Captain's Quarters -

Well said.

My favorite line from the whole piece has to be this one:

"If that is true, how could any thinking educated individual ever vote again for a person so easily bamboozled?"

Petraeus appeared on Hugh Hewitt's highly partisan radio program in support of Bush's "surge" earlier this year, wrote a very convenient op-ed before the 2004 election providing plenty of happy talk about progress in Iraq that turned out to be only that, and now does an exclusive interview on Fox News about keeping troop levels up for yet another six months.

The obvious conclusion from such facts as the above is that Petraeus is indeed partisan and is deliberately acting in the interest of President Bush, who is desperately trying to keep making excuses for his miserable failure of a war until January 20th, 2009, when it won't be his problem any more. But it will still be America's, of course.

There are so many older Americans who are daily scratching their heads in total disbelief that political standards have fallen to these depths.
There was in the not too distant past an American Political scene where integrity, honesty and decency
were words that had a meaningful place in that setting.
The self promotion and egomaniacal stance by most of our hack politicians is a shame and a disgrace.
The worst part however is the indifference and willingness of the average voter to allow this garbage to continue

Thank you Colonel Repya...

It is truly regretful, but this is the unethical nature of today's misguided Democrat Party.

starfleet dude, you are an insult to Starfleet, whatever alternate reality it exists in.

I have very little time for (biased) tv and barely enough time to visit these blogs, which do a far better job of carrying the truth. But I can't help but cringe when I think of what the MSM is going to do with the coverage of this over the next few days.

Re: above...

"highly partisan" = "not cheerleading for defeat"

I don't expect a thing, anymore, from the affirmative action crowd.

But, sure, as lots of Americans, do, I have concerns about the direction these bastards have taken to "preserve their way of life."

Back in the 1840's, the senate could not cope with the South. And, the South played high-handed games. Then? We elected dopes, one after another, to be president. Did you know that President Buchanan, who was replaced in 1960 by Lincoln, had the audacity to leave office and throw over his shoulder, the remark "that he was the last American President of the whole Union." Thanks a lot.

But the way the Civil War played out; besides the carnage; it was the "bold moves" of the South that led to troubles.

In today's world? Well, golly gee. The uncivil war comes from all of those people who actually benefitted by all the changes wrought in victory. A New Union. WHere Blacks, and then, women, could vote. Heck, by the 1960's, we tossed a heap of old stuff out into the garbage. And, brought in new codes. "As in: Anything goes."

How did REASON get tossed, though? That's all I want to ask.

I know it's hard to teach lessons. Most people ignore stuff.

But, here, I see the billionnairess, Oprah, also playing the victim card. Because her aunt was a maid in a white person's household. HELLO. Revenge looks ugly on her.

And, now, after not having enough pride to even vote in elections, she's about to toss buckets full of money, from herself (perhaps?), but certainly from a whole coterie of limosine liberals; at Obama. Whose claim to fame is his skin?

No. I don't think this will "sell." I don't even thing the products made by the limosine liberals sells any better than the EDSEL. But they are out there tearing our country apart!

You heard me right. They've announced that if it's not their way, they're gonna destroy what brought them into congress. And, into state legislatures. As if "it's not enough" ...

Who sez?

Of course, they can all pack up their money and leave the country. I wouldn't care. They can all go fly to the moon, and ditto. I still wouldn't care.

But I care a lot about this country!

And, I'm very angry that a bunch of sore losers could turn the upcoming 2008 elections into such a circus!

Patraeus is the best we've got. Being asked to go to the toilet in DC. And, actually speak to the American people. When those who are in congress; ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE! Are queens. You heard me right! Very much into hand signals, from one end of the aisle to the other.

It's like asking the most corrupt police department in the world, to help keep the streets clean.

An election won't be enough to turn these cooters out of office.

Sure wish Patraeus could come up with suggestions for the wars being shot out of the legacy media, to hurt us all. Got any ideas?

"Many Democrats...turn a blind eye to the headway that even the CBS anchor Katie Couric and the New York Times have acknowledged."

Katie Couric and the NYT are convinced, but the Iraqis are not:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

Maybe they see the situation from a different perspective.

Where are the Democrats denouncing the ad by MoveOn.org?

Thank you, COL Repya, for speaking "truth to idiots".

“On Fox News Sunday this morning, host Chris Wallace announced the interview:

WALLACE: Now a special program note. Tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on the Fox News Channel, Brit will have an exclusive interview with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the state of the Iraq war and their testimony to Congress. Please be sure to watch.”

Nothing like watching an 'exclusive' non-partisan interview, on the extremely non-partisan 'Fair & Balanced' FOX NEWS Channel.

There can be nothing what-so-ever 'partisan' about the administration's choice to present the good General and his exclusive interview on the universally recognized 'non-partisan' Fair & Balanced FOX NEWS.

Why on earth would any non-partisan viewer think otherwise? Everyone knows you can't get less partisan than 'Fair & Balanced' FOX NEWS!!

Assault? Persecution?
Shed him of dignity?
Let's tone down the drama.
Honorable generals with impeccable records have been wrong before (Powell and Petraeus are two recent examples). In fact, the whole notion that "now" we have a way to win means that all the previous stuff that was promised to be the way to win was wrong. Political representatives have their own selfish interests to be sure, but they also are getting a lot of heat from the citizens they represent, and the nation as a whole is suspicious of White House policy in Iraq (which Petraeus is stuck with no matter what) and being told, yet again, that we need little more time (and this time, they really, really mean it). These repeated promises that went unfulfilled (I trust I don't need to list them) are the main reason for the skepticism, and rightly so. Petraeus is going to have an easier job of it than his counterpart because the military gains are far better than the political ones, which have been awful. To me Petraeus is not the key, it is Crocker's testimony, because a big key to success is political, and our military can't make the politics happen. The Iraqis knew about the benchmarks, they were put on notice, and not much happened (well, except blowing up a couple of rival governors and Allawi starting a campaign to take over the country). If the Iraqis aren't getting it done during crunch time, when are they going to get it done? In the meantime, let's see what both Petraeus and Crocker say.

And really, if you were advising Petraeus on how to convince both political parties and the whole of the American public, would you advise him to give an exclusive to Fox News? That has got WH written all over it.

Re: starfleet_dude - September 10, 2007 11:37 AM

Yes, he was on Hewitt's show, and on:

Alan_Colmes_Radio_Show: General Petraeus
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nyreb

He goes where he's invited to state his case.

starfleet_dude said:

"The obvious conclusion from such facts as the above is that Petraeus is indeed partisan and is deliberately acting in the interest of President Bush, who is desperately trying to keep making excuses for his miserable failure of a war until January 20th, 2009, when it won't be his problem any more. But it will still be America's, of course."

LOL! Your total ignorance of the military is duly noted.

On our planet, it is expressly forbidden (by several US Criminal codes and numerous military ones) for General Petraeus, or any other military person for that matter, to act as a political advocate for any cause. You just accused the good General of being a criminal, before he has even opened his mouth.

Stunning, but totally predictable. Why do you hate America so?

I want to see an issue ad with a visual of General Petraeus wearing an AMERICAN uniform and the audio of Mr. Lantos calling him a liar in his FOREIGN accent.

Why, yes, I am questioning Mr. Lantos' patriotism? Thank you for noticing.

When are you guys going to figure out that 'questioning someone's patriotism' is not an effective attack against them?

Nobody cares if you question their patriotism. It's a childish and empty attack against someone who disagrees with your political position.

I also think that criticizing Lantos' accent is both immaterial and in poor taste...

> The change of strategy or “Surge” that General
> Petraeus developed and implemented is showing
> positive signs that we can actually win this
> struggle.

I would like to see the numbers/methodology they use to support this statement.

Since those have not been released, it is hard for a skeptic to be convinced things are going well.

> On our planet, it is expressly forbidden (by
> several US Criminal codes and numerous military
> ones) for General Petraeus, or any other military
> person for that matter, to act as a political
> advocate for any cause.

Do you think the strategy of using Fox/HughH to get their message out is the best one to convince the country of progress? Why not use the MSM instead?

Equally to the point, where are the TV and newspaper reporters who should be asking the Democrat candidates whether or not they endorse the ad?

Dave said:

"I have to give at least one credit. Former MA Speaker of the House..."

Sorry shipmate. "Former" means he doesn't count. He's not an elected Dhimmicrat. If he were still in the House (and answerable to the Commies in MA) how do you know he would be so "brave"?

Shipmates, Yes the Dhimmi wailing and spewing forth of bile is very...unsavory.

OTOH, I went to a brief w/the Gen. I'm not too worried about him facing down ANY of the Dhimmicrats...or the MSM for that matter. The General is consistent and honest. Nothing that has happened could not have been predicted when the despicable Dhimmicrats voted for him to take over...of course, despicable doesn’t quite sum up how I really feel about the Dhimmis, commies and the rest of the cowards posting on this blog.

Starfleet Prude:

Keep trying to spin history in progress, it's futile however it will keep fools like you busy.

Dude et al:

Why don't you stop and think about Bin Laden's lastest tape and try to understand what it means about you.

His rhetoric was little more then a fun-house mirror reflecting back upon us the Main Stream Elite Media and the leftwing netroots ranting and raving about the Bush administration. That is what you sound like to outside world and that is what the world sees of the United States. Perhaps you should reflect on that vision before you take up the moveon.org meme about General Petreaus and the success of the surge.

An exceptional comparison of yesterday's Copperhead to today's anti-war left. History, indeed, repeats itself.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2QyYWIzZmY1Mzk2ZDA0OThlM2M5NjRiN2Q3MDliMTc=

Excerpt:

"In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, “that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory.” Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!” The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens.”

The Democratic convention was dominated by the anti-war faction whom the Republicans called “Copperheads,” after the poisonous snake. According to their best historian, they were “consistent and constant in their demand for an immediate peace settlement. At times they were willing to trade victory for peace. One persistent problem for [them] was their refusal or reluctance to offer a realistic and comprehensive plan for peace.” Pressed by the Copperheads, the Democrats nominated a rabidly antiwar candidate for vice president and adopted a platform that called the war a “failure,” and demanded “immediate efforts” to end hostilities….” Their platform statement would permit abandonment not only of emancipation, but of the most basic war aim, reunion. Even New York’s Republican Party boss declared that Lincoln’s reelection was widely regarded as an “impossibility…The People [were] wild for Peace.” At the end of August defeat for the Republicans and the Union cause seemed inevitable, but Lincoln refused to seek peace without victory, saying that he was not prepared, to “give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration.”

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: “Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House.”

"I only wish that these partisan politicians in Congress were held to the same ethical standards as our military." Excellent point!!!

Just want to add my 2 cents re Fox News. At least the General will get a fair hearing! Not like the talking heads would give him on other networks... Although, I think Glenn Beck would be good as well!

Starfleet Dude... you need to ease up on the Kool-Aid... it's making stupid stuff come out of your mouth!

Starfleet_dude is a perfect example of those superimpose their own methodology and morality, or lack of one, on anyone with whom they disagree. It is always interesting to listen to them because it gives the listener a pathway into the way their minds work. Because he would do what he ascribes to General Petraeus, to him it becomes obvious that this behavior will be that of the General. His assumption that collusion, dishonorable collusion, is how the President and the General behave is testimony to what he would do in a similar situation. It never occurs to him that these are honorable men doing what they believe to be right. His BDS is showing.

Yes, the Dems and their allies in the MSM are despicable beyond words, but the good news is that there is a new media and new ways to get to the truth. In this case as in most the truth will set you, the Iraqis' and Republicans free and show the Dems and Msm for the cowardly anti-American traitors that they are.
They are so invested in defeat they have no other way to save face, fortunately we may be so far down the road to victory that defeat cannot be snatched.
The Berlin wall fell, and the Soviets capitulated relatively rapidly once events started to turn. The whole mideast may be in the same spot now.
Pray Daily for our brave soldiers and CIC they fight for us all.

Okonkolo: Honorable generals with impeccable records have been wrong before (Powell and Petraeus are two recent examples).

If it were only a question of, "We think he's wrong", that would be one thing.

But that's not what moveon.org and others of our resident lefties have done: they have flat-out called him a liar.

The loathesome Cycloptichorn: When are you guys going to figure out that 'questioning someone's patriotism' is not an effective attack against them?

An excellent point: how can you criticize somebody for not having something that they despise? It would be like criticizing Hitler for not being Jewish enough.

You guys can say whatever you want about other generals (Adm. Fallon, General Pace). But Gen. Petraeus cannot be touched. He is a gem of a person because he agrees with neocon dreams. No wonder he is coorinating all this with Ed Gillepse as a political operation.

Doc,

"An excellent point: how can you criticize somebody for not having something that they despise? It would be like criticizing Hitler for not being Jewish enough."

Godwin's law states that you have failed in this conversation by invoking Hitler.

I don't despise patriotism, but I don't hold it up to be the moral virtue that you do. Excessive patriotism is usually a sign of a small mind; it's a short step from patriotism to Nationalism, not that I think you're too worried about that.

starfleet dude,

Why do you keep posting the same falsehoods over and over under each post the Captain makes about Petraeus? Don't you think we've seen it?

Point: These Democrats voted for this "partisan". Unanimously. They specifically demanded that he report to them his assessment of the war in the enabling legislation.

SoldiersMom,

You are absolutely right. Copperheads. They are indeed.
This preemptive strike on Petraeus' character, without having heard his report, makes me hope that he will put on his American Citizen hat, and when Uncle Teddy tries to be nasty, says "Senator, as an American citizen, I am fully your equal. In fact, I am better than your equal, because I've been honest about the deaths under my command."

Why on earth would any non-partisan viewer think otherwise? Everyone knows you can't get less partisan than 'Fair & Balanced' FOX NEWS!!

Actually that is a good point.

While Fox is the least partisan TV news network and that has its benefits, it would probably be good to send Petraeus into the belly of the beast of CNN, CBS, and the other Democrat networks so that the average Democrat can see more then just the normal DNC spin.

The true betrayers are the members of Moveon.org and those who support them. Prime examples of the left wing personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them or their ideology. Having recently retired after more than 33 years in the military, I sometimes regret having defended these morons right to spew vile and ignorance. God save us!!!

The idiot Cycloptichorn: Godwin's law states that you have failed in this conversation by invoking Hitler.

Well, it would do if I made an invidious comparison between (for example) you and Schickelgruber. If you go back and reread my post(several times to let it sink in; I would send you a crayon drawing if I thought it would help), I think you'll find that my use of Schickelgruber was an example of hyperbole: ol' Adolph hated Jews, and therefore complaining to him that he's "not Jewish enough" would hardly bother him. In fact, I imagine that he would have taken it as a compliment. In the same way, libs aren't bothered by questions about their patriotism; in fact, I think they rather take it as a compliment. As you said:

I don't despise patriotism, but I don't hold it up to be the moral virtue that you do.

In other words: "Oh, patriotism is OK, I suppose, but let's not go overboard. I mean, really: LOVE the United States??? What sort of a rube feels that way about a country???"

I would certainly never, ever accuse you of being a patriot, and therefore am hardly surprised that questions about your patriotism don't bother you in the least.

One last thing: before you toss around Godwin's Law in the future, I suggest that you read about "Quirk's Exception".

Will the MSM show you the NON-WORKING MICROPHONES given to Patraeus? Ya know, if this was the Iraqi parliament; you'd hear from creeps like Lantos, about the "technical malfunctions."

I am so disgusted with all of them in congress; I'd remove all their offices to toilet stalls. And, then these pieces of crap can get flushed; or, they can extend hand-signals. Losers.

Doc,

Not only have your quasi-insulting posts failed to advance either your point or the conversation in general, they have shown you to be deeply Unserious about the situation in general. It's fine with me if you wish to vent your frustration with the way things are going these days vis-a-vis the war in Iraq by insulting those who disagree with you, in this case, myself; but it is immaterial to the overall question and certainly does not reflect well upon you as a person.

Maybe when General Patraeus is done with Iraq, he and the boys can come back and clean up Congress!

"If that is true, how could any thinking educated individual ever vote again for a person so easily bamboozled?"

Of course they were not bamboozled by Bush - there are dozens of videos of prominent Dems DURING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION saying that Saddam has WMD and is working on nuclear capabilities, including Bill Clinton himself and every current democratic congressinal leader. Did Karl Rove travel back in time to bamboozle them?

That the Democrats would even pursue such blatant falsehoods tells us three things:
1. They cannot be trusted with national security.
2. They have no honor.
3. They can get away with blatant lies because the media is willing to ignore evidence such as cited above.

During the upcoming presidential campaign it is imperitive that Republicans feature these statements and contrast them to what the Democrats amd media have been telling us ever since they figure out how th re-write history.

There is not a shred of honesty in today's Democrats and their media toadies (or is it the other way around), and they must not be allowed to remain in power or gain more. Until the Democratic party is cleansed and reformed, it is a threat to the safety of every American, and many other freedom-loving people around the world.

I know that it is a favorite fantasy of the left that Bush will round them all up and put them in concentration camps. I have an awful feeling that future historians will look back on some (additional) national tragedy they cause by their treachery, and wish that he had.

I've been watching General Petraeus. Is he impressive. No wonder the Dems are running scared.

You might want to reflect opon why despite a furious PR campaign to the contrary, duly reported by the MSM, 60 % (!) of Americans already don't believe the Administration line.

Steve Poling says: I want to see an issue ad with a visual of General Petraeus wearing an AMERICAN uniform and the audio of Mr. Lantos calling him a liar in his FOREIGN accent. Why, yes, I am questioning Mr. Lantos' patriotism? Thank you for noticing.

Well, that's sweet, Steve. That's really sweet.

Born to a Jewish family in Budapest, Hungary, Lantos was part of an anti-Nazi resistance movement during the German occupation of that country and sought refuge in a safe house established by Raoul Wallenberg. In 1981 Lantos sponsored a bill making Wallenberg an Honorary Citizen of the United States. Lantos considers himself a secular Jew and is the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the House.[7] Upon immigrating to the United States, he attended the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley (Ph.D. 1953).

But you just go right ahead and "question his patriotism," Stevie boy. After all, the man has a (gasp) FOREIGN accent.

"I know that it is a favorite fantasy of the left that Bush will round them all up and put them in concentration camps."

Actually, this is one of MY favorite fantasies!

When the GOP was wearing band-aids at their 2004 convention to mock John Kerry's service to our country, many of us on the left wondered: how could so many seemingly decent people on the right do such a thing? Especially when their nominee had chosen not to fight in the very same war.

Let's remember what the bottom line is here: Patreaus wants us to stay in Iraq and prop up a Shia government allied with Iran.

Some of us patriotic Americans think that is a bad idea. American men and women should not have to die in service of Iran.

What is so hard to understand is why those who continue to support the occupation of Iraq think that the patriotic thing to do is to support the Iranian-backed and supported government of PM Maliki. Please explain.

Why do you keep posting the same falsehoods over and over under each post the Captain makes about Petraeus? Don't you think we've seen it?

unclesmrgol, are you saying that Petraeus hasn't appeared on Hewitt's show, written op-eds or turned down exclusive appearances on Fox News?

As for Democrats supporting his appointment, that doesn't automatically give him a pass in terms of his credibility now, does it?

FWIW, it's funny to read comparisons with Copperheads, given how President Bush would have certainly lost the Civil War for the Union if his miserable failure of the war he misled us into fighting in Iraq is any indication.

Repya is just acting as a political hack here as well, and merely pawning his otherwise honorable service for partisan purposes. Or more precisely, to help cover President Bush's sorry ass until January 20th, 2009. The Minnesota GOP may make use of Repya, but he's far too blunt an instrument to ever head the state party as he once tried to do by running against Ron Carey for the job (which Ed ought to have mentioned at least in passing, BTW.) But he does just fine as a club to beat the Democrats with. Too bad that doesn't do squat for Iraq though.

Chief Davis, While I only served 28 years to your 33 I was proud to defend all the morons on the right and the left because they were Americans all.
The complaint by Moveon is that Petraeus is a shill for the Bush administration and has been a tool for them in the past. Annually since 2004 he has solemnly pronounced success in Iraq with more around the corner if only we would stick it out. Once he started coordinating his testimony with political hacks such as Gillespie, I lost all interest in what he had to say.
Rumor has it that he has political ambitions of his own for say, president in 2012 and will do whatever it takes to stay tight with the neocon base. True or not, it would explain a lot. Not like a general would has ever wanted to be president before...

Thanks God that men like you, Colonel Repya and the good General still exist...Say what you will about this President, but his utmost concern has been the safety and security of the USA...He's stuck to his guns at great sacrifice...I shutter to think what would be happening had he not been POTUS on 9/11/01...Has this been perfect, no but what is...Have we always been right, no but what is...We've done the best we could with the hand we've been dealt...War is hell...There's no turning back now...God bless you Colonel Repya for speaking out on this...It does make a difference...General Patraeus Godspeed and thank you sir...Many of us are with you, pray for you and know what a truly wonderful man you are...Nothing's going to change that...May the good Lord keep you and those under your command...Always in our prayers!

Well said, Mr. Repya, and thank you for your service.

However these Leftist, fellow travelers appear, we live in a new age where their public face is recognized for what it is in real time... ugly, if not seditious, bordering treasonous. Fortunately, they cannot disguise it anymore and history will not be their only judge. We can now contemporaneously observe and reject their disingenuity, their smears, and their political machinations.

As things progress in Iraq and, hopefully, upon the greater war on radical, Islamic fundamentalism, history will record with brutal honesty who is just, right, and true. In the interim we'll tolerate those who would subvert honorable wo/men, even if we would prefer not to, because it is in the nation's fabric. This nation will prevail in spite of the tattered idiots on our Standard's fringe. Having said that, I'm all for making things as uncomfortable for them as possible while time transcribes events. Your response does that. A majority of Americans will subscribe to your position even if they opt not to write it down.

This is a new age. Smears will not go unpunished and the country will not relive the shame that was the aftermath of Vietnam. Watching anti-war, anti-America factions, especially those a bit to the right of the Code Pinkos, walk the tightrope of hating the troops without "hating the troops" is evidence of their wariness to upset the public... a public whose memories are plenty refreshed of the fiasco that was the post-Vietnam era.

Those invested in defeat are being recognized for their holdings. National interest will trumps theirs.

"However these Leftist, fellow travelers appear, we live in a new age where their public face is recognized for what it is in real time... ugly, if not seditious, bordering treasonous. Fortunately, they cannot disguise it anymore and history will not be their only judge. We can now contemporaneously observe and reject their disingenuity, their smears, and their political machinations."

If opposing the continued occupation of a country to support a government working hand-in-glove with Iran is treasonous, then call me a traitor.

Maliki is a thug and an Iranian lover. No American blood should be shed to support his government.

If the left is calling Patraeus a traitor, and a liar, can we at LAST remind them that they were Saddam's only hope of survival? And they are today Al Qaeda's only hope for survival in Iraq. Can we at Last call them the traitorous bastards they have shown themselves to be all along?

Look, we are in a war. Helping the enemy in a time of war is the only crime specifically noted in the Constitution. It is treason. And they have aiding and abetting those who want to kill us, (all of us, including them) for some time now.

I think their treason goes far beyond politics in this country. One of their candidates has stated that preventing genocide is no reason to employ US troops. They used to be the party always reminding us of the little guy. They used to be a party that wanted us to help people, who cared more than those Rich Republicans.

They don't care about little folk any more. They care only with defeating Bush, who will be gone in 18 months no matter how things go today. Their alledged principles, they seem to have abandoned, they appear to be fighting only for the sake of fighting, with no rationality.

They keep showing themselves to be traitors to this country, and to their own alledged principles.

Jerry, over at InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds links to The Corner. Seems a lot of people got fooled by Osama's tape. But it FREEZES. So, if you haven't seen it already, here's the scoop.

Osama begins and his lips are moving. And, then they are NOT. The voice-over is what establishes "current time and place." But Osama? He's dead. And, his body parts were spread all over the walls in a cave. In Tora Bora. Still true.

And, last night, Drudge gave the Murdoch scoop to his listening audience. MURDOCH IS IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY!

Seems over at CBS, just to mention their woes with Katie Curic; it seems they're trying to "win back audience share." So the hook? They ran a poll that says 54% of the American public supports the surge.

Oh, that also means the Bonkeys have been shedding their faithful. Cause for the numbers to reflect that lots of thinking Americans SEE the benefits we're getting from General Patraeus' thrusts in Irak, is to know ... hmm. Smells like former democrats are now part of the larger, whole.

While those in congress with shovels? They just keep digging, along.

Not enough to make fun of them all as queens.

Not enough to point out that these hyeanas tolerate a lot of hand-signaling in toilets.

Not enough to know congress fails.

Heck, Abraham Lincoln just put a couple of those arses in jail. Why can't we?

I thought the Move On ad was a stupid move, but no worse than the swift boat attacks on John Kerry or the jerks on other winger sites calling Chuck Hagel a "quitter" and a "traitor." (Or for that matter the Bush campaign implying that McCain was cuckoo from his stay at the Hanoi Hilton.) Yet, somehow, the people here tended to support those attacks.

If Petraeus ever actually says something you folks don't agree with, the attacks will come fast and furious. Just ask General Casey, Peter Pace, Eric Shinsheki....

What a moronic rant from the right.
Completely moronic.

Every general, in every war has been criticized. This is no different.
Don't you people read any history?

Here's three prime examples, of US Generals attacked, shamed, vile comments made in the press about them...most were justified.

Doug Mc Arthur
He made a statement that he would do what he wanted in Korea, not what Truman said. He got his butt fired for that one.
Reason: Chain of command, plain and simple

Curtis Le May
He invented a war crime. Firebombing of cities. Dresden and Japan were his targets. It was outlawed as a war crime. He had a very hard time afterwards, in Viet Nam
Reason: Civilians are not targets in wars.

Westmoreland
This is almost identical to the rock and hard place Patreaus was put into. LBJ did it to Westmoreland. Bush is doing it to Patreaus. Both get the loudest of press denouncements.
Reason: Trying to fix a war mess, too late in the game.

One ad is freaking out a few of the right wingers. An ad that ran in one paper!

Grow up, all generals will be slammed in a war. Some from their own doing, like LeMay's case, but most from the idtiots who put them under that rock.
It's just part of the politics of war.
Patreaus is apparently not as thin skinned as some folks on the right are.

"Sorry to state the obvious, but General Petraeus is one of “Our Troops”. To imply that he is untruthful, misrepresents the facts, manipulates the numbers or allows intelligence reports to be “cherry picked” is an insult to all of us who currently serve, have served or will serve in Iraq."

To suggest that if a person criticizes a leader in the military then he is criticizing the military as a body is called an association fallacy and it weakens your argument.

So let me get this straight.

Call the commander of American forces in Iraq, who happens to have a chest full of medals he earned, a traitor, and that's a-ok.

Question the claimed record of a confessed war criminal and proven liar, John F'in Kerry, and that is beyond the pale?

Heck, Abraham Lincoln just put a couple of those arses in jail. Why can't we?

America will be paying for a long time for not bringing charges against Jane Fonda...

SF Dude;

You said: "FWIW, it's funny to read comparisons with Copperheads, given how President Bush would have certainly lost the Civil War for the Union if his miserable failure of the war he misled us into fighting in Iraq is any indication."

Funny you say that because if you read any history of the Civil War that is exactly what the Copperheads said about Lincoln; almost word-for-word at that.

I realize that prebuttals are the political rage these days but calling a man a liar before he even speaks carries the practice beyond credibility. (Its also rude; but sadly civility has lost much of its former cachee.)

As for why would Petreaus appear on Fox News:

Ask yourself who is the critical audience for what he has to say. Clearly, it is the wavering Republicans. The Democrats in the main will not change their now entrenched opposition; but the Democrats hope for forcing a withdrawl requires Republican votes to overcome filibusters and vetoes. Otherwise, they would have no defense bill at all and that is difficult politically.

Where are the watchers who can influence wavering Republican legislators? It is not MSNBC or CNN. There is no harm in speaking there as well but if time is limited, the essential place to go is Fox.

I also doubt that the General would need White House help to figure that out. Since this is his plan (along with Kagan's) it is not unreasonable to expect him to seek every chance to make it work. That does not mean he will lie or distort, it just means that he will think carefully how to most effectively keep the support he needs to keep the funds going until he either succeeds or there really is no practical use in further effort.

Funny you say that because if you read any history of the Civil War that is exactly what the Copperheads said about Lincoln; almost word-for-word at that.

The difference being that Lincoln won the war that was thrust upon him, while Bush's own war that he started is FUBAR'd.

But hey, if things turn around we'll be out of there and that's o.k. by me. What isn't o.k. is yet another six month's worth of excuses.

I realize that prebuttals are the political rage these days but calling a man a liar before he even speaks carries the practice beyond credibility.

What strains credibility is Petraeus giving unsupported figures on civilian casualties in Iraq which based on data from intelligence agencies that he doesn't even name. Nor is there any sort of written report for Congress and the public to review. That doesn't automatically make Petraeus a liar, but it is cause to be skeptical about what he claims.

The faux outrage on here is just insufferable. You gladly turn on your own Republicans like Hagel and McCain and disparage their military service if they disagree with you.

-dude

You are being too generous. It does make him a liar, albeit a cautious one.

sf dude:

You are plain stupid. At the time the Copperheads where mouthing your words the Civil War looked like a FUBAR exercise as well. What you think they were still yacking after Lincoln died?

It aint over 'till the fat lady sings and she is a long way from singing. President Bush told you in the beginning that the GWOT and all it components are a long war. Like any child, and make no mistake that the kind of leftism you expouse is childish, long means next week.

gen. patreaus is saying we shouldn't make any major decisions on iraq for six more months. and it seems the decider has already decided to stay that course. the gen. also says we can possibly reduce by one brigade in december or january, and by august we will be back to where we were this past january with 130,000 troops. of course this is all conjecture by guys whose conjectures have been all wrong to date...but ignoring that...what it adds up to is something like another 1100 dead u.s. soldiers and another $144 billion borrowed from china. dem or repub i don't care....this is as stupid as it gets.

Gee, I wonder if John Kerry sits there with ants in his pants, remembering the "good ole days?"

There are certain people in this country who are always going to be against ANY war. That's just the way they are. They don't have the intelligence gene that tells them that war is as much a part of human existance as breathing air. Not a pretty fact, but a fact nonetheless. Very few people actually like war, that's why it is always so much easier to get people to be against it. But sometimes, wars will happen and have to be fought. That being the case, those people who refuse to get behind the effort to side with their own people are beneath contempt. Their reasons for their position break down to a lack of courage and national pride. These people usually live with the benefits of freedom at the cost of thos brave souls who stand up for them. In order to not look like a sniveling coward, they must seek to equalize themselves with the brave fighter. Since they cannot raise themselves up, they must tear the soldier down. In this country, we call those sniveling cowards liberals.

"Smears will not go unpunished"
And what exactly did you have in mind, Herr Drivel? Do you plan to go through the courts or just line up everyone "not like you" against a convenient wall?
This is still, for a moment, a constitutional democracy, Comrade Neocon.

RE: mkultra (September 10, 2007 2:12 PM)

"a government [Maliki's democratically elected one] working hand-in-glove with Iran"

Hyperbole. Are you sure that you aren't thinking Al-Sadr?

Exactly how many options do we have to both allow that newly formed democracy to balance its own independence with our own self-interest (assuming you are American)? Do you have a laundry list of Iraqi candidates burning a hole in your pocket that you could share with us that would serve them (and us) better? The Iraqi PM has a nearly impossible task on his hands and is being asked to unify a nation under a form it has never seen before in perhaps the most dangerous and unstable region on the planet on a timetable that must satisfy the political whims of our own nation with an infrastructure ravaged (but improving) by decades of war, internal strife, and a manipulative Saddam. Perhaps we could ship them John Edwards and Joe Biden to provide appropriate leadership. Maybe universal health coverage would sate the beast.

"Maliki is a thug and an Iranian lover. No American blood should be shed to support his government."

Compared to whom? And which government would you support? The ideal, hypothetical one that doesn't (and won't in our lifetime) exist? We either coax the current one to the best of our ability in order to stabilize an operational unit that is self-sufficient and relatively passive (at some expense X), impose American hegemony with a heavier footprint for a longer time with inevitably greater foreign resentment (at some even greater expense Y), or we bail, let Iraq collapse, and face the catastrophe Al-Qaeda and/or Iran prefer (at the greatest expense Z).

Our options are not unlimited. Maliki (or any leader) is between a rock and a hard place, and abandoning him/Iraq without providing an explicitly detailed plan of action for the post-Iraq retreat is unacceptable; therefore, what is your alternative? Be as specific as possible.

Now, having said all of that, my most pointed rebuke is directed at those who would smear an honorable soldier who seems to be accomplishing that which could not be accomplished at a rate no one could have expected and smearing him before he has even disclosed his full report. The cherry on top? He was appointed to the job with nary a dissenting vote. Amazing how facts on the ground are ignored when the political calculus isn't adding up. As to the ANSWER and Code Pink contingency, nothing needs be said. Their actions speak louder than words. In another time most would have been kept ignorant of the big picture from all angles. We no longer live in those times and our focus is sharper.

Jeff,
Thank you for your 28 years of service. You miss my point, Moveon.org and other radical left wing groups stoop to personal attacks rather than engaging in civil dialogue. And no, I'm not a right wing radical, just an independent who still believes in civility.

The left can question Patraeus' patriotism, but nobody can question theirs.

We all understand this, surely.

filistro

Lantos considers himself a secular Jew and is the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the House.[7] Upon immigrating to the United States, he attended the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley

So? I don't see anthing here which makes his patriotism off limits. Especially when the people on your side are questioning that of Patraeus.

You are plain stupid. At the time the Copperheads where mouthing your words the Civil War looked like a FUBAR exercise as well. What you think they were still yacking after Lincoln died?

The Civil War was all but over when Lincoln was assassinated, given Richmond's fall and the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. If Lincoln had made as little progress against the Confederacy as Bush has in Iraq, he would have only been a one-term President. Thankfully Lincoln was less concerned with his own ego and more concerned with getting the job done, hard and terrible as it was. Bush in comparison has taking what was a needless war and proceeded to bog the U.S. down in a futile occupation of a foreign land. That's what is plain stupid in my book.

It aint over 'till the fat lady sings and she is a long way from singing. President Bush told you in the beginning that the GWOT and all it components are a long war. Like any child, and make no mistake that the kind of leftism you expouse is childish, long means next week.

jerry, that lady will never sing because there's nothing the U.S. can do to resolve the Iraqi civil war for them. Staying around for decades just to get in their way seems like a waste of time, money and lives for no good reason. President Bush started the war on false pretenses, but once Saddam Hussein was deposed a revolution happened that put the Shia in power and that is going to play itself out with or without us.

The current state of politics does sadden me. What saddens me even more is the hypocrisy and false sense of outrage. The left attacks General Petraeus for being the lackey of Bush and the right and the media go ballistic.

Yet, where is the same sense of outrage when someone from the right attacks the left or someone like Hagel? I've seen people on the right saying that bin Laden should be the keynote speaker at the DNC; calling Democrats "defeatocrats" and "surrendercrats"; calling Schumer a traitor; on and on it goes.

You want to change the state of politics in this country? Then look in the mirror and change the way you speak about people from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

starfleet_dude,

No, I'm talking about "the happy talk about progress in Iraq that turned out to be just that" -- in other words, your false "value added" on top of the facts.

Filistro,

I don't think much of Lantos. After all, it was the progressives who suppressed all those movies about what Hitler was doing to the Jews -- as long as the Soviet Union was Germany's friend. The gloves only came off in 1941 when Germany invaded the USSR, at which point we were allowed to hear what was really going on. Lantos is on the side of those whom he would have opposed in an earlier era.

That said, his foreign accent, or lack thereof, should not be an issue. My grandparents spoke with accents, yet they became citizens, sent all six of their sons off to war in defense of the United States, and never failed to vote.

Teresa says:

The faux outrage on here is just insufferable. You gladly turn on your own Republicans like Hagel and McCain and disparage their military service if they disagree with you.

____________________________

I have not seen any disparaging of the military service of McCain or Hagel. It is their positions on political issues that have drawn disagreement.

As for whether outrage is false or not is difficult for someone outside the allegedly outraged person to know.

In my case, I am not outraged but once again disappointed that some insist on shooting the messenger when they do not like the message. If we make public service a one way ticket to character assasination fewer will be willing to do it.

Defending his plan and his accomplishments as best he can, while bing honest and candid, does not make him a bad person. Can the same be said for those who find it easier to pursue ad hominem attacks rather than seriously debate the facts in dispute.

Wait for the presentation , the testimony and the published portions of the reports and then go after those things if you wish; but leave the man alone. He has enough to deal with.

Comparisons to the Civil war are probably a bit overblown: Lincoln could only wish to have it so good. His election to office started the war, his generals lost ground from the beginning, and the death toll was outrageous. He was assassinated before even being able to implement reconstruction.
What does Bush have? He essentially finished up a problem left by his father and ignored by his predecessor. His generals won an unprecedentedly quick victory, and he is still around to deal with the aftermath.
The only thing they really have in common is how loudly their opponents in congress and the press complain about everything.

The US is providing security for an emerging democracy in Iraq. Calling it a war at all is actually a bit of a stretch. Normally, this would be something we just do and nobody makes a fuss about.
The problem, of course, is that this is happening in the presence of people who are, among other things, desperate to see the sitting president discredited.

RE: (jeff | September 10, 2007 3:01 PM)

"Smears will not go unpunished"
And what exactly did you have in mind, Herr Drivel? Do you plan to go through the courts or just line up everyone "not like you" against a convenient wall?
This is still, for a moment, a constitutional democracy, Comrade Neocon.

So that's what you infer from that non-contextualized excerpt? That's a telling reflection of your default interpretation. Godwin would be proud.

If this PowerPoint slide shown by Petraeus today is any indication, the fat lady is going to die of anorexia before she ever gets a chance to sing:

Recommendations for Force Reductions/Mission Shift

The question marks given for future dates past March 2008 is at least honest enough.

The problem, of course, is that this is happening in the presence of people who are, among other things, desperate to see the sitting president discredited.
that's so demonstrably wrong that i would love to hear the "among other things".

"Hyperbole. Are you sure that you aren't thinking Al-Sadr?

Exactly how many options do we have to both allow that newly formed democracy to balance its own independence with our own self-interest (assuming you are American)? Do you have a laundry list of Iraqi candidates burning a hole in your pocket that you could share with us that would serve them (and us) better? The Iraqi PM has a nearly impossible task on his hands and is being asked to unify a nation under a form it has never seen before in perhaps the most dangerous and unstable region on the planet on a timetable that must satisfy the political whims of our own nation with an infrastructure ravaged (but improving) by decades of war, internal strife, and a manipulative Saddam. Perhaps we could ship them John Edwards and Joe Biden to provide appropriate leadership. Maybe universal health coverage would sate the beast."

You miss the point. I don't care how hard it is. It doesn't - in any way - justify working with the Iranians. And if that's the choice Maliki wants to make, then he should lose our support.

"Compared to whom? And which government would you support? The ideal, hypothetical one that doesn't (and won't in our lifetime) exist? We either coax the current one to the best of our ability in order to stabilize an operational unit that is self-sufficient and relatively passive (at some expense X), impose American hegemony with a heavier footprint for a longer time with inevitably greater foreign resentment (at some even greater expense Y), or we bail, let Iraq collapse, and face the catastrophe Al-Qaeda and/or Iran prefer (at the greatest expense Z)."

You obviously need to think ahead. It was inevitable that the majority Shia would take over once Saddam was gone. It was inevitable that they would not reconcile with the Sunnis. It was inevitable that they would turn toward the Iranians and become their number one ally in the region.

That's why it was such a f***ing stupid idea to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq inevitablelyeant strenghtening Iran's hand in the region. Those who supported this war have never understood that.

Look, Iraq is going to become a very close and strong ally of Iran. It's a simple fact. This is true whether we stay or go. And it won't matter when we go. This is what is going to happen. The Shia are the majority, have no desire or reason to share power with anyone else, and have very strong relationships with the power brokers in Tehran.

As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, once we leave the Shia will make short work of them. You don't see AQ running around in Iran, do you? For the same reason, you won't see them running around in a post-occupation Iraq.

It's time to drop this stupid fantasy of a multi-ethnic government in Iraq. It's getting Americans killed.

"other things:" mostly involve old communist propaganda. There is the idea that nationalism is bad, that the military is inherently evil, that capitalism is corrupt, and that anything the US does abroad is "imperialism."
I could probably go on, but thats the gist of it.

"But sometimes, wars will happen and have to be fought. That being the case, those people who refuse to get behind the effort to side with their own people are beneath contempt."

So, you think war is just a natural part of Man's nature and its of little importance why or how they start. The important thing is to support and kill for your side no matter what the circumstances.

Is that your idea of love of country and patriotism?

R.Mutt

Count 10. Good comments on CW etc.

I don't know why all the libs have congregated here! I think most of the comments should be thrown onto the trash heap. Who Cares what they think. Not Me.

God Bless General Petraeus and Amb. Crocker for
putting up with the nincompoops in Congress who are stumbling thru their Questions ... trying to give intelligent answers to those leftists fools.

I'm just waiting for Brit to conduct his interview with General Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.
That should be time well spent.

MarkT asked:

"Do you think the strategy of using Fox/HughH to get their message out is the best one to convince the country of progress? Why not use the MSM instead?"

I watched the complete coverage today on CNN, which is seen worldwide. What's your point?

As for Tom Lantos, he's well known here in New Hampshire, as his looney-toon daughter Katrina is running for office here. You think Tom's a piece of work? Check her out some time. By the way, Tom is the only member of his family who's Jewish-his wife and daughters share Mitt Romney's religion (also the religion of Harry Reid).

As for her Dad, here's an interesting tidbit that his supporters would rather keep quiet:

"Lantos was a strong supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During the run-up to the war, Lantos used his Congressional Human Rights Caucus to host a well-spoken young Kuwaiti woman identified only as "Nurse Nayirah", who told of horrific abuses by Iraqi soldiers, including the killing of Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor of the hospital. These alleged atrocities figured prominently in the rhetoric at the time about Iraqi abuses in Kuwait. This story later proved to be a complete fabrication. "Nurse Nariyah" was, in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, and had been coached on this story by the PR firm of Hill & Knowlton, who were paid $14 million by representatives of the Government of Kuwait to create a PR campaign to generate U.S. support for an invasion. Hill & Knowlton also provided free office space to the Congressional Human Rights Foundation (distinct from the similarly named caucus), of which Lantos was co-chair at the time"

Off-topic, but those who make dimwitted comparisons of Lincoln's masterful leadership of the Union during the Civil War and Bush's own botch of a Presidency ought to crack open a few history books, rather than make uninformed cracks here. There's no comparison to be had, other than to compare the best President the U.S. has ever had with one of the worst.

I don't know why all the libs have congregated here! I think most of the comments should be thrown onto the trash heap. Who Cares what they think. Not Me.

Thankfully Ed has a rather more fair system to judge comments by than his own partisan leanings. That's partly why there are comments from those you may disagree with politically here.

This is an interesting admission from Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leader in the anti-war movement (from a link provided by Bennett in another thread) :

The Democrats don’t have – and even the people in the anti-war movement don’t have – a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy. That’s why they end up debating everything on the same terms that the Republicans do.”

That's exactly right. It's difficult to offer a better solution when you don't have one which is the case for the anti-war folks. If they did have a sensible alternative proposal for Iraq then we'd be reading about that instead of a stupid NYT attack ad calling Gen. Petraeus a liar.

goofticket,

It's probably not worth my time, but I'll do it anyway:

1. That would be Douglas MACArthur (not McArthur). As I recall, MacArthur was widely respected in the country and lionized in much of the media; TRUMAN was in for criticism when he sacked MacArthur, though I believe Harry was dead right to do what he did.

2. Oh, you are NOT insulting Curtis LeMay! Yes, bombing civilians is a war crime; no getting around it. But as for LeMay "inventing" firebombing... Ever hear of a city called Coventry? How about London? Do you know of a man named Arthur T. "Bomber" Harris? Surely you've heard of Franklin Roosevelt, who, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, ORDERED LeMay to do what he did... Just as his successor, Harry Truman, ORDERED Paul Tibbets to fly up to Hiroshima on the morning of Aug 6, 1945 and do what he did.

I don't recall that LeMay was in for too much criticism in the press until the Vietnam era when people on the left found it safe and fun to smear the military. Kind of like today.

3. Westmoreland was put between a rock and a hard place by LBJ???? Laughable! LBJ took a pretty "hands-off" approach to the war in South Vietnam (he was very hands-on when it came to North Vietnam): Westmoreland eschewed counter-insurgency in favor of a war of attrition that led to the "quagmire" in South Vietnam until 1968 / 1969 when (a) the communists decimated themselves during the Tet Offensive and (b) Abrams took over and started practicing COIN. You know: fighting smarter, not harder?

Before you yap about other people "reading some history", perhaps you might try it yourself.

Or are you actually Joe Biden?

Oh how I love the smell of moonbat meltdown after a reality-check smack-down.

The Left is so insane I don't think they'll even make it to the 2008 Democrat Convention before their brain completely implodes.

Actually, starfleet_dude, it seems you are missing the historical connection. Lincoln seems masterful in hindsight, but he and the war were unpopular at the time and his early campaigns were not successful. As with Bush, many thought Lincoln was doing great damage to the country.

It is way too early to know how the decision to go to Iraq will be viewed by history, especially if the surge continues to gain ground on multiple fronts. It could still be a mess we eventually give up on, or 8 years from now Iraq could become a strong ally and an inspiration to Iranians to topple the Mullahcracy from within.

One thing is certain. If we pull out now there will be only one way to view it.

flenser:

Re: Tom Lantos and patriotism... I don't know about you, but for me the act of joining an underground resistance movement and risking one's life to fight against an army trying to occupy one's country... that's the very definition of patriotism. That's what patriots do.

I suspect, based on my limited knowledge of you, that it's what you would do if America were invaded by a foreign power.

It's also what a lot of Iraqis are doing right at this very moment. And we're killing them for doing it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

"other things:" mostly involve old communist propaganda. There is the idea that nationalism is bad, that the military is inherently evil, that capitalism is corrupt, and that anything the US does abroad is "imperialism."

I think that last could simply read "anything the US does is wrong, period."

There is a whole population of people in this country who have been taught since childhood that the US is evil. It is an article of faith to them, and they can no more be reasoned out of it that we can turn off gravity. And they don't WANT to be reasoned out of it either - to despise the country they live in is their central reason for living. And they enjoy the feeling of how it absolves them of having any answers - all they need is anger. And 99% of these people vote for Democrats, so that party has to pay attention to their ravings.

Actually, starfleet_dude, it seems you are missing the historical connection. Lincoln seems masterful in hindsight, but he and the war were unpopular at the time and his early campaigns were not successful. As with Bush, many thought Lincoln was doing great damage to the country.

Lincoln was revered in the North by the end of the Civil War, and for damn good reason because it was through Lincoln's ability to lead the nation through a terrible war with setbacks that make the ones facing President Bush in Iraq absolutely pale in comparison. Lincoln didn't seek war, but was steadfast in seeing it through, while Bush can hardly wait until January 20th, 2009 to hand his war off to someone else.

It is way too early to know how the decision to go to Iraq will be viewed by history, especially if the surge continues to gain ground on multiple fronts. It could still be a mess we eventually give up on, or 8 years from now Iraq could become a strong ally and an inspiration to Iranians to topple the Mullahcracy from within.

The irony of how Saddam Hussein was toppled by the invasion of a foreign power being an inspiration to Iranians to revolt against their own government is pretty evident! The verdict of history may be something Bush takes some silly solace in, but history is also now and will inform how we judge his war in Iraq. Even Petraeus was quite vague today about how long the U.S. would have to remain in Iraq.

One thing is certain. If we pull out now there will be only one way to view it.

Folly, either way.

mkultra: When the GOP was wearing band-aids at their 2004 convention to mock John Kerry's service to our country, many of us on the left wondered: how could so many seemingly decent people on the right do such a thing? Especially when their nominee had chosen not to fight in the very same war.

"there's nothing the U.S. can do to resolve the Iraqi civil war for them."

And you want us to go crack some history books? A billion Commies wouldn't agree with your defeatism.

They don't control the ground, they don't control the population, they don't dare stand and fight us, they can't set up a political system in opposition to our own, they weren't able to stop a boost in recruitment of loyalist forces. The political wrangling is being done within the framework of the constitution they adopted for themselves. All that remains is to grind them into the dust--but you look on that and call it FUBAR, because they don't have a domestic oil agreement and they can explode some car bombs.

Some people think that costs too much and takes too long. Protecting American interests isn't like investing in the bond market, we can't pull out and wait for better days. We're all in, all the time. That at least shows some logic, given misguided priorities. Your ignorance of events within the last 40 years is just laughable.

filistro:

Here is a link to a story about the current situation in Fallujah:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/003102.php

My impression is that the change in tactics to classical COIN, which predates the actual surge, and the Sunnis having had a chance to actually live under al Quaeda, has resulted in the changed situation on the ground. Note particularly the reasons given by some of the Iraqis as to why they were fighting us before, and are now cooperating with us and the Iraqi IP.

>Lincoln was revered in the North by the end of the Civil War,

Lincoln did not live to see the end of the Civil War. Lincoln was killed two months before Galveston surrendered. Lincoln did not have to deal, at all, with the thorny question of whether 11 states could just waltz back into Congress saying "Heya boys, longtime no see" or whether they had to accept conditions for readmission to the Union. Lincoln the human being, shot in the head, on his way to the grave, certainly got universal public displays of respect, but absent any public opinion polling, you have no basis for your discussion of Lincoln's political "mo'".

"Lincoln didn't seek war, but was steadfast in seeing it through, while Bush can hardly wait until January 20th, 2009 to hand his war off to someone else."

Hogwash. Lincoln was clearly warned that taking office would lead to secession, and further warned not to assert federal rights to federal property within the seceded states. He deliberately, righteously, and justifiably refused to let the Union be held hostage, in full awareness of the growing violence. Ft. Sumter was not the first battleground.

RE: (mkultra | September 10, 2007 3:39 PM)

"You miss the point. I don't care how hard it is. It doesn't - in any way - justify working with the Iranians. And if that's the choice Maliki wants to make, then he should lose our support."

Maliki is working with the Shia in his nation, an unavoidable situation. He is also working with the Kurds and the Sunnis, each of whom would prefer its own ethnicity (if we are to assume, perhaps arrogantly or not, tribalism is an unavoidable human condition) to hold the throne. Two of three in the tripartite assembly are going to be a bit displeased, but to say that Maliki is Iranian and will bow only to Iranian interests is a stretch. Again I ask, who would you support if it's Maliki or nothing? Your default... nothing. Is that the best option regardless of consequences? We all understand politics is local which is why Maliki must act the way he does. From here it seems too weighted to one pole, but I'm not so sure it is; however, there is a trend now in Iraq for governance to become more decentralized, away from Baghdad, which is a direct consequence of Petraeus' counterinsurgency methods. Consider it "states" of Federalism with states getting more power under decentralization. That would seem to be the best balance if the country doesn't fracture... again, the balancing act any PM must master.

"You obviously need to think ahead. It was inevitable that the majority Shia would take over once Saddam was gone. It was inevitable that they would not reconcile with the Sunnis. It was inevitable that they would turn toward the Iranians and become their number one ally in the region."

Wholesale reunification with Iran due to Shia populations is not an inevitability. The U.S. as intermediary buys valuable time for these historic enemies and serves as invaluable buffer for the reflexive retribution presumably underlying every action of those peoples. Yes, offering "buffers" in the form of American soldiers and lucre should be sincerely hashed out, but the ultimate question is which path is the most productive. However, if it is your interpretation that the inevitable cannot be diverted, are the Kurds worth considering? How about the larger conflagration should the U.S. leave and the "inevitable" happen? Turkey moves on Kurdistan. Syria and Saud moves from the West. Iran moves from the East. Iraq becomes the epicenter of war and the reverberations cross the globe. Is that in the best interest of the U.S. and the West?

"That's why it was such a f***ing stupid idea to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq inevitablelyeant strenghtening Iran's hand in the region. Those who supported this war have never understood that..."

Without rehashing a debate that has gone on for years since the arguments for and against our intervention range far and wide, let's move forward to what we should do now. We're there.

"As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, once we leave the Shia will make short work of them. You don't see AQ running around in Iran, do you? For the same reason, you won't see them running around in a post-occupation Iraq."

Iran is a unified and stable state for now. Iraq isn't and is particularly vulnerable to outside agents. Opportunism has seen that AQI move from their old, native havens of the *stans where US/MNF forces have forced their hand. I don't believe that Iraq would rapidly stabilize given that the nascent nation, even with limited U.S. support, was unable to keep the peace and decisively thwart AQI. It just wasn't happening. It was only when U.S. forces were increased and, more importantly, the ROI were loosened to permit proactive defense. Neither the Shia, Kurds, nor Sunni had the capacity to repel AQ and its brutality on its own. Given that AQ's goal was fostering chaos over all else, they could triangulate violence of whatever sectarian flavor it needed to create power vacuums which it was willing to fill. Iran does not suffer from such risk because a) it is more ethnically pure, and b) because AQ has a weaker environment in Iraq to conduct business. However, environments can change and Iran could well be destabilized too under the right pressures. Don't think that local extremists aren't always looking for new lands for the "right" type of caliphate.

mkultra:

Here are the facts about Bush's service:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4807

BTW, the Oklahoma ANG was looking for pilots in 1966. I know, because I talked to them about it after I got out of the Army, but could not pass the physical (deviated septum).

I would also remind you "Bush didn't serve in VietNam" critics that many people in the military, including friends of mine, never saw VietNam - they were serving honorably in Germany, Korea, Okinawa or one of our other far-flung military outposts.

"For General Petraeus and the men and women in our military that he represents to be subjected to this circus during wartime is beyond the pale of human decency."

I guess you came right out of West Point, because anyone who ever served as a private knows the generals do not represent us. They represent the war profiteers and the dictators and their wives and mistresses (not a one of them in the military), not the grunts...

Filistro,

Of course, Steve isn't the first to do Lantos dirty, Here is a little screed from the Left.

As that article shows, it's amazing how the Left's media sensitivity just evaporates into thin air when dealing with an opponent. Suddenly, the religion of his wife and daughter become important, even though that has no bearing on his own religious faith or lack thereof.

It appears that Lantos has regained his good boy relationship with the Moore crowd so they have turned off their targeting computers.

Rusty,

If you served as a private, at least you served, but obviously nobody thought much of it, if you stayed one the whole time.

MoveOn's personal attack on Patraeus is no better and no worse than Bush's attack on McCain in South Carolina in 1999. But let's put it in it's place. The personal attack is a destraction from the fundamental issue.

Bush, because he has lost all credibility with the majority of the American people, has put his military commander, Patraeus, into the position of advocating a policy, a policy that is the responsibility for the Commander-in-Chief. If Bush chooses to hide behind military commanders, then military commanders will catch the political flack.

Even pro-war Republicans can agree Bush has completely notched the prosecution of this war.

The personal attack is a destraction from the fundamental issue: What is the correct US military role in Iraq and at what cost in US Treasury?

2/3's of Americans want a substantial draw down of military combat troops in Iraq. The remaining want to stay and fight until the victory. What will that look like?

Maybe Bush could get Al Maliki to pay for this war. It's bankrupting us. Has anybody found the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud? aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, mass quatities of uranium from africa? No? I didn't think so.

Rep. Schakowsky:“On August 6, I was in Iraq and what I learned from that visit that day was that, in fact, that the President’s surge has failed and that there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq… But what’s really important today is that people examine the so-called evidence that progress has been made. That’s why I brought a few charts here. The first one says, is there really less violence in Iraq? Let’s look at what is counted, but even more importantly what isn’t counted. In the evidence that progress has been made, not counted includes Shiite on Shiite violence, which is happening in the South in the Basra area, Sunni on Sunni violence, car bombings aren’t counted, and get this one - this isn’t a joke - people shot in the front of the head are not counted. People shot in the back of the head are counted. I thought at first that that was just an exaggerated joke. It’s true. And finally, the large-scale bombing like the one that killed 500 ethnic Yezidis in August is not counted.”

Watch it for yourself Here

The Patreaus Report: Here's one take on the argument about statistics used to evaluate the success the surge, and our Iraq policy. Video

Nothing like watching idiots confuse the Civil War, back in the days before technology took hold; and, yes, only gas lights once lit the dusty streets of DC. Gone, now.

However, both Abraham Lincoln and this President Bush, are, by the definitions given in history books: TWO TERM PRESIDENTS.

And, the last of the great democrats, FDR: A 4-TERMER.

As to the times the Civil War was held; Blacks didn't vote. Females didn't vote. Still, things change.

Foolish to compare wars with the here-and-now.

Nor do we know how Bush will end up in the history books. While we do know Lincoln advanced to "first in class," when in his own times, the press ridiculed him, no end. The only differences? Who the hell wrote that garbage, then? History's turned those names to dust.

Oh. And, we're still seeing books in print lauding Lincoln. In this "Land of Lincoln." Go ahead. Have some fun and read Ferguson's wonderful stories.

Iraq? Bush gave them a chance they weren't going to take on their own. Saddam's gone, now.

And, it's possible Iraqis, who seemed to enjoy the process of voting; may want to usher this in better than the citizens of turkey and iran. To say nothing of the envious arabs who can't.

What's democracy like? Well, Thomas Jefferson said it takes a lot of blood, constantly spilled, to keep the Tree of Liberty ALIVE.

While the elected officials in DC, fully now vested in affirmative action; seem to have taken a wrong turn, somewhere.

Ya know, here, I'm surprised the captain gets a few troofes on board this commenting section. Why? Well, why do they bother?

In 1953, in a book I read, the BLACKBOARD JUNGLE, the terrible school system in Manhattan was disected. Discussed. And, there was one teacher, who, to collect his paycheck, "taught, anyway." In other words? He sat at the front of the class, and called what he was doing "sitting on top of the garbage can." He didn't think the kids achieved anything at all. Still, he spouted.

Not far different than those who grabbed their soap boxes, and spouted in the local (Manhattan) parks.

Doesn't start wars.

Doesn't solve them, either.

But it gives you a chance to peak across the spectrum. Where, if you just left this stuff to the TV; there would be the congress critters. Well, they don't impress me at all. And, then the Code Piners; who ran into the room today. Who were they trying to upset? What's the point in watching these clowns get arrested?

And, how come the microphones, at first, set there for Patraeus, didn't work? What's with that?

In our world of technology, there are jerks in DC who can't get the wires connected correctly?

Oh, and we're supposed to take the criticisms, here, seriously? Why? Like John F. Kennedy said about his surgeon, after his back surgery: "He should'a read another book."

There will be plenty of those, ahead, from all sides.

At least the "gotta run" gang seems to be having troubles, even with their own base.

Bush, meanwhile, has upped the ante. MORE TROOPS have shown up in Irak. (While if I remember John Kerry's "moment in the sun," not enough balloons showed up in Boston.)

Would you like a cherry on top of this ice cream?

unclesmrgol: If you [Rusty Austin] served as a private, at least you served, but obviously nobody thought much of it, if you stayed one the whole time.

I'd say that's a HUGE "if".

But, in all fairness, I knew a clown like this guy when I was in AIT at Ft. Sill. He would occasionally blather his lefty opinions, causing the rest of us to either tune him out completely or ask, "What the fuck are you DOING here, then?" Seems he just wanted Uncle Sugar to give him all that money for college and was surprised that the Army expected him to, you know, SOLDIER for it.

Now, as for the debate about what people thought of President Lincoln during the Civil War...

I found this statement to be especially laughable (not surprising, given the source):

starfleet_dude: ... those who make dimwitted comparisons of Lincoln's masterful leadership of the Union during the Civil War and Bush's own botch of a Presidency ought to crack open a few history books, rather than make uninformed cracks here.

"Masterful leadership"??? LMAO! No, ROFLMAO! So, where did he demonstrate this virtuosity? Mannassas Junction? Sharpsburg? Fredericksburg? Chancellorsville? How about Gettysburg, where his army squatted in their trenches and allowed the ANV to escape... again.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I revere President Lincoln because he stayed the course. When his generals proved incapable of doing the job, he went and tried others until he finally found some who COULD do the job, notably U.S. Grant, a man derided BY HIS OWN SIDE as a drunk and a butcher who spent his men's lives in what seemed to be a reckless and profligate manner (I recall reading the poignant story of yankee soldiers pinning slips of paper with their names and addresses to their uniforms before Cold Harbor so that somebody could identify their corpses and notify their families; they KNEW they were going to die, and Grant was happy to send them off to die in the interests of winning the war).

As for how the rest of the North felt about President Lincoln... Well, let's let him speak for himself:

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. [emphasis mine - dj505] (1)

Hmmm... Where did all this "strife" come from? After all, if Lincoln was revered in the North, he should have been reelected by acclaimation, no?

Harper's Weekly has this to say in their review of the 1864 election:

For most of his tenure in office, Lincoln was an unpopular president. There were two main oppositional factions: Confederate sympathizers in the Border States and lower Midwest, and the peace wing of the Democratic Party. The latter group believed that the Civil War was undermining the Northern economy, civil liberties, and states’ rights. Particularly objectionable to Northern Democrats were two Lincoln administration policies: emancipation and the military draft. [emphasis mine - dj505] (2)

In a review of Jennifer Weber's "Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North" (Oxford University Press, 2006), Fred Barnes (!) writes:

There were serious impediments to President Lincoln’s reelection, however. “During four years of administration, Mr. Lincoln had made many enemies, among those who had originally supported him; and the democratic party were not scrupulous in the use of means to bring him into disrepute with the people. Many republicans suffered under private grievances. Their counsels had not been sufficiently followed; their friends had not been properly served,” wrote early Lincoln biographer Josiah G. Holland. “Some thought Mr. Lincoln had been too fast and too severe in his measures; others thought that he had been too slow.“ Historian Harold M. Dudley wrote: “Many of Lincoln’s critics credited him with honesty and good intentions but indicted his judgment, his lack of system, and his failure to act promptly.”

...

Later in August, Republicans panicked. The Army of the Potomac was stalled outside Richmond after a series of bloody defeats in battle. Americans seemed to be wearying of the war effort and Republicans were wearying of their standard-bearer who in July had pocket-vetoed the Wade-Davis Bill on reconstruction. Lincoln friend Alexander K. McClure wrote that “three months after his re-nomination in Baltimore his defeat by General McClellan was generally apprehended by his friends and frankly conceded by Lincoln himself.” Republican National Chairman Henry J. Raymond wrote: “I hear but one report – the tide is setting against us.”

Two events changed the political tide: the capture of Atlanta by General Sherman and the nomination of General McClellan on a peace platform. Historian Fawn Brodie wrote: “The moment, however, that George B. McClellan was nominated to oppose Lincoln on the Democratic ticket, Thaddeus Stevens and other Radicals, recognizing a real enemy, began to work feverishly for Lincoln’s victory. As Charles Sumner put it privately, ‘Lincoln’s election would be a disaster, but McClellan’s damnation.’ Thaddeus Stevens quietly urged Carl Schurz to repair the split in the Republican Party by swinging the Frémont Radicals to Lincoln’s side. And Zachary Chandler finally succeeded in getting Frémont to withdraw from the race. Stevens exacted a price for this, however – the Conservative, anti-Negro Montgomery Blair went out of the Cabinet.” (3)

Strange that a man so revered would have so much trouble not only being reelected by the people he was leading so masterfully, but even getting the nomination.

/sarcasm

-----------------

(1) President Abraham Lincoln, November 10, 1864
http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/writer/1864.htm

(2) http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/Overview-1864-1.htm

(3) http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=112&CRLI=160

RE: H Hewitt (September 10, 2007 6:14 PM)

"2/3's of Americans want a substantial draw down of military combat troops in Iraq. The remaining want to stay and fight until the victory. What will that look like?"

Yes, I keep reading that 2/3's number thrown around and it should be so easy for our elected officials to cut funding to terminate the Iraq/ME mission. Yet, against such a popular position, our representatives, particularly a Democratically controlled Congress, defy the country and continue to keep the mission going. Hmm. Befuddling.

Perhaps leaving Iraq in its current state isn't quite the panacea such a number suggests would be appropriate and popular. Perhaps that same public is not truly represented by some polls' reported 2/3's no matter how consistently espoused. Granted, I want the troops home ASAP, too, so I wonder exactly where I would fit in such numerology. But wanting them out and wanting them out no matter what are two entirely different things. Actions, especially a retreat, have consequences and I'm convinced the American public knows this even though they are in this supposed minority. Even Democrats recognize this, especially the politically astute ones.

Thank You Colonel Joe Repya; thank you for your service to country and the honor you bring to this site. Your words are very powerful indeed; the truth is always very powerful and rings very loud.

OBL delivered his walking orders "talking points" to the Democratic Party; a political party that represents millions of Americans. OBL delivered his walking orders to the American media; a media that once was capable of shaping the way this country viewed the world. Democrats have fallen in line with OBL; the media has been slower to react, but no doubt will fall in line within hours. How could this be? How could these people behave in such a manner? How could fellow Americans follow these traitorous citizens?

Interesting and dangerous times for Americans. It's time to stop the talking and start walking the talk folks. Coordinated efforts across this country will present themselves in the days & weeks to come. Enough now; what happened in the halls of Congress today must not be allowed to stand unanswered. OBL and Soros must not be allowed to own and operate one of our two political parties. What a total disgrace it must be to those regular average Americans to be registered as Democrats today. The radical lefties are very proud I'm sure; the moderate "left of center" Democrats must be horrified.

God be with us...

Democrats receive tremendous financial support from MoveOn.org, which has become a virtual liberal hate group.

MoveOn.org engages in a slanderous and vicious attack on General Petraeus.

Democrats need to denounce MoveOn.org AND return all contributions that they have received from MoveOn.org.

Otherwise, Democrats are complicit in the sewer politics of MoveOn.org and their willing accomplices at Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos.

Perhaps, just perhaps, voters will now have good reason to reconsider their support of a major American political party that has been bought and paid for by a vicious and anti-American hate group.

I was going to take some time To address the failure of local religious and otherwise leaders to put a sizable dent in a problem that has ballooned to monstrous proportions recently. Undoubtedly you’ve probably caught the faint sulfur dioxide olfactory aura of this pressing problem whilst engaged in fighting off sleep in the midst of the latest television assault on our collective senses – the evening “news”. Yes the city fathers and the archbishop have gotten the panties in a twist over a plague that threatens the very loose and thin fabric which barely contains the dregs of civilized discourse and real stopping power. And it’s getting worse. Recently a well renowned Republican figure was forced to confront his own frailty of human nature, as he was forced by public pressure to directly atone for his grave and disgusting social faux pax.

From the New York Times, August 19th: “Although you’re probably still a-buzz after the successful passing of legislation I sponsored requiring mandatory ass-gaskets for all public facilities, my accomplishment is, I suspect, somewhat blemished by troubling thoughts and barely audible curses spat in my general direction, the result of a possible qualm I no doubt supplanted in the minds of my constituents with concrete affect concerning events of a delicate nature that occurred the other day whilst on a short break from the rigors and late summer heat of D.C.. I feel an apology is owed or at least a feasible clarification is appropriate, as well as a rapid rapprochement in case feelings were damaged or one’s sense of decency and the parameters of good taste were breached beyond repair. For the record and in front of all that is holy and righteous, what I mean to suggest in the spirit of humor was not meant in any way to imply that I consider the use of my local municipal public swimming pool as my personal urinal or bed pan. Nor should it be misunderstood by implication that municipal swimming pools also often contains a deodorizing urinal cake (strawberry scented, no less) contained within a plastic mesh guard container, designed to prevent solid objects such as cigarette butts, small photographs of George Bush or Dick Cheney, Juicyfruit gum, or various grades of used paper from being flushed and possibly causing a plumbing stoppage. As much of a gargantuan misinterpretation as this could possibly be taken, it does not take very much imagination to deduce that a reasonable person of average intelligence could extrapolate this false impression to a ridiculous heights of absurdity where they would consider any public recreation facility a small building or other structure, in which such toilets are contained for medical purposes, or to use where access to washroom facilities are not possible, such as in small aircraft or some of the more popular low-end massage parlors. Please humbly accept my act of contrition in case the aforementioned misapprehension in fact has come to mind, and let me know if there’s anything I can do to clear the air of this malfeasance. And for the record, I use the proper facilities, and no, I don’t urinate on toilet seats or in the milk cartons. Oddly enough, some radical feminists, or otherwise persons not possessing a penis, have condemned the practice of men standing to urinate as sexist and politically incorrect, not to mention the fact that they always miss no matter what they say to the contrary. Some universities in Germany have removed urinals after protests by feminists and pencil-dick Rockabilly homosexuals. In Germany, toilet ghosts have been sold for public places and homes because standing while urinating is now viewed by many as too sexist. If a man raises the seat of a regular toilet to urinate, the “toilet ghost” , in a voice that imitates former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, enunciates the phrase ‘Hey, stand peeing is not allowed here and you will be punished with fines, so if you don’t want any trouble, you’d best sit down’. But I digress. I do not pee in pools

Colonel Joe Repya,

We need to hear from more of our true leaders, such as yourself. The Republican Party has a few men who possess the fortitude to act as leaders. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican Party lacks those ingredients necessary to stand up to the assault that we have seen from the lefty organizations that are bought and paid for by the likes of Soros and other haters of America. Just look at how these organizations don't even try to hide their agenda anymore. The Republican Party has allowed this to take place right under their noses without putting up much of a fight; they seem confused and frightened.

Michael Savage is organizing an effort to fight back against this assault. We need more leaders from talk radio and the military apparatus to lead us in this time in our history. We can't allow the leader of our military to be attacked "personal assassination" as a lier and a messenger of others by our members of Congress; this is before he was even allowed to deliver his report. This behavior can't be allowed to stand, this is far too important to our ability to wage a war against this enemy as well as future enemies. Attacking this mans integrity by way of the media; this is what happened in communist Russia under Stalin...

We can't let this day pass by as just another example of how the Democrats have become nothing other than Communists; we must stand up for our country, our traditions, our history, our chain of command. We need leaders to lead us; can't count on this batch of Republicans...

Leaders, please step forward...

space_cadet_dude said:

"Off-topic, but those who make dimwitted comparisons of Lincoln's masterful leadership of the Union during the Civil War and Bush's own botch of a Presidency ought to crack open a few history books, rather than make uninformed cracks here. There's no comparison to be had, other than to compare the best President the U.S. has ever had with one of the worst."

If you practiced what you preached, Uhura, you would know that Abe Lincoln and Dubyah Bush had another thing in common: both were compared by their detractors to monkeys. In Bush's case, he's "The Smirking Chimp"; in the 1860s, Honest Abe was "The Illinois Baboon" and "the ape baboon from the prairie".

I would tell you to crack open YOUR history book, but my guess is you're not a majort in that field.

In light of the MoveOn add, is it OK to question the Democrats' patriotism now?

>>In light of the MoveOn add, is it OK to question the Democrats' patriotism now?

The GOP has been doing that since the attacks of 9/11. Hell, up thread someone says that Democrats take their marching orders from bin Laden, which is one of the most insulting things I've ever heard. (Second only to the insult Americans should feel over the fact that that lunatic is still alive.)

sf dude:

You are pretty stupid. As late as September 1864 the Chairman of the Republican Party in New York thought Lincoln was a one term President. Then Sherman took Atlanta and it all changed. You clearly haven't read Civil War History because at the time everbody thought Lincoln was incompetent even his radical Republican supporters. Sherman and Grant won the war and all of sudden Lincoln became a wise man.

I have come to the conclusion that modern leftism has become a form of mass sociopathology where seemingly normal people act out of ignorance while at the same time believing in their own intellectual superiority. You are case study of that phenonomenon.

Cyclospore said ::::it's a short step from patriotism to Nationalism, not that I think you're too worried about that.

Its also a small step from lack of patriotism to support of the world wide Socialist revolutionary struggle which constructed many more death camps, extinguished many more hopes and dreams and filled many more graves.

For cyclothermic this was a small minded man.....

"Well, I don’t believe the people I’ve met in almost every State of this Union are ready to consign this, the last island of freedom, to the dust bin of history, along with the bones of dead civilizations of the past. Call it mysticism, if you will, but I believe God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and the courage to leave the countries of their birth. From our forefathers to our modern-day immigrants, we’ve come from every corner of the earth, from every race and every ethnic background, and we’ve become a new breed in the world. We’re Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny."

Ronald Reagan

KW64 said about Petraeus on Fox::

Ask yourself who is the critical audience for what he has to say. Clearly, it is the wavering Republicans. The Democrats in the main will not change their now entrenched opposition; but the Democrats hope for forcing a withdrawl requires Republican votes to overcome filibusters and vetoes. Otherwise, they would have no defense bill at all and that is difficult politically.

KW64 you didn't mention that he wanted to avoid the shower of spit, the incessant interruptions, the answering his own questions, and manic innappropriate laughter from Chris Matthews... the name calling and 20 minute monologue from Keith OOOOooooolbermannnn, etc. etc.

Rusty Austin said...I guess you came right out of West Point because anyone who ever served as a private knows the generals do not represent us. They represent the war profiteers and the dictators and their wives and mistresses (not a one of them in the military), not the grunts...

Wow Rusty, Marx himself couldn't have said it better. I guess that all volunteer Army is a big crock isn't it.

Carl Gordon

Interesting.

Would you care to elaborate on that? ;-)

Posted by Dave | September 10, 2007 11:53 AM

=Where are the Democrats denouncing the ad by MoveOn.org?=

"I have to give at least one credit. Former MA Speaker of the House Tom Finneran, now a talk show host on the radio in Boston, spoke out in very strong terms against it on his show this morning. I'm sure there are other (isolated) examples on the sane fringe of the Democrat Party."

Fortunately, there -are- members of the Democratic Party who do live by a higher standard of principles than exhibited by the MoveOn.org crowd, which is funded in large part by George Soros.

But the leaders of the party, i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Levin, etc., look the other way as often as they can get away with it simply because they learned how crucial the role of 527's is in elections during the 2006 campaign. The money 527's throw into negative campaigning against opponents during elections, and the freedom of speech to say just about anything outrageous towards that end, makes 527's a necessary but "justified" evil in the eyes of the Democrats.

Yet they fool themselves greatly if they think that the average voter is not paying attention. I'm astounded every time I hear one of my Liberal friends lately, bemoaning the total lack of integrity in the Democratic Party these days. Some of the Independents are looking harder at Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and the more socially liberal Republicans. They do seem to be getting more and more nervous about how the Democratic Party seems to be careening headlong over the cliff of self-defeat.

I think paying so much attention to MoveOn.org is a waste of our time. Plus, I think that many people are framing this argument the wrong way... The Democrats are not, and have never been, the anti-war party - it's been the opposite, in fact. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the current Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is a San Francisco liberal. He is also perhaps the most pro-war person in Congress, of any party.

His Republican counterpart (before the Democrats took control of Congress), the highly-esteemed U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), opposed the Iraq war, and opposed the neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy vision, that got us into this mess.

What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful... and I definitely oppose that organization.

However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General's report.

As I have pointed out numerous times in the past... The top Democrats in America today are not truly anti-war... far from it, in fact.

Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this.

And before the 2006 Congressional elections, I made the same type of argument, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.

And now, I just saw an article featured at The Hill, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party's takeover of Congress, and who I named there, were the same ones heaping lavish praise, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The pro-war, anti-war, and partisan reactionary segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies - many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today's "conservatives," along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.

Ultimately, it may be the battle on the Right, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines what direction our nation will go.

Nice to see all the idiots in one place, mouthing the same lies. Is it comfortable being this willfully ignorant? Here's hoping your ilk never see the inside of the White House again. Petreaus is a political hack. And its you cowards who are dishonoring American soldiers.

May god have mercy on your souls

I've just increased my donations to Moveon.org.

see you bozos in November.

I just went over to Moveon.org and all I saw was a very opinionated advocacy blog with a banner on the top story reading "Will General Petraeos betray us?" For this you would call them treasonous? Since when do are we required to profess our loyalty to generals and politicians? Petraeos has spent the better part of the last month flacking for the Bush administration, using more of cherry picked statistics we've learned to expect from the neocons. I'm not impressed by the man. Along with Colin Powell he's been diminished by his association with the current administration.

Posted by TheTruth
>>In light of the MoveOn add, is it OK to question the Democrats' patriotism now?

"The GOP has been doing that since the attacks of 9/11. Hell, up thread someone says that Democrats take their marching orders from bin Laden, which is one of the most insulting things I've ever heard. (Second only to the insult Americans should feel over the fact that that lunatic is still alive.)"

Democrats are the happiest when have something to whine about, i.e., 2000 and 2004 elections. They may not take their marching orders from Bin Laden, but they sure dance to his music. These secular progressives love to hate their own country.

If the General is going to get up before congress and American people and LIE about IRaq then he deserves everything he gets.. Show's he just another political hack in a uniform.. He's part of the Rumfeld army.. Most other's that have questioned this corrupt administration are no longer serving in the armed forces..

Wow, the wingnuts here are disturbing.

Just for clarity:
Patriotism is defined as defense of the Constitution. So far, this administration has contravened the Constitution and misled our Congress and country into a war of aggression, lying all the way. I want my friends' lives back, I want my MONEY back, I want America's credibility back, I want my national pride back.

Here's your simple either-or:
Either
You defend the Constitution
Or
You defend your party

The first makes you a patriot, the second makes you a partisan.
You choose.

Govt Skptic,

You can be a good Republican, or you can be a good American.
You can't be both.

The general wrote an op-ed just before the last last election, pushing the Administration line and thus taking a political role. Back then, he was saying victory is around the corner.

We've heard from Bush now that things are improving for ovrfour years now. Not once, not a single time, was he correct. Even now, this summer was worse than last summer, which was worse than the summer before.

And, right now, the Pentago is preparing a report for Petraeus's boss that pretty much comes to the opposite conclusion from Petraeus. The war is over. The civil war began two years ago. We're in the middle of it and have no idea how to get out. And neither does Petraeus, behind whose skirts Bush hides.

Yes, he came under heat. He's responsible and he answers to the government, not vice versa. And the sharp questioning he faces came from Democrats and those few, so few Republicans who have the sense to question this Administration's wisdom, though their lack thereof was demonstrated ages, ages ago. The Republicans are dead as a party. They died intellectually. They died morally. They died ethically. They've lost the next generation, and they deserve the banishment to the wilderness they are getting.

Thank you hastingspete. That is the bottom line. You are at war with President Bush / Republicans and Petraeus is at war with Al Qaeda / the Baathists.

You immediately see a threat when Americans support our war effort. They are immediately branded as enemies in your War on Bush.

The Orwellian tactics of BDS is utterly bizarre.