General David Petraeus before Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
by Frank James
When Gen. David Petraeus said yesterday in response to a question from Sen. John Warner that he didn't know if the U.S. was safer because of the U.S. efforts in Iraq, it seemed like a friendly fire incident, since it is harder to find a senator more pro-military than the Virginia Republican and his question tripped up the general.
SEN. WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.
SEN. WARNER: Does that make America safer?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have 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 Multinational Force in Iraq.
Petraeus realized after his answer, that it was going to wind up being ammunition in the political battles taking place over Iraq because later in the Senate Armed Service Committee hearing, he tried to defuse that answer.
In a later answer to an unrelated question from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.,) Petraeus tried to do some damage control.
Petraeus said:
And to come back to that if I could, I mean, let me be very clear. I believe that if we can achieve our objectives in Iraq, that is obviously a very good thing for the United States and would make us safer. The converse, I think, is also true, depending on how it turned out.
But his attempts to extend and revise his remarks the way a lawmaker might, apparently aren't going to stop opponents of the U.S. military surge in Iraq from using Petraeus's words against him.
In a press release today from the presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.,) the senator is quoted as saying:
"General Petraeus' answer says it all. If we are not sure our involvement in this civil war is making us safer, why are we there at all," said Dodd. "As I've said before, it is useless to debate the merits of a particular tactic when the underlying policy is a complete failure. I call on my colleagues to do what needs to be done to end our involvement in this civil war and help restore our national security by clearly and directly declaring that they will not support any Iraq measure without a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding for the completion of redeployment of troops from Iraq."
Others have used similar language. Of all the words uttered by the general over the last two days, his "I don;t know" are likely to have the longest half-life.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I see that he learned well from the "I Don't Know" master Alberto Gonzales. But his mistake was trying to go back and "clarify" it, when he should have just left it alone.
Posted by: BC | September 12, 2007 12:42 PM
General Petraeus did NOT betray us. He answered Sen. Warner's pointed quesion honestly. He stumbled and fumbled and could not in his honest heart could not tell us we are safer. He also was candid the day prior when he admitted al-Qaeda in Iraq is not a threat to America.
Posted by: janet | September 12, 2007 12:47 PM
Can't wait to hear the White House spin of Petraeus saying that he couldn't say if Iraq was making us safer.
It's time for some of these pro-war Repug chickenhawks to start backing up their tough guy rhetoric and sign up for this stupid civil war in Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inspkrGVbw
Better yet, let's send in the family members of our favorite Draftdodger in Chief:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45936529@N00/524589871/
Posted by: John E | September 12, 2007 1:10 PM
It was an honest answer. With the amount of statistical shenanigans it took to try to portray the surge as a success, that honest answer was the biggest surprise of the day.
Posted by: Tom O | September 12, 2007 1:13 PM
Hey Frank, how about doing a story on disgraced GOP Senator David Vitter?
He just got busted by Larry Flynt for being with ANOTHER prostitute.
GOP + Family Values = 0
Posted by: John E | September 12, 2007 1:31 PM
General Patraeus gives an honest answer and the Tribune views it as a "stumble?"
The man gave an impeccable two days of testimony to a largely hostile audience
that refused to even refute a slanderous
NY Times ad about him. There obviously is no sense of decency in the Democratic party any more when they can stand by and allow a heroic military officer to be
so demeaned.
Posted by: Douglas M. | September 12, 2007 1:35 PM
Military's objective/mission is to execute and win the war.
It is one of the ways you make your country safe. Asking General to assess whether the war would make country safer is unwarranted question and using his answers for political reasons is totally pathetic!
Posted by: Subhash Damle | September 12, 2007 1:37 PM
Iraq = Fiasco
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 12, 2007 1:42 PM
Making a mountain out of a molehill is a media speciality.
But even by the standards of Bush-hater Frank James, this is nothing.
General Petraeus couldn't have been clearer: "And to come back to that if I could, I mean, let me be very clear. I believe that if we can achieve our objectives in Iraq, that is obviously a very good thing for the United States and would make us safer. The converse, I think, is also true, depending on how it turned out."
It would make us safer.
Some people don't want to hear the truth. But the truth is there, for all (even Tribune reporters) to see.
Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2007 1:50 PM
Subhash Damle-
It's a fair question. The war was sold on protecting Americans from terrorists and Iraqi WMDs. If it's not really making America safer, if even our top general can't answer off the top of his head how this war makes this country safer, then there's good question as to whether staying indefinitely, as his plan would have us do, is worth the strategical cost of not being able to confront emergent threats that actually could harm Americans and American interests.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty | September 12, 2007 2:15 PM
Subhash Damle,
Never seen anyone contradict themselves in 3 sentences before. Congrats! Oh and another think Sen. Warner is retiring at the end of his term so there is absolutely no reason for him to play politics and ask what you call "unwarranted" questions.
