September 10, 2007

Who Exactly Is Betraying Us?

Using a schoolyard manipulation of General David Petraeus’ last name, MoveOn asked in a full-page advertisement whether this honorable commander would betray his nation for the sake of a temporary political advantage. Calling the MNF-I commander “Betray-Us”, the Democratic activist organization accused the general of deliberately misreporting the results of the war effort to boost the Bush administration.

At Heading Right, I question who's betraying whom. I question MoveOn's patriotism. I suggest that MoveOn and the Democrats who support the organization would gladly commit character assassination of the lowest order against a man who has served this nation for decades in such an honorable fashion that the Senate voted unanimously to give him command of our forces in Iraq just eight months ago.

Michelle Malkin calls it "despicable". I'd say that's putting it mildly. Later today, we'll hear from a man who served with Petraeus. Keep checking back for that guest post.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Exactly Is Betraying Us?:

» The Irony of the Date of Petraeus Hill Interrogation from The Pink Flamingo

Comments (52)

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 10:18 AM

Your comments would have greater merit if the military were being more forthcoming with both their actual statistics on violence in Iraq, and the methodology of their generation. As they haven't been willing to do either, and multiple independent studies have shown no drop in violence levels, it becomes difficult to believe that the general is acting in good faith.

As I said the other day, Petraeus' job is to bring a good report to Congress. He'll do his job. What's so difficult to figure out here?

Posted by wolfwalker | September 10, 2007 10:20 AM

I question MoveOn's patriotism.

I'm reminded of a quip from an episode of M*A*S*H:

Hawkeye: [a joke about Radar being short]

Radar: Stop making fun of my height!

Hawkeye: What height? You haven't got any height to make fun of. Go get some height, we'll be glad to make fun of it.

My attitude toward's "patriotism" is almost identical:

MoveOn.orger: Stop questioning my patriotism!

Me: What patriotism? You haven't got any patriotism to question. Show me some evidence of patriotism on your part, then I'll be glad to question it.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 10, 2007 10:26 AM

If the fact that the methodology and figures behind Petraeus is being kept a secret from the public, it's fair to say that Congress and the public are being fed misleading information.

FYI Ed, here's something from Stars and Stripes you should read about the situation in Iraq:

The Myth of AQI

Posted by Dennis Clark | September 10, 2007 10:26 AM

Yes; it makes me sick. There are times when I am sorry I was ever a veteran. I ask, are these people really worth defending? Inside I know I would do it all over again – then I hear Kennedy and Kerry or Harry and Nancy and get sick all over again. I listened to Sen. Dodd defend Move-On and the truth comes to me. They do not give a hoot for America or the truth. Their minds are made up and will not be changed by facts. Party before Country is their sole guiding thought!

There is nothing wrong with the messages given by President Bush, General Peturaeus; the problem is in the receivers of their message.

God Help and Protect the Republic.

Posted by Lurking Observer | September 10, 2007 10:35 AM

So, SFD, did the refusal of the NASA administrator to reveal his methodology and figures for determining that the 1990s were the hottest temperatures ever mean that Congress and the American people were being duped?

When Sandy Berger is busily destroying originals of old White House memoes, at the same time the 9-11 Commission is meeting, does this mean that Congress and the American people were being duped?

When the methodology and figures for determining a genocide was underway in Kosovo are not revealed (and genocide fails to be proven after we go in), does that mean that Congress and the American people were being duped?

BTW, there's a difference between something from Stars and Stripes and something written by someone from Stars and Stripes. Not everything Chris Hedges writes is published in the New York Times, either.

Posted by Charles D. Quarles | September 10, 2007 10:42 AM


It's September, dude. What possible value can a two month old report have, particularly one as leftist politically oriented as written by a correspondent who's been away from the action since the COIN strategy has been put into place.

Show me a positive article, written positively, by anyone in the Washington Monthly or the Stars and Stripes.

Wrt misleading info being fed to Congress and the public, well, we get that daily from the New York Times, CBS, the CBO, the GAO, & etc.

Posted by The Yell | September 10, 2007 10:44 AM

"If the fact that the methodology and figures behind Petraeus is being kept a secret from the public, it's fair to say that Congress and the public are being fed misleading information."

