This story tells us that, during his congressional testimony last week, Gen. David Petraeus took comfort from the Rudyard Kipling poem “If,” a copy of which was sent to him by a friend in Cornwall, NY the day the Moveon “General Betray Us” ad appeared.Why does this smell like some kind of a Bushco PR stunt?
Well, assuming the story is legit, how appropriate for him to consult the work of one of the greatest propagandists for colonialism when looking for solace (and Kipling paid a terrible price for it, losing his son John in World War I, a young man whose body was never recovered).
And you just have to love the AP for sticking little tidbits like the following in their stories…
Both Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker spent the bulk of Monday and Tuesday being grilled by members of four House and Senate committees over the progress of the war and plans for the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops by next July. They then gamely stood through 90 more minutes of questions Wednesday from the media, and have at least two more days of probing to come before they can head back to Iraq.Petraeus also “gamely” disagreed totally with the Moveon ad when asked about it (why the reporter would expect a different response is something I’ll never understand).
Well, as long as Petraeus wishes to read the work of one of literature’s most celebrated poets of war, maybe he should check some of the passages from this link (taken from “Epitaphs Of The War” about World War I).
I would also add the following…
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
And by the way, as long as I’m referring to the Moveon ad about Petraeus, I want to point out my strong disagreement with Elizabeth Edwards and her criticism of the ad (Jane Hamsher articulates my sentiment a lot better here).Just because I support John Edwards for president, that doesn’t mean that I give the Edwardses carte blanche on everything.
2 comments:
Nice to see you're drawing the line. I'm still on the fence as to whether the principle outweighs the tactical considerations in regards to the MoveOn ad. It gives the right-wing something to focus on and dishonestly expand to equal something like "Democrats are anti-military", which rings true, especially in an historical sense when you're talking about base baby boomer GOP voters.
There is no doubt that Petraeus was used as a blast shield here, and a willing one at that. I have no affection for either the policy or this phony. I'll click through and check out Jane's arguments, but after a couple days of them already, I'm still not decided as to whether it was right or wrong to take out the ad.
The 1st ammendment considerations aren't really a part of it, as for me, it's about the question "did this help to ensure the troops would come back sooner?"
I guess that's what I'm not sure about, though a poll I saw this weekend had a majority of respondents thinking Petraeus wasn't worth listening to, so maybe the ad is having a positive political effect, which may in turn cause Democrats to generate spinal cord tissue...
See? This seems like something that would be simple to spitball, but I can't seem to figure it out. Results are what speak to me the loudest, so maybe after another week or two...
I have to say though, that the whole "betrayus" part of it is low-brow and something I'm generally repullsed by in politics, regardless of which side its coming from. School yard taunts...kid stuff.
Peace - Al
(check for an incoming link from http://deadissue.com)
"Rings true" in the sense that the GOP "base" believes it to be true, which means in the end that it isn't really true at all, of course (not at this point in time - I think we agree on that).
And I understand that the "Betray Us" language in the ad may have been a bit clumsy, but as I said at some point, I've heard much, much worse from Freedom Crock and that ilk. And my problem is that the "analysis" of the ad by the supposedly "liberal" media begins and ends on that single word. There is so much more to that ad that has been ignored in the process.
And someone (maybe Atrios? Not sure) pointed out that Petraeus has fundraising potential for the GOP, and if that would-be sacred "cash cow" is slaughtered, one of the dwindling number of somewhat credible Repugs (which Petraeus is, let's not forget) would grow smaller still.
Thanks for checking in.
Post a Comment