The medal in question is a Bronze Star with Valor Device, the fourth-highest award we have for combat valor. That "Valor Device" specifies combat valor and makes it an entirely different medal from the Bronze Star for Meritorious Conduct. With the 101st Airborne, Petraeus received it as a Major General, in 2003-2004. It was his first combat ever. That same year, Jeannie Hancock and her four children would receive a telephone call from General Petraeus and his condolences that she would be getting the same medal from the Army, but not the husband who had earned it posthumously - Sgt. Michael Hancock, also of the 101st.

"a kind of moral plagiarism--a theft of other men's honor, and therefore a debasing of the coin rewarding their courage" - Lance Morrow describing the improper wearing of a Valor Device and the suicide of Admiral Jeremy Boorda.

Let me break this down for you:

To get the valor medal, General Petraeus had to be under enemy fire.

He is described to have been under enemy fire in the battle for Najaf.

The only incident of enemy fire reported near General Petraeus was on March 30th.

The descriptions of that event by the two separate journalists match perfectly - one mortar round hit between 40 and 50 meters away from Generals Petraeus and Wallace as they read a map on the hood of a Humvee. They acted nonchalant.

The event is described in this article penned by Gregg Zoroya and Steve Komarow. It describes one mortar round hitting at the above distance. Komarow was embedded with V Corps, General Wallace's command.

Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Rick Atkinson was so close he dove between two trucks when the round hit. He stood up quickly and got back to reporting. We must all now depend on Atkinson to stick by his reporting as the Swiftboat is thrown into hard reverse.

Embedded with the 101st Airborne "at the elbow" of General Petraeus - a person he knew well - Atkinson describes the event in his book In The Company Of Soldiers . He was Petraeus's constant companion during this time. If there was another event in Najaf, Atkinson would have described it. And we have no reason to disbelieve his account of events of March 30.

Then there is the Army story. It was apparently passed around to troops to demonstrate the esprit de corps and fighting spirit of the general officers. It is so bad, so irreconcilable with Atkinson's detailed description of events, that when I read it I thought I was hallucinating. So, I asked a friendly librarian to read the two descriptions and compare them. Librarians are dignified people, but as she read, her jaw literally dropped. When she was finished she almost started crying.

For the Army story to be true, Rick Atkinson, Pulitzer-Prize newsman, would have to have failed to notice

Bullets flying past him.

Generals, on whom he was reporting, running "towards the fight" with MPs sprinting after them. Atkinson describes no MPs at the scene at all.

MPs fairly shoving Generals into armored vehicles to save them from their manly instincts to fight. Atkinson would also have failed to interview Petraeus about the shoving. Indeed, Atkinson thinks so little of the event, he does not interview Petraeus about it at all.

He would somehow have to have miscounted the number of Generals.

Get this - Atkinson would somehow have to have miscounted the number of mortar shells landing just yards away from himself. He dove for cover when the first one hit. But the Army suggests he somehow failed to notice a second mortar round hitting some moments later - ten meters closer. Ridiculous.

And the Army story is gleefully described for its moral-building properties. It is the silliest type of propaganda.

So we have two interpretations of the facts as reported.

1. Propaganda Is True

I will not recount the Army story here, but rest assured that even if the entire story were true, it would fail to rise to the level of valor under fire. Generals running to look at things while surrounded by security is hardly combat heroism. The military has itself shared on its websites dozens - perhaps hundreds - of the stories of people who truly deserve that medal - and rightly so.

2. Propaganda Is NOT True

And as I have diaried before, if the journalistic version is true, then it's one mortal round, 40 meters away and a claim of valor under fire is too ridiculous to stomach. Other soldiers walk through that before breakfast.

And we have one single conclusion:

Resolved: General Petraeus is a Phony and a Propagandist

If the Army put out a phony story to make David Petraeus look like a combat hero, then he knew about it or he damn well had the responsibility to know. For a General to allow a sham story of combat valor about himself to be circulated is to counterfeit his own honor - and debase the coin of courage.

Without honor, he is not a soldier but a fraud, a scandal, a dishonest civil servant with a gun. His medals are lies - particularly and especially any medal for "valor".

I don't know General Petraeus. I have no malice against him. I wish he was just a soldier. I could thank him for his service and respect him. But I cannot help but conclude that David Petraeus has sold that service cheap - for ambition and Bush.