David Petraeus: The White House Years

David Weigel | September 13, 2007

It's Patrick Cockburn and it's the Independent saying this, but some rumors are too good to ignore:

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.

But why not? We're in the thralls of Petraeusmania right now, and all we're missing are the screaming girls and a stalker who says the general was blinking out "I Heart You" in morse code. Ryan Grim reports that Republicans, having spent a lot of their time at the Petraeus hearings whining about MoveOn.org, are demanding Democrats denounce the group for an asking "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

On Wednesday, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) sent out messages targeting 34 House Democrats who have taken money from MoveOn.

“If Nick Lampson thinks MoveOn’s tactics are wrong, he should give back every dollar they have raised for him,” read one of the releases, directed at a Texas Democrat. Lampson called the NRCC attack "shameless" and professed "great respect for the service Gen. Petraeus has given our country."

Time was when pundits compared the Democrats to Charlie Brown, forever getting the football yanked away by Lucy. If the pessimists are right (again) and the surge's military impact fades away after the extra troops cycle out, we might need to dust off that metaphor for Republicans. They keep glomming on to military icons and the war and then getting smacked down by voters who are sick of it. Remember when John Kerry called the troops stupid and Republicans spent three crucial campaigning days beating him up for it? And remember how they subsequently lost the House and Senate? It wasn't the reason they lost, obviously, but they thought voters would reward them for "defending our brave troops," and voters didn't care because re-electing Republicans meant lengthening the war. (So did electing Democrats, but few realized this.)

UPDATE: From the statesmanlike John McCain:

At each stop, Mr. McCain brought out a mounted copy of a full-page advertisement that MoveOn.org, a liberal group, took out this week in The New York Times, which questioned Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, asking if he was really “General Betray Us.” “It’s disgraceful,” said an angry-sounding Mr. McCain, who called on all the Democratic presidential candidates to denounce the advertisement as well.

Straight talk, smooth lamination.

Comments

|9.13.07 @ 9:30AM|#

It's Patrick Cockburn and it's the Independent saying this,

Seriously, is this sarcasm? I wont speak for the Independent, but isnt P. Cockburn widely considered a respected reporter on the Iraq situation. Can you give an example to the contrary?

Eric Dondero|9.13.07 @ 9:30AM|#

Did anyone watch Tommy Franks last night on Fox News Hannity & Colmes.

My gosh, he looked like a candidate for something. Suite & tie, well-spoken, sharp, and quick-witted.

There were rumors floating around the Beltway couple weeks ago, that "3 Republican campaigns were looking at Franks as a VP candidate."

After watching Fox last night, I believe it.

|9.13.07 @ 9:30AM|#

What the hell are you talking about? I suppose every powerful man mulls over a presidential bid. But only victorious generals are ever considered.

Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 9:33AM|#

DONDERRRROOOOOO

all we're missing are the screaming girls and a stalker who says the general was blinking out "I Heart You" in morse code

No, no, Weigel--it's the girls in his class who write "I Love You" on their eyelids so that he can see it when they blink.

When is the General going to beat up some Nazis?

|9.13.07 @ 9:35AM|#

If General Patraeus can reverse our failure in Iraq, he SHOULD become president. I'll go to the Republican National Convention and put his name in for the nomination myself.

Because if he can pull that off, he's obviously a combination of Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, and Superman.

Wikinger Elch|9.13.07 @ 9:35AM|#

Come and rock me Dave Petraeus
Dave Petraeus! Dave Petraeus!
Dave Petraeus!
Dave Petraeus! Dave Petraeus!
Dave Petraeus!
Dave Petraeus! Dave Petraeus!
wo oh oh Dave Petraeus!

Er war superstar
Er war populär
Er war so exaltiert
Because er hatte flair
Er war ein virtuose
War ein rockidol
Und alles rief:
Come and rock me Dave Petraeus
Dave Petraeus! Dave Petraeus!...

crap-action-jackson|9.13.07 @ 9:37AM|#

David Petraeus is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

The Extispicator|9.13.07 @ 9:38AM|#

Is that really what our political choices have come down to? Either Republicans who will insist the war is doing just fine and therefore keep it going, or Democrats who will keep the war going but whine about it the whole time. Lies v. hypocritical whining. Hmmm... though choice. Guess instead of voting, I'll see if I can catch some Seinfeld re-runs.

|9.13.07 @ 9:38AM|#

When is the General going to beat up some Nazis?

