It has been a very interesting and enlightening week of events. The week started with Osama Bin Laden lecturing the United States on the Iraq War, global warming, and the failures of our democratic society. Then on Monday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and delivered a mixed status report on the progress of the troop surge in Iraq. At the same time that the decorated 4 star general was sitting before the pompous politicians, the waning readership of the New York Times was treated to a full page ad by MoveOn.org that said “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”.
These events are linked in more ways than the obvious Iraq War connection. I believe that the week’s events were a glaring indication of who the leadership in the Democratic Party have aligned themselves. The comments and attitudes of the “distinguished” senators, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and the New York Times clearly show that they have allied themselves with some very unlikely company.
After reading the transcript of Bin Laden’s speech, I recognized a very familiar tone. The tone, opinion, and topics we all heard before over the past several months. Osama stated several times that this was a war that we could not win. He said that we are caught in the middle of a civil war. Before I continue, it was interesting that Osama claimed we were caught in a civil war, but then claimed that his terrorist organization was winning this war with the United States. Bin Laden echoed the Democrats when he blamed the neocons and singled out Rumsfeld and Cheney. He also rambled on about global warming and the administration’s refusal to sign onto the Kyoto accord. He even blames “Big Corporations” for controlling the country and driving us to war for profit.
Those are just a few of the “highlights” of Osama’s assessment of the Iraq War and our country. Did anyone else besides my partisan self, notice that Osama and the Democratic leadership have the same talking points? The leaders in the House and Senate have been very outspoken against the war and have said that they support the troops but not the war. How does anyone, besides the “intellectuals”, believe that they are supporting the troops when they are saying exactly the same things as our troop’s enemy? I guess the question to be asked is, Is Osama echoing the Democratic leadership, or is the leadership echoing Osama? In either case it is not a position of support of our troops. I have criticized the Democratic party for their rhetoric against the war, saying that our enemies and our men in women in uniform see the same speeches. It emboldens our enemies and hurts the morale of our soldiers in harm’s way.
Before the General ever opened his mouth to start with his report, he was subjected to insult after insult by the anti-war members of the committee. Senator Lantos was the first to question the war hero’s integrity. Senator Clinton also questioned Petraeus honor and integrity while she took her 833rd position on the war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the General’s plan was unacceptable because he disagreed that the surge had seen military success. The Democrats have claimed that the report was untrue because the White House staff had written the report. The problem is that these same Democrats wrote the legislation that required the White House to report on the outcome of the surge. The Democrats also complained that Petraeus himself was not going to come before the committee to testify. When Petraeus and the White House agreed to send the General and the Ambassador to testify, they whined that he wasn’t going to be honest and it would be a waste of time. When did we arrive at a time when one of our country’s most decorated soldiers is insulted and accused of being a political hack? Isn’t a bit hypocritical of any politician accusing anyone else of dishonesty?
The New York Times has had declining subscriptions over the past few years. When reports of the “paper of record” discounting advertising rates for an organization that open accuses our top military commander of treason, is it any wonder why their sales have slipped? The New York Post reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for the full page ad. They also reported that the normal rate for a full page ad was over $180,000. Why did MoveOn receive a discount? Was it politically motivated? Since Rudy Giuliani has announced his plans to take out a full page ad in the New York Times to rebut the MoveOn ad, we only have to wait to see if the Times will charge the same discounted rate to Giuliani’s campaign.
I firmly believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want about the General, the war, or the President. I have just as much right to question their patriotism and their desire for the United States to be victorious in the stabilization of Iraq. I believe that the Democrats have taken the positions that they have on the war and the surge solely for political purposes. They realize that if they do not take a hard line on the surge and the war, their financial backing from fringe groups like MoveOn will dry up faster than Hillary Clinton changing her political positions.
Troy Stouffer, Politics Correspondent: Troy’s Column “Cacoethes Scribendi”, published every Friday to Gather Essentials: Politics, is a conservative look at the policies ad issues that affect all of us.You can find all of Troy’s columns at http://gather.com/cacoethesscribendiKeep up with Troy’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network -- just click here http://tds1024.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page
You’ll find Troy and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at http://www.politics.gather.com/
Deo Gratias
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 92
It's time for the troops to come home. The military has done their job and done it well. Too bad we cant say the same thing for George.
