Today's New York Times editorial on the testimony given by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker isn't surprising, but it could easily have printed under the more appropriate headline 'General Petraeus or General Betray Us.' (Which might explain why MoveOn.org was apparently given a massive discount for their full page ad in the paper.) The editors at the Times do everything but call Petraeus a liar:
We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday's hearing. Even if the so-called surge had created breathing room, Iraq's sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it.
First off, if anyone shouldn't be fooled by yesterday's hearings it's the people who watched them on TV. Dean Barnett writes today on one of the hearing's more outrageous examples of partisan grandstanding, courtesy of Congressman Bob Wexler:
"Our so-called credibility" - with that little phrase, Bob Wexler brilliantly illuminated the preening narcissism and partisan blindness that afflicts the far left of the American body politic. It's not our "so-called" credibility. It's our actual credibility. And honor. What's happening in Iraq isn't a Republican war or a conservative war; it's an American war.
Wexler spent most of his time analogizing the present conflict to Vietnam. He even compared General Petraeus to William Westmoreland. If Wexler wants to learn a real lesson from Vietnam, he can try this one - Nixon didn't lose in Vietnam. America did. We lost our war. We also lost our credibility and honor. We still feel the repercussions from that debacle over thirty years later.
"So-called credibility"? Honestly, I don't even know what the phrase means. But I do know that when it comes to real credibility, Bob Wexler and his fellow travelers have none.
And then there were the protesters, who not only appeared unstable, but likely did as much damage to their cause as their supposedly more serious allies at MoveOn.org. Every half hour a couple of women decked out in oversize pink pajamas and capes were dragged out of the hearing for screaming at the general, or the congressmen--who knows. On this point, the Times disparages Democrat Ike Skelton for daring to keep the entire proceedings from turning into a complete farce:
For that matter, they [the American people] deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.
Jamie Kirchick offered a most appropriate response:
"Unnecessarily authoritarian?" (What would the Times consider a necessarily authoritarian response?) Anti-war activists have a variety of legitimate means by which they can be "heard." Radio. Television. Blogs. Protests (there's a massive one planned for Washington this Saturday). Writing and calling one's congressman. Fax machines. Emails.
Disrupting congressional hearings for masturbatory, self-centered gratification, the sole mission of Code Pink, does those who are opposed to the war a massive disservice. And if prosecuting these people to the fullest extent of the law discourages them from acting up like petulant children in the future, the Times should applaud Rep. Skelton for his attempts to maintain dignity and order in Congress.
If only those of his colleagues who were "acting up like petulant children" could have been held to the same standard.