No, it would be fair to say you can't check the math.

BTW that's not a Stars and Stripes article, it's by a guy who used to work for Stars and Stripes.

Posted by Neo | September 10, 2007 10:47 AM

I question the timing of this NYT ad.

Posted by PrivatePigg | September 10, 2007 10:48 AM

MoveOn asked in a full-page advertisement whether this honorable commander would betray his nation for the sake of a temporary political advantage.

Would MoveOn slam an honorable commander and betray their nation for the sake of a temporary political advantage?

No one should ever ask a question when the question, and the obvious answer they're looking for, can easily be asked of and applied to them in return. Morons.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 10, 2007 10:51 AM

L.O., it's Petraeus and the veracity of the numbers he's citing that's the subject here, but you're free to make all the non-related excuses you like. Frankly, it just shows you have nothing to say in defense of Petraeus and the suspect figures being offered in defense of Bush's "surge".

There's been no progress in Iraq really, other than the fact that the ongoing division between Shia and Sunni has resulted in less sectarian violence, no thanks to the "surge".

Posted by The Yell | September 10, 2007 10:57 AM

"it's Petraeus and the veracity of the numbers he's citing that's the subject here"

Actually it's the Move On ad that's the subject here.

"Frankly, it just shows you have nothing to say in defense of Petraeus and the suspect figures being offered in defense of Bush's "surge"."

I'm winger enough to wait out the actual presentation of the figures before I cite them.

"There's been no progress in Iraq really, other than the fact that the ongoing division between Shia and Sunni has resulted in less sectarian violence,"

Oh THAT. Pshaw. ho hum. where'd you hear that suspect malarkey, from General Betrayus and the COBRA psyops office?

"no thanks to the "surge"."

"There are no American tanks in Baghdad..."

Posted by ThomasD | September 10, 2007 10:57 AM

MoveOn isn't so much maligning the General's patriotism. They are concerned with something much much more important to them. His allegiance (or lack thereof)to their stated goals and ideals.

Any statements that don't advance their agenda - that's the betrayal they see. Patriotism is entirely secondary (likely even undesireable) to their stated transnational cause.

Most disturbing about this message is that it is so overt. It is a between the lines fascist threat that says 'tow the line cause we could get into power, and then you might be sorry you ever crossed us.'

Posted by docjim505 | September 10, 2007 11:01 AM

Wow. That didn't take long. launches an add smearing an Army officer as a liar, and two of our resident libs are right out in front in full agreement.

I would ask, "Can we question their patriotism NOW?" but I stopped questioning months ago.

Posted by George | September 10, 2007 11:06 AM

[slightly off topic]

"...did the refusal of the NASA administrator to reveal his methodology and figures for determining that the 1990s were the hottest temperatures ever mean that Congress and the American people were being duped?"

By the way this methodology has recently been released.

"Hansen has just released what is said to be
the source code for [the NASA/GISS] temperature
analysis. The release was announced in a
shall-we-say ungracious email to his email
distribution list..."

Hansen Frees the Code

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 11:06 AM

Doc, I hardly need an ad from Moveon (which I still haven't see) to criticize a failure to provide hard data to back up the rhetoric, on the part of our armed forces.

No one here has offered a substantive defense of the apparent discrepancies between the supposed 'drops in violence' the armed forces report, and the independent reports which find that nothing of the sort has happened.

I think it should also be mentioned that it's sort of sad, that the arguments advanced by those who support the failing war effort have slipped back into the 'anti-American! No patriotism!' meme. It's the fallback position from a rational argument; an appeal to mendacity and groupthink. I don't care if you question my patriotism, b/c your opinion of my patriotism is immaterial to me, always has been, always will be.

Posted by The Yell | September 10, 2007 11:17 AM

>>No one here has offered a substantive defense of the apparent discrepancies between the supposed 'drops in violence' the armed forces report, and the independent reports which find that nothing of the sort has happened.

Where's your links to these reports? What "substantive" review can I give your bald statement that such reports exist and that there is a discrepancy?

