Petraeus denies systematic torture during Bush years, half-heartedly defends Obama against Cheney.
By David Sunday Mar 29, 2009 2:22pm
Gen. David Petraeus told CNN's John King that the military didn't order torture while Bush was president. "Was the line crossed? Did you do things which you fundamentally thought were wrong and immoral? " asked King.
"We certainly did not. There were incidents that did and we learned hard lessons from Abu Ghraib and we believe we took corrective measures in the wake of that," said Petraeus.
The General also said that he "wouldn't necessarily agree" with former Vice President Cheney's assertion that President Obama's terrorism policies were putting the country at greater risk.
John Amato:
When Gen. Petraeus says there is a good debate going on about "values," is he saying that under George Bush and Dick Cheney there was no such debate? Was it a veiled swipe at them?
And he did not wholeheartedly support President Obama against the charge from Cheney, who said we are less safer now. He should have been unequivocal in his support for his new commander in chief and said categorically that we are safe.
He's a political animal now that was created by the Bush administration to shift the failure of the Iraq war away from #43 to a general in the military, which was to squash as much criticism as they could from the media. Rove and Co. knew that the media would shy away from leveling tough criticism at the feet of a military man.
CNN transcript:
KING: Do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: I do. He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: General Petraeus, you served in the Bush administration under Vice President Cheney and President Bush. You're now serving in the Obama administration. Are the American people less safe because of this new president, as Vice President Cheney says?
PETRAEUS: Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, John. I think that, in fact, there is a good debate going on about the importance of values in all that we do. I think that, if one violates the values that we hold so dear, that we...
KING: You mean torture?
PETRAEUS: ... we jeopardize -- well, in fact, I put out a memorandum to the soldiers in the Multinational Force-Iraq, when I was the commander, because of concern that we may not be taking some of these seriously enough.
As you know, the field manual came out, from the Army, that is used by all of the different services that completely, clearly outlaws torture. So we think for the military, in particular, that can't -- that's a line that can't be crossed.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: So was the line crossed in the Bush administration?
Was the line crossed? Did you do things which you fundamentally thought were wrong and immoral?
PETRAEUS: We certainly did not. Now, there were some incidents that did, and we learned some very hard lessons from Abu Ghraib and other cases. And we believe that we took corrective measures in the wake of that. And that is very, very important.
But it is hugely significant to us to live the values that we hold so dear and that we have fought so hard to protect over the years.
King never let him finish off his answer to the Cheney question entirely and went after the torture aspect. He should have waited for his complete answer to it and then moved on. Why did Petraeus bring up "values"in his answer? We are either safe or not.
Login or Register to post comments.
...there he goes again!
Ass kissing little chickenshit. If anyone should know it's his former boss http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/708622F7-E613-4...
Ass kissing little chickenshit. If anyone should know it's his former boss
In the bizarro reichwing world this is a compliment....
It means " You will go far....."
i thought it was the cia that was torturing detainees?
I am as big an Obama supporter as there is but comments like this are wrong and I think the General's comments were actually quite critical of Bush & Co.
Listen carefully to what he said and you get a sense of where he was headed before that knuckelhead King interrupted him.
He was saying that his and the Army's standards were systematically violated by Bush and he disapproved. He said it "We did not" meaning the Army not the Bush admin.
He also said "But it is hugely significant to us to live the values that we hold so dear and that we have fought so hard to protect over the years." He intentionally introduced values into the discussion and established that as a point of contrast between Obama and Bush.
I think your bias against the Gen is clouding how you hear what he said.
The headline should be Gen P throws Cheney & Bush under the bus !
Even if you don't believe that (but I do) think about how crazy such a spin would drive Mitch M and John B...........
The torture and illegal activity did not start in Abu Grabyou! It was imported from GITMO and Afghanistan, where systematic abuse and willful disregard of international law as a matter of policy came from the top, such as Richard Bruce Cheney's office.
This chickenshit deserves a butt-end of a rifle for the danger he is putting our troops by condoning torture-as-policy and perpetuating the myth that a few isolated incidents of torture and murder were completely divorced from official policy.
Fucking liar.
Teaching West Point cadets how to lie to get ahead.
A complete piece of shit.
It has now been proven conclusively by the Red cross that the US did in fact torture.Petraeus is lying.
That Red Cross report came out over two weeks ago. John King should have gotten that memo by now. If he was a good journalist, he would've asked Cheney about it during that interview. He had a perfect opportunity to do the same with Petraeus today. Again, nothing.
King and Petraeus are both pathetic, gutless little shills.
