Why the false moral outrage over Petraeus, when generals who oppose the war are called traitors all the time?

Question

The list of Generals that conservatives have called traitors includes:

General Anthony Zinni
General Charles Swannack
Major General John Batiste
Marine Corps Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold
Army Major General Paul Eaton

and includes former Bush administration officials:

Richard Clarke
Paul O’Neill
John DiIulio

And yet conservatives trot out false moral outrage when Democrats doubt "Perfect Peter" Petraeus

Answer 1

That's a very good question. Republicans have mocked and disrespected the military and veterans who disagree with them. Rumsfeld blamed all the failures of the war on the military saying "You go to war with the Army you have". Now when a military man reports to Congress with a report that had the findings dictated from the start and the final draft edited by the administration, there is all this outrage at anyone who questions it.

Answer 2

It's genuine moral outrage. But it's not about the disrespect. It's about the trademark violation.

How dare Democrats swiftboat one of the few generals willing to spout the Administration line?

To Petraeus' credit, I think he honestly believes he can get something done, despite knowing that he's working for people who have only the vaguest ideas about what an Army does and could care less about the realities of the job.

Answer 3

Just one of the daily examples of Repubicans using outrage and condemnation when it suits their purposes, not because they genuinely feel anything for those they're barking about.

The hypocracy, at this point, is so deeply ingrained, I truly doubt the average Republican even realizes it. These are the same people who worship a Deserter during the Vietnam conflict, but they're willing to listen to him tell them McCain could be a "Manchurian Candidate" because he was a POW in Vietnam (a country Bush couldn't find on a map if it meant a new set of kneepads).They see no problem listening to a man who has absolutely NO combat experience at all, advised by a Cabinet in which NONE had ANY military experience at all, and this man has the gall to refer to himself as a "War President". They see no problem "supporting the troops" by making sure the companies feeding, sheltering and armoring them have absolutely NO OVERSIGHT AT ALL. They apparently "support the troops", but don't care about the $2 Billion Bush cut from the Veteran's Administration's budget in 2007. Or the fact that wounded servicemembers are not getting the care they need, nor do they have any answers about where these soldiers, no longer physically able to do THAT job, nor can they go back to the job they had (99 times out of a 100), (did you know that these extra long deployments have resulted in record numbers of Reservists losing their stateside employment? Once the troops DO rotate home, is Bush going to put these guys to work again? Maybe building that border fence he's been talking about for 6 years? Seriously though, how are the wounded ex-servicemembers to fit into a society which doesn't much like to look at cripples and handicapped people where they work (unless they're CUSTOMERS, of course)?
Where's the outrage over Mark Foley, an admitted pedophile, unless this happens to be one of those fabled "Family Values" we always hear Cons talking about, (but which none will define conclusively), but they about lost their MINDS when William Jefferson was arrested with $80,000 in his freezer (according to reports). They had him tried, convicted and are howling for him to be kicked out of the Senate (and blaming Dems because he hadn't been, trying to draw a comaprison between someone ACCUSED but not CONVICTED and Larry Craig, who PLED GUILTY and WAS CONVICTED of "disorderly conduct", over tapping his foot and (according to the arresting officer) propositioned a stranger in a public bathroom for sex. One is a bribery charge, the other was a pled down charge of disorderly conduct so his homophobic constituency wouldn't find out about his "peccadillos". Had Mr Jefferson gotten elected on an Ethics Platform, pledging to never take a bribe, then he would, if convicted of the bribery charge, would be considered a hypocrite. Larry Craig has spent many a public hour railing against homosexuals and their behavior, the worst of which (not to mention the most high risk; I guess Mr Craig shouldn't be donating blood ever again, if he ever did) Mr Craig apparently engaged in himself. This is what Dems MEAN when they shout HYPOCRITES.

Answer 4

What human beings ignore is general Petraeus wrote the "military field handbook for Counter Insurgency." interior the pages of that handbook, Petreaus outlines what number infantrymen the U.S. needs to effectively try against any insurgency. in accordance together with his very own e book, we want approximately 650,000 troops in Iraq to administration this war. We at the instant have approximately one hundred thirty,000 to a hundred and forty,000. it incredibly is precisely why the war has long previous so badly. Bush refused to take heed to previous generals who asked for extra troops, and the two fired those generals, or the generals provide up out of disgust, or took retirement. Now alongside comes Petreaus who incredibly betrays his very own teachings to assuage Bush?! The Moveon advert, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that distasteful, grew to become into precise. get up for your self general, and insist the style of troops necessary to end this war, extremely of kissing Bush the place the sunlight do not shine.

Answer 5

And then they grandstand (like Duncan Hunter yesterday) by waving their copy of the Times around, in front of the cameras, to make sure everyone sees this outrageous ad that called Petraeus a traitor.

IMO, they realize Iraq is a disaster, but instead of admitting their mistake in supporting it, It gives them comfort to lash out against some newspaper ad so they can obfuscate things. Like if it wasn't for Moveon.org, we would've won trhis war by now!

Answer 6

Yeah, it sure looks like they don't want any of them to give a realistic analysis. They want all of the generals to be yesmen who only parrot what they are told by the bush administration what to say. Petraeus is only saying what the White House told him to anyways.

Answer 7

The man has honor, and our troops are in harms way. Whether you agree with our mission or not, it's there. By publicly calling him a traitor, you give the enemy a reason and power.

Answer 8

This world just keeps getting nuttier. I've had just about all I can stomach from the conservative Republican camp. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Answer 9

Because he is on message!!!! Even though the message acts against America and Americans......

Where is the light at the end of the Tunnel.....Where?

Answer 10

A better question would be why does the media and the liberals in this country put any military person who opposes the war on a pedestal, while doubting any military officers who don't openly oppose the war? Any general who says anything positive about the progress in Iraq has no integrity or is not worthy of even being heard according to the liberals. I think it is appalling to state that General Petreus "betrayed us" before moveon.org even heard what he had to say. Liberals are so afraid of actual facts and statistics.