>>I think it should also be mentioned that it's sort of sad, that the arguments advanced by those who support the failing war effort have slipped back into the 'anti-American! No patriotism!' meme. It's the fallback position from a rational argument; an appeal to mendacity and groupthink.

Whaddya mean "slipped back"? I'm not aware that the Right was ever neutral about smearing flag officers in this way. The closest example in war or peace was the Boorda affair last decade and I know I had the same disgust.

You repeatedly question our "rationality". Saying "I can't prove it so you must be a liar" is not cold hard logic. It is the essence of emotional bias. Further I don't know what's mendacious about suggesting that working all-out for American defeat is "anti-American", I'm very sincere. As for "group think" I'm well aware many Americans would rather the subject of "patriotism" not be raised at all.

Posted by filistro | September 10, 2007 11:18 AM

Paraphrasing Rudyard Kipling:

Oh, Right is Right, and Left is Left, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat....

I always knew the differences were irreconcilable. Now there's scientific proof!

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along."

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 11:25 AM

The Yell,

"Saying "I can't prove it so you must be a liar" is not cold hard logic."

I'm not saying 'I can't prove it, so you must be a liar.' I'm saying "YOU can't prove it, so you may be a liar."

The meme of 'the violence is dropping in Iraq' is useless without actual data to support it. No actual data is offered by those who purport to put fort this position, therefore, their opinion is somewhere around useless.

GAO report:,25197,22366787-2703,00.html

CRS report:

AP stats per WaPo:

Petraeus' job is to deliver a positive report. He will do exactly that, despite the lack of substantive data to back it up. I have no idea why anyone seems to believe anything different could happen.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 10, 2007 12:10 PM

There's a missing piece!

Of course, the legacy media 'elites' keep throwing their bullshit. Nobody's strapped them to the scafolding, yet, that's why. (Nor do they fear this. Because they're not dealing with hitler, here. Or stalin. Where those rich bastards would be the first "to lose it all.")

What's missing?

Well, didn't you notice, because you, too, use your Internet connections, that when Cindy Sheehan parades, the crowds are sparse?

Do you know what this means?

Well, let me help you out.

If you shopped at Gucci's, the selling point is that you're an "exclusive" customer. You won't have to rub-elbows with others. Oh, yes, you would if you shopped Target or Walmart, ya know?

So, "exclusivity" is a "right enjoyed by the elites." Who then toss their trash into our streets. What do they care? Their limosines have tinted windows. And, the chauffeur is given two instructions. Drive fast. And, don't look back.

Meanwhile, a general who should be having a ticket-tape parade down Fifth Avenue, gets to go to the toilet, in DC, where a bunch of political whores make hand signals at him. And/or, they roll their eyeballs.

Oh, they know what they're doing, all right!

They're exposing us to the poisons of their lifestyles.

In the marketplace, itself, however, there are telling numbers. Numbers of movies that sink to the bottom without profits. Newspapers that have seen better days. And, "pundits" that are furious at the Internet; jealous, no less, of ordinary citizens who pipe up and comment.

Comments, to be honest, come from all over the map. While what the legacy media does smells more like the stuff that flies out of your arse. All pre-digested.

Sometimes, I wonder if this is not the true test of democracy. Just like it is in business. Go ahead. Invest in stock that doesn't sell. Or, better. Go gamble in vegas. Sooner or later you're poorer for all your efforts.

What was, in the past, ain't coming back.

Will this mean that the stinking department of education has ruined it for enough kids; that we've got so many credentialled idiots; the world will go topsy turvey, before a goog pilot comes in and does some course correcting?

According to Drudge, Rupert Murdoch is "in it" for the money.

That usually drives products (not to be the best. Since that's not necessary) ... But to at least sell to as large an audience as they can convince, to watch.

When that good day comes, again? Writers, directors, and assorted miscasts, won't have to go to venice to retrieve awards from their muddy waters.

Posted by docjim505 | September 10, 2007 12:10 PM


Whatever. GEN Petraeus' report hasn't even been made public yet, but you not only feel comfortable calling him a liar, you feel outright virtuous for doing so. When other people take you to task for such a brazen and disgusting act, your only defense is that nobody has provided you with enough evidence that he's NOT a liar. As The Yell points out, there isn't enough evidence on God's green earth to prove to you that you've unfairly, maliciously, and without an iota of cause smeared a man's reputation.

