I think Petraeus is inaccurate. A lot of the inaccuracy is in things that are subjective. Other elements are contained in his statistics, and that innaccuracy may not rise to the level of “lies”. You can manipulate statistics in a lot of ways without making anything up.

I haven’t called Petraeus a liar, and neither has Feinstein. You’re trying to delegitimize any questioning of Petraeus’ testimony or his motives. Both are fair game. Stop putting words in my mouth.

As for Mike:

I’m going to call BS on you when I think you’re wrong. Whether or not you stick up for me in QandO is irrelevant to that. I’ll back you up to the effect up “Mike is an ok guy”, but I won’t back up your innaccuracies or offensive statements. My mission here is, basically, to disagree with you and question you. I make no bones about it. I’m not a supporter of most of your agenda.

If you want to stop sticking up for me, the floor is yours. I’m sorry, it’s nice when it happens but it doesn’t really matter. No special treatment.

PS: I don’t really comment on blogs at all when I agree with them. My comments on left-leaning sites are also usually limited to disagreement and criticism. I am what I am. Deal. Or get rid of me. Or ignore me, I suppose. That’s your decision.

My point was Foust’s: Feinstein’s quote was not an ‘attack’, or if it was, it was an appropriate one. Moveon’s choice of terms may have been inflammatory, but Feinstein’s quote was a polite enough way of saying, “We don’t believe you”. Unless you think that Petraeus is owed belief merely by his position as general, it had better be okay to not believe Petraeus.

As for you, Mike, something is very wrong with this picture.

I tell you what, I’m not here to be friends if that implies once you say something nice about me, I then therefore have to agree with you and back you up. I’ll back you up in terms of, “I think Mike is an okay guy” if the situation requires it. I’ll still call BS on you whenever I think you are, in fact, BSing. I was polite enough in that post, and I was making a valid point – you were linking to people suggesting people cancel subscriptions to TNR merely on the basis of their suspicions.

If you don’t want to stick up for me because I “burn” you, then by all means, stop sticking up for me. I’m going to call it as I see it, period. I mean, my purpose here is, basically, to argue with you and disprove things you say that I don’t agree with. I try not to be a jerk about it, but that’s why I show up here. I don’t agree with you philosophically on very much. I’m not a supporter of your agenda.

Petraeus’ testimony is wrong, or the act of discussing his motives for being wrong, is called a ‘dishonorable’ act. Screw that. He’s a general, not an emperor. As for waiting until his testimony was over – did he say anything that wasn’t 100% predicted beforehand?

Of course he said what was expected. He has been talking about it, commissions, correspondents and academics have discussed it based on his conversations and reports from him. Those paying attention knew what he thought. Nobody is saying you can’t disagree with him, but that is not what is going on and you know it.

Perhaps if Petraeus hadn’t discussed his views beforehand on right-wing media outlets

Well he discussed them with non right wing outfits as well, including critics working on various assessments. Greenwald didn’t raise a peep to apologize for his screed about Hewitt when Petraeus appeared with Alan Colmes, a show the little liar works on himself.

Your argument is that if someone lies to Congress’, it’s Congress’ fault for having him testify in the first place?

Thank you, you don’t agree with Joshua. They, and you, are calling him a liar. Glad to clear that up.

As for the other stuff, he has every right to make his case. You may not like it, but it is his opinion. Call it PR or whatever. However, your implication of his behavior as being some kind of attack is BS. he has been nothing but tolerant and considerate in addressing the views of others. Deferential even. He has not attacked any of his detractors, If Feinstein or Boxer or any other politician wants to disagree, they can withhold the personal attacks and defend him against them as well. If they do feel he is a liar they should declare it and shouldn’t have a liar testify. We didn’t need his testimony unless they thought it valuable. It was for many who don’t follow things closely and know his views. But it wasn’t necesarry if it is a pack of lies.

Mike, not sure what you were talking about here, but it got my attention. How do you “burn” someone in a blog argument, exactly?

See here.

Mike, not sure what you were talking about here, but it got my attention. How do you “burn” someone in a blog argument, exactly?

I’m giving you a freebie on the rest of the post, personal attacks and all. What’s your beef?