Don't you mean slap a malingerer?

The Artist Formerly Know as Tr|9.13.07 @ 9:42AM|#

@ Wikinger Elch
Well done !

VikingMoose|9.13.07 @ 9:46AM|#

merci, One-time Travis, but Crap-Action hit 9:37 out of the park, too!!

|9.13.07 @ 10:01AM|#

If you were John McCain, what would you rather talk about; what's happening in Iraq, or how terrible the Democrats are?

|9.13.07 @ 10:03AM|#

"Republicans...are demanding Democrats denounce [moveon.org] for an ad asking "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

And their refusal to condemn the Swiftboat Veterans is different how????

Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 10:04AM|#

Iraq est pacata. Veni, vedi, vici.

Dave Woycechowsky|9.13.07 @ 10:04AM|#

Is that really what our political choices have come down to? Either Republicans who will insist the war is doing just fine and therefore keep it going, or Democrats who will keep the war going but whine about it the whole time.

The convolution of this war with the Democratic congress is a lot different than the convolution of this war with a Republican congress would have been.

|9.13.07 @ 10:09AM|#

If I were John McCain, I would focus on my time in the Hanoi Hilton...oh wait, that's all he ever does. Hmmm...then what would I do if I were him? Oh, I know...develop an action plan to make the world a better place so I could differentiate myself from the rest of the finger pointing bitchers and moaners. It might not get me/him/anyone elected...but it sure as hell would feel good.

|9.13.07 @ 10:15AM|#

Well, joe, the Democrats got us in this war, so they can't be trusted to get us out.

Oh, wait... which revisionist history of the Iraq War does the GOP want us to use this week? I've lost track.

|9.13.07 @ 10:19AM|#

If the Democrats really wanted to end this war, they would cut off the hands of Republican Congressmen and cast their votes for them.

Since they don't do that, and only cast their own votes against the war by a 90%+ margin, that shows that they really want the war to continue.

|9.13.07 @ 10:21AM|#

If those 51 Democrats in the Senate wanted to override Bush's veto of the timelines bill, they could have done it.

You can tell that Harry Reid and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton really want to keep the war going, by the way they have utterly failed to divide like amoebae in order to obtain a veto- and fillibuster-proof majority.

|9.13.07 @ 10:22AM|#

VM, I am in awe. If you do one for "Der Kommissar", please let me know.

For my part, I think "President Petraeus" doesn't sound as good as "Praetor Petraeus". We're already establsihing an empire, why be coy about it?

thoreau|9.13.07 @ 10:25AM|#

joe-

51 Senators would be enough to not appropriate money for the clusterfuck. Hell, 41 would be enough to filibuster an appropriation.

|9.13.07 @ 10:32AM|#

If I were John McCain, I would focus on my time in the Hanoi Hilton...oh wait, that's all he ever does.

When we had our straw poll, some of the candidates sent their campaign videos so they could be shown to the audience. McCain's? 15 minutes of him and other people talking about his POW days. No policy even mentioned.

If those 51 Democrats in the Senate wanted to override Bush's veto of the timelines bill, they could have done it.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I really don't pay attention to Iraq anymore), but I don't think that's the issue. It's that after being vetoed, they went ahead and passed another bill without a timeline. If they would have done what they were elected to do, that bill would have been stopped and the president would have been forced to reconsider or else get no funding at all (And a 51 majority could easily do that, not to mention you'd even have 2-3 people on the republican side like Paul joining).

|9.13.07 @ 10:34AM|#

You're talking about playing chicken, thoreau.

Bush would leave the troops in the desert without supplies rather than lose the political fight, and the Democrats won't.

Or, he'd simply take the money illegally from other sources, and claim those mysterious Inherent Authorities of his.