I suppose I should be ashamed of myself that I'm surprised that the left would stoop this low. I honestly (though foolishly) thought that calling a serving officer in the Army a liar was over the top even for them... but I was wrong. I should have remembered that these are the same people who threw blood and dog shit on soldiers returning for Vietnam and called them "baby killers".

I should have remembered (and will henceforth never forget): The leopard never changes his spots, and garbage never loses its stink.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 10, 2007 12:16 PM

First of all, I don't expect America to pull out of Irak. If anything, Bush is throwing in a lot of troops; so before there's "pull out" ... there's more troops gaining experience.

That the sunnis misjudged? Everywhere on the map you look, you see this. You see this when Jordan, in 1991, backed Saddam. And, then tried to find ways back into America's good graces. (They used Israel, then, to "halp" them out.)

You look at gazoo.

And, you look at Lebanon's just crushed Palestinian camp.

You look at Ehud Barak "leaving a calling card for Hamas."

You look at russia stuffing her pockets selling CRAP to syria and iran. Yeah. Brave Israeli pilots. Nothing new. While an idiot at Ha'Aretz just wanted to know why pilots' lives were risked; when UAV's could have been sent, instead? Talk about nonsense!

But Israel's infested with the same crappy journalists we've got here. A profession of whores. (I guess? They wanted job security. ANd, they heard that it's the "2nd oldest profession." So, they figured that would be the edge.)

I think most Americans are sensible people. We're a hughe sized nation! And, so much of it is called "fly over country" by the lunatics who use private jets. You like algore's fake pronouncements?

I even hate the kinds of money publishing houses throw at this dreck.

Sometimes, I even wonder why they do so.

Posted by Okonkolo | September 10, 2007 12:18 PM

I'd say it is a nasty move, a nasty political move that takes something clever to make a point but steps over the line of taste. Kind of like the Purple Heart band-aids.

Posted by Hope Muntz | September 10, 2007 12:19 PM

There seems to be some confusion over your use of the term 'patriotism' in some of the responses to your post. I should like to add my small voice to this debate.

Google the word "patriotism" and 9 out of 10 online dictionaries will give you something like the following; "A love of one's country'. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is a very modern definition of the term; prior to WWII almost all dictionaries defined it as a "passionate" or "unreasonable" loyalty or love for one's country. The Encyclopedia Brittanica discusses the evolution of the concept from mere 'patria'--the ground on which one was born or one's native soil--to embrace the sort of nationalist concepts that evolved with the Renaissance, which led even Catholic Englishmen, to give one example, to fight against the Armada. Nationhood over even religious loyalty--that is the shared bond that forged the democracies of the West.

Flash-forward to today. Most modern world citizens view their 'patria' as either an embarrassment they seek to escape or else a conglomerate of welfare packages designed to bribe them into political adherence. Loyalty is cultural and freely given and retracted, rather than any sort of lifelong covenant assumed by the citizen-soldier, as was originally envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. Most Americans, left or right, view it as their right and 'patriotic' duty to dissent from and criticize policies they disagree with, even to the point of civil disobedience, as during the 60s in justified protest against segregation. Unfortunately, as in Mexico, this idea of 'people power' as an expression of pure democracy has grown and infected the patriotic pretensions of, among others, the essentially foreign 'Moveon" organization. Founded and funded by a millionaire Hungarian who made his fortune allegedly acting as a broker for both Marxist regimes and international drug cartels, it is difficult for any objective observer not to find the methods, the funding, and the aims of this umbrella organization suspect. Certainly it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they are acting solely out of love for this country, whether reasonable or dispassionate.

