You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1731)

PLAYS: (21931)

Gen. Petraeus joined FOX News and Martha MacCallum today and gave a blockbuster interview, but probably not the one Fox expected. Once again, he called for the responsible closure of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. He also said that mistakes were made after 9/11 and that the Army Field Manual is all that we need to use to interrogate prisoners. In addition, he said that we have to have faith in our judicial system and we should try the Khalid Sheikh Muhammads in a court of law.

Martha tried to give him the ticking time bomb scenario to justify torture and he really didn't bite. He did say maybe an Executive Order could be appropriate, but that it really wasn't necessary. Petraeus repudiated pretty much most of what Limbaugh Republicans and the Rove/Newt/Cheney Party have been saying.
(rush transcript)

MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?

Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.

MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.

Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.

MacCallum: So you're confident that they will never go free.

Gen. Petraeus: I hope that's the case.

MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)

Gen. Petraeus: ....T here might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them -- those techniques work, that's our experience in this business.

MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?

Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

Wow, there was a lot in that interview. I couldn't transcribe it all. He admits that we violated the Geneva Convention. Is he saying that the Bush/Cheney administration failed our "value system" in their leadership in the two wars and how America responded to the 9/11 attacks?

He obviously is against torture. He is also saying to let the chips fall where they may in prosecuting these detainees and use our legal system to try terror suspects. Martha didn't go into the military commissions, but if they come here, just let them stand trial. All the conservatives and Republicans anointed Gen. Petraeus as the true leader of the wars when George Bush decided he didn't want to take the heat on the war any longer.

Remember when to question him was sacrilegious? Will they now disavow what he is telling them today?

After the interview, the other Fox host predictably tried to intimate that Petraeus was working for Obama now so, ya know, he's in the tank for him. Whatever happened to listening to the generals on the ground being critical to our "victory" in Iraq? He said that our values as a country do change in a time of war -- a scary notion -- so Bush is just all right. Don't they ever give up with their Bush-hero worshiping?

How long will it take Rush Limbaugh to lash out at the General? What about Newt and Rove?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1363)

PLAYS: (2124)

General Petraeus just threw a wrench in the whining conservative rants against torture and the closing of Guantanamo Bay:

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."...read on

I guess the Cheney/Limbaugh crowd will not like this very much. Will they actually come out against him? I think so. It's their way. I'm waiting for Rush to start attacking him very quickly. Maybe he'll say something like "Gen. Petraeus has been infected with Socialism and is now lost to us."

Jon Stolz writes this on VetVoice:

Of course, this flies in the face of the Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney crowd - those who believe that we're safer when we do things that serve as great recruiting tools for al Qaeda.

I'm guessing this disqualifies him from any kind of "Draft Petraeus" efforts on the Republican side.

The transcript from the interview is from Radio Free Europe is below the fold:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1461)

PLAYS: (2070)

My buddy Cernig has noticed an interesting shift in Gen. David Petraeus's rhetoric insofar as Afghanistan and the threat posed by Al Qaeda there:

"Mission creep" is when you keep inventing new reasons for the mission continuing long after the original objective has been accomplished. Fox News reported General David Petraeus' statement that the original UN-mandated mission for coalition forces in Afghanistan has been accomplished .

The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.

Gen. David Petraeus said affiliated groups have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan and that "tentacles of Al Qaeda" have touched countries throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. But he said the terrorist group has suffered" very significant losses" in recent months.

"Affiliated groups" means "anyone we say is a Taliban militant", in the same way that the Iraqi insurgency used to be conflated into being just an Al Qaeda operation, ignoring Baadrists, Sadrists, Baathists and opportunists entirely. But Petraeus is only admitting what the US military has known since at least last November, when journalist Douglas Saunders was in Afghanistan asking pinted questions. As he wrote on his return in December:

Earlier this year, I visited several regions of Afghanistan and asked military leaders in regions held by British, Canadian and U.S. forces how many al-Qaeda fighters they were seeing within the country's borders. In all cases, the answer was “none.” ...Afghanistan-based writer Anand Gopal is probably the most well-connected observer of the insurgent groups. He has come to the same conclusion as my Globe and Mail colleague Graeme Smith, who has conducted video interviews with dozens of Taliban fighters and found no sign of al-Qaeda sympathies. “The Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair,” Mr. Gopal wrote last month. “Foreign fighters – especially al-Qaeda – have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders. Al-Qaeda's vision of global jihad doesn't resonate in the rugged highlands and windswept deserts of southern Afghanistan.”

