Playing Politics With 9/11

Yesterday, I quoted part of a piece by Brent Budowsky, an Army lieutenant general, on Gen. David Petraeus's record of failure in Iraq. Today, Libby Spencer focuses on what Budowsky has to say about the timing of Petraeus's report to Congress:

Brent Budowsky gets his rant on in this piece and touches on something that I've been meaning to address; the scheduling of Petraeus's report to Congress.

Let this be said up front: While the president and Petraeus maneuver for him to testify on the anniversary of Sept. 11, the Speaker and majority leader should hold firm and say that this matter is not subject to discussion and the general will not testify on this date.

The fact that Petraeus would allow himself to be used in this attempt at shameful exploitation of the one day on our calendar that should be above exploitation, speaks for itself.

Really. I can't think of anything more disrespectful to the 9/11 dead than to take the focus off the memorials by scheduling what is sure to be a controversial report on that day. It could easily be scheduled for the 12th instead. It couldn't be clearer that this is an attempt to reinforce the false notion the White House has been pimping for five years, that Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11. It didn't. We know it didn't. So where's the outrage? I'm appalled myself.

Bush's shameful -- and shameless -- exploitation of 9/11 to promote and justify his "global war on terror" cannot be overemphasized, given that he has accused, and continues to accuse, Democrats and other war opponents of "politicizing the mission" by legitimately debating and dissenting a foreign policy that is in itself -- and always has been -- designed to advance Bush's blatantly political agenda.