My point? In both the classical and traditional senses of the term, a 'patriot' is someone likely to support his nation's wars and those appointed to wage them, even to the point that they become lost causes. It is all to easy to dismiss such rigid and irrational people both as dinosaurs and a minority of the population, but our age has seen a resurgence of new nations with names like Slovenia, Croatia, the Ukraine, whose existence is testimony to the persistence of that stubborn, even suicidal-seeming loyalty to an abstraction. Soon they may be joined by even odder examples, such as Catalonia, Scotland, the Basque homeland, and Kurdistan. Some of these, like the Basque region and Kurdistan will, if they achieve indepedence, have been forged by centuries of constant violence. Sometimes that--plus oldfashioned patriotism--is what it takes to create a nation. Or to guarantee the survival of an older, greater one...

The danger for our country's future is that 'patriotism' has become permanently confused with 'pacifism'. In fact, they all too often mean precisely the opposite. Whether Petraeus tells 'the truth' or 'deceives' the American public on a subject that no two politicians, generals, or foreign policy experts can agree on, is in no way a measure of his loyalty or treason to his country; American generals have occasionally lied to this nation out of the purest of patriotic or strategic motives, beiginning with George Washington. Others, like Benedict Arnold, have indeed betrayed their country, employing much the same sophistry as modern citizens in abandoning a war they 'no longer believed in'. Moveon, it seems asks us all to become the latter, while draping itself in the mantle of the former. And it asks this of us as it accuses our military leaders of treason.

That's the true issue here--and it has been framed by a faction of the Left. Not whether the 'surge is successful' or whether or not the public has been deceived before. But rather: at what point in a society's prosecution of a war, however unpopular, can charges of treason be leveled? And against whom?

Posted by Monkei | September 10, 2007 12:31 PM

For once I agree with Malkin.

Patreaus does not work for us (The American people) he works for the President. I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth regarding the surge because he answers to the President, but I do think this MoveOn ad was overboard, in the same manner that the Swift Boat Vets were. In my opinion you don't do this to American heroes.

Posted by docjim505 | September 10, 2007 1:10 PM

Well, Monkei, I guess we'll have to settle for what we can get: you think Petraeus is a liar, but wish that hadn't said so in quite so blatant a manner. It's a start, anyway.

Hope Muntz,

Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting post. Over the past couple of years, I've often mused about this topic. Can a pacifist be a patriot? Can a lefty be a patriot? Where does one draw the line between honest criticism of one's country and sedition or treason?

Libs often like to quote (Shaw?): "To say 'My country right or wrong' is like saying 'my mother drunk or sober'." So, you only love and support your mother when she's clean and sober? When she's lying in a gutter or otherwise making a spectacle of herself, you pretend not to know her? Yeah, that's lefties for you: they love America ONLY when the country is doing EXACTLY what they want. Otherwise, f*** the United States.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 10, 2007 1:15 PM

Cyclops said:

"As I said the other day, Petraeus' job is to bring a good report to Congress. He'll do his job. What's so difficult to figure out here?"

Monkei added:

"Patreaus does not work for us (The American people) he works for the President. I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth regarding the surge because he answers to the President"

You're both accusing Petraeus of being a criminal. He is prohibited by several US criminal code statutes, not to mention all sorts of military regulations, from engaging in partisan political activity.

By the way, if Patreus' "job" is to bring a :good report to Congress", why did all of the Democrats confirm him in the first place?

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 10, 2007 1:24 PM


SOMEONE had to be put in charge of the effort. Petraeus is the logical choice.

Look, it's as much his job as the de facto leader of the war in Iraq to keep troop morale up as any other thing he does. A negative report would be a tremendous blow to troop morale; if the top commander can't report that they are winning, then what the hell are they doing there?

So he's torn; he has to tell the truth, but he also has to put the best possible spin on everything negative. That's why his testimony is useful, but only to a certain point; it isn't an objective view of the situation in the slightest.

Posted by Monkei | September 10, 2007 2:04 PM

Since when is it a crime, doc and pineapple for a GOP hack to lie to Congress? He is doing exactly what he is supposed to so, be a good soldier.

No one believe the shrub anymore or anyone in his administration, so let's break out the good general do to the dirty deeds now.

It won't work. It hasn't worked. Enjoy the minority.

Posted by MrBuddwing | September 10, 2007 2:12 PM

Spoke the Captain:

Using a schoolyard manipulation of General David Petraeus’ last name, MoveOn ...

