See UPDATE at foot: Gen. Petraeus subsequently testified to the importance of Iraq to national security.
In the wake of the odious MoveOn.org ad calling our commander in Iraq "General Betray Us," [read Dean Barnett's excellent take here] you might have thought the last thing a responsible member of the media would do would be to accuse other senior officials of "betrayal."
I did say "responsible." On this afternoon's "Hardball," Chris Matthews accused President Bush of "betrayal" for his handling of Iraq.
The "Hardball" host was fuming over Gen. Petraeus's reluctance to state whether the war in Iraq would make America safer.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: He couldn't say whether what we're doing in Iraq makes America safer or not. He couldn't say whether the lost lives, the misery, the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent are worth the effort in terms of our national security.
View video here
Cut to a clip of Gen. Petraeus responding to a question from Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know, actually. I've not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force - Iraq.
Matthews went apoplectic.
MATTHEWS: This must be a first, an American field commander who can't say whether the sacrifices he's asking of his troops every day and night are worth it to their country. Did General Washington not know the answer in the American Revolution? Did General Eisenhower not know the answer in World War II? What are we doing in Iraq if the very man commanding the war doesn't know if it's doing us any good in terms of our national security? This is the real news of the [pronounced with contempt] so-called Petraeus Report. The general who won't tell how long it will take us to achieve the mission in Iraq can't tell us whether achieving that mission -- should it ever be achieved -- is worth it.
But it gets worse. The person who has to account for this policy of sending and keeping the American army in Iraq isn't some good soldier named Petraeus. It's the president who did the sending and the keeping. That the president continues to hide behind Petraeus, a man who admitted late this afternoon that he's given no thought to the Bush policy of fighting this war in Iraq, is not an acceptance of accountability, but a betrayal of it.
Surely Matthews was aware of the false analogy he had made between Gen. Petraeus and Generals Washington and Eisenhower. The latter were the supreme commanders of wars fought for the very creation and survival of the United States. For all its importance, the war in Iraq is different. As MNF-I commander, Petraeus is charged with a specific mission: accomplishing our nation's objectives in Iraq. As he stated, he is entirely focused on achieving that goal. He is not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, let alone the Secretary of Defense or the Commander-in-Chief.
And surely Matthews was also acutely conscious of his choice of words. To have accused the President of the United States of "betrayal" in the poisonous atmosphere created by the MoveOn.org ad, was nothing less than reprehensible.
UPDATE: In subsequent testimony, Gen. Petraeus did attest to the importance of the Iraq war to national security.
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-In.): "I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question and that was - he asked you - going forward the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer? And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your -- beyond the scope of your responsibilities."
PETRAEUS: Well, I thank you actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly. Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise. But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests -- achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer really, to come back to it is yes. But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down, that was something that really on first glance is something that I would let others -
BAYH: I judge by your response to Senator Graham, that you have given that a little additional thought."
PETRAEUS: Immediately afterwards actually.
BAYH: "That happens to all of us, including those of us on this side of the table.
The general's exchange with Sen. Bayh came just before 6 P.M. EDT, shortly before Matthews went off the air, and after Chris went on his rant at the top of the show. We'll look for Chris to acknowledge Gen. Petraeus's statement tomorrow.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Matthews still "thinks" that
September 11, 2007 - 18:04 ET by TEMatthews still "thinks" that Paul Wolfowitz cooked up a conspiracy in the bowels of the Pentagon to funnel a dog collar to Lyndie England in Iraq so that she could place the dog collar around the neck of an Iraqi prisoner.
As you note, Petraeus' job
September 11, 2007 - 18:51 ET by SMGalbraithAs you note, Petraeus' job is to win in Iraq. How the war in Afghanistan evolves or how events in Pakistan or a dozen-and-one (if not hundred-and-one) other places turns out is beyond his scope. He's a military man assigned a mission to militarily defeat an enemy on one battlefield.
How that victory by itself affect the larger terrorist threat to the homeland is anyone's guess.
If we are able to stabilize Iraq, then clearly Iraq (broadly speaking) as a threat to the US diminishes. We are then safer because, among other results, the terrorists cannot use that nation as a staging ground for operations.
But if elsewhere Pakistan explodes or Iran attacks Israel or al-Qaeda leaves Iraq and turns its attention solely on the US, et cetera, et cetera, then the security of the country (probably) lessens. The threats to the US from Islamists take many different shapes and forms. They're not all Iraqi.
Surely, intelligent and thoughtful people recognize this?
Which just as surely doesn't include the clowns as MSNBC.
