Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:18 PM Mar 2014

Tom Ricks Does Gen. Petraeus Apology Tour On CNN's Reliable Sources

Former Washington Post columnist Thomas Ricks joined Howard Kurtz to discuss the apparent media frenzy over the Petraeus/Broadwell affair story. Ricks was very shrill over the way the media has turned on DC's most famous and decorated modern day general and he's not gonna take it any more.

KURTZ: And how much did that courtship and those relationships and the e-mails exchange with journalists, and all of that, has that contributed to more sympathetic coverage given his problem with the affair with Paula Broadwell and the resignation at CIA, that he might have gotten otherwise?

RICKS: No, I don't think so. Actually, I think the media has been in full shark bite frenzy without regard, really. If anything, I find the real scandal here -- or one of the scandals here is how much the media has turned on Petraeus.

Here's a guy who has four combat tours in recent years. That's more combat time than any American general had in World War II, who has a smashed pelvis from a parachuting accident, who has a bullet wound through the chest from a training accident. He and his family, and I include his wife Holly Petraeus in that, have given enormously in the last ten years.

Yet when this scandal broke, we as a country were not as generous with him as his family had been with the country

I find this observation condescending and insulting. Why is it the media's fault for covering a story that includes the head of the CIA resigning over a sex scandal with a woman who he was supposed to be mentoring---who in turn sent nasty emails to another women out of jealousy she suspected was flirting with Petraeus while he's married to someone else? And---he resigned over it! Why is this outrageous to Ricks? He's been covering the military and these two wars a long time. I do agree with him on certain points like the FBI breaching privacy, but please, drop the phony sanctimony.

KURTZ: You seem to be suggesting that journalists are biting the hand that fed them, they were perfectly happy to have good relations with General Petraeus when he was on top. Suddenly, this scandal happens, fall from grace, huge tabloid style scandal, and you say the press has turned against him. Because I've seen a lot of -- particularly people like who know the guy, it seems to me the tune is more sympathetic, a tragic -- a tragedy for his family as opposed to the junk yard (INAUDIBLE).

RICKS: It's a matter that should have remained private, first of all. It's not a criminal act. There's no allegation that he's committed a crime here, as far as I know. You know, it could always change, more information could come out.

But here, he was in a relationship with a consenting adult who was not in his chain of command. He's hardly, I think, probably the first CIA director to have had an affair. This begins with another scandal which is the FBI investigating a lover's quarrel, which I think is an abuse of taxpayers' dollars.


http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/tom-ricks-does-gen-petraeus-apology-tou


CASE CLOSED.....

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tom Ricks Does Gen. Petraeus Apology Tour On CNN's Reliable Sources (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 OP
Theres that guilt by association thingy! Anansi1171 Mar 2014 #1
He goes on national tv Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #2
Nope, it's giving context to all the people, like apparently you, joeybee12 Mar 2014 #6
History is now Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #13
I agree - Ricks' criticisms of Snowden and Greenwald should be judged on their merit, Maedhros Mar 2014 #17
LOL: November 26, 2012 FSogol Mar 2014 #3
Thanks for kicking the thread Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #4
Inane comments for inane posts. FSogol Mar 2014 #7
Did youn forget what "context" means... joeybee12 Mar 2014 #8
Wait, ProSense Mar 2014 #5
Now you defend General Betrayus Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #10
LOL! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #11
Democrats ken wuv war, too-oo. Octafish Mar 2014 #9
Yeah ....I guess I need a loyalty oath Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #12
Ricks calls out Greenwald's hypocrisy on Russia, and you repost a 2012 article msanthrope Mar 2014 #14
Ricks hypocrisy has been pointed out here Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #15
But why? This only indicates just how close to the bone Ricks got to Greenwald. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #16
Rick is your go to guy on things like loyalty oaths Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #18
That's a non-sequitur. Was it meant to be insulting? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #19
thanks for posting this grasswire Mar 2014 #20
Yes now crooks and liars is under the bus Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #21

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
1. Theres that guilt by association thingy!
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:23 PM
Mar 2014

And so recycling this 2012 piece is not just a timely smear of Ricks, it means any critique of Ed Snowden is patently propaganda.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
6. Nope, it's giving context to all the people, like apparently you,
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:30 PM
Mar 2014

who will believe anything bad about Snowden...and all, again, like you, who have been painting Ricks as some sort of liberal saint and should be believed.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
13. History is now
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:41 PM
Mar 2014

classified and redacted.

