Let’s Destroy And Discredit A Former Military Bush Administration Critic

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Politics, War.
Oct 14th, 2007 | 4 responses

When retired General Ricardo Sanchez made THESE REMARKS late last week blasting the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, we noted that the administration would eventually reply — perhaps by using the timeworn technique of “surrogates.”

That’s where a politico or administration that wants to maintain “plausible deniability” has someone else leap into the mud puddle and septic tank to sling the mud and sleaze to try and discredit someone who is a pesky critic who got a lot of publicity — particularly if that pesky critic has a bit of credibility. Then the guys at the top can say: “We never said that!” (It’s always notable that they do not REPUDIATE it..)

And so — it is getting a bit predictable and tiresome, isn’t it? – HERE IT IS. Read it in full and watch the video.

To be blunt: Senator Lindsey Graham wouldn’t normally go after Sanchez this way.

He isn’t just trying to rebut Sanchez’ comments. He is trying to publicly discredit him personally so people don’t seriously consider his critical-of-the-administration comments.

If Graham felt so deeply about this, he had ample opportunity to do so before and would have done so. It’s notable that Graham and Sanchez’ other newfound critics in the Republican Party suddenly are sounding the alarm about him after keeping silent for so many years — and coincidentally they’re doing so right after he lambasted the administration’s Iraq policy and the implementation of it in comments that got enormous press coverage around the world.

BUT this is an improvement for the administration’s supporters:

At least Sanchez isn’t a 12-year-old boy….

Here is what we wrote in our original post on Sanchez’ comments:

The New York Times story says the White House had no immediate comment, but there will likely be one in coming days either from the White House — or from its large stable of surrogates.

You read it here first…

4 Responses to “Let’s Destroy And Discredit A Former Military Bush Administration Critic”

1. University Update - Iraq - Let’s Destroy And Discredit A Former Military Bush Administration Critic says:

   October 14, 2007 at 10:47 pm

   [...] House Let’s Destroy And Discredit A Former Military Bush Administration Critic » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
2. Entropy says:

   October 15, 2007 at 12:09 am

   It’s notable that Graham and Sanchez’ other newfound critics in the Republican Party suddenly are sounding the alarm about him after keeping silent for so many years

   Uh, what’s so surprising here? Sanchez faded from public view when he retired. Why would anyone criticize him until he opened his big mouth?

   Is Sanchez now supposed to be above criticism? What criticism could be given that would be acceptable? Should Graham really have come on TV sometime in the past year or so to criticize Sanchez directly?

   The simple fact is that Sanchez made a bad situation worse on his watch. Does anyone really think he did a great job with what he was given? Almost everyone agrees that his actions made things worse – even acknowledging the vacuous leadership of the Bush administration.

   My it’s amazing how fortunes change. Once excoriated by the left for Abu Ghraib, now he’s the newest hero for speaking against Bush.

   Is Graham lying when he says this:

   He was on the ground for well over a year there, and I know Senator McCain and myself point-blank asked him and Bremer, “Do you have enough people over here?”

   Because every time we would go back, Wolf, it would be worse than the time before…..As far as I’m concerned, he was part of that mistake by being a commander who did not express now — then what he’s saying now. And I know he was asked because I asked him.

   What a sad, sad country we live in.
3. Robert Bell says:

   October 15, 2007 at 3:48 am

   Actually I think Warner is making a legitmate point here.

   Generally this sort of reasoning goes something like where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Since the person didn’t tell us about the smoke before, either there mustn’t have been fire before, or even if there was, they have some capricious motive for telling us now, so we should somehow distrust both them and their report of fire now.

   It works great, because once you get the brain angry, it no longer can distinguish between being upset at the messenger and the truth of what they said, and you can call the messenger shrill etc.

   In this case, however, I think there is a legitimate point from Warner in that it isn’t merely a matter of Sanchez reporting late, it’s that Sanchez could have *done* something at the time. In particular he could have acted as a whistleblower, quit to spend time with his family etc.
4. domajot says:

   October 15, 2007 at 2:58 pm

   Sanchez may be right in his current assessment.
   That should not preclude an assessment of his own role as an enbler of the policies he now criticizes.

   The conclusions drawn from the Nuremberg trial should not be forgotten. Obeying orders is not always a valid excuse.

   His message should be taken seriously, but his own role in that which he criticizes can not be ignored.
   For my money, that is the larger message in the message about personal accountability for the administration and Sanchez alike.