SMG
Reworked comment
September 11, 2007 - 20:31 ET by motherbeltFor anyone who read my comment that I removed, I just realized that I ended up saying a lot of what SMGalbraith already said. I tried to reword it and add something, but I'm just so damn mad I can't even think straight right now.
Gen. Petraeus' duty was to do the job he was given in Iraq. PERIOD. Why can't these people understand that? It is interesting how "civilian control" of the military is so flexible. I guess now the Generals are supposed to formulate a vision of extended policy, and argue with the Commander-in-Chief about the best way to achieve it.
They no what they are doing
September 11, 2007 - 20:44 ET by general companyThey do understand it, that is not their objective. Their objective is to give clowns like crissy mat sound bites that they can rant on. The Dems look like fools right now and they are trying to underscore all that is good about Iraq,,,,,,,or anything else for that matter
motherbelt
September 11, 2007 - 20:46 ET by botgyou have just brought something to my attention. What are you angry about? And what gets many conservatives upset? Answer, when people do things that puts the country in jeopardy.
What gets the left angry? When their personal political ambitions are twarted.
Support our Troops
}}---> Don't be such hypocrites!
September 11, 2007 - 20:53 ET by Cool ArrowWe must respect Ubama, Edwards, and Clinton's right to hate what is good about America as well as their right to prove treasonous to the majority of Americans.
The thought of a weasel in the White House will not sit well among the mothers who watch Oprah.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
botg, what made me furious
September 11, 2007 - 21:37 ET by motherbeltbotg, what made me furious today is those morons expecting a General to have an opinion of foreign policy. Were the President a democrat, Gen. Petraeus would not only not be asked his opinion about whether this plan would make America safer, if he dared to venture a remark about it, he would be told in no uncertain terms that that was not in his job description.
And speaking of job descriptions:
I have been trying to find it again but can't. I read earlier today about an anonymous (of course) Senator who said (paraphrasing, and parentheticals mine): No one (in the Senate) wants to call General Petraeus a liar. We expect that our outside groups (such as MoveOn.org) will do that for us.
It just infuriates me that they not only pull this crap, they have the gall to be open about it. And it makes me even madder that they are allowed to get away with it!
so moms
September 11, 2007 - 21:42 ET by botgmy synopsis was correct? You are pieved because you care about the country, they get pissed because they care about themselves.
Support our Troops
Right, botg. All they care
September 11, 2007 - 22:01 ET by motherbeltRight, botg. All they care about is asking silly little questions (cleverly disguised as rambling speeches) and showing how "tough" they are by insulting a four-star General doing his duty to his country and his Commander-in-Chief. It all goes back to the other anonymous Senator or staffer who said if the Petraeus report was good, it would be a big problem for them (Democrats).
So they have to insist, no matter what, that it is NOT good.
They think by abetting failure they can make the country choose democrats to lead. They think Americans have forgotten the Democrat record of tough talk, unanswered bombings, retaliatory attacks on empty buildings in the middle of the night, and retreat from Somalia without avenging the dragging of our dead soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu.
mother
September 11, 2007 - 23:26 ET by botgyou could end your last paragraph with:
all of which lead directly to OBLs 'paper tiger' quote and 911.
BUT, instead of learning from this all the dem(ented)s can do is blame Bush
Support our Troops
}}---> Right again mother
September 11, 2007 - 21:45 ET by Cool ArrowThe general has a mission he is assigned to. He is charged with knowing his enemy, anticipating his moves, and killing him. All else is ancillary to his mission.
The Senate boted unanimosly to entrust our armed forces to him. Absent some action on his part that is contrary to the charge given him, his current detractors are cowardly traitors.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Speaking of Moron.ORG
September 11, 2007 - 23:22 ET by RESTLESS 1I caught Hannity and Colmes earlier, and George Pataki was on. He had a great line to Alan about the "bertay us" ad from Moveon.org. Alan had said that he rejects the term from them, but the Governor shot back that the dem candidates should reject the campaign funds generated by them. Colmes obviously had nothing to say to that. I'm paraphrasing here, and failing to do Pataki justice, but it was a great moment.
That is so true and I hadn't
September 11, 2007 - 22:57 ET by gordonThat is so true and I hadn't ever thought about it in that way. This "head in the sand" stuff will put the liberals in the back of the line every time. Nancy Pelosi has already released a statement saying that the planned troop reduction is "not enough". Perhaps if California's buildings were to be attacked by terrorists, the Pelosi's of this world would wake up and smell the danger. I think the people of New York City by and large get the picture, unfortunately delivered to them COD by people who hate everything this country stands for.
gordon
September 11, 2007 - 23:14 ET by botgi think Tammy Bruce has it perfectly described when she uses "Malignant Narcissism" as one of her catagories for liberal behavior.
