Cheating on the Exam

by matt at 6:00 am on September 11th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Iraq War

“I was thrown out of N.Y.U. my freshman year. . . for cheating on my metaphysics final. You know, I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me.” – Woody Allen

I really tried to watch General David Petraeus‘ testimony this morning, and given the importance attached to it for the last six months, I feel bad that I didn’t make it much past his opening statement. I came close to my limit after watching Rep Duncan “Two types of fruit” Hunter assert that he “knows” that Petraeus’ testimony had no association with the administration, then go on to claim that Petraeus’ trademark is integrity, followed by the even more buffoonish Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s invocation of “The Greatest Generation” with regards to the soldiers in Iraq. After Petraeus opened up with his own statement assuring everyone that his testimony was his own, he followed up with more charts and graphs than a Ross Perot campaign event. I cried uncle and decided that a nice long bike ride by the bay was a better use of my time and better for my sanity.

I’m not going to argue the numbers because their basis is classified. I find this more than a little appalling because it amounts to a big game of “trust us,” played by people who long ago traded away their credibility, including Petraeus in his now-infamous election season Washington Post op-ed. Luckily I didn’t see Petraeus’ closing statement and only read about it later:

He closed by saying “it remains an enormous privilege to soldier again in Iraq with America’s new ‘Greatest Generation.’”

The Greatest Generation is a very specific phrase, and until now, I haven’t heard it used to describe anything but WWII-era soldiers and civic leaders. Ed Gillespie isn’t working at the White House for nothing, and this has his prints all over it. But that’s just a small tell in what has been one long elaborate bluff. Petraeus was hand picked to execute a think tank strategy the President had already bought. Given his willingness to shill (and be proven wrong), the idea that his testimony wasn’t coordinated with his commander-in-chief is laughable. Add to that this administration’s track record of micro-managing everything, down to its willingness to break the law in order to brief government agencies on politics, and you have reasonable doubt at the very least.

In a related point I’ve been meaning to make for a while now, I’ve been waiting for a linguist somewhere to comment on the importance of the General’s name being “Petraeus.” There have been a lot of commanders in the wars of the last six years. Tommy Franks even led both invasions. But none have been granted the near-mythic standing bestowed on Petraeus. Journalists and politicians who don’t even sit on the military committees speak of him in hushed tones, befitting a legend, or at least someone with a winning record. And for the better part of this year, everyone has been eagerly anticipating his report as if it would be instantly annexed into the Bible itself. It’s no coincidence that “Petraeus” sounds like a Greek or Roman god. Would all of Washington be hanging on the words of General Abizaid, General Shinseki, General Sanchez, General Odierno or General Shalikashvili? I don’t think this is a coincidence either. Hmmm…where else has a man’s name secured him an assignment…? Oh, right:

major_major.png

Colonel Cathcart: What’s your name?

Captain Major: Major, sir.

Colonel Cathcart: I didn’t ask your rank, I asked your name.

Captain Major: No..ah..no, sir. I’m a Captain. My..uh…my name is Major. Captain Major.

Colonel Cathcart: (to Colonel Korn) Just about as clear as mud, isn’t it.

Colonel Korn: (to Colonel Cathcart) That’s what it’s just about as clear as alright.

Colonel Cathcart: Well, listen Captain. Here’s the point: You’re familiar with Major DeLuth, the squadron commander?

Captain Major: Yes sir, he’s a fine man sir.

Colonel Cathcart: Was.

Captain Major: Uh…sir?

Colonel Cathcart: Major DeLuth is dead.

Captain Major: I’m extremely distraught to hear that sir.

Colonel Cathcart: You may be distraught, but he’s dead. Shot down over Perugia this afternoon. That’ll teach him to go fooling around on bombing missions when he’s supposed to be working in the office.

Captain Major: Sir, I don’t see what all…

Colonel Cathcart: It means we’re going to need a new squadron commander…

Colonel Korn: …and you’re the only Major available on our headquarters staff.

Captain Major: No, Major is my name, not my rank.

Colonel Cathcart: That’s close enough for me, Major. Consider yourself a Major now.

