With all Due Respect, General Betray Us [Updated]
[Guest post by DRJ]
A round-up of Democratic comments “supporting” General Petraeus as he reports on the surge:
From CNN:
“Republicans have seized on a liberal advocacy group’s print ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus and have called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to denounce it. In the ad, running in Monday’s edition of The New York Times, bold letters under a picture of Petraeus spell out “General Petraeus or General Betray us?”
MoveOn.org Political Action, which paid for the ad, accuses Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House” on progress being made in Iraq and calls him “a military man constantly at war with the facts.”
From the Politico:
“I don’t think Gen. Petraeus has an independent view,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on “Fox News Sunday” about his ability to step back as the top military officer on the ground.
Democrats concede the so-called “surge” strategy has produced military results, but the debate this fall has since shifted to whether the U.S. should continue supporting Iraqi politicians who have failed to bridge a sectarian divide that splits its parliament and continues to precipitate violence throughout the country.
“We should not be fooled into this tactical success debate,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said on ABC’s “This Week.” “You can take a tactical success and misread it like we did in Vietnam.”
From the Washington Post:
Some Democrats sought to challenge the general. “The administration has sent you here today to convince [Congress] … that victory is at hand,” Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (Calif.) said in an opening statement. “With all due respect,” he told Petraeus, “I don’t buy it.”
Others invoked the Vietnam War, a historical analogy that Bush has recently used to make his case in favor of the Iraq war. “Twenty years from now, when we build the Iraq war memorial on the National Mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so-called credibility?” asked Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.). “How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave? How many more names, General?”
From ABC:
“Another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued recent polls suggest Iraqis believe the troop surge have hampered conditions for political reconciliation in Iraq. “How do we justify this continuation?” Dodd asked. “We’re seeing nothing getting better here at all.”
Outside the hearing room, Dodd said Petraeus and Crocker were delivering “happy-talk” about the progress made in Iraq. “Happy talk doesn’t get the job done,” he told reporters.”
Finally, from Breitbart:
“Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rebuked Petraeus for past optimism. “I ask you to take off your rosy glasses.” “We are sending our troops where they are not wanted, with no end in sight, in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of the mother of all mistakes.”
It is inconceivable to me that any thinking person could believe that anti-war, MoveOn.org Democrats respect the U.S. military, its leaders, or its troops.
UPDATE: Senator Hillary Clinton weighs in by questioning General Petraeus’ honesty:
“Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar. Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Referring to the charts General Petraeus brought to the House and Senate this week, Mrs. Clinton said, “Although the charts tell part of the story, I don’t think they tell the whole story.” She said the “bottom-up” political reconciliation was “anecdotal” and that the success in Anbar province, where sheiks turned on Al Qaeda, started before the surge.”
***
The senator’s reaction to the cautious optimism of America’s top general in Iraq is a pivot away from the position she took last month, when she conceded that American forces had achieved some security gains in Iraq, particularly in the Anbar province. She later backed away from those remarks after coming under fire from rival presidential campaigns and anti-war Democrats.
From the same link, Sen. Barack Obama also has doubts about General Petraeus:
“Mrs. Clinton was not the only Democratic presidential aspirant yesterday to find fault with the general’s testimony. Her chief rival for the nomination, Senator Obama of Illinois, zeroed in on claims that the surge strategy aided the rout sustained by Al Qaeda in Anbar, the development General Petraeus has said is the most important reason for optimism today in Iraq. “I’m not sure that the success in Anbar has anything to do with the surge,” Mr. Obama said. “You yourself said it was political.”
— DRJ
The only reason they give for not believing Petraeus is Vietnam.
Maybe that works for most boomers, but it’s just not enough for me.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 9/11/2007 @ 10:52 amThe Dem’s are coming to the point where they will never be able to support a milatary action for any reason anywhere except our own shores. Why don’t don’t they just come out and say they are the new isolationists?
doubled (6497b1) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:07 amIt appears that the Democrats view every war as Vietnam, and will keep smashing the pieces together until they fit.
In an individual, you’d call this “tunnel vision” or “narrow-mindedness” or even “lack of vision”. I’m not sure what to call it in an entire party.
Steverino (337414) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:22 amThe Democrats (many of them the exact same persons and in the positions of power that they held during the Vietnam war) desperately need another Vietnam – that is, pull out our troops, make pledges of support, and then cut off all support for our supposed ally in time to watch them get slaughtered by the enemy. I’ve often considered signing up for a particular State Department program that would permit me to join an American MITT team, but the images I remember from Vietnam, and listening to the Democrats, makes me fear that I would be in the photo of the last helicopter flying off the roof of the embassy (or left behind, as happened then also).
509th Bob (077d0d) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:22 amAs for “doubled,” I don’t think that the Democrats would even have the courage to defend an attack on American soil anymore.
If there were 177 terrorist attacks occurring every single day in America, would Patraeus call it a success?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:31 amAlphie is objectively pro fascist.
Eric Blair (f81c65) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:35 amAlphie : “If there were 177 terrorist attacks occurring every single day in America, would Patraeus call it a success?”
To compare a country coming out a dictatorship and going through major growing pains to an established multicultural nation demonstrates a severe lack of nuanced thought.
doubled (1d977c) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:46 amWe’ve noticed, Eric.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:46 amI would not be too quick to say that moveon is anything other than incidentally anti-military. In effect yes. Cause maybe not. The startup and history of the organization argues that vengeance for what they see as an undeserved assault on an iconic Bill Clinton is their primary driver. Anti-republican, anti-Bush, or anti-military or whatever form it takes is a means to an end.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:55 amThat has to be the most idiotic statement I’ve read on this site.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 12:01 pmJust Passing Through:
Keep reading Alphie’s comments. Just when you think he’s reached the bottom of the stygian depths of the hive mind he demonstrates a circuitous reasoning that makes Cynthia McKinney sound reasonable.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/11/2007 @ 12:18 pm“…I don’t think that the Democrats would even have the courage to defend an attack on American soil anymore.”
