Connecticut Senator Joseph] Lieberman said, would reach out regularly to congressional leaders of both parties. He would explain strategy, admit mistakes, be open to suggestions.

All very reasonable, you might say. But you would be wrong.

Daily Kos, by far the most prominent "progressive" Democratic web site on earth, intellectual and political kin to MoveOn.org and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, has a different view:

Cementing his place as a Bush media lackey of the first order, Fred Hiatt, the Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Post, reaches a new low - stooping to the New McCarthyism . . . [snip quote from Hiatt's column]

You no good SOB Hiatt. You have been irresponsible, grossly negligent, ingenuous and a Bush lackey on Iraq for 4 years now and you have the gall to write those words. You despicable McCarthyite cretin.

We're not supposed to say this anymore - but eff you. How dare you question the patriotism of people who are doing what YOU have failed to do - hold the Bush Administration to account? How dare you?

Your editorial page has always "clapped louder" at the behest of the Bush Administration. Now you dare to SMEAR Dems at the whistle of the worst President in history? How dare you sir?

As Joseph Welch famously said: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Fred Hiatt should immediately resign his position. He has no credibility to comment on any issue.

Notice that there is no suggestion as to what aspects of Hiatt's criticism of Democrats -- or the President -- is thought to be in error. Nor is there any repudiation of Democrat's refusal to suggest alternatives (even immediate withdrawal), thus in fact underscoring Hiatt's main point. Does the author of the Kos post (Kos uber-sidekick "Armando") advocate immediate withdrawal? Does he suggest different funding levels, or changes in procurement, training or equipment?

We have no idea, of course, since to deviate from the party line -- "Bush Lied & People Died" -- is to descend into "McCarthyism." And we need not even mention the tenor of the comments the Kos post has provoked, but you may wish to review a few.

It is impossible to discuss the war in Iraq.