Captain Major: Sir, I…I don’t know anything about being a squadron commander.

Colonel Cathcart: We all have to make sacrifices Major.

*Thinking of defending Petraeus’ truthiness? Please be prepared to discuss the odds involved with “Greatest Generation” independently appearing in his statement and Ros-Lehtinen’s.

Comments

  1. sarabeth wrote:

    The NYT has a succint summary of the Petraeus-Crocker show:

    For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday

    That’s it, in a nutshell. No honest accounting, no fresh look, no new plan.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 6:25 am

  2. JimC wrote:

    *Thinking of defending Petraeus’ truthiness? Please be prepared to discuss the odds involved with “Greatest Generation” independently appearing in his statement and Ros-Lehtinen’s.

    I can only assume that your challenge here is to show that the invocation of the term “Greatest Generation” by both Ge. Petraeus and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen only proves that there was some sort of collusion between Petraeus and Republicans in preparing his report. However the term “Greatest Generation” has already been used prior to this by others (here on Aug 2nd, 2007) in reference to our soldiers in Iraq ( here (July 15, 2007), here (Aug 17, 2007)

    Gen. Petraeus speaking to Alan Colmes on his radio program on Aug 8, 2007:

    PETRAEUS: Well, I would say that – will (ph) remind them that all of America appreciates enormously what they’re doing and that they really should be very, very proud of what they’re part of.

    Tom Brokaw, who, as you know, wrote the book, “The Greatest Generation” about the World War II generation was with us one day and after he saw all that our troopers were engaged in, he turned me to me before leaving and said to me, surely, this is the new greatest generation.

    I really agreed with that then and I still do very much. They’re great Americans, special in so many ways and we’re very fortunate to have them serving in uniform serving our country.

    And Again in a letter to the troops on Mar 15, 2007:

    Tom Brokaw spent some time with the unit I was privileged to command in Iraq a few years ago and, after seeing all that our troopers were doing, he said to me: “You know, General, the World War II generation may have been ‘the Greatest Generation,’ but the soldiers I’ve seen today surely must be ‘the new Greatest Generation’.” I agreed with him then, and I agree with him even more now. You should, in short, be quietly proud not just of what you’re doing and how you’re doing it, but also of the individuals on your left and right with whom you’re privileged to serve.

    And again on April 30, 2007

    Does this disprove collusion? No, but it cast serious doubt on your assumption.

    So given that, I say that the odds are not all that incredible since the reference has been made publicly for quite some time now and by those other than Ge. Petraeus.

    So does that satisfy “be prepared to discuss the odds involved with “Greatest Generation” independently appearing in his statement and Ros-Lehtinen’s.” challenge?

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 9:03 am

  3. matt wrote:

    i’ll admit that it’s better than the drivel i would have expected from you.

    but if you can’t accept that, given all we know about coordination between the white house and whomever happens to be speaking in public, and given revelations about the petraeus report admittedly being written by the white house before becoming inoperative, no, this doesn’t cast serious doubt on my assumption.

    setting aside coordination, petraeus dirtied himself by not revealing how his numbers – alone in painting the picture he and bush wanted – were calculated. surely math isn’t worthy of classified status now. how is it that every truly independent, disinterested accounting comes up with a much bleaker situation? just coincidence i guess. lots of that the last six years.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 9:18 am

  4. JimC wrote:

    given revelations about the petraeus report admittedly being written by the white house before becoming inoperative

    I wasn’t aware of this, can you provide a link?

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 9:46 am

  5. matt wrote:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story

    Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

    And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 9:56 am

  6. JimC wrote:

    I emailed the authors of that article because Gen. Petraeus explicitly testified that he wrote his testimony himself. So either he lied outright or the reports from nearly a month ago were wrong. So I asked them about this. I will let you know if I get a response…

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 10:30 am

  7. matt wrote:

    you go girl.

    except that there is a difference between “testimony” and “report” in theory if not in practice. there’s a fine line, but the flip flop was laid down even before petraeus even started talking yesterday. this certainly colors anything he says, but doesn’t make the authors of the piece liars – they were talking about (and quoting administration officials on) something else.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 10:39 am

  8. JimC wrote:

    I already got a response back:

    “The report comes out later this week from the white house. The testimony, or assessment, by Petraeus is his own.”

