Chris Matthews on Petraeus' testimony

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by fleinn, Sep 16, 2007.

  1. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/09/i_heard_somethi.html

    In the clip, Matthews seems to be upset about something. And so does Biden.

    But you know, I'm not tuned into radio america, so I really don't get what's going on here.

    Is Matthews' problem that the general just works for Bush, and that he doesn't believe in all his talking points? Does he really think there's only one policy- maker in the nation, the "commander in chief"? And that he commands where troops should be deployed, in what role they should be used, or what the military is capable of?

    What's Biden on about - he hasn't managed to provoke a change in the Bush- administration's thinking, nor has he used his position in the senate to question the wisdom of the war, or seek to limit it in any way. Is he lamenting that Bush has tricked him and his colleagues into wasting troops and money for nothing, since he just realised that's what happened, now that Petraeus didn't loudly cheer for the mission in this particular comment from the otherwise glowing testimony? Did either of them at any time believe the mission did, in some way, make America safer?

    So - what's going on here? ..Suggestions? Is Biden tuning in to the narrative that the american people at one time supported the mission, but were misled into believing it would ultimately be worth it? And so should now support withdrawal? If so, for what reason? That he cares so much about their well- being? Is it just an opportunity for an emotional display, or something of that sort?

    ..I don't get it.
     

  2. Petraeus Out of Step With US Top Brass

    Gareth Porter: "In sharp contrast to the lionization of General David Petraeus by members of the US Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (Centcom), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad in March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting. Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit' and added, 'I hate people like that,' the sources say."

    If I were Fallon, I'd watch my back: Independent minds are anathema to the Bush administration.

    Rest of article here
     
  3. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Wow. You don't hear that kind of thing very often.

    See, that's what I'm so curious about - the rest of the sychophants in a way escape being labeled brown- nosed weaklings - because it's so unpopular to defend the president's actions. I.e, it takes courage to stand up for it, whatever it is, and there's some respect for that, it seems.

    And then Petraeus turns up and fails to tell all the narratives perfectly. And the image of impartiality and honesty and all sorts of things vanish - and he's just an ass- kisser.

    Or - so you'd imagine, right?
     

Share This Page