Month: October 2008

Down To The Wire

by digby

Everyone has heard about Michelle Bachmann’s outburst on Hardball and the ensuing outpouring of donations for her opponent. But there was another “macaca moment” that was so bad Keith Olbermann even named the perpetrator The Worst Person In The World.

Here’s Howie:

It’s taken him a while but he’s finally gotten around to Robin “Weepy” Hayes, a kind of feudal type who represents a sprawling district that stretches from Charlotte to Fayetteville (NC-08). Apparently he had either just lost control of himself or he was trying to compete with Michele Bachmann for the GOP crazee du jour, when he introduced John McCain to an audience in North Carolina by saying “Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and believe in God.” Forgetting that we’re in a different kind of media age, where things are easy recorded and checked, he flatly denied saying it.The next day witnesses came forward to say they heard him. He denied it some more…

If any member of Congress personifies a willingness to sell out his constituents’ economic interests for the sake of special interests, it is Robin Hayes. Few districts anywhere have been as hard hit by unfair trade policies as NC-08. And yet Hayes was the deciding vote– twice– on trade agreements his party was pushing that he himself said he knew was bad for North Carolina! Once he actually voted NO and then, weeping like a little girl, changed his vote to YES when Tom Delay threatened him on the floor of the House.

Hayes’ opponent, Larry Kissell, is one of the best candidates running for Congress anywhere. A laid off mill worker, Larry became a social studies teacher and later came within 325 votes of ousting Hayes from Congress in 2006. This year polls say he will complete the job. Blue America has endorsed him and I’m very nervous about this race because Hayes and his corporate allies are flooding the district with negative campaign ads– and Larry’s pretty much out of money. According to Open Secrets, on September 30 Hayes still had $1,113,272 left to spend and Larry was down to $250,134. The most recent polling shows Larry at 49% and Hayes at 41% but the NRCC is blasting away with $882,000 in television smears.

Kissel is one of the good guys. Not only would he be unseating a wingnut jackass, he’s a real progressive. You can help him by donating through ACT Blue, but the most direct way to help right now is by doing this:

Place your own ad buy in the Charlotte cable market through SaysMe.tv. Just pick which ad you want to run, which network you want to run it on and what time of the day. An ad on MSNBC in the late afternoon, for example, costs $60, while a late night ad on MTV or the SciFi channel costs $31; ESPN 2 charges $60 for a spot late night or early morning.

Howie is getting some amazing feedback about this SaysMe campaign. Political gurus are totally wowed by the idea and are telling Howie that this is where the next wave of internet politics is heading. It’s an amazing concept and could make the difference in some of these races in the last few days. But you have to act quickly. The ads have to be bought by Monday.

This is a really cheap and easy thing to do and it’s so much fun. (You don’t have to do it just with Kissel — you can use it for other Blue American candidates as well. Check the site.) In these late days it’s the best way for you to affect congressional races and get the message out in these districts.

Click below and you’ll go to the Blue America SaysMe site:

Also: Down With Tyranny and Crooks and Liars have been running a $10,000 matching fund raising drive for Debbie Cook, another great Blue America candidate, who just might beat that Taliban loving jackass, Dana Rohrabacher. She would be a huge asset in the House:

Debbie doesn’t mince words about women’s issues, marriage equality, getting out of Iraq, or the need for single payer health. But her passion is energy and the need to act now to leave fossil fuels before they leave us. We’re riding a wave of change here in Surf City, and Republicans panicked when they finally did internal polling and showed the race within the margin of error. We’ve gotten great response to our ads on cable, and we can still increase our buy for the last week. We’re on track to knock on almost every door in the district before the election more than once, and we’re getting tremendous support for GOTV from every environmental group, the unions, the nurses, PDA, and DFA. We have targeted mail ready to go to hit the low-propensity voters and remind younger voters, women, seniors, veterans, Latinos, and Vietnamese that Rohrabacher is a ZERO while Debbie is a HERO. Every dollar you give today goes out the door to communicate to voters. A series of donors have made a $10,000 matching dollar for dollar pledge.

