Media's sycophancy toward Petraeus "depressingly similar" to that toward Powell in 2003

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: Fri, Sep 21, 2007
"Media Matters," by Jamison Foser
Did that voice inside you say, "I've heard it all before"?

In August, Sidney Blumenthal noted similarities between Gen. David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Colin Powell:

"As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to deliver his report in September on the "surge" in Iraq, he is elevated into the ultimate reliable source, just as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's sterling reputation was exploited for his delivery of the case for invasion before the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, a date that will live in mendacity, for every statement he made was later revealed to be false; Powell regretted publicly that it was an everlasting "blot" on his good name. ... He was Petraeus before Petraeus, the good soldier before the good soldier, window-dressing before window-dressing."

As Blumenthal observed, Powell, like Petraeus, enjoyed a "sterling reputation" that was used to enhance the credibility of his case and to discourage scrutiny....

***

Why dwell on that now? Because the media's coverage of David Petraeus in 2007 is depressingly similar to their treatment of Colin Powell in 2003....

***

One of the key differences between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in the former, no one is exempt from criticism because of his or her title. America elects presidents; we do not serve kings. In 2003, the news media believed everything Colin Powell said simply because of who he was and shouted down any who dared disagree. They based their faith in Powell's presentation on their faith in Powell -- on their stipulation that he was honorable and honest. The results were disastrous.

In 2007, another highly decorated military veteran was sent out by the Bush administration to make its case for war. Again, much of the media uncritically accepted his claims and shouted down those who disagreed. As with Powell, David Petraeus' personal honor, stipulated to by the media, seemed reason enough to believe him. No need to examine the evidence.

And this time, much of the media cheered on the United States Senate as it formally condemned American citizens for daring to be impolite in their criticism of the government. Those journalists are not only repeating the mistakes of 2003, they're adding new ones.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220002?f=h_column

[bemildred]

1. "Lickspittle sycophants" will find some suitable ass to kiss. nt

[PATRICK]

2. Sterling veneer

was also a common fiction. Robert Parry laid the dirt on Powell as cover-up stooge and career self-promoter. the archives of consortium.com or his books probably could have been a resource other journalists might have consulted before evaluating the value of the sterling shine of the universally irreproachable respectable and magnificently honored gross disappointment that is the real Powell. We already have the scoop on this ladder snake AND the natural "Betray-us" nickname from his own troops, his own words and desires to rise to high political office. The latter, his desire to be president, is the root of the whole dangerous dishonor of having the military meld into political control via corruption, venal gain and personal advancement.

The parallel is much much worse than even Blumenthal states because the fairly easy truths behind the unquestioned images that lead to unquestioned puffing and pimping shows nothing but falsehood. The aura of tragedy salvages no Macbeth, no singular blot on an otherwise stalwart record. it is all false. Otherwise these goons never would have gotten anywhere in the Bush dynasty. Not one promotion or assignment. They have ONLY been burned by the first expectations of miscalculated strangers, like Souter or General Smedley Butler. That is why the supply of absolutely trustworthy stooges is so limited and why they usually expect advancement up to the limit of their usefulness to the regime. The word honor and mistake confuses the issue. It is pristine evil, treason, greed, lack of character, lack of dedication to any greater good that actually might be good.

It is still all too clubby in the upper circles that is now a rank cesspool of failure, complicity and self willed blindness.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Great post, PATRICK -- thank you! nt

[pansypoo53219]

4. but but but

petrayus has all them pretty colored and sprkly things on his chest! them things says he's a good soldier.
right? RIGHT?!?

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Did you see this in the article -- about Wolf Blitzer walking viewers through the medals?

"There is an obvious commonality between Powell and Petraeus that no doubt drives some of the media sycophancy toward them, particularly the incredulity at any suggestion that they might not be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Both are longtime military men, and highly decorated ones at that. As I noted last week, Blitzer actually walked CNN viewers through an examination of the medals on Petraeus' chest that was more detailed than many news reports about the testimony he delivered."

Amazing!

[JNelson6563]

6. I'm the first rec?

:shrug:

[DeepModem Mom]

7. I know -- this is a point I didn't think of until I saw this piece. nt

[KG]

8. it's no coincidence that both powell and patreus are career rear escelon ass-kissers

they could both be counted on to tell whatever lies they were ordered to tell.

[Solly Mack]

9. I well remember the happy attitudes toward Powell when I knew of

his reputation from within (the military) and it wasn't a good one.

People used to get so mad at me for saying anything negative about Powell (in real life)

and this went back well before 2003

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Thanks for an inside view, Solly Mack. nt

[merh]

10. They only recognize the military leaders that say what they want

Desert Caution
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01

TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer