Democrats Find Themselves CaughtBetween Bin Laden and Petraeus
Wow. It is a bad time to be a “Cut and Run” Democrat.
First, Osama (pronounced “oh-sah-mah”, not “oss-ah-mah” Rep. Skelton!) comes out with his diatribe on Friday that sounded strangely like John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all tied up under one turban and dyed/fake beard.
And today, Commanding General David Petraeus handed the Dem-featists their hat in his Congressional testimony. Even before Petraeus eloquently outlined his moving-forward strategy, the American people reminded lawmakers who they trust on Iraq.
Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Which is what General Petraeus delivered today in his plan… a measured plan to withdraw and bring success. So now the Democrats are>… as I blurted out earlier today to PatriotPartner while watching the hearing…. completely f***ed.
They have invested so much political capital in defeat, they are caught between a nut-in-a-cave and a hard place… and a public that wants (according to the NYT poll) a successful end in Iraq.
Mario Loyola at National Review explains it quite well.
So the bombshell is in. Because the surge has been so successful in meeting its objectives, General Petraeus recommends a drawdown of 25 percent of the combat brigades in Iraq by next summer, and expects to continue drawing down after that.
Since this is what the Democrats have been asking for, they must now shift their position, and insist that the drawdown be deeper and faster. This is the lesson of the Vietnam period. The Nixon administration often announced troop withdrawals in excess of what the Democrats had called for. Weeks later, the Democrats would conclude that the withdrawals were not nearly deep enough, or rapid enough, and press for more.
Notice the pickle that the Democrats are in, however — the difference between this and Vietnam. Petraeus recommends a massive drawdown because in his view we are winning and the surge troops won’t be needed for much longer. But the Democrats have no choice but to dispute the premise of this recommendation — absurdly arguing, by implication, the troops are needed, but the cause is hopeless so we should withdraw anyways.
The fact of the matter is that between the desires of their base and the increasingly clear progress in Iraq, the Democrats have an almost impossible communications problem. It is going to interesting to see how they negotiate it.
Mario now reports that the words were barely out of Petraeus mouth when the Democrats ”Fact-Denying Caucus” began talking: “Right On Cue…. on Fox [News Channel], Congressman [Robert] Wexler [D-FL] disputes the facts presented by General Petraeus. He simply refuses to believe them.”
That’s because Wexler and his fellow Democrats cannot allow the American public to believe the truth either. They are faced with a potential political implosion because they have put party above nation and winning elections above winning a global war against America.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (by JohnAGJ): I hate to be a buttinski on someone else’s post, but this is related to Bruce’s comments here. We can see how shrill and detached from reality many on the Left have become, by their antics towards General Petraeus as this despicable “General Betray Us” ad from MoveOn.org demonstrates. Yet this cute nickname that undoubtedly has lefties giggling like schoolkids didn’t just spring Athena-style from the Zeus-like minds of MoveOn (nod to Dan here). No, as Dan Riehl notes, “It appears they started testing out the slur in June – and it caught on”. Indeed it has. One finds this being used by many leftist nutjobs online from DailyKos and After Downing Street to Pam’s House Blend. No doubt our troops are just basking with all the support the Left is showering on them…
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): I was thinking of how to tackle a post on the MoveOn.org ad that John referenced in the update above when I read Hugh’s comments which pretty much sum up my thoughts:
For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings. The Democrats who fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American are complicit in that slander.
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
For me, the high point was watching Ian get arrested and escorted out of the hearing.
Well, that’s how *I* picture Ian.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - September 10, 2007
Which part of Wexler’s remarks did you disagree with?
Comment by gil — September 10, 2007 @ 5:59 pm - September 10, 2007
so this pretty much boils down to “give us more time and let’s see how it goes by July” nothing new there. Nope,no echoing the white house there, no-siree-bob.
I’m glad that Bush has had terror and this war to distract the nation from how he and has buddies have been raping the country since he entered office in 2001. Slowly people have been realzing it, but the real realization will come after he leaves office…much like Reagan did and his financial mess had to be cleaned up years later.
