Gen. Petraeus' credibility is in serious question for a number of reasons. You can read more here and here about how he has cherry-picked statistics to represent to Congress (where have I seen that before?). You can read his political op-ed in favor of the Iraq War, and by implication George W. Bush, right before the 2004 election here.
By the way, note he was saying how great Iraq was going three years ago, just as he is today. He was wrong then and he's wrong now.
There are even reports out that he might run for president in 2012 as a Republican. And according to the Washington Post, he has been coordinating every single day with the political arm of the White House to sell the surge. He is one of the least independent generals we have ever had.
According to reports, even his commanding officer called him "an ass-kissing little chickenshit."
By the way, speaking of his commanding officer, how come we haven't seen Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command talk about the surge when we are theoretically hearing from commanders on the ground? That's because by all accounts, Admiral Fallon disagrees with the surge, so George Bush is not interested in hearing from him. And more importantly, wants to make sure we don't hear from him. You can find out more about more about Admiral Fallon's views here.
But the deception that I have the most trouble with is how General Petraeus has continually linked our success in the Anbar province to the surge when he knows for a fact that the two are completely unrelated. Our strategy in Anbar was originally called the Ramadi strategy and began in August 2006 - well before the surge.
Look at what Time magazine wrote in December, 2006 - before the surge started:
It's a dilemma familiar to counterinsurgency strategists: much of the fighting in Ramadi and other places continues because of the American presence, not in spite of it. U.S. commanders tasked with clearing Ramadi, the latest insurgent hub in Anbar Province, aren't looking to assault the city with U.S. troops. They want local security forces instead to retake the city gradually. And in recent months a group of tribal leaders in Anbar Province has been working with U.S. forces in that effort, forming a coalition of sheiks who have sent hundreds of their followers to join the Ramadi police force as well as the Iraqi army.The Ramadi strategy, which in essence replaces U.S. troops with Iraqis even as the fight unfolds, shows some early signs of success.
This strategy was started by Army Col. Sean MacFarland as documented by this USA Today story from months ago. Is it conceivable that Gen. Petraeus wouldn't know the origin of our strategy in Anbar? If he claims not to remember, that would be an Alberto Gonzales like claim to incompetence and mismanagement. But of course, in reality, we all know that he knows.
Instead of giving the commander serving under him credit, Petraeus took the credit for himself and George Bush. And he pretended it had to do with their so-called surge strategy. Classy.
My guess is that they will do the same thing with what Lt. Col. Patrick Frank has started with the Mahdi Army (to be fair to others, there are many other diplomats and commanders also involved with this new gambit). Both strategies involve co-opting local sects and militias so that we need fewer troops to fight them, not more. But that won't stop Petraeus and Bush from claiming the exact opposite. Man, did that Orwell guy nail it?
These commanders under Petraeus should be given a ton of credit for coming up with innovative ways of negotiating with former enemies and turning them into possible allies (is Dick Cheney listening - it turns out negotiating with your enemies can be a good idea, especially if you want to stop fighting with them at some point).
There are a lot of pitfalls to these strategies and they have not yet finished the job obviously. But they're much better than anything else we have had to date (and they are an actual shift in strategy, as opposed to military tactics that don't address the underlying problems). Is it any surprise that they are already yielding much better results than George Bush's brilliant strategies of "stay the course" and escalation?
In the final analysis, after seeing General Petraeus mislead Congress about the numbers in Iraq, about the so-called success of the surge and the grossly misleading testimony about the Anbar province, I have no faith in him as an independent judge of what's happening in Iraq. I think he actively misled Congress and the country, and more of our troops will die while the General and the President try to defend their record and their ego.You Can Read and Watch More Young Turks Here
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Well, you guys seem to be on the right track concerning David's agenda. I first met him when he was just a captain in the army and i had the unpleasant experience of serving under him in a very high profile position. Let me tell you, he was groomed from the first upon graduating from west point for the "stars" so do you think he would say or do anything that would impede his career and future financial security. After all as aide-de-camp to a commanding general he was already laying the ground work for his future. If it meant deceit or corruption, so be it. He is one to be bought by the highest bidder.
shamanman7 at 7:02PM on Sep 15th 2007
2. I have started watching these fools with the headphones off, much like the rest of the American public! If they had anything worth listing too they would still be on the radio!
