Left wing MoveOn.org placed a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning General David Petraeus' report on Iraq. MoveOn's assessment might appear more credible, instead of like a partisan hit piece, if it had been given after the report was submitted.
"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" That’s the lead question in the ad,
shown here on Raw Story. There are other maligning comments, such as
“Cooking the books for the White House,” making this appear to be more about partisanship and trying to strike first rather than honestly working against a war with which the group disagrees.
MoveOn.org has every right to take out ads and even to question or condemn things or people its membership finds disagreeable. However, condemnation of the report would likely be more convincing if given after the fact instead of before it was even released in its entirety.
It would seem more appropriate to allow the General to give his assessment and then critique or even condemn the report. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but it can certainly be handled with dignity.
At the very least, the honorable thing to do would be to hear everything General Petraeus has to say, and then debate the points of contention. It would also be more honorable to hear him out before painting him as a liar, and certainly before accusing a man who spent many years serving, of betraying his country.
Republicans were clearly unhappy with the attack ad and encouraged Democrats to denounce it, per
Campaigns and Elections.
