09
Sep
Brave Sir David
Bravely runs to FOX. Hewitt was busy?
Note how Petraeus has set up a bit of a quandary for war critics. Ever since his 2004 op-ed claiming glorious progress in police and army training that later turned out to be about as fact-based as a bad taco dream, David Petraeus has practically begged observers to note that he seems as attentive to the president’s political interests as he is to fixing problems in Iraq. One can hardly disagree with the point that falsely pretending that things are fine usually makes it harder to actually fix them. And yet, criticizing exalted Saint David makes baby supply side Jesus cry.
I guess we’ll just thank him for testifying and leave it at that.
Wilfred
Khallas! That’s Arabic for enough. He is a political hack for Republican interests. Period. He can go fuck himself.
The Other Steve
I really can’t blame Petraeus one way or another. Given who is President, he isn’t really at will to say what he believes.
I learned this a while ago in the business world. If you want to get a year-end bonus, it isn’t important whether or not you do your job. It’s only important that you share the same opinions as your manager.
incontrolados
If only Bob Schieffer could have announced this moning that he was going to interview the good general on CBS, then he could have asked his question: Is it worth the cost? And his follow up: “What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer. To me, that’s the real question.”
They are questions I’d like to have answers to as well, but I think those answers would probably turn out to be nonanswers.
Dennis-SGMM
Brave Sir David will be too anxious to get back to war winnin’ to appear anywhere else but on Faux News. He’ll bravely return at an unannounced time to an unannounced airport and bravely helicopter to an unannounced bunker.
Are the troops calling him “Dugout Dave” yet?
jake
That’s the beauty of the Bush Admin.’s Create UR Own Reality Kit™. Bush’s Pet Raeus isn’t pretending things are fine, he’s making them fine by stating in a clear, manly voice that things are fine. Once the new reality takes hold there won’t be or have ever been any problems so there will be no need to fix them. Needless to say, most of this blog post-Terri Schiavo will also cease to exist. Along with a lot of the people who post here.
Hey, it used to be you couldn’t criticize anyone in the armed forces without making the son of TZ’s yard man cry. If we’re down to just one guy I’d say that’s an improvement.
The idea that Pet Raeus weighed his paycheck against the lives of millions, the continued ability of the military to function and America’s position in the world and came up $$$ is too cynical even for this bitchy bloke. I still think he’s an ass-kissing hack who wants to be the one who did what no other general could do by finding the pony, flowers and candies and even the WMDs.
TenguPhule
General Betray-Us can so too be blamed for his shameless ballmouthing of Bush. In this administration, only shit rises to the top.
TenguPhule
Improved.
Bruce Moomaw
What’s most interesting is that—despite the Washington Post poll yesterday showing that the public, by 53-39, expects Petraeus to deliberately lie—the Congressional Dems are still shivering in terror of the dreadful political consequences of challenging Petraeus even if they honestly think he’s lying or seriously mistaken. Their actual policy positions aside, what nitwits are the Dems getting their pure political-strategy advice from? (Those two incompetent Tennessee-based polling firms—backed by the Clintons—which, according to the New Republic, have been giving the Party its strategic advice for the last decade or so? Nations have been wrecked by more trivial factors.)
Sirkowski
Petraeus is gonna run for President (as an R) in 2012 or 2016 and use the “knife-in-the-back” rethoric to win.
alphie
Is anyone completely honest when filling out self-evaluations at work?
Wilfred
From today’s NYT:
Outfuckingstanding, General!
Darius K. Whistelpitcher
George Bush (who is, as we figure, one of the Almighty’s more glaring errors) views war casualties as statistics, flags on coffins, 21 gun salutes, and a bugler blowing taps. That’s all he will ever know about war since he made sure that he himself would never be in one.
And that’s all the information his administration allows the media to let us see. He will never know the the personal side of the Iraq war, the grim side, the misery, mental and physical horrors, and the pain and suffering that wounded soldiers and Marines go through. And with that supercilious smile on his face he says those who find fault with “staying the course” are not honoring the dead. This is distorted logic! How can you honor the fallen by sending over more troops to be killed in the same failed game plan?
Horselover Fat
Fear is the horse fascism rides in on.
Fear is fear, and fear of dolchstosslegende is still fear.
Walter Cronkite did not lose Vietnam, and going along with Bush propaganda from fear of criticism is fear of speaking out, and just enables the shift to fascism
Zifnab
He accepted the mantel of “General of a losing army” in ‘06. I don’t see why he wouldn’t accept “Presidential Candidate for a losing political party” ten years later.