However, asking him for his views on Iraq is not unlike asking Joe Torre if the Yankees will overtake the Red Sox even though they are five games behind. (They will, incidentally. It only remains to be seen who will be this year’s Bucky Dent or Aaron Boone). Or asking Lee Scott, the CEO of Wal-Mart, if they will take share from Target. You can’t be an effective manager if you don’t have a can-do, optimistic spirit, and if you expressed serious doubts about the success or feasibility of your enterprise, you will be unable to lead those who follow you. Patreus is heavily invested in achieving some modicum of success in Iraq, and it would be naive to expect his testimony not to reflect that.

The Senate — and, more broadly, the American public — has to evaluate the situation in Iraq from different viewpoints, all of which are expressed by people who have a vested interest in things being resolved one way or another. The op-ed piece is an example of accentuating only the positive, and its timing is an additional doubt-creator. Patreus’s views should be balanced against those of others who could be expected to be more objective, such as the GAO report.

I haven’t seen the moveon.org ad, but from the way it has been described it seems both offensive and counter-productive. However, the howling about the ad from the right is a lot of crap. The right wing has often accused decorated war veterans of betrayal and treason when it served their political purposes: John Kerry, John Murtha, George McGovern, Max Cleland, and others. Bringing it up in the House hearing — when none of the Congressmen had anything to do with the ad — is a smokescreen, and a pretty thin one at that.

The fact that he wrote an editorial shortly before a close election which was politically helpful to the GOP — and which turned out to be wrong — is a legitimate reason to have some doubts as to the objectivity of his testimony, especially given the contrast between his testimony and that of other observers.

1. Inaccurate.
2. Offensive.
3. Wrong (morally and factually).

I won’t engage in the counter-smear of holding the Democratic leadership responsible for what moveon.org say. Cheers to Senators Lieberman and Kerry for defending the man who’s appointment was, by the way, confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

Jeers to Harry Reid, Majority Leader in the US Senate, for this:

“He’s made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.”

Really? Where was Mr. Reid with this charge when the General was confirmed? To what, specifically, does he refer?

To pile on with others: Iraq is a very important subject and one that we should leave no stone unturned to discover the right course of action. To that end the General should be questioned thoroughly, as should others. Falsely accusing the man of treason is, at best, a poor and counterproductive way to do so.