You can buy ads for her too, here.

Update: And now the Republicans (and the allegedly liberal media) are smearing Darcy Burner, saying she lied about her degree from Harvard, (which is complete bullshit.) Meanwhile, Dave Reichert, the smear artist, is caught lying about his degree from Concordia Lutheran College, inflating it from an AA degree to a BA.

Where does this chutzpah come from?

Donate here to stop the insanity. Or buy some ads for Darcy on behalf of the latte sipping, intellectual elite.

.

It Ain’t Us

by digby

David Swanson at After Downing Street indicts the liberal blogosphere for failing to hold McCain accountable for his hypocrisy on torture. Speaking of the Pinochet meeting revealed on Huffington Post today, he writes:

First, it’s an opening to talk about McCain’s more recent support for torture, a topic Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and other liberal blogs have been no more open to than the New York Times or Fox News. In 2005 John McCain championed the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passed the Congress and was signed into law by Bush, adding one more redundant ban on torture to existing U.S. law, despite Vice President Cheney having lobbied hard against it. But McCain allowed a major loophole for the CIA and then kept quiet when Bush threw out the whole thing with a “signing statement.” Bush and Cheney’s administration continued to torture without pause or slowdown.

In 2006 Time Magazine recognized McCain’s efforts to supposedly ban torture in naming him one of America’s 10 Best Senators. Time made no mention of the fact that torture had always been illegal, the fact that Bush had thrown out the new law with a “signing statement,” or the fact that the United States was continuing to torture people on a large scale.

Also in 2006 McCain voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act which supposedly left torture decisions up to the president. And in February 2008, McCain voted against a bill that would supposedly ban torture, and then applauded Bush for vetoing the bill. I’ve talked to plenty of torture fans at McCain-Palin rallies. They know they’re backing the torture ticket. Why won’t even the independent progressive media admit it?

I’m on his mailing list and he sent this to me. But obviously, he doesn’t read my blog or any number of others who have been railing about McCain’s deplorable record on torture for years. It’s as great a mystery and frustration to me as it is him that the mainstream media have refused to look at this story, but it’s not because I the blogosphere hasn’t tried to get it out there.

I don’t mean to pick on Swanson. I get emails all the time from people excoriating me for failing to write about things I have been writing about for years. I normally just ignore it, assuming they don’t read my blog, but in this case, I wrote about it just last week, so I’m a little bit irritated.

And aside from own fevered meanderings, it is useful to point out that Glenzilla wrote a whole book about conservative hypocrisy and devoted substantial ink to this very topic:

The mirage-like nature of McCain’s alleged convictions can be seen most clearly, and most depressingly, with his public posturing over the issue of torture. Time and again, McCain has made a dramatic showing of standing firm against the use of torture by the United States, only to reveal that his so-called principles are confined to the realm of rhetoric and theater, but never action that follows through on that rhetoric.

In 2005, McCain led the effort in the Senate to pass the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which made the use of torture illegal. While claiming that he had succeeded in passing a categorical ban on torture, however, McCain meekly accepted two White House maneuvers that diluted his legislation to the point of meaningless: (1) the torture ban expressly applied only to the U.S. military, but not to the intelligence community, which was exempt, thus ensuring that the C.I.A.–the principal torture agent for the United States — could continue to torture legally; and (2) after signing the DTA into law, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9, President Bush issued one of his first controversial “signing statements” in which he, in essence, declared that, as president, he had the power to disregard even the limited prohibitions on torture imposed by McCain’s law.

McCain never once objected to Bush’s open, explicit defiance of his cherished anti-torture legislation, preferring to bask in the media’s glory while choosing to ignore the fact that his legislative accomplishment would amount to nothing. Put another way, McCain opted for the political rewards of grandstanding on the issue while knowing that he had accomplished little, if anything, in the way of actually promoting his “principles.”

