I can accept that, but you are taking the exception and making it the rule.

My reading of your initial statement (quoted above) was that you assume that he will say whatever President Bush wants him to say, regardless of it's veracity.

He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in a very politically divisive climate. I think his competence had much more to do with his appointment than his politics.

Petraus has no motive to want his current position unless he sees success as a viable option. President Bush only has a year and a half left in office so Petraus must assume that his role will end with the Bush administration. If he believes that the pinnacle of his career is an 18-month stint as Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, then I'll accept what your saying. But I don't think that is the case. I think he realizes that success in Iraq means his name will be lauded in history books for generations to come and his future will have no ceiling. Lying about a failed strategy will have the opposite consequence.

Think about it this way. Assume that the surge is not producing the results initially forecasted and Petraus sees this. He comes before congress and announces to the world that the surge has failed and a change in strategy is necessary. Every media outlet in the world would run editorials about the brave General Petraus. Congressional Democrats would soak in his every word and create new words to praise him. Republicans would have no grounds to dispute his findings as they have already built him up as the only hope in Iraq. He would be guaranteed a position as Joint Chiefs or SecDef in the next Dem administration, which would inevitably happen due to this announcement. He would land a well-paid, cushy spot in a liberal think-tank to bide the time. His picture would be placed in the Wikipedia entry on integrity. He would have so much more to gain by taking this course of action than by lying to protect an unpopular president. The fact that he didn't do this means that he is either a lying fool or he is speaking a very close approximation to the truth. I don't think he's a lying fool.

That's how I read it as well. There's no reason to believe that's the case, and there's certainly no reason to preemptively besmirch him before he's even spoken.

Thank you moveon.org.

People like you are a disgrace. Calling into question the integrity of a 4 star general, who by all accounts is an honorable man, and a great leader. Screw you.

I think you're spot on.

You don't think it is possible that the treatment of Shinsecki and Taguba, etc. is a plausible motivation to toe the party line?

You make a good point. I think it's plausible and could have some influence over Petraus, but I see two major differences that keep me skeptical.

First, the bulk of the tension with Shinsecki and Taguba was with Rumsfeld. Although President Bush bears the responsibility of his SecDef's actions, Gates seems to be have a much better demeanor. He doesn't appear to have the same dogmatic and vindictive attitude as Rumsfeld.

Second, the timing of the treatment of Shinsecki/Taguba is considerably different than would be the potential ill treatment of Petraus. The former two generals were relatively unknown on a national level until they bucked the administration. The subsequent actions of the administration toward these two fine men is what made them famous amongs political followers. In Patraus' case, he already has the trust and national recognition that he needs to shield himself. The administration and Congress have publicly placed their faith in him, thus limiting themselves to take any serious retributive measures for an honest, albeit negative, assesment.

Now, I may be overemphasizing these two differences but I don't think they should be overlooked.