"General Petraeus is a man constantly at war with the facts"

Really? I decided to research the controversial MoveOn.org’s article, and found some very interesting lies, and contradictions. The layout of this is:
  ==============================================================
“MoveOn.org’s quote”

Their source
-what the source actually said, and the reality of the situation
==============================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.”

GAO report, 9/4/07
-the truth is that the report mentioned nothing of the ‘surge’

NIE report, 8/23/07
-“These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times
fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge.”

-“rest on previous judgments,”

-“In either type of judgment, we do not have ‘evidence’ that
shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.”

-“Words such as ‘may be’ and ‘suggest’ are used to reflect situations in which we are unable to assess the likelihood generally because relevant information is nonexistent, sketchy, or fragmented.”

-“There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation”

-There have been modest improvements in economic
output, budget execution, and government finances

-We assess…that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.”

“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07
-If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal.

The difference between a ‘sectarian’ murder, and a ‘criminal’ murder hardly constitutes the difference between an assassination and just a random murder.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. "

The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
-it would be premature to draw a final statistical picture of the effect of the added troops.


Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.”  9/5/07
- _Aug. 14, 2007, nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 10.

NOTE: this also contradicts the NPR column, which said that Baghdad only had 6 hours of electricity each day

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war." (The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07; The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman.  9/7/07.)

-both articles, in all reality and actuality, say nothing of the sort.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MoveOn.org also had a link so that you can “see the reason behind this ad”. I decided to follow that, and even more lies, and propaganda.



“Pay attention: this is how the right-wing uses the media to manipulate the truth and silence dissent against the Iraq war.

“Even before MoveOn.org's ran its controversial ad about General Petraeus in the New York Times, The Weekly Standard published an article by Peter Hegseth…The headline of the article accused the MoveOn.org ad of calling Petraeus a 'traitor'.  The only problem:  the word 'traitor' appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad nor anywhere on the MoveOn.org page about the ad. It is Hegseth's article that introduced the word 'traitor' into the story -- an outright lie intended to silence dissent against the war.” (Huffington Post, "How Right-Wing Lie About MoveOn Ad Became the Story" 9/11/07)



To think that the Left would go to this extreme is beyond me. Their best argument is that the exact word ‘traitor’ never appears? I guess, then, if I accuse, say, Ted Kennedy, of withholding the truth, then am I not calling him a liar? This is the sad low of the Left in my opinion.

“(Hugh) Hewitt also repeated the Hegseth lie in a Townhall.com post, posting a statement to the widely-read conservative blog that is outright false when he stated that the Senate had used ‘MoveOn.org as their party's attack dog to call David Petraeus a traitor’ --despite the fact that the MoveOn.org ad did not call Petraeus a liar.”

Again, an example of how the Left just lies! The article plainly called Petraeus a liar. Calling him “at war with the facts”, and claimed that he had “cooked the books for the White House“, they say that we have not achieved progress, and have ’documented’ it, and if that is not calling the General a liar, then I don’t know what is.

Here is the Webster’s Dictionary definition of the word ’betray’:

 1 : to lead astray
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a : to reveal unintentionally

Now, here is Webster's definition of the word 'traitor'

1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (emphasis added)
2 : one who commits treason

MoveOn.org also questioned the Generals integrity by saying:
“the General does have a history of overstating the case for progress for political reasons.”


However, they offered absolutely no proof of this accusation; they did use an article that Petraeus had written close to the ‘04 elections that “were viewed as a tacit endorsement for Bush”.   Again, they provide no evidence that the General in any way did, or even that he wanted to support President Bush.

Another accusation that they made was that the report of Petraeus was not “his and his alone”. The “proof” of this is documents that RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and General Petraeus had contacted one another to set a date for when the General would announce his plan to Congress. Not only is this another lie of MoveOn, Petraeus ADMITTED that he had talked to people higher than him about his testimony.



MoveOn.org calls General David Petraeus “a man at war with the facts” maybe they should check the facts themselves. As one famous reporter put it:
   
    “I guess reporting is easier, when you don’t worry about the facts.”