    So a report to come out later is the thing being written by the Whitehouse, Gen. Petraeus’ testimony/assessment is in fact his own and questions about who authored his testimony appear to be conflating the two (not saying you conflated the two but it appears that this same article has been used as a basis to do just that).

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 10:53 am

  9. matt wrote:

    i’m not conflating anything, i made that very clear.

    if you can’t see a pattern of ghostwritting, you’re not looking. for months, they said it was petraeus’ report. then all of a sudden it is the white house report. then shortly after that revelation, word comes that it’s never going to be released. this isn’t how things work in a democracy, and it’s yet another example of bush hiding behind the troops, even if the troop he’s hiding behind is one of his fellow political hacks.

    and before you start crying for petraeus’ honor, re-read his 2004 op-ed. pure politics.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 11:05 am

  10. matt wrote:

    also:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20712196

    NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 11:09 am

  11. JimC wrote:

    they said it was petraeus’ report. then all of a sudden it is the white house report

    I understand what you are saying now, that the “Petraeus” report is something entirely different than what Petraeus wrote for his assessment and testimony and that the Administration has been billing it as the “Petraeus” report when in fact it shouldn’t have even had his name on it.

    Well, I pretty much done trying to defend anything from Bush’s admin (unless it is warranted) but I trust in Petraeus (even given any criticism over the 2004 op-ed).

    He is a good soldier and was unanimously confirmed to do a tough job, so either we trust him to do it or the democrats need to sound off like they have a pair and take the necessary actions to stop this war. The barking without the bite doesn’t do anyone any good….

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 11:34 am

  12. matt wrote:

    (unless it is warranted)

    as opposed to?

    He is a good soldier

    that depends, doesn’t it? you might like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if his expert critics are right, he’s nothing more than a shill. and the independent numbers at least cast credible doubt. and by obscuring his methodology, he adds weight to this doubt.

    the democrats don’t have a pair between them. but that’s not equivalent to a general possibly falsifying conditions. you give him the benefit of the doubt, but call them pussies when they do the same? which is it?

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 11:46 am

  13. sarabeth wrote:

    Sure, Pet … Pet … Pet … Pet … Petraeus is an honorable man. (Aren’t they all?)

    So honorable that when Bush looked around him, and couldn’t find a general he could listen to, when Bush stood there in his emperor’s new clothes and asked: “Is there no general who will put on kneepads for me?”, Petraeus decided the only honorable thing to do was to put up his hand.

    Yes, definitely a tough job. But he’s been doing it exceedingly well so far, hasn’t he?

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 11:52 am

  14. sarabeth wrote:

    Sorry, I should have said honorable and forthright:

    Sen. Robert Menendez: If the commander in chief said to you, Gen. Petraeus, how many more years do American soldiers have to continue in Iraq, what would your answer to him be?

    Gen. David Petraeus: I would give a forthright answer, Senator: I cannot predict that.

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 12:21 pm

  15. JimC wrote:

    Sorry, I should have said honorable and forthright

    Is there something wrong with his answer?

    Posted 11 Sep 2007 at 12:54 pm

  16. sarabeth wrote:

    Try this little thought experiment.

    You ask Hillary Obama Edwards a difficult question. They look you in the eye, tell you they’re going to give you a forthright answer,and then they totally dodge the question.

    You’d go away perfectly satisfied, wouldn’t you?

    Posted 12 Sep 2007 at 4:58 am

  17. JimC wrote:

    Try this little thought experiment.

    You ask Hillary Obama Edwards a difficult question. They look you in the eye, tell you they’re going to give you a forthright answer,and then they totally dodge the question.

    You’d go away perfectly satisfied, wouldn’t you?

    Yeah, that experiment, I would not be surprised about a dodged question from any politician, however, I don’t think Petreaus dodged that question. I think he gave the correct answer, which is: He didn’t know and wouldn’t try to make up some bogus answer.

    Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 7:11 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*


«
»