Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
Different arguments, or so I thought.If you say so.
I already said that was a picky point. The more important point is the one you didn't mention, which is that nobody has offered a single fact to refute the claim that moveon had a good faith basis for questioning General Patraeus's credibility when testifying in support of the surge. Doesn't that bother you at all? Don't facts matter?
|
Whether or not one consider's MoveOn's point a good one is not important: It was their right to question Petraeus' actions, motives, etc. As I have said many times, reasonable people can disagree, and I certainly don't dispute that.
What I object to is MoveOn's reckless, unconscionable assault on the man's honor through the use of the phrase, "Betray Us". By choosing that path, they do their own argument a disservice and for precisely the point you bring-up and nobody cares to comment on: The meat of MoveOn's complaint. See, by choosing ad hominem argument MoveOn shifted the focus from their complaint to Gen Petraeus' honor.
Now let's say you are a senior Democrat, Senator Culkin, who has just this year gone on record as approving Petraeus for lord and master of our armed forces in Iraq. Here's MoveOn's piece which essentially undermines Senator Culkin's judgment concerning Petraeus. Sen. Culkin is now in a difficult position of wanting to shoot the message but having MoveOn place the general right in your line of fire. Instead of the media asking about all of the reasons to greet the report with skepticism, they want to hear what you think of MoveOn's character asssassination attempt on a general with an unblemished military record, whom Sen Culkin and colleagues (in the majority party) have recently approved for this mission.
B