The only ‘soil’ involved would be in the Dems’ pants.
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/11/2007 @ 12:34 pmCompared to what? 500 attacks? 250? 200?
Just for purposes of edification, what is your source of “177 terrorists attacks every day”? Is this a sole source? Any independent verification?
Horatio (3e425e) — 9/11/2007 @ 1:07 pmFeinstein, Kerry, Lantos, Wexler, Dodd and Boxer … There are a few more “usual suspects” in the saem vein, but not many. That these have spoken as they have is no surprise.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/11/2007 @ 1:21 pmthis is nothing new for the democrats, its been their policy since at least 1864 when they ran on a platform of cutting a deal with the south and ending the civil war.
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/11/2007 @ 1:36 pmHmmmm,
The Democrats won WWI and WWII.
Repubs got a tie in Korea, a loss in Vietnam and a win in the Gulf.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 1:53 pmWere Democrats behind making duels illegal?
There should be exceptions where Senators are concerned.
The really sad part is these people were elected and will probably get re-elected, I guess. Any hint of common sense would object to the rationale of voting to confirm him as a 4-star general then accuse him of lying.
Wasn’t there a time recently when some Democrat proposed reinstituting the draft, more or less as a ploy, then the Repubs forced it to a vote that was soundly defeated, even voted against by the person authoring it? What about proposing an investigation for contempt of Congress for giving misleading testimony? First, the complainers would be under pressure to put up or shut up; and second, those accusing him of falsehood would be on the witness stand. (I’m dreaming, I know).
It would be great to put SDen. Kerry’s words in the context of how he “misread” Vietnam. All they were saying was to “Give Peace a Chance”? They did, and it failed.
The outrage of accusing a general twice wounded with severe and potentially lethal injuries in the line of duty not having the honesty to give his own opinion when the life of his troops are on the line. All psychological projection, attributing to him what they know to be true of themselves.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:07 pmalphie,
The Dems got us into Vietnam, escalated Vietnam, and refused to live up to our treaty obligations leading to the fall of Vietnam.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:09 pmSo Iraq will be blamed on the Republicans no matter what President Hillary does, MD?
There goes the “backstab” meme.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:11 pmalphie,
I expect we will have other things to worry about if/when President Hillary is in power.
In addition, your comment has no bearing on the substance of my criticism.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:23 pmWho is in charge of our wars, MD?
The President or Congress?
Nixon pulled our troops out of Vietnam, after 5 years of failed “New Ways Forward” there.
South Vietnam fell after that because we had been propping up a corrupt and incompetent government, not because Congress cut funding by 15% to them.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:33 pmalphie,
Please show me where Congress cut “only 15% of funding”.
If the 15% you refer to is 100% of miliotary aid perhaps you are correct.
In addition, there was a commitment to return in force with military support should the N.V. reinvade, which Congress refused to honor.
If anyone wishes to add clarity to the discussion, please do.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:44 pmMD in Philly,
Engaging alphie is noncupatory. His comments have all the relevance to a discussion of ducks quacking in the village pond. All the relevance and half the sense.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:45 pmThank you, nk. I guess I have given in to responding to the obvious while it was obvious. I’ll now engage in more self-control.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 2:53 pmThe Democrats won WWI and WWII.
Those ‘Democrats’ you refer to would be Republicans today, because the Dems have shifted far to the left, Staunch Brayer.
JFK would be ostracized in today’s Dem primaries for the platform he ran on in 1960.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:02 pmI don’t recall that Gerald Ford ever requested the authority to send our troops back into South Vietnam, MD.
He did request an extra $300 in aid that would be added to the $700 million in aid Congress had already appropriated, but it was moot, because Saigon fell shortly after his request.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:03 pmRepubs got a tie in Korea, a loss in Vietnam
Harry Truman messed around with Korea for years; Eisenhower ended it in six months.
JFK involved us in Vietnam, LBJ screwed it up so badly that he, a sitting president, couldn’t win the the early primaries, so the Dems set up HHH as a sacrifcial lamb in the 1968 election. Nixon was left with the cleanup.
Just keep on showing us how ignorant you are, Staunch Brayer. Or better yet, give me another link so I can refute you with it, since you think I should keep up the good work.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:10 pmTry to keep the myth straight, Paul.
If the 1968 Tet Offensive was a huge victory for America, then Johnson left ahead in the game, and Nixon gets the credit for the loss, seven years later.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:14 pmNotice how the “Staunch Brayer” still hasn’t told us the source of “177 terrorist attacks occurring every single day” in Iraq.
Crickets Chirping
Horatio (3e425e) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:17 pmTrIf the 1968 Tet Offensive was a huge victory for America, then Johnson left ahead in the game, and Nixon gets the credit for the loss, seven years later.
Wrong, Staunch Brayer.
And why are you talking about old history? It’s obvious you nurse a seething hatred for the troops since you haven’t condemned any of the Democratic comments “supporting” General Petraeus as he reports on the surge.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:19 pmGoing off topic here but there’s more to that statement than is immediately obvious. From Truman until Johnson the democrat platforms were closer to today’s republican platforms than the republicans of those days were. Wasn’t until Johnson’s Great Society launch of the welfare state that the democrats bought into entitlements as a function of the political class in the US.
