A few questions for the Democrats on the board..

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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 can accept that, but you are taking the exception and making it the rule.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me ask you this: If things were going badly, do you think there is any way in hell that he would say as much? I'm inclined to believe that he is going to say anything that his commander in chief wants him to say.

My reading of your initial statement (quoted above) was that you assume that he will say whatever President Bush wants him to say, regardless of it's veracity.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in a very politically divisive climate. I think his competence had much more to do with his appointment than his politics.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

Petraus has no motive to want his current position unless he sees success as a viable option. President Bush only has a year and a half left in office so Petraus must assume that his role will end with the Bush administration. If he believes that the pinnacle of his career is an 18-month stint as Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, then I'll accept what your saying. But I don't think that is the case. I think he realizes that success in Iraq means his name will be lauded in history books for generations to come and his future will have no ceiling. Lying about a failed strategy will have the opposite consequence.

Think about it this way. Assume that the surge is not producing the results initially forecasted and Petraus sees this. He comes before congress and announces to the world that the surge has failed and a change in strategy is necessary. Every media outlet in the world would run editorials about the brave General Petraus. Congressional Democrats would soak in his every word and create new words to praise him. Republicans would have no grounds to dispute his findings as they have already built him up as the only hope in Iraq. He would be guaranteed a position as Joint Chiefs or SecDef in the next Dem administration, which would inevitably happen due to this announcement. He would land a well-paid, cushy spot in a liberal think-tank to bide the time. His picture would be placed in the Wikipedia entry on integrity. He would have so much more to gain by taking this course of action than by lying to protect an unpopular president. The fact that he didn't do this means that he is either a lying fool or he is speaking a very close approximation to the truth. I don't think he's a lying fool.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by YOhio

My reading of your initial statement (quoted above) was that you assume that he will say whatever President Bush wants him to say, regardless of it's veracity.

That's how I read it as well. There's no reason to believe that's the case, and there's certainly no reason to preemptively besmirch him before he's even spoken.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me ask you this: If things were going badly, do you think there is any way in hell that he would say as much? I'm inclined to believe that he is going to say anything that his commander in chief wants him to say.

Thank you moveon.org.

People like you are a disgrace. Calling into question the integrity of a 4 star general, who by all accounts is an honorable man, and a great leader. Screw you.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Petraus has no motive to want his current position unless he sees success as a viable option. President Bush only has a year and a half left in office so Petraus must assume that his role will end with the Bush administration. If he believes that the pinnacle of his career is an 18-month stint as Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, then I'll accept what your saying. But I don't think that is the case. I think he realizes that success in Iraq means his name will be lauded in history books for generations to come and his future will have no ceiling. Lying about a failed strategy will have the opposite consequence.

Think about it this way. Assume that the surge is not producing the results initially forecasted and Petraus sees this. He comes before congress and announces to the world that the surge has failed and a change in strategy is necessary. Every media outlet in the world would run editorials about the brave General Petraus. Congressional Democrats would soak in his every word and create new words to praise him. Republicans would have no grounds to dispute his findings as they have already built him up as the only hope in Iraq. He would be guaranteed a position as Joint Chiefs or SecDef in the next Dem administration, which would inevitably happen due to this announcement. He would land a well-paid, cushy spot in a liberal think-tank to bide the time. His picture would be placed in the Wikipedia entry on integrity. He would have so much more to gain by taking this course of action than by lying to protect an unpopular president. The fact that he didn't do this means that he is either a lying fool or he is speaking a very close approximation to the truth. I don't think he's a lying fool.

I think you're spot on.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Petraus has no motive to want his current position unless he sees success as a viable option. President Bush only has a year and a half left in office so Petraus must assume that his role will end with the Bush administration. If he believes that the pinnacle of his career is an 18-month stint as Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, then I'll accept what your saying. But I don't think that is the case. I think he realizes that success in Iraq means his name will be lauded in history books for generations to come and his future will have no ceiling. Lying about a failed strategy will have the opposite consequence.

Think about it this way. Assume that the surge is not producing the results initially forecasted and Petraus sees this. He comes before congress and announces to the world that the surge has failed and a change in strategy is necessary. Every media outlet in the world would run editorials about the brave General Petraus. Congressional Democrats would soak in his every word and create new words to praise him. Republicans would have no grounds to dispute his findings as they have already built him up as the only hope in Iraq. He would be guaranteed a position as Joint Chiefs or SecDef in the next Dem administration, which would inevitably happen due to this announcement. He would land a well-paid, cushy spot in a liberal think-tank to bide the time. His picture would be placed in the Wikipedia entry on integrity. He would have so much more to gain by taking this course of action than by lying to protect an unpopular president. The fact that he didn't do this means that he is either a lying fool or he is speaking a very close approximation to the truth. I don't think he's a lying fool.

You don't think it is possible that the treatment of Shinsecki and Taguba, etc. is a plausible motivation to toe the party line?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

You don't think it is possible that the treatment of Shinsecki and Taguba, etc. is a plausible motivation to toe the party line?

You make a good point. I think it's plausible and could have some influence over Petraus, but I see two major differences that keep me skeptical.

First, the bulk of the tension with Shinsecki and Taguba was with Rumsfeld. Although President Bush bears the responsibility of his SecDef's actions, Gates seems to be have a much better demeanor. He doesn't appear to have the same dogmatic and vindictive attitude as Rumsfeld.

Second, the timing of the treatment of Shinsecki/Taguba is considerably different than would be the potential ill treatment of Petraus. The former two generals were relatively unknown on a national level until they bucked the administration. The subsequent actions of the administration toward these two fine men is what made them famous amongs political followers. In Patraus' case, he already has the trust and national recognition that he needs to shield himself. The administration and Congress have publicly placed their faith in him, thus limiting themselves to take any serious retributive measures for an honest, albeit negative, assesment.

Now, I may be overemphasizing these two differences but I don't think they should be overlooked.