Not long after reading a report Senator Biden’s dismissal of General Petraeus’s testimony which headlined Yahoo!’s news for the day, I chanced upon Powerline’s synopsis of the remarks, a short post headlined, “MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.
You see, even before Petraeus, the top military commander, in Iraq has testified before Congress, including the Foreign Relations Committee, which Mr. Biden chairs, the Delaware Democrat has insisted the general “dead flat wrong”
And I thought it was Democrats who last year were faulting the president for not listening to military commanders on the ground in Iraq. This leading Democrat (who, as many on the left would point out if he supported the war, never served in the military) thinks he knows better than such a commander.
Biden isn’t the only member of his party dismissing the general before he has had a chance to come before Congress, report from the front and answer their questions. Top Democrats, including Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and Whip Richard Durbin have been calling his report the “Bush Report.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who, as many on the left would point out if she supported the war, never served in the military) claims that “The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made.” A nice claim to make before she even knows what the facts are.
All this prejudging causes Ed Morrissey to note:
the same Senators who didn’t cast a single vote against this highly-regarded commander taking over the effort in Iraq suddenly feel that Petraeus would conspire with George Bush to deliver a dishonest report to Congress. Which is more likely — that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?
I guess for leading Democrats the facts just don’t matter when you’re out to convince yourself that President Bush (and any strategy he proposes) is doomed to fail.
Where did Congress dictate who should write the report?
TGC, check this http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1467 out to answer your question.
On April 6, 2004, Ted Kennedy said ” Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” From that moment forward, the Democrats have done everything possible to lose the efforts in Iraq and saddle Bush and the Republicans with the loss. This is not about the war on terrorism for them, it is about controlling politics and the agenda.
I fault Bush for not articulating the war on terror and being confrontational with people like Reid, Durbin, Kerry, Murtha and others who have maligned the military in general and the troops in particular.
The Democrats will not discuss the war on terror. No candidate on that side has even remotely addressed the issue except Edwards who called it a bumper sticker slogan. They will not discuss it, because they can not discuss it. President Hillary or Biden would not be able to yank us out of Iraq willy-nilly and both know it. If you want that particular solution you have Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle-Dum on opposite sides of the same lunatic asylum.
So, the Democrats can only carp about yesterday. Wrong war! Wrong place! Wrong time! Quagmire! OBL isn’t dead! We have lost almost as many troops as people are killed in Baltimore!
Democrats are focused like a laser on anything coming out of Iraq that they can headline as bad news. They voted unanimously for Petraeus and patted his ass and said “you go boy.” But all the while, they worked to gin up a thousand reasons why everything is a failure.
This is a mindset. They have a strong will not to win. They expect to capture the power of the Presidency, Congress, and the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI on this mealy-mouthed strategy.
And once they have got the tiger by the tail, they will partially change their tune. They will say they are forced to continue along the same course that Geore W. Bush created through miserable decision making all by himself.
The same way the 9/11 Commission white-washed the eight years of Clinton’s chuckle-headed bumbling with terrorism, the Democrats will rewrite their own history in voting for and supporting the efforts after 9/11.
They are shameless liars and firmly believe that the ends justify the means.
Biden can not support Patraeus. Unless Patraeus comes before the Democrats and says he personally screwed up Iraq and wishes to be fired immediately, no Democrat would come to his defense. (“No, General, it wasn’t you, it was the Jews—the Neocons—in the Defense Department. It is tough to outflank a Zionist plot, General. You know how those Jews—-Neocons—-are when they start manipulating smart people like us!”)
This is an odd commentary considering there were no actual facts used in the justification for the war. It’s been clear for years now we can’t believe anything this administration tells us about anything.
[And there are no facts in your comment. –Ed.]
#5 HT advises that: ” …..there were no actual facts used in the justification for the war.”
Darn! You mean all those smart Democrat Senators got hoodwinked by that alcoholic, playboy, hayseed Haliburton tool from Texas who stole the election? You people need to generate a new crop of representatives, cause the ones you got can’t even cast a shadow at 5pm on a sunny day.
Golly, maybe Kucinich IS your true Messiah.
You mean all those smart Democrat Senators got hoodwinked by that alcoholic, playboy, hayseed Haliburton tool from Texas who stole the election?
Nope. What he means is that the liberals who had been calling for it all through the 90s are liars.
#2
I knew the answer. Was hoping somebody else would take the initiative to find it for themselves.
From WMD, to Sadaam = Al Qaida,to ‘last throws’, to staffing with incompetent/unqualified personnel chosen for political purposes, to an complete absence of any accountibilty/responsibility for failures by anyone in the DOD/Administration, to inadequate (STILL) training/equipping of our troops, to Walter Reed, to cancelling insurance for our wounded veterans, to preventing DOD/Adminstration punishment for Haditha/Abu Gharib, to negligence/corruption in contracting, to dead enders, to Iraqs oil will pay for the war, to coalition of the willing, this administration has done everything possible to ensure that the vast majority of the American people have a hard time believing anything coming from this administration on Iraq.
That being said, I don’t want us to lose. But I’m not willing to spend another 500 billion or have another 10000 US troops maimed/killed unless there is a real plan. With real accountiblity (that means high ups at DOD/the Administration LOSE their jobs if goals aren’t met). And I don’t mean resigning with a medal of freedom. It means getting FIRED.
The surge appears to be reducing the increase in daily chaos. But is it sustainable? And even if it is, how will the Iraqis take advantage of it? By continuing the vivisection of Iraq? By the Iraqis going on vacation for a month? Getting the violence down is the first step. Not the last one. And without the cooperation of the Iraqi government, it may be short lived. And even if we win, what have we created? A puppet state for Iran?, a civil war? What?
#7 ThatGayConservative: I totally agree…….but…..when you call them liars, they get their pantyhose all in a bunch which further restricts oxygen to their atrophied brains. That could prove fatal and result in less compost production due to their inability to express their “thoughts.” In the words of Mao: “let them speak and let a thousand blossoms be fertilized.” Or something to that effect. Turd blossoms are necessary so that we can truly appreciate the rose. While “a rose by any other name smells the same,” a turd blossom is a turd blossom is a turd blossom. (Apologies to Gertrude Stein.)
That being said, I don’t want us to lose.
After that steaming pile of liberal BS, you want me to believe that statement?
#10
The thing is, H-trope, is that the democrats were pretty much spot on with regards to Iraq. However, if you’re going to maintain that Bush lied, then logically the democrats were lying all through the 90s.
Dan, while I can understand you’d prefer it be Petraeus’ report what with the total absence of White House credibility, it truly is the “Bush Report” and always was intended to be. BTW, I think Petraeus has displayed his true stripes by agreeing to this.
[Sorry, Ian, quoting Andrew Sullivan on Iraq won’t advance your argument, given how long that once-credible blogger/writer has been badmouthing the general. And please note (as does the link you provide) that it was Congress itself (a Democratic majority Congress, mind you) which passed the legislation requiring that the White House deliver the report. If Democrats in Congress wanted Petraeus to deliver a report on the progress (or lack thereof) in the war, then they could have written the legislation differently.
Remember, Peteraeus’ll be testifying before Congress, under oath, so if you claim he’s the president’s stooge, then you’re questioning the credibility of this highly-regarded general against whose confirmation not a single Democrat voted.
And Biden called the general (not the president) “down flat wrong.”]
#13
Soooo….if the White House has a “total absence” of credibility, that means the liberal congress has even less, right?
Furthermore, what the hell difference does it make who the report comes from? The liberals are hellbent on the defeat and destruction of America as it is. Clearly, based on the comments of Biden, Pelosi, Reid etc., this won’t change a damn thing.
#9 Tom in Houston asks a sane question: “And even if we win, what have we created? A puppet state for Iran?, a civil war? What?”
