General Petraeus: collection

[SWJED]

... is not a "good thing", I agree. There are times however when a story with "wings" that is indeed fabricated needs to be called-out. I believe now is one of those times. Moreover, I'd hardly categorize the SWJ as a "right-wing" blog. The mere fact you are a blogger there speaks volumes and we don't much toe any "party-line" - kind of call them as we see them.

Not much to fear though - the IO damage was done as soon as the Telegraph's story hit the 'Net. Google it (news and blog searches) - the "left-wing" blogs are in hog-heaven.

Yep, the AP is "piling on"...

On edit: "Calling them like we see them" by definition for the SWJ means each individual blogger and as many here well know, the SWJ regular and guest bloggers are quite a diverse crowd. As for the SWC, you must admit that different points of view, if presented in a professional manner as well as well sourced or based on personal experience, is not only tolerated - but welcomed.

[Abu Buckwheat]

Moreover, I'd hardly categorize the SWJ as a "right-wing" blog.

Litte error here ... I was referring to the other non-professional, personal bloggers (who actually think rational opinions make SWJ a Leftist site) not the SWJ itself.

Heck, this is the only professional scholarly military blog of any merit and thats why I am proud to be a part of it (also because I was given the Hugo Chavez/Raul Castro Comrade's decoder ring when I joined!).

On the other hand I acknowledge that the IO damage was done with the first story and we should whack 'em where we see 'em.

Many of our IO mistakes in theater are so amateur as to be laughable and wiggling about on this one makes the PAO look like an offended school principle's secretary. We should acknowledge that its a superfluous debate, the facts were wrong on that report and move on.

[SWJED]

All this talk of left and right finally made the Norwich Google ad go away (but now probably will be back since I typed Norwich) and an Obama Barak campaign ad appear. Who said big brother isn't watching ?

[SWJED]

Hat Tip PrairiePundit (Merv Benson) - Paper Backs Off Maliki-Petraeus Row

I think they are admitting that the earlier report was based on a rumor.

General Petraeus Rebuts Iraq Row Claim - London Daily Telegraph (Damien McElroy)

America's top general in Iraq yesterday quashed reports of a breakdown in his relationship with Iraq's prime minister over American support for Sunni Muslim fighters battling al-Qa'eda.

General David Petraeus poured scorn on a claim by an Iraqi politician that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requested his dismissal after bitter rows. "I don't know where that is coming from," Gen Petraeus said. "He and I have truly had frank conversations but he has never yelled or stood up. This is really, really hard stuff, and occasionally people agree to disagree."...

Col Boylan said Mr Maliki had embraced the policy but dissidents were trying to throw "sand in the gearbox" with claims the two were at loggerheads.
While exchanges between the two had been "direct," the discussions fell a long way short of Mr Maliki telling Gen Petraeus he could no longer work with him...

[Uboat509]

My experience is that the British print media tends to be more overt with their partisanship. I have seen some things printed in Brit newspappers that make the New York Times look like the Weekly Standard. Articles like the one that started this thread seem to be par for the course for some Brit media outlets.


SFC W

[tequila]

Uboat's correct about British media partisanship. Note, however, that the Telegraph is a Tory paper.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Uboat's correct about British media partisanship. Note, however, that the Telegraph is a Tory paper.

So? Blair and the current government in the UK are Labour, not Tory. The war in Iaq isn't popular with large segments of the British voters, and this may be seen as a chance to stick it to Labour and win the next election, especially now that Blair is gone.