National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in decrying the tone of modern politics where there are all too many personal attacks. But what they fail to recognize is those who volunteer to put ourselves up for public office, to run for public office, we know what we are going to be subjected to in the back and forth of a political campaign. What this amendment seeks to do, what the Boxer amendment seeks to do, is to change the subject. The subject is this ad. The subject of my amendment is this ad put in the New York Times on September 9, 2007, attacking a four-star general wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, the Commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq--not only this individual, but everyone under his command, 170,000, approximately, members of the U.S. military.

What does it accuse him of? Cooking the books for the White House. The ad asks: Is it General Petraeus or General Betray Us? My friends on the other side of the aisle want to change the subject. They do not want to confront organizations such as MoveOn.org, which have the right to express their view thanks to the first amendment of the Constitution, thanks to people like General Petraeus and the brave men and women of the U.S. military who protect moveOn.Org's right to have its say. But we ought to have our say, too, and to condemn, in the strongest possible words and by our actions, this kind of irresponsible ad. It is clear, according to the New York Times Magazine of September 9, this was a part of an orchestrated effort, both on the Hill and off the Hill, to disparage this general before he even had a chance to make his report to the Congress.

The Boxer amendment, with all due respect, is an effort to change the subject, is a smokescreen to try to distract colleagues on the floor from holding MoveOn.org and those who would slander and by character assassination attack the reputation of leaders of the U.S. military who are doing nothing more than their duty and what the Commander in Chief and this Congress asks them to do. This is an attempt to excuse this kind of conduct by trying to change the subject. I would urge my colleagues to reject it.

Frankly, if colleagues are going to vote against my amendment, it will be tantamount to saying this kind of character assassination is okay. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis we would rise up and we would say it is not okay, it is unacceptable.

If, in fact, there are colleagues who think the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from California is going to be a fig leaf, well, I tell you, it is not big enough, as most fig leaves are, to cover up the shame that will be on this body if we see colleagues vote against--basically vote for this kind of irresponsible ad.

There is a difference in kind, and I hope colleagues would, on calm reflection, recognize the differences between those of us who run for public office and hold public office, and while we may all decry the kinds of personal attacks that have become all too common in political campaigns, it is a difference in kind for MoveOn.org and those who support them to make personal attacks against a four star general in the U.S. military commanding 170,000 American military servicemembers in a war zone in Iraq.

It is my hope that colleagues would vote unanimously for the amendment which I have offered and reject the Boxer amendment as an attempt to change the subject and obscure the fact that this shameful ad is out there without the disapproval, so far, of this body.

I think we all recognize that political campaigns are different. We do not necessarily like them, but we are all volunteers, and we volunteer to subject ourselves, unfortunately, to the tone of modern political campaigns today. I wish we could change it, and if there was a way to do so, I would support that effort. But I do not support the Boxer amendment because it fails to recognize the key distinction between those who are public figures by choice and those who are public figures by duty, people such as General Petraeus. It is a shame that we have not been able to get a vote yet on this amendment, but I am glad we will here in the next few minutes. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment on this character assassination against this good man and to vote against the Boxer amendment for the reasons I mentioned.

BREAK IN TRANCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I offered this resolution on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill about 10 days ago, and it was objected to at that time, so that is the reason I am back again today and yesterday. It took until today for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up with some reason not to support this amendment which condemns this ad against this four star general who wears the uniform of the U.S. Army and commands 170,000 soldiers currently serving in harm's way in Iraq.

There is too much venom and too much poison in the political arena today. I do not like it any more than my colleagues on the other side. But we have a tradition in this country of, after the campaigns are over, trying to work together in the best interests of the American people. That is what we all try to do despite our differences, despite our party affiliation. But I would think we ought to rise up unanimously and condemn this character assassination of General Petraeus. And the fact that political campaigns in 2002 and 2004 involved ads that I think we all would find over the line as far as the political discourse in a contested election should not detract from or dilute our condemnation of this particular ad.

You know, there is an unfortunate trend in our society today by people refusing to take personal responsibility for their conduct by saying: Well, we ought to condemn everybody, as if we should not condemn those individuals and those organizations which have clearly crossed the line in this case by saying: Well, we have to condemn everybody.

Well, I think this is the place to start, by condemning this ad, this irresponsible ad run in the New York Times at a discount by that organization, by that business entity, in favor of MoveOn.org, for the kind of ad I would hope we would unanimously condemn. Rather than relitigating political campaigns in the past, my hope is we would vote for this amendment and vote against the Boxer amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask the Senator from Texas, I was down here yesterday spending quite a bit of time on this particular issue. I was not aware the Senator from California was going to come in with her amendment. I assume the first vote we have is going to be on the Boxer amendment; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. Well, let me just suggest to you, I think if the defining moment--if you really agreed with what MoveOn.org did and what they said and how they demeaned one of the finest officers in the history of this country--the guy has a Ph.D. from Princeton; he is not just a normal person. The guy was unanimously agreed to and supported by the group here to go and do this work and take over the war in Iraq. This is the right guy for the right time. Huge successes are taking place.

I listened with some interest this morning to the House Foreign Relations subcommittee proceedings yesterday, and the very people who were complaining that General Petraeus consulted with the White House to come up with his information are now saying he should have consulted with White House and did not do it. You can't have it both ways.

I would just say this: The vote we are about to take is not a vote on an amendment by Senator Boxer; it is a vote as to whether you agree with MoveOn.org coming in and saying the things they have articulated about one of our top military leaders. That is what the vote is all about.

I urge everyone to oppose the Boxer amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when General Petraeus was confirmed, the majority leader called him a great man. My colleague from California referred to him as an amazing man, saying: Of course I listen to General Petraeus.

The Senator from Delaware said: I do not know anyone better than Petraeus. This is the thanks he gets after 9 months of service in Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source