The Democrats have to actually win the fight to mandate an end to the war.

|9.13.07 @ 10:36AM|#

CoveAxe,

For the reasons I described above, I don't think a refusal to pass a supplemental would work at this point. Bush would just break the law and draw the case out until the end of his term.

What refusing to fund Da Troooops would accomplish, however, would be to make it impossible for any Republicans (except Paul) to cross the aisle. Now, it's at least possible that they might.

|9.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#

joe,

Please stop being disingenuous. As it stands, the majority party is the one looking to negotiate with the GOP and looking for bipartisanship and is willing to forgo timelines for a bill which will instead ask that Bush maybe think about bring troops home if he feels like it.

No they can't override a veto, but let's not pretend like they can't just keep saying "this is the best you are gonna get" and keep sending him the same bill with time-lines over and over. Bush needs money from Congress for his war, yet the Dems keep acting like they have no power.

|9.13.07 @ 10:41AM|#

Bush would leave the troops in the desert without supplies rather than lose the political fight, and the Democrats won't.

So be it. The Congress can not allow itself to be held hostage by a reckless president. You need to call his bluff and force Bush to make the uncomfortable decisions.

Or, he'd simply take the money illegally from other sources, and claim those mysterious Inherent Authorities of his.

Again, so be it. If he breaks the law then you start impeachment proceedings.

Let's not forget that 70% of the American people are against the war. Congress has a duty to fight for the will of the people.

|9.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#

I'll say it again: the Iraq conflict has turned into a farce with a body count.

Don't kid yourselves. Team Red and Team Blue both think they can grab a starring role if they keep it running long enough. Only partisan hacks can see it any other way at this point.

|9.13.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Bush would just break the law and draw the case out until the end of his term.

Then what's the point of getting republicans to cross the isle? You think Bush would stop because some people in his party told him to? At least by stopping funding they at least do what they were elected to do.

|9.13.07 @ 10:52AM|#

ChicagoTom,

I think the Democrats have been too nice to the Republicans in their efforts to end the war, too. That wasn't the question. The question was whether they were actually trying to end the war, or trying to continue it.

CoveAxe,

A vote to mandate an end to the war would have more political teeth.

|9.13.07 @ 10:58AM|#

joe -
I think the point is that they CAN end it, but they choose a route that they know won't work, making their votes purely symbolic and building voter/political capital for the next set of midterms so they can get more seats before they finally do anything.
I don't know if that's true, but the incentive structure is certainly there.
Are you even the slightest bit skeptical of their inability to get it done?

|9.13.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Losing Vietnam to communism was a great day for Democrats. Losing Iraq to radical fundamentalism will also be a proud day for the Democrats.In fact they even admit that winning will hurt the party. With a stateside party like them, who needs foriegn enemies?

|9.13.07 @ 11:16AM|#

A vote to mandate an end to the war would have more political teeth.

But that doesn't answer what difference it makes if he's going to break the law anyway. You could have 100% of both houses vote against Bush, but if he breaks the law it doesn't really matter. And I thought the last house election was a pretty clear mandate. It was literally all they talked about up to it.

|9.13.07 @ 11:32AM|#

That wasn't the question. The question was whether they were actually trying to end the war, or trying to continue it.

Sorry joe, I don't think the Dems want to end the war. Some Dems do, but most don't. They see it as a political opportunity (especially the DEM pres. candidates.) If the war was over they wouldn't have the Bush boogeyman to run against.

Furthermore, they could end the war if they wanted to. Stop funding it and it will have to end. So no, they aren't actually trying to end the war. They are trying to pretend that they are trying to end and hoping no one notices or that there is enought anti-Bush sentiment to keep it going.

Tell me, if the Dems really wanted to end the war, wouldn't each and every candidate for the Dem nomination be using their public speeches to call for time lines and a withdrawal sooner rather than later?? Yet only Chris Dodd has mane any mention of that. None of the other candidates are saying that a compromise bill with no time lines is unacceptable. Why is that do you think? The crazy election season with a lame duck president is the best chance for high profile Dems to counter the President's bully pulpit with the amount of coverage they are getting. Yet none of them (with the exception of Dodd and Kucinich) are using that opportunity to demand withdrawals and to stand up to the a lame duck president.

