What's in a Name?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

With apologies to Shakespeare, why did Bush pick Petraeus in the first place? Surely, their PR operation must have realized that the guy sounds like a Roman gladiator. That's why the MoveOn.org advertisement was so threatening. How dare they make a play on such a strong name and expose it to ridicule: "Betray Us."

The attack on the MoveOn.org ad demonstrates the main strategy of the Republican Party. Diversion, then divide and conquer. Instead of focusing on Iraqi policy, they try to change the topic of the conversation. Patriotism instead of their incompetence.

Here's another example. Republicans also attacked Hillary Clinton for "essentially" calling David Petraeus a liar. Diversion again. And distortion, too.

Here's Hillary's quote in context:

The first part got the publicity: "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

The second part, following immediately after: "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a rather grim reality, and I believe that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you were dealt a very hard hand, and it's a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."

Republicans ignored the second part for two reasons. One, it demonstrates Senator Clinton's respect for Petraeus, thus erasing their argument about her patriotism, and two, it places emphasis on the POLICY itself.