General Petraeus and Rudy Giuliani’s Attack on Hillary Clinton

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Well before General David Petraeus began his marathon testimony before several congressional committees earlier this week, the essence of his report did not come as a surprise. And although he assured up front that his report had not been cleared by the White House but was his alone, it was clear that he and President George W. Bush were on the same page. I do not know whether or to what extent the President and his advisers followed the General’s advice when they decided on what comes down to staying-the-course and buying-time in Iraq. But even in his speech at Quantico today, the President urged Americans to follow experts like General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The way the White House sold the General’s report card and his congressional testimony before and after the event conveyed the strong impression that Mr. Bush himself followed the General’s lead. The President opened last night’s speech with this sentence: "In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home." If you listened to what Petraeus told members of Congress, this sounded familiar in that the General, too, mentioned mostly al-Qaeda when he described the violence in Iraq.
Whether presidents or generals—when decisions over war and peace are made, the deciders should be scrutinized, certainly by the Congress, the branch that has the constitutional right to decide over war and peace. The idea that questioning and doubting and contradicting highly decorated generals in such crucial matters means “spewing political venom,” as Rudy Giuliani characterized Senator Hillary Clinton’s skeptical reaction to the General’s progress report, is dead wrong and underlines Mr. Giuliani’s intemperate disposition. Senator Clinton said that taking the Petraeus progress report at face value would require the “willing suspension of disbelief.” So what? The success and progress report that the General delivered is one assessment, but there are several other recent reports by government agencies that paint a far more pessimistic picture—including the report on the lack of political progress by the General Accountability Office.

In his full-page ad in today’s New York Times, Giuliani calls Senator Clinton’s remark a “character attack” on the General. Did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz attack the character of General Eric Shinseki, when they publicly attacked his assessment that far more troops were needed in Iraq after the initial invasion phase and helped Shinseki into a soon-thereafter retirement?

The Giuliani ad contains the question, “Who should America listen to….A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org?”
It is certainly necessary and prudent to listen to military leaders like General Petraeus before and during the deployment of troops abroad, but it would be wrong to follow their advice without the toughest of questioning—simply because they are soldiers “committed to defending America.” That, Mr. Giuliani, is every soldier’s duty. Judging from Giuliani’s hysterical reaction to Clinton’s remark, one must assume that he would let the generals decide in matters of war and peace, if he were president.

As the Caucus blog of the New York Times reports, Giuliani continued his attacks on Senator Clinton in an appearance in Atlanta today. Another tactic to endear himself to the growing number of conservative Republicans who view his new-found conservatism suspect?

Comments

[lylepink]

I have stated the video add by Rudy was the most misleading I have seen so far in the 08 race.