Posted by: jethro | September 12, 2007 2:19 PM
I love it when John E. uses his "reputable" sources such as Larry Flynt to put forth his hate. Not only is Flynt physically paralyzed, he's also mentally paralyzed. Just as John E.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 2:21 PM
Anyone else catch Larry Craig's praise of the general? That man just will not go away, will he?
Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2007 2:34 PM
I love it when John E. uses his "reputable" sources such as Larry Flynt to put forth his hate. Not only is Flynt physically paralyzed, he's also mentally paralyzed. Just as John E.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 2:21 PM
Lil Johnny Poptart,
I've yet to hear Vitter deny it, have you?
I'm laughing hysterically right now because I'm enjoying watching smut king Larry Flynt pull back the curtin on the phony "family values" Repugs, exposing them for what they really are....... hypocrites.
Posted by: John E | September 12, 2007 2:41 PM
How is it that when we ask Generals (or the current administration - same thing) what will happen if we stay in Iraq… Will we be safer? Will the Iraqi military “stand up”? Will the Iraqi government get it’s act together? They cannot provide a clear answer. It’s always “We’ll have to wait and see”.
But if we ask them what will happen if we leave they are always 100% certain of their answers. No gray area… no margin of error.
I guess “Wait and See” is just an easier political answer.
We’ll be waiting until next January when it becomes someone else’s problem.
Posted by: Carl L | September 12, 2007 2:45 PM
We let politicians gets away with unquantifiable talking points like "We are fighting there so we are not fighting them here" so they continue to do it. Could you imagine the General saying such a thing and standing behind it? It may have been a political stumble but it is was an honest answer.
Posted by: kb | September 12, 2007 2:45 PM
Everyone who is consumed with concern over the General's reputation and integrity should read HIS editorial in the Washington Post from 3 years ago when he told congress " there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."
Why should we believe him when he tells us the EXACT SAME THING now?
I don't dislike the man and don't agree with the characterization, but he is not above criticism and he doesn't trump someone elses First Amendment Right to hold him accountable for what he says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
Posted by: Carl L | September 12, 2007 2:53 PM
One quick note on the moveon.org ad.
If everyone hadn't made such a big deal out of it relatievely few people would have seen it. Now "General Betray Us" is part of the official transcript of the hearings.
The ones who criticized it the loudest are the same ones who put it in front of every TV network in the world... and then they read it into the record.
Posted by: Carl L | September 12, 2007 2:57 PM
Sen. John Warner is a Virginia Republican, so your argument that "There obviously is no sense of decency in the Democratic party" Douglas M., doesn't seem to hold much water
Posted by: Rory M | September 12, 2007 3:00 PM
Can someone ask the General and Ambassador how dividing up Baghdad into sectarian ghettos will lead to a political solution in Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6991448.stm
Wll someone ask the General if the military policies we are implementing in order to improve the security situation actually impede the political solution we are trying to bring about?
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 3:03 PM
Petraeus' stumbling with Warner's vague political question only confirms what I already knew - Petraues is a general, not a politician.
Posted by: Herbie H. | September 12, 2007 3:12 PM
Petraeus' stumbling with Warner's vague political question only confirms what I already knew - Petraues is a general, not a politician.
Posted by: Herbie H. | September 12, 2007 3:12 PM
Petraeus made himself a political figure in 2004, when he wrote this op-ed in support of George W Bush's re-election campaign:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
Posted by: John E | September 12, 2007 3:21 PM
Petraeus is a political hack and a political General. Petraeus is part of the problem we have in Iraq. Our General Officers have been incompetent and cowardly. You may have noticed that we are well into our fourth year in Iraq. Do you think "bad fairies" have caused our failure?
Our General officers have gone along with stupid tactics to get along. After they retire they complain about tactics and strategy. I noticed General Abezaid joined that club today. Not one American General has had the courage to risk a star to save his country or his service by standing up and denouncing failed planning and tactics. Strategy has never played a part in this war.
Posted by: c. perry | September 12, 2007 4:14 PM
Some people don't want to hear the truth. But the truth is there, for all (even Tribune reporters) to see.
Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2007 1:50 PM
RNC Brucie- It is you and your ilk that do not want to hear the truth on Iraq and this surge. You can't handle the truth. You are scared of the truth.
Fact: The surge and the U.S. occupation of Iraq has not made the U.S. any safer. Lap dog Patraeus even admitted it.
Crocker even said the current Iraqi government is dysfunctional.
How clueless are you Brucie boy??
Posted by: Doug R. | September 13, 2007 9:14 AM