O’Hanlon’s Long Relationship With Petraeus Revealed On Fox News’ One-Hour Special
O’Hanlon’s Long Relationship With Petraeus Revealed On Fox News’ One-Hour Special
Yesterday, Fox News aired “American Commander: Gen. David Petraeus,” a one-hour biographical account of the top commander in Iraq. The program, a narrative of Petraeus’s life from birth until his controversial Congressional testimony, featured stories from old neighbors to high school buddies to fellow military officials.
One of the most prominent interviewees was Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon. Fox highlighted the fact that O’Hanlon has enjoyed a 20-year personal relationship with the general, extending back to graduate school:
O’HANLON: Petreaus certainly was distinctive and noteworthy.
FOX: Michael O’Hanlon is with the Brookings Institution. And in 1987, he attended Princeton with Petraeus. [...]
O’HANLON: Petraeus was trying to learn lessons [from Vietnam], so that with humility, and a willingness to do things differently, then next time, the military could stay out of that predicament. So that’s Petraeus’s style. He is very self-critical of himself and the institutions that he represents.
Watch it:
In his notorious New York Times op-ed, O’Hanlon did not mention the friendship but called Petraeus a “superb commander.” In subsequent interviews, he again glossed over his long relationship with Petraeus. In a Washington Post story entitled “The Work Behind Our Iraq Views,” O’Hanlon did not state that the work behind his Iraq views may be biased by his friendship with Petraeus.
The traditional media has regularly hosted O’Hanlon but has also ignored O’Hanlon’s inability to assess Petraeus’s work in an unbiased manner, choosing instead to call him a “vocal critic” of the war.
O’Hanlon has alleged that no one can question the “forthrightness” of Petraeus and has since attacked reputable critics of Petraeus as “flat-out sloppy.” Both the mainstream media as well as O’Hanlon have ignored the possibility that his judgment of Iraq may be clouded by his friendship and deep-admiration for Petraeus.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow, biased commentary on a “news” network. Who’d have thunk it? Can we pull their credentials now?
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amawe how cute, he hearts be-tray-us.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amMichael O’Hanlon stands up for his friend of 20 years, Gen. BetrayUs, and his misleading testimony to Congress as Bush’s shill. Surprise, surprise. O’Hanlon trashes the MoveOn ad, not the betrayal of our troops.
Does O’Hanlon know — or care — that Rush Limbaugh, who was first to trash MoveOn, referred to Sen. Chuck Hagel — Vietnam Vet no less — as Sen. BetrayUslast February after Hagel voted against Bush on the War?
GOP hypocrisy doesn’t make it on the media radar screen. But no one cares about Limbaugh’s use of the term? Sen. Hagel, in fact, spoke the truth about Iraq, while Bush’s in-the-pocket general betrayed our troops who are stuck there, with another boatload of lies and misinformation.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 am“Resorting to calling him names is not what the Democrat party should be doing to win over Independents (such as myself) and Republicans who are wavering.”
Another fake independent. The giveaway is “the Democrat party.”
“I spent 20 years in the Navy.”
Prove it. You’ve already been found out as a conservative republican, so this would be your second lie.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 amContrary to what JSchmoAZ says, the good general was no more than a high profile shill for Bush’s failed Iraq War. He did his job, like a good soldier. During the month of August, he wined and dined members of Congress who visited the Green Zone for his dog-and-pony powerpoint presentations.
Then he came to DC for a weeklong extravaganza, with two days before Congress. He said the “surge” is working, based upon unrelated events in Anbar Province. Do you remember — 9 months ago — when the “temporary surge” sent 30,000 more troops to give the Iraqi govt. in Baghdad “breathing room” to create “stability?”
Bait and switch, misinformation, divert attention from legitimate questions. This was Gen. BetrayUs’ (not sworn in) testimony in a nutshell. BTW the one time he came near the truth was when he told Sen. Warner that he “didn’t know if the Iraq War made the US safer.” Do you know how long it took for the WH to call BetrayUs and chew him out about that answer? Joe Klein said it was immediate. So BetrayUs went back to the Committee and said, “I didn’t mean what I said, the War IS making us safer.”
