Maher: Isn’t a dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job?”The difference is that Sen. Hagel is attacking the White House for putting up General Petraeus, but not attacking the general himself, as MoveOn.org did with their full-page ad in the New York Times.
Hagel: It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush’s policy. The military is — certainly very clear in the Constitution — is subservient to the elected public officials of this country.. but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.”
But I'm not sure there's a heck of a lot of difference here. For one thing, as Sen Hagel notes, the military is subservient to the elected officials, and the White House putting the general out there as if he is the person responsible for the failed war policy makes him the apparent figurehead... and the scapegoat. That's a cowardly way to deflect the criticism of the war policy: let the critics kill the messenger and then get all outraged when they go overboard.
So whatever you may think of General Petraeus and whether or not he was conned, duped, or ordered to go before Congress and shovel the bullshit for Bush, or whether or not MoveOn.org crossed the line with their ad (and got a kick out of the fireworks that it caused), it still comes down to the simple fact that the White House and the loyal Bushies don't really seem to care what it was that the general said; they were just in it for the political fall-out, and Sen. Hagel called them on it. Why doesn't someone run a full-page ad in the Times about that?