Support our Troops
Matthews true colors
September 11, 2007 - 18:22 ET by KC MulvilleMatthews' performance over the last couple days is beyond disgraceful. Yesterday, he interviewed two of the most self-adoring, self-promoting liberals around today: Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org, and Kos himself. The segment was billed as a challenge to the MoveOn.org ad accusing Petraeus of treason; instead, it turned into a free forum where MoveOn and Kos could take potshots at Petraeus without any penalty. Matthews didn't challenge either one; he played the setup man. Matthews' only concern was whether the MoveOn ad might politically backfire; he displayed no discomfort at all with what the ad said.
What was most disgraceful was that instead of challenging MoveOn, he challenged Petraeus ... but without having the fairness or decency to invite anyone to defend Petraeus. Througout Petraeus' testimony, Petraeus set the record straight, but Matthews kept repeating the MoveOn accusations as if they were fact.
As for the question today, and watching him run away into hysteria, he displayed a new level of partisan idiocy. The question was intended to make Petraeus evaluate whether the war in Iraq was making America safer. Warner, more than anyone, knows that a military officer cannot and will not offer opinions on whether the orders given to him by civilian authority are wise or judicious. That was purely TV grandstanding on Warner's part. Matthews distorted Petraeus' refusal to comment on a civilian policy, and chicken-littled it into hysteria.
He doesn't care about the country first. He cares about the Democrat party first.
Chris, your fly's open ...
September 11, 2007 - 18:38 ET by drillanwrChris, your fly's open ...
Matthews is an a$$hat
September 11, 2007 - 18:43 ET by terrigChris Matthews never ceases to amaze me in his absolute lunacy for the dimocraptic party. Matthews cannot understand that some people have a sense of duty, honor and country and he just doesn't get why someone with the General's smarts is serving his country instead of himself like Matthews does. I sometimes listen to these lunatics and wonder how they can look themselves in the mirror each day.
He couldn't say whether the
September 11, 2007 - 18:54 ET by TeddyHe couldn't say whether the President that I worked for was the worst of the modern era, or perhaps even the worst our country's ever had.
Oh, wait. That was me.
Maybe it isn't Chrissy,
September 11, 2007 - 19:12 ET by SportPoliticsworth it, maybe the Coalition kills 99% of Al Qaeda in Iraq then you liberally sensitive bigot carders keep our southern border wide open or whine to let go 5 swarthy sueing muslim imams searched at an inbound airport terminal and it winds up being not so worth it.
What about that you babbling whiner ?
Oh, you would never do such a thing, huh, Chrissy.
Was it worth if for the NYT to expose the SWIFT program ? Was it worth it for you libs to expose the Sprint wiretap cooperation ? Was it worth it for you to shut down rendition ? Are your efforts to shut down Gitmo worth it ?
I guess you've got a lot more to answer for concerning was it worth it than Patreaus does.
Mathews really crossed the line.
September 11, 2007 - 19:21 ET by Gary HallMathews really crossed the line.
Mark, I think that you analyized this very well; the part where Matthews speaks of his view of the president's betryal.
And then, I think that you were spot on with your analysis of the flaw in Matthews mention of Washington and Eisenhower.
However (and when Matthews is so far off base on so much - how does one catch it all), I think you missed a point. Mathews asked Gen. Petraeus's, "Does that [strategy] make America safer?"
But then Matthew's morphs the coversation from, is it "making America Safer" to, "This must be a first, an American field commander who can't say whether the sacrifices he's asking of his troops every day and night are worth it to their country."
Matthews did not ask Petraeus if he thought whether or not the sacrificies the troops are making or worth it.
Unfortunatley, this is not a first. Chris Matthews pushing lies about everything he stages.
(;~>
Good point, Gary. Gen.
September 11, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinGood point, Gary. Gen. Petraeus was never asked if the sacrifices of our troops were justified, yet Matthews twisted the dialogue into that.
Yup
September 11, 2007 - 19:24 ET by well99"Matthews did not ask Petraeus if he thought whether or not the sacrificies the troops are making or worth it.
Unfortunatley, this is not a first. Chris Matthews pushing lies about everything he stages."
Nothing new there.
How again, has the
September 11, 2007 - 20:04 ET by blingbling65How again, has the occupation in Iraq made us safer?