Comment by Kevin — September 10, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - September 10, 2007
Bruce (Gay Patriot) says: “Wow. It is a bad time to be a ‘Cut and Run’ Democrat.”
Hey! Bruce. Who are you going to believe, what you heard and processed or your lying ears and brain?
Democrats write the script in advance. If the second coming took place on a Democrat’s chest he would be sure to claim that it was all a light show created by Bush and Cheney and carried out by Haliburton.
Your problem, Bruce, is that you resort to logic and common sense.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 10, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - September 10, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Democrats Find Themselves CaughtBetween Bin Laden and Petraeus — September 10, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - September 10, 2007
From Skelton’s opening dribble, the process continued as I thought it would. I thought, with the statement about how order (haha) would prevail, he had already tipped his hand. In a room that size, screening the protesters would have been no problem. Can’t blame that on Hastert this time.
Then the histrionic outrage by people who were there supposedly to hear the testimony was rather transparent.
As I watched and listened I was reminded of many occasions when answers mattered little but to enhance the positon of the inquisitor. I added a re-telling of the tale of Horatius’ commendation to a blog I’m starting.
Comment by Shawmut — September 10, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - September 10, 2007
#3 Kevin writes: “…..have been realzing it, but the real realization…..”
Geez, Louise, you can not pound a blunt stake into the heart of granite with any more alacrity than that construction. I will make it a project to somewhere, sometime, somehow realize the real realization of something. Or not.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 10, 2007 @ 10:17 pm - September 10, 2007
Nope,no echoing the white house there, no-siree-bob.
Couldn’t POSSIBLY be the WH echoing Petraeus. God it must suck sweaty balls to be a lib today.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - September 10, 2007
Unfortunately, Patreus is damned either way. No matter what he said, someone was going to be unhappy. Regardless of the Patreus report (the contents of which were really no surprise to anyone) Bush and the Republicans own the Republican War in Iraq and have another year and a half to get something done. I doubt that the US will be out of Iraq by election day and I further doubt it will be out of Iraq on inauguration day. As I said in another thread, I hope the Republicans win in 2008 (Thompson as the likely new Decider) so they can continue to own their war and can stand before the American people and claim victory. Republicans in 2008!
Comment by fnln — September 11, 2007 @ 5:31 am - September 11, 2007
Sorry, that should be Petraeus.
Comment by fnln — September 11, 2007 @ 5:32 am - September 11, 2007
If surrender and retreat in Iraq is the smart, reasonable position then why is it the position universally embraced by society’s deranged rejects?
When I look at the freaks who show up at the anti-war protests, at the deranged post-menopausal harridans of Code Pink, and at the hatred spewing “I hope Tony Snow dies of cancer” crowd at MoveOn, DailyKos and HuffPo… you have to question why an Iraq pullout is reasonable if these are the kind of people who are all for it.
Comment by V the K — September 11, 2007 @ 8:37 am - September 11, 2007
#9
First you say it’s the “Republican war in Iraq”. Then you spin around and say “I doubt that the US will be out of Iraq…” So which is it? Are you telling us that you’ve completely washed your hands of this country?
We, as Americans all “own” it whether you like it or not. Besides, it’s a hell of a lot better than owning defeat as the liberals do which, btw, is shaping up to be the downfall of the do-nothing, corrupt liberals in Washington.
If only that darned “conservative media” wasn’t keeping Hillary’s money laundering service (while you wait) burried.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 11, 2007 @ 10:38 am - September 11, 2007
What MoveOn.org did to General Petreus was downright despicable. With the exception of General Patton, for striking an enlisted man no general, in modern times, has ever been maligned. After watching the 9/11 anniversary ceremonies and seeing the grief on the faces of the families and friends of the victims; I can´t help to believe how stubborn are the anti-war left not to see the connection between 9/11 and are presence in Iraq. It´s all about the war on terror stupid! Those in congress and the senate who want us out asap are not only stubborn, but cowards and traitors.
Comment by Roberto — September 11, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - September 11, 2007
Oh I am happy to call it the US War in Iraq, but the Republican War in Iraq helps to remind Americans who got us there and who is keeping us there.