Boy that appointed by Obama on Petraus was an eye opener on the CIA and the real structure of the Deep State.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
17. I agree - Ricks' criticisms of Snowden and Greenwald should be judged on their merit,
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 02:25 PM
Mar 2014

not on what Ricks may have written a few years ago on an unrelated issue.

Now, please go tell the Greenwald character assassins that one paragraph out of context taken from the intro to a book written in 2007 does not make him a rabid Pro-Bush Libertarian and therefore everything he has written regarding the Snowden leaks should be ignored.

(Ricks' criticism of Snowden and Greenwald has been soundly invalidated by a number of people, such as Digby here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/objectively-pro-putin.html

Ricks claims that Greenwald and Snowden are "profiting" from Russia (how that's happening is rather obscure) and therefore, if they fail to loudly denounce events in the Ukraine, they are objectively Pro-Putin. Greenwald refuses to bow to his demands because well ... bowing to such a demand is unethical in itself (and useless.) Anyone who requires you to denounce someone else to prove that you are not a sympathizer is playing an authoritarian power game and giving them the "denunciation" they demand will never fully satisfy. We have a long history of witch hunts both real and metaphorical in this country. One of the defining characteristics is this requirement that one prove one's loyalty to the group. You may recall that the way they used to do it was to strap the accused witch to a chair and throw him or her into the water. If the accused floated to the top and lived he or she was obviously guilty. If he or she sank to the bottom and drowned, she was not. I think we can all see the problem with that.
)
 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
8. Did youn forget what "context" means...
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:33 PM
Mar 2014

After all, since the new articles about Ricks here at Du have been glowing with praise about how he is such a great liberal and therefore believeable and therefore his critcism of Snowden is just great, then it's only fair that people expose the huckster for what he is.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. Wait,
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:30 PM
Mar 2014

"Tom Ricks Does Gen. Petraeus Apology Tour On CNN's Reliable Sources"

...is his opinion on Gen. Petraeus' affair supposed to justify why Greenwald refuses to answer is question?

Here is Elizabeth Warren quoting Petraeus:

<...>

In 2010, when he was commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus issued a directive – an order designed to guide conduct and operations – in which he defined the nature of the conflict. The directive stated—

This effort is a contest of wills. Our enemies will do all that they can to shake our confidence and the confidence of the Afghan people. In turn, we must continue to demonstrate our resolve to the enemy. We will do so through our relentless pursuit of the Taliban and others who mean Afghanistan harm, through our compassion for the Afghan people, and through the example we provide to our Afghan partners.

He then said that:

We must continue – indeed, redouble – our efforts to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum. Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause. If we use excessive force or operate contrary to our counterinsurgency principles, tactical victories may prove to be strategic setbacks.

Our military leaders recognize that our moral values need not conflict with our strategy. As we reflect on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as we prepare for the future use of military force, we must remember this as well.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024572902#post6
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
14. Ricks calls out Greenwald's hypocrisy on Russia, and you repost a 2012 article
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:43 PM
Mar 2014

on Ricks because that means something?

Greenwald's hypocrisy on Russia still stands. Thanks for another opportunity to point it out.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
20. thanks for posting this
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 02:51 PM
Mar 2014

Ricks shows his stance in that interview. He covers for Petraeus by not acknowledging the fact that the danger to the country in the general's behavior was BLACKMAILABILITY. It is unconscionable for a journalist of his position to deflect that reality by claiming "no harm no foul" in Petraeus' illicit acts.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tom Ricks Does Gen. Petra...