This is NOT about Larry Craig. It ***IS*** about David Petraeus.

[Stinky The Clown]

The September report, we now know, will be written by the White House and not the general.

This poll is real simple ...... Do you think Petraeus is a trustworthy man?

[frogcycle]

1. far, far from it

the corruption was rampant on his watch early in the war - he clearly was aware and condoning

It led to the purported suicide, more likely murder, of Colonel Westhusing.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3487227.html

He was hand-picked by gwb to take over only after he agreed to support bush's cockamamie "surge" and agreed to serve as the "general on the ground" bush could use as his excuse for his continued recklessness.

Chances are they have dirt on him. He will do EXACTLY as told.

[Webster Green]

2. Not if he's working for the war-chimp..

I would assume that the military is just as politicized as every other government department under the chimp administration, and only chimp-bots remain in the top ranks.

[mike_c]

3. normally I'd answer that I don't have sufficient information to judge him...

...but before I wrote that I stopped and realized that I do not trust him, plainly and simply, and that goes against the grain. So I thought for a bit about why I don't trust him-- the answers are not simple, and they are deeply personal, so I'll make no pretenses about their objectivity or relevance. Still, I don't trust Petraeus one bit.

Partly, I think, it's because he serves an utterly untrustworthy master. I understand that he might still be a man of the highest integrity, but that begs questions about his intelligence and moral courage. On the one hand he might not be smart enough to understand the threat his service to the Bush Administration poses to democracy and world peace-- which I doubt is the case. On the other hand, he might know it, but be afraid for his career should he reveal his doubts. Neither makes for a trustworthy man, IMO, because trustworthiness implies that one can be counted on to do the right thing, even when it is hard.

Partly, it's because I do not trust the military as an institution, so that gives Petraeous a double whammy in the untrustworthy master department. The U.S. military has allowed itself to be used as a tool for imperialist foreign policy-- largely, I think, because of the ambitions of its officers who are all too willing to fight for fascism if that gives them the means to advance their careers.

Petraeous is only one actor in this tragicomedy-- Congress dances counterpoint to his footwork while the administration pulls his strings. Part of the reason I don't trust Petraeous is that he will certainly try to slot himself into that dance so that everyone can do a few turns, congratulate one another for being so patriotic and persevering, then get on with the theft and slaughter and the general officer's career burdens, shaking their heads with regretful manifest destiny.

No, I don't trust Petraeous at all. My reasons are not wholly rational or logical, but there they are.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Absolutely NOT. Just another boot licker for the psycho. We'll see when the WH

writes the report, cherry picks what they want and Patraeus says nothing....OR he will write what they want (WH stenographer) so he can then say they didn't cherry pick. Either way, he's not to be trusted. NO ONE that works for the cabal should be trusted.

[lonestarnot]

5. Where is the HELL NO box?