... then to be consistent, you should be steamed at Tom Lantos and MoveOn.org. Otherwise, your anger at the Swift Boat veterans rings a little hollow. (I might argue it's hollow anyway ... but that's another debate.)

Rove is an absolute genius. No question about it.

This one's for you, sequiter. An extra to the WSJ:

"America's soldiers are committed to the war. But they're not going to lie about its progress." by Owen West, a trader at Goldman Sachs and a director of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, who served two tours in Iraq with the Marines.

Read it all.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010592

Tex I agree
 

(Did I just say that?) Trite thought he saying may be, two wrongs don't make a right. The tactics employed by both the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and of Moveon.org are deplorable.

But you guys started it (Sorry, couldn't help myself) :)

Why does being a serviceman -- even a 4-star general -- garner someone instant credibility? I have no idea whether he's an honorable man or not, but I'm not going to assume he is just because he's in the military. As far as calling someone a liar before they've spoken, isn't that basically what you and the rest of your conservative cohorts did for 8 years while Clinton was in office?

I think someone gets the benefit of the doubt until they've provided a reason to think otherwise, especially someone with a track record like Gen. Petraeus. You don't typically get to be a 4-star if you have a reputation for being a lying, political hack. And just for good measure, don't forget he was unanimously confirmed.

Do you walk around assuming everyone you meet is a liar?

Don't change the subject. I totally reject such a stupid premise, but even if I did accept it, it doesn't excuse what the Dems are doing now.

:D

Good one and fair enough.

Of course I do. I assume everyone wretched until they give reason to think otherwise.

Wasn't William Westmoreland a 4-star general?

Westmoreland wasn't lying to cover for a Commander in Chief. He was deluded by his ability to wage a guerilla war in Southeast Asia. It's not an appropriate comparison.

My problem is that you've made an a priori assumption that everything General Petraus will say is an untruth because he has an ulterior motive to protect President Bush. I dispute this assumption for several reasons.

First, his military career, experience and title are worthy of recognition. He has forgotten more about military strategy than a civilian will ever know. When a four-star general speaks on the success of a war strategy, we should listen closely.

Second, he has no motive to protect President Bush. He was not an original architect of the Iraq war, but he was sent four years after the fact to try and clean it up. He must realize the enormous likelihood that a Democrat will be the next president, so he has nothing to gain from endearing himself to this administration or the Republican party.

Third, his future career and legacy depends on the success of this military campaign. If failure is eminent, a man of his experience would realize that he must change strategy. He would have overwhelming political support if he made that decision. There is no reason why he would stake his great reputation on a failed strategy.

While you may not like Petraus, President Bush or the Iraq War, the only intellectually honest way of evaluating his congressional testimony would be to give it a fair reading. You, and many others, have failed to do so.

It doesn't matter why he lied. He lied. My point is that just because you're a general, doesn't mean you're immune from political obfuscation.

I don't assume he's lying. I just don't give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's telling the truth.

Bush hand-picked him, so there's always the chance that his politics are aligned with GW's politics. I'm not calling him a liar and I'm not calling his character into question. But GW wanted a surge and if he's any kind of a politician he's going to pick a general who shares his military strategy.

Ask Colin Powell what happens when you don't step in line with GW's military policy. If Petraus wants to keep his current position, he'll fall in step also.