Questioning Petraeus’ Patriotism (CM)
The Wall Street Journal editorializes:
Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.
Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org1, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."
"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse. …
Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.
Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.
More here.
It's telling that the discussion here isn't about whether or not the general has lied. It's about whether its OK to accuse someone of lying.
It's even more telling that there is no substantiation for the argument that it's somehow out of bounds to accuse a general of lying. The accusation has a very long history in America, and surely elsewhere.
If Patreaus speaks only truth, an argument demonstrating that is sufficient to destory moveon.org's claims. If there is such an argument, why can't you make it?
Posted by: bunkerbuster | September 11, 2007 at 07:50 PM
Bunkerbuster: How do you propose we decide whether he is telling the truth?
Posted by: davod | September 13, 2007 at 06:56 AM