StonedPigeon at 7:00PM on Sep 15th 2007
3. Anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda has no credibility in your mind. You might should have actually listened to the General as he explained how bad things could turn at any second in Iraq during his testimony. He also mentioned how the successes in Anbar had nothing really to do with the Surge.
Mel at 7:07PM on Sep 15th 2007
4. I don't think Petraeus lied to Congress, he just cherry picked what facts he wanted to share.
for political commentary, visit:
http://www.politidose.com/
Patrick at 7:12PM on Sep 15th 2007
5. Yeh. You know more from your desk than the General that is actually there. You guys ought to rename yourselves the "Three Stooges".
Don at 7:26PM on Sep 15th 2007
6. Yhis congress can't be mis-lead, they are so far gone nothing gets right to them, they sit back collect their salaries and run this country and president down. No fence being built for illegal aliens, Pelosi, Kunsinich lovy dovey with Syria, the worst of all in politics is Hillary and her crooked ways, Wesley Clark endorsed her , that is no suprise and not much of a vote he worked for Clinton. Hillary showed her ignorance when she spoke to Petraeus, he is so far above her intelligence, she voted for this war, the A_____ she is is what she made of herself, but then that's Hillary. She didn't ask questions and had no intention of asking she wanted to tell him off and she planned it that way. I hope america sees through this evil woman and she isn't any kind of leader and wouldn't know how to do the job. She is less than honest in her dealings.
Jane at 7:55PM on Sep 15th 2007
7. Well the Young Jerks waited till the General spoke to Congress and gave his report before they called him a liar. Now MoveOn.Org and Hillary just could not wait and had to call the General a liar and a traitor before he gave his speech. If anyone does not agree with the Young Jerks, MoveOn.Org etc they become liars, traitors, pawns of the President etc etc. The loonies eat their own children for stepping out of line, Liberman,Cindy, and all the Democrat Presidental hopefuls make sure they do not offend MoveOn.Org, for they have been forwarned that they to will suffer the consequences. Soros has his puppets well trained and well financed and they dance to his every tune like the mindless puppets they are.
robert okane at 9:04PM on Sep 15th 2007
8. You discredit an honest civil servant who has given his life to serve his country just to exploit your own political agenda. You should be ashamed. I don't care for Mr. Bush either, but I am ashamed of you and sickened by what you represent. I can only hope most thinking people can see through your nonsense.
Jao at 10:52PM on Sep 15th 2007
9. Iran is working on an a bomb,Iraq is not.
Iraq did not fire any scud missiles during the war in lebanon,why?Iraq is not producing poison gas
anymore,why? Saddam is gone that is why.
Eddykatz at 11:05PM on Sep 15th 2007
10. #4 Patrick, I agree with you about the cherry picking. However, I think the cherries were picked for the general.
Patty at 11:52PM on Sep 15th 2007
11. "I don't think Petraeus lied to Congress, he just cherry picked what facts he wanted to share."
That is the same thing as lying. When you do not present all facts, for and against something, that is the same thing as lying to me and most other people with a brain on this planet.
Christopher at 3:44AM on Sep 16th 2007
12. Do what you guys do best, make videos.
Bill at 9:30AM on Sep 16th 2007
13. I can't say for certain whether Patraeus is the most honest human being on the planet, but I'm fairly certain that he is more honest than the imbeciles who call themselves the Young Turks.
Tony Messinger at 9:43AM on Sep 16th 2007
14. General Petraeus is a HERO and is leading our forces to VICTORY !
Things were improving in Iraq until in late 2006 when Al Zarqwi and Al Qaeda in Iraq blew up the GOLDEN DOME Masque , then the so called civil war started . It would be like Catholics going nuts if they targeted the Vatican and Protestants and Catholics started having another war with each other again !
Then the surge was ordered and things are getting back on progress .
General Wesley Clark is a Manchurian MoveonDOTorg Candidate !
Johnny at 10:14AM on Sep 16th 2007
15. When - or should I says if - General Petraeus cherry pick the facts, its called lying and he is labeled a traitor. When Michal Moore does it, its a documentary and he's labeled a hero.
Ed at 10:31AM on Sep 16th 2007