It takes a lot of nerve to suggest a General would betray us [View All]

[hfojvt]

Let me tell the story of a General. A General who gave brave and essential service to this country. He lead the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, and was victorious in the Battle of Valcour Island and the Battles of Danbury and Ridgefield, after which he was promoted to Major General.

He played a decisive role in the Battle of Saratoga, where he was severely wounded, losing full function of his left leg and requiring many painful months of rehabilitation. Later, he was made commander at West Point, and a monument was erected at Saratoga to honor him.

Given such a distinguished and valiant record of service, isn't it outrageous if anybody would dare to insult his honor and his good name and to suggest that he is anything but a loyal and dedicated servant to his country and their citizens?

His name, as I am sure a few are aware, was Benedict Arnold.

I am not here to suggest that General Petraeus is a Benedict Arnold, merely to point out that if an accusation of dishonesty or betrayal is made by an organization representing 3.2 million Americans, that it should be answered by facts, and not by impugning the character of the people making the charge. Previous brave and valuable service is no more a defense for General Petraeus than it was for General Benedict Arnold or former Vice-President Aaron Burr who was arrested for treason in 1807 (but acquitted).

The Moveon ad claimed that in 2004, before the election, that General Petraeus stated that there was 'tangible progress' in Iraq. He was certainly wrong. That does not prove he was lying, but it diminishes his credibility as an accurate tactician, and it makes some people wonder if he really was giving his own assessment of the facts, or if he was saying what his boss wanted to hear.

Certainly 'tangible progress' is a claim that Bush has made over and over again. On 23 Jul 2003, Bush claimed there was "progress, steady progress" in Iraq. On 31 May 2005, Cheney infamously said the insurgency was in its "last throes". On 1 Oct 2005, Bush said "commanders ... and troops ... have made important gains." On 15 Jun 2006, Bush said the U.S. is "making steady progress" in Iraq.

Moveon and other anti-war Americans would love to actually see enough progress to bring our troops home. At the same time, we would like to see our President be honest about the situation in Iraq. That's a lot to expect from an administration that claimed "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" and "we know where they are" (Rumsfeld 30 March 2003) but it is not unpatriotic to demand it. Ultimately General Petraeus works for the American people, and they have a right to demand that he tell the truth. If he has done so, then history will vindicate him, and those who called him names will be as discredited as those who falsely claimed we had found some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. (Senator Pat Roberts did on 3 July 2003, if anybody's keeping score.)

If, however, this turns out to be as false as previous optimism, then the blood of dead and wounded American soldiers and dead and maimed Iraqi children and other civilians will put a blot on Petraeus' name far worse than any ad Moveon can write. Time will tell. For all our sakes, I hope he is right, but recent history does not make me optimistic.