How again, has the
September 11, 2007 - 20:10 ET by SMGalbraithHow again, has the occupation in Iraq made us safer?
Again, among other things, some of us learned after 9/11 that a failed state (such as Afghanistan) can be used by the Islamists as a base of operations for attacks against pro-western, pro-US forces as well as against our interests and people (embassies, ships, civilians, et cetera).
A failed Iraqi state will be disaster for the US, our friends in the region and pro-western/anti-Islamists people in the Middle East.
Not to mention a humanitarian disaster that could spread throughout the region.
Our presence in Iraq will, we hope, prevent (or at least mitigate) all of the above.
Next question?
SMG
"A failed Iraqi state will
September 11, 2007 - 20:19 ET by blingbling65"A failed Iraqi state will be disaster for the US"
Right,
But it wasn't a failed state until AFTER we bombed the hell out of it,
How did doing that make us safer?
But it wasn't a failed
September 11, 2007 - 20:30 ET by SMGalbraithBut it wasn't a failed state until AFTER we bombed the hell out of it,
Sorry, it is absurd - and patently false - to state the "we bombed the hell out of it."
The reason Iraq may become a failed state is due to the actions by al-Qaeda (remember them?), other outside groups (Iran, Syria, Wahhabi extremists from Saudi Arabia) and internal radical groups aligned with the former Baathist and Sunnis and radical Shi'as (aligned with Iran) that do not want to have a trans-sectarian government that includes the Sunnis.
This mix of extremists do not want to have a democratic, pro-western, pro-US government. They are causing all of the destruction that is taking place and that risks sending Iraq into complete chaos.
We need to prevent that from happening. If we don't, the danger to the US and our interests and allies in the region will increase.
SMG
These people, had they been
September 11, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Chris NormanThese people, had they been alive during the war for independence, would have snidely asked after the British victories in New York, "So, how has this war helped make us independent?"
"But it wasn't a failed
September 11, 2007 - 20:49 ET by Conservative_in_mass."But it wasn't a failed state until AFTER we bombed the hell out of it"
If the U.S. military did not have to deal with the absurd rules of engagement, and were able to bring to bear the full force of their arsenal, then Iraq WOULD have been bombed back into the stone age.
This is one of the reasons we still are having difficulties there. You cannot fight a war without it becoming messy.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
blingbling, you ask "are we safer?"
September 11, 2007 - 21:09 ET by RJYou say "How again, has the occupation in Iraq made us safer?"
If you don't consider us "safer", IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT...meaning the fault of the left. Typically, though, you want to blame others for your own actions.
The difficulties Iraq is having in building a stable state trace directly back to the left. Almost from the beginning, they've encouraged the elements who want an unstable country to believe America wouldn't have the heart to follow through. Viet Nam is the lesson they draw from, and, true to form, the left is attempting to do it again.
In fact, I've heard that there's a current al-Qaeda saying: "Ameicans have watches, but we have time." It was you, blingbling, and the rest of the left who have given them that perception.
Gentleman, this war will be
September 11, 2007 - 21:29 ET by blingbling65Gentleman, this war will be won or lost by people like us, we can't scapegoat it out to the "left"
We have to stand up and demand change and time is running out. Soon the left will have their way and we will be out of Iraq with all the disastrous consequences that WILL happen.
Demand to end the war profiteering HERE
End the corruption, give Iraq back to its people only then will they have a stake again in their futures and rise up and reclaim their country from the insurgents.
It can be done, but time is running out
Nice change of subject, blingbling
September 11, 2007 - 21:33 ET by RJObviously, you couldn't stand the heat.
bling
September 11, 2007 - 21:39 ET by botgend war-profiteering, where's the investigation?
Support our Troops
First rule of
September 12, 2007 - 06:29 ET by motherbeltFirst rule of lawyers:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When neither is on your side, Pound the table.
And, for the umpteenth time, the general's opinion of whether the sacrifices made by his troops are worth it is irrelevant. It is his job to pursue the mission given him by his Commander-in-Chief.
C'mon, botg, you know very
September 12, 2007 - 06:36 ET by motherbeltC'mon, botg, you know very well that only Republicans have to resign in
shame at the whisper of a scandal. This one got buried pretty well. I saw it because I read WND, and I wondered when it would be splashed all over the MSM, and, what a shock, it never was.
I read in another story someone from her office put out a statement denying there was any favoritism.
And the media, in their usual, fashion, said "Oh, OK, then. Guess there's no story here."
That's bulldog investigative reporting when it involves a Democrat.
