An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Character Assassination
Ed Morrissey believes that the Democrats have begun a character-assassination campaign to discredit General Petraeus. Ed takes a closer look at what’s going on at Heading Right.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Character Assassination”
Foreign Affairs
Michael – Patreaus has been courting Congressional approval of his actions during all the visits to Baghdad this summer. It’s been a PR campaign on his part. Is that the proper role for the Commanding General? He obviously considers his role to be both civilian and military. He is absolutely trying to sway Congress to his approach.
When he uses statistics like a 75% drop in civilian casualties from political/sectarian violence he lost ALL credibility. To me it seems like he will use every trick in his arsenal -even fudging the numbers if it suits him. That single statement destroyed him in my mind. He simply lied. The same is true of his op-ed saying how great the Iraqi army was. If he is the military man he is supposed to be – he had to know that was a lie also.
The idolization of Patreaus as a just the man for the job reminds me of the idolization of John P. Abizaid as an arabic speaking general who would understand “those Iraqis”. He did not work out so well and that is probably the fate of Patreaus.
Oh, boo hoo hoo. After the characters we’ve been given from Brown to Gonzales, they want to complain that we might have trust issues with Petraeus? And they don’t even bother to explain his stance from his op-ed piece quoted by Davebo above? Nor do they respond to concerns about who’s actually writing the report (see the LA Times story) C’mon. When are we going to ask for some modicum of accountability from this administration? I guess we’re lucky that we’re at least getting a report from somebody, eh?
The same people who couldn’t discern that Norman Hsu was a swindler and a bagman now declare that General Petraeus is a shill and a liar.
G Weightman -
1. I don’t know who these ‘same people’ are.
Since Hsui has nothing to do Iraq, I don’t understand what he has to do with the topic of the post at all.
2.No one is calling Petraeus a shill or a liar. There are questions raised, however, about the involvement of politics in his military assessments. That’s a whole other issue.
Yup, G. And all I’m asking is that Petraeus and the administration do the equivalent of giving the money back. Explain the position of the editorial. Admit who’s writing the report.
And they’re not calling him a shill and a liar. They’re calling the report “The Bush Report”, as opposed to “The Petraeus Report”. Actually, from the “Heading Right” story, I’m not seeing anything that questions Petraeus personally at all. I’m seeing they’re questioning the source of the report. The link to Morresey’s site turns up an interview with Thompson.
Michael – you should be ashamed of yourself. Don’t you know that only Republicans stoop to character assassination? I know, because I have been told so many, many times on this board. I mean, you never heard of the Clinton’s doing that, did you?
Democrats only are interested in the truth, unless that truth is that things are getting better in Iraq. Oh, crap, my bad. Things getting better in Iraq can only be a lie.
Well, Democrats are only interested in what the General’s have to say, not bureaucrats. That is why they wanted Petraeus to report in September when they confirmed him. Doh, dammit, I did again. The bureaucrats of the GAO are the only ones we can believe now, not the Generals. They are in Bush’s pocket.
It is so freaking hard to remember how you are supposed to think if you listen the the Democrats. It just seems to change every day. But that is just because of the vast Right-wing conspiracy and Fox News.
Well, Austin, if you mean trusting the reports bureaucrats at the GAO, the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, the Congressional Research Service, and U.S. Embassy in Iraq versus a report that was supposed to be written by Petraeus, but is being written by the White House, then I think I have some right to question what the report has to say.
And, again, a link to where Petraeus’ integrity is being questioned would be helpful.
I’m glad I’m not a Democrat, or I might not be allowed to question Petreus in AR’s world.
*floods with relief*
Glance at the cartoon beneath this post and draw your own conclusions regarding the attack on General Petraeus’ character.
He’s shown in the cartoon as being a “good soldier” in Republican terms as far as I can tell G., So what’s your complaint?
The one defining rule for working with this whitehouse is obediance to W, so yes Patraeus is questionable considering all his obvious water carrying in the press.