You see when someone really wants to do something , like end a war, they do everything they can to accomplish things that would actually end the war. Even if that means standing strong and forcing the president's hand.

|9.13.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Damnit should have previewed. This:

They are trying to pretend that they are trying to end and hoping no one notices or that there is enought anti-Bush sentiment to keep it going.

Should read:

They are pretending to try to end the war and hoping no one notices and that there is enough anti-Bush sentiment to provide them cover going into the elections.

Jim Henley|9.13.07 @ 11:42AM|#

Weigel: What the hell is your problem with Patrick Cockburn?

Dave Weigel|9.13.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Weigel: What the hell is your problem with Patrick Cockburn?

That came out wrong. I was just saying it's just one reporter saying this and hasn't been picked up elsewhere. No disrespect meant.

|9.13.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Losing Iraq to radical fundamentalism will also be a proud day for the Democrats.

Our president has already done a pretty good job of losing Iraq to radical fundamentalism without the help of the Democrats.

Sorry, James Ard, this line of bs isn't flying with the public anymore. They know damn well George W. Bush started this mess and that he was responsible for winning it. A few complaining Democrats had nothing to do with his abysmal failure.

|9.13.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Regardless of who loses the war, the Democrats take glee in developments that harm America. If the capitalist meritocracy succeeds, who's going to need the do-everything nanny state to suckle them?

VM|9.13.07 @ 12:48PM|#

ooh, Baked - that'd be cool!

It was a sad day when Hr. Falco took up residence in the bone orchard for a dirt nap in his eternity mobile...

"Veni, vedi, vici."

Um, Epi, that's now two rookie moves. The proper order is:

Vedi, vici, veni - and yes, there are some hier, trying not to look over Crane's way, for whom vici and veni are simultaneous, but that's just because he is in the middle of a dry spell and prefers simply to spoon, as the last time he went out on a limb, he just got so gosh darned hurt. IT TAKES TIME TO GET OVER THESE THINGS!

gasp.

thoreau|9.13.07 @ 1:02PM|#

joe, the leaders of your team are betraying you, and they have no interest in doing what you and a sizable majority of the electorate want them to do on the most significant issue of the day. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can join us in the search for something else.

And no, that isn't a sales pitch for the LP. I don't claim to have any answers on what to do. The only thing I know for sure is that I cannot support people who refuse to accomplish something on the most significant issue of the day.

|9.13.07 @ 1:10PM|#

The Fighting Quaker said it best:

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

|9.13.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but only Richardson (and Kucinich?) have said that there plan entails ALL troops leaving the mideast. Hillary et al all say that 60,000 or round bout there will be stationed "nearby' doing something. I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "war" or maybe "Iraq" or maybe "stationed"

|9.13.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but only Richardson (and Kucinich?) have said that there plan entails ALL troops leaving the mideast

Kucinich for sure, but I think it's Gravel and not Richardson (Not sure, feel free to correct me). As far as I know, they are the only two that will unilaterally withdraw regardless as they are the only ones with some integrity.

It's scary how many dems I know that still believe someone like Hillary or Obama will leave Iraq. They won't, and the sooner that they realize it, the better.

|9.13.07 @ 2:42PM|#

"joe, the leaders of your team are betraying you, and they have no interest in doing what you and a sizable majority of the electorate want them to do on the most significant issue of the day. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can join us in the search for something else."

Hillary is not different enough on the war from the Republicans to make it worth voting for her.

|9.13.07 @ 5:26PM|#

Reinmoose,

Are you even the slightest bit skeptical of their inability to get it done? No, I just think they are wimpy, and suck at political gamesmanship.

This theory that Democrats would gain an advantage by continuing the war is silly. The Democrats are taking a huge beating every day for not ending the war. Many of the voters who gave them their majority pulled the level for them specifically to end the war, and will dump them if they don't.

