MoveOn.Org's Petraeus Ad: It's the Title I Object to
Look, I know there are bigger issues at stake here than civility, but I strenuously object to the Petraeus/Betray Us nonsense in the title of MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad. I'm not following this aspect of the discussion closely enough to deserve an opinion about General Petraeus--I'm just registering my gut-level reaction to the ad. It'd have been very effective if the title didn't contain what amount to fighting words. We might have a long discussion about whether or not the characterization suggested by the title is apt...but my objection is merely of the lame "it was unnecessary and counterproductive" variety. The ad would have been a lot better without it. MoveOn has a knack for pissing even me off--and that ain't good for them.
Look, I know there are bigger issues at stake here than civility, but I strenuously object to the Petraeus/Betray Us nonsense in the title of MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad. I'm not following this aspect of the discussion closely enough to deserve an opinion about General Petraeus--I'm just registering my gut-level reaction to the ad. It'd have been very effective if the title didn't contain what amount to fighting words. We might have a long discussion about whether or not the characterization suggested by the title is apt...but my objection is merely of the lame "it was unnecessary and counterproductive" variety. The ad would have been a lot better without it. MoveOn has a knack for pissing even me off--and that ain't good for them.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:11 PM
4 Comments:
Most people reading commentary on the ad probably haven't seen it (though I'm sure you have, WS). Here it is.
I report, you decide.
Well I know someone who probably has no problem with either the title or the content, and his initials are Admiral William Fallon:
"Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.
The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible."
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
I wonder which one will get the Medal of Freedom.
I agree with Winston.
Whether one likes Petreas or not, the word "betray" is completely unacceptable--especially in relation to military personnel.
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off when the right wing nuts do it. It's even MORE objectionable when the side that I relate to does it.
Name calling and attacks are for toddlers and other people that don't know better.
If you can't make your point without stooping to an attack, then as far as I'm concerned, you can just shut the hell up.
I felt on the one hand that Moveon had created an effective ad that would get a lot of attention and stick in folks minds that Gen. Petraeus may not be the most reliable person to give us the Truth about Iraq. His op-ed in the NYT before the 04 election is legitimately cause for some concern about his independence and objectivity, in my view.
Also, I am a bit put off by the idea that military people cannot sometimes have their facts and even motives questioned, sometimes aggressively, by civilians. I respect the military as an institution just like most Americans and admire the act of serving one's country. I think more people should serve. But I don't believe we should glorify the military to the extent that we sometimes do, and I fear that an American militarism is actually creeping into our society, to the detriment of democracy. (A good book on this is by Andrew Bacevich, "The New American Militarism") The fact that we are viewing Gen. Petraeus as basically determine Iraq policy now is troubling to me. American civilian leaders are supposed to be making the major decisions, not our generals. Obviously, the generals on the ground can provide important information about how things are going, but we should not be relying on them to set policy. The generals in Iraq probably have a strong a bias since they do not want the mission they are in charge of to fail. Petraeus obviously wouldn't want to admit that his favored tactic, the surge, is failing. He will want to keep trying for as long as possible. And I am a little suspicious of Gen. Petraeus after that NYT op-ed.
On the other hand, I ultimately have come down on the side of WS and Michelle in this thread. The idea of questioning any American's loyalty to the country, and particularly that of someone serving in Iraq right now, is just ugly. It reminds me of the hit piece that the Republicans did on Max Cleland before the 2002 election--showing a picture of bin Laden in the anti-Cleland ad. Many of us complained that it is beyond the pale to question someone's patriotism in that fashion, and we should not succumb to the same kinds of vicious attacks, even if we disagree with Gen. Patraeus' analysis or are skeptical about his motivations.
It's sad that some of the more extreme sections of the Democratic party are using the same win-at-all-costs tactics Republicans have been using for a long time. I think people are generally wrong about how effective this ad is: I think it really may have got in the heads of a lot of people that you can't rely on Petraeus' testimony. But I do not think MoveOn should be using these tactics just to sway public opinion.
A long way of saying: I agree WS.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home