Not this time. First, I looked at Bin Laden in the pictures. He must have glued that beard on. Then he said the things you accurately report. I can believe what he said about Iraq, but I cannot understand why he would have said it. As propaganda it has the opposite effect of what I would expect him to want. It inflames and confirms the connection between Terrorism and Iraq. Hook that up for me in a credible way and I might just start urging Shock and Awe.
You make a "surprised" assessment of the Democrats alignments. YOU, surprised by the alignment? I doubt it. I very seriously doubt it. You put the word "distinguished" in quotes, and NAME NO ONE. Neat Trick, Paint a whole majority with a brush dipped in a single color. The connector, Osama claimed we were caught in the middle of a civil war "BUT" should have been "AND."
Skillful but ingenuous, and you are a better man than that. And Troy, Bin Laden was saying what the "intellectuals" were saying all along. They are not parroting him, he is parroting them. It may be that he recognized the effect of what they were saying and repeated it, BUT (and that is not a mistaken use of a connector) why would he repeat what he knows will inflame and encourage the people his is fighting. It is the Rhetorical equal to "Bring it On."
Petraus GOT as much respect from the anti war members of the committee as they were required to give him. There are issues, and not addressing them is NOT serving the best interests of the United States. The White House, if it did not actually write the report VETTED every word in it. Petraeus either said what he was told to say, or he said only what he was allowed to say. AND he said it to protect his position. Generals who do not say what the White House wants said become civilians soon after speaking. Many of them before they get to speak. And then they get short shrift from the media when they do speak. WILSON is a glaring example of what happens to the "loyal" opposition.
One of the MAJOR duties of the Congress is oversight of Administration policy and action. They not only had a right to demand the reports, they are obligated to ask for them, AND the President is obligated to provide them. AND the President is obligated to provide complete, truthful and timely reports.
Every newspaper in the country has had declining subscriptions over the past few years. The ones that get in depth are being starved from both ends by Trivial but titillating stories in depth of movie stars and heiresses who don't wear underpants in public. MoveOn paid 65 thousand dollars for the NYT ad, the other side has raised 27 MILLION to counter it. (cost effective gets skewed when you are loosing)
Question the patriotism all you want, the fact is that this war, this Presidency, this mess, is not something to be proud of.
Troy, I generally don't speak on your articles with any passion at all. I don't usually feel a need to, others do it as well or better than I can. BUT this time I was not willing to stay quiet.
(AND and BUT in caps to emphasize that I meant to use them as I did.)
Is it unpatriotic to oppose a stupid and senseless war, entered into on false pretenses by an administration that "cooked the facts" and ignored any dissent withing their own ranks? There is PLENTY of evidence that they did exactly that.
There comes a time when the real patriots must stand up and tell the truth. We are spending our wealth and the lives of our soldiers on a war that we have absolutely no business waging. Instead, we should be going after the terrorists all over the world who are busily engaged in sneaking nuclear devices into our country.
To find and apprehend them, we need the cooperation of every nation on the planet. Bush and his Bunch have done nothing but alienate and insult the very people whose help we need to win the war on terrorism.
And make no mistake, we MUST win that war. Iraq, in comparison, is a meaningless, expensive distraction from the real struggle. We need the help of every nation on earth to win it. We cannot win it alone, no matter how many guns or planes or bombs we have. And all of your patriotic prattle won't help us.
The United States cannot be victorious in the stabilization in Iraq. That's the point. Only the Iraqi's can choose to stabilize their country through their own actions or lack thereof. Anyone who put any thought into the matter before this fiasco began could have predicted the present situation. Iraqi's do not have a patriotism for their country the way many other peoples do. The country is too young, and the culture very different. Their loyalties lie with their ethnic groups and their religious leaders, not the country of Iraq. Cheney seemed to be well aware of this in 1994 when he gave the following reasons as to why we shoudl not invade Iraq:
The U. S would be all alone, it would be looked upon as a U.S. Occupation.
What do you put in place after you take out Saddam?
Pieces of Iraq would fly off and the country would become unstable.
It would become a Quagmire.
