Vol. 2 No. 72 Sept 29. 2007



The Bogus Economist
Betray Us?


After three weeks, I'm beginning to see the head of the line.

The queue started about a minute and a half after a full-page ad in the New York Times, sponsored by the supposedly progressive MoveOn.org, unloaded on General David Petraeus with the now-infamous “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” headline. What the muddled brigade at MoveOn was thinking about, I don't know. I do know the line in front of me featured some of the brightest lights and dimmest bulbs in the Washington establishment, all armed with verbal harpoons.

In front of me, I glimpsed President Bush, who denounced the ad as “disgusting.” Right behind him was noted liberal columnist David Broder, who called it “disgraceful” and “juvenile.” The U.S. Senate, generally a sober bunch, stood behind them, foaming. It seemed the entire congressional membership was competing to find new adjectives to call MoveOn except for the leading Democratic presidential candidates, who seemed to be waiting for their minds to be made up. As the dust settles, there abideth stupidity, insensitivity and lameness, but the greatest of these is stupidity.

The Bogus Economist agrees with MoveOn that some of the figures in General Petraeus' report didn't exactly square with other generals' assessments, nor the eye-witness accounts that have come from the field. However, the sheer dumbness of accusing Petraeus of “betraying” his trust boggles Bogus' supposedly progressive mind.

General Petraeus, as his title implies, is not only a soldier, but a highly successful soldier. One does not get to wear a bunch of stars on one's lapel by ignoring a primary rule of soldierhood: “Never make your commanding officer look bad.” In industry, the same rule applies. The vice-president in charge of marketing who tells the Board that the CEO caused the company's best customer to switch accounts will probably end up carrying a signboard at freeway exits.

Given the gigantic hype generated by the White House, had General Petraeus reported all the negatives from Iraq, including the casualties and the monetary cost, it would become even more glaringly obvious his commander-in-chief has engineered the biggest policy train wreck in American history. Good soldiers do not do this. As for those who remember another good soldier, General Colin Powell, they will recall that Powell went against his own instincts to rely on the “facts” given to him by his Commander-in-Chief. General Petraeus reported positives – like Anbar Province - and soft-pedaled the negatives. So what's the beef? When was the last time you shafted the boss?

It's only speculation what the general would have said if his testimony had come after the Iraqi government became so publicly irked over the private security firm, Blackwater, that it threatened excommunication. Iraqi legislators didn't approve of private American contractors going around shooting unarmed civilians, especially when the shooters were immune from prosecution. Since there are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers, this threat might have slightly muted General Petraeus' claim of “success.” By the way, anyone who has gone camping knows the meaning of “blackwater” (Hint: it's not the stuff that comes from the sink).

Using devices like “Petraeus/Betray Us” is the kind of behavior one associates with third-graders who are developing slowly or right-wing talk-show hosts who haven't developed at all. To discover this virus on the left is a genuine shock. We aren't supposed to buy this kind of thing. After all, those who recall the Right's swiftboating of John Kerry or the attack on the patriotism of veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland, had made it clear they thought American politics had hit a new low. Democrat Cleland, who had dared to vote in 2002 for an amendment aimed at expanding U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, incurred the wrath of his congressional opponent, Republican Saxby Chambliss, who had never been in uniform. Cleland was called unpatriotic, having given only two legs and an arm to his country. Karl Rove was thought to be behind the campaign.

By adopting Rovian tactics, MoveOn established its own rationale. The organization's own site says the ad was “catchy” and would induce discussion, which it most certainly did. In addition, according to my own Backlash Theory, Democratic stimuli provoke rabid Republican reactions, which provoke Democrats to reach for the checkbook. As we're constantly reminded, it's all about money.

Watching person after person in the line lob descriptive verbal brickbats, the supply starts getting pretty thin. I could call MoveOn “frumptious” or something like that, but nobody would understand what I meant, including me. So, after careful consideration, I'm throwing in the towel. Instead of standing in line, I've decided to sit down and write columns like this, ticking off some of my friends, who may disagree with MoveOn, but feel anything attacking President Bush is OK, including rhyming “Petraeus” with “betray us.”

I respectfully disagree. I don't want to share Mr. Bush's blame for the war with General Petraeus. If you want some brush burned and hire Pete to set the fire and the town goes up in flames, it isn't Pete's fault. Especially if you neglect to check the wind conditions. Or don't listen to the fire marshalls. Or don't understand fires.

-30-

The Bogus Economist © 2007