As for the larger debate, here, I can’t help but agree with Foust – the logical conclusion of Mike’s parameters would be that the mere act of publicly concluding that Petraeus’ testimony is wrong, or the act of discussing his motives for being wrong, is called a ‘dishonorable’ act. Screw that. He’s a general, not an emperor. As for waiting until his testimony was over – did he say anything that wasn’t 100% predicted beforehand?

Perhaps if Petraeus hadn’t discussed his views beforehand on right-wing media outlets, there wouldn’t be such a sense of certainty about his future testimony. He was the first one to break this imaginary code of scrupulousness, with his PR blitz to the US public.

In the modern media cycle, if you’re perceived as about to give testimony making a controversial argument about a controversial subject, you can bet on being pre-empted. Nobody gets a free pass, and there’s no reason why anyone should get a free pass. Petraeus’ testimony is part of a PR war. Dianne Feinstein and MoveOn are also participants. And nobody plays Marquis of Queensbury rules in the PR War that I’ve witnessed recently. So, the media blackout on pre-testimony Petraeus bashing is kind of like, “hold still and let the other guy hit you! No fair!” – an imaginary rule to make life easier on the other guy.

Because if he’s not a neutral observer, then why in the hell did she and the other Democrats demand by force of law that he deliver testimony directly to Congress about his observations. If she can’t trust what he has to say, then why demand that he he say it?

Come on, who are we kidding? Your argument is that if someone lies to Congress’, it’s Congress’ fault for having him testify in the first place? It’s not Congress’ job to screen its givers of testimony for accuracy beforehand, only to demand it.

while ignoring your own

BS. I have been quite open about my motives. You just don’t find them compelling. I do. End of story. So you are busy searching for some hidden reason such as I am ignoring all the problems, challenges and risks. I am not. I have written far more on those risks than the things you keep accusing me of being fond of, though in your defense (sort of) I think you are collapsing my arguments in with others. Not that I think they are wrong, but it is silly to act as if they are a particular focus of mine. It is especially irritating when you defend the reporting of the Times, which in Iraq has been excellent in my opinion. That includes when it has been negative, as it quite properly was many times, especially in 2006. Their editorial page is another matter, I can only assume the editors don;t read the reporters anyway, or when they do it seems they harm the reporting. Another topic though, and one I have never written about before.

The fundamental point of the GAO report—that the Iraqi government has met 3, partially met 4, and not met 11 of 18 benchmarks while violence remains high and key legislation remains unpassed, it not in dispute.

It isn’t. Not by me at least. Except on violence where they are disputed and the dispute centers around we have no idea how they came to their conclusion.

In fact those other three independent reports all vary around that same theme

True, but they are useful, it isn’t. I have explained why, and it has been widely pointed out elsewhere.

And if you really read the report then you’d know those benchmarks come from “commitments articulated by the Iraqi government beginning in June 2006 and affirmed in subsequent statements by Prime Minister Maliki in September 2006 and January 2007,” and not from fuzzy legislation out of Congress—these are goals the Iraqi government itself set up, not anyone else

Not really true, but who cares. Congress passed the legislation, the benchmarks are unrevealing. I didn’t need the report to tell me which benchmarks haven’t been met, and frankly some of them will not and cannot be met until the war is over. It would be like pointing out in Dec. 1944 because Berlin hadn’t fallen that no progress had been achieved. It is a stupid way to look at it. Once again, this was pointed out in numerous places, not just by me. They had to be pushed to allow the term partially met to be applied to a few benchmarks. They made no serious attempt to assess progress, just whether the benchmarks had been met or not. It was only because of pressure from agencies who said it was a stupid way to look at it that they allowed the option of partially met to exist on the few benchmarks applied. Which is part of the process the leaker was trying to poison.

Whatever, if you learned anything useful from the GAO report, good for you. I learned a lot from the other reports about what what has progressed a great deal, less so, and what has regressed. There was also interesting analysis of the significance of various things and developments outside the benchmarks which are of great significance. The GAO report studiously avoided doing that highly necessary task, though once again, that is mostly because of the way the Congress set up the report. I don’t think the Iraqi’s thought we would only look at those benchmarks if other data (positive or negative) emerged of great import. As I said, stupid. I can see 3M deciding the fate of a business unit because it had set certain targets which were not met, but in the meantime they had invented post it notes not part of the original plan and far exceeded revenue goals. That would be stupid. I am looking for real analysis, which all the other reports provided, not some blinkered piece of bureaucratic mush.