Saunders noted back then that coalition soldiers are authorized to oust the Taliban, but only insofar as those “Taliban” are the ones who are going to allow al-Qaeda to operate again. That's just not going to happen - the Taliban in Afghanistan have as little intention of allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven again as their compatriots in Kabul do. Which means, as Saunders also pointed out, that the war should be officially over.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (66)

PLAY (92)

Gen. David Petraeus told CNN's John King that the military didn't order torture while Bush was president. "Was the line crossed? Did you do things which you fundamentally thought were wrong and immoral? " asked King.

"We certainly did not. There were incidents that did and we learned hard lessons from Abu Ghraib and we believe we took corrective measures in the wake of that," said Petraeus.

The General also said that he "wouldn't necessarily agree" with former Vice President Cheney's assertion that President Obama's terrorism policies were putting the country at greater risk.

John Amato:

When Gen. Petraeus says there is a good debate going on about "values," is he saying that under George Bush and Dick Cheney there was no such debate? Was it a veiled swipe at them?

And he did not wholeheartedly support President Obama against the charge from Cheney, who said we are less safer now. He should have been unequivocal in his support for his new commander in chief and said categorically that we are safe.

He's a political animal now that was created by the Bush administration to shift the failure of the Iraq war away from #43 to a general in the military, which was to squash as much criticism as they could from the media. Rove and Co. knew that the media would shy away from leveling tough criticism at the feet of a military man.

CNN transcript:

KING: Do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: I do. He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: General Petraeus, you served in the Bush administration under Vice President Cheney and President Bush. You're now serving in the Obama administration. Are the American people less safe because of this new president, as Vice President Cheney says?

PETRAEUS: Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, John. I think that, in fact, there is a good debate going on about the importance of values in all that we do. I think that, if one violates the values that we hold so dear, that we...

KING: You mean torture?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (40)

PLAY (66)

David Gregory famously rejected his responsibility to confront lies in the run up to the war, but apparently, he feels no such compunction to reject confronting those who criticize those who lie to get us into a war. Critics, you see, are far more deserving of the Russert-like "gotcha" attack than actual war criminals. It's a question of priorities.

On today's Meet the Press, Gregory opts to go after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for daring to suggest that the surge was not the way to win the war in Iraq (never mentioning that the framing that it is a war in Iraq and what benchmarks would indicate a "win" have been left purposefully undefined by those who took us there). Reid, who is surprisingly milquetoast-y for a former pugilist, has to say no less than three separate times to the unconvinced Gregory that he was merely reiterating, somewhat inartfully, the same things that Gen. Petraeus was saying at the same time.

GREGORY: But you said the surge was not accomplishing anything. Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone’s expectation and succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

REID: Listen, at the time that statement was made, a surge, they weren’t talking about the surge. Petraeus added to the surge some very, very interesting things that changed things. He said that just simply number of troops is not going to do the deal. What we need to do is work with the Iraqi people, which we haven’t done before. That’s where the Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus’s genius. He has done…he will be written about in the history books for years to come. My original statement was in keeping with what David Petraeus said, that is, the war cannot be won militarily.

But that's not enough for Gregory, who has to ask Reid if he regrets being mean to President Bush, calling him the worst president ever. Are you flipping kidding me? With the exception of David Gregory (and those employed by NewsCorp.), is there truly any question of that status? If not, why would Bush be going full court press on the Legacy Restoration Tour, the notoriously press-shunning president giving more interviews than either Clinton or Reagan gave in the twilight days of his presidency.

Hey, David, here's a question for you: Do YOU ever regret handing over your journalistic and personal integrity, your intellectual honesty and anything left of your gonads to the White House? How dare you ask the Majority Leader if he has any regrets about actually acting like an opposition party. If you look at polling, the American people don't think the Democrats have done it nearly enough. And very few of us disagree with Reid's assessment of the success of the Bush presidency. Will you ask the same wistful questions of Cryin' John Boehner and Eric "Don't Know My Ass From My Elbow" Cantor about being "mean" to President Obama?

I'm betting you won't, you partisan hack.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Digby had a really interesting post up about Obama's meeting with General Petraeus in Baghdad some time ago.

[Q] I have been collecting accounts of your meeting with David Petraeus in Baghdad. And you had [inaudible] after he had made a really strong pitch [inaudible] for maximum flexibility. A lot of politicians at that moment would have said [inaudible] but from what I hear, you pushed back.