But it’s perfectly fine to undercut the GAO report all day long, right?
It’s pretty funny that so many are convinced they know what Petreaus will report. It’s also funny that besides his written report he will testify in both open and closed sessions of Congress – so if he’s blowing sunshine it will quickly become apparent.
As usual, people are seeing what they want to see – on both sides of this issue.
Petraeus is a specialist in counterinsurgency. He knows how important politics is in counterinsurgency, whether local or national. He is playing politics, not because he is dishonest, but because he views that as necessary to sustain his counterinsurgent plan.
The role for the rest of us is to take what he says and weigh it against all other sources we have available. Petreaus is not objective, but then again, nobody really is. Balance his perspective as he lays out against the GAO report. the Jones report, and the other Congressionally-mandated studies. Don’t take Petraeus at face value. But don’t discount everything he says simply because he’s trying to sell his plan.
I suppose they are calling it the Bush report because it is, by law, the white house that is required to present the Sept. 15th report, not Gen. Petraeus. Gen. Petraeus is required by law to testify before Congress prior to the delivery of the white house benchmark report.
Details.
“report that was supposed to be written by Petraeus, but is being written by the White House”
Stop the madness already! The report will be written by Bush, as MANDATED BY THE US CONGRESS. Always was this way- there has not been a bait and switch. Petraeus (and Crocker) will testify before Congress and answer questions, the White House will issue the written report (as per Congress’ requirements written into law). In that sense, there is a Petraeus “oral report” and a White House written one.
There are some legitimate reasons to have a healthy skepticism (thank you, Elrod, for restoring my faith that there are some thinking Democrats left) but the issue of authorship of the written report isn’t one of them and you only make yourself look like a mouthpiece for Democrat talking points when you spout this spin.
Yes, there is skepticism about Petraeus’ impending report. Perhaps it is rooted in mistrust for the administration, as well as the earlier campaign to portray Petraeus as a larger-than-life figure whose word and judgement must never be questioned by mere mortals.
Much as Colin Powell’s spotless reputation was used to get us into this war, Petraeus’ spotless reputation is being used to keep us in this war. No one’s suggesting that he has not had some remarkable success militarily. But, it will take much more than that to put Humpty-Dumpty back together after shattering into a thousand pieces. Petraeus cannot force Iraq’s government to function in a less fragmented and sectarian way, and he can’t provide Iraqis with needed electricity and employment. These are still huge problems.
I noticed that the WHand its allies attempted to mount a campaign to downgrade the import of the GAO Report, which contradicts Petraeus in some areas. There has been little comment in the media about that. When push comes to shove, I trust the nonpartisan GAO. Petraeus is intent on completing his mission and will say whatever is necessary to achieve that.
All of this must be viewed in the context of the surge as a temporary measure- the military lacks the resources to continue it past the next several months. It is essential that our role switch back to training the Iraqi army to defend its own borders, and reach out diplomatically to Iraq’s neighbors to stabilize the region. Partition of Iraq seems to me to still be a viable option., and in all likelihood, our best hope for salvaging the country.
BTW,
Entropy is right, of course.
We’re already arguing before the testimony has been given and the reports made public.
On the other hand, it’s quite understandable. Just like the basic theme of a presidential address is reprted before the speech is given, all the major players have given significant intimations about how their thinking is developing. Statistics are given out, the President is at his bully pulpet, everyone and his brother gives an assessment to the press.
More importantly, the reports and testimony will only be a brief pause in the agonizing process of considering what to do next. That means a lot of tea leaf reading and crystal ball gazing, and so, a lot of conflicting views. No report and no testimony can tell us how co-operation with Sunni tribes will play out in the future, for example. All we can hope to have is a lot of best guessing.
So, while arguments may be irritating and often fly way off course, it’s only natural. This is the most threatening and challenging problem of the age, after all.