Engel brought up an editorial written by Petraeus, published in the Washington Post, that gave an assessment of progress in Iraq. Engel asked why, given the op-ed, people should believe what Petraeus was saying before Congress.
Petraeus thanked Engel for bringing up the topic, and assured Engel that he could provide an answer.
"I stand by it," Petraeus said.
He went on to say that his assessment in 2004 was accurate. Indeed, if you read it over there isn't much in the way of wild predictions or claims.
Petraeus also pointed out that his assessment predated the destruction of the "Golden Mosque" (Feb 22, 2006), not that he needed a rationale for justifying any failed predictions. This was as strong as the op-ed got:
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.
(Washington Post)
So, Engel committed a fallacy of the complex question, including in his question the false premise that Petraeus' op-ed was not good information, for the purpose of supporting an ad hominem attack on Petraeus.
Shame on you, Rep. Engel.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.