Without naming names, Barack Obama yesterday criticized MoveOn.org for having accused David Petraeus of betrayal. (Edit: I fixed the typo in the spelling of "Petraeus" -- it was a classic, I had used a B instead of P.) Predictably, some were outraged, but lost in their fury was the fact that Barack had also criticized the Bush Administration for having challenged the patriotism of those who dissented from its war policies.

Here's what Barack said:

All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Somehow, many on the left latched onto the final clause of that sentence and declared that it to be another Sista Souljah moment (as if there had already been a first).

The accusation fit their manufactured narrative that Barack Obama is spurning the base, but it just wasn't true.

Not only did they ignore Obama's clear denunciation of the right-wing's manipulation of patriotism -- including in the very sentence they crticized -- they also overlooked the plain truth that this has been Barack Obama's public position for quite some time, since at least September 20, 2007, to be exact.

On that day, Barack Obama cast a vote in favor of a resolution to "strongly condemn" not just the "unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus" and but also the similarly scurrilous attacks on John Kerry and Max Cleland. Here's the text of the resolution that Barack supported:

(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

   (1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

   (2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

   (3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as "reprehensible'';

   (4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

   (5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as "dishonest and dishonorable.''

   (6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

   (7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--

   (1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

   (2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

What Barack said yesterday was absolutely 100% consistent with what he said back in September when he cast his vote for that resolution. (By the way, Barack's vote was correct. I think accusing Petraeous of treason was the wrong, even though he advocates a policy with which I disagree.)

Not surprisingly, every single Democrat voted for the resolution. Meanwhile, every Republican other than Chuck Hagel opposed the resolution. Why? Because they wanted to pass a resolution which exclusively denounced the Petraeous ad.

Unfortunately, about half of the Democratic caucus voted for the Republican resolution which only condemned the Petraeous ad. Barack Obama decided not to vote on it, however. Some folks may choose to criticize Obama for standing on the sidelines, but from my point of view he simply refused to play the Republican's game. Barack had already made it clear that he opposed all such attacks. Obviously, supporting a resolution which attacked the left but not the right was off the table for him. And voting against the resolution would have merely provide Republicans with a false line of attack against him down the line. So by not voting, Barack was refusing to play their game, and that was the right thing to do.

If anything, it showed Barack Obama's strategic thinking, and his ability to distinguish between what is important and what is not. He made his position clear on the core issue and voted for the principle he supported -- and refused to get trapped by another Republican false choice.

But for those who disagree with my assessment, you must admit at least this: Barack Obama has been 100% consistent on this issue, and there was absolutely nothing new about what he said yesterday.

Finally, and most importantly, there's a lesson to be learned here: don't fall for the wedge.