Petraeus, Moveon.org and the right wing nuts

The bull shit continues.

Because the right wing could not actually address the real issues behind General David Petraeus' flawed presentation on Capital Hill, they chose to go after Moveon.org for its New York Times ad which bluntly and correctly called his objectivity into question.

The right has villifed the ad and Moveon.org, reminding us of the uproar that surfaced after the Swift boating controversy when carefully orchestrated ad hominem attacks were made accusing John Kerry of lying about his military service.

One reader in the Los Angeles Times (10/4 A General Under Attack) tried to justify the swift boaters, suggesting the difference between swift boating John Kerry and attacking General David Petraeus is that the former was running for office and the latter is not, that General Petraeus was "above" (my words) the political fray.

But this is absolute crap.

According to the very reputable English newspaper The Independent (Sept 13, 2007), Petraeus is on record as saying that he wants to follow the General Dwight D. Eisenhower path to the White House and run for President, though not in 2008. If so, Petraeus is looking to protect his reputation and resume. One can therefore reasonably question his motivations about putting the best face on Iraq. As The Independent itself noted, "General Petraeus's open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq."

For example, why did he write an op-ed piece in the Washington Post just days before the 2004 election, arguing that substantial progress was being achieved in Iraq.

Here's what the general said in 2004. "They (the troops) will have the benefit of a substantially larger Iraqi security presence coming on line. This is an occasion where we'll see how the new Iraqi security forces are going to do. I think they'll be fine." And later, "We're only six months away from June and handing control of the country back over to Iraqis."

We can debate whether this was an outright lie or a completely inept reading of the military situation, but the fact remains that neither of these scenarios is really acceptable. Petraeus is either a liar or an incompetent fool. This cheerleading smacks of "Mission Accomplished" and calls into question Petraeus's motivation. Why in the world would he write this? It seems likely that Petraeus was and is carrying water for the Bush Administration as it stumbles with Iraq, thus calling into question anything the general has to say on the topic. And so, Petraeus opens himself up as a legitimate target for criticism.

To its credit, the American public seems unswayed by the cherry-picked statistics, bar graphs and other "data" used to make Iraq seem less dangerous than it actually is. Of course the Polish Ambassador might readily agree with the US citizens, after narrowly escaping a bomb in Baghdad with his life earlier in the week.

Curiously while the media weighs in on the aftermath of the Moveon.org ad and the Limbaugh controversy, it has essentially not done its diligence on General David Petraeus who went to Iraq in 2003, never having seen combat.

As The Independent noted, for this general, whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

These are no small debacles. The loss of Mosul in 2004 happened when 7000 Iraqi police recruited by Petraeus either changed sides (yes you read that right--changed sides) or went home. Thirty police stations were captured, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41m worth of military equipment disappeared. The general's next job was to oversee the training of a new Iraqi army. We all know how well that went with the Iraqi army being both ineffective AND corrupt. And later Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command at the time that the Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was stolen. Yes stolen.

Why is this administration putting this guy up to sell us a bill of goods? My guess is he is the only general willing to parrot the Bush/Cheney line on Iraq. Why have we not heard or read any of this in the US media? Probably because the syncophants and news readers who masquerade as journalists haven't done their homework. The media incompetence continues.

There is one major truth when comparing the swift boaters and the Moveon.org ad: the swiftboaters were lying and misrepresenting the truth; the Moveon.org people were not.

One more thought: The rightwing nuts' indignation over the ad is pretty dubious for two reasons: for one, they are the instigators of scorched earth political attacks so their thin skin is both laughable and pathetic and secondly, Bush paid no attention whatsoever to the Generals who argued against invading Iraq (Colin Powell) or those who contended many more ground forces were needed (Bush forced General Eric Shinseki to retire). So this piety over attacking a man in uniform apparently only applies to those who agree with the Moron-In-Chief, not those who have the courage to speak truth to power.

Finally, most of the lunatic fringe going after Moveon.org have their own issues. The truth is the Iraq war was initiated by a bunch of guys who never fought and never served their country. The number of VietNam war deferments available to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Ashcroft and others has been well documented as has Bush's AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. I should point that these deferments were not available to the general public; only to the sons of rich affluent Republicans (you know, the ones who supported the war). So when Bill Clinton uses his college status as a proper deferment, he is labeled a draft dodger. Curiously Cheney, Rove and others who used the same are not.

One wonders if these assholes would be so willing to commit young American lives to combat had they actually felt the flash of fire on their own backsides?