Petraeus and Recent Events

Check out Phillipe Duhart's find over at Who Are You to Accuse Me. He discovers that General Petraeus' claim that the Shiite Government is happily backing the training of Sunni police is a bunch of crap. Phillipe asks if Petraeus is an incompetent or an adminstration shill (not mututally exclusive - see Alberto Gonzalez, Michael Brown, etc.). I certainly tend to believe the latter.

Also, over the weekend, Petraeus found a new reason we're going to have to stay in Iraq:

As the terrible extremist threat of al-Qaida has been reduced somewhat, there is in some Iraqi neighborhoods actually a focus on crime and on extortion that has been ongoing and kidnapping cells and what is almost a mafia-like presence in certain areas.

One might think that this new threat is an internal police matter. But given what Phillipe mentioned, the United States is what keeps the Iraqi police an even potentially effective force. So we'll have to stay to stop the "mafia-like presence." How? I have no clue, and I suspect neither does Petraeus or Bush.

They Were Against The Troops Before They Were For Them

Just before adopting the amendment discussed below, the Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Senator Boxer. It noted attacks on Senator Max Cleland, Senator John Kerry, and General Petraeus, and then said:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Forty-seven senators voted against the amendment (46 Republicans and Russ Feingold(!?)). I guess they didn't like supporting all the troops and veterans, only those who were criticized by a liberal organization exercising its constitutional right to free speech.

Senate Repudiation of MoveOn.Org

I know I said that I would have nothing more to say regarding the MoveOn.org ad regarding General Petraeus, but I lied. Yesterday, the Senate amended the Defense Appropriations Act to state:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

Does anyone else feel a tad uncomfortable with a branch of the Federal Government officially and specifically repudiating the contents of citizens' free speech? I have no problem with individual Senators criticizing MoveOn.org's ad, but with the above amendment, the Congress (if passed by the House) has stated that it is the official policy of the Government that one specific excercise of free speech is off limits. Is it a violation of the First Amendment? I don't think so. But it does make me cringe a bit.