War is not complicated. We went to war against Saddam and we won in just a few days. It took longer to dig him out of his spider hole than it did to win the military battle. In the recent past, we would have occupied Iraq and run it under military (martial) law. When Muqtada al-Sadr first defied us, we would have shut him down instantly. We would not have made Mosques off limits. Our troops would have sealed them off and we would have demanded inspections and permanent access. Civilians would have been regulated in their travel and commerce. Shooting rifles in celebration would have been banned.
Instead, we played this war according to the modern, liberal concept of bombs down chimneys only, no collateral damage and don’t shoot unless you are dead certain the car speeding at your blockade is intent on killing you. Well, that is a wimpy type of politically correct, UN war and we darn straight didn’t try it in Afghanistan.
So, Tom in Houston, we did take Iraq on with at least one hand tied behind our backs. And we immediately listened to Bremmer who had no more experience at creating a peaceful transition state than Barak Obama or David Letterman has. Meanwhile, the UN wouldn’t even come in to set up a headquarters.
We rushed to get an Iraqi government in place which happened in record time. They are trying to cobble together what has never been in place in Iraq for 100 years. A rather tall order, that. The fact that they seem not to have a Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. is a pity, but they didn’t have the opportunity to come into a position of power after years of study and planning.
You may be unaware of the mess the United States was in from 1781 to 1789. We darn near lost it all. But we had isolation on our side and some really good people trying to think it through.
Winning the peace is not grammar school work. It takes patience and the ability to adapt. Will Iraq be a puppet state of Iran. It is certain if we lift our skirts and run away. Will it consume itself in a drawn-out civil war? It could. The differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites are no small matter. But you had best forget the civil war nomenclature and call it a sectarian religious war, because that is what is brewing. There is also the possibility that a state such as the one in Turkey could arise where Sharia law does not trump Iraqi law and where there is a wall of separation between the rules of government and the edicts of the imams.
This is no place for arguement among those who do not understand Islam. Syria is ruled much the way Saddam ruled Iraq. Assad has a strong dictator’s thumb on the imams. Jordan has the king’s fist on the imams. Eqypt has Mubarak’s “democratically elected” fist on the imams. Morocco has the king’s fist on the imams. Indonesia is greatly swayed by the power of the imams. Malaysia is under the sway of the imams. Mussharif stands tough against the imams. And so forth.
What is in the future for Iraq? You and your friends will decide. We cut and run and Iran will chew it up. We stay and support a Turkish style state and a certain unsteady calm may break out. It is a volitile place in a volitile part of the world.
You didn’t mention oil, but it is the geo-political catalyst for the entire region. Russia covets building a pipeline for natural gas and oil through either Iran or Iraq. Saudi Arabia is in great fear of the Persian Iranis gaining too much influence in the Arab world. Japan and China have their economic lifelines tied to mid-eastern oil. And much more.
Meanwhile, we have a whole political party that gets its information from the KOS kids romper room, Moveon.org, and blindly ambitious politicians who would sell their children for a seat of power.
‘ “who would sell their children for a seat of power.”
Comment by Heliotrope — September 9, 2007’
In summary, that says it all, Heliotrope.
However, we might add, all that they, and all that you and I hold dear, would be up for bids also.
#16:
But with this:
your true colors come through: you believe we should have gone to war against the Iraqi people. Why am I not surprised. As foir the rest of your verbose and disjointed blather, I can’t be bothered putting on my hip-waders. Have a nice evening!
#18
Thanks for showing us, yet again, why liberals can’t be trusted.
As foir the rest of your verbose and disjointed blather, I can’t be bothered putting on my hip-waders.
Translation: “I lack the balls it takes to touch this one”.
As much distaste as I have for Republicans for their love affair with their unthinking religious base and their war and its endless violence, in the case of the 2008 election, I hope Repbulicans do win so that Democrats will not be saddled with the blame for mess that the current Republican government created. Since the Democrats lack spines to defund the war, and I know they won’t defund it, let the Republicans have control of the US government and take all the blame for their messes…and if by some chance they win their war, they can have the credit for that too. In that scenario, Republicans may have emptied the US treasury and created even more massive debt, lost countless lives, and ignored America’s other problems, but will have won their war. Maybe I will even vote for them to help secure their victory. That should really get the homocons fired up for victory. Yes, Republicans in 2008.
