General Petraeus – A Dishonorable Liar?

by on September 17th, 2007

Obtaining and entrenching power for the sake of being powerful is an ancient curse of humankind. By sword or by vote the contenders for power have historically thrust and parried, lied, and denied their way into powerful positions. The traditional behavior of those who seek to obtain and entrench has not changed in 10,000 years; bully, cajole, slander, and defame those are just a few of the operational mores of the contenders of power.

Congress orders the general to come before them to deliver a progress report on the status of the war; before the general says one word, he is told that his assessment is wrong; it is wrong because the generals report was influenced by political hacks from the White House; indeed, the suggestion was made that the general was not above “cooking the books” in order to deliver a report that could be considered favorable. Furthermore, some Democratic congress persons venomously declared that tangible evidence that the war was turning into a positive instead of a negative was erroneous and inconsistent with other credible reports.

If the nation cannot trust the judgment of the general in charge of the war then, I agree with Senator Reed, truly, the war is lost. Imagine the status of the nation if the general could be lying to his fellow citizens; imagine the implications, consider the risks to the nation if a general officer confirmed by Congress to serve in such a post was a dishonorable liar? Now let’s study the motivation of the Democratic presidential candidates they all must adhere to the increasingly powerful left-leaning political lobbyist and constituency; a constituency of anti-war themed voters who insist on the relatively immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Which of the parties are most believable: The general or the politician?

The nation is at war. All in power should address the issues related to war in a sober non political manner; of course there is sufficient reasoning to express opposition; but, one cannot in this time of war simply express contrariness for sake of being contrary.

The implied objective of the Democratic Party is to win the 2008 election; the war is an ongoing benefit of the Democrats; if the war goes badly, so much the better for the Democrats. If however, the war improves, troops come home; the region is secured; well, that’s not good, the Democrats will not have their most prestigious issue to banter about.

It is in the interest of power that the Democrats serve the nation as contrarians; these contenders will sacrifice the best interest of the nation in order to obtain the White House in the next election; these modern day Carthaginians are pretenders and charlatans eager to slash the general with scurrilous innuendo; they are malicious and callous in their condemnation of the very general they all voted 100% to confirm just a few months ago.

If the general has cooked the books, if the general lied, deceived, acted in a manner other than confirmed by Congress to deliver; he should be immediately relieved of command and court marshaled.

I noticed despite Senator Clinton’s accusatory remarks, she did not move to court marshal the general… I wonder why?

William Robert Barber