Patreaus has credibility to his soldiers and the people he works with. To a citizen he must establish that through his actions and constantly prove himself over and over. It's the way our country works. Once again you have this black and white brain where either someone is credible and completely right in his thinking and pronouncements or he's not and your . You are too bullheaded to concede that any human involved in warfare as a representative of their government may distort the truth from time to time in order to achieve a goal they see as worthy.

Eisenhower, when he was preparing his troops for the invasion of Normandy, didn't address the thousands of men with dire predictions of the bloody and violent deaths many would endure and the chances for failure. We certainly know now though that he was well-aware of the risks. No, as a commander his job was to inspire the men and convince them that there was hope for the success of the mission and the personal survival of many of them.

Petraeus is in the same pickle. Even if he embraces the thought that many of us already have that Iraq is unwinnable, he can't publicly convey that without feeling he's failing his mission and letting down the troops. You see Tom you are confusing giving the man credibility in his military abilities and the credibility of his public statements. Those two notions are as far apart as the Sun and Pluto. Patraeus must, as a military commander, endow the troops assigned to him with confidence in the mission as long as the mission is in progress. To that end, he is an unreliable source for the public to truly know what is going on.

That's not to say that he's lying. It just means that his input to us is no more credible than any other government spokesman with a vested interest, no matter what their political persuasion is. Until you begin acknowledging that fact in regard to the side you're on, I'm afraid you have no credibility either. You just come across as a dupe.

Art