This quote is a perfect example:

The government has not eliminated militia control of local security

Who has argued otherwise? Notice, no discussion of progress, the term is eliminated. You are correct, the problem hasn’t been eliminated. is this some big revelation to anyone?

eliminated political intervention in military operations,

Once again, the term eliminated. Surprise, surprise. Nor is it likely to, I have yet to see a military where it has been. See our congress. Of course this is a much bigger issue in Iraq, and it is being used for more nefarious purposes. Still, significant (and that is their word, not mine) progress has been made as each of the other reports demonstrates.

ensured even-handed enforcement of the law,

Once again, ensured, not made progress, etc. An impossible standard, or even applied loosely one which no one has claimed has been met or is likely to be fully met anytime soon. Here though the progress has been muted as the Jones report makes clear, but there has been progress nevertheless.

increased army units capable of independent operations,

As the Jones report makes clear this is technically true, but false in its impression. A great deal of progress has been made in this regard. Full independence is a good ways off. They could have technically met this standard and had a worse military. Bureaucratic measurements that distort rather than help are no use to us.

and ensured that political authorities made no false accusations against security forces.

How are you going to do that? We haven’t accomplished that here. Have we made progress on this issue? Has it gotten worse? If it has done either, why? It could be a bad sign.

It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure perpetrators’ intents,

Reasonable question which nonetheless obscures what is going on. As the data clearly shows violent deaths are down. The military claims that is because of a reduction of sectarian violence, but criminal and intra sect violence has not been as positively affected. Okay, I think the military’s claim makes sense, but either way the total figures still fit. What we don’t hear is whether they are saying the methodology the miltary is using has changed? has it? If not, and if I am wrong in thinking it hasn’t, than the military is probably right. While their numbers are not going to be perfectly accurate for the reasons cited, they are likely not less accurate, and to the extent they do track sectarian violence the trend line should be approx. correct. If they have some reason for doubting that, they might have told us or kept their mouth shut.

and various other measures of population security from different sources show differing trends.

yeah, but all down from what I can see.

As displayed in figure 4, average daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007.

I thought the defense numbers were bad? They seem to have cherry picked the one figure which doesn’t look as good, though it has gone down. By the way, those are not casualty figures, but attacks. has this misconception been behind your claim on the number of dead?

Petraeus only talks about the last month or so of change, and several isolated weeks of improvement scattered between high-casualty attacks.

Actually he has talked about more than that, but yeah, he talks about the change since the operation began. You know, Mid June? He also talks of the change in Anbar.

That’s not a trend you can meaningfully extrapolate from.

Maybe not, that hasn’t stopped you. The changes noted have been based not just on statistical measures (and shouldn’t be) but direct observation. All observers have noted it isn’t just the body count, but the actual conditions on the ground which have changed, the relations between coalition forces, Iraqi forces, the population and those we are fighting. That is real analysis, but of course we must worry about the dead and other statistical measures as well. They are usually lagging indicators, but sometimes things work differently. Petraeus and I want to see if this trend holds over a reasonable time frame. The hope is that day to day violence in areas cleared will decrease markedly and stabilize as they seem to have in Anbar. In the meantime Petraeus, and I, expect some of those gains will be offset by violence moving elsewhere and larger, spectacular attacks. We’ll have to see, but the downswing in the number of casualties has been dramatic overall.

And if the NIE report is so outdated, why is Petraeus using it in his testimony?

I think it was, and is, quite useful, but it does not contain analysis of stuff past June. You put the word “so” in there and distort what I said. It is outdated, I don’t think its conclusions Petraeus referenced based on what was known at the time would change at this point. Do you?

What is in dispute is whether, in the absence of any political progress (or, as what has happened, a stepping back from stalemate), any of it matters.

No, that isn’t the dispute. We are not arguing that. it is an important argument, but we are not having it. Frankly, I won’t have it now. I hope it matters, you claim it doesn’t. I salute your certainty.

thanks to the Yazidi bombing (which you have yet to address, though Petraeus almost brings himself to mention it)

Actually I mentioned it in a post, Petreaus has discussed it as well, and it is an example of two factors I mentioned above which will make the data not as nice as he or I would like. Move the violence, increase the scale of them.

And, umm, Cordesman is vehemently against the current bottom-up, patchwork strategy, calling it the exact opposite of what President Bush says he wants, the fragmentation of Iraq (now lovingly advocated by the likes of Krauthammer). Worth noting if you’re going to use him to bolster your case.

