2008 Woodie Awards
Politicians betray us, not Petraeus
Natasha Sell
Issue date: 9/25/07 Section: Opinions
I am sure that everyone by now has heard of the infamous attack ad on Gen. Petraeus paid for by MoveOn.org that appeared in a recent issue of the New York Times. If you have not, the ad accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for Washington" and taunting, "General Petraeus, or General Betray Us". While I wish this ad could be tossed aside as a vile and atrocious act of free speech and freedom of the press, the aftermath of this ad means that this will not happen.
When I first saw the ad being talked about on television, I had two gut reactions. One was to notice how lame MoveOn.org is if that is the best insult they can come up with. The second was anger over their attack on the general. Petraeus did not become a general by being a "yes" man or catering to Washington. He earned those stars on his uniform by being capable at his job. He has nothing to win or lose by "fixing" any information about the direction Iraq is heading or how bad or good the surge is working. He did his job: he assessed the situation to the best of his ability and came up with the best report he could. Sorry, MoveOn.org, but that attack ad clearly shows that you want him to be your "yes" man, and if he says anything besides "bring the troops home" you will fling schoolyard insults until you get your way.
I could easily move on about the attack ad, but sadly I cannot, and not because of MoveOn.org. Rather, it is the distasteful response this ad has gotten from politicians in Washington that has me up in arms. First, the fact that not a single democrat stepped up to denounce the ad or stand behind Petraeus shocked me. How long have I been hearing democrats say they support the troops? If they really did I do not think they would turn their backs on a general, as he is still a soldier too. To make it worse, Hillary Clinton, a presidential contender, slammed the general during congressional hearings, saying his testimony "… requires the willing suspension of disbelief." Again, Sen. Clinton, Petraeus is not a Bush puppet, for he has no incentive to be so. He is doing his job as an Army general. Sorry if you don't like the way the war is going, but in that case attack Bush, not a general.
What sickens me most is that when I graduate I will be joining the Navy. With the democrats having a strong chance of winning in 2008, this means I will probably serve my first four years under a democratic president. However, after their behavior this week the thought makes me sick to my stomach. Will my president so easily turn their back on us lower level troops if they can do it so easily to a general?
And then there is the other side of the political aisle. While I am glad that my republican representatives are speaking out against the ad, I believe that Rudy Giuliani, another presidential candidate, might be taking it too far. Giuliani responded to the ad and Clinton by demanding that the New York Times let him put a full-page ad in the paper at the same rate they gave MoveOn.org (whether it was a discount price can be debated). In his full-page ad he decided to blast Clinton and the democrats for their behavior, among positive statements about Petraeus.
Giuliani almost had it right. Almost. While I am happy that someone defended Petraeus, he went about it the wrong way, turning the issue from one on the war in Iraq and our soldiers to a political debate, or better yet, a free-for-all. See, Giuliani slams Clinton. Clinton turns around with her own slam on Giuliani. So, it is inevitable that Giuliani will issue another statement and so on until we forget what the real issue was and we are all focused on them. The best thing to do would have been for the republicans to say they support Petraeus and leave it at that. All we can hope for now is for the storm to calm down so we can truly focus on what to do in Iraq instead of using the war for political gain for 2008.
When I first saw the ad being talked about on television, I had two gut reactions. One was to notice how lame MoveOn.org is if that is the best insult they can come up with. The second was anger over their attack on the general. Petraeus did not become a general by being a "yes" man or catering to Washington. He earned those stars on his uniform by being capable at his job. He has nothing to win or lose by "fixing" any information about the direction Iraq is heading or how bad or good the surge is working. He did his job: he assessed the situation to the best of his ability and came up with the best report he could. Sorry, MoveOn.org, but that attack ad clearly shows that you want him to be your "yes" man, and if he says anything besides "bring the troops home" you will fling schoolyard insults until you get your way.
I could easily move on about the attack ad, but sadly I cannot, and not because of MoveOn.org. Rather, it is the distasteful response this ad has gotten from politicians in Washington that has me up in arms. First, the fact that not a single democrat stepped up to denounce the ad or stand behind Petraeus shocked me. How long have I been hearing democrats say they support the troops? If they really did I do not think they would turn their backs on a general, as he is still a soldier too. To make it worse, Hillary Clinton, a presidential contender, slammed the general during congressional hearings, saying his testimony "… requires the willing suspension of disbelief." Again, Sen. Clinton, Petraeus is not a Bush puppet, for he has no incentive to be so. He is doing his job as an Army general. Sorry if you don't like the way the war is going, but in that case attack Bush, not a general.
What sickens me most is that when I graduate I will be joining the Navy. With the democrats having a strong chance of winning in 2008, this means I will probably serve my first four years under a democratic president. However, after their behavior this week the thought makes me sick to my stomach. Will my president so easily turn their back on us lower level troops if they can do it so easily to a general?
And then there is the other side of the political aisle. While I am glad that my republican representatives are speaking out against the ad, I believe that Rudy Giuliani, another presidential candidate, might be taking it too far. Giuliani responded to the ad and Clinton by demanding that the New York Times let him put a full-page ad in the paper at the same rate they gave MoveOn.org (whether it was a discount price can be debated). In his full-page ad he decided to blast Clinton and the democrats for their behavior, among positive statements about Petraeus.
Giuliani almost had it right. Almost. While I am happy that someone defended Petraeus, he went about it the wrong way, turning the issue from one on the war in Iraq and our soldiers to a political debate, or better yet, a free-for-all. See, Giuliani slams Clinton. Clinton turns around with her own slam on Giuliani. So, it is inevitable that Giuliani will issue another statement and so on until we forget what the real issue was and we are all focused on them. The best thing to do would have been for the republicans to say they support Petraeus and leave it at that. All we can hope for now is for the storm to calm down so we can truly focus on what to do in Iraq instead of using the war for political gain for 2008.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
John Jakes
posted 9/26/07 @ 7:19 PM EST
Why is it OK for Republicans to run attack ads like this but the moment some non-republican group does, then it is somehow wrong. Republicans shamelessly did this to war veteran John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, they currently do it by manipulating disfigured war veterans to garner support for their lie based war and they will do it again and again. (Continued…)
lovelylindylady
Catherine
posted 10/03/07 @ 9:50 PM EST
I disagree with the comment above. Representatives of BOTH political parties do their fair share of trash-talk and far too many from BOTH parties get away with it. (Continued…)
Courtney
posted 10/10/07 @ 10:39 AM EST
Catherine, you cannot simply compare this war to previous US wars especially WWII. Though it is important to take an historical perspective. You should look rather to the history of perpetual Western involvement in the Middle East and you will see John Jakes has a point. (Continued…)
Post a Comment