General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." ...
- MoveOn Ad
[Update: See also here and here. See also, btw, his remarks before the 2004 elections providing a rosy-eyed view. But, to say he "betrayed" us is reprehensible, I say! Luckily, the people aren't buying the hype. They don't want endless war and occupation ... don't trust P. to carry it out. And, many will say so bluntly. PC-whining aside.]
This link provides added back-up to the allegations made. A search will also provide evidence that overall the people do not trust Petraeus ... in effect, they accept the theme of the ad. But, some are concerned with the name calling. After all, back in the day, people didn't name call or have ads that disrespected our military and leaders! Grant, for instance, wasn't called a "butcher" or whatnot! Thomas Paine also was never blunt ... to speak of someone mentioned recently; nor, those of that era.
I'm being sarcastic, of course. Not only do we have people (see last link) who simply despise Bush write hand wringing entries, the U.S. Senate ... in which the Webb Amendment supportive of the troops failed to "pass" because of a filibuster (it got a majority ... btw articles not only do not use the 'f' word, but also fail to mention among the claims that it is too complicated or would actually hurt the troops that Webb was a top military man plus has a son directly affected ... sorta seems relevant) ... passed this piece of ----:
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
72-25. Obama didn't vote, though he did vote for [failed] an alternative by Sen. Boxer critical of all ads that disrespect military sorts. What the heck are they proposing these things anyway? Why are they SELECTIVELY passing resolutions critical of criticism? We really have a bunch who simply do not ... a few days after Constitution Day ... know the meaning of the document and ideals they swore to uphold.
Our leaders, who can't manage to actually seriously debate legislation since it might delay their vacations, Democrats included, spit on the First Amendment today. Toss it with habeas and due process of law. See also, Glenn Greenwald's recent piece on their serious consideration of retroactive immunity of telecommunication companies ... the rule of law be damned. GG noted the absurdity.
Of course, we can also note that the resolution furthered the President's attempt to use P. as a beard and cover, a bigger threat to his honor and integrity than some ad, even though the Dems know full well he does not deserve "full" support ... which would imply totally going along with what he proposed we do! I don't think he supports the Democratic proposals to end the occupation with timetables etc. Also, what is this "Multi-National Force" b.s? TPM ridiculed the "36 nation" or whatever b.s. that included the likes of one person from Iceland.
BTW, I'm with Josh Marshall on the leader of Iran wanting to go to Ground Zero:
A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.
Go as a normal tourist. That's the best way, probably, anyhow. And, talking heads and Dems in Congress? Get your heads out of your ass.
---
* I saw a bit of the remarks from the two chosen to look into properly caring for our injured service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bob Dole looks well.