::shrug:: Of course it's childish. I've had the same basic reaction to all the oh-so-clever punning of Norman Hsu (e.g., "Runaround Hsu"). That's one nice thing about Asians - they have those funny-sounding surnames that people like to make fun of in the name of political satire.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Posted by filistro | September 10, 2007 2:14 PM

Robert Farley tells the bleak truth for Republicans (as viewed from the Other Side of the Divide, but painfully true nonetheless)

My one small ray of hope is that the "success" of the Surge will lock the Republican Party into the ruinous path that it's chosen for another year or so. Political parties in the U.S. usually manage to pull themselves out of nosedives that are associated with terribly unpopular policies, but the apparent indifference of the Bush administration to long-term Republican prospects has meant that the balance isn't being re-ordered. While the Democrats haven't covered themselves with glory, they're still associated with war opposition (in no small part because of Republican efforts to paint them as anti-war traitors), and the longer this war goes on, the more dividends that association will pay.

--Robert Farley

Posted at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Posted by KAMAN | September 10, 2007 2:37 PM

To those of you who question General Petraeus's numbers, trust them-they are accurate. I know a soldier involved in the intelligence side of operations in Baghdad. When the soldier arrived in theatre back in April, she was swamped everyday trying to review and consolidate hundreds of field reports into daily threat briefings for her commanders. It was nearly two months before she got her first half-day off.

Now, she complains that she has nothing to do. Some days, she doesn't have enough field reports to even give a daily threat briefing. Now, she even gets one or two days off every week.

That's a huge drop in violence in her sector.

In fact, of all the sources of information about what's going on in Iraq, I rank the Army's information at the top. They have done a great job of being fair and impartial. Instead of deriding our military and it's leaders, the left in this country should be lauding the military for it's honesty.

Posted by Deb | September 10, 2007 2:43 PM

naww, we really can't compare those Purple Hearts band-aids with MoveOn's ad.
The band-aids were a reminder of an inconvenient Truth, that the 3 touted medals by candidate JKerry came from injuries that did not require hospitalization, the latter incident just needing a band-aid. The band-aids reminded us pointedly that he was manipulating his service records for personal decoration... and let's not even start on his discredited testimony to Congress.
Whereas, MoveOn is now trying to Smear the General's reputation with vague and unsubstantiated Innuendo, all because they refuse to accept his views on the improving military situation in Iraq. Thus, all this flurry of "He Must Be Lying" efforts of the last days. "LaLaLa I can't hear you."
so, do ya see the difference?? both are political smears, yes. yet one is an uncomfortable truth while the other is an unsubstantiated character smear. so don't try to rationalize the Move-Ons ad with the purple BandAids, 'kay ?

Posted by The Opinionator | September 10, 2007 3:10 PM


But they support the troops.

Posted by The Opinionator | September 10, 2007 3:14 PM

As far as evidence, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Just read Yon, Leeden, Jack Army and the other bloggers that are in Iraq and have firsthand knowledge of the situation.

Earlier, the Left would always say they supported the troops. Now that they are not getting their way, we are seeing more attacks on the troops themselves just as we did in Vietnam. I never thought I would see American troops gettign the same treatment my father received in the Vietnam era. However, this traitorous attack on our senior commander in Iraq proves that I was wrong.

Posted by Chimpy | September 10, 2007 3:56 PM

Using a schoolyard manipulation of Petraeus’ (or anyone’s) last name

As if you or like minded commenter’s here never do that.

Thank you MrBuddwing @ September 10, 2007 2:12 PM, for pointing out the Capt. did the very same thing recently that he‘s chastising others for in this post.

Posted by docjim505 | September 10, 2007 3:56 PM


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you've never worn the uniform a day in your life, have you? I have. Lying to a superior officer (or, in Petraeus' case, the Congress) is a serious matter. I'm not positive, but I believe that his testimony will be sworn; lying under oath is just as serious (perhaps moreso) for an officer as it is for Bill Clinton. Ooops. Make that much MORE serious for an officer as it is for Slick Willie.