Also good to keep in mind that the 60’s anti-war movement that today’s counterparts have so much nostalgia over started as protest against a democrat president’s policies. The tipping point those protests caused occurred at the Chicago convention over the difference between a stay the course democrat and a surrender now democrat.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:22 pmWhoops, let’s try this again…
If the 1968 Tet Offensive was a huge victory for America, then Johnson left ahead in the game, and Nixon gets the credit for the loss, seven years later.
Wrong, Staunch Brayer. Funny how you neglect to mention Walter Cronkite’s role pertaining to the Tet Offensive.
And why are you talking about old history? It’s obvious you nurse a seething hatred for the troops since you haven’t condemned any of the Democratic comments “supporting” General Petraeus as he reports on the surge.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:23 pmIf the pro-war crowd wasn’t pushing their bizarre version of Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq, Paul, we wouldn’t have to go over the correct history, would we?
My source of the 177 attacks a day occurring in Iraq?
The Pentagon:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20416437.htm
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:27 pmThe 1968 Tet Offensive was a huge military victory for the US, we won, they lost.
The 1968 Tet Offensive was a huge PR victory for N. Vietnam.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/nov-dec/bishop.html
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:30 pmIf the pro-war crowd wasn’t pushing their bizarre version of Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq, Paul, we wouldn’t have to go over the correct history, would we?
My source of the 177 attacks a day occurring in Iraq?
The Pentagon:
http://tinyurl.com/3bjyp3
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:31 pmAlphie,
Your numbers are from June 2007 and they are actually low if you are referring to total attacks, but the trend after the surge is definitely downward. Here’s a link to the slides General Petraeus used in his testimony. They provide current data and are much more informative.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:43 pmCongress passed legislation while Nixon was still president that all military personnel except advisors be staged out of all of Indochina and that no new ground or air operations could be initiated. Ford could only request more military aid on his watch when the North Vietnamese drove south. The south had all the material they needed on hand to hold off the north and it was really a symbolic request showing continued commitment to the south. Congress refused and morale in the south collapsed. Three weeks later Saigon fell. The moral of the Cambodian’s who were at that time containing and isolating the Kymer Rouge collapsed also and their long withdrawal to the capitol defenses started about the same time.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:45 pm3 kinds of lies
lies
damned lies
statistics
The German army shot more Americans on D-Day than in any one year period since the end of WWI.
So what?
Did you expect Iraqi insurgents, AQI, etc., turn in their weapons simply because the US was going to undertake a more aggressive strategy?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:48 pmThank you, Just Passing Through.
In a little bit of research I found that while President Nixon promised severe military retaliation if the North violated the agreement, such a promise was apparently not in the official documents. Of course, at the time just after an overwhelming reelection victory it would have been thought that Nixon would be able to make good on his promise.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:54 pmHaha, MD.
The pro-war crowd seems to have forgotten that Richard Nixon and the Republicans were the most stridently anti-war group in the country during 1968.
All they remember now are Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda.
As for Patraeus’ slides, they show over 1000 attacks a week happening in Iraq just last week.
177 attacks a day = 5310 attacks a month.
1100 a week = 4780 attacks a month.
Exactly how low are we setting the bar for “success” these days?
Keeping in mind that Americans consider one attack every six years as being “too many.”
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:00 pmIf the pro-war crowd wasn’t pushing their bizarre version of Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq, Paul, we wouldn’t have to go over the correct history, would we?
Apparently, we do, because it’s idiots like you that bring it up. Like you did in this thread, Staunch Brayer.
My source of the 177 attacks a day occurring in Iraq?
The Pentagon.
All right! A link!
You know what that means. Fish-in-a-barrel time!
First off, the story is from July 20, 2007. Using a stale story to make your point? I thought that was a no-no.
The lead line of the story:
That means the ‘insurgents and militants’ know what’s coming and are attempting to stop it.
What, you thought they would just stand down immediately?
Attacks rising because the ‘insurgents and militants’ could lose everything? I’m shocked…shocked!
You mean they predicted and expected this to happen? Say it ain’t so!
Yeah, the surge is failing so miserably the Dems attitude is “We’d better hurry up and lose this war before we win it!”
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:00 pmWhy does anyone pay attention to the idiot troll “alphie”?
President Ford, after alphie’s ideological allies, the Khmer Rouge, who engaged in genocide, captured the crew of the U.S.S. Mayaguez (a civilian freighter), ordered the INVASION of Koh Tang island and the KILLING of the Khmer Rouge troops thereon, even though (unknown at the time) they had released the survivors of the crew to be repatriated to the U.S. We lost (as I recall) 19 U.S. Marines in the effort, but killed about 200 of them. Apparently they got the message. Yes, I am aware that the NVA ultimately subdued the savagery of the Khmer Rouge, but that was in no way attributable to alphie’s “progressive transnationalist” (a.k.a. Fifth Columnist, Communist, traitors) allies.
Alphie, tell us, just how old you are? If you don’t answer this basic question, then I would strongly recommend that Patterico ban you from posting on this blog. You clearly have a difference of opinion, which as a lawyer Patterico would honor, while not necessarily agreeing with your comments. If your comments, as I’ve seen, are based upon fundamental ignorance or deliberately blind stupidity, then the rest of us should not be required to suffer your expressions of fanatical self-absorbtion. Perhaps you would like to inform us where else you post, and under what name, so that we could return your favor of posting ignorant and abusive posts to YOUR favorite blogs?
