One example:
Here is the quote from the MoveOn ad:
The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot
in the back of the head — not the front.
In fact, this is the quote from the Washington Post article:
Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against
civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as
combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in
Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the
official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
So clearly, the Post isn't making that claim - they are quoting a single (unnamed) source who appears to have said it. That is a HUGE difference.
Another example:
Here's another quote from the ad:
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge
strategy has failed.
One of the reports they cite, the General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, as evidence (the first and only one I looked at) never judges whether the surge has succeeded or failed. It does indicate that of the 18 benchmarks established by the Iraqi government, 3 were fully successful, 4 were partially successful, and 11 were not successful. Since the surge was mainly intended to reduce the violence, and certainly not to "fix" every benchmark, let's look at what they said about the level of violence:
These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and
progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province....
It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key
security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends. As the Congress considers the way forward in Iraq, it should balance the achievement of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks with military progress
and with homeland security goals, foreign policy goals, and other goals of the
United States.
My Bottom Line:
I'm not in any way defending the decision to go to Iraq or the initial planning. I think it was ill-conceived and incompetently planned. However, to attempt to sully the reputation of a decorated soldier who has devoted thirty years of his life to our country's service, and who has a spotless ethical record based on such shoddy, trumped-up charges is at the very least irresponsible, and does irreparable harm to the very cause MoveOn says they are trying to further. This is evidenced by the many Democrats who have criticized or condemned the ad.
Add my name to the list.