A virtual repeat of that sleight-of-hand occurred in 2006, when McCain first pretended to lead opposition to the Military Commissions Act (MCA), only thereafter to endorse this most radical, torture-enabling legislation, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. After insisting that compelled adherence to the anti-torture ban of the Geneva Conventions was a nonnegotiable item for him, McCain ultimately blessed the MCA despite the fact that it left it to the president to determine, in his sole discretion, which interrogation methods did or did not comply with the Conventions’ provisions.

Thus, once again, McCain created a self-image as a principled torture opponent with one hand, and with the other, ensured a legal framework that would not merely fail to ban, but would actively enable, the president’s ability to continue using interrogation methods widely considered to be torture.

more at the link…

That was excerpted from Huffington Post, btw.

Swanson is correct that the mainstream media have allowed McCain’s reputation as a moral agent on the subject of torture to stand. Even Obama unfortunately granted him that in the last debate. But those of us who follow civil liberties issues in the blogosphere have not and it’s galling to be accused of it.

I won’t link to all the posts on this subject from bloggers such as Kagro X at DKos, Christie Hardin Smith, Emptywheel, Think Progress, Crooks and Liars etc. Mr Google will take you there. We’ve done our best to expose McCain’s outrageous cowardice on this. Perhaps it’s such an enormous betrayal of principle that the political establishment can’t wrap their minds around it, I don’t know. But it’s out there if anyone wants to find it.

.

Eating Their Own

by digby

… legs off.

In response to this morning’s post about an anti-Palin faction developing with the McCain campaign and among Republicans, Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser, e-mails:

Just read your post. This is on the record. This is cleared by HQ. It is a fact that Barack Obama was palling around with terrorists. It was a fact before Governor Palin said it in a fully vetted speech and it is fact today. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.

I guess we can see why McCain likes this guy so much. The guy is just as intemperate and impulsive as he is.

It’s kind of funny, though, that Randy Scheunman is accusing people of palling around with terrorists. He’s got quite a history himself and it’s a lot more recent that Ayres’ ancient activities:

Remember, US intelligence later found evidence that Chalabi, in addition to foisting a bunch of bogus intelligence and lying informers on the US and pocketing a lot of US taxpayer dollars, had provided highly classified US intelligence to Iran. Scheunemann worked closely with Chalabi for years in his efforts to get the US into war with Iraq. He was also a go-between between Chalabi and McCain. Now that he’s taking such a high-profile role on the Iraq issue in the 2008, Scheunemann’s history with Chalabi and the use of bogus intelligence to get the nation into war is unquestionably highly newsworthy.

It is a fact that just like his friend Chalabi, Randy Scheunemann is a loser conman. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.

Update: There’s palling around and then there’s palling around:

In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile’s military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world’s most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.

At least he wasn’t a socialist.

.

The Scarlet ‘B”

by digby

I’m sure most of you have heard about the alleged attack of a McCain campaign worker by a crazed black man. It’s been all over the internets and apparently the McCain campaign has been pushing it like crazy. There are many questions as to the story’s veracity, but that will sort itself out in due course.

But someone sent me this blog post from John Moody, president of Fox, that is has to be read to be believed:

Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

So, according to Moody, if a black man assaults someone in Pittsburgh, people can justifiably be suspicious of another black man who happens to be running for president. And that’s not racist.

Recall that this is a very,very important man in American broadcasting. He directs the news of a major cable network every day with a memo that gives the parameters for the coverage. He’s clearly a right winger, but I never thought he was an idiot. Until now.

Update:

Yeah…

Police sources tell KDKA that a campaign worker has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter “B” in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker.

.

This Is Not Funny

by tristero

Seriously, this is sick. None of us would be snickering if Obama was down in the polls:

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member. It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

If ever there was a perfect indicator of the priorities of modern Republicanism, this is it.

(Actually, in a Strangelovian way, it’s also pretty funny.)

Jews For Obama

by tristero

Despite the hype from the right, it’s more than 3 to 1.

Heh. Looks like the good Sarah’s Great Schlep may not be that necessary, even if it is very funny.