I regret that I responded to the troll, but I would like to see what level of “courage” this troll is truthfully willing to expose himself.
509th Bob (a6cda0) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:07 pmWhat I remember alphie was:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:08 pm– violence at the Democratic Convention because they weren’t anti-war enough
– Nixon thought the way to end the war was win the war, hence take the fight to the enemy by bombing supply lines and mining harbours, etc.
– Nixon won re-election by a landslide over the ultra-pacifist McGovern
I believe it was in the summer of 1973 that congress passed the legislation. I know it was a year or so before Nixon resigned anyway. The last combat units were already out by before the legislation passed though there were still non-combat support units in country into early 1974 I think.
The attempted parallels to Vietnam are poor strategy for the anti-war crowd and democrats of today anyway. Any invoking of Vietnam actually condemns today’s democrats, mainstream media, and anti-war crowd for repeating the same mistakes. Anyone knowledgeable about Indochinese events after Tet knows this.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:09 pmThe pro-war crowd seems to have forgotten that Richard Nixon and the Republicans were the most stridently anti-war group in the country during 1968.
Oh yeah, it was those Staunch Republican commune dwelling, Haight-Asbury paisley tie-dye wearing, dope-smoking hippies that were showing up at all the late 60s anti-war rallies.
Exactly how low are we setting the bar for “success” these days?
Let’s repeat MD’s comment, Staunch Brayer:
Paul (5efd01) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:13 pmBob,
I’m old enough to have voted for Gerald Ford, if that helps.
And, I’m probably to the “right” of most of the pro-war posters here.
I supported the decision of Nixon to end our involvement in Vietnam and I supported Ford’s decision not to go back in.
What I don’t support is the mindless re-imagining of history to support, well, another Vietnam.
In the words of Richard Nixon at the 1968 Republican Convention:
Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively. And if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past. That is what we offer to America.
And I pledge to you tonight that the first priority foreign policy objective of our next Administration will be to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam. We shall not stop there. We need a policy to prevent more Vietnams. All of America’s peacekeeping institutions and all of America’s foreign commitments must be reappraisal.
Over the past 25 years, America has provided more than $150 – billion in foreign aid to nations abroad. In Korea, and now again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, most of the men to help the people of those countries defend themselves against aggression. Now we’re a rich country, we’re a strong nation, we’re a populous nation but there are 200 million Americans and there are two billion people that live in the free world, and I say the time has come for other nations in the free world to bear their fair share of the burden of defending peace and freedom around this world.
What I call for is not a new isolationism. It is a new internationalism in which America enlists its allies and its friends around the world in those struggles in which their interest is as great as ours.
True then, more true today…
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:16 pmAnyone knowledgeable about Indochinese events after Tet knows this.
That’s the problem, “JPT”. Too many people think that we lost Tet, that our fighters were “Baby Killers”, and the main mistake we made with Vietnam was thinking we would pay any price and bear any burden for the sake of liberty going in. How could the Dems have nominated Kerry if they didn’t think “Winter Soldier” and the rest of that version wasn’t true?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:17 pmAlphie,
Page 10 shows a chart of high profile attacks in Iraq. There were 90 attacks in August 2007 (including attacks by car bombs, suicide car bombs, and suicide vests) and those numbers are falling steadily.
As you know, the numbers you refer to come from page 3 which includes IEDs, mortar/rocket attacks, sniper & small arms attacks, and attacks on Iraq targets. The vast majority of attacks are IEDs and sniper/small arms attacks, with mortar/rocket attacks at third. Those number, too, are declining steadily.
However, I am glad to see you respect General Petraeus’ numbers enough to quote and rely on them. Is there any reasonable basis not to also trust his conclusions?
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:20 pmNever has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively. And if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past. That is what we offer to America.
And I pledge to you tonight that the first priority foreign policy objective of our next Administration will be to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.
Nothing is said about withdrawing ASAP, nothing contradicts my reflection.
alphie, one minute you’re trashing repubs for loosing wars, then you’re applauding Nixon for being anti-war, then you claim “being to the R of most of the posters here”. Muhammed Ali called it “Rope a Dope”, and I’m not participating.
Clarification: In my post above, the Kennedy quote was to be in “strikes”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:24 pmthinking we would pay any price and bear any burden for the sake of liberty going in.
I don’t think Patreaus has any conclusions, DRJ.
From his testimony today:
John Warner: “Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer”?
Petraeus : “I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.”
John Warner: “Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?”
Petraeus : “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”
Dear Lord, let’s end this fiasco now.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:28 pmI suggest we follow the advice of nk and 509th Bob.
Gen. Petraeus is commander of US military forces in Iraq. It would be overreaching for him to make speculation that includes knowledge of intelligence and policy decisions that are not in his realm or sphere of authority.
It would be commendable if Sen. Warner and others would learn from his example and follow it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:37 pmalphie,
It’s not his job to answer questions like that, and I salute him for answering the question appropriately.
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:38 pmIf 177 terrorist attacks were occurring every single day in America, would you recommend running away or doing something about it?
If I were Petreaus, I’d call it France.
Pablo (99243e) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:39 pmDemocrats – Proudly undermining America since 1968!
Yes, I question their patriotism.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:44 pmAlphie,
Here are Petraeus’ conclusions:
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 4:52 pmThis is absolutely false. Not only in terms of 1968. Nixon would never have been described as anti-war. He never worked for peace on North Vietnam’s terms. He supported and worked to end the war with the security of South Vietnam as the objective of the peace treaty.