The political damage to the Republicans from this war has already been done. They'll still be the party that started a pointless war then lost it, even the Democrats pass another bill mandating its end tommorow and override the veto the next day.

|9.13.07 @ 5:28PM|#

CoveAxe,

I don't think Bush will break the law if doing so violated the expressed will of a bipartisan Congress on this hotbutton issue - not nearly as freely as he will take action in the absence of Congressional action - because doing so would open him up to the collapse of his political support, and even impeachment.

|9.13.07 @ 5:32PM|#

ChicagoTom,

None of the other candidates are saying that a compromise bill with no time lines is unacceptable. Why is that do you think?

Because a compromise bill is the only way the war will actually be ended. Nice little fantasies aside, denying resources to the troops is not going to become law.

You have the partisan angle exactly backwards. If the Democrats wanted to pose and make poltical hay, they'd be trying to make the war a wedge issue and focus on bills that could never pass, the way "anti-abortion" Republicans kept bringing up bills that didn't include life and health exceptions.

Since when does a party that's trying to look good for the next elections pursue muted bipartisanship rather than noisy absolutism, when they've got a majority as sizeable as this?

|9.13.07 @ 5:35PM|#

thoreau,

I hope that made you feel better. Like James Ard's little outburst.

It certainly didn't accomplish anything else. Like advancing a rational discussion, or presenting the logic or evidence that supports a position.

|9.13.07 @ 6:17PM|#

I don't think Bush will break the law if doing so violated the expressed will of a bipartisan Congress on this hotbutton issue

OK, but that's not what seems to be happening. The report has delayed any major decision for at least another 6 months, and not many republicans have switched over (At least not enough to start overriding vetoes). By the time they start switching over, you have another house election, and the fact that the democrats didn't do anything for the past 2 years with regard to the war will not make them look favorable.

At least with the other way it gives them the look of leadership and dignity, rather than just bowing down when the president says so. And if the president does something illegal after the stopping of funds, that's even more fodder for the next election that the democrats can use (As if they didn't have enough already)

|9.13.07 @ 6:25PM|#

CoveAxe,

That remains to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems (or, actually, a small fringe, just enough to deny the rest of the party a majority) cave again. Then again, I don't think the on-the-fence Republicans have decided which way to fall, either.

Believe me, I'm not defending the refusal to cut off funds. I'm just noting the reality that it's a nonstarter. It won't pass, and it will blow the chance to pull enough Republicans to really end the war.

Remember, the dispute here is over whether the Democrats want to end the war, or want to continue it. I still say that it is absurd to claim that the Democrats are seeking political advantage by...well, by yielding the greatest political advantage they have, the opportunity to be the party that ended the war.

thoreau|9.13.07 @ 6:30PM|#

joe-

You're trying to persuade us that we should not punish the Democrats for refusing to do the one thing in their power to end the war. I'm saying that their refusal to do the one thing in their power to end the war means that it's time to withdraw support. The fact of the matter is that if they dug in their heels they could do this. But they won't dig in their heels, which tells me everything that I need to know about them. They might oppose it in their heart of hearts, but they don't oppose it in their actions, and their actions are what matters.

And, for the record, I voted for them last fall. Straight ticket, from County to Senate.

|9.13.07 @ 6:37PM|#

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, thoreau.

I'm just talking about what is.

And I disagree that this is "the one thing in their power to end the war." I don't think an attempt to cut off funds will succeed; and I think there are other paths that have a greater chance of success.

You keep talking about "them," as if the Democrats march in lockstep like Republicans. There is a small fringe of the party that won't go along with a funding cutoff, even though the large majority is on board.

What good does losing a vote to cut off funds do? The war will end - or rather, the beginning of its end will come - when the body of "moderates" from both parties decides to oppose the war. Losing a funding cutoff won't make that happen, and making that happen is the only way to start the end of the war before January 2009.

DannyK|9.13.07 @ 6:56PM|#

If the Democrats wanted to pose and make poltical hay, they'd be trying to make the war a wedge issue and focus on bills that could never pass, the way "anti-abortion" Republicans kept bringing up bills that didn't include life and health exceptions.

Jesus, Joe, you're depressing me. I think that's exactly what the Dems need to do. Nothing will change until the cost of "business as usual" goes up. If the Democrats can't find the strength to do this after four years of pointless war and following a historic upset, then they're totally useless.