...which is a headline you would read if the American Conservative Magazine were a liberal media outlet.
In the 10/8/07 issue a American Conservative Magazine article, "Sycophant Savior," self-admitted conservative Andrew J. Bacevich wrote...
"Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind--one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington's bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."
Sycophant? Political general of the worst kind?
Geez. Demeaning the General in a time of war, with our troops in harm's way. The resolution to condemn the magazine should be ready for vote by the end of the week. I mean, if these resolutions were meant to be actual, even-handed condemnations against those who intend to harm our troops in harm's way.
Bacevich also endorsed the Media Matter's view - along with many others - that the President's leadership was so resolutely hopeless that he had to hide behind the Petraeus stars and service to attempt to not have to America flat out discard our presence in Iraq.
"The Petraeus-Crocker hearings found Petraeus in a position to resolve that problem. Over the previous eight months, a discredited president had effectively abdicated responsibility for managing the war. "I trust David Petraeus" became George W. Bush's mantra, suggesting an astonishing level of presidential deference. Sometime in early 2007, the task of formulating basic strategy for Iraq had effectively migrated from Washington to Baghdad, passing from the office of the commander in chief to the headquarters of the senior field commander. The president made it clear that he intended to takes his cues from his general. Military judgment would inform, even determine, political decisions."
But there's something more to be read into the words of this long-time conservative who has been a staunch defender of this president's placing troops in harm's way. One of those troops was Bacevich's son, who was tragically killed in action in Iraq on May 13, 2007.
There is a saying the conservatives love to use to explain how a liberal becomes a conservative: A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Bacevich's recent writings give evidence that sometimes "a father who is against this president's policies was a conservative until his son is killed by those policies."
Forget the "American Conservative Hates Our Troops" resolution that will never find the light of congressional sincerity - long since dimmed by the lack of courage the light needs to survive.
Forget that conservatives have long painted Cindy Sheehan for speaking out against this president's policies.
Forget that the right swiftboated a John Kerry who volunteered for battle or that they desecrated Max Cleland's leaving his limbs in Vietnam, and a resolution including the slander they suffered was voted down.
What is more fundamental, is how real sacrifice can force a person to face the facts, and not fear retribution from sham politicos...say, like Sheehan did when she lost Casey.
That Bacevich didn't use "Betrayus" to voice his dissatisfaction with Petreaus doesn't make his disillusionment with the general and the general's boss any less real. Nor is it any more treasonous.
Now the only question would be whether O'Reilly chooses to label Petraeus a patriot or a pinhead.