A pop quiz: Who was the general in charge of Iraq before David Petreaus?

I couldn't come up with the name without help from Google. It was George W. Casey. It's no accident that, if you're like me, you couldn't dredge Casey's name from your brain while Petreaus' is stuck there like the chorus to a bad pop song.

As the Washington Post reported in July, "the president has sought, at least rhetorically, to transfer some of the burden of an unpopular war to his top general in Baghdad, wielding Petraeus as a shield against a growing number of congressional doubters."

Bush has mentioned Petraeus at least 150 times this year in his speeches, interviews and news conferences, often setting him up in opposition to members of Congress

For the most part, Democrats have tried to avoid that. They mostly praise Petreaus while questioning his Iraq surge. In fact, I think Democrats have played along with Bush's strategy and in recent months talked more of Petreaus than Bush, helping the president transfer some of that burden the Post wrote about. (Harry Reid has been one of the exceptions, saying in June that the general "isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad.")

This has created a bit of a dilemma for Democrats. The Politico reported Friday:

... Democrats face a touchy political problem — how do you attack what Petraeus and Crocker are saying without attacking them personally?

...

"No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV," noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. "The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us."

(This is a great D.C. Profile in Courage moment: An anonymous senator, quoted about a supposedly "independent" outside group that will have to deliver tough shots that Democrats won't take publicly about an increasingly unpopular war.)

And the most prominent of those outside groups did just that in today's New York Times. MoveOn.org has a full-page ad accusing Petreaus of "Cooking the Books for the White House." They headline the piece with a bit of schoolyard name calling:

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

They don't directly call him liar, but say:

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts.

Republicans are giving the ad wide play this morning. I just got a copy of it from Congressman Doc Hastings along with his e-mailed statement that it is "clear MoveOn.org has no interest in a non-partisan evaluation by military leaders and would rather play politics with our troops and our homeland security." The top item on the Republican National Committee's Web site this morning is a press release headlined:

RNC Chairman: Will Hillary and Barack Denounce MoveOn Ad?

Without the MoveOn ad to be outraged about, I'm not sure what pro-surge Republicans would say today when Democrats are certain to be unconvinced by Petreaus and Crocker. I am sure the ad will be a favorite topic on talk radio and the conservative blogs are already all over it. The line seems to be that MoveOn, and therefore Democrats, think Petreaus is a traitor. From the Weekly Standard:

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.