It is worth noting, I already had, though your characterization is overblown.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot explain that Bush is right to punt all questions of the new strategy to the field commander, who conducts his own PR tours and aggressive courting of members of Congress, and then complain that the Democrats are needlessly politicizing the war.

Of course it is political, but has Petraeus, and with far greater justification, questioned their honesty? Apples and Oranges.

because if we’re all about Petraeus, then it’s worth noting that he feels a proper COIN campaign is 80% political and 20% military, so all this military progress in the midst of political regression is beyond meaningless)

If you believe those last two words then you do not understand his doctrine. He doesn’t think that is true.

Last bit about the Interior Ministry thing: I don’t recall saying the Jones report recommended its disbanding, merely that it is so beset by sectarian divisions and corruption it is functionally useless. We both agree they suggested canning the police force and starting over, which is hardly worth celebrating after four years of input.

No, they did not suggest canning the police. Just the National Police. It would be like us deciding to can the ATF and Secret Service and starting over. Not good, but most of the Police in this country are not included in that assessment. Hardly a disaster, and the whole concept of what the National Police should be is questioned. It has nothing to do with what I or you say, we are talking about the Jones Report. So your agreement isn’t necessary. The report says what it says.

That statement is what I am talking about. Neither was recommended by the commission.

and if we need to disband the police force and interior ministry at this point, we have failed.

Actually the Jones commission was more positive on the Police as a whole and the possibility of building them into a reasonably effective force than I had expected. The Ministry being the biggest obstacle to that.

other than a feverish desire

That is it Joshua, I just want to push a war. I get off on it. I’ll tell you what. Looking back at your work, I was a whole lot less pushy on this war than you. I am still struggling with what is best to do going forward just like then. Like then you seem to have a great deal of certainty about the best course of action. Whatever, I am feverish with war lust so why bother.

Lance, you are really fond of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having narratives and selective reading skills and nefarious motives, while ignoring your own. The fundamental point of the GAO report—that the Iraqi government has met 3, partially met 4, and not met 11 of 18 benchmarks while violence remains high and key legislation remains unpassed, it not in dispute. In fact those other three independent reports all vary around that same theme. (And if you really read the report then you’d know those benchmarks come from “commitments articulated by the Iraqi government beginning in June 2006 and affirmed in subsequent statements by Prime Minister Maliki in September 2006 and January 2007,” and not from fuzzy legislation out of Congress—these are goals the Iraqi government itself set up, not anyone else).

Unlike the MNFI-I reports about violence, the GAO report is honest that it is difficult to measure sectarian violence, because it is difficult to discern the exact motives behind many killings… yet MNF-I feels okay decreeing sectarian violence down overall while violence really isn’t. To wit:

The government has not eliminated militia control of local security, eliminated political intervention in military operations, ensured even-handed enforcement of the law, increased army units capable of independent operations, and ensured that political authorities made no false accusations against security forces. It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure perpetrators’ intents, and various other measures of population security from different sources show differing trends. As displayed in figure 4, average daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007.

I don’t know what or where you’re seeing those casualty figures definitively discounted, unless suddenly public sources are suddenly less reliable than MNF-I sources. Petraeus only talks about the last month or so of change, and several isolated weeks of improvement scattered between high-casualty attacks. That’s not a trend you can meaningfully extrapolate from. And if the NIE report is so outdated, why is Petraeus using it in his testimony?

Getting back to the real subject at hand: no one disputes that in some areas, the military situation is better. That’s not in doubt, and Petraeus says as much. What is in dispute is whether, in the absence of any political progress (or, as what has happened, a stepping back from stalemate), any of it matters. The patchwork strategy is considered a long shot with really bad odds even by the people who invented it and want it to succeed, and the NIE report agrees that while it poses the best hope for a sustainable solution to Iraqi security without the cooperation of the central government it has a miniscule chance of succeeding.

And, umm, Cordesman is vehemently against the current bottom-up, patchwork strategy, calling it the exact opposite of what President Bush says he wants, the fragmentation of Iraq (now lovingly advocated by the likes of Krauthammer). Worth noting if you’re going to use him to bolster your case.

Also when looking at overall violence levels, look at the metrics Petraeus is using:

Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.

