The Vote on Petraeus

The Senate has voted 72 to 25 “to express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus.” That language, of course, is longhand for slapping the liberal group MoveOn across the knuckles for its “General Betray Us” ad that ran in The Times last week.

So, with the vote over, the politics can start. The Times’s Caucus Blog reports that “The ad was ‘disgusting,’ President Bush said in response to a question during a news conference. ‘I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on General Petraeus but on the U.S. military.’”

“A couple of the more interesting votes: Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this,” notes Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central. “Meanwhile, Hillary — who’s been under assault by Rudy for refusing to condemn MoveOn but who’s also locked in a tough Dem primary — stood her ground and voted No.”

Even more interesting to Sargent:

“Barack Obama missed the politically dicey vote today on whether to condemn MoveOn for its ad blasting General Petraeus, according to the vote’s roll call. At the same time, however, Obama was indeed present for the vote this morning that came just moments before the MoveOn one. He voted for the Boxer measure condemning the attack on Petraeus and all other members of the military.”

“Looks like it was initially going to be a close vote but as it became clear that it would pass, some weak-kneed Democrats flipped to opposing it,” laments Todd Beeton at MyDD. “Makes you wonder who exactly is running the show here.”

Michael Goldfarb at Global Standard has a guess: “The extent to which these bloggers believe they ‘own’ the Democratic party is striking–and I’m not sure they’re entirely wrong, either.”

************************

Bin Laden Plays to Pakistan

The A.P. reports on a new video in which “Osama bin Laden called on Pakistanis to rebel against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a new recording released Thursday, saying his military’s siege of a militant mosque stronghold makes him an infidel.” (Note: it may or may not be important that Bin Laden’s voice was heard over video showing previously released footage.)

Interestingly, the news service gives credit for breaking the story to Laura Mansfield, a blogger who monitors militant Islamic web sites. Here’s her take:

The message, entitled “Come to Jihad”, is directed to the people of Pakistan. However, the simultaneous release of transcripts in English, Pashtun, and Arabic indicate the terror group is looking at a wider audience, including the English-speaking world.

Much of the message builds a legalistic case under Islamic shari’ah justifying why Muslims in Pakistan should take up arms against Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff. He cites numerous quotes from the Qu’ran to document Musharaff’s alleged violations of Islamic law culminating with the recent events at the Lal Masjid, as well as several fatwas from clerics justifying action against Musharraf.

Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice thinks that bin Laden’s citing of the storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad this summer “is basically spin, though.” So what is the radical leader after? “It is no secret that Al Qaeda wants to get Musharraf (who has survived various assassination attempts) because Pakistan is strategically located, Al Qaeda now has its operations in its remote areas, Pakistan has a large and Muslim population that is partially radicalized, some internal security forces are reportedly sympathetic to Pakistan ­ and because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It would be a prime plumb.”

Kyle E. Moore, one of the feisty liberals at Out of Left Field, thinks that not all of Musharraf’s problems are of his own making. “The US friendly president has been under the gun as of late, much as a result of significant al Qaeda strongholds within his border, strongholds that, to be honest, probably shouldn’t exist in the first place. Not, one assumes, had the US taken the “War on Terror” ™ seriously as opposed to using it as a mere springboard to invade Iraq and then as a PR tool to lamely attempt to keep public support for said war as high as possible (which isn’t very high at all). Never fear, President Musharraf, I’m sure America will save you.”

Tobin Harshaw