Where's The Love?

Kevin Drum notes that the American public expects General David Petraeus will lie under oath to congress "try to make things look better than they are" in Iraq rather than give sworn testimony that "will reflect the situation in Iraq." It's worth emphasizing in this regard how much the high regard in which Petraeus is held is a purely inside phenomenon. In particular, politicians and reporters alike who've spoken with Petraeus all seem to be very impressed with him. Consequently, other people like me who haven't ever spoken with him, picked up some of this sentiment through osmosis.

The reality, though, doesn't really seem to live up to the Legend of David Petraeus, and I'm not sure anything could. And the public is largely unfamiliar with the legend in the first place. So while Democrats should certainly be respectful when he testifies, there's no reason to be super-deferential. If some other Bush administration appointee showed up and said some stuff that didn't seem to be true, Democrats would give him shit about it and the public would expect them to. This situation, at the end of the day, isn't really any different.

UPDATE: Just to drive the point home, Ed Gillespie's set up a branch of the White House communications staff that's "hard wired" into Petraeus' shop. Which, again, is what you'd expect when a Bush appointee goes to congress for some high-profile testimony and illustrates the point that Petraeus should be treated accordingly.

Comments

Shorter Yglesias - the people who know Petraeus are impressed by him, while the ignorant masses are not. Therefore, we should trust the ignorant masses!

Posted by Al | September 9, 2007 1:24 PM

sure, al: after all, the track record of washington insiders and their judgements is just so all-fired excellent that we should simply accept their word that petraeus is the greatest thing since sun tzu....

Posted by howard | September 9, 2007 1:27 PM

"Democrats should certainly be respectful when he testifies..."

Why should they be respectful and not you? No one expects Congress not to vigorously question Petraeus, as they should any witness. What I and others have objected to is your preemptive attempts to undermine the general's credibility by insinuating that he is a political hack. As I mentioned before, Petraeus has had a 30+ year military career for Dem Senate staffers to comb through looking for any incidences of political hackery. That not one Democratic Senator voted against approving him for his current command suggests they didn't find anything.

As Mort Kondracke said yesterday, this reflects poorly on the lefty blogosphere.

Posted by Fred | September 9, 2007 1:34 PM

Fred, being criticized by mort kondracke is a good thing: why would you think otherwise?

more seriously, it is one thing to say that - unlike so many bush appointees - petraeus comes to his current job qualified. it is another thing altogether to say that there is something wrong with noting that Petraeus is a human being, and the number of human beings (particularly at an executive level) capable of self-criticism is distressingly limited. he is committed to doing whatever the hell it is we are doing in iraq for a decade: this means that his testimony is easy enough to decipher in advance, and easy enough to discount in advance.

and most seriously, if petraeus were a good judge of events in iraq, then he wouldn't have produced such a completely bullshit editorial just before the 2004 election. were i questioning him, i would confront him with the completely off-base nature of his 2004 "analysis" of the events on the ground and wonder why we should care (in a dispositive sense) what he has to say today?

Posted by howard | September 9, 2007 1:43 PM

Fred, since when is a vote to confirm a general an affirmation that he's not a political hack? Lots of hacks get confirmed for government posts, because their job is to carry out the President's policy and thus their hackishness doesn't matter much.

Petraeus's hackery has been proven by his constant happy-talk claims of Iraq "progress" (including the 2004 op-ed just before the election where he basically lied in the newspaper in order to help Bush get re-elected). But since he doesn't set the Iraq policy, it's of no great consequence.

The Senate confirmation vote was on his competence as a general; it's conservatives who suddenly decided that this was, in fact, a vote for Bush's failed "surge" policy.

Posted by Plank Tonne | September 9, 2007 1:45 PM

Petraeus also wrote an op-ed in 2004 for the WaPo which was an obvious attempt to help Bush's election by hyping success. Or you could read it as a puff piece for Petraeus himself.

By David H. Petraeus Sunday, September 26, 2004; Page B07

BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do

Well maybe this doesn't prove Petraeus is a political hack. But certainly this came as a gift to his political masters. And in due course he got his reward, a fourth star and a combat command.

Fred it is not like he doesn't have a record. Three years less than a week later we are likely to see the same message.

Posted by Bruce Webb | September 9, 2007 1:53 PM

Of course General "Betray Us" is a political hack.

1. Writing a pro-Iraq Op-Ed for Fred Hiatt is makes The General an excellent candidate for hackdom, and I'd say doing it right before an election clinches the deal.

2. And if that's not sufficient to elevate The General to the levels of hackdom, then appearing on Hugh Hewitt--and only on Hugh Hewitt--certainly ought to, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out in these pages.

3. And if that's not sufficient, then the dog and pony show The General ran in Iraq over the summer, complete with disinformational bios about Democratic Congressmen, should certainly do it.

4. Anyhow, what kind of General would Bush want, other than a political hack? Why would Bush run DOD any differently than he ran DOJ?

Posted by lambert strether | September 9, 2007 2:23 PM

People have a lot of trouble believe they're going to get anything resembling objectivity from a active duty general about an ongoing war, let alone the one actually in charge of it.

Anything less than a very high level of skepticism would reflect poorly on anyone, not just the “lefty-blogosphere”.

Posted by DJ | September 9, 2007 2:33 PM

The General is going to present a White House written evaluation as his own.

Why exactly does he have a sterling reputation?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 9, 2007 2:40 PM

To add to what Howard and others have said. The Bush admin./right wing noise machine wouldn't be yammering about Petraeus in the way they are if they hadn't assured themselves that he'll say what they want to hear. The grounds for suspecting Petraeus' bona fides that the other commenters have mentioned above seem sound, but in a way we don't need to know that much about the man himself; we already know more than enough about the people--Bush and the fanatics who support him--who are urging us to repose complete, unsquesioning faith in Petraeus' judgement. *Their* record is terrible; *they* are utterly dishonest. The idea that *their* motive for trying to make Petraeus' judgement decisive is respect for disinterested expertise and a desire to get at the truth is beyond lauaghable.

Posted by J | September 9, 2007 3:04 PM

It seems to me a logical failure to urge that people passively assume that, as far as the administration's policies and presentations of them are to be made by Gen. David Petraeus, it would be any different whether or not Gen. Petraeus was a staunchly independent professional or a partisan hack.

Practically, however, there will be those citizens and politicians who view it as their responsibility to take testimony more seriously when it is spoken by an experienced military officer than when it is not.

People who feel that way are much more likely to locate the center of one's evaluation of the testimony or evidence on the strength of the biography of the individual giving it, rather than on the strength of the evidence itself.

The main question is not whether Gen. Petraeus is a fiercely independent officer or a partisan hack or, more likely, a realistic combination of independence and careerism as is to be found among the highest ranking senior officer corps.

The strength of his testimony will rest upon the strength of the objectively evaluable evidence (i.e., the evidence I can see or which can be reviewed, rather than classified information kept from me) presented and the arguments which tie the evidence together, not on his background or integrity or political neutrality or lack thereof.

I.e., Petraeus could be fiercely independent and present thoroughly unconvincing arguments, or Petraeus could be a partisan hack who nevertheless presents thoroughly persuasive arguments.

As citizens we should be farther along than choosing to weigh the biography of the person testifying about major policies over the demonstrable qualities of the testimony itself.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 3:47 PM

Something that I think is interesting to consider, and I've rarely heard mentioned before, is the degree to which Petraeus appears to be disliked internally by both his own soldiers and the intelligance community. There are a huge number of stories I hear from colleagues who served under him in the 82nd airborne testifying to him being an arrogant, out of touch ass who was disliked from his Colonials down to the enlisted guys. Further, there is a real fear amongst people in the intel community working on Iraq issues that Petraeus desperately wants to be the next Eisenhower, and that he sees the only way of that happening is by winning Iraq - at any cost. Credible or not, this does seem to contribute to the existing mountain of evidance that this guy is a political social climber, and is driven at least as much by personal ambition as by an objective desire to do what is in the nation's best interest.

Posted by m | September 9, 2007 4:52 PM

It's time to put Fred's bullshit back into his anus:

"Petraeus has had a 30+ year military career for Dem Senate staffers to comb through looking for any incidences of political hackery. That not one Democratic Senator voted against approving him for his current command suggests they didn't find anything.

None of that is true.

First of all, there are many morons in the military with long careers. So what? BUSH had a "long career" - and he's an asshole who lies like a rug.

No incidents of political hackery? Excuse me, but it was revealed this past week that Petraeus wrote an op-ed just before the 2004 elections predicting improvement in Iraq - and he was wrong.

Therefore you are wrong. So stop saying it.

Finally, the fact that some ignorant Democrat politicians "approved" Petraeus for his current assignment doesn't mean a damn thing. They "approved" him because of his supposed abilities at counterinsurgency - which he has never demonstrated, other than CO-AUTHORING a military manual on the subject notable for its regurgitation of everything else ever written on the subject. There is ZERO evidence that the Democrats even LOOKED for "political hackery" in their questioning of Petraeus.

So take this crap you've been spouting in every post and shove it. It's bullshit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 5:29 PM

As Matt says, "just to drive the point home":

09.09.07 -- 1:58PM
Our Banana Republic

If you need any more sense of what this is going to be about (from Drudge) ...

Following their testimony to Congress, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will appear exclusively on FOX News Channel on Monday at 9pm EDT for a one hour live interview with Brit Hume... Developing...

So, the goods they're bringing home are so strong they can only withstand the scrutiny of Fox News and Brit Hume. Good to see we've turned over a new leaf.

--Josh Marshall

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 5:54 PM

Fred:
Are you happy with all the circumstantial evidence of Petraeus being a hack?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 9, 2007 6:06 PM

The American public is generally suspicious about the Left in regards to their true "support" of the military. A considerable number see it as an act, using dead soldiers and their coffins only as political tools to advance their anti-war agenda. And constant demands to investigate the military for "crimes against innocent enemy civilians" as persecution. Add that a large part of the public sees the Left as delighting in exposing secret programs that help keep soldiers (and us) alive, and who denigrate soldiers as too stupid or lazy or lacking the opportunity to avoid "getting stuck in Iraq".

And those that are close to soldiers serving, since Vietnam, know what rankles the soldiers themselves the most - is the Left's effort to cast the troops as "Victims" rather than standout young people serving the nation, doing their duty with valor and honor.

Smearing all National Guard vets by suggesting Bush's service in it is an indicator of cowardace, wasn't too bright, either.

Nothing highlights it in the public mind quite like smarmy Lefty lawyers in Congress abusing, or trying to abuse members of the military called to testify before them.
The Westmoreland, Abrams, Calley hearings in the Vietnam era were noted for the public sympathy going to the military officers ripped and scorned by Lefties despite ample reasons to call Westmoreland and the superiors to Calley and some of the investigators to account.
And of course, Iran-Contra turned into an utter disaster for Lefties when Col. Ollie North managed to not disgrace himself, but counsel Arthur Liman and 2 bloviating Senators.

Best the Copperheads be polite, listen, give straightforward questioning - and avoid the speeches and smearing of any officer or ambassador. The Sam Alito "throw buckets of slime and see what sticks" approach didn't work on him, and it won't work on people a large slice of the public believes are doing a rough to impossible job with courage and competence.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 9, 2007 7:30 PM

Two issues are getting a lot of attention in the pre-emptive attack upon the character of General Petraeus.

1) A poll was taken, asking Americans if they believe that General Petraeus will give an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq. The very nature of the inquiry is likely to sway those who are unsure to answer "no." It also coincides with the recent offensive against his character that began a couple of weeks ago and will continue at least until he presents himself to Congress to give his report. Statistics 101 tells us that polling is as much an art as it is a science. Remember the poll about the Iraq Study Group findings that asked if people agreed with the recommendations? How many of the people who responded "yes" could have even named 3 of the recommendations? But when everybody on TV is hyping up the report, the undecided will go with the crowd. Likewise, now, there are politicians and pundits on TV every night characterizing Petraeus' report as pure propaganda and even implying that it is a speech written by President Bush himself (he will be assumed to be sufficiently literate to do so, until it is convenient to once again mock his difficulties with our language).

2) General Petraeus wrote an article citing the progress of building the ISF prior to the 2004 election and the timing of this article is deemed to be an attempt to aid the President in his re-election bid. A less cynical and quite rational explanation is that the article was timely because progress in Iraq was most widely debated just prior to the election. Had he written the article after the election then it is doubtful that as many people would have read it. If you feel strongly about an issue and wish to present your case to the people, are you going to publish it when people are receptive or when they've tuned out?

The level of discourse in this country is pathetic when a military professional cannot give his professional assessment of a military operation without having his character and integrity attacked. He must agree with the opinions of non-professionals who have no access to the intelligence data and operational assessments - otherwise he is a political hack. This is a fine democracy.

And many who adhere to that line of thought have the nerve to criticize the Iraqi government.

Please forgive the lack of obscenities.

Posted by TJM | September 9, 2007 8:05 PM

El Cid,

Though I agree in the main, I think you may be missing something important. There are questions in regard to which citizens, members of deliberative bodies, presidents or sovereigns are in a position to evaluate evidence. But there are many issues where there is no such thing as evidence or evidence that a layperson can evaluate properly or the evidence goes only so far. Inevitabley expert views need to be accorded a certain weight. This is a very tricky matter. We can't simply abdicate our power of judgement. Sometimes--nay often--the experts disagree. What's needed is an ability to weigh and balance a host of considerations of different types, including what people with more expert knowledge than we have say, considerations that can't be fed into a system that mechanically yields the best result. It's especially important for, say, a president or king to have this ability. This is why even if Bush were the amiable dunderhead we were told he was in 2000 rather than the bloodthirsty, megalomaniacal cretin we know him to be, he still wouldn't have been a good choice for president. In any case, in many areas, we are largely dependent on the experts' say so. So I think the bona fides of Petraeus is an important issue. Is he giving us his unvarnished expert view or something that's been massaged to please his loathsome political masters? If the former is true, it should count for more. One thing we can do is see how what he says about issues that can be checked against the evidence holds up. I take it not well. But my point is that even if we concede for the sake of argument that his reputation for expertise is well deserved and that he is acting in good faith, we should still be suspicious. We know that lots of equally expert people have different views, and what Bush and his enablers are trying--successfully--to do is to make P. the *only* expert, the one man by whose judgement laypeople like ourselves, our elected representatives and even the son of heaven GWB himself must be guided, and they've done this not out of respect for P's expertise, but because they know what he is going to say.

Posted by J | September 9, 2007 8:12 PM

it takes too much energy to type out a response to chris ford's usual demented material, but let us at least note, to TJM, that the "surge" is not a military matter. indeed, iraq is not a military matter.

this is, of course, a typical right-wing misrepresentation, even though the Dear Leader and his annointed general both acknowledged that the issue is political when the "surge" was announced.

as for the 2004 op-ed, two points that do not appear to have penetrated the TJM ratiocinative process: that petraeus had the choice to say nothing, and that what he said was 100% wrong, which calls the annointed one's judgement into question to anyone not caught up with war-enabling.

Posted by howard | September 9, 2007 8:29 PM

P.S. Look at this way. Imagine there is a vital question X & there are, say, five acknowledged experts. It's clear that any decision we reach will be better informed and stand a better chance of being right if we hear them out. Powerful figure B has a stake in the decision. Obviously if he suborns the testimony of the five, it will be of considerably less value than it would otherwise have been. But imagine that B discovers that one of the five, expert E, sincerely believes P, which is what B wants us to be believe for his own nefarious purposes. If B kills, abducts or otherwise silences each of the five except E, we will not really be honoring the sensible principle that would have us assign weight to expert views if we allow our decision about X to be guided by E. I take it that this is more or less the situation that Bush has contrived to put us in.

Posted by J | September 9, 2007 8:32 PM

No one expects Congress not to vigorously question Petraeus, as they should any witness.

I do not expect Congress to vigorously question Petraeus. Granted, I'm nobody.

Chris Ford: Bush and the hawks have been hiding behind "the troops" all along. What a disgusting display.

Bush should be called to account for his disastrous and fraudulent war.

Posted by John Emerson | September 9, 2007 9:54 PM

A couple points for the benefit of "howard"...

1) The "surge" refers to the thousands of additional Soldiers who were sent to Iraq to clear terrorist/insurgent strongholds, train ISF, and reinforce ISF in order to establish security in order to buy time and set the conditions for political reconciliation to occur. While the final endstate of the overall politico-military conflict is a political resolution, the surge is a military matter.

2) If one reads the Petraeus article (available without a subscription to WashPo), it is difficult to see how this could be viewed as "100% wrong", since many of the statements were demonstrable facts. Earlier commenters implied that it is politically motivated, which is also a bizarre conclusion, especially if one recalls how shamefully and forcefully Americans were belittling the service of the ISF at that time. Much of the information was presented to inform Americans that Iraqis were braving tremendous dangers and paying a heavy price in their own blood, yet continuing to enlist, train, and fight. Most of his other statements were unambitious forecasts of future operations and ominous predictions of a tough slog ahead.

howard stated that "... two points that do not appear to have penetrated the TJM ratiocinative process: that petraeus had the choice to say nothing, and that what he said was 100% wrong, which calls the annointed one's judgement into question..."
I presume that howard also had the choice to say nothing. But he chose to comment and he was wrong. But, judging by his condescending tone, I guess his judgment is not to be questioned. Still, I will give General Petraeus a fair hearing. I do not hold it against him that he was moved to defend the dignity of the Iraqi Security Forces against the wholesale slander waged against them during the political campaigns in 2004.

Posted by TJM | September 9, 2007 10:53 PM

Oh, Chris, you're pinning my bogometer. Again.

