search the site
Only two sane voices remaining in a once-great party?
The Democrats in Congress, together with party operatives, left wing blogs and websites and many in the media, believe or say they believe that General David Petraeus is lying in his testimony to Congress regarding the progress of the war in Iraq.
Did they somehow not see the fruit salad on Gen. Petraeus’s chest – row upon row of decorations signifying distinguished service that spans a career in the military serving commanders-in-chief from both parties? Is he someone different from the man the Senate confirmed for his post by a vote of 81 – 0 last January? Has some evidence of malfeasance come to light that would cause reasonable people to doubt the general’s word?
Those who would discredit him might profit from a little reading on the man whose integrity they impugn. It’s easy to find material. They could start here.
On Sun. Sept. 9, the eve of Gen. Petraeus’s long-anticipated report to Congress, an ad was placed in the New York Times by the extreme left group MoveOn.org characterizing Gen. Patraeus as ‘General Betray-us‘.
Betrayal is a powerful word in the military. It’s right up there with treason. The word was not chosen lightly. Do the Democrats agree with the sentiments expressed in that ad? Are they “on board with it?” Did they actually confirm a man given to such treachery?
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut doesn’t agree. He’s the independent Democrat now ostracized by the party that only seven years ago nominated him for vice president. His crime: failing to hew to the party line on the war in Iraq. With respect to the MoveOn.org ad he spoke clearly. It’s “an act of slander that every member of the Congress – Democrat and Republican – has a responsibility to condemn.”
Wrong though he is on just about everything, at least credit Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) with sanity. When the ad was read to him during his appearance on “Meet the Press” he said, “I don’t buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth.”
The Democrats control the Congress and yet they, with only two exceptions, apparently feel they must stoop to ad hominem attacks on a distinguished general in order to make their case to the electorate.
If the Democrats really want one of their own to be Commander-in-Chief, wouldn’t it behoove them to show a little respect to those whom they wish to command? Who will serve if the price of service is to say only what the fevered politics of the party in power demands or else suffer condemnation as a liar and a traitor?
Disagree if you must. Ask hard questions. Probe. Be constructively skeptical.
But be careful about openly (or tacitly through your silence) calling one of the world’s most respected military men a liar.
To fail in such caution weakens the country you wish to lead as it weakens your chances of being elected to lead it.