Petraeus' Pig Lipstick

[bigtree]

from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/petraeus-pig-lipstick_b_60416.html


by Chris Weigant at: ChrisWeigant.com

{snip}

The good general is supposed to be impartial, non-political, and non-partisan, and he never forgets birthdays. OK, I made that last one up. But it is in keeping with the other fictional parts of the story.

Here is Exhibit A for why this is pure hokum. General Petraeus wrote this op-ed article for the Washington Post on September 26, 2004. Note the timing -- this was just a month and a half before the upcoming presidential election.

This article is important to read for anyone who believes all the "impartial" manure the White House has been spreading around. Because it reads like a first draft of his September report to Congress. It's worth quoting at length: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49283-2004Sep25?language=printer)

Battling for Iraq

By David H. Petraeus
Sunday, September 26, 2004

Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered.

When Petraeus' op-ed article was published, 1,050 American soldiers had died in Iraq. Since it was published, over 2,600 more have perished.

But that's not the point. Petraeus was shortsighted and didn't predict the future accurately. That can be forgiven. What absolutely cannot be forgiven is the fact that six weeks before a presidential election, a military officer wrote an op-ed for a leading newspaper that painted a rosy picture of the future of Iraq (which has since proven to be false). This is meddling in American politics, which military officers are just not supposed to do.

Which is why portraying Petraeus as some sort of rational voice on the war is ridiculous on the face of it. He has already proven that he will do all whatever it takes to help George Bush in any way he can. Write an op-ed to influence the election? Sure, no problem, George!

Which is also why it's a safe bet that Petraeus' long-awaited September report to Congress is going to present the situation in the best possible light, both for Petraeus and for President Bush. Petraeus is going to use his report to blow sunshine up the skirt of the American public.

Lipstick on the pig, indeed.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Petraeus was in charge of training at the time

WHEN SO MANY WEAPONS USED BY "TRAINING" IRAQIS DISAPPEARED.

[liberal N proud]

2. Petraeus is part of the regime

That is why he is such a good little soldier and leading the war in Iraq. Bu$h knew he wouldn't talk back or tell the truth about the real situation within Iraq.