We would sustain many casualties
For once, Cheney was dead on in his predictions, yet the administration behaves as though this was some unforseen outcome for which they were woefully unprepared.
I think I take specific issue with your last comment:
I believe that the Democrats have taken the positions that they have on the war and the surge solely for political purposes. They realize that if they do not take a hard line on the surge and the war, their financial backing from fringe groups like MoveOn will dry up
I guess by that line of reasoning, the Republicans take their stand on the war to keep Haliburton happy.
Thanks for sharing.
As to OBL vid. a lot of what he said was the truth. It could and probably did all come right off our TV satellites. If he sounded like the Democrats so be it. The Democrats certianly have not practiced what they preach by approving everything Bush asks for.
I am not aware of any specific Democrat accusing of Petreus of treason, but for the sake of argument I will assume you are correct. You say, " I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the war. When the Democrats start accusing Petraeus of treason, I start questioning their patriotism." Do you also question the patriotism of those who have charged that merely opposing the war is an act of treason that gives aid and comfort to the enemy and that those who oppose the war are traitors?
Personally I found the casual use of that charge disgusting regardless of who uses it. The closest we've come to sustainable charges of treason in recent years is Padilla, and I still question why if there was evidence he conspired to plant a dirty bomb he was not charged with treason. It seems to me that charges of treason and being a traitor are no longer criminal offenses but have been relegated to to the level of a form of political slander that both sides utilize with impunity and while I will not question their patriotism, I definitely question the commitment to American values of anyone who uses such terms casually.
I also find something intellectually dishonest in your failure to mention that the N.Y. Times declining readership, subscription rates and its advertising woes are symptomatic of a malady to which the entire hard print media has fallen victim; the Internet. If they want to get their readership back up they will drop the silly requirement that you must register with their web site to obtain access to most of the articles. But that is another topic,
As for your disapproval of what you claim is Senator Clinton's changing positions on the war you would have to nuance everything she has had to say about the war to get to 833 different positions and with that qualification the number of positions she has taken probably does not vastly exceed that of the majority of Americans who have changed their position about a war they supported in 2002. Being among that majority I find such accusations personally insulting and an affront to my right to change my mind about any damn thing I choose!
As for Bin Laden supposed echoing if the position of many Democrats and others that oppose this war I will also point out that he echoed the opinions of those who support it in charging the Democrats actions with regard to the war have been ineffectual. The fact that some Republicans and the war's supporters have chosen to use his words in support of their charges against the Democrats and those who oppose the war makes me wonder, who has made him an ally and in what conflict.
Anything that miserable excuse for a human being says should be assumed to be done for his own self interest and taken with a grain of salt except when it suggests the advancement of one of what are probably his many nefarious plots to create mayhem.. Everything he says publicly is aimed at increasing his influence with potential followers and instilling terror in those who aren't!
Even if circumstances have prevented us from going after him directly after Bush let him get away, there is no reason why the richest and most technologically advanced nation on earth could not have brought its black ops up to a level where they could take that bast___ out, Like many who are somewhat left of center I am not above using devious means to eliminate some threats to our national security. I think we should have done the same with Saddam. The results couldn't have been anymore detrimental to our international standing than the invasion and subsequent war have been.
They do their best to thwart our efforts to confront terrorism, they attack the capitalist system , they embrace socialist dictators....ala Hugo Chavez, they throw these immature public tantrums, they spout ridiculous lies(see every election loss and suddenly tainted ballot box claims, burning church claims, Dubya AWOL claims...), they engage repeatedly in dirty campaign funding schemes, they encourage class envy and warfare, they attempt to nationalize things like the health care industry , not for our well being, but to control us(like I won't see my rights usurped by the government's health maintenance requirements as an excuse to really rob me of my rights), yes I not only question their patriotism , I accuse them of treason.
Notice you have the usual cast of knee jerkers who nod like bobble heads and confuse dissent with disloyalty and a lack of patriotism, as if people cannot legitimately love their country passionately and see the direction we're going as political suicide.
Keith: Unfettered capitalism like unfettered anything else is corrupt, not because the system is corrupt, but rather because people are inherently so. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is proven over and over again throughut history.
