Scrutinizing Petraeus's Record
I'm actually surprised that something like this hasn't been written earlier, or maybe it has, and I just missed it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...eus/index.html
The appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show probably wasn't a big mistake, if only because the vast majority of americans have no idea who he is. But it clearly gave some people who were looking for a reason to be skeptical of anything Petraeus says that reason.
Why should he have known?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oblong
Things may well be improving in Iraq, perhaps dramatically. But my question is Is giving an interview to a highly partisan radio host the right way to spread that message to a skeptical public, and more important, to Congress. Petraeus should have known how his appearance on that show would be spinned.
He's been sort of busy the last four years and I suspect he's not a blog visitor or a talk radio listener. Most Generals are studiously apolitical in the domestic politics sense at least publicly so he could well not have had a clue.
Heard he did another for NPR recently. I imagine he'd do one with anyone who asked and the mainstream media almost certainly hasn't asked -- though they may now.
Regardless the left leaning blogs and talking headless will have fun for a few days. Fortunately, the attention span out there is pretty short. :cool:
Nah, you aren't the only one - but you are more patient
than most. I for one appreciate that.
I would've been less so and would have pointed out that anyone who pays much attention to anything any politician or political appointee says is hopelessly naive; that no one lied to me about the surge turning anything around -- every pronouncement I've read had been very cautious (other than the civilian bloggers and the always clueless news media). :mad:
Not a fan of metrics. They have a purpose but in war, that purpose seems to be to totally confuse issues. They are incredibly hard to obtain with any accuracy and have a tendency to change rapidly, thus they are routinely manipulated by both sides in any discussion to counter each other. That seems totally intuitive to me but others apparently don't see it that way... :confused:
The bulk of Americans don't care about casualties. There are many that make much of them on both sides but IMO, the majority of noise is mere political theater. Most Americans want results, period and they want them rapidly. Not going to happen.
The taxpayer bit is always somewhat galling to me for the reasons you state plus the incredible amounts the Congress wastes here in the US. If there's a Congroid with over two terms who does not have a host of hignways, overpasses, bridges, buildings, Federal this or that Centers and whatever named after him or her, I'd like a list... :rolleyes:
Marc is correct, RA's items are indeed popular understandings -- too popular. They are also largely incorrect and I fault this administration as being the absolute worst of the twelve I've lived under in getting out a coherent message for a part of that. I could also rant about the media and the education system being even greater contributors but this isn't the thread for that. I'll just say that everyone has a right to an opinion and to express it. Seems to me that gives one an obligation to have an understanding beyond the popular 'wisdom' and a logical construct in expressing that opinion.