An Offer They Can’t Refuse

by digby

The bigots allegedly doing the Lord’s work in California are getting really nasty. Now they are extorting money from companies that support gay marriage:

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

Is that even legal? More importantly, considering the context, is that supposed to be moral?

These people have every right to boycott businesses that support No on 8. It’s disgusting that they refuse to allow their fellow citizens the right and privileges afforded by marriage, but they have a right to their beliefs. But I find it hard to believe they have a right to extort money from people who believe differently than them and threaten them with “exposure” if they refuse. When did that become SOP?

And naturally, these are the same people who have run the most dishonest campaign in my memory. I’ve never seen anything like it:

THE LIE: Four activist judges ignored four million voters.
THE TRUTH: Voters were far from ignored. Proposition 22, which originally made same-sex marriage illegal, was at the center of the court case. The California Constitution has not been this carefully examined since interracial marriage was made legal in 1959. Three of those four judges were appointed by Republicans.

THE LIE: Churches can lose their tax-exempt status.
THE TRUTH: Churches have the right to preach whatever they believe, and deny marriage to anyone on any grounds. This does not affect their tax-exempt status at all. Prop 8 would do nothing to protect this right any further.

THE LIE: Schools will have to teach about gay marriage.
THE TRUTH: The State of California does not control curriculum about marriage. They mandate that children are taught about the financial responsibilities of marriage, but not about what marriage is; that is completely up to the school and the parents. Parents have the right to remove their children from class any time they would be taught something about health and families that the parents disagree with. Prop 8 would do nothing to protect this right any further.

THE LIE: Prop 8 ensures religious freedom.
THE TRUTH: Considering some churches allow same-sex marriage, Prop 8 would actually take away a religious freedom. The judges in the court ruling took extra steps to ensure that freedom of religion was preserved. Prop 8 would do nothing at all to ensure religious freedom.

THE LIE: Prop 8 ensures free speech.
THE TRUTH: The court ruling did nothing to free speech, and neither would Prop 8.

THE LIE: Prop 8 means less government.
THE TRUTH: Prop 8 is an amendment to the California Constitution that dictates what a marriage is. It actually means that the government is more involved in our lives.

These people are pulling out all the stops and there is no guarantee this amendment is going to fail. California is in the bag for Obama and there’s no real campaign going on here. But the “No on Prop 8” campaign is fierce and if you feel like getting involved, there are ways to do it:

Donate. The Mormons are pouring money into this thing.

Volunteer at a local campaign office. Or phone bank from your home.

One of the big problems is that many people still don’t understand that voting NO is the way to support gay marriage. The least we can all do is make sure we are explicit in our conversations about that part of it.

.

On The Trail Of The Real Stories

by digby

The ever reasonable “conservative” Jon Swift has collected the most important, overlooked Pulitzer level stories emanating from the rightwing blogpshere during this election season. If the liberal media weren’t so in the tank for teh gays and the you-know-whats, these stories would be in screaming headlines in every newspaper in the land.

Here’s just one:

Michelle Obama attacks “American white racists” in an interview with obscure online news site

I bet you probably didn’t know that Michelle Obama gave an exclusive interview to the obscure online journalism site African Press International in which she said that “American white racists” are trying to derail her husband’s candidacy by claiming that Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, which would make him ineligible to be President under one of the secret, little-known provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Mrs. Obama was apparently so disturbed by these charges that she decided to call this press agency, which most people have never heard of, and vent Martha Mitchell-like, even though her words might scuttle her husband’s chances of becoming President. Although the mainstream media hasn’t yet picked up the story, and the Obama campaign denies the interview took place, Gateway Pundit, Protein Wisdom, Right Pundits, Stop the ACLU, Maggies Notebook, Death by 1000 Paperecuts, Strata-Sphere, News Busters, World Net Daily, Jim Treacher, Townhall and a number of other conservative blogs and news sites ran with it. Although some cynical bloggers were skeptical of the story for some reason and demanded more proof, API assured them that it had tapes of the conversations and was just waiting for the right moment to release them. Although API still hasn’t managed to work out the logistics yet, and several deadlines have already come and gone, conservative bloggers are very patient and understanding and just hope that API can work everything out before the election. “We will know soon enough,” writes Gateway Pundit. “It is amazing how the media will believe a hoax that some Republican yelled ‘kill him’ at a Palin rally with no evidence but will disregard a harsh story on Michelle Obama from the start. It’s interesting how that works.”

