I think the tone was set when prior to the Iraq invasion, a general gave an honest, accurate assessment of the number of troops required to occupy the country. His numbers were much higher than Rumsfeld thought would be necessary. The general was publicly ridiculed and essentially fired, which sent a strong message to the military on what would happen to you if you didn't give the administration what it wanted.

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

Which is why Congress and the American Public had to wait for his report, right? Because it's so independent and unbiased.

The "Betray Us" thing did get me to react and pay attention, so I guess it worked. Then it made me roll my eyes and think how sinking to the No-SPin Zone level isn't helpful.

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.

I'd find this easier to support if the system of checks and balances WRT war and the military weren't so thoroughly broken (and was already broken when Bush got there, though his administration has made it worse). Since no one seems to care any more that Congress is supposed to declare wars, you've essentially got military power entirely in the pocket of one branch of government. And when that branch is as corrupt as Dubya & Co., that's frightening and IMHO simply wrong. I say that as a person who's not at all anti-military and comes from a family with a long tradition of military service.

Ooh, gosh, I didn't mean to kill it!

I must be Susan the Thread Slayer today. I was already feeling majorly guilty for giving an honest answer on an author blog to a question along the lines of "Like my new cover, or is it too much mantitty for your taste?" (I went all historical costuming pedant. Picture my little lecturette on rifles vs. muskets from Natter, only in the form of, "If relatively low-budget productions like made-for-TV movies can get historical costumes right, why can't art departments for romance publishers?") That was two hours ago and the previously active comment thread is dead, DEAD, I tell you! Part of me feels guilty...but, she asked! If she hadn't, I would've gritted my teeth and kept my mouth shut.

ETA the author knew the costuming was inaccurate, but said it didn't bother her the way it did when something similar had happened on a previous cover because she liked other elements of the image so much. And I said inaccurate costuming would never keep me from buying a book, it just bugged my inner pedant.

I don't think betray-us is unfair or entering a "no spin zone". He isportraying the Presidential report he is providing evidence on as a non-partisan document when in fact it is pretty close to pure propaganda. That IS a betrayal, not treason, but still betrayal on a whole of levels.

And it's funny, and if Neil Simon taught me anything(and I hope he did.) you don't cut funny. Of course, I'm all desensitized, gravitas-wise, as one of our great media defenders likes to run captions like "Grand Old Potty" over Larry Craig. He also likes baseball, carrots, and calling out Bill Orally.

I HAZ HOUSE!!

HUZZAH! Do you get to move in this weekend?

Yay, Vortex! Finally! When do you get to move in?

yay Vortex