Nor did Nixon ever decide to ‘end our involvement in Vietnam’. He committed to safeguard the south against any breach of the Paris Peace Treaty by the north.
You are doing exactly what you call ‘mindless re-imagining of history to support, well, another Vietnam.’
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:00 pmThe next two lines of Nixon’s speech, JPT:
And now to the leaders of the Communist world, we say: After an era of confrontation, the time has come for an era of negotiation.
Where the world’s super powers are concerned, there is no acceptable alternative to peaceful negotiation.
As for Patraeus’ hyper-supsevience to Bush, he can’t even think about whether the Iraq War is making America less safe or not…imagine how Patton or MacArthur would have answered the Senator’s question.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:15 pmAlphie,
I think you are confusing Patton the man with Patton the movie:
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:30 pmIts amazing how the retards bow at the altar of negotiations as if these ever solved anything. They sure solved Siagon’s problems. Whats really amazing is the retards like Alphie who bray and tell us the reason that Siagon fell was a 15% cut in aid, rather than the dhimmiecrats cutting off all military aid a year before the fall and then refusing to allow the US to intervene if the NVA attacked again. Its amazing how well the ARVN fought while denied aid, while Moscow and Beijing sent 500 tanks and enough arms to equip 20 divisions.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it, while those who will neither sacrifice nor bear the burdens can be counted upon to call for appeasement and c9llaboration. Their are many names for these trolls but their characteristics are obvious. Alphie is just a red diaper baby who is so dull that he calls international cooperation the wave of communist expansionism that the dhimmiecrats unleased in the 70s and 80s.
Today they’re behavior cements the belief that they are irresponsible individuals in need of adult supervision regarding international affirs and national security.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:32 pmIts amazing how the retards bow at the altar of negotiations as if these ever solved anything.
Then bombing/invading North Korea was preferable to our negotiating a nuke disarmament?
Dial back the Rambo clichés a notch.
steve (6530f9) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:44 pmEXCLUSIVE: Advance Copy of the Democratic National Convention Agenda
Agenda for the Democratic National Convention (DuNce) for 2008:
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
Michigan Vet (d67024) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:54 pm7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:30 to 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer & worship. Jessie Jackson & Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15-8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding–Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free the Terrorist Rally, Presented by Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender–Harry “Realestate” Reid.
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant.
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free the freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay by Sean Penn.
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award, presented by Michael Moore.
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:00 P.M. How George Bush & Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers,by Howard Dean.
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad.
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet.
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals, by John Kerry.
11:30 P.M. Corronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton.
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.
I had the honor to listed to the Commandant of the Marine Corps today (Gen James Conway) at a “town hall” meeting here at the Marine Base in 29 Palms. He stated that we are making a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan – that the people are seeing the evil that is Al Queda, and that they want a choice in their lives. There are problems still, but the progress is helping the local people, community leaders and others see that there is promise and hope.
I am preparing to deploy within the next few weeks – it is something that I have wanted to do since the Global War on Terrorism began. I could have taken the easy way out (and retire next year after 26 years of service), but I want to make a difference in someone’s life, to show them that oppression and intimidation are not real options in their lives. If I make the difference to just one person – then I’ve accomplished more that I could have imagined…and if I lose my life doing that, then it would not have been a life lost in vain.
General Petraeus and General Conway are leaders that we haven’t seen since “Stormin Norman” and Colin Powell, and they have a plan – a plan not just for victory, but for the destruction of AQ…and the Dems don’t want to hear it.
fmfnavydoc (affdec) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:57 pmAlphie,
Assuming that you have told the truth, and that you voted for President Ford (which was BEFORE my time to vote for an American President – which was Reagan, although I served in the military under Carter), then I actually AGREE with you with regards to President Nixon’s decision to extricate ourselves from Vietnam. It was (in my opinion) a losing proposition then, and given the SVN government of the time, it was a losing proposition now (truth be told).
But, nonetheless, the Koh Tang Island assault against Khmer Rouge forces, although fearfully questioned at the time, was the proper response to an illegal provocation at the time. Yes, we invaded Iraq on questionable intelligence (although there are many indicators that SUPPORT the justification of our actions), but the actionable circumstances do not mean that we (the U.S. Government or its citizens)have a reason to now jettison our putative ally (the Iraqi Government) to their fates after having intervened. Based upon pre-war intelligence, we knew that Saddam Hussein had murdered anyone who could propose a political threat to his regime, including his own children and children-in-law.
I have read Liam Anderson’s and Gareth Stansfield’s book, “The Future of Iraq: Dictatorship, Democracy, or Division,” and I was persuaded by the tripartite theory of separation of the Sunni (who would loose the most), the Shiite and the Kurdish (who would gain the most by control of the two major oil-fields in Iraq), but that does not mean that I would “buy into” their theory as the sole theory for preserving Iraq as a goal of the U.S. Government. There are competing interests and understandings involved, such as establishing Iraq as a U.S. “central hub” as an operational military theater against militant Islamist ideology. This concept of strategic thinking harkens back to the “Cold War,” but nothing undermines it validity, and nothing the Democratic Party fails to assert as a counter-strategy addresses this issue.
It is NOT that I propose that that the U.S. Government imposes some sort of hegemonic vision upon the world that impels my view, but when the U.S.S.R. (now the supposed F.R.R.S.) imposed a self-moratorium upon strategic bomber near-border border flights in 1992, but decides to resume them in 2007, I question their wisdom. Perhaps their resumed flights are “justified,” but I would like to see the grounds for their justification. Perhaps you and I could ACTUALLY agree on the basis for the, perhaps presumably-unjustified, resumption of border-intrusive nuclear bomber border near-penetrations, but I want to see and know the TRUTH (not stupid 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories) that might actually compel normal American citizens to demand that (heaven-forbid!) patriotic U.S. Democratic Party members of Congress STOP any unwarranted border incursions upon the Federal Republic of Russian States.