Oh yes, and I forgot to add that even if the Democrats did defund the war, they would then be blamed for ending the war too early when victory was just around the corner. With the Republicans in charge for 2008 and beyond, Republicans will completely own the mess that will likely require an American presence there for another decade and I definitely want Republicans staying their course for that. It seems that under this view, Democrats losing is actually Democrats winning.
Republicans may have emptied the US treasury and created even more massive debt, lost countless lives, and ignored America’s other problems,
How? We spend more on Socialist Stupidity and Health & Human Services than on DOD.
And how about the TRILLIONS of dollars spent and millions of families destroyed in the “war on poverty” which, by the way, has NO exit strategy other than “stay the course”?
That’s easy to answer. The Republican war in Iraq, deficit spending from a Republican Congress for the Republican war in Iraq, the Republican war in Iraq, and the Republican war in Iraq. Unless I am wrong about history, the Republicans have controlled the legislative branch and the executive branch for most of the past decade. The Republicans need to win in 2008 so they can continue to own the Republican War in Iraq (yes, I know that you like to call it the Global War on Terror, but I like to call it the Republican War in Iraq so that we understand who started it). That should make homocons happy: tax cuts and defense spending for the Republican war in Iraq.
You know, fnin is sooooo right in #23. If Haliburton hadn’t flown those planes into the twin towers, we wouldn’t be in Iraq. What an epiphany! Just exactly how Haliburton got to all those smart Democrats who voted for the war is a mystery. Maybe they bribed them. Really? They can be bought? Maybe they held their children hostage. Who knows?
Anyhow, fnin likes to call it the Republican war in Iraq and if that is good enough for him, it should become the national concensus. The Mighty and Terrible FNIN has spoken!
Oh, I know fnin didn’t mention Haliburton. But he would eventually.
#18 IanS demonstrates how selective reading works. Perhaps CBS will line him up for as a Pert Katie replacement. Some folks just stay sophomores their entire lives. At least it is good for DoubleBubble sales.
#18 “…you believe we should have gone to war against the Iraqi people. Why am I not surprised.”
I won’t comment on what Heliotrope may believe or not believe but the fact that we *didn’t* take a hard-line approach and go to war against the Iraqi people is *exactly* the reason that there has been civil discord for so long in Iraq.
Which way do you want it to be, Ian?
Can you stick with a less effective approach and work for victory with some self-imposed limits in order to *not* go to war with the Iraqi people?
Or would you prefer that we “did it right” and pacified the country and had greater success sooner?
Decide what you want, promote it, and be honest about the consequences of the plan and *then* be willing to stick it out. If you *don’t* want us at war with the Iraqi people then it will take *time*. There will be inefficiencies that will mean a mess for a longer while. (But a possible (I think *probable*) better result in the long run.)
Wanting us *not* at war with the Iraqi people and wanting it *over* a couple of years ago isn’t rational.
Oh wow a whole thread of “liberals hate America”. How original.
I love my country. I just hate what is happening to it. This war was a mistake from the beginning and poorly planned and exectued by the leadership at every step. Here we are just where many of us predicted back in 2003. Who is the traitor? The one who can think ahead and see the likely outcome? Or the one who sends thousands off to die without the proper equipment or any plan for victory?
#28 Houndentenor really spreads it all out. The war was a mistake from the beginning: that would fall equally on EVERY head and shoulder who voted for it. The war was poorly planned: that would mean the Department of Defense and all those who worked their way up the ladder in the Pentagon during the Clinton Administration were just a bunch of military castratae. The leadership poorly executed the poorly planned war: what a bumbling, incompetent military we must have. We sent thousands off to die: was that the plan or the consequence? They did not have proper equipment: if this is so, then valuable resources were wasted during the 90’s when upfitting and redesign after the Gulf War should have been an administration priority. There was no plan for victory: what, exactly, would you call overthrowing Saddam?