Gary: You ask good questions, but don't direct them at the Republicans as well. If Mr. Bush really wanted to win in Iraq he had the means at his disposal to do so and chose not to. Now there is virtually nobody who believe he can win other than himself and his dog. I'm not sure his wife even does. They cannot win against terrorism and radical Islam without changing the conditions under which those things grow.
If you try really hard, you might actually find that Mr. Bush has made a lot of mistakes, and that he's never admitted any of them. How in the world can you look at our position in the world today compared to what it was on 9/11 and even keep a straight face when you infer Republicans have done a good job there? We've gone from being one of the most respected and powerful nations on earth to what you see today. I don't see American pride being higher than it was when Mr. Bush made his "I hear you" speech in New York, or much lower than it is today. Same President, so you can't blame Democrats for his stupid mistakes.
I would like to know who Osama thinks he is? He sounds like he is running this country, what business is it of his, about global warming, corp. etc. Maybe, he will come out and announce his campaign to run on a Dem. ticket .
We need to keep the pressure on AQ and radical Islam in Iraq. Yes, we need to fight them there and not here. We need to beat radical Islam from within Islam itself. Moderate (sane) Muslims need to speak out against these thugs and learn to live in the real world with personal and economic freedoms like every other civilized religion has. We need Europe to get over the whole "United Nations Oil for Palaces Program" and accept the fact that they were on the take, and get behind this. Europe and the politcal left in America has to get over this bitter hatred over George Bush and get on with life, it's blurring their vision and imparing their reality. He's gone in a year folks! Get over it. There is a large contigency of young people in Iran that are fed up with the theocracy in Iran, and need to overthrow them from within. Islam needs to adapt to a world with personal and economic freedoms.
Support the troops? Does that include the best equipment and protective gear? Does that include the best of care when they are injured? Does that include care when they are traumatized? Does that include allowing special financial help and bankruptcy rights for their families at home? Does that include humane tours of duty with recovery time between? Does that include a free higher education if they survive and come home? Does that include not risking their lives in a war run on the cheap for trumped up reasons?
This is how true Democrats support the troops, while Republicans send cookie boxes and call for longer tours of duty and endless war for generations.
Whomever REALLY supports the troops wants them safely home now, and that's 56% of their countrymen and country women. They have served tour after tour in a terrible war, they deserve their lives back.
I'm suprised I have not been called a devious Democrat traitor who approves of black ops ventures rather than support the war. If it is a choice between war's carnage and black ops that offer a more limited loss of life, I'll choose black ops any day. Neither is a particularly honorable way of resolving differences, but sometimes the only truely honorable alternatives are not available.
During the two days of interrogation did any Democrats ask the general "what can we do to help you win?".
The General is a Political Buffer between the Administation and the troops. He is the handle on the sword and the hand on the sword is the administration. He is put between a rock and a hard place but he will be paid handsomely for his allegance to the Administration. I believe this is a well timed attempt to take the Attention of the United States off of other issues like Illegal Immigration. Just take a close look at the Upcoming Defence Bill and look at some of the Amendments attached to it. I cant believe how slippery these Politicians are and the depths they will go to, to get passed what they want. I guess a question I would ask is why are the General and Admiral at such odds with each other and why do they seem to be of two different minds on the subject?
And can we please pay a bit of attention to what the Republican Senators were saying? It ranged from very hesitant and conditional support for Bush to fairly open opposition from John Warner and Chuck Hagel. Are they disloyal?
The Democrats opposition to this illegal and incompetently executed war is no more political than the majority of Americans who oppose it. It's the senseless waste of human life that drives opposition to it. You folks on the Right and even those on the Left that started out supporting this unthinkable act are alien to a lot of us. It was bad enough that Osama Bin Laden had forced our hand. But to go out of our way to pick a fight is unfathomable to many of us. War is a THE last resort, and for many of us, nothing about the situation in Iraq warranted the sacrifice of thousands of American lives. Not to mention the massive loss of Iraqi lives. This war was a very bad idea and it will take the United States an extremely long time to recover from the aftermath.
