The Attacks on Gen. Petraeus

Posted: Sep 20, 2007 12:01 AM
The Attacks on Gen. Petraeus

Whatever cretin at hit on the idea of running a full-page ad in The New York Times describing General Petraeus as "General Betray Us" probably never gave a moment's thought to the implication of that expression. And that tells us something sad about the level to which political debate in this country has sunk.

To portray a decorated war hero and four-star general as willing to betray his country to "cook the books" on behalf of President Bush must have seemed a trivial price to pay to smear someone who was preparing to give Congress a more favorable review of the war in Iraq than American leftists who run are willing to permit. The words "betray us" happened to rhyme with "Petraeus" -- a felicitous coincidence if there ever was one. (Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that the general's name isn't "Season," or something else that rhymes with "treason.") The general had no means of retaliating effectively; he could only ignore the attack, and hope that most Americans would dismiss it -- as, happily, they did.

And one mustn't overlook the appalling complicity of The New York Times, which not only accepted the ad, and as a highly literate publication surely cannot plead ignorance of its implication, but cheerfully charged only $65,000 for running it, instead of the standard rate of $181,000. Both and the Times knew, or would have known if they had given it a moment's thought, how false and unfair to Gen. Petraeus the ad was. But they calculated, correctly, that rotten eggs of this sort, thrown by the Left at an honorable public figure in the course of a political debate, would not, today, rouse public anger to any effective extent. We are simply too numb to say "Ouch!"

At that,'s ad was simply the most over-the-top of the whole series of attacks on Gen. Petraeus launched by the Democrats, and by leftists in general. When he agreed to return to the United States and testify under oath before Congress to the progress of the war in Iraq, the Democrats in Congress evidently made a command decision not only to attack and discredit him, if possible, but to do so in advance of his testimony. The barrage they thereupon laid down was awesome to behold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada) charged that Gen. Petraeus had a long record of making erroneous statements. Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (New York) told him to his face that his views required "a willing suspension of disbelief" -- or, in other words, that he was a liar. The "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad was right in step.

The Democrats' response was a necessary consequence of a mistaken conclusion they reached several months ago. Early this year, they decided that the war in Iraq was hopelessly lost. Not unreasonably, they felt entitled to wrap the defeat around President Bush's neck and benefit by the political consequences. Sen. Reid ratified this conclusion by stating, in just so many words, that "the war is lost."

That was all very well as long as reports from the battlefield remained uniformly negative. But, beginning with the "surge," the military outlook unexpectedly (at least to the Democrats) began to improve. It was plain that Gen. Petraeus would say exactly that when he reported to Congress, and that put the Democrats in a very tight spot indeed. They resolved it in the only way they could: by blackguarding Gen. Petraeus. Their position, therefore, remains today what it was before, and has at least the merit of consistency: The war in Iraq is irretrievably lost, and any evidence to the contrary, let alone any inconvenient statements by military experts, will simply be denounced as false. Most Congressional Democrats haven't even been willing to condemn for its filthy ad. The best Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois could do was concede that it had been "a poor choice of words." What an exquisite sense of taste he has!