The Great Petraeus

23:38 Fri 14 Sep 2007. Updated: 00:39 15 Sep 2007
[, , ]

Was there ever any doubt about how General Petraeus’s reports to Congress were going to go? Did anyone really believe there was any chance that he’d stand up there and say “it’s not working, we need to leave immediately”? He was always going to say what the Bush Administration wanted him to say. He slipped up once, when he said that he didn’t know if the Iraq War was making Americans safer, but swiftly corrected himself given the chance.

This piece from Jon Stewart sums it up rather well:

This “great general” rather obviously a mouthpiece for this administration, and nothing more. They have their own reasons for wanting to keep troops in Iraq, and they don’t have anything to do with respect for Petraeus, or respect for the military in general.

It’s still amazing to me that Americans fall for this idea that the people who sent US soldiers out to kill and die, and who keep them out there killing and dying, are “supporting” the troops, while those who opposed sending them out to kill and die, and who want now to stop them from having to do so, are “against” the troops. The idea that “anti-war” is somehow “anti-soldier” inherently, and that some great contortions are required to get around this, is utterly ludicrous. Yet, like so much else that’s ludicrous, it seems to stick.

2 Responses to “The Great Petraeus”

  1. Joseph A. Ferry Says:

    Was there any doubt that dopey liberals like you would make a comment like that?

    Go back to Ireland you moron.

  2. Tadhg Says:

    Joseph: At first I was convinced that your comment must be a parody, since it was completely devoid of content and didn’t address any of the points from the post while also mustering lame insults. Sadly, I now think that was an overly hopeful reading.

    I’m aware that setting the bar for intelligent discourse too high can exclude many who are simply unpracticed at debate, and can also be abused to hide all kinds of other exclusionary methodologies—but still, is that the best you can do? Try some analysis, some unpacking of assumptions (on both sides), some application of your (presumed) faculties for reason… something!

Leave a Reply