The decline of the leftwing netroots into one great, venomous snarl is far advanced, well-known, and much remarked upon by political observers from across the spectrum. But even given its deserved reputation for poisonous invective, the assault mounted against General David Petraeus surprises. General Petraeus made the unforgivable mistake in their eyes of appearing on my radio program and answering questions. (The transcript is here and the audio is here.) Both because he agreed to be interviewed by a journalist favorable to victory and supportive of President Bush and because his answers suggest progress is being made in Iraq, Petraeus has been savaged by leftist bloggers big and little.
Among center-right bloggers and pundits, the reaction of Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was typical. “Every Member of Congress should have to read [the transcript]. Reynolds opined –the expected reaction of anyone interested in the facts about the surge. Others on the center-right applauded the general for agreeing to an extended interview and urging more, not fewer engagements with the press. For a couple of examples of thoughtful responses to the general’s answers, see The Belmont Club and In From The Cold. (“The exceptionally high tempo of special forces activities suggests that they have been ‘unleashed’ in Iraq, and are engaging the enemy with deadly efficiency,” concludes the retired spook who is “In From The Cold.” “While most media reports focus on conventional units, engaged in large-scale operations such as the recent clearing of Baquba, there is another equally important conflict being waged in the shadows. And that’s where Al Qaeda is taking a major beating.” The Belmont Club’s Wretchard noted that in the interview “Petraeus gives us a glimpse into the sharp end of the war. The kinetic battle,” and he goes on to speculate on the long-term impact of the war’s tactics on the American military.)
Analysis of what the general actually said was in short supply among the critics. Even before he had read the transcript, Andrew Sullivan launched into one of his trademarks explosions of hysteria and slander. “I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot,” Sullivan declared. “I'll wait for the transcript,” he continued, before not waiting for the transcript. “But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”(emphasis added.)
Even for a scribbler as discredited and cartoonish as Sullivan has become, the casual slander of General Petraeus’ integrity is breathtaking. Sullivan’s smear, however, was far from the worst the anti-war crowd produced in their pre-emptive assault on Petraeus’ status report on the surge, due in September. The famed “constitutional rights litigator” (self-described) Glenn Greenwald denounced General Petraeus for using “White House talking points” and unveiled how he will be working overtime to dispute Petraeus’ September assessment:
Despite the Mandate Orthodoxy that Gen. Petraeus be treated as the Objective, Unassailably Credible Oracle for how we are doing in Iraq and whether we are winning, his track record of quite dubious claims over the last several years about the war strongly negates that view. It ought to go without saying that no military commander -- particularly in the midst of a disastrous four-year war -- is entitled to blind faith and to be placed above being questioned. It is not only proper, but critically necessary, to subject happy war claims from the military to great scrutiny.
The Atlantic’s Matthew Yglesias also blasted the general’s decision to be interviewed by me (a “lunatic”) and derisively labeled him as “The New Jesus.”
Over at The Carpetbagger Report, a post concluded:
And speaking of Petraeus, what should we expect from him come September? It’s probably best to lower expectations now. Petraeus’ credibility suffered a serious blow this week when he appeared on far-right activist Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and stuck closely to the White House script.
Many of the comments that followed were as vile, an example of which is “Can you call him Betrayus now? He’s just an GOP stooge in a uniform.”
Ron Beasly began his assessment at Gun Toting Liberal with a slander on all active duty generals:
To reach the rank of general you have to be part politician, it has always been that way. A good general is always a general first and a politician second. Those who have been generals first have over the last six years be driven from the service by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. What we have left are men like General Petraeus. Not only a politician but a political hack. We know what he’s going to say in September because he said it all yesterday on wingnut radio, The Hugh Hewitt Show. On cue from Hugh he recited all the administration/neocon talking points.
At Talk Left, “Big Tent Democrat” thinks he’s more respectful of General Petraeus than some of his anti-war colleagues, but he too preemptively attributes deceitfulness to Petraeus in the September assessment:
Does anyone believe that a proud soldier like Petraeus will provide a sense that he can't succeed? Of course he will not. Heck, if he would, would you really want him to be leading the forces? Unlike Glenn, I am not as skeptical of Petraeus' intentions; I just realize he is human and the commander of the operation is not going to be the one to declare his operation a failure.
The paranoia that has gripped the “we must lose in Iraq” forces is exemplified by these graphs at “D-Day” blog:
Continued... |