Can you please explain to me how pointing out that there's no evidence that Bush actually showed up for duty for an entire year, and that he blew off a medical exam he was ordered to take (after the mandatory drug tests were initiated, I might add), insults "all" National Guardsmen?

Whoever's paying you, they're paying you too much. Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by lambert strether | September 9, 2007 10:56 PM

Howard - it takes too much energy to type out a response to chris ford's usual demented material.

Yes, "howard" we all know how exhausted you get from the "support the troops!" rallies.

lambert strether - Can you please explain to me how pointing out that there's no evidence that Bush actually showed up for duty for an entire year...

No, Lambert, you don't get off so easily...the main Lefty attack was that people who serve in the National Guard are cowards that sought to avoid Vietnam.
The Left blundered badly by tainting the Guard with "ducking Vietnam, not serving, seeking cushy work.." In their rush to smear Bush, and earlier Quayle, they smeared all.

The "fake but accurate" attack that sunk Dan Rather's career was over claims Bush didn't fully serve one of his years complete with fake memos castigating Bush for ducking duty. No need to get back into the "John Kerry was...._______" matter which has already wasted way too much time for such a sleaze.....but Bush has a good conduct discharge and top performance reviews. Kerry's papers were missing from media scrutiny, though the Navy confirmed that they hold a large number of Kerry personnel file documents unless Kerry signs a release. He has refused to authorize release of paperwork. Rumors persist he got a bad conduct discharge for meeting with VC and North Vietnamese while still an officer, that was "fixed" later into a good conduct discharge by Ted Kennedy's staff before Kerry's Senate run.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 9, 2007 11:51 PM

let's see: it takes too much energy to type out a response to chris ford's usual demented material at 7:30 and it take too much energy to type out a response to chris ford's usual demented material at 11:51, but it doesn't take any energy at all to note that anyone who doesn't think that people of elite backgrounds who joined the national guard during the vietnam war were doing so to avoid being sucked into service in vietnam doesn't know shit from shinola.

a notion supported by the complete idiocy of your last paragraph: we're sick to death of the drivel issued by the graduates of propaganda u, with its characteristic mixture of the demented, the untrue, and the paranoid.

Posted by howard | September 10, 2007 12:02 AM

"I do not hold it against him that he was moved to defend the dignity of the Iraqi Security Forces against the wholesale slander waged against them during the political campaigns in 2004."

This has to be one the most incredibly stupid remarks make on one of these threads - aside from either any of SLC's or Ford's remarks, of course.

These would be the "Iraqi Security Forces" that people have recently suggested should be disbanded wholesale because of their corruption and/or connection to various sectarian militias.

And this character says they've been slandered.

"If one reads the Petraeus article (available without a subscription to WashPo), it is difficult to see how this could be viewed as "100% wrong", since many of the statements were demonstrable facts."

Ah, let's see, the appropriate response to this would be, ah, maybe...BULLSHIT.

I don't even HAVE to read his stupid article. I know enough from the independent reports issued from Iraq by people who are on the ground there to KNOW that ANYTHING Petraeus says is BULLSHIT. I don't even need that level of knowledge. I can just look at ANYTHING coming out of the mouth of a chump US military officer to know that it's BULLSHIT.

And I can look at anything you post here and know that it is BULLSHIT from now one, given this load.

This clown does not cite ONE SINGLE SUPPOSED "fact" from Petraeus article. Not one. He just makes the blanket statement that it's all true!

Like we're supposed to bow down before his superior knowledge of what's going on.

Yo, homes, let me explain it to you in words of one syllable that you might be able to just comprehend:

You are full of it.

Petraeus is a lying Pentagon hack. He's an incompetent idiot. He's losing a war in Iraq and he can't admit it because a) it will hurt his career, and b) his Commander in Chief will fire him for it. And he doesn't not give a rat's butt how many of the troops under his command will die over the next year or five years because of his stinking ego and his stinking military career that is all he cares about.

Which makes him a scumbag as well as a liar - just like the rest of the US officer corps who are promoting this war.

And if you stand up for this scumbag, you join him as a scumbag.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 10, 2007 2:59 AM

Getting as bad as Matt...I really should hit "Preview" and proofread...

"And he doesn't not give a rat's butt" should be: "And he does not give a rat's butt".

Spotted a couple other typos, too...sigh...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 10, 2007 3:02 AM

What it is that's behind this post.

Posted by This guy's a laugh-riot | September 10, 2007 6:03 AM

Mr. Hack,

I will re-evaluate my position. Your profanity-laced tirade of unsubstantiated accusations and outlandish opinions was a convincing rebuttal.

Posted by TJM | September 10, 2007 5:00 PM