They are lying "for the greater good" which happens way too much.
They tortured people, they killed children. We are no better than the Israelis in this regard. We simple appear to attack and torture the people from Arab countries for the last 15 years.
From a complete moron. "Nope no torture here".....yada yada yada.....hey pinhead, it's been proven. Why hasn't your ass been kicked to the curb and retired as Faux Snooze analyst?
All war criminals say the same thing.
Even stated publically that they had tortured...
There is something wrong with Obama... He is surrounding himself with the same criminals and policies which Bush and Cheney had and carry out...
The only change I see is a different person which is running the same policies..
I've seen dozens of articles for a few years that document the torture and testimony of those tortured. This is just another weasel faced liar who should be retired by Obama, and then put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Someone Is either controlling Obama's policies or he is a bare face BS'ers
Obama will do nothing against him and he even said he tortured on prime time tv.
we learned hard lessons from Abu Ghraib
Yeah. Uh huh.. And what precisely did Rumsfeld do in response to Abu Ghraib? That's right. He banned cameras!!!!!
I think you need a hyphen and an "r" in there:
Half-heartedly
...unless you meant that he was kind of semi-angry...
I got the impression he was stressing "WE", meaning the army. In other words, the CIA etc., tortured, but "we" did not. I might buy that. The army proper did not torture, but torutre was done, and he knew about it!!!
Like it might have happened right under his nose, but he did not order it-- He did let it happen, and did not stop it. Anyway, he's in on the whole lying scam. Betray-Us is right.
I wanted to make the same point regarding the CIA torture professionals from the very first paragraph! These two, Betray-Us and King are DEALING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK. We all know that CIA and civilians did the MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION of torture programs at Abu Ghraib. Those poor slobs that got caught taking pictures late at night were just caught up "in the fun of it all" and, of course, not working under specific orders from their chain- of-command LT's and Captains and Majors... OF COURSE NOT!
yesterday
Indeed. Have Gates pull the plug on this BushCo mole and then pull the plug on Gates. It's the only way we're going to get "our" military back.
John King is not about to question Petraeus about Cheney too deeply because Petraeus may admit sometihng King doesn't want to hear.
John King is a Bush-WhiteHouse tool, he always was -- he is married to another one. His bias against Obama and the Democrats is apparent. Petraeus may have been pressed to expound on his comment about values, but King wanted no part of it.
I thought blitzer was bad but this guy is worse. CNN is in 3rd place now for good reason.
The Bush Propaganda "tool" who works for CNN named John King is a disgrace and should be held personally accountable for spinning obvious lies to the people in the lead up to the war.
John King is a charlatan and a media pimp. It's time to hold these traitors accountable for what they are saying and what they've said to the public which they knew at the time were bold-faced lies.
Do as I have done as well as just about everyone I know: Boycott CNN and NEVER turn that propaganda station on ever again.
Show your personal power as millions of have done this past week by tuning into MSNBC instead of CNN. Our actions have dropped them down to #3 and it will get worse unless/until they get some credible journalists there to report fact and truth - instead of spin and lies.
Block CNN from your home.
John King and Co. are nothing more than very unsophisticated, uneducated, transparently and consistently prostituting media whores.
Expect lies and bias and you've got John King as the poster boy.
Now #3, CNN is going to remain at the bottom of the msm totem poll for being so transparent in their hate programming. They're not much better than Fox at this point with angry hate-mongers like Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, John King, etc.
I don't know about you but I'm sick and tired of being lied to by someone who is supposed to be bringing me fact.
This fact we know: CNN continues to pimp the american people with their biased journalism and outright LIES. CNN no longer deserves the respect of the american people.
I never thought boosh nor chainey were ever tortured.
The people (those 72% of us who are not lockstepping, reichwing nutcases) have the incredible POWER to put people like John King and his merry gang of media pimps right out of business.
We also have the power of the purse when it comes to purchasing the goods and services of their sponsors.
If you want to make your impression, DO NOT TUNE INTO CNN or FOX NEWS so we can show them just how powerful we, the people, can be.
We'll move MSNBC to #1 and let Faux News and CNN battle for the subordinate spot.
Since MSNBC are owned and operated by the same monalithic corporation that paid and enabled the phantom stock CNBC jackasses of Cramer and Santelli, your solution is akin to how meth-heads often trade the pusher that refuses to dole out a "fix" for another pusher he deludes himself into believing ever won't.
