A Response to Schmidt's Statement

In her statement, Schmidt sticks to the pattern of prevarication that has already come to characterize her in just a few months on the job. After reading it, I can't help but recall the previous post, "Jean Schmidt Helps Toe Party Line." A closer look at her statement:

"Since that moment I have been attacked from across the country by the left."
The definition of “left” is not “everyone who disagrees with me.” The people who have been criticizing Schmidt since before the election come from across the political spectrum. Cincinnatians are aware of how unpopular she has been among a significant portion of conservatives and Republicans, but perhaps the rest of the country is not.

"I never meant to attack Congressman Murtha personally."
It’s clear from Schmidt’s statement that her remarks were (a) insulting and of a personal nature, and (b) directed at Rep. Murtha. Therefore this is a lie. Moreover, she violated House rules as well as her own pledge of personal conduct.

"But this story has been way too focused on me, my conviction and word selection. Instead this story should be focused on the extremely poor policy the minority now propose."
Such attempts to divert the public’s attention from failed policies and constant attack-style politicking are not working as well as they have in the past. Schmidt is hardly in a position to call anything else “poor policy” as the lowest ranking member of Congress and a member of the party that has done little else EXCEPT fail.

No, the focus should not be on how all your Party's failures are the Democrats’ fault; that’s classic narcissism. The focus should be on the outrageous corruption behind the neocon war plan.

"I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."
Schmidt’s campaign personally attacked Marine Paul Hackett just a few months ago. Now she has made a personal attack upon another Marine, John Murtha. And she pledges blind loyalty to the party that trashed veterans John McCain, John Kerry, and Max Cleland—all of them decorated soldiers.

Mrs. Schmidt will not get any sympathy for receiving personal attacks. Certainly not in this case, when she herself opened the door with invective and partisanship.

"First and foremost I support the troops."
I don't believe Schmidt is lying; however, it's a false statement. In my opinion, Schmidt does not know what this really means, and she really does believe that her blind ideology is pro-military and patriotic. So it's not part of the pattern of prevarication, but it is part of the ancilliary ignorance that allows people to draw conclusions without critical analysis.

"I strongly oppose withdrawing our troops until we give them a chance to do what we sent them there to accomplish. They haven’t failed us. We must not fail them."
You have already failed them.

U.S. troops were sent in to establish a corporate-run state (“democracy” to neocons). That is the goal of Iraqi occupation. Had the neocons not been such idiotic war planners, they might have pulled off the boondoggle quickly and no one would have noticed the scam.

Most Americans are ignorant of the corporate takeover and the media is still too lazy and corrupt to report it, but they will notice that soldiers keep dying and money keeps bleeding and nothing seems to be getting better. Eventually they will ask why and demand answers.

- - -

Rep. Schmidt's statement reveals what 'damage control' means to the GOP. To those who hold principle and personal integrity in high regard, the damage done here was to the honor of a respected U.S. veteran and member of Congress. To the GOP, the damage was to the party.

If Schmidt was a person of honor and integrity, she would have ignored the political considerations and taken full personal responsibility for her words. That would have been a non-partison statement from an official to her constitutents. But that is not what she did. Instead, she chose to lie about her intentions and EXACERBATE partisanship by putting forth divisive partisan rhetoric.

Rep. Schmidt's statement falls short of apologizing or explaining her behavior. She does not even suggest that she will do better. It is unclear whether she even understands that she did something wrong. If her statement signifies anything, it is that the GOP stands by their doctrine of failed policies and personal invectives against those who demand better.