Monday, September 10, 2007 and General Petraeus

Pete Hegseth has this article in The Daily Standard. Mr. Hegseth is moving the 'frame' of the argument. In his second paragraph he writes:

Let's be clear: is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership
while in the last paragraph he says: has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

The issue should be framed as do we want to believe President Bush that he is still trying to get rid of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which has deteriorated into Civil War in Iraq or do we want to consider if the U.S. presence in Iraq is in our national interest ?

Reasonable and intelligent people can partake in a national discussion (NOT a shrill shouting match) on whether the oil beneath Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan and all the other -stans are essential to maintain our "way of life" (or is it to provide Exxon/Mobil with a sufficient supply of crude) or whether we, as a nation, can use our creativity to develop alternative sources of energy without further damaging the environment?

No comments: