The Seattle Times has another editorial about Gen. Petraeus and the MoveOn.org ad. It’s written by someone named John Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle’s contention is that the headline isn’t how MoveOn’s ad should be judged. In his editorial, he argues that the ad should be based on the content of the ad. I’d submit that it should be judged mostly on its accusation in the subtitle. Here’s what Mr. Tuttle’s editorial says:

Your editorial criticized MoveOn.org’s advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus, but did you actually read the ad or only the headline? [ "MoveOn.org's demeaning attack" Editorial, Sept. 23]. If so, what do you dispute in the text of the ad?

That “every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge has failed.” Or that, “the Pentagon has a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on the violence” such as “assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head, not the front.”

Do you dispute that “we’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.”

Do you disagree with the assertion that “Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war”? (Incidentally, MoveOn.org has links to various independent articles and reports substantiating the points in their ad.)

As far as the headline, why didn’t you point out that Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions? Not only has he expressed interest in running for president, he has been promoted as a potential presidential candidate by such right-wing luminaries as Kathryn Jean Lopez and Bill Kristol.

As a military guy with political ambitions and a spokesman for the Bush administration’s failed Iraq policy, political organizations have every right to criticize him and his self-serving spin on our “achieved progress” in Iraq. Why should he be immune from criticism just because he is wearing a fancy uniform and is supposedly a “well-respected” general?

The storyline continues. The editorialist says that Gen. Petraeus is a “military guy with political ambitions” and that he’s “a spokesman for the Bush administration’s failed Iraq policy” who shouldn’t be “immune from criticism.”

Let’s also examine the assertion that “Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions…” I googled David Petraeus’ ‘political ambitions’ just to see if there was any truth to that. The only article I found that talked about Gen. Petraeus’ supposed political ambitions is this Mother Jones article:

The Petraeus-for-President scenario is out there, confirms Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the popular beltway blog, the Washington Note. “A lot of people around him are beginning to think it’s the natural way.” Petraeus, he adds, could find himself on a “Wes Clark-like track, but on the Republican side.”

It’s possible that Gen. Petraeus has political aspirations, though I couldn’t find verifiable proof of that anywhere other than in the Mother Jones article. Therefore, I don’t find merit in Mr. Tuttle’s claim. I’d submit that most people who watched him testify concluded that he’s straightforward and trustworthy.

I’d further submit that the headline and subheadline are the things that should be subject to the most debate. We should examine why a political organization makes the accusation that a credible general like Gen. Petraeus is “cooking the books for the White House.”

While I doubt that MoveOn.org is the organizing force behind these attacks, it’s certainly reasonable to say that they’re fueling it by posting talking points on their website for editorialists to work from.

Technorati Tags: David Petraeus, MoveOn.org, Mother Jones, Military

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Watching the “The War” last few nights and absorbing the carnage, terrific loss of life and scarifices we as a country took domestically as well as overseas between 41 and 45, and remembering what little I can as a child, its very hard for me to have much empathy for the pathetic, whimpering, sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing I hear and see on a daily basis.

   We havent got a clue as to what a war is.

   Would Ernie Pyle think wearing a flag on his lapel is a bit much, Kitty Couric?

   Id love to see how Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi would dare stand up to Omar Bradly or George Patton, how FDR would answer their whiney accusatons, or how far Moveon would get calling Ike a liar.

   The difference of course is we all fought that war. We aren’t fighting this, only our kids are, we’re too busy at the mall to give a shit.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — September 27, 2007 @ 8:17 am

2. Wait a minute, possibly wanting to become President somehow makes everything he’s saying possibly not true? Does that mean that every single thing that we’re hearing from Obama, Clinton, etc. is a bunch of loaded half-truths too? Geometric logic is a very difficult thing to apply to Liberalthink™.

   Comment by Dairenn Lombard — September 27, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

3. Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers”

   Comment by Benn — September 28, 2007 @ 7:00 am