Those eight weeks were not contiguous, thanks to the Yazidi bombing (which you have yet to address, though Petraeus almost brings himself to mention it) and others, and only in the last two weeks has violence dropped below its high point back to the status quo, which many already considered politically unsustainable.

Uneven progress and two weeks of a trend do not a meaningful case make. In fact, even over the course of the surge, two weeks does not mean anything, unless then the week where that massive bombing took place also means something. Clearly, both are outliers in the absence of more data.

Again, being skeptical of how he is choosing to spin those numbers is not “defaming” him, it is called being properly skeptical.

Now to the politics of this brouhaha. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot explain that Bush is right to punt all questions of the new strategy to the field commander, who conducts his own PR tours and aggressive courting of members of Congress, and then complain that the Democrats are needlessly politicizing the war.

Last bit about the Interior Ministry thing: I don’t recall saying the Jones report recommended its disbanding, merely that it is so beset by sectarian divisions and corruption it is functionally useless. We both agree they suggested canning the police force and starting over, which is hardly worth celebrating after four years of input.

So again (and again and again and again) I really don’t know what your problem is, other than a feverish desire to push a war we’re still not winning forward (because if we’re all about Petraeus, then it’s worth noting that he feels a proper COIN campaign is 80% political and 20% military, so all this military progress in the midst of political regression is beyond meaningless).

Okay, so you still haven’t explained why the GAO report (which does match nicely with the NIE and many parts of the Jones Commission) is “ridiculous,” aside from “it doesn’t match my biases.”

Yes I have. It has nothing to do with my biases. The questions it asks, the form, by law, that they were forced to answer them in, all undermined the usefulness of the report. I have given specific examples of how it obscures more than informs, unlike the Jones, Pollack and O’ Hanlon and Cordesmann reports. That is mostly not the fault of the authors, but Congress. On the casualty issues it tells us nothing. They punt, give vague reasons they cannot say anything specific and then claim there is disagreement. Unfortunately for that part I haven’t seen a single report which contradicts Petraeus’ assessment in any meaningful way. Point one out to me that shows something really different than what he is saying. The links you have provided do not, or I am missing it, so please point to one where the data is provided or for me to say,”oh, I see what you mean.” Unless you are calling Petraeus a liar (and please back that up before you do) he claimed today that his numbers were reviewed by other intelligence agencies and they are the best available. Now, they may be wrong on that, but are the other numbers very different anyway? No.

GAO report (which does match nicely with the NIE and many parts of the Jones Commission)

It does, in ways that nobody is disputing. In the ways it doesn’t it is useless. Both the NIE and the Jones Commission I have not disputed in any way. That doesn’t make them right, but neither I nor Petraeus has argued that either assessment is wrongheaded. All of their concerns are reasonable. So stop acting as if I am arguing things I am not. You are the one claiming that documents that show it is a bad situation in many ways support your argument. Nobody is denying that. The question is has there been progress? Both agree, though the NIE is pretty dated. Should we withdraw? Both agree we shouldn’t. Is there a basis for believing that progress can continue? Both feel there is. Even the darkest of the thorough reports, Cordesmann’s, feels the answer is yes to all those questions, though he emphasis’s the difficulties somewhat more than they do. Petraeus is firmly in there with all of them. He might be more or less optimistic on various points, but none of their concerns has he in any way suggested are unreasonable, nor have I.

So can the happy talk accusations about myself or Petraeus. The progress they have achieved was discounted by many ahead of time, and they have been able to pull it off. People such as Cordesmann who would and did say that the turnaround in places such as Anbar couldn’t happen, who pooh poohed any real hope for the surge have had the stones to go back and say it has made a difference and has even justified “strategic patience.” Given the attitude of many it took guts. The Coalition may not sustain it, but that should make people claiming they know with certainty what is and is not possible a little more humble.

I fail to see democracy coming apart at the seams

Who says it is. We say it is wrong. I feel the same way about the minimum wage, but our democracy soldiers on.

If it was Bush’s job to deliver a report on the surge, and he spends three months saying, “I don’t know, ask Petraeus in September

What is wrong with that? He says get it from him. Petraeus was there, they can ask him. They wanted his testimony, they wanted the written report from Bush. Petraeus provided the data, the sources are available to congress. Complaining he isn’t doing what Congress decided the administration do is ridiculous. It isn’t as if Bush’s opinion isn’t known, but he says make your judgment based on the commander. This is their chance. He gave them a written presentation ahead of time. I know, I had it sent to me. I got the slides to. This is just BS. Nothing is hidden and he is using the same data they have handed to everyone, including the independent assessments, and they haven’t come up with anything different, except the GAO which didn’t come up with anything for reasons that frankly mystify me.

