Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
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.
|
Can't argue with any of that.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That is probably correct, but we will never know how the public discussion would have gone without their ad. Last I heard, a large percentage of the public doubt what Patraeus had to say. Would that have been true without movon's offensive ad?
Quote:
|
Now let's say you are a senior Democrat, Senator Culkin,
|
And lets further say that it is snowing in hell, but I digress.
Quote:
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
|
That doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult position for a politician, but I've never understood how all that works anyway. I am constantly surprised by what the public and the media find persuasive and important.