But let's extend your (ahem) logic fully: Petraeus, because he's in uniform, is a Republican hack. Does this slur extend to EVERY man and woman in uniform? Will they all lie (and presumably cheat and steal) for Bush? Were they also willing to do the same for Slick Willie? Aren't you terrified that Bush will simply order the military, who all work for him and will perjure themselves in an instant on his say-so, to overthrow the government and make him a dictator for life?

You don't even KNOW anybody in uniform, do you? I mean, aside from J-j-jesse McB-b-b-beth?

Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | September 10, 2007 4:02 PM

Ed: These guys have nothing. This is why they are down to name calling.

Posted by Captain Ed | September 10, 2007 4:19 PM

Chimpy and Buddwing,

Your defense of a convicted con man is truly touching, as is your equivalency of Hsu to General Petraeus, who has spent his entire adult life defending his country. The fact that you can't tell the difference between them speaks volumes about both of you.

Oh, I also made fun of Osama's name in my post about his video. You missed that one.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 10, 2007 4:24 PM


The Republican Party has a history of supporting unpopular wars. Remember Lincoln's reelection campaign against G.B.McClellan? [In this cartoon, Nast refers to the "Chicago Convention" -- the Democratic Convention of August 1864, in which ex-General George B. McClellan was nominated to run against Lincoln.]

As far as the bleak truth is concerned, we'll all hear about that in a few days, at which point the level of bleakness, positive or negative, with regard to the 18 points Petraeus must cover to meet the spirit of the enabling legislation, will be revealed for all to hear.

Posted by Jack Okie | September 10, 2007 5:45 PM

unclesmrgol: Thanks for the link. As in the Civil War, the Copperheads have no regard for whom they would throw under the bus - The slaves then, the South Vietnamese in the 1970s, and the Iraqis today.

Posted by filistro | September 10, 2007 6:00 PM


Republicans will pay dearly for their support of this war because the Iraq war is not some great noble conflict being waged for world freedom and peace. It's not the American Revolution, the Civil War or WWII (or III.)

In the actual words of the cynical and oh-so-clever neoconservatives who dreamed up, designed and incited this war, it's simply an example of the Ledeen Doctrine:

"Every few years the United States has to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to show it means business."

Posted by NoDonkey | September 10, 2007 6:36 PM

MoveOnYouSmellyLunaticsYou'reScaringMe is made up of anti-social closet cases, funded by anti-American billionaires.

Democrat traitor scum are their heroes.

No question who the real enemy is - the worthless, vile, traitor scum in the corrupt and incompetent Democrat Party.

To save America we must destroy the Democrat Party and salt the earth. They are not our fellow citizens, they are not even fellow human beings. The Democrat Party represents the only hope the terrorists have, as confirmed by Bin Laden last week.

Posted by MrBuddwing | September 10, 2007 6:38 PM

Captain Ed said:

Your defense of a convicted con man is truly touching...

Well, just for the record, I never defended Hsu, nor did I accuse the Captain himself of engaging in schoolyard chicanery.

But the idea of "Gen. Petraeus didn't deserve it, Hsu does" is a touch problematic for me. I'm reminded of so-called liberals who think it's OK to mock Michelle Malkin's ethnic background simply because she "deserves it."

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 10, 2007 7:53 PM

filistro said:

" "

LOL! Cherry picking a Jonah Goldberg article that's 5 years old?

Please have Paul Begala fax you some new talking points.

Posted by filistro | September 10, 2007 8:07 PM

Del, darling... google "Ledeen doctrine" and see what you come up with.

I quoted it from memory and got it slightly wrong. It is:

The Ledeen Doctrine: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

And a 5 year old article is necessary to show the actual neoconservative mindset at the beginning of this war. Read the section in Johnah's article that starts "Why Iraq?" That's what they were really thinking back then, those lovable li'l neocons. Crazy kids, eh?

Y'all can try as much as you like to make this some Noble War For Freedom. But this is what it really was... just throwing a crappy little country against the wall to show everybody how Mean and Tough we are.