I hate to break it to you, but the job of the military is to go to strange places, break things and kill people. In the process, they also get killed. They know this. Basic training makes it abundantly clear. Our death toll in this war is miniscule and far smaller than any military estimates would have dared to imagine. (Be sure to jump on the idea that I have implied “we should have more deaths!”)
Thanks for your patriotic, America loving comments. Too bad you and your merry band of geniuses are not in charge of the Pentagon, because we would never have to fear war again, would we? By the way, prescient one, what do you see happening in Pakistan in 2009?
A major part of the problem is thet not only are the Democrats not willing to listen with open minds; but that many in Blue America and even in Red America like my parents have reached a point to total mistrust to anything said by elected Republican leaders and senior military brass. This is significant; while the military as-a-whole enjoys the trust of the people—when compared to the President’s and the Congress’ poll numbers—it’s leadership is viewed with great suspicion as “corporate yes-men” and reporting a rosy picture due to orders from their superiors at the Pentegon and the White House.
The MSM, both politcal parties, and the White House has so poisoned the well of public opinion that I fear that no-one will read the Report; they’ll just parot their lines either for-or-against without any cogent study of the facts. And the American public is so mistrusting and disgusted with the whole apparatus at-this-point that the actual hearings will be just so-much noise. By Thursday afternoon, America’s living room TV’s will be tuned to Tiger Woods and the Fed-Ex Cup…not the Patraeus hearings. I know it will be at my parents.
Dear fnln,
Great rant. You’ve just won my “Moonbat of the Week Award.” In recognition of this, your complimentary tinfoil hat is on the way. You don’t need to send me your address: being a member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, Inc., I already know where you live.
Sleep tight!
Like most Americans, I do not trust this Administration. They will fix these stats around their policy, just as they fixed the intelligence to suit the invasion.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The American people aren’t falling for it this time.
So, Chase, find out yourself. Read the reports of people in Iraq. Study History and how wars are fought and won. Figure what are *realistic* expectations of the rate of success. You don’t trust the military? Use your own brain.
But what happens is impossible standards are set and then people cry that impossible standards are not met. The whining and the crying about being deceived makes me think of that old saying “you can’t cheat an honest man.” I used to think that was a stupid saying, but I no longer do. How long to stabilize a country once its tyrant has been removed? How long to establish a stable government (of any type) taking into account Historical perspective in any country in the world?
Lied to? How is it possible that anyone with a brain can claim, not only that they heard these supposed promises of quick and easy but that they *believed* them?
Can’t lie to an honest man.
Petraeus is not going to report flowered meadows of sweetly twittering birds, he’s going to report the efforts to rebuild and promote public order in a war torn country.
Duh.
Oh wow a whole thread of “liberals hate America”. How original.
As long as they keep demonstrating it…
#27:
It’s not a question of a hard line approach rather it’s a question of going in with such overwhelming manpower that the insurgency doesn’t get a chance to start. You can wind up with far more violence with a small footprint than you can with a large one. At this point, even a large footprint is liable to fail and thanks to Bush-Cheney’s lack of planning, a large footprint is not feasible anyway. Still, we should not have attacked Iraq in the first place. It was simply wrong from a moral viewpoint and against our national interests.
I would also say that conservatives’ willingness to go to war against a people whose country had neither attacked us nor was in any way shape or form about to is quite simply appalling but probably shouldn’t be surprising.
Dan in #13:
Well, FauxNews is advertising their exclusive interview with Petraeus. This is pretty foolish on Petraeus’ part if he expects anyone other than FauxNews viewers to think he’s providing other than a whitewash on behalf of the Bush/Cheney administration.
You seems to be doing an about face on who was responsible for writing the report. In your post you seemed to criticize Dems for referring to it as the Bush report when that’s exactly how the legislation set it up.
As for his testimony to Congress, Aravosis has already caught Petraeus fudging the facts. I guess after Abu Gonzales got away with lying to Congress, they figure anyone can.
This is pretty foolish on Petraeus’ part
Not if you want people to see it. Should it instead be on MSNBC-BS where both liberals can watch Matthews spit all over Petraeus?
