Brian Greenspun explains how our frustration shapes debate

Sunday, Sept. 16, 2007 | 1:25 a.m.

I am not unpatriotic. Neither are most of the people I know.

So why are some of my friends calling my other friends that un-P word, especially when they are all responsible, thinking, caring Americans who want only the best for their country and their families?

I don't know the answer, although I have been trying to figure it out ever since it became popular in this country to label public dissent as treasonous . Don't get me started on which political party mastered the art of besmirching those who dared speak out ; but suffice it to say, it is one reason why my Republican Party and I are, how should I say it, estranged.

This past week got me thinking harder about the answer because it appears to me that in that answer lies the opportunity for saner and more civil public debate about the kinds of issues that will determine what kind of country we will be when we grow up. Remember, we are less than 250 years old , which, by most standards, is barely into adolescence. Maybe that explains why we act like children!

And while I still may not have the complete answer, there is some reason to believe that I may be close. So, it is time to share my thoughts. The alternative is to lose friends , which, at my age, poses other concerns which I'd rather not contemplate.

An e-mail from a very close friend and former business associate - we'll call him Jerry - started this thought process because he is a good American, a tolerant American and a reasonable American. He is also a former Marine colonel who shed his blood in Vietnam and has been a passionate supporter of the armed services and the commander in chief for his entire life. He is entitled to an answer.

He questioned what he called the Democratic Party's attitude toward the U.S. military - all of a sudden I have to answer for what the Democratic Party does (don't people realize I may be the last of the real Republicans!) - and the impugning of Gen. David Petraeus' character by Moveon.org and The New York Times.

He even questioned Sen. Hillary Clinton's "impugning of the good general's integrity." Aha, I just figured out why I got the e-mail. I am unabashedly supportive of the good New York Senator's candidacy for president , so he must figure I can get the message to her.

Before I do that, however, I would like to get a message to Jerry and anyone else who confuses patriotism, dissent, responsibility and good old American values to the point that they are all conflated into treasonous action unworthy of belief or consideration.

With all due respect to the colonel - and anyone else who has served this country in uniform who feels the same way - you need to watch something other than Fox News. They don't always, in fact hardly ever, get or report the news the way it happened, especially if there is someone who holds an opposite political view from their own whose words they can confuse and whose beliefs they can ridicule. It may be part of the ratings and political-agenda game , but it does little for civil discourse and the education of the electorate.

The good Colonel lumps The New York Times, Hillary and Moveon.org together and accuses each of them with being the other. For example, Fox criticized the Times (actually, Fox gave credence to Rudy Giuliani's accusation that the newspaper cut an ad -rate break for the left wing organization so it could run that awful and ugly General Petraeus-General Betray Us ad) as if Hillary had some control, input or even knowledge of those events. Giving a break in rates is a far cry from adopting the message of the ad.

It also failed to quote Sen. Clinton's full statement during the hearings this past week in order to make it sound like she was belittling the general rather than expressing - very civilly and calmly - a disbelief that was shared by many people in this country. Think about it, if Hillary spoke for close to 70 percent of Americans in expressing incredulity, would Fox impugn that much of its potential audience? Of course not. Better to take her quotes out of context so that much of America might not associate themselves with what they heard.

I, however, heard what she said in its entirety and couldn't agree more with the tenor of her question. Besides, as a senator with a constitutional responsibility to seek truth on our behalf, she would be derelict if she didn't ask difficult questions when young men and women are dying. One of the reasons we are in this mess is because lawmakers didn't ask the tough questions before we attacked Iraq. And that leads me to my theory about why all this is happening.

The people in this country are frustrated. They voted for George Bush for president and they no longer believe they got what they voted for. Rather than a man who was going to bring honor to the Oval Office, they have a president who refuses to honor the age-old tradition of presidents who seek counsel from all quarters - even from those with whom they disagree - so that his decisions have the virtue of thoughtful consideration.

Rather than a man for whom they voted who they thought had the capacity and the good sense to make decisions in the best interests of this country, they have found a president who has little capacity for common sense and an arrogance about him that strains to the breaking point America's good standing around the world.

Rather than a president who the people thought they voted for who would bring civility and good feelings back to this nation's capital, they got a man whose bunker mentality has caused him to unleash the forces of divisiveness just so he can maintain some semblance of leadership . And, rather than have a president who could learn from his mistakes and lead us to a better answer, we have found that we have a man who refuses to admit - even to himself - that he messed up. As a result, more than 30,000 Americans have been killed or wounded for a cause that most people aren't sure is worth it.

Why? Because the president has never taken the time to explain what is really at stake. He has never brought Americans into this war to share the hurt, the pain and the price of war. For some reason, he has failed to lead us toward the truth of the mission - at least as he sees it - in a way that we can climb aboard and feel like we are sacrificing our young people, our treasure and our good name for a cause worthy of such a price.

Americans are frustrated that the leader for whom they voted is not the man we need to lead. That is more our fault than his because we fell for the campaign slogans and the divisive rhetoric and we elected , then re elected , a man who continues to fall short.

And, instead of standing before the Congress and taking the lead for his war, he sends a brave and honorable soldier, Gen. Petraeus, to absorb the barbed questioning of a Congress representing the frustrations of the voters.

No one really questions the integrity of Gen. Petraeus - except maybe a few nutjobs of the far left - but he is the man the commander in chief has put in his place on the firing line. I know the general signed up to take a bullet for his country - and bless him for that - but did he sign on to take the political slings and arrows of an outraged and frustrated people?

I think not, but there you have it.

Frustrated people do and think frustrating thoughts. Both the patriots on one side of the war policy and the patriots on the other. Rather than blame each other for our frustrations, we should be looking at the fellow who got us here without any good way to get us back.

Now, that is frustrating!

archive