Wash. Post ignored parts of Petraeus testimony to claim he "did not toe the White House line"

A September 13 Washington Post news "analysis," headlined "Petraeus Returns to War That Is Now His Own," asserted that during his recent testimony on Capitol Hill regarding progress in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus "did not toe the White House line completely, resisting efforts to portray Iraq as part of a global struggle against terrorism." As evidence, the Post referred to an exchange between Petraeus and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) during the September 11 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in which Warner "[a]sked [Petraeus] whether fighting in Iraq makes the United States safer, as Bush argues, [and] he answered, 'I don't know.' " But later during an exchange with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Petraeus changed his response. Embracing the White House position that the United States has "very serious national interests in Iraq" and that "achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security," Petraeus added: "So I think the answer, really to come back to it, is 'yes.' " Moreover, earlier during the same hearing ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said to Petraeus: "[Y]ou have stated that Iraq is now the central front on the 'war on terror' " and then asked: "[I]s that a correct quote?" Petraeus replied: "That is correct, sir." The Post's Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, authors of the analysis, did not report any of these comments.

Also during the hearing, before Bayh's questioning of Petraeus, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) asked Petraeus if the sacrifices being made to fight the war in Iraq are "worth it to us." Petraeus responded that "the national interests that we have in Iraq are substantial. An Iraq that is stable and secure, that is not an Al Qaeda sanctuary, is not in the grip of Iranian support, Shi'a militias, that is not a bigger humanitarian disaster, that is connected to the global economy. All of these are very important national interests." Graham then asked: "Would that be a 'yes'?" Petraeus replied: "Yes, sir."

Indeed, the White House has often asserted that Iraq is the "central front" of the "war on terror," and the Bush administration's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" released in November 2005 states that "Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest." Additionally, President Bush recently stated that "[i]t can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home" but "the consequences for American security would be devastating" and on September 3, Bush asserted that making progress in Iraq is "vital in meeting the strategic interests of our nation." Further, Bush and others in his administration have repeatedly made the much-discredited claim that staying in Iraq is vital to our national security, because if troops are withdrawn from the country, "the terrorists will follow us home."

From the September 13 Washington Post analysis:

Without doubt, his testimony bolstered Bush's position in the debate over the future of the war and provided Republicans a measure of political relief by recommending withdrawal of about 25,000 troops by next summer. Yet he did not toe the White House line completely, resisting efforts to portray Iraq as part of a global struggle against terrorism or predict that al-Qaeda will take over if U.S. forces pull out. Asked whether fighting in Iraq makes the United States safer, as Bush argues, he answered, "I don't know" -- a reply that was featured in another antiwar ad yesterday.

Petraeus, who holds a doctorate from Princeton, is no political naif, and he managed to emerge from the experience with even congressional Democrats praising his professionalism. As media-savvy as any top officer, he is granting 11 television interviews and 11 print interviews this week. Yet he will return to Baghdad the symbol of a deeply unpopular war and, to critics, his generation's Gen. William Westmoreland.

From the September 11 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:

McCAIN: General Petraeus, you have stated that Iraq is now the central front on the "war on terror." Is that a correct quote?

PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir.

McCAIN: Why is that?

PETRAEUS: It is based on my conversations with the director of the CIA and Lieutenant General [Stanley] McCrystal, the Joint Special Operations Command commander, who have assessed that it is the central front for Al Qaeda, and they have based that on communications and other things. It is possible that the loss of momentum to some degree in Iraq by Al Qaeda may be shifting that. We've actually been looking that to see if there are indicators of a reduction in support for Al Qaeda, Iraq or not, and there is not something conclusive yet, but it is certainly something that we are looking at very hard.

[...]

WARNER: You're advising our president now on a strategy. We don't know what it will be. But I hope that if in any way you disagree that you will so advise him. And secondly, I hope that in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, the stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here, as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind -- what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

[...]

GRAHAM: How many people have we been losing a month on average since the surge began in terms of killed in action?

PETRAEUS: Killed in action is probably in the neighborhood of 60 to 90, probably on average 80 to 90, average, killed in action. That does not include the American soldiers, for example, tragically killed last month in a helicopter --

GRAHAM: But here's what lies ahead for the American military. If we stay in Iraq and continue to support the surge through July, we're going to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 military members, most likely hundreds more.

PETRAEUS: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: We're spending $9 billion a month to stay in Iraq, of U.S. dollars. My question for you: Is it worth it to us?

PETRAEUS: Well, the national interests that we have in Iraq are substantial: An Iraq that is stable and secure, that is not an Al Qaeda sanctuary, is not in the grip of Iranian-supported Shia militia, that is not a bigger humanitarian disaster, that is connected to the global economy. All of these are very important national interests.

GRAHAM: Would that be a yes?

PETRAEUS: Yes, sir. Sorry.

[...]

BAYH: General, I'd like to turn to you. I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question, and that was he asked you, going forward the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer? And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your -- beyond the scope of your responsibilities.

PETRAEUS: Well, I thank you, actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly --

BAYH: I judged by --

PETRAEUS: -- candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise. But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests -- achieving those interests has very serious implications --

BAYH: Well, let me ask you about those interests --

PETRAEUS: -- for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer, really, to come back to it, is "yes." But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down and down, that was something that really, on first glance, was something that I let others above me answer.

BAYH: I judge by your response to Senator Graham that you'd given that a little additional thought.

PETRAEUS: Immediately after it, actually.