JSchmoAZ thinks that BetrayUs will be back before Congress under investigation. Fat Chance. JS — the next time Congress will hear from BetrayUs about Iraq will be March 2008.
Heckuva Job, Bush and BetrayUs.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 amComment by JSchmoAZ
You must have seen Ditch Mitch’s post:
“Does O’Hanlon know — or care — that Rush Limbaugh, who was first to trash MoveOn, referred to Sen. Chuck Hagel — Vietnam Vet no less — as Sen. BetrayUslast February after Hagel voted against Bush on the War?”
So JS, let’s hear your condemnations of Rush for calling Hegel the same name. Or is it ok when you’re a republican?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 amHilarious that a lying General is promoted like a god on FOX news channel.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 amI don’t know if I’d characterize the General as lying to Congress. It’s rather like you asking me, “Is the sky blue?” and I respond “It’s not green.” I’m not lying, but neither am I being forthright.
And I don’t think anyone can argue that Petraeus wasn’t presenting the facts in a way that reflect the President’s policies. We saw what happened when he gave the one true answer, that was solely his own. Is it making America safe? “I don’t know,” he replied, only to clarify it later after a call from the White House. That was a betrayal, as Olbermann said, of himself, as well as us.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 amNobody thinks O’HandsOn is a journalist, let alone a credible source of anything but Bushit shilling.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 amNo Cred, he’ got nada.
Here’s the link to the story about Limbaugh calling Vietnam Vet Sen. Chuck Hagel “Sen. BetrayUs” after he voted against Bush’s War in February. Guess this is ok with JSchmoAZ (#4 above).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 amRemember that Petraeus may have spoken before members of Congress, but he did not present any testimony to them, since he was deliberately not sworn in beforehand. The value of that missing oath is debatable, but its omission says a great deal.
As for O’Hanlon, is any conscious person really surprised?
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmjoeschmoe’s story about the funding testimony during clinton
(what?! no names? no links? … su-prise su-prise)
sounds very similar to the stories of dubby’s saying that
if the generals tell him they need more troops, they’ll get them…
uh huh…
…
and i can’t believe this guy is given any cred ’cause
he looks like such a puppy…
that “what can HE know… still wet behind the ears” look…
i know… petty…
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm:-P
I’m wondering why no one else seemed away of this little fact until now.
How is it that, weeks after going on every talk show and making his case for supporting the war, only now are we hearing of his personal connection to Patraeus?
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmwhen the alleged expert is a fresh out of grad school face like O’Hanlon – how can anyone bother to take them seriously about anything?
O’Hanlon’s an expert on sucking up to powerful old bastards (and I do not want the details on that) so that he can brownnose his way into one of their worthless Righty think tanks.
PA-THETIC!
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 pmO’Hanlon has alleged that no one can question the “forthrightness†of Petraeus and has since attacked reputable critics of Petraeus as “flat-out sloppy.â€
Seems to typify the neocon way, dictate what one’s opinion will be and accuse any that disagree of the very faults that are their own. This tactic is becoming painfully obvious and only the kool-aid crowd is buying it. O’Hanlon should just STFU and crawl back under his rock.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pmComment #4 by JschmoAZ:
The CENTCOM Commander, Admiral Fallon, and Gen. Petraeus’ boss, called Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chicken-sh*tâ€. What do the Senate Republicans say to that?
The security that the “surge†was designed to supply in order to bring about political progress doesn’t exist.
The real reason that troop levels are being reduced is due to an overstretched military and would have happened anyway with or without Petraeus’ plan.
Petraeus testified that sectarian violence is down, but the Pentagon’s methodology is in question by the intelligence community. The ridiculous statement that if a person is “shot in the back of the head it is murder†and not sectarian violence reflects poorly on this general’s credibility.
The GAO could not find any evidence that sectarian violence has decreased.
