Jamison Foser’s column this week from Media Matters makes a very apt comparison between Petraeus and Colin Powell, particularly his infamous tesimony to the UNSC in 2/03. Much as they’ve done with Petraeus, the administration used Powell’s reputation to add weight to its case. Of course, we know now that Powell was just about as wrong as he could have been.
But this time, for sure!
I think the even more significant parallel Foser draws is between the media treatment of Powell’s and Petraeus’ testimony. In both cases, they focused almost completely on appearances, and on the credibility that Powell/Petraeus brought to the table, while saying little about the accuracy of either general’s presentation.
The weird thing in Petraeus’ case is, the media had done a pretty good job of illuminating the lack of progress in Iraq the week before Petraeus’ testimony, and a number of countervailing reports had come out or been leaked in the previous week or two, which they’d covered. So it wasn’t like they weren’t prepared for this.
But it seemed as if, once Petraeus got up before the cameras and microphones, they forgot everything they’d known, and did their usual swoon, complete with Wolf Blitzer treating America to a detailed rundown on all of Petraeus’ medals. Sheesh.
And the polls show that America didn’t buy the snow job, but the punditocracy clearly did. And apparently, their simulacrum of What America Thinks is more important to our pols than the easily accessible polling data on the subject.