More like this at the link. No wonder the newspaper business is on its last legs. they have no nose for the news. luckily for Americans these good folks are picking up where they left off.

Oh Well, Another Handful Of Afghanis Dead

by dday

Digby was talking about Afghanistan earlier, in the context of Obama seeking to see “the big picture” in allocating resources. I hope events like this fit into the edge of the frame.

Nine Afghan soldiers were killed and four others injured by a U.S. airstrike on an Afghan army checkpoint Wednesday in an apparent friendly-fire incident in eastern Afghanistan, according to Afghan and U.S. military officials.

The pre-dawn airstrike occurred after a convoy of coalition troops came under fire as they returned to their base in Khost province, according to a statement released by the U.S. military. Coalition soldiers called for air support after exchanging fire with Afghan troops near an Afghan army checkpoint in the Sayed Kheil area in what military officials said could be “a case of mistaken identity on both sides.” […]

Arsallah Jamal, governor of Khost province, said coalition and Afghan troops had been engaged in operations in the area for about 10 days before the strike occurred. Jamal said the army checkpoint was relatively new but was well-known and on a main road. “They knew it was there. They made a mistake,” Jamal said.

There was another airstrike in the region today that hit a Pakistani school and killed at least eight. And you can just read these stories with a sense of deja vu throughout the past seven years. We’ve been bombing Afghanistan for so long, as a band-aid to make up for the lack of troops, that I’m not sure if you asked an Afghan civilian that they would tell you that the Taliban is the real enemy and not the guys in the airplanes in the sky. Right now popular support for a foreign presence is almost even with opposition, and declining.

Russ Feingold spoke up today with one of those statements that isn’t allowed in the polite company of the foreign policy establishment in Washington – maybe we shouldn’t just transfer our military strength from one country to the next.

But few people seem willing to ask whether the main solution that’s being talked about– sending more troops to Afghanistan – will actually work.

If the devastating policies of the current administration have proved anything, it’s that we need to ask tough questions before deploying our brave service members – and that we need to be suspicious of Washington “group think.” Otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

For far too long, we have been fighting in Afghanistan with too few troops. It has been an “economy of force” campaign, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put it. But we can’t just assume that additional troops will undo the damage caused by years of neglect.

Sending more US troops made sense in, say, 2006, and it may still make sense today. The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly over the past year, however, despite a larger US and coalition military presence.

We need to ask: After seven years of war, will more troops help us achieve our strategic goals in Afghanistan? How many troops would be needed and for how long? Is there a danger that a heavier military footprint will further alienate the population, and, if so, what are the alternatives? And – with the lessons of Iraq in mind – will this approach advance our top national security priority, namely defeating Al Qaeda?

How dare he try to ask questions, using such trifles as reason and logic. How dare he consider that massive military might can be anything but glorious. How dare he suggest that an international problem has something other than a military solution.

The very nerve.

.

Et Tu Petraeus?

by digby

Joe Klein has published a very informative interview with Obama on foreign policy on Swampland and it’s worth reading from beginning to end. Even where I disagree with him, I can’t help but feel relieved and overjoyed at Obama’s impressive intelligence (which makes it more laughable than ever that Sarah Palin has the nerve to diss his readiness in foreign policy.)

Anyway, there’s a lot to digest in the interview, but the long passage about General Petraeus stuck out at me because of an article I’d read just prior to reading Klein’s piece. Here’s Obama in the Klein interview:

[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.

[Q] But you didn’t have to make that point.

[BO] No well I think that I did, I felt it necessary to make that point even though I tried not to talk about it publicly, not knowing sort of what the terms of our discussion were. Precisely because I respect the Petraeus and [inaudible], precisely because they’ve done a good job and because my job as a candidate is preparing myself to be commander in chief. And I want to make sure that I’m taking their arguments seriously, they understand I’m taking their argument seriously. I want our military brass and our mid level officers to all feel that I am going to be listening to them. This notion that I’m not paying attention to them is nonsense. I’m listening to them very carefully and I take their advice with great seriousness. I just want them to know that I’ve got a, I potentially will have a broader task at hand.

[Q] Right.

[BO] And I want to make sure that we establish a relationship of respect early on. Again not just with the joint chiefs but also with folks who align responsibly on the ground.

[Q] Now I’ve heard that conversation characterized as everything from angry to spirited to agreeable. And I kind of took it as

[BO] I would say it was between spirited and agreeable. That’s how I would characterize it.

[Q] And after you made that point, [Petraeus] said I understand now.

[BO]He did.

Obviously I wasn’t there and have no way of interpreting that exchange, but I wouldn’t be so sure it means what it appears to mean. I certainly respect Obama for making it clear that he will be Commander in Chief and that his view is, by definition, more global, in every sense of the word. But I have a sneaking suspicion that The Man Called Petraeus may not be as sanguine about that interaction as Obama might wish.

The article I had just read was also about Petraeus and Andrew Bacevich quotes him saying that he no longer votes because he “thought senior leaders should be apolitical.” Bacevich points out that this used to be common among the higher reaches of the officer corps, but changed in recent decades when the military became much more overtly Republican. He questions Petraeus’ meaning, however:

… if Petraeus’s statement that “senior leaders should be apolitical” reflects the beginnings of a retreat from the partisanship that has infected the officer corps, that will be all to the good. Indeed, General Petraeus will perform a signal service to the military profession and to the nation if he genuinely honors that commitment.

Still, one wonders. Since he burst upon the scene during the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, Petraeus has displayed a political sophistication and savvy not seen in any senior officer since Colin Powell himself left active duty. Among other things, the general possesses and does not hesitate to deploy (as did Powell) a remarkable aptitude for courting politicians and members of the press. Rather than seeing war and politics as distinctive spheres, with soldiers confined to the former and civilian leaders dominating the latter, Petraeus understands (correctly) that the two spheres are inextricably linked. To restrict soldiers to a specific arena of activity — to limit their role to issues directly related to war fighting — makes little sense and would be self-defeating. This is especially true in an era when the United States remains committed to waging an open-ended global war against the forces of violent Islamic radicalism.

The so-called “Long War” is a political war par excellence, with “politics” here having a domestic as well as an international aspect — a reality apparent in the way that the Bush administration suppressed doubts about the “surge” in Iraq by employing Petraeus as its de facto spokesman. To criticize the policy became tantamount to criticizing the general, which few members of Congress or the media were willing to do.

Was Petraeus the administration’s willing dupe? Or was he shrewdly pursuing his own game that just happened to coincide with the administration’s? Who exactly was playing whom?

The question still to be determined is this: what role does Petraeus foresee himself playing as this deeply politicized war extends beyond the Bush presidency? Will he confine himself to rendering disinterested professional advice? Should Barack Obama win the election, will the apolitical soldier bow to the wishes of his new civilian master — despite Obama’s opposition to the war in which Petraeus built his reputation? We should hope so.

Yet by claiming to be apolitical — someone who stands “above” mere politics — Petraeus might also be positioning himself to assert a role not only in implementing policy but in shaping policy to suit his own agenda, in Iraq and elsewhere. In that event, General Marshall just might end up turning over in his grave.

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.

Obama had better watch his back. As Bacevich mentions in the article (and Lucian Truscott IV wrote in my comment section last night) there is a pretty recent example of another ambitious General who stabbed his president in the back. This is the one area where Obama should cultivate Powell’s advice. He’s an expert.

.