In response to 25, it was Saudi Arabians who flew the planes into the towers, not Iraqis. Halliburton doesn’t have anything to do with that. The Republican War in Iraq has nothing to do with punishing terrorists or decreasing terrorism in the world…as we all well know.
Thanks ThatGayConservative. I thought homocons such as yourself would be jumping up and down for joy at the victory you’ve all achieved in getting homosexuals to vote for Republicans. I guess I was wrong. You’re really only going to be happy when homosexuals vote for Republicans, take it, and like it.
Sorry, Ian, just speaking to Fox News does not mean he’s providing a whitewash. And this report should put truth to the lie that Fox shills for the GOP.
Petraeus is going to the network most likely to treat him fairly — as well as to the news network with the largest audience.
Should we now say that anyone who agrees to an interview for CNN or MSNBC will be looking for a whitewash on behalf of some leftist agenda, given that each network has shown a great bias to the left than Fox does to the right?
As to the report that Aravosis provided, it seems he has been digging pretty deep to claim that Petraeus is “fudging the facts” (as you put it). Six months ago, he noted that the trends were in a positive direction, but he didn’t say they would have been transformed as they have been — and as he said today.
Even Aravosis says he wasn’t lying, but he’s wrong to say he’s twisting his own facts. Note again what the general said — transformed the way it has. Amazing that your buddy John thinks the general was spinning. The very expression he quotes shows his description of this testimony to be off the mark, way off the mark.
So if we follow Ian’s logic, then lord BJ appearing on Chris Wallace’s show was obviously a total whitewash of his response to terrorism.
I thought homocons such as yourself would be jumping up and down for joy at the victory you’ve all achieved in getting homosexuals to vote for Republicans.
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. It’s pretty sad and pathetic that gays keep gobbing on the politicians who lead the way in legislating against them. However, my happiness does not hang on who votes for whom or who wins elections. Much to your chagrin, I’m sure.
I guess I was wrong. You’re really only going to be happy when homosexuals vote for Republicans, take it, and like it.
Guess you were wrong. The reality is that there are a lot of people in this world who have a lot more meaningful life than you apparently do. As far as “take it, and like it”, you seem to have no problem with the anal rape the liberals have given gays because they tell you how much they love you at the same time and lord BJ claimed to have cried when he fcuked you over sans lube. Rape is still rape. What’s worse, the attacker has you convinced it was somebody else’s fault.
Maybe one day you’ll decide that you don’t like being fcuked over and lied to and you’ll grow a pair and declare that you won’t take it anymore. Until then, you’ll remain a miserable victim.
#40:
Dan, here’s the quote now:
Yet, here he was six months ago:
If you believed him then, it wouldn’t have taken a daring forecast to suggest a transformation taking place within six months. After all, weren’t you war supporters claiming six months ago that the surge would yield great progress by today?
I’m afraid Petraeus is just another used car salesman who’s been peddling the same BS for three years now.
Ian in #43–Note once again, the passage I highlighted — transformed the way it has. He saw trends in a positive direction, but did not expect that nearly all the leading sheiks would be on our side. And that Al Qaeda would be nearly defeated.
He didn’t just say any transformation. He modified the verb, transformed, with the clause “the way it has.”
You can dredge up whatever left-wing blog post you’d like, but can you contest any point in his testimony? All you can offer is a minor quibble over what appears to you (and an angry Bush-hating blogger) as a discrepancy.
Let me repeat, six months ago, he saw, “a trend in the positive direction.” He did not anticipate a province nearly completed pacified.
You can dredge up whatever left-wing blog post you’d like, but can you contest any point in his testimony?
Damn it’s funny watching liberals squirm!
Nice language ThatGayConservative. Someone must be proud. If you really don’t give a damn, then why post on this blog?
#46 And you go and use the same word you cite as “language”? That word was barely scandalous when Clark Gable used it in Gone With the Wind nearly 70 years ago.
“Damn” was not the reason for post 46, but thanks for your input.