Based upon your response to my comment, you appear to be competent to respond in a rationale manner to challenges to your earlier-posted comments (although you have not indicated how old you are). Instead of posting what could be considered to be insulting comments or challenges to views expressed in this blog, you might want to consider expressing your age and experience (assuming arguendo) to fend off such challenges. As I expressed earlier, Patterico (and I) is/am probably willing to consider your alternative opinion, even though I (maybe Patterico) do not agree with them, assuming that you have a historical and/or rational basis for expressing them. Please keep this in mind when expressing a contrarian point-of-view.
Respectfully, 509th Bob
509th Bob (a6cda0) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:08 pm(who WILL be at the Sept. 15, 2007, D.C. COUNTER-protest of the Gathering Of Eagles (like I was in March 2007) waving, amongst an American Flag, a sign that says “Che is Dead – Get Over It” and another sign impugning the “patriotism” of Surrendercrats.)
alphie, you seem to have a habit of trotting out evidence that disputes your own position. Nixon is calling for international alignment and negotiation from strength. You can’t claim the quotes from Nixon are anti-war. All you seem to pick up on is buzzwords. You seem incapable of understanding the statement or event in context.
Just Passing Through (cb6c8d) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:11 pmMicigan Vet #61,
Great comment. I’ve stolen it.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:16 pmSwitching reference points again, alphie? You idolize, “Let’s ram the tanks through to Formosa” Patton?
The world according to alphie:
Nixon was an anti-war President
Patton dreamed of being a career politician instead of a soldier.
Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda must have been Republicans, since “Republicans were the most stridently anti-war group in the country during 1968”
And, worst of all: “Haha, MD”.
I’m not sure if you are commenting on how funny I am, or showing derision to well beloved entertainers of years past.
But it doesn’t make any difference. I just hope Cronkite hears that someone called him a Republican and Jane Fonda has dreams of voting for President Nixon and holding “Stop Impeachment NOW” signs.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:24 pmfmfnavydoc #62,
What a great comment. I’m sure you’ve already made a difference in many people’s lives.
Thank you for your service. May God speed you home and bring you success, prosperity, and happiness.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:24 pmMichigan Vet #61,
I’ve stolen it, too. I’m emailing it to everyone I know.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:25 pmNice straw men, MD.
Too bad we can’t train them to fight.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:30 pmA last comment, agree or disagree with the administration’s position on Iraq, the contempt which Gen. Petraeus has received is unfounded and disgusting.
And thank-you’s to 509th Bob and fmfnavydoc for past, present, and future service.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:34 pm509th, responding to Moby just delays his return to the recording studio.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:38 pmalphie,
If I had to characterize my last “point”, I wouldn’t refer to it as using “Straw men”. Perhaps it is a new rhetorical device, instead of an “appeal to authority”, it is an “appeal to absurdity”, simple reflecting the destinations of of your arguments.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:40 pmAt least you took a stab at destinations, MD, unlike our military leaders, who can’t even see past next summer.
I salute your attempt, no matter how wrong it was.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:43 pmYou know, I’m f…… sick of arguing about VN. I was sick of it when in college in the late 60’s, and I’m sick of it now arguing with people who don’t know their ass from a hole in AlGore’s head.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:44 pmIf we want to again be the laughing stock, and eventually door-mat, of nations, then all we have to do is cut-and-run again, and hoist that good old isolationist banner that we threw away in 1941, that the Hippie-Boomer crowd has been trying to hoist since 1968.
If you think you can be isolated from the world, please review the video of Lower Manhattan on 11 Sept 2001. That’s how isolated you can be!
MD in Philly – Thanks for your support!
fmfnavydoc (affdec) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:52 pmIf we care what the rest of the world thinks about America, AD, then we should have stayed outta Iraq like they asked us to.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:14 pm#60
Steve:
Loved your comment in #60.
Can you all enlighten us on the wonderful nuclear disarmament and when it took place. There are over 20,000 warheads around the world that at least are acknowledged. I guess this is what passes for rational thought at the Kos Kiddies?
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:55 pmAlphie:
I’m sure Tehran loves your views as does Fidel and all the little Fidels.
I’m sure this is what Chamberlain was told in strictest confidence by Hitler too.
Alphie’s classic wretchness is surpassed only by his soul numbing moral stupor.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:59 pmNot a big fan of Fidel, Thomas, but I think our Cuba policy is moronic.
And my goodness, looks like Patraeus took anther stab at the question of whether the Iraq war was making America safer or not after I switched off the TV:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004155.php
Too tepid for my taste, but for the people who said he shouldn’t have answered the question at all…oh, dear.
About face!
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:13 pmGo back to the studio, Moby, your album is late.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:14 pm[…] stolen from Michigan Vet in the comment section of Patterico) Posted by Darleen @ 4:47 am | Trackback Share […]
'EXCLUSIVE: Advance Copy of the Democratic National Convention Agenda' [Darleen Click] (e95a11) — 9/11/2007 @ 9:18 pmIf we care what the rest of the world thinks about America
Jaysus, alpee… this is NOT a beauty contest!
Darleen (187edc) — 9/11/2007 @ 9:22 pmLucky for us the, eh, Darleen?