" we can't scapegoat it out
September 11, 2007 - 21:42 ET by Conservative_in_mass." we can't scapegoat it out to the "left"
No one's doing that here at all. The "left" does a fine job all by itself. It is obvious where the "left" stands (or cowers) when it comes to dealing with enemies of the U.S. Nothing more needs to be said.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
blingbling65
September 12, 2007 - 01:12 ET by SportPoliticsFollowing Bill Clinton's 1998 plan that he failed to complete after the IAEA and Butler and the inspectors were unceremoniously booted out of Iraq by Saddam has made us safer in SEVERAL ways.
1. Osama has declared Iraq the center of the war on the Great Satan, and has demanded his fighters and all others travel there to wage war.
2. Osama's insane minions meet their seventy-two vigrins on the sand of Mesopotamia, in LARGE NUMBERS.
_____________________________________
conclusion:
Al Qaeda forces are in the WRONG NATION- and are soon DEAD.
Well golleeee there blingding65, yer alluha ahkar gomerz are goners...
THE ENEMY IS DYING ON A FOREIGN LANDS SANDS.
libidiot: " How does this make us in the USA safer ?"
MATTHEWS: This must be a
September 11, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Conservative_in_mass.MATTHEWS: This must be a first, an American field commander who can't say whether the sacrifices he's asking of his troops every day and night are worth it to their country. Did General Washington not know the answer in the American Revolution?"
Actually, Mr. Matthews, you sniveling little worm, Washington did agonize over the suffering of his troops, especially during the early years of the campaign. If you would take the time and read the many letters written to his field commanders (many of which have survived to this day), he acknowleged the lack of supplies, adequate clothing, harsh conditions etc. This was a cause of great conflict and concern for the man.
He was also keenly aware that his entire army was made up of patriotic VOLUNTEERS who could walk off the field of battle once their enlistment was up (does that sound familiar Chrissy?) That same courage is exhibited by our brave troops today.
While Washington never did publicly waiver in his support of the War, he did not criticize others who questioned the struggle either. Each man had to decide for himself (this is not meant to disrespect women, I am staying in context of the times).
No Mr spitter, Washington did not question whether the struggle was worth it or not. Neither has General Patraeus. But you imply by your rant that Patraeus is not affected by the suffering of his command. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I do not think the man would be carrying four stars on his shoulders of this were true. One has to exhibit character of a kind that people of your ilk will never understand to attain such a rank. You do not get there by being a coward or backstabber, traits that you DO comprehend.
Washington understood the risks, sacrifices and suffering it took to conduct a war under extreme odds. Its all there for you to read for yourself...that is if you even care to...
Mark, sorry for the long winded rant, but there are things that just get under my skin.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
I don't understand the use
September 11, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Chris NormanI don't understand the use of the term "betrayed" in this context. How was this a "betrayal" beyond the fact that they not-so-cleverly figured out that "betray us" rhymes with the general's name? This is truly bumper sticker mentality.
Maybe we need to ask Chris
September 11, 2007 - 21:25 ET by robert108Maybe we need to ask Chris Matthews if what he does is making the country safer. Ditto for the rest of the lefties.
Do that, and you get a
September 11, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Chris NormanDo that, and you get a shreiking, "How dare you question my patriotism?". However, for them, our patriotism is fair game...
General Petraeus, symbol of
September 12, 2007 - 03:32 ET by maggieqpublicGeneral Petraeus, symbol of American courage and decency, has really gotten under the skin of the Hardball host.
The "fringe far left" IS now the Democratic Party
September 12, 2007 - 11:33 ET by w0tmAfter the many comments and speeches made the last few days plus the MoveOn.org NY Times ad and the tepid criticism of it by some Democrats and none at all by many others, I have finally accepted what I could not bring myself to believe until now. The "fringe far left" that hates our country and wishes for its destruction and that began in (about) 1960 (see the excellent WSJ op-ed of yesterday) has become the CENTER of the Democratic Party. When a leader of MoveOn.Org declared last year in what seemed to be a wild overstatement following a political victory "We ARE now the Democratic Party", I know realize he was absolutely correct!
As demoralizing as it is, we now must defeat two enemies sworn to our destruction. Islamofascists who march to the orders of a man (OBL) who just (again) commanded us all to "convert or die" and the Democratic Party! I pray this conflict never reaches our shores as an ongoing and "hot" war but, if it does, it will pit American citizen against American citizen. Not just "us" against "outsiders" who wish us all dead. My disbelief has now moved on to finding it inconceivable that a "Second U.S. Civil War" could ever happen. But we are just another "9/11" away from that very thing happening.