Petraeus should be under scrutiny

MoveOn.org was formed by liberals to urge the nation to "move on" after the '90s impeachment frenzy of Bill Clinton. Galvanized by events since the election of 2000, MoveOn paid to run an ad in the New York Times, listing well-publicized facts about the Iraq war and questioning the motives of Gen. David Petraeus as he promotes a continued U. S. military presence in that country.

Gen. Petraeus' agenda first came under scrutiny when he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004. Was he trying to influence the 2004 election as he praised achievements of America's efforts in Iraq? Ironically, if the date were removed from this treatise, one would be hard pressed to distinguish it from public relations efforts of the White House in 2007.

Also troubling was the ease with which he crossed the line between civil government and the military. The Constitution gives our civil governing bodies, Congress and the president, control over the military. Officers are not supposed to lobby for any point of view. They receive orders from the commander in chief and should not interject themselves into politics.

Very distressing is the vitriol that has been heaped upon MoveOn. org by members of both major parties after the infamous ad. Few critics addressed the op-ed of Petraeus in '04, the facts cited in the ad by MoveOn, or Petraeus' interjection of himself into the political fray with the blessing of George Bush.

The war in Iraq must be evaluated objectively, and the course must be determined without political prejudice. The line between the military and civilian governance must not be blurred. Our brave men and women and our treasure must not be sacrificed for individual gain.

Karen Wagner

Rolling Meadows