As for spinning, let’s look at post 13. Please save the argument that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. President Bush has stated outright that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was recorded and filmed at a press conference.
Comment by fnln — September 11, 2007 @ 5:42 pm - September 11, 2007
Dundo (fnln), you misinterpreted my comment. The connection of 9/11 and our (not are) presence in Iraq is the war on terror. Al Quaida is responsible for 9/11 and they´re the reason we are there NOW not then.
Comment by Roberto — September 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - September 11, 2007
but the Republican War in Iraq helps to remind Americans who got us there and who is keeping us there.
And hoping like hell that the American people forget that the democrats were involved in getting us there and keeping us there. That’s why you use “Republican” because you don’t want people to remember the involvement of the liberals.
In other words, you’re lying.
As for spinning, let’s look at post #14. You know damn well that’s not what he was saying.
In other words, you suck at lying.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 12, 2007 @ 1:57 am - September 12, 2007
How much did you have to twist to spin that anyone but a Republican is responsible for starting the War in Iraq? I thought you were all for the war. Are you saying that you’re not?
Comment by fnln — September 12, 2007 @ 5:26 am - September 12, 2007
So I misread this?
“I can´t help to believe how stubborn are the anti-war left not to see the connection between 9/11 and [our] presence in Iraq.”
Or did I misread this?
“Dundo (fnln), you misinterpreted my comment. The connection of 9/11 and our (not are) presence in Iraq is the war on terror. Al Quaida is responsible for 9/11 and they´re the reason we are there NOW not then.”
So, did Iraq have something to do with 9/11 or not?
Or are you saying that Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, but now the Republican War in Iraq has fostered an Al-Quaida presence there?
You see, if the Republican story didn’t change daily, then Republicans might have the support of the American people for the war.
However, because of their hawkishness, their religious zealotry, and their inability to control spending your guys had their phone-sex trolling, hands clasped together for the sky god, diddling colleagues while they’re passed out, whore-calling, foot-tapping, sanctity of marriage shrieking butts handed to them by the electorate.
Comment by fnln — September 12, 2007 @ 5:47 am - September 12, 2007
Dundo, you´re still getting back asswards. if the U.S. had pulled out of Iraq after the capture of Saddam, Al Quaida would still have a presence
there. probably a greater presence and not because of the U.S. but because of Iran and the fact that a functioning state had not yet been fully formed and operating. Their borders are porous just like the U.S.A. which is why there are 20 million illegal immigrants.
Comment by Roberto — September 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - September 12, 2007
I find something more distressing about fnln’s words than his rewriting the past. He admits that we won’t be out of Iraq anytime soon, no matter who’s in charge.
He wants a Republican in office to blame any future casulties on the Republican party.
Parse that for a minute. He’s perfectly willing to let soldiers die in a war he doesn’t believe in for political gain.
Again. He hopes terrorists kill American soldiers for his political benefit.
Comment by The Livewire — September 12, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - September 12, 2007
I find something more distressing about fnln’s words than his rewriting the past.
I give up. There are schizos that make more sense than #18′s ramblings.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 12:39 am - September 13, 2007
Right. You boys just cannot stand it that your party’s leader was so wrong about the war, which like your party, is a total mess. I like how you try to blame me for being against the war in every other post on this blog and then blame me (others) because it continues. Republicans in 2008!
For the record, it is Bush that sends soldiers to die, not me. Parse that!
Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 3:06 am - September 13, 2007
Thanks TGC. That means a lot coming from your podunk perch.
Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 4:13 am - September 13, 2007
Heh, and apparently he can’t read either. Nor will ge deny he wants soldiers killed for his benefit.
Comment by The Livewire — September 13, 2007 @ 7:36 am - September 13, 2007
LOL…..fnln, we know what leftist Democrats like yourself do for terrorists; they aid and abet them.
It surprises no one that the Democrat group International ANSWER, whose antiwar rhetoric you so completely parrot, is one of her biggest supporters.
