Like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, I condemned the MoveOn.org ad that called General Petraeus “General Betray Us.” But the WSJ is crying crocodile tears when it bemoans the state of debate in this country:

Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party’s institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.

Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.

It is indeed wrong to portray your opposition as lacking “legitimacy and political standing” and to try to “destroy” them. I’m sure that the WSJ will therefore join me in condemning these nasty attacks suggesting that war critics and journalists are treasonous:

“Amnesty [International] has given the concept of ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy an all-too-literal meaning” (here).

The New York Times “has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it” (here).

“Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists” (here).

“[V]oters won’t want to reward Democrats who sound like they’re cheerleading for America to fail” (here).

Oh, wait…