Don't even talk to me about Rex Grossman.

From what I know, he has an excellant reputation among soldiers who have worked for him. I really, really hope he says/does the right thing.

Well, the facts he's given so far about the success of the surge have been widely disputed. He's reported a 75% drop in civilian deaths, but critics have argued that's because the military stopped counted civilian deaths from bombs as being part of the insurgency - or something like that.

Don't even talk to me about Rex Grossman.

Wouldn't dream of it; too busy still grooving on the Pats excellent opening day.

From what I know, he has an excellant reputation among soldiers who have worked for him. I really, really hope he says/does the right thing.

Unlikely, given that the "Petraeus Report" was authored by the White House. But one can hope.

Wouldn't dream of it; too busy still grooving on the Pats excellent opening day.

w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unlikely, given that the "Petraeus Report" was authored by the White House. But one can hope.

Also, he published an editorial shortly before the '04 election arguing that things were going well in Iraq, which was rather unprecedented and strongly suggests he was trying to aid Bush in the election. And he's agreed to one TV interview - on Fox. So it looks pretty clear he has a partisan agenda.

I guess I'm focusing on the word "Betrayal" too much as a hair away from Treason. Yes he is partisan, that is one thing. And while I do NOT agree with that partisan view, I wouldn't call it Treasonous. Foolish, yes.

Eh. I dunno. I might be over reacting. I just have issues with attacking service members and not the administration. Granted he's at the top of the food chain and all. But still.

/soap box

:: slinks to corner ::

Here's a fact check, which I haven't had a chance to go over yet.

[link]

Well, the facts he's given so far about the success of the surge have been widely disputed.

About two years ago, Joe and several colonels and a few majors, all of whom had been to Iraq and most of whom were lukewarm at best (eta: about the war), had a several hour conversation about GEN Franks and at what point do you/would you stand up and say "This is wrong." That is synonomous with leaving the military, but at that point, everyone is retirement-eligible, so it's not like it would cost you your ability to support your family or anything.

Anyway, what came from their conversation was an overriding consensus that things would have to be really, really wrong before any one of them would say so publicly. And not because they were all "yes men", but I think military officers are just really hesitant to voice an opinion. This is a bit different, because the general is being asked for an opinion, but I don't think he's 'betraying us' by doing what the administration asks or even reporting things as the administration asks.

And don't get me wrong - I'm probably more opposed to this war than anyone, and I'm scared to death that Joe will have to go back, but I just don't think it's the job of the general to say "this plan will never work" if there's a conceivable way that it could.

eta: I guess what I'm trying to say is that up until the point of an illegal order, GEN Petraeus is following orders reporting things as the administration asks or talking to the reporters he is asked to speak to. I doubt very much that he, himself, chose to talk to FOX only. I agree - it looks bad, and I bet he agrees, but I think it's wrong to ascribe personal feelings to the actions of a soldier.

FTR, this:

General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

bugs me. Maybe it's because it strikes me as juvenile - like the way grade-schoolers taunt each other based on their names.