[BO] I did. I remember the conversation, pretty precisely. He made the case for maximum flexibility and I said you know what if I were in your shoes I would be making the exact same argument because your job right now is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. My job as a potential commander in chief is to view your counsel and your interests through the prism of our overall national security which includes what is happening in Afghanistan, which includes the costs to our image in the middle east, to the continued occupation, which includes the financial costs of our occupation, which includes what it is doing to our military. So I said look, I described in my mind at list an analogous situation where I am sure he has to deal with situations where the commanding officer in [inaudible] says I need more troops here now because I really think I can make progress doing x y and z. That commanding officer is doing his job in Ramadi, but Petraeus’s job is to step back and see how does it impact Iraq as a whole.

My argument was I have got to do the same thing here. And based on my strong assessment particularly having just come from Afghanistan were going to have to make a different decision. But the point is that hopefully I communicated to the press my complete respect and gratitude to him and Proder who was in the meeting for their outstanding work. Our differences don't necessarily derive from differences in sort of, or my differences with him don't derive from tactical objections to his approach. But rather from a strategic framework that is trying to take into account the challenges to our national security and the fact that we've got finite resources.

Read the full interview. I love the fact that Obama stood up to the mighty Petraeus and said if I'm the President, I make the calls in the end and not you. Bush used the good General to take the heat off himself for the disaster that is named Iraq and Afghanistan so that anyone disagreeing with Bush was actually attacking Petraues and by extension the military.

What a coward Bush is. It'll be a wonderful day when he is gone, but I think what this interview signals to me is that when the time is right, Petraeus will quit his job and turn into a full-on political machine. He's a darling of the right, and if you witnessed any of his briefings you know that he will love being in the limelight.

I think there is nearly zero chance that Petraeus is apolitical and I would bet good money that he is positioning himself for a role in shaping policy. His willingness to be used by the Bush administration proves it in my mind. in fac, his recent protestations of being above politics are actually very cunning --- if the country devolves back into angry partisanship, which it will (it always does), TMCP will be positioned to be the apolitical outsider with the leadership experience to lead us out of the darkness. There is no doubt in my mind that when he looks in the mirror he sees President Petraeus.

My suggestion to Obama: Watch your back.

McCain has constantly mocked Obama by saying Barack's attitude of negotiating with our enemies is a clear indication of his lack of experience in foreign policy matters. McCain also cites Gen. Petraeus as often as he can as he tries to use his support of "the surge" to demonstrate his judgement. Well, Gen. Petraeus just destroyed his argument with his appearance at the Heritage Foundation.

The Washington Independent:

Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”

McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.

Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I wonder what McCain will say at the 3rd presidential Debate when Obama brings all this up. Will McCain say that Petraeus was just a little confused? I guess we should just ask Sean Hannity since he basically runs the messaging of McCain's campaign. If you get the chance, call in to his radio show, ask him, record it and send me the audio.
Gen. Petraeus also wants to negotiate with the Taliban.

Mark Halperin does it again:

Two Republicans close to the situation say McCain has apparently settled on Mitt Romney as his running mate. [..]

Developing...

Nice Drudgian touch at the end, Mark.  Of course, Halperin pulled down the page saying that the Veep was going to be Dick Lugar just a little bit before, which appeared to be based on nothing more Lugar endorsing McCain.  Brilliant.  Obviously, still wishing to not blow his "MSM Maker of Conventional Wisdom" title, Halperin updated with this weasel: 

And/but:

NY Times: "People close to the [McCain] campaign also floated a wild-card choice, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq."

Give me a break.  Either report the news as it happens or start calling yourself Miss Cleo.  This wild guessing is insulting to our intelligence.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Because keeping track of all the Bush White House scandals is a full time job, here is the latest edition of "Bushed!", courtesy of our friends at Countdown.

First up is the economy, where global markets reflected the fear and instability of the American market yesterday. Today is shaping up to be only slightly less volatile than expected due to the Fed cutting 75 basis points, proving as Bonddad dubbed it, the Fed is Wall Street's b*tch.

Next is the politicization of the military, which in BushWorld, is merely business as usual, but has taken even more overt and blatant tones of quid pro quo with the news that the Pentagon is considering Gen. David Petraeus for the top spot at NATO.

And finally, the disappeared emails that don't ever quite go away. It turns out that the "missing" emails that the administration claims it cannot furnish in response to FOIA and congressional subpoena requests are for some 473 business days, including (surprise, surprise!) 16 days from Vice President Dick Cheney's office. One of those sixteen days is September 20, 2003, the day the DoJ and FBI announced their investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Quite a coinky-dink, isn't it?