Fraudaholics

General Petraeus was revealed today to be "fully hardwired" into the Cheney/Bush fraud apparatus including debuting in US media for the surge on Fox New and working with former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Per Talking Points Memo:

Now, it isn't exactly a big surprise that a Gillespie-run public-relations team in the White House would be fully integrated into Gen. Petraeus' team, but it does reinforce what observers have known for quite a while now: Petraeus is a part of the president's political operation. That's not necessarily a criticism. It is, however, a realization that Petraeus' testimony is not that of a neutral, dispassionate observer.

As Ezra said the other day, "Next week, Petraeus will not be acting as a general and he will not be acting as a soldier; he will be acting as a media campaign. He is the White House's press strategy."

This makes the General a scoundrel rather than a statesmanlike military figure.

Who doesn't believe in the escalation, I mean, "surge?"

- Democratic Presidential candidates. No, really.

- Other top U.S. military leaders.

- The true statistical numbers they won't release. (You know, reality.)

- Gen. Petraeus himself:

General David Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, admitted on Friday that sending 30 000 more troops into the war zone in January had failed to yield the desired results. "It has not worked out as we had hoped," the general said.

Is that supposed to give us confidence?

Who is for The War? Per Kevin Drumm, it's no longer War Hawks or Pottery Barn Hawks. It's now the Chaos Hawks:

Having admitted, however, that the odds of a military success in Iraq are almost impossibly long, Chaos Hawks nonetheless insist that the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why? Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe.

Needless to say, this is nonsense. Israel has fought war after war in the Middle East. Result: no regional conflagration. Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest wars of the second half the 20th century. Result: no regional conflagration. The Soviets fought in Afghanistan and then withdrew. No regional conflagration. The U.S. fought the Gulf War and then left. No regional conflagration. Algeria fought an internal civil war for a decade. No regional conflagration.

The New York Times asked 6 experts (or maybe 5 since one of them is Doug Feith) for three questions each they would like to see Congress ask Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker when they appears before them. My personal favorite, from the Brit:

2. What do you think might be the consequences for the security situation in Iraq if the United States undertook military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Clearly weighing on the minds of Britons -- and maybe the accelerator on their withdrawal from Basra.

Bob Schieffer has the most direct question, from Meet the Press (via Crooks and Liars):

We haven’t lost this war, but we’re not winning it. We’re hanging on. Victory would be obvious, Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad and Osama Bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up. Instead of that question, let’s hope the General will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?

Will any leaders step up this week?