SMEARING THE MILITARY

September 12, 2007 -- It's hard to decide which was the more disgusting: Monday's New York Times ad slandering Gen. David Pe traeus, or the newspaper's decision to publish it in the first place.

Or was it the refusal of Sen. Hillary Clinton - who aspires to become commander-in-chief - to condemn it?

The ad, placed by the hard-left paranoiacs at MoveOn.org, libeled a genuine American hero while further debasing the political debate in America - no mean feat, but all in a day's work for the social termites at MoveOn.

One expects better from the Times, though. It is one thing to print paid opinion - but quite another to participate in the rhetorical tar-and-feathering of a singular public servant like Petraeus.

His sin?

He presented to Congress a meticulously detailed report on the progress of the conflict in Iraq. The news, if not unambiguously good, is at least optimistic - that is, if one wants America to actually win the war.

And it's not Petraeus's view alone: Two U.S. intelligence agencies deemed the report's methodology and numbers the most accurate and authoritative on Iraq.

No matter. MoveOn begs to differ, and the Times seconds the motion.

The ad called Petraeus a liar - a "military man constantly at war with the facts" - and accused him of "cooking the books" about Iraq.

It called Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us," mocking the one thing a military man cherishes most - and that MoveOn understands least: personal honor.

But forget the hard left for a moment. What about supposedly mainstream Democrats?

Don't they find this kind of fascistic smear over the top?

Apparently not.

Indeed, it seems they meant for groups like MoveOn to be their attack dog.

"No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV," a report quoted one (unsurprisingly) anonymous Dem senator saying. "The outside groups will do this for us." (From the senator's mouth to the Times' megaphone.)

Sen. Clinton also went deep. A spokesman for her presidential campaign, Blake Zeff, said calls to condemn the slur were "a political sideshow," adding that Clinton would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."

Sorry, but her focus at the moment should be on defending the honor of the officer she voted to confirm as top commander in Iraq.

She's not the only Democrat to duck the issue - fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer was also AWOL yesterday - but she's the member of her party most likely to be elected president next year.

And unwillingness to defend a general officer - not on a matter of policy, but on a point of personal honor - won't go unnoticed in the Pentagon.

Not to mention that it would be the right thing to do.

Yes, it might cost her with the MoveOn termites, to say nothing of the editors of The New York Times.

But leaders lead.

Gen Petraeus knows that.

Sen. Clinton needs to learn it."

Senator RodHam has several schtick-shows she pulls out of her hat when introducing the second-worst President in modern history.* Her intro starts with a short speech about leadership, then builds to a crescendo with "And I know a little something about leaders, ladies and gentlemen, President Bill Clinton..."

Sickening. She's the Queen of all ambulance chasers to be sure, a liar, a crook, and a sociopath, but to refrain from sticking up for a highly regarded, much decorated member of the military is unacceptable for someone vying for the title Commander in Chief.

*It's neck and neck, but Jimmy Carter still deserves the title of Worst Modern President.