I still tend to believe that due to the massiveness of "moving" so many people's minds in such a strong state of "brainwashing" ... ie. the Militant Muslims, that military force is the only thing that will make an impression. And massive military force. After all look what happened to us, we got hit with a 3000 people killer attack and many of us are still in denial.
I have read enough of your articles to know you favor changing over our energy system so we do not need oil from the Middle East. Great idea ... do you have the proof that it is possible. Can you tell me what the effects would be past that? How long would it take if everything went perfect ... then double or triple it for the usual project management screwups.
You're obviously a pretty smart guy, so what is it you are saying that I am missing?
This reminds me of the famous line in Pirates of Penzance, where the First Lord of the Admiralty is describing how he attained that high position:
\
Is it the primary duty of a Senator to support his party's policies at all times?
Or should he occasionally maybe think about it and vote his conscience?
Are YOU spending hours of YOUR non work time to help OUR Armed Forces raise recruitment levels?
Why haven't YOU joined the military and volunteered to go over there and help make sure WE WIN?
If this is as important to the nation as YOU say it is, then why aren't YOU actually over there fighting?
From the sounds of THIS article, YOU would like to label everyone who doesn't enthusiastically agree with, and support, THIS administration's goals as a traitor.
But you weren't like that when Clinton or Carter was President, were you?
Bob Dole certainly wasn't; Geroge Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan were.
If you want to REALLY analyze the scariest things Osama has said, you should look at how closely some of his statements mirror the Extreme Conservative Fundamentalist Christian messages. Extreme Conservative Fundamentalist Christians also espouse that non-believers are un-worthy of the lives God saw fit to give them.
So much for the Grace, Forgiveness and Love of Christ. WE want to be a Warrior Nation. Strong, Mighty and Frightening.
We will fight THEIR TERROR by inflicting some TERROR of our own on their populi; the innocent and guilty alike.
Let them ALL be afraid of U.S.
We are A MIGHTY GIANT.
Karl, Petraus said in his sworn testimony that no one vetted his testimony. So, are you calling him a liar? Just asking ...
Clarke M., Thanks for inviting dialogue with your insults and name calling (ignorant and naive). I believe that the General testified that Adm. Fallon was in agreement with his recommendations.
Bert B., So, insulting the leader of our troops in the field and accusing him of lying (Mrs Clinton) is OK with you. Does it fit your definition of patriotism?
Devin, When UBL starts spouting Democrat talking points, doncha think its time to take another look at who you're supporting?
All, Can't we stop being Republican or Democrat, or liberal or conservative, and just be Americans who disagree? When I see politicians and people like Soros using our labels to divide us, I think we are being used. I don't like being played for a sucker by those with agendas. Do you?
Just sign me an American who supports our military and doesn't trust our government - no matter which party is in charge!
You have hit the nail right on the head by comparing the Dems to the Dictators and Islamofascists. Bill had the opportunity to nip this in the bud but he has his agenda, too. Just as Hillary and Hsu are in bed together, it seems the Dems and Osama are joined at the hip. To accuse so cleverly that what the General had to say was not exactly what the Dems wanted him to say is an understatement. The General said the same thing to Katy Couric and the leftists almost had her drawn and quartered. Her poll numbers are down because she softballed the General in Iraq. hahaha. She T-balled questions for the leftists who were questioned on her show and noone said a word, with the exception of Bill O'Reilly and Co. I am at a loss to tell these morons in the left corner, whether they have the "right" to criticize anything is what these soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors have been fighting for since the start of this country. But if the Soviets cannot beat us with weapons, they hire China to put lead in the children's toys, back the Dems, and pledge to put a AK-47 factory in Venezuella. And still the story goes on.
You are preaching to the wrong group, Troy. More than half of these remarks are from the "60%" of Americans who want to stop the war and bring the soldiers home so their Democratic idiologists or Socialists in Democrat form, would like nothing more than to see the US fail at another war, like they did in the Viet Nam police action. This is not a war, it is just a few soldiers out for the weekend. Just like we Marines used to go to Tiajuana to let off steam, these fella's need to let off some and test the new toys the Pentagon has bought for them to use against our real enemies, the Soviet spys still in the Senate and the Congress. The cold war isn't over, it's just moved to capitol hill. Vlad must be laughing in his borsch. And these gullable wannabe hippies want a return to the '60's so they can sit on the couch, watch TV and get high.