Unfortunately for us, it is an economic contest, and we’re borrowing money from our nearest competitor.
Game over.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/11/2007 @ 9:44 pmAlphie quotes:
And now to the leaders of the Communist world, we say: After an era of confrontation, the time has come for an era of negotiation.
Where the world’s super powers are concerned, there is no acceptable alternative to peaceful negotiation.
And yet, that quote inaugurated an era of unprecedented expansionism and agression by the Soviets.
The Cold War was considered “Unwinnable”, and therefore to be solved by Nixonian (and Alphian) appeasement of the Communist Bloc… until one man had the courage to say that Communism not only could be defeated, but that it must be defeated.
Of course, the same types of people- in many cases, the exact same people- said the same things about that man’s intent and actions then as they are saying about Iraq now… and generally for the same reasons: moral cowardice, ethical vacousness, willful ignorance of current affairs and history, a vicious desire to place the good of a Certain Political Party over the good of the nation, and a pseudointellectual hatred of the West in general and America in specific.
DaveP. (c02c31) — 9/12/2007 @ 1:51 amThe straw man army is on the march tonight.
It’s true the Soviets invaded Afghanistan after Nixon to prop up a friendly government, Dave.
I don’t think you really want to label such a move as “unprecedented expansionism and aggression” though, do you?
As for Communism’s “defeat,” China is rapidly locking former America “friends” in Asia, Africa and even South America into their new bloc while we’re screwing around in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And speaking of Iraq, cholera has arrived there:
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2007_09_10a/en/index.html
Nature’s marker of the most backward and dysfunctional countries.
Let’s see if WHO and the U.N. can head off a cholera pandemic breaking out in Iraq before we start hurling insults like “moral cowardice” and “ethical vacousness” okay?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/12/2007 @ 2:13 amJames Taranto had an article yesterday describing how the Liberals’ Liberal, Alan Cranston, tried to warn America about the danger of Hitler. In sharp contrast to the George Soros traitor-puppet Progressives we have today. And it’s also a hat tip to Justin for one of his anti-copyright posts.
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 9:05 amGeneral Petraeus and the Small People in Congress
This week, General David Petraeus made his long awaited report to Congress on the state of the war in Iraq. As we all know, the general described the progress that has been made since the implementaion of the “The Surge” and his projection of the need to keep troop levels at the current number through the rest of the year and part of 2008. What is remarkable (and so disgusting) is the statements coming from the Democrats and far-left disparaging Petraeus even before he appeared.
For the record, General David Petraeus is a highly respected and highly decorated veteran with a sterling military record. Last January, he was confirmed by the Senate unaminously to take over the lead in Iraq. There was absolutely no opposition to his appointment. Yet, now, with his highly anticipated appearnce looming, suddenly the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the far left began a campaign of character assassination against the general for the purposes of discrediting his testimony even before given. In spite of reassurances from Petraeus and the White House that his report had not been formed in consultation with the Administration, people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid made public statements to the effect that Petraeus was merely going to parrot the policy of the Bush Administration and tell the Congress what a good job he (Petraeus) was doing. Thus, Petraeus was portrayed as a political hack, whose up and coming testimony could not be trusted nor believed. Reid even went so far as to cast doubt on previous statements by the General.
Then there were the mad hatters at Moveon.org, who this past week, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times describing Petraeus as “General Betray Us”, a clear slap at the general’s loyalty to his country. Yet, did any of the Democrats speak out against this outrage, even when called upon to distance themselves from the article? Not at all. They are much too afraid of the Moveon folks and the other far-left blogs to do that.
In the face of all this, General Petraeus appeared Monday, and in his professional and dignified fashion, made his report to Congress. He made all those empty suits in Congress look like the pygmies they were.
Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq War, this attack on the character of General Petraeus was a disgusting spectacle made by hack politicians who were afraid the general was going to tell them things they did not want to hear, so they attacked the general even before he opened his mouth. They questioned the integrity of the very man who is on the ground in Iraq putting his own life on the line. Many of his detractors in Congress have not been to Iraq, yet they pretend to know more than the man leading the effort there. Their attack on Petraeus was also a slap in the face of every man and woman serving in Iraq.
By all accounts, General David Petraeus is a man of whom the military and the nation can be proud. He did not deserve the personal attacks laid upon him by the likes of Reid, Kerry and others. Where was the support from the Democrats for our soldiers fighting in Iraq? Where was the expression of hopes for victory?
To sum it all up, General Petraeus did what I knew he would do: He made his detractors in Congress look like very small people.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (e27ce7) — 9/12/2007 @ 10:14 amfousesquawk
“It’s obvious you nurse a seething hatred for the troops since you haven’t condemned any of the Democratic comments “supporting” General Petraeus as he reports on the surge.”
– Paul
Yes, that’s just obvious, Paul. Anyone who hasn’t paid lip service to Petraeus’ prefabricated report obviously harbors a “seething hatred” for the troops (even though the two have nothing to do with each other). That’s the most obvious conclusion I’ve ever seen.
Idiot.
““In describing the recommendations I have made, I should note again that, like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq’s problems will require a long-term effort.”
-DRJ
Yeah… that’s just fuckin’ great, isn’t it? Because he’s right: if we don’t want Iraq going to pieces, we’re going to have to stay there for a long, long time…
… Which is retarded, considering that they never even made eyes at us, but what the hell? Why Iraq?
Why not Iraq?
