This ad appeared in the New York Times ( where else?) courtesy of MoveOn. While a number of commentators, pundits and Republican congressmen condemned it sharply, I think that it is a perfectly legitimate example of freedom of speech, even though I find the sentiments expressed - slandering a decorated and respected warrior like Petraeus as a traitor to his country - to be despicable.What's more, it serves a highly useful purpose.
Friday, the Poltico quoted an unnamed Democratic Senator ( Reid?) as saying, "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us."
And in fact, no Democrat congressmen condemned this at all until they were called on by Republicans and Independent Joe Lieberman to do so, after which some of them joined in careful criticism of the ad as `over the top' and an 'unnecessary distraction'.
What that really means is that they will essentially say the same thing...but in less starkly offensive terms.
Many of them are simply too wedded to the Angry left constituency that now controls the Democrat party to put the country's primary good, or even basic decency and fairness first. That's something I hope their fellow Americans will remember at the next election.
Moveon is by no means alone in attacking General Petraeus' character and patriotism. I won't dignify these sites with links, except to say that the attacks are easily found and are on mainstream Left blogs like Think Progress, Daily Kos and Firedoglake.
This is helpful in itself , in terms of clarity.
Many of us have known for some time that the Lefts' bolshoi about supporting the troops was simply that, and that in reality they are heavily invested in an American defeat. And so are a lot of the politicians they support. Now it's simply more apparent.
A number of these people are highly sensitive about anyone questioning their patriotism, yet had no compunction about questioning the loyalty and patriotism of a man who's put his life on the line for their freedom many times. And that is likewise a source of clarity.
By the way, here is General Petraeus' testimony before Congress, if anyone's interested.
UPDATE: It's worth noting that Democrat Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid and every one of the Democrat candidates running for president expressly refused to condemn the MoveOn ad.
If anything, they even insulted him more.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, only said that the ad gave Republicans "a new talking point," and that Reid would not be criticizing the ad.
Neither will Barack Hussein Obama."Senator Obama's question is not about General Petraeus's patriotism," said Bill Burton, spokesman for Senator Obama, "It's about his logic. "
In other words, according to that great military strategist Obama, General Petraeus is stoo-pid.
Phil Singer, spokesman for the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said that "America's troops have done all that has been asked of them and then some, but the reality is that there is no military solution to what is going on in Iraq which is why our focus must remain on getting the president to change course."
Singer had no criticism for MoveOn. "It is unfortunate that Republican presidential candidates are focused on generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the President's failed war policy. Senator Clinton is going to keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."
As for Edwards, his campaign's position was that General Petraeus is an OK guy, but he's either stupid or, as the MoveOn ad said, `cooking the books for the Bush Administration.'
Eric Schultz, spokesman for the Edwards campaign of said that "Sen. Edwards honors General Petraeus's service and patriotism, but the General is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time. John Edwards believes Congress should stand firm and hold President Bush responsible for changing course with a simple and strong message -- no timetable, no funding, no excuses."
These are the Democrats that want to be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, who have no problem with Leftist ideologues grossly insulting a general who was confirmed in command unanimously by the Senate.
I doubt that lesson is lost on our fighting men.
3 comments:
What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful... and I definitely oppose that organization.
However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General's report.
As I have pointed out numerous times in the past... Most Democrats, especially their leadership, are not truly anti-war... far from it, in fact.
Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this.
And before the 2006 Congressional elections, I made the same type of argument, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.
And now, I just saw an article featured at The Hill, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party's takeover of Congress, and who I named there, were the same ones heaping lavish praise, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
The pro-war, anti-war, and partisan reactionary segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies - many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today's "conservatives," along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.
Ultimately, it may be the battle on the Right, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines what direction our nation will go.
I'm no staunch conservative as you well know, FF, but even I get a good laugh out of this. Last year they wanted Rumsfeld out because he "didn't listen to the generals", and now it's "the generals are liars."
Oooh, I think my sides are starting to hurt.
Hi aakash
Ummm, thank you for introducing us to your blog and your viewpoint.
I'm afraid I disagree with your contention that the Democrats are the war party, or that these committee chairpeople you're talking about are `hawks' if by that you mean pro-military, pro defense and favoring an aggressive prosecution of this war, of which Iraq is only a battlefront.
You will have to go a long way to convince me that the likes of John Murtha, Silvestre Reyes, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith,John Conyers, Robert Byrd, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, and Joe Biden are `hawks' by any stretch of the imagination.
I will give you Tom Lantos, as well as Nita Lowey, Brad Sherman and Jane Harman...but with the exception of Lantos, they all head small subcommittees and have little power.
I dislike making this a partisan issue, but the truth is that the Democrat party was first suborned by the Angry Left back in the 1970's, and the party is almost entirely a captive of the Angry Left now. As you'll notice, NONE of the Democrat presidential candidates saw fit to take MoveOn to task for this insult to the general. You might not agree with MoveOn, Daily Kos and Code Pink but that's who is pulling the levers for most of the Democrat party these days.
And here's a little history for you...many of the Democrats prominent in Congress now came in during the 1970's during the Watergate era and were responsible for causing the US to cut off all aid to Vietnam and Cambodia after we left, thus repudiating our sworn word and a signed treaty we made and causing the death of millions.
That includes John Kerry,by the way, who arguably committed treason while still in uniform bynegotiang privately with our enemies during wartime.
I appreciate your frustration with the Bush Administration. Our reasons for going into Iraq were murky at best and the war has been horribly mismanaged until recently. But that's no reason to confuse th ecure with the disease, in my opinion.
Thanks for dropping by.
Hi Nazar!
The Democrat Left increasingly reminds me of Lord Voldermort: `There is no good or evil..only power and the will to use it..'
BTW, you know how I fell about Rumsfeld, I think. He was basically a scapegoat for the Bush Administration.
ALl Best,
ff
Post a Comment