It's been a few months since good ol' boy GW essentially put the fate of the USA's heightened involvement a.k.a the surge in General Petraeus' upcoming report to congress.
Well, it's "P" day and Petraeus is getting grilled and lambasted by the dem's and being kissed up to by the G.O.P.
This is my favorite quote SO FAR!
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said:
"I am distressed by the accusations leveled by some in the media and by some members of Congress during hearings like these calling into question the integrity of our military, accusing the military of cherry-picking positive numbers to reflect a dramatic decline in sectarian violence... Some in Congress accuse you, General Petraeus, of presenting a report that is simply White House propaganda."
Perish the thought!
I'm always surprised at the right's attempt to equate anything "anti-surge" and anti-Iraq war as anti-military. I never believed the scare tactics accusations the left gave but, the more quotes I hear like this that put down any challenge to the validity of the military involvement in Iraq, the more they look like scare tactics to me.
I'm not sold on all the accusations that Bush is in Iraq to profit and its all about oil etc etc. BUT, I don't believe that he would have put as much faith in the Petraeus report if he didn't already know it supported his position. Why would he set himself up for failure by emphasizing the importance of this report months before it occurred?
But back to Ros-Lehtinen's quote. My question to her is "Are you serious?" I think that if the report comes back with anything short of; its not working, you have EXACTLY White House propaganda. Maybe propaganda is the wrong word, maybe not. Thats for you to decide.
Petraeus said that military objectives are in large measure being met. What the hell does that mean? Even if Petraeus were to say that Iraq is a failure, would we really pull out? Would we cut the surge and leave a smaller contingent? I'm guessing no, and if I'm right then it doesn't even matter what he says.
I guess thats the only other explanation for why Bush pointed to this report. He either hedged his bet and knew what was to be said, or he's been bluffing and hoping for the best.
Either way Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's quote continues to make me laugh. And the pictures GW must have of Petraeus must be worse than anything anyone has on Larry Craig.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Petraeus Propaganda?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well you seem to be sitting on the fence, and I can understand that. As for Iraq, I think it goes beyond oil, its the dream of Empire that drives this war, of Pax Americana.
Not surprised that the GOP is kissing up to the General, they need him, he is their last hope (that and perhaps another murderous attack on American soil, I hope they never get their wish). Generals by definition have to be politicians, they learn how to beg/cajole Congress for money and support, to maneuver the Byzantine corridors of the Pentagon and the WH and how to garner support from their troops and the public. Some are better than it than others.
Criticizing the report or the man behind it does not belittle the troops in anyway. I am weary of the automatic deference that people in uniform get, just because they wear the uniform. Even on the "traitorous" left, any mild critique is always accompanied with "but we support the troops" or some such.
Well, good post, keep at it....
Interesting analysis, I finally wrote what I thought of the General's reports. Needless to say, we disagree, but at least I am glad you said we are not there for oil. You can read my analysis here
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/
"Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
David Geffen - Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul
Post a Comment