Nicely put, Troy. but it's too late. The treasonists, AKA ; the Dems. have a new and exciting plan for America. Can anyone say amen. No? Because there is no plan for Americans except to take money from and put in their pocket. It's bad enough when big business is taking our money, the fact that the Federal Government isn't getting it's share is why this is all playing out this way. And when I say Fed, I don't mean Fred.
Osama or Obama, it's still the same. Hillary or Vlad or Hugo or Fidel, it really makes no difference. The only difference is between people like you and those who think Al Gore really is the Second Comming.
I hope they let us live in some gulag when we lose or if we lose the election. Das vidania, tovarich.
their real beef ought to be that if the US is going to be a world power,
then what is in it for them.
Americans are so used to getting nothing but beat up by the government
that they naturally assume they might as well oppose anything that
makes a requirement on them, when what they really ought to be doing
is to use this crisis to push their social agenda forward ... to bargain
for goodies like every other poliical or finanical entity on the planet does.
We ought to get free health care and some job security out of this if the
government wants us to fight wars like this.
"Bill had the opportunity to nip this in the bud.."
As did our current President. But HE didn't believe the reports he was receiving.
"But if the Soviets cannot beat us with weapons, they hire China to put lead in the children's toys,.."
Oh, That's Funny. Everybody knows that WE hired the Chinese to build our toys for US. We did that so OUR manufacturers could enjoy higher profits. Richard Nixon (R) opened that door.
"This is not a war, it is just a few soldiers out for the weekend. Just like we Marines used to go to Tiajuana to let off steam,.."
Over THREE THOUSAND of those "few soldiers" have come home in boxes thanks to this "weekend" jaunt that has lasted over four years and deployed more than 100,000 active duty members from all four branches of our Armed Forces.
"..Because there is no plan for Americans except to take money from and put in their pocket."
..and it is the Republicans who have been caught with their hands in the pockets, way more than the Democrats.
Thank you for Bashing Americans.
Admiral Fallon wants 3/4 of the troops out of Iraq and he refused to go along with Bush's wish to send a third carrier to the Persian Gulf. He is opposed to any confrontation with Iran. Pakistan is the most dangerous situation for Fallon, who is responsible for the whole region.
Your president has embroiled your country in a devastating endless war which offers nothing to either side. No one wins in that occupation.
Al Qaeda constitutes maybe ten percent of the violence that exists in Iraq. The vast majority is caused by the mere presence of American troops. Soon, the British will leave and the Australians, and your country will stand alone in its occupation of Iraq.
Iran is not the threat. Your government is. Meanwhile you fail to take care of your own, leaving millions upon millions uninsured, millions more homeless in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage scandal and the storm battered areas of the south will only worsen over time as more hurricanes blow ashore.
You are doing a disservice to yourself and to your fellow Americans when you attack Democrats who are your only hope of really bringing your troops home.
Osama is from the family that calls itself friends of the Bushes. Dubya will never 'find' Osama because that will cause his friends anguish and embarrassment. And the Bush family holdings grow richer because of their investments in the machinery of war. Don't you find that at all troubling.
Why do you even pay attention to Osama Bin Laden? Why did you honour him by reading the text of his rant? To what purpose? Ignore him. He is a flea. If anything, he is a tool of the Whitehouse, timing his messages to coincide with events which require the American population to be stirred up to defend its honour. How predictable and pathetic.
Use that brain of yours. Opt for peace and and end to the occupation. The Iraqis don't want you there and they'll take care of Al Qaeda far more effectively without Americans knocking in doors.
Yes, you broke Iraq but you are preventing it from healing with your continued presence. Al Qaeda will disappear from Iraq when they have no more Americans to kill there.
> Al Qaeda constitutes maybe ten percent of the violence
> that exists in Iraq.
That's being generous to Al-Qaida, but,
> The vast majority is caused by the mere presence of American troops.
I have to disagree with that as most think when American troops leave the killing will really get off the ground. I don't know why some people seem to have such a hard time understanding that Iraq is not America, Iraqis are not Americans. They live in a brutal country in a brutal time without any of the history that we have here in American or the moderating influence of a secular society or moderate religions.
I agree with you about American priorties, but here the squeaky wheel gets greased and Americans are very timid about asking or demanding anything from government or industry, to our detriment.
But your attacks on Bush as the real cause of the war and terrorism are in line with most of this kind of rants disappointingly, we in the West created a monster by giving lots of money and power to small groups of people in the Middle East whose corruption has become a worldwide festering problem and threat. It needs to be taken care of at some point ... why not now that we are there ready to do the job?
You hit the nail on the head. Petreus' doesn't need any coaching from Bush. He knew the news had to be made to look rosy in some way. The real non-patriots are the ones who got us into this stupid conflict for no logical or ethical reasons. I blame both parties for this! They have certainly betrayed our soldiers by sending them into this conflict which is an occupation now. We already won the war part of it. No military actions will solve the huge problems in Iraq that exist now.
And quit whining about patriotism or lack of it.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977095479
I'm reposting my comments from that post:
Thanks for an accurate statement of the political situation Dems have got themselves in regarding Iraq. The Petraeus report will be important, because it will be used by both parties to support their position, regardless of what it says. One can almost guarantee it will have good news and bad news. It's political importance will be in showing which party "hypes," or focuses exclusively on the bad parts.
A funny thought from the old "liberal" zone of my brain: Iraq political supporters are probably thinking "Petraeus, don't betray us!" I just thought it sounded funny, though it doesn't represent my thoughts. Though I support the mission, I wouldn't consider an overly negative assessment by the general as a "betrayal." Let's just see what it says, and watch the political fallout.
Thanks for a great follow-up on the fallout, sir! Can I call that a "political premonition?"
"We were on the verge of winning, we killed ALL Al Qeda top leaders, we just had a mop up operation and then we could have had total victory, but the left pulled our troops just two days before total victory"
And the weak minded will believe it.
Troy Stouffer,
Because Troy, Neither the majority of the Democrats nor the Republicans WANT our troops home. They pay no attention to the people they represent because the are in the pockets of other interests. As long as we are concentrating on the Occupation of Iraq and Afganistan we are not looking around us and seeing what is going on in our own country.
The NAFTA highway is progressing as a highway "project" with no input from Congress. Bush is making agreements with SPP without approval of Congress in violation of the Constitution. The NAU is alive and well and working to erase our borders. Globalism is controling all three branches of Government.
Why stop a good thing? It's working. We the people need to watch the hand that is not waving in the air.
In the mean time, Daddy Bush, whose men were right there beside Junior, were prodding him to move into Iraq while he had the chance. All of them had bruised egos from 1991. Don't get me wrong - did Saddam Hussein need to go? Definitely. Did everyone (including the current crop of Democratic contenders) believe he had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Yep. I believe he still did & that they're they were either destroyed or moved somewhere before we could get to them. Did they have sanctions that the UN had placed on them but basically refused to enforce? Hmm - that answer is yes too. So going into Iraq was a given. And because of the previous 3 answers it was about 10 year overdue. We all knew it then. And anyone who didn't know we were going into Iraq the day Bush was elected wasn't paying attention when the 1st Bush got elected. But should we have gone in when we did? No. Why? Because we weren't - and aren't - finished in Pakistan.
So that brings us to today. What to do? Do we listen to the fickle American public or do we do what's right? Everyone talks about this being Vietnam part II. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam - this ain't it. LOTS of differences. It till could be. But not right now. So let's look at the issues we are facing:
1) Iraq is a mess
2) If we abandon it, it could be basically annexed by Iran
3) Iran is daily closer to nuclear capability
4) Anyone noticed that country to the north of Iran? It it a group of former Soviet republics, all of which may or may not have residual nuclear capability themselves
Assuming that Iran succeeds in making nukes & in allying with Iraq, that would create a nuclear superpower that would make North Korea look like small spoiled brat in comparison. They would not be USSR part II - yet. But perhaps they would be harder to deal with, if only because of the extreme cultural and religious tensions & differences between us. Stalin, Kruschev, Breshnev, et. al, were loud and brash, but the Cold War was mainly rhetoric. With the exception of Rafsanjani, none of Iran's president's have ever been fond of rhetoric. Ahmadinejad does not appear to be an exception to this. Does anyone what to test that? I assume that the majority of Americans, especially those protesting the war, don't know about this. I know the majority of those who aren't informed enough to be posting here. But most American voters care more about Britney, Paris, Brad & Angelina than they do about Hillary, Mitt, Obama & Rudy.