The key to sending a message to these media megaliths (and meth-heads) consists of one word: DETOX! Translation? You gotta cut the purse! Stop watching and thus enabling them - even to the point of deleting their channels from showing up on your TV or cable set-top box. The drop in those quarter hour Nielsen ratings determine how much the megalith media conglomerates can justify charging their sponsors. When those buy-rates for ads are driven into the shitter due to lack of viewers (i.e. CONSUMERS), it effects their bottom line when sponsors balk at the price for ads and take their business elsewhere.
Somebody might argue, "If we do that in droves, MSNBC will just fire Olberman and Maddow!" First off, they signed a contract so unless MSNBC buys out their contract, they're there to stay for the duration. But if you wanna to insure they stay, keep consuming them. Keep watching them ... but *ONLY* them. The end result is MSNBC will finally get a clue that the *MARKS* within the market (i.e. YOU THE VIEWER) will only sustain and justify programming in the same vein of Olberman and Maddow, and increase it accordingly.
My bullshit radar went off as soon as i read Abu Ghraib.
"We certainly did not. There were incidents that did and we learned hard lessons from Abu Ghraib and we believe we took corrective measures in the wake of that," said Petraeus.
What was Ghraib Dave ? a fucking tea social ?
Yes?
Considerably more poignant, I would think, for those who were tortured on a whim.
Could be woist; they could've been tortured on an altar.
Hmmmmm I wonder why Obama is not going after Cheney when its fact that he broke huge laws and had a hand in killing over a million people. Wonder why???
and avoids actually answering the questions, just like every other politician. He says the military didn't order the torture - we had the guys in the White House and the CIA doing that - but a lot of them were involved in perpetrating it. US military folks were involved in torture - bottom line.
I'm thinking maybe Gen. Dave is considering a run for office??
Palin / Petraeus has a nice ring for the Repugs. I believe we could come up with some real snappy campaign slogans for that ticket...!
Nothin creeps like a shifty general
What kind of an interviewer is this guy! He did not follow up on the "values" question. He did not push the general to take a stance. He is so reluctant to ask the tough questions and when he does, doesn't want an answer. He is just asking it, so he can boast to his audience (and program managers) how he put people's feet to fire.
whatever Petraeus says is tainted due to his being used and perverted by the previous administration. he needs to be retired as his usefulness to the cinc has expired...he's like the milk in the fridge that's gone beyond it's "serve by" date.
Whatever the test of his mettle truly is, I do not envy Petraeus the position he must take. He is a career military man, so he will not speak against any president, as respect to the persons who - each in their day - commanded the entirety of the military. No one wants to hear American Army top brass taking the part of a sniveling whiner saying 'my last boss sucked, and thank gawd for Obama cuz now we're so happy not to torture people anymore.' That makes everyone look bad, and whether you want to see someone say it or not, a top general during a time of battle is NOT that particular guy. If you want to hear the truth ring loud and clear, say it yourselves until your _government does something about it, but stop putting the burden on the shoulders of those who have sworn themselves to a duty that precludes 'no whining'. If he threw Bush under the bus unequivocally - truth or not - I would be much less likely to trust him as a subordinate general, or as his commander. He makes as many fine distinctions as he can without throwing any commander in chief (and thus the whole military in the eyes of the rest of the world) under the bus.. and it's a shame the interviewer didn't let him finish a thought.
One does not become a four star general by routinely disobeying orders; even questionable ones, even if they are found to be unfair or distasteful orders. Nor does he get there by convicting his commanders in the public opinion court. If it's not directly under his command chain, he cannot stop it. If ordered to, he will take a hit for it, his fault or no. I guess that's why the army should not be a part of the political world.. their worldview is necessarily different from politicians and civilians alike.
is the interviewer's lack of proper questioning attitude (note the difference between being questioning and 'asking tough questions'), and how he uses the very presence of a general to serve a political game of perceptions. it is pretty routine - and scary - to see media icons ask a question and break off the answer with another question in order to lead the conversation to an acceptable connotative end-point! But all the listener wants to hear, and thus what they force themselves to hear, is an 'authority' who tells them the 'truth' as 'best as they can' so that the listener _feels like_ they understand a situation they had no part in.
The facts in the answers matter almost not at all when compared to the emotional and psychological effects of a question only half-answered by the supposed 'authority' on the subject.. which is then pontificated upon by political spokesmen and pundits until the perceived 'truth' matches what certain people want the public to see/hear/believe. Such is the tailoring of reality to the masses.
{sing-along time!} this is the way we fab-ri-cate, fab-ri-cate, fab-ri-cate..! this is the way we fab-ri-cate the "truth" for ignorant peeeeeeeople!
Login or Register to post comments.