The vote to confirm General Petraeus as commander of the war effort in Afghanistan was unanimous in the United States Senate :

By a vote of 99-0, the Senate confirmed Gen. David Petraeus on Wednesday to succeed Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top war commander in Afghanistan. The vote’s outcome was hardly surprising.

Yet Petraeus’ confirmation was remarkably free of political tension, considering the increasing unrest among lawmakers about the Obama administration’s war strategy. On Tuesday, Petraeus endorsed President Obama’s planned drawdown of troops in July 2011, though he repeatedly insisted to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the pace of the withdrawal will be based on “conditions on the ground.”

Three years ago, Democrat Harry Reid was ‘less than enthusiastic’ with General Petreaus’ performance:

The Senate majority leader took aim yesterday at the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who until now has received little criticism from Capitol Hill over his statements or performance.

Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) charged that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who took command in Iraq four months ago, “isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad.” He also indicated that he thinks Petraeus has not been sufficiently open in his testimony to Congress. Noting that Petraeus, who is now on his third tour of duty in Iraq, oversaw the training of Iraqi troops during his second stint there, Reid said: “He told us it was going great; as we’ve looked back, it didn’t go so well.”

And Harry Reid had this to say as well:

What, besides who occupies the Oval Office, has changed?

Harry Reid (and other Liberal Democrats) openly called General Petraeous a liar and Reid in particular accuse the General of not being “in touch” with the situation on the ground in the area under his command.

If this is the case, why vote to confirm him?