There is no dodging. They wanted to hear from, Bush says why don’t you ask him, and now for everybody doing exactly what they were asked to do you claim some kind of concern is warranted. BS.

I’m not happy with the state of affairs, but I try not to squeeze my eyes shut while shouting “support the military!”

No, you read stuff and pull just what you want out and act as if the rest is probably tainted, except what sounds bad. Me, I read it all and haven’t discounted any of it, except for reports that don’t even attempt to answer the key questions, such as the GAO. They couldn’t even get straight forward stuff on ISF progress right, though that is once again Congresses fault for putting forward inadequate benchmarks in the legislation, not the authors. The Jones commission gets it mostly right, though Cordesmann points out some potential weaknesses in his review of the report, some of which should be taken seriously.

My eyes are open, but like all the authors above, despite recognizing many problems, we all think we should continue forward. Who knows what the GAO thinks? The report provides no basis for determining what to do. You deny progress. If you catch me denying that there were bombings in Nineveh then you have a complaint. As far as I can tell you have none on that score. At least I am not pretending that violence hasn’t decreased, nor did I deny that it was increasing last summer and fall, and if it does this fall you won’t hear me alluding to mythical reports that dispute it on factual grounds when in fact the reports are just interpreting its implications differently. I might interpret the data differently, but I won’t claim that I have some super secret numbers.

Oh, and I won’t argue for “seasonal adjustments.” Horse hockey.

So can the straw men. When you find something that Petraeus and I haven’t acknowledged is serious that is, than let me know. So far you haven’t brought anything up other than the assertion that we must be engaging in happy talk because we disagree about what to do going forward. Frankly I am tired of it.

Oh, and while we are at it, I let you go on this because I had only read it once at the time and I assumed I had missed something, but the Jones report does not call for the disbanding of the Interior Ministry (I knew that but thought maybe he had suggested it might be necessary in his testimony) or the police. They do call for a lot of work there including disbanding the National Police, or really re-tasking it and shrinking it. That certainly makes sense to me. I also got the impression that they would have felt that way even if it wasn’t so riddled with problems and on perfectly reasonable grounds. The Interior Ministry doesn’t need such a large and mission inappropriate force. So sanguine or not, disbanding the Police and Interior Ministry wasn’t even a recommendation.

You didn’t respond to anything I said other than to accuse everyone who dares wonder about the incentives influence Petraeus of lacking integrity.

Huh? Did you not ask:

… how is what Feinstein said slimy?

I’ve answered that several times over. Your response is apparently that the Dems are just being “skeptical.” I’m not sure what definition of the word you’re relying on, but in my dictionary calling someone a partisan hack who has no independent thoughts goes well beyond skepticism, especially when that person has yet to speak.

I haven’t made the accusation you’re accusing me of, but instead refered to all politicians as lacking in integrity. It’s a common theme of mine. You should really be reading me.

Classy.

Yeah, well when I’m ready to raise my level of debate to baseless accusations, mischaracterizations and goal-post moving I’ll be sure to attend the Josua Foust Charm School.

So you demand benefit of the doubt, while the Democrats proclaim skepticism. I fail to see democracy coming apart at the seams, unless we are to humbly worship at the man’s feet. Give me a break. If it was Bush’s job to deliver a report on the surge, and he spends three months saying, “I don’t know, ask Petraeus in September,” how is it in any way unfair to wonder what the thought process was in drafting that report? From your writing, that makes it seem like a despicable dodge of responsibility on Bush’s part, and deeply unfair toward Gen. Petraeus. Which still would not change whether or not his testimony is reliable.

And if you want to talk about Dems’ war on the military, then you should also address the military’s aggressive PR campaign (often called “information warfare”) here in the states. Unless 20 days of publicity tours in August is just par for the course during a period of historically high levels of violence.

And Lance, I am talking reality, too. I’m not happy with the state of affairs, but I try not to squeeze my eyes shut while shouting “support the military!” Both sides have very strong incentives to twist the truth, and you’ll only admit the one you’re not on does.

