Simple question. Did General David Petraeus, betray the American people with his assessment of Iraq?

[trumad]

And did he betray the American people by being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration?

I think he did.

[NightWatcher]

1. he's playing for his 2012 presidential run

just being a 'good little soldier' for bush

[yurbud]

2. Yes. As a military man, his duty is to follow orders and make the policy work, but not to LIE about

it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. yes, he did.

[havocmom]

4. Yep. Betrayed us and the troops

There was a rather harsh old tradition in the days of 'nam, and while I wouldn't advocate it, I am beginning to understand that there might actually be legitimate reasons why the action could be the lesser evil.

[no_hypocrisy]

AMEN!!!!!

[EFerrari]

5. Yes, he did. Worse, he betrayed the troops serving under him

to whom he has an even more immediate responsibility.

And, it wasn't the first time. Expect him to do it again in March.

[Solly Mack]

8. What sfexpat2000 said

[NNN0LHI]

6. Of course he did and he is no idiot either so that makes it worse

It makes him culpable.

Don

[cali]

7. Sure, but calling him a cutsie name wasn't the

right way to attack him. They could have said everything they said in the body of the ad, but ixnayed the namecalling, and they would have give less of a handle for the repukes to latch onto.

[EVDebs]

11. They should have just quoted Adm Fallon , LOL !

an "ass kissing little chickensh*#"

[ljm2002]

9. I suppose it really depends...

...on his motivations. I cannot see what his motivations are. He may actually believe that it is salvageable, and that he is the man for the job. That fits in with what others have said about his perhaps grandiose ambitions.

But ultimately I disagree with the blandly reassuring, mostly fact-free assessment that he chose to give. So whether it is a betrayal or not, I leave to others. It is still misguided, wrongheaded, stupid, and in the service of evil. Enough reason to dismiss it out of hand.

[DaveJ]

10. Well, he certainly lied... but to be honest....

I don't the connection between lying and betraying. I'm sure he feels that he's lying in order to protect us, and that the end justifies the means.

[cui bono]

14. I think he's lying in order to protect, and probably to have gained, his 4 stars.

[DaveJ]

19. My current working theory is...

Not sure if this goes along with what you are thinking, but I suspect that BushCo is not in control of the situation, that Generals and other top security personnel are. He lied for them, not for BushCo. Politicians come and go but security plans are not going to change based on that, and they are running everything now. Just a thought.

[cui bono]

31. So you think there's been a military coup to some degree?

I would tend to doubt that. I think most military personnel see the futility, and more importantly, the danger of these actions. The generals who spoke the truth and gave honest assessments were drummed out. The only ones who stay are the ones who say just what BushCo wants them to say. Did you see this little vid about a phone call Petraeus received during the hearings? Now it's not proof positive but I don't doubt that phone call happened, what was actually said cannot be proved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x53795

But why would the military want this occupation to continue? They feel it's broken the military, it's not getting us anywhere. The only people benefiting from it at this point are the oil companies (although their big payoff, the Iraq Oil Deal hasn't come through yet and requires our occupation to do so), the contractors, a group which includes Cheney and Bush because he needs to stall this thing so the Dems will have to deal with it once he's gone. Then he can claim that they ruined what he had going so well.

And do you think Cheney would allow that? I don't think he would. I do believe Bush is Cheney's puppet, of course, but I think the military is following orders and that the only way to get them to do so is to find a "yes man" as they seem to have in Petreaus.

Also, I just heard that Petraeus has already said he plans on running for the presidency in 2012, so that adds something to the whole thing. So he has something at stake in "succeeding" in Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/13/petraeus-president-2/

[superkia]

12. Yes and I hope hes called Betrayus the rest of his life!

[cui bono]

13. Yes he did. He's not supposed to sell the war. He's supposed to manage it.

He allowed himself to be used as a propaganda mouthpiece and that is shameful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x53795

[Ganja Ninja]

15. If he gave anything less than an honest assessment ...

which it appears he did, then he did betray us. His political loyalties should have no bering on his assessment of the situation in Iraq. You're either a good soldier or a good Republican, not both.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Who is his superior? The American people or the Commander in Chief?

Hey- I'm not happy with him either but the military has its own set of rules.

[cui bono]

32. That doesn't give him the right to lie and try to sell the war.

His job is to run the war, not spew propaganda in order to sell it.

If the Dems would just swear people in ffs!

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Yes.

[Hatchling]

18. Yes.

No question about it.

[Hydra]

20. It wasn't his call

but he could have given us the real facts.

We all know that nothing happens here without Cheney's stamp of approval. Petraeus would have been dismissed had he not presented the pre-approved version. As annoying as it is, it would likely have done no real good for him to have bucked them at this juncture.

The better point for truth telling would have been Colin Powell at the UN.

[EFerrari]

21. What adults do is their call. n/t

[Hydra]

25. Yes, it is

but that leads to a very important fact- the only people left in the high-level military are the ones who know how to keep their mouth shut or people who are willing to sell their souls for career gain. Everyone else has been purged or threatened with it.

In the same way that we know that the Supreme Court is in Shrub's pocket, so is the Military.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Yes.

But that is till no excuse for "name calling", which is the issue many have focused on.

[Quixote1818]

23. He is a fucking ass wipe, sun of a bitch, chicken shit, un patriotic, scum bag!

Thats how I feel about him!

[emanymton]

24. No. He Did What He Was Tasked To Do. He Did ...

.
his duty in Iraq in a professional military manner. He reported the results of his actions and efforts. He and the service people are acting as they should; effectively, honorably and bravely. No fault can be attributed to the military in carrying out the mission.
.

[MiniMe]

26. I would say that he betrayed the soldiers that he commands

[rudy23]

27. Yes, that's why they were so enraged about the commercial. It was true and memorable.

And it's sooooo something Rove would do. They're upset because it's their favorite play out of their playbook, and it works. Now "General Betray Us" is a household joke, regular Joe's like us are making that joke around the water coolers and taking credit for it like it's our own. Just like "cut and run", "Obama/Osama", etc. etc.

[jpgray]

28. Yep. Is calling him "betrayus" convincing to anyone but the already convinced? No.

[mistertrickster]

29. Simple answer: yes, he did. nt

[Cameron27]

30. Yes

[future social worker]

33. Maybe

He may have indeed lied. He may have been a mouthpiece for Bush. But when you really think about Bush is indeed his superior. If he did not do as Bush instructed he would have been relieved of his duties. Bush would have brought in a General that would have done this for him and the public would have had a harder time coming up with a little cutsie name. I think Move on chould have spoken their piece with-out the headline. This man was doing his job. One may argue that his job is to serve the public and troops. But if Petreus was fired he would not have been able to stay with the troops. Maybe he should get the benefit of the doubt. He may have other motives. Haven't we all done something bad for the greater good?