9/24/2007 07:12:00 AM
Why General Petraeus said, "I Don't Know."
-----------------------------
The Political Tool is Embarrassed at Being a Political Tool
He may be the second most powerful player in our deployed military, but General Petraeus has been made a pawn by President Bush. The recognition of -- and reaction to -- this fact is what motivated him to say he doesn't know whether the war in Iraq is making America any safer.
In response to Senator Warner's question General Petraeus could have said any number of things. And, he may have actually been considering this answer:
"I personally think so."
In fact, I bet General Petraeus was tempted to offer his opinion. Torn between "I personally think so" and "I don't know."
Whether or not the former would've been a lie was not the primary reason he chose the latter. In fact, although it might have been an honest response for him to say, "I personally believe so," General Petraeus responded "I don't know" because the spectacle of being a political device disgusted him.
I'm betting something like the following ran through his mind during those dramatic moments between Warner's question and his answer:
1. A simple "Yes" would be a blatantly political response.
2. I am not supposed to be a political figure.
3. In order to conceal the political nature of my response, I might qualify "Yes" with an "in my opinion..."
4. No, that won't work, because even if I qualify my answer as my own, personal opinion, it will be a political response, and that fact will not escape the American public.
5. As I am not supposed to be a political tool, I'll stick to the military role...
"Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
(Warner repeats the question)
1. I am a political pawn. This is bullshit. I can't stand by and let this miserable president ruin my legacy.
"Sir, I don't know actually."
This is not to say General Petraeus realized his role as political pawn at the moment Warner questioned him. Obviously he's no dummy.
But I don't think he knew the question was coming, and may have even, for a split second, thought, "how dare they?" In the seconds that followed the question, he undoubtedly recognized Warner's motives were much more honorable than anything pre-scripted by the Bush regime. Maybe the sight of another decent Republican before him motivated him to choose "I don't know."
Remember: "I don't know" and "I think so" are not mutually exclusive, and could both be honest answers.
Having spent so much of my life around very decent, intelligent military professionals, I tend to think the best of people like General Petraeus. Just as most people are decent, so are most military folks.
Some of us recognized it earlier, but the majority of men and women in uniform see the administration for what it really is.
....
-----------------------------
The Political Tool is Embarrassed at Being a Political Tool
He may be the second most powerful player in our deployed military, but General Petraeus has been made a pawn by President Bush. The recognition of -- and reaction to -- this fact is what motivated him to say he doesn't know whether the war in Iraq is making America any safer.
In response to Senator Warner's question General Petraeus could have said any number of things. And, he may have actually been considering this answer:
"I personally think so."
In fact, I bet General Petraeus was tempted to offer his opinion. Torn between "I personally think so" and "I don't know."
Whether or not the former would've been a lie was not the primary reason he chose the latter. In fact, although it might have been an honest response for him to say, "I personally believe so," General Petraeus responded "I don't know" because the spectacle of being a political device disgusted him.
I'm betting something like the following ran through his mind during those dramatic moments between Warner's question and his answer:
1. A simple "Yes" would be a blatantly political response.
2. I am not supposed to be a political figure.
3. In order to conceal the political nature of my response, I might qualify "Yes" with an "in my opinion..."
4. No, that won't work, because even if I qualify my answer as my own, personal opinion, it will be a political response, and that fact will not escape the American public.
5. As I am not supposed to be a political tool, I'll stick to the military role...
"Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
(Warner repeats the question)
1. I am a political pawn. This is bullshit. I can't stand by and let this miserable president ruin my legacy.
"Sir, I don't know actually."
This is not to say General Petraeus realized his role as political pawn at the moment Warner questioned him. Obviously he's no dummy.
But I don't think he knew the question was coming, and may have even, for a split second, thought, "how dare they?" In the seconds that followed the question, he undoubtedly recognized Warner's motives were much more honorable than anything pre-scripted by the Bush regime. Maybe the sight of another decent Republican before him motivated him to choose "I don't know."
Remember: "I don't know" and "I think so" are not mutually exclusive, and could both be honest answers.
Having spent so much of my life around very decent, intelligent military professionals, I tend to think the best of people like General Petraeus. Just as most people are decent, so are most military folks.
Some of us recognized it earlier, but the majority of men and women in uniform see the administration for what it really is.
....