Posted by Chimpy | September 10, 2007 9:15 PM


I never defended Hsu or compared him with General Petraeus. You assumed way to much. What you did with Hsu’s name is also a schoolyard “tactic”. Sometimes I and others do the same type thing here. That was the point of my comment. I laughed when I read "Runaround Hsu" even though it was a partasian schoolyard tactic. Lighten up.

Posted by Russ | September 10, 2007 9:59 PM

The libs on here are unable to accept ANY good news that comes from Iraq, for it hurts them politically. Yes, they put politics above the nation.

I am not questioning their patriotism - I am saying they have none.

The new democrat slogan - "Listen to the Generals...until they say something we don't like!"

Posted by bridgeguy | September 10, 2007 10:23 PM


You harp on Gen. Petraeus' omission of hard data then site 3 article/reports thatyou feel support your position.
1. The AUSTRALIAN article on the GAO report only gives a summary and no hard data. The GAO report is quoted as using the military's number and other US agencies. So does the GAO pick and choose the numbers that support the desired outcome (of Congress as it is the Congressional Accouting Office)? Also I have a tough time dealing with GAO analysis anyway. Everytime the Republicans push for a reduction in the tax rate the GAO analysis is that the economy will go bust almost immediately. But when tax cuts are implemented the economy has a boom. Not a good track record.
2. The CRS report actually looks optimistic to me; to I don't understand your use as a gotcha.
3. And finally a Washington Post article on the AP running tally. At least AP has been trying to keep a running count (although I doubt there motivation is so much objective journalistism as it is trying to get another Bush gotcha). After the big stink at the end of 2006 and early 2007 on the sources used by AP, specifically stories of houses wantonly destroyed and scores of civilians killed and injured that turned out to be untrue, you have to take their figures, which were derived the same way, with several handfuls of salt grains.
Finally, as Petraeus makes his report, there are apparently some numbers inthere to justify all the pretty colors on the charts.

Posted by Tara | September 11, 2007 1:03 AM

Cyclops---isn't that a man with one eye or is it half a brain??

According the NY Times/CBS Poll --two of the most anti military, left wing, Blame Bush, Blame America, media organizations-- "Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace,"

"The poll found that both Congress, whose approval rating now stands at its lowest level since Democrats took control from the Republicans last year, and Mr. Bush enter the debate with little public confidence in their ability to deal with Iraq."

So except for Cyclops, Eli Pariser, supreme fool and founder of, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest of the MoveOn cult members, whose last attempt to sway public opinion resulted in Pres Bush winning a second term; the majority (68%) of Americans trust our Military commanders & by fiat, trust General Petreaus to deliver the truth about the situation in Iraq, the best way to deal with Iraq & the best way to bring the war to a successful end.

Military Commanders are trusted more than a Democratic Congress :>)

Posted by AH·C | September 11, 2007 2:11 AM

Monkei says:

Since when is it a crime, doc and pineapple for a GOP hack to lie to Congress? He is doing exactly what he is supposed to so, be a good soldier.

Rational thinking is obviously not the forte of the reality-based crowd. Them what divines the veracity of factors before the case has even been presented.

Astute military observer that you are, perhaps you care to remind us who was the Commander-In-Chief when Petraeus pinned on his 1st Stars? Hmmm?

Perhaps you'd also care to clue us in as to that GOP hack's whereabouts in 1997 - 1999? No doubt helping to lay the political groundwork for Bush to take the WH?

Yeah, that's the ticket... 1st commissioned by Nixon, then deep undercover, only to emerge as a 4-Star GOP Hack. Wonder what his pay-off will be? A 5th Star?

I'm dazzled to no end by the brilliance radiating from your, and fellow nutroots, tinfoil hats.

Posted by Iraq War News | September 14, 2007 7:48 PM


Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

NEW moveon,org TV ad coming out on monday sept 17th...basically calling president bush a traitor.

Catch it here: TV Ad

For general david betray us fans or not:
General David Betray Us

Have a great weekend!

Posted by Freedom Now | September 20, 2007 3:27 PM

Its funny that a hack like Monkei talks about tinfoil hats while spewing nonsense about some b.s. military plot to install Bush as president.

Al Qaeda is not Monkei's enemy. Bush is...

Post a comment