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.

General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

It strikes me that Moveon has fallen into hip-speak marketing manipulation tactics. Sadly, those tactics, however odious, work. Like renaming war as 'conflict'. In this era of apathy and info-overload, the snappier the catch-line, the more likely the message is to get attention.

I agree that it is wrong in this case, but it's not particularly surprising.

The word Betrayal in regards to a service person has pangs of Treason, and I think that's an unfair lob.

Considering that the Bush Administration has lobbed insinuations of treason [please note: I did NOT say that the administration made outright accusations of treason] at non-military citizens who simply disagreed, in a vocal and public manner, with administration policy, I can't bring myself to feel bad about a pre-emptive silly nickname that was based merely on the stroke of good luck of "Petraeus" rhyming with "betray us."

But GEN Petraeus is not part of the Bush Administration.

(eta: which is why I don't like it. but i'm done with work and off to the dr. so I'll see you all later.)

But GEN Petraeus is not part of the Bush Administration.

I know, and I apologize if I gave the impression that he is.

But it's not as though he's able to act independently of the White House, either.

I just meant....eh, you know what? Fuck it. I'm tired, it's just a silly rhyme-y nickname that made me giggle because I'm 12 and possibly treasonous.

It's my understanding Officers, especially ranking ones, can have difficulties in voicing differing opinions against the administration. My BiL, finally retired, USMC Gunnery Sgt, at one point was offered to mustang up to Lt. He refused, one of the reasons being, "If I wanna bitch about the idiot on Penn ave, I don't want a Court Martial about it".