Obviously, Bush nurses a seething hatred for our troops, since he put them into a long-term relationship with a country that wants to kill them.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 9/12/2007 @ 1:03 pmYes, that’s just obvious, Paul. Anyone who hasn’t paid lip service to Petraeus’ prefabricated report obviously harbors a “seething hatred” for the troops (even though the two have nothing to do with each other). That’s the most obvious conclusion I’ve ever seen.
Idiot.
Leviticus, Staunch Brayer was tossing up all kinds of eminently ridiculous nonsense, so I tossed up some of my own to try to bring him back on topic. If your brain wasn’t functioning in addled popsicle-stick-creative-art mode while you read it, you’d know that.
Idiot.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/12/2007 @ 1:48 pmThe Levi School of International Politics motto is, “If it is difficult, or might make the French or Germans a bit uncomfortable, hell no, we will not do it”.
JD (f6a000) — 9/12/2007 @ 2:54 pmRight, Paul… because you’d never hide behind “You Hate The Troops” to defend an otherwise indefensible position. Never, ever…
Leviticus (86f88b) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:24 pmRight, Paul… because you’d never hide behind “You Hate The Troops” to defend an otherwise indefensible position. Never, ever…
I see addled popsicle-stick-creative-art mode isn’t a temporary condition for you.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:32 pmNEW YORK TIMES GAVE SPECIAL DISCOUNT TO MOVEON.ORG FOR GENERAL BETRAY US AD
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:41 pmLevi, you seem to be personally insulted by my using Staunch Brayer’s contorted logic against him. Maybe it’s because “You Hate The Troops” hits a little close to home for you?
Paul (5efd01) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:43 pmThat’s no surprise, Christoph.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:45 pmi don’t have any problem with general petraeus per se. i do have a problem with the diffusion of responsibility bush has created.
remember harry truman “the buck stops here”? those were the good old days. now, bush tells us he’ll do whatever his commanders in the field advise, and the commanders can in turn point to him as the commander-in-chief, creating a situation where we don’t know where the buck is. who’s in charge of this war?
assistant devil's advocate (a8e9ab) — 9/12/2007 @ 4:59 pmConsidering that criticism of biased media is a recurring theme on Patterico.com, I think it deserves a post or an update.
Contrast that with the NYT’s and LAT’s recently good reporting on the Hsu case.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/12/2007 @ 5:10 pmada-
Bush gets criticized for supposedly not listening to his military advisors. He gets new military advisors, states he will not be the arrogant stubborn fool people say that he is, and he gets criticized for “diffusion of responsibility”.
Come on, ada, do you really think Bush is trying to “avoid responsibility”? If Petraeus messes up it will fall on Bush who put him up to the position anyway.
Didn’t Truman replace MacArthur? Did that mean he wanted to blame things on his generals.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/12/2007 @ 5:37 pmADA, given that the Iraq war opponents continual refrain not so long ago was that the Bush administration wasn’t listening to the military commanders, I find your comment amusing.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/12/2007 @ 5:38 pmIn follow-up to posts 98 and 99:
The Dems theme song is apparently the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjwY__0qqFQ&mode=related&search=
scroll to about 3:50.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:07 pmAnd why should we care? What makes their concerns ours? What makes their needs and desires ours? Why should be subordinate our national goals and objectives to theirs or the UNs (25% of whose budget is paid by US taxpayers)
The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese were in bed with Saddam. The Oil-for-Food program made millionaires out of UN execs, and gave Saddam the cash he needed to pursue his goals. And on, and on, and on…
Frack the rest of the world.
Horatio (55069c) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:07 pmRe ada’s comment # 96:
I also thought the President was supposed to be the war czar.
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:25 pmThanks, Horatio.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/12/2007 @ 6:39 pmA sovereign country conducts itself according to its’ interests and needs, not others’. I am long past giving a rats’ ass what the other “industrialized nations of the world” say, do, or want.
Silent Cal said: The Business of America is Business.
Our business is ours, and nobody else’s.
If we are not prepared to ensure our own security, no one else is going to do it for us.
If the UN doesn’t like it; well, they can pick-up their marbles (which we gave them) and move to some Hell-Hole in a 3rd-World country where the UN’s corruption will blend into the neighborhood.
I may have violated a poliocy in #100. If I have, delete it, if I haven’t, check it out.
nk, I may be wrong, but I just think of a “war czar” as a cabinet level/cabinet level+ position to attend to war issues only across several areas, including defense, state, informing Congress, etc. The president hasn’t abdicated ultimate responsibility and decision making as far as I know.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/12/2007 @ 7:42 pmMD in Philly,
I don’t know why you feel you need to apologize about your link in comment #100 — it’s great. I wish I had done it.
As for me justifying my comment #102 … I likely have a cracked hipbone from falling down the stairs, after work I took the daughter to the zoo, then we bought lamb steaks which I barbecued, after dinner she had a 45 minute bath, now she’s asleep but it’s 11:07 here and you expect me to think?
nk (474afa) — 9/12/2007 @ 8:11 pmMy sympathies, nk. I hope you’re feeling better.
After I posted #100 I wondered if there was impropriety re copyright violation. That was my concern, but it is a clip from something over 70 years old.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2007 @ 3:55 am“Levi, you seem to be personally insulted by my using Staunch Brayer’s contorted logic against him. Maybe it’s because “You Hate The Troops” hits a little close to home for you?”
-Paul
You rest my case more perfectly than I ever could.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 9/13/2007 @ 6:38 amThank you for being oblivious to irony.
[…] DRJ at Patterico has a helpful updated summary the the dissing General Petraeus endured at the hands of the Senators. […]
More on the sheepdogs in our society…. at Amused Cynic (691ade) — 9/13/2007 @ 11:06 am