I’ll tell you my issue with Feinstein’s comment. As Michael said, he has to testify. Of course he isn’t independent. Who can be independent of themselves? It is his opinion. However, to state something more than that obvious reason for them to listen and evaluate his testimony, which they are obligated to do, is to in fact poison the well, and I think we all know that. She could have said she would listen to his testimony and make up her mind based on his and other evidence. She isn’t saying he is somehow worth special mention as deserving scrutiny. You can claim all you want they are saying benign things along the lines of performing their duties to critically examine his testimony, but she and you know her audience is not seeing it that way. The remark is intended to show that his testimony is suspect in some way more than others. Given the remarks he has made since the surge began he deserves nothing but the opportunity for people to disagree without any special mention.

I dont’ blame the Democrats for wanting a paper trail, so to speak, of under-oath testimony

I can. They legislatively required it come from the administration, not him. Other reports (such as the ridiculous GAO and the well done Jones Commission report) were supposed to be from independents, The Brookings has given us two interesting recent ones as well. He wasn’t commissioned to do one, but to give oral testimony. If they wanted his paper trail (though it does exist) they could have authorized him to do more than give oral testimony. So complaining about it is bad form.

war is always political, so there will always be a political element to it. Unless you suddenly stopped believing in Clausewitz, which I rather doubt, given your other writing.

That is a rather interesting interpretation of Clausewitz. Generally he wasn’t addressing the war against ones own military, but I guess we will not argue with you that that is what many Democrats are waging;^P

Of course, Clausewitz wasn’t arguing that such politics were good either. He was talking reality, not justifying it.

Classy.

The difference between politicians and men of integrity is that politicians only care about making it through the next election. Men of integrity care about doing their job to the best of their ability, something that cannot be accomplished by following a losing strategy. I’ve neither read nor seen anything that causes me to doubt Petraeus’ integrity, while I have encountered enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I dont’ blame the Democrats for wanting a paper trail, so to speak, of under-oath testimony… especially given the Administration’s, and the Military’s propensity to fess up to their own mistakes, misdeeds, and crimes (like the “shock” of not imprisoning any of the men convicted of murdering civilians at Haditha). If, say, Wesley Clark were in Congress discussing the relative success or Kosovo — where, let it be said, there are still 40,000 troops and renewed calls for war from Serbia — would you be so stand offish about the very personal way these generals ingratiate themselves to the political leadership?

And you can vote for someone, think he’s the best one on the table for the job, while still having misgivings or being skeptical… or is a vote an unchangeable contract now? Skepticism is not at all the same as defaming, and I do think the MoveOn.org crazies are just that – crazies. Saying Petraeus has a vested interest in proving his theory of warfare right should not be outrageous… that is, if you’re not assigning blatantly political motives to how the war should be fought (i.e. without those filthy liberals).

… how is what Feinstein said slimy?

Because if he’s not a neutral observer, then why in the hell did she and the other Democrats demand by force of law that he deliver testimony directly to Congress about his observations. If she can’t trust what he has to say, then why demand that he he say it? That’s called setting someone up to fail.

She’s right in saying Petraeus is not a neutral observer, if anything else because Bush has placed his entire Iraq strategy on the man’s shoulders. That creates incentives to spin or push or choose to interpret a certain way that are difficult to ignore.

The entire Iraq strategy will always be on the shoulders of whomever is in the lead in the field. Does that make anything such person has to say suspect? The man has deidcated his life to serving his country with honor. Isn’t it at least possible, just maybe, that man has enough integrity and ethical fortitude (not to mention good old-fashioned honor) to simply state the truth? Given his credentials thus far, and the high esteem with which he is held by his peers, shouldn’t he be given at least the benefit of the doubt?

Not according to DiFi, Reid, Schumer and friends. To them Petraeus is just a political hack. The question you have to ask yourself is, when did they suddenly discover this? What changed between when they ratified his nomination (81-0), to when they drafted and passed the law demanding his testimony before them, to now?

Oh, and BTW, did you catch the first thing that Petraeus had to say today?:

At the outset I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out.

But he’s probably just lying cause he’s knees go all wobbly when faced with that daunting political pressure. I’ll bet he can’t wait to get back to Iraq where he merely has to face those wimpy terrorists.

How is pointing that out slimy in the least? I normally dislike that woman, but that strikes me as prudent—certainly more so than accepting everything the administration has to say at face value, given recent history.