Petraeus claimed that the number of ethno-sectarian deaths were down by 55%, when the number of deaths has actually risen from July to August this year.
Petraeus began his testimony by saying that the report he was about to give was his and his alone. In truth, Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor, organized twice-daily conference calls between the White House and the military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.
General Petraeus has been used repeatedly by the White House to sell Bush’s “surgeâ€. In August he hosted over 38 members of Congress inside the Green Zone and gave numerous radio and TV interviews.
He is as much concerned for his own political futre as he is Iraq.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmtypo: “He is as much concerned for his own political future as he is Iraq.”
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmfrom wiki:
Michael O’Hanlon earned an A.B. in 1982, M.S.E. in 1987, M.A. in 1988, and a Ph.D in 1991 all from Princeton University, and is now a visiting lecturer there.
from http://www.nndb.com/people/078/000160595/
Born: c. 1958
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Scholar
Party Affiliation: Democratic
VERY DOUBTFUL, THAT…
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm…
Comment #4 by JschmoAZ:
OBTW, thank you for your service.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm“Petraeus was trying to learn lessons [from Vietnam], so that with humility, and a willingness to do things differently, then next time, the military could stay out of that predicament.”
*****Evidently he didn’y learn much.We are still keeping our troops in Iraq to solve a political solution.Same difference as Nam folks.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmI don’t know if I’d characterize the General as lying to Congress. It’s rather like you asking me, “Is the sky blue?†and I respond “It’s not green.†I’m not lying, but neither am I being forthright.
Comment by Candyce — September 23, 2007 @ 11:45 am
I agree, and part of the problem is one of semantics and ethics. Is it “lying” to give a less-than-truthful response, when you have taken an oath that the testomny you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And if you feel the term “lying” isn’t quite accurate, would the legal term “perjury” apply to an answer that was, let’s say, “inexactly deceitful”, meaning it was technically true, but ommitted details which could change someone’s interpretation of your response. For example: “Is sectarian violence down since the start of the surge?” “Yes.” But to omit that it is down because the neighborhoods experiencing it have largely succeeded in their attempts at ethnic cleansing, so there is less of a “need” from their perspective to kill people, is to not be completely truthful. By simply answering “Yes”, are you deliberately trying to leave a cause-and-effect relationship in the mind of the inquisitor, even though the question did not ask if there was one? Would this be considered “lying” or “perjury”? Tough question to answer.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pmWe all know it works like this for a general or an admiral: speak truth to power in private, but speak the CINC’s words in public or retire. If you think you are the best leader to minimize the damage, then you don’t retire, but speak the unspeakable.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmMore importantly, what’s with the frigging Orphan Annie hairdo? I keep waiting for him to bust out singing, very loudly.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pmTrue, as Wayne says in #22, it might be a tough question — was the general’s testimony (not under oath) lying or perjury??
But no matter what you call it, Bush and his willing general “kicked the can down the street” and now they say that they need another six months to determine if the “surge” is working. Don’t call us, we’ll call you suckers in March 2008. Ha. Ha.
Nice con job, orchestrated in the White House. How many more metals for Gen. BetrayUs to pin on his jacket?
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmAlso from wiki:
Letter by Project for the New American Century
O’Hanlon signed a letter and a statement on postwar Iraq published by the Project for the New American Century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030328.htm
So, he is a PNACer. He signed TWO of there letters. WOW, that explains a lot, doesn’t it???
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pmComment by Ditch Mitch KY — September 23, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Thank you, I stand corrected. He was not under oath. I just assumed that the Democrats had learned their lesson when the Republicans kept letting people give testimony not under oath. Silly me.
Well, Lying to Congress is still a crime. The question becomes whether or not a lie of omission is a lie, especially if it involves bringing context to a question that had none.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pmThe best I can think of at this time is “Listen for what they don’t say”. I’m not sure if he could brought up on a perjuty charge, since he was not sworn in at either venue, even if some of his testimony was false. The suprise visit makes more sense now, and being a good soldier, did what the CiC wanted.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm