Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted. "The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report." FULL STORY
I don't think it's necessary to remind my readers, but I will anyway. General David Petraeus is a four star general, career military man, with an impeccable service record and a long history of great success in his career. He is a man of integrity, and (for those who don't know) questioning the integrity of a service member is not taken lightly. That is exactly what these Democrat "leaders" are doing. General Petraeus has not even issued his report, and already these people are trying to paint him as a puppet for the President. Personally, I think it's disgusting behavior and I would like to see a formal apology from each of them. Petraeus has done nothing to bring into question his integrity. At the very least, I would expect our Congressional leaders to respect that. But, apparently, that's asking too much.
I've said before, US failure in Iraq is crucial for the Democrats. If we succeed, their hopes for '08 are sunk. It will take years for them to recover after all of their anti-war "we've lost" rhetoric. They know it, and so do all of us. Responsible congressional leaders would refrain from commenting on this until the report was issued, and then would be careful not to assault the integrity of a highly decorated Army General. But the Dems have far too much at stake here. They're pulling out all the stops, and I can only hope the American people see this for what it is...cheap politics.
But they 'support the troops' right? Of course they do, that is until the troops actually start showing progress, then they become Bush's puppets. These people don't want to hear that we may be succeeding in Iraq, and they certainly don't want the American people to hear it. Hillary Clinton is already measuring for White House drapes. A drastic turnaround in Iraq would be a huge wrench in those plans.
Of course, the Dems can't openly advocate for US failure in Iraq. No, that would be an even bigger disaster. So they find themselves in a tough spot. US success in Iraq would be a catastrophe for them, yet they can't openly undermine our war effort. So what do they do? Simple. They undermine the war in a more subtle manner, an example of this would be attacking the credibility of a fine US military leader who deserves nothing but the utmost respect. This appears to be the Dem strategy, so if any good news comes out of Iraq they will surely be quick to hang their negative spin on it. Which is fine...that's politics. But assualting the integrity of General Petraeus? It seems that nothing is beneath today's Democrat party.
12 comments:
"Personally, I think it's disgusting behavior and I would like to see a formal apology from each of them."
How 'bout an apology from them as soon as all the Republican leaders and supporters issue apologies for calling those who disagree with them "traitors" and "terrorist supporters" (or implying such)?
I think it's fair to say that Dems may be (I haven't read the story yet) jumping the gun to condemn a report that's not been released. However, this administration has a LOOOONG-standing, solid record of getting Yes Men to tickle their ears with the news they want to hear, as opposed to the news they ought to hear - from science to military options to intelligence to legal counsel to fiscal policy.
So being skeptical of anything connected to Bush seems a legitimate call to me. And that's not "Bush hating," that's just plain being reasonable after looking at the facts.
Guess what Dr? It doesn't matter whether the surge is responsible for military progress in Iraq. Whereas I favor such progress, it is not the ultimate hallmark of success in Iraq. Success in Iraq means political success. Given the impossibility of reaching that goal, your pronouncements about Democratic failure in 2008 are just silly.
President Bush will bequeath this useless war on his successor. (If you want an explanation of the word "useless" in the context, I will give it to you in a subsequent comment, but before you ask, I suggest you make a list with two columns. Under one column write all of the positives that resulted from the invasion of Iraq. In the other, write all the negatives. Which list is longer? Or skip the lists, and just answer this question: is the United States appreciably, or even at all, more secure than b/f we invaded Iraq?)The best estimates of how long redeployment would require is 9 monhs on the short end although it is more resonable to believe 13 months or longer. Redeployment will not start anytime soon.
So, unless Iraq turns into Iowa b/f November 2008, you may expect a Democrat in the White House and a Democartic Congress. We can leave the effects of scandal out of the equation ofr the time being but those certainly do not help the Republican cause.
Given Mr. Bush's legacy of a war w/ no end--by end I mean both w/ respect to time and w/ respect to purpose--I bleieve it woill require a Democractic political meltdown for the GOP to keep the WH and regain control of either house.
In addition, I understand we may expect another video from Osama bin Laden next week around the anniversary of 9/11 and arounfd the time of Gen Petraeus' testimony. How do you feel about that?
I hope that your outrage will exceed that contained in today's comment. I know mine will.
Regards.
Gentlemen,
Such Distortion! This war is not
a Dubya Legasy, it is Radical Islam
Legacy since Nov 4, 1979. Twenty eight years ago. Grabbing our Embassy was a Act Of War! Get it?
Many major incidents since then, all "Acts Of War". Need a list, with dates? I've got 'em.
It is a mystery why you very bright War Guru types fail to see the realities. Stop playing that goofy political Blame Game!
We Are There.
We will still be there, regardless
of who occupies the Oval Office. Nancy & Harry sounded good didn't they? Fooled you, didn't they? Simple solutions to complex problems, is Pure Political Bias, nothing more!
Get off that tired horse...you've run that old nag to near collapse!
reb
Actually, reb, to be an act of war, there'd have to be a nation behind the acts. These attacks you speak of are for the most part cowardly criminal acts.
Individuals and groups can't commit acts of war. That takes nations deliberately targeting civilians, conducting torture, invading nations unprovoked, etc.
The sooner we start treating terrorists like criminals instead of giving them credibility as if they were nations, the sooner we'll have begun to get on the right track.
reb,
We have had this discussion b/f. The invasion of Iraq was never a major front in the war against radical Islam. In fact, it may have been toatlly counterproductive inb that endeavor.
Your two columns should read: "Positives in War against Radical Islam by invading Iraq" and "Negatives in War Against Radical Islam by invading Iraq."
No question on the longer list there or the one w/ weightier items.
Regards.
Dan,
Iran, a Sovereign Nation, led then by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, grabbed our U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
This "Holy Guy" using a 'student militia' on November 4, 1979, held and abused hostages for 444 days. Under International Law, that's a clear Act Of War. Jimmy Carter was our President back then, not Dubya.
It's been 28 years, Dan.
In 1983, Hezbollah, a funded stooge
militia of Iran, and aided by Syria, another Sovereign Nation,
attacked the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 U.S. Marines with a Truck Bomb, just another blatant "Act of War".
Ron Reagan was president; he was dealing with Prez Gorbachev, and I.C.B.M. War Potential!
Iran/Syria got away clean again, w/o a military response!
How many of these 'incidents' do you and Loop Garoo need to concede that we have every "moral" right to take the offensive against these Jihad Terrorist Nations?
Iran Ships high-tech weapons (IED)
with sophisticated electronic triggers into Iraq every week, to
kill our U.S. Troops. This behavior
is deemed hostile and grievous in the extreme, and deserving of the "Act of War" status. Being timid with these bold rascals only invites more casualties. These ugly bastards must begin to suffer pay-back, and soon; they enrich U-235, and they intend to distribute these "devices" as soon as they come off-line.
Now, With War Guru Approval, when do we launch a real Counter-Offense? Make them bleed!
Or, would you prefer, for political expediency, to continue smearing George W. Bush, blaming your President in a Time of War?
Pussy-footing around with Poly-glib "talking points" when our Troopers are dying every day for our National Honor & Survival, should rightly be viewed a personal disgrace. Enough talk!
Shouldn't you both at least admit your bias, and try to take a second-look at your Partisan Political Posturing?
Please, gentlemen! While taking your morning shave, look yourself in the eye. reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Again, not a big fan of the war, but, I have to agree that the politicians aren't really being reasonable by talking about this guy before he even says anything.
Another Nation with blood on their
hands is Libya. PanAm Flt 103, Lockerbe, Scotland. G.W. Bush had
majority approval at that moment in time; and we were firm! Recall Moamar Kay-daffi's Libya?
We have the Aluminum Centrafuges and his huge Enriched Uranium Stash stored underground right here at the Oak Ridge National Lab Facility in Tennessee. "Kay-daffi" coughed 'em up quickly when we told him we were deadly serious, and showed him the Grid Map! reb
The only positive result from the invasion of Iraq is that it may have prompted Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions.
No, it's Not "the only positive result". You are dead wrong. The Petraeus Surge has significantly reversed al Queda/Iraq Operations.
The al Queda/Iraq is "Losing Face",
and in that muslim culture it signals a death-knell to their ability to recruit more radical kill elements. It's the beginning of the end of these groups if we pull together as One Nation. Our major problem is here at home. The majority Party is very heavily invested in a U.S. quick withdraw and defeat; folding a winning hand.
George Soros 'MoveOnDotOrg' has a full-page ad in The New York Times picturing General David Petraeus in uniform (half Page) and the
Bold Headline Reads:
GENERAL BETRAYUS?
Cooking the Books for the White House
That miserable twit. That foul scum-bag!
I curse his check-book!
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin and Harry Reid all refuse to criticize this cheap shot, this scurrilous jab at our honorable Field Commander! Know why? They are afraid of this Billionaire Bum! He's a Political Bully with enormous power. He could aim "Move-On" power against them in a heartbeat! They might lose his campaign bucks, if they irritate this evil dirt-bag!
He now "owns" them, and all their former honor. It is a sad but true story about today's political arena. Where are the Statesmen of Yesterday?
Gone, with yesterday's cool breeze. Filthy 'game', bloody hands. That's it, Loop! reb
reb,
I replied on your site b/f reading this. I think it would be helpful to recall two things when you say: "the Patraeus surge has significantly reversed al Qaeda/Iraq operations."
1. THE INVASION OF IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA.
2. AL QAEDA IN IRAQ DID NOT EXIST UNTIL AFTER WE DEPOSED SADDAM HUSSEIN.
1. The Invasion of Iraq had much to do with stopping Saddam, Uday & Quesay. Those two crazies would have inherited their Big Papa's position eventually, taken Kuwait's
Oil Fields, and move on into Saudi
Arabia. Saddam & Sons would have owned most of OPEC, and continued his pursuit of sophisticated weaponry. Jaques Chirac sold him Two Reactors, plus the technicians
to run them. Oil Vouchers buys treachery, and deceit in a heartbeat. That's what the U.N.'s
Kofi Annan & Son "Oil For Food Scandle" was all about. Now Persia
(Iran) is wheeling & dealing with Vladmir for rockets, missiles, IED's, whatever they can safely handle. Your position is naive, and
lacks substance.
2. Al Queda was in "Existance" on the day bin Laden & Zawahiri joined
together in their quest to Plan Offensive Global Jihad.
>>
We Must Maintain A Substantial Military Presence Somewhere In The Region For Decades, if the World survives that long. Hah! Whether You Or
I, or Harry Reid Like It Or Not.
It's a most dangerous place, or should I say Time? A Dangerous World. Iran Is Just Another Nutty Theocracy With Suicidal Ambitions. To believe that we can send High-level Envoys to deal with Crazies,
or a battalion of diplomats to "negotiate" any meaningful rapprochment, is Pure Fantasy. It's
Lethal Self-Delusion. We shall war with them Now, or in a few more Months. It's like a rolling boulder on a steep hillside.
Listening to theorists is amusing for some I suppose, but not for me. This is not a loonie Hollywood Scenario. Not a Tv Soap. War is as certain now, as The Sun Rising in the East, and Setting In the West. Sad enough, to be sure. Only the timing is uncertain. The real experts will make that call.
Loop Garoo likes to point to old Dubya as the Incompetent Dolt; he
enjoys theorizing that Tigris and the Euphrates is the wrong spot to plant (invade) our troops, before the heavy stuff flys. If that's your position, you are welcome to it. You & I don't have enough Info to really say. Too complex! But I do think it will be soon. All indicators say it will be a matter of months. Don't hold your breath.
How far back in time will we set the dial? I don't have a clue. It's an Atomic Clock. reb
Post a Comment