It should surprise no one that you want the US out of Iraq; it’s literally killing thousands of your terrorist friends there.
It should surprise no one that you and your party are so spiteful about Iraq; the toppling of Saddam Hussein stopped billions of dollars in payments to your leftist allies in the UN and in Europe.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - September 13, 2007
Sure NDT, me and my terrorist friends. Geez, is there nothing you won’t say to those who disagree with your pro-war stance?
Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - September 13, 2007
Like I said, fnln, it’s not the fact that you disagree; it’s the fact that your actions so blatantly and obviously support terrorists.
Probably the best example is your whining about al-Qaeda activity in Iraq, but then your demanding that our troops be “redeployed” away from them.
That’s also why your “we need them to fight in Afghanistan and catch bin Laden” excuse is so worthless. You’re not sending troops to Afghanistan; you’re demanding that they be brought home or sent to places like Okinawa, neither of which is anywhere NEAR Afghanistan.
The Iraq war made perfect sense. It removed a brutal dictator whose actions were killing millions of people, who was actively seeking nuclear weapons and already had a considerable arsenal, and whose blatant bribery activity had effectively emasculated the United Nations; it put major US battle groups next door to two rogue countries (Iran and Syria) who openly fund and support international terrorist groups who attack us and our allies and whose access to the Straits of Hormuz is a dagger pointed at the heart of the Western democracies; and it followed the axiom of provoking an irrational foe to act irrationally by planting itself in front of al-Qaeda within easy proximity to them and daring them to attack, not unarmed and unprepared citizens, but armed, trained, and equipped US soldiers.
Were there problems with the execution? Yes. But strategically, it works.
And what has your party done? Everything it can to stymie and hamstring that execution. You block funding to troops. You try to deploy troops away from terrorists. You publish people like Scott Beauchamp who write lies and slander about our soldiers. You cheer and publicize the deaths of Americans. You try to make it illegal to deal with countries like Iran that openly encourage terrorism and attacks against US troops.
THAT’S why.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 13, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - September 13, 2007
“You block funding to troops. You try to deploy troops away from terrorists. You publish people like Scott Beauchamp who write lies and slander about our soldiers. You cheer and publicize the deaths of Americans. You try to make it illegal to deal with countries like Iran that openly encourage terrorism and attacks against US troops.”
Wow, those are strong assertions. Are you able to prove any one of those things about me? I thought not.
Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - September 13, 2007
At any rate, there is the “globa war on terror”, so what are you complaining about? I’ll suggest that you don’t like it that people disagree with the main Republican who started the war, don’t agree with the war, don’t agree with its execution, don’t believe it is a global war on terror, and don’t agree with you. Most importantly, I’ll further suggest that it is not going well, as your own second-Republican said it would not ten years ago and you’re mad about it and look for ANY ONE or ANY THING to blame for that except those responsible for it…which would be the Republican administration. I understand being in the minority though, as you and your fellow homocons are on this issue, because I too have that understanding every time I read this blog. I try to deal with it, and you should try too. It’s that, or as I said in another thread on another blog, it is up to Republican politicians to convince me, not me to convince Republican politicians.
Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - September 13, 2007
And he still won’t disown that he wants American troops killed for his political gain.
Comment by The Livewire — September 13, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - September 13, 2007
LOL…..silly fnln.
He denies that he and his fellow Democrats have tried to block funding for the war.
He denies that he and his fellow Democrats have tried to redeploy our troops away from the places where they’re fighting terrorists to places where there are no terrorists.
And he denies that he and his fellow Democrats have tried to block any military action from being taken against Iran.
He denies that he and his fellow leftists are trumpeting the deaths of Americans and American allies, using words like “Screw ‘em”.
He denies that he and his fellow leftists and Democrats supported and published Scott Beauchamp and his lies about American troops.
Keep pushing those denials of reality, fnln.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 12:51 am - September 14, 2007
As usual NDT, you cannot prove anything, you can only assert. I’m imagining Republicans winning in 2008. Won’t that be fun?
Comment by fnln — September 14, 2007 @ 3:23 am - September 14, 2007