More thoughts on Petraeus:

The media seems more comfortable with “horse-race” questions (i.e. how did this go down, do you think this will fly, etc. etc.) than anything substantial where they don’t have the knowledge or grasp of history to make any kind of real evaluation of the news.

But that said, I don’ t think Move On should be in the business of questioning the patriotism of people, simply because they interpret facts differently. As for Petraeus putting a good spin on things — this is a rather juvenile take on it. The man is in the army – it’s part of his job description to put the best face on an ongoing effort (and I have no means of knowing that he was being disingenuous in doing so).

I think the antiwar message by itself is strong enough that it doesn’t need a personal attack at all (on military people, especially). Of course, trust the MSM to run off-track with it…

Justin Raimondo at antiwar, on the other hand, takes the tack that this ad is a good thing:

“Petraeus is surely cooking the books, as the MoveOn.org folks aver in their great New York Times ad – nice to see they’re (finally!) growing a pair – but this avoids the larger question: what is the administration really up to in Iraq? They’re hanging on, “buying time,” as the pundits ceaselessly report – but what do they hope to accomplish?

If you go through the Petraeus report, the key passages are those that deal with Iran. Petraeus continually points the finger at Tehran as an explanation for the lack of “progress” in Iraq. He claims to have “disrupted Shia militia extremists” – you know, the ones that sit in the Iraqi parliament – and to have captured the leaders of “Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.” Who is this operative, and what are these “Special Groups”? Apparently, they are too special to be named in testimony before Congress. The “ethno-sectarian competition,” Petraeus avers, is being pushed toward violence, in part because of “malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran.”

What actions? No answer is given: not that anyone is asking, at least not in the Congress or among the presidential candidates of either party. Prior accusations that IEDs found in Iraq were manufactured in Iran have proved sketchy, at best, and pure invention, at worst. Yet Petraeus’ words are simply taken as gospel, much as Colin Powell’s peroration of Scooter Libby-produced lies performed in front of the UN was hailed as a home run. Years from now, will we look back on the Petraeus-Crocker dog-and-pony show with the same bitter regret that nobody – or almost nobody – doubted them?

You can bet the ranch on it.

More lies from the “honorable” Gen. Petraeus…”

Comment:

Maybe so, if the point is to call the man on his actions. But is it? The point is to change enough minds among the leadership that we get immediate troop withdrawal. An accusation of treachery won’t help that. It won’t change minds; it will harden them.
But it feels good.

Which is what a lot of activism amounts to.

(PS: not a criticism of activists….just a pensive afterthought that applies to me as well….)