Thomas Ricks on Max Cleland
I know Thomas Ricks has gotten a lot of criticism from various bloggers for perceived inconsistencies between what his book says and what he wrote back in the day for The Washington Post, but Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq is a really great book. I've been looking for a good pretext to quote the heartbreaking passage about Max Cleland on pages 63-64 and Cleland's trip to Connecticut on behalf of Joe Lieberman seems as good a pretext as any:
One of those voting for it was a successor to Sam Nunn as a Georgia Democrat: Max Cleland, who was in a tight campaign for reelection in which his challenger, Saxby Chambliss, was running commercials that showed images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and implied that Cleland wasn't standing up to them. Despite his misgivings, Cleland felt under intense political pressure to go with the administration. "It was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them a victory," he said in 2005. Even so, he now considers his prowar choice "the worst vote I cast."
Waiting to vote, Cleland looked over and saw Byrd, who had been in the Senate for forty-four years. "I knew he had been through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I knew he wanted me to show some political courage."
Cleland's name was called. "Aye," he said. He glanced again at Byrd who, he recalled, "got up and walked away."
Despite his vote for the war, the next month Cleland lost his Senate race by a margin of 53 percent to 46 percent, in part because of a statewide controversy over the Confederate battle flag that helped get out the rural white vote. He said he took it harder than being blown up by a hand grenade in Vietnam. "I went down -- physically, mentally, emotionally -- down into the deepest, darkest hole of my life," he recalled. "I had several moments when I just didn't want to live."
He began attending group therapy sessions every Tuesday afternoon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in northwest Washington, DC, where he had been medically retired from the military on Christmas Eve 1968. "I wound up back at Walter Reed! I look down the hall, and it's like Salvador Dali is painting my llife. Thirty-seven years later, and i have another president creating a Vietnam. Kids are dying, getting blown up -- that's me." Sitting in his office overlooking Farragut Square in downtown Washington long after the start of the war, he propped himself sideways in his armchair, pushing the stump of his right arm into the side of the chair. "I see these young Iraq veterans, missing legs and arms and eyes. They are so brave. They have no idea what is down the road for them."
He certainly doesn't sound very much like Joe Lieberman.
Advertisement















The fact that Cleland tried to help Holy Joe really illustrates that Joe's main talking point is that even though we may disagree with him on the most important political issue of the last several years, Dems should support him cause he's just such a heckuva guy.
Maybe he is (though I generally don't like hanging out with moralistic scolds). But unless his challenger seemed like a bad guy, it left Lieberman with little to point to--why not have a nice guy who you agree with, instead of a nice guy you don't? Ned Lamont comes across as a nice, smart (if a little vapid) guy. So Joe was left making up stuff.
August 7, 2006 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A vote against Lieberman is a vote against Bush and the GOP. Lieberman may be a prime example of what may happen to many politicians in November that embrace Bush and GOP policies. His most vocal defenders in the media are the conservative Right pundits. Lieberman is more favored nationally by Republicans then Democrats. Tuesday's results should reveal a lot about the November elections, hopefully in the sense that Democrats obviously need to run against Bush and even Republicans should keep their distance.
But the race is also a reflection on how poorly Lieberman has run his campaign. Joe could have easily run as a Democrat against Bush and the GOP policies but he chose not to do so except for the last couple of days. There is a lot of quotes you can find from before he ran for President with him disagreeing with Bush and GOP policies. His campaign used none of them. You are left with the options that he changed his stripes and really became a liberal Republican or that he is a prime example of how Democratic DC insiders don't know how to campaign and connect with voters.
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Liberal News
August 7, 2006 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt--
I think you mistake my critique of Ricks.
I have tried to maintain a balance between two points:
A. _Fiasco_ is very good--the best thing I've seen on the military side of the misadventure in Iraq?
B. But why the *@%^*#* are we learning about this now, rather than back in 2003 and 2004?
The fact that _Fiasco_ is so good makes the gap between it and what we were told in the *Washington Post* back in 2003 and 2004 even more pitiful, and terrible.
Ricks has had one very interesting thing to say: he told Howie Kurtz that it was really congress's fault--because there were no big congressional critics of the war out there before it began, his editors told him to stop writing stories about dissent from the war plan and start writing stories about the war plan...
August 7, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Ricks, on his book promotion tour, gotten around to the question of what he reported of Franks' plan for the occupation of Iraq in real time?
Accepting that his editors demanded that he turn to the reporting of war plans, that would seem to be the next question in respect to his journalistic standards.
August 7, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink