What’s really surprising to me is that Crockers testimony, which is arguably much more important, receives almost no discussion. Why?

Because there wasn’t a good rhyme for his name, given that “Meet the Focker” might have run up against trademark infringement?

Seriously though, my guess is that there just wasn’t as much controversy over Crocker’s testimony. Both sides pretty much agree that there’s been almost no political progress, and since the WH wasn’t trying to pretend otherwise there was then no need for pushback from the left.

I was referring to interviews granted since he gave his Sept report, which, as far as I know, were confined to the uncritical sources I mentioned.

Well, in addition to the 45 minute Charlie Rose interview above, he gave one to the AP, Reuters, ABC Radio, and the WAPO among others.

What’s really surprising to me is that Crockers testimony, which is arguably much more important, receives almost no discussion. Why?

BTW- I agree with Elrod’s take- Petraeus is bound to put the most positive spin on the situation that he can- as he wants to generate success. In that sense, he seems more biased than the GAO. That of course is not the same as saying he’s betrayed us, which crossed the line.

Last I counted, krit, Petraeus gave something over four dozen interviews between March of this year and September 18 (when I last counted). Whether you care to acknowledge their existence or not. I may have missed some, of course.

Since no “particular policy” has been specified by you, one can only speculate as to what you meant by that phrase. What do you think those several dozen media outlets asked the C-in-C of the MNFI about? Pansy growth techniques in hydroponic gardening? Concrete versus abstract imaging in the Chaucerian tradition? Heh. Seems to me that you simply wish to discount anything that doesn’t fit your preferred narrative.

For those who wish to keep mischaracterizing Petraeus’ 2004 article, it can be read here.

But Petraeus, like any policy-setting commanding general, spins the facts to serve his argument. The GAO and others have disputed Petraeus’ charts on violence, and Senators from both political parties questioned the validity of his findings. I don’t think there’s really anything else to this. I see Weimarists desperate for evidence of “anti-military bias” so they can blame the Democrats for losing the war. And I see circling of wagons among MoveOn supporters – they haven’t exactly suffered financially over this.

Here’s my modest proposal: let’s stop accusing whole sections of America of being “anti-military”, “treasonous,” “fascist,” or any other inflammatory charge. It’s beneath America as a country to engage in this sort of rhetoric, and that’s why I reject the MoveOn ad in the end. Make a case for why we should look at Petraeus’ numbers with skepticism. But don’t throw around bombs like “betray,” even if the purpose was clearly not to accuse Petraeus of treason in the classic sense. Iraq is a major strategic challenge and it will outlast the Bush Administration. We should be more interested in what happens to Iraq after the inevitable drawdown of surge troops in Spring 2008 than silly foodfights over an idiotic newspaper ads.

Marlowe- You may be right, but how then was he able to get away with writing that 2004 editorial? Imo, he is being used as Colin Powell was- as a pawn of the administration in their chess match with Democrats in Congress.

Move-on was wrong to attack him personally. But Bush was wrong to hide behind his spotless reputation in an attempt to put lipstick on this pig. Yes, its a tactical win for him- but we never seem to move beyond politics to actually fix the policy- and that is a bigger wrong- our troops are in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad and here at home we’re bickering with more idiotic partisan rhetoric.

Krit, Petraeus is expressly barred by US military regulations from making political statements. Recall that little dustup a few weeks back at YearlyKos when a serving sergeant making a pro-war point was shutdown. Wesley Clark was pretty civil about it, I thought – in contrast to the moderator – but explained why serving soldiers are not allowed to do that.

If Petraeus had so much as uttered one word of direct response to political criticism from MoveOn or Sen Clinton…rest assured CREW would be filing an immediate complaint with DoD, and the Democrats would be howling for his dismissal.

That said, Krit, I believe you are entirely right when you say that the Republicans are more than happy to take this bait, and avoid talking about the war.
This firestorm took away from the real business of this war and government.

However, the entire episode has been fascinating for its revelation of the divided – yet mutual – interests of the radical Left and Democratic establishment.

And as I pointed out repeatedly elsewhere on this blog, he also gave DOZENS of interviews to just about every media outlet in existence. Somehow only the Fox and Hewitt interviews are noticed by those determined to spin and smear. Conveniently selective tunnel vision there.

We should be asking if this strategy will lead to the long-term stabilization of Iraq, or if we are just arming the Sunnis to later take on Maliki’s government. We should be looking to see why Baghdad residents still get 1 hour of electricity, and why oil production still lags pre-war levels. That type of thing.

Now the right is no longer burdened with defending the real questions and inconsistencies raised by his report, but can do what they are much more comfortable doing- attacking Move-On, the anti-war left and the NYT’s.

I disagree that Petraeus cannot defend himself- maybe he can’t attack Move-on, but he has given interviews (more like presentations) to Hewitt and Hume and can access public opinion through that means.

Nice selective list. One might point out that Petraeus has given interviews to dozens of news outlets including frothing right-wingers like Charlie Rose. Fox liked to advertise theirs as “exclusive” but that was naught but marketing hype. Google will give you many more interviews, both recent and from earlier this year.

First, Calling General Petraeus, “Betrayus” is not “criticism” – it is a baseless attack, pure and simple. Had the Moveon ad stuck to the facts and disputed what Petraeus said, that would have been fine. Equating “Betrayus” with criticism is a tactic that is frankly too often used to justify such attacks.

Secondly, another excuse to justify the ad is that the word “betray” isn’t really that bad. Well, to anyone in uniform, or who has worn the uniform, it’s much more closely associated with the dictionary definition than the alternative some have floated here. It is most definitely an accusation that he is betraying his principles and oaths – something any serving military member takes very seriously because it is at the heart of military service.

Third, another excuse used to justify this ad is that supposedly some of General Petraeus’ troops have used the term. Those who make that argument can’t seem to understand the difference between a national political attack and soldiers doing what soldiers do – bitching. Now, I’ve called, in private of course, one of my Commanding Officers an a$$hole and a d!ckhead. Does that now give Moveon license to take out a full-page ad in the world’s best known newspaper repeating those words against my former CO? Of course not. What a ludicrous argument.

Fourth, some claim the ad is justified because the Republicans “did worse” or the same. Well, the “he did it first” argument does not work with my kids, and it does not work here either. This argument is further proven bogus because it’s compared with Republican attacks against against former military members who became politicians – like Kerry and others. There is a huge difference between attacking someone while they still wear the uniform and one who has taken it off and entered the political domain. If anyone needs an education on why this distinction is important, I will be happy to provide it.

In short, the series of rather lame excuses for not condemning this ad for what it is would be rather amusing to watch were it not for damage to civil-military relations it represents. Suggesting that General Petraeus is betraying his oaths, principles and duty not only smears one man, but many of those serving under him in Iraq. Why? Because for him to be a liar or a water-carrier for Bush means that most of his staff are as well. Petraeus didn’t compile those disputed facts and figures all on his own, after all. The basic accusation is the he is dishonest – well, if a senior officer is being dishonest then those under him have a duty to report it. That nothing has “leaked” contravening Petraeus’ figures suggests that those on his staff are equally dishonest or perhaps just spineless.

Sh!t, as they say, rolls downhill. Hopefully the furor over this ad will provide some caution to the anti-war left to pick their words carefully. Hopefully, this attack on Petraeus is not a harbinger of attacks against the military itself as an “enabler” of the war, among other “crimes.” We are already seeing this to some extent. All I can say is, do not attack the military. Do not mistake a tool of policy for the policy itself. Do not mistake the hammer for the hand that wields it. We’ve been down that road before and it is not pretty.

And Kim and Elrod, I can’t be sure if my memory serves me correctly, but I think both of you have spoken out against the negative ads that were run against Cleland and decried that as foul play (I agreed with you, BTW- the ads could have legitimately shown his voting record on the Patriot Act and simply showed voters that he did vote against it because of concerns for labor interests- but implying that he didn’t care about America’s security was ainaccurate and a very low blow). I’m not sure why you think it’s wrong in one case but OK when the party affiliations are reversed. The GOP shouldn’t slander reputations or impune motives, and neither should the Dems feel justified in doing so.

And sorry, betray in the common vernacular is clearly derogative and it does imply ill intent. Elrod, in an earlier thread on this topic I complimented you because you pointed out that it’s natural for General Petraeus to give a positive spin to reporting because that’s part of his role as a commanding general. I completely agree with that- and then it was Congress’ responsibility to play devil’s advocate and ask the tough questions in order to find out more of the negative side. I don’t see that there’s any justification in claiming that the general didn’t answer any questions honestly.

I think it’s too bad that you now are moving away from that position in defending the slanderous ad which instead of acknowledging that the general was doing what he was supposed to be doing, that he’d instead ‘betray us’.

Based on what Moveon accomplished (i.e., converted “never heard of” to “favorable”, it is a good thing they didn’t pay the undiscounted rate……

Gallup Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. .

“Next, we’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people — or if you have never heard of them. How about Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus?” .
Favorable UnfavorableNeverHeard ofUnsure
% % % %
61 22 7 11
52 17 14 17
47 21 16 16

His statistics have been called into question by the non-partisan GAO report, and are not supported by other data out there.

Almost everyone who has come into contact with Bush has been politicized by that contact- look at what the last surgeon general had to say about his tenure in the administration.

I disagree, Krit. The GOP treatment of Clelland was, I believe, ugly and repulsive. However, not so much that of Kerry given how he himself used his military service as a key element of his campaign (“Reporting for duty” at the Dem. convention.).

In both cases, however, as politicians they were free to respond just as viciously to the attacks (Bush being vulnerable on this score, I would argue). Petraeus is legally unable to do so. As a serving officer, he can’t do much of anything about the criticism but swallow it, however vicious it is. That – together with the “betrayal” meme – makes this worse, in my opinion.

Elrod, I think it is not so much criticism of generals – Kristol’s is no different than many criticisms of Pentagon generals in recent years left and right – but the vehemence and personal nature of MoveOn’s attack that reflects an anti-military bias.

When you use a word like “betrayal” in association with a soldier wearing the uniform of the United States, it is a very serious business.

Your point regarding the Civil War is well taken and well researched. I agree, generals are not above criticism, for they make strategy that invariably costs lives. Hence, generals are often sacked by presidents. But to my recollection none of the Civil War generals — nor later controversial generals who incurred fierce public criticism, such as Patton — were ever accused of “betrayal”.

Given how Sherman despised his journalist critics, were he in Petraeus’ place and accused of “betraying” his oath and his country (or perhaps the “us” in “Betray-us” applies only to the Left) I would fear for the lives of the MoveOn administrators. Fortunately, we live in more civilized times.

Or have political passions in the United States reached the toxicity of Civil War levels?