So what to do? Well, first of all, we don't listen to Democrats. The last Democrat who had a clue about anything remotely having anything to do about foreign policy was Harry S. Truman (Sorry President Carter, but your handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis trumps the camp David Summit). we have obviously lost our opportunity in Pakistan unless or until another attack originates from there. Given Al Qaeda's recent pattern of franchising, that seems unlikely. So that leaves stabilization in Iraq as our prime directive. This can't be done without a plan or soldiers.
Do I want them to be there? No. Should they have been there to begin with? Of course not? Can we change that? Not without changing the entire face of the globe. And like it or not, we are the good guys & the big brother to the world. The other way to look at it is to look at it from the perspective of the Americans who have already died in this war. Do you want them to have died for nothing? If you pull out now, that's exactly what it will be - for nothing - or worse. Because as soon as they're gone, at best it will fall into chaos. At worst it will become the scenario above. So what choice to we have? I guess to me it becomes - do you want to fold back into our own borders again or do we stand up & face the world? The reason we were able to pull off victory in WWII 60 years ago? Because Americans cared about people - each other and others across the oceans. Today we don't even care abut the people across the street & if it takes more that 5 minutes that's too long.
"If the vast majority of the population and Congress wanted the troops home, the troops would be home right now."
You cannot possibly be that politically naive.
The President is the Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces. The Military is Constitutionally, as well as oath bound to follow his orders to the best of their abilities.
Congress's ability to command military forces is pretty limited; at least to my knowledge. And Congress can hardly pressure the military into disobeying presidential orders without endangering the very fabrics of our governmental structures. It seems to be exactly what this administration is about; putting people in the hardest of ethical situations with a lack of care for the damaging side-effects.
The only way this war would be over tomorrow would be if the president commanded all the troops home. The Oval Office is the only place with the concentration of power to end this war that speedily; as Nixon proved when he ordered an end to Vietnam regional activities.
For Congress to end this war it can only be a slow and painful process, dragging out slowly.
Ronald Reagan (R) won a lot of support in his play for the presidency by stating that his first act in office would be to declare war on Iran, and that the hostages then being held were prisoners of war.
I find shades of irony in the fact that the winning line for this coming presidential race may well be a Democrat wielding the promise that the first act made from the office will be the end of a war in the middle east.
> Because Troy, Neither the majority of the Democrats nor the
> Republicans WANT our troops home. They pay no attention
> to the people they represent because the are in the pockets
> of other interests.
Colonel, what a great comment, and very true. The probem in
American is that the people have allowed themselves to lose
track of the interests of the country and running of the country.
They have abdicated their leadership to one of watching TV
every 4 years, and still they think that is too much, and then
voting for the advertisement that makes them "feel" the best.
Then they are satisfied to spend the time to the next election
attacking each other thinking the are being citizens.
Meanwhile the people who own the country ,and the people
who manage the country, who do the real work and set the
real rules are unwatched and raiding the chicken coop so to
speak.
The people have been out of it so long that a big obstacle
is now between them and their political power and voice.
They do not agree on anything, and they do not have the
reigns of power to get anything done anymore. In fact they
have been in many ways locked out of the government, because
they themselves decided to leave the running of the country
to business men, and not to pursue regulation and a social
society.
Not true. Congress has no power to pull out the troops. The President is Commander-in-Chief of all military forces. All the Congress can do is withhold funds, and they were afraid to do that because Bushies would label them as "not supporting the troops." I wish they had called his bluff and cut off funds. I don't think even Bush would leave troops there without adequate supplies and support, but I could be wrong on that. He is a stubborn man, and he might just put them at risk rather than back down.
As for the American public...Bush doesn't care what they think. He's not worried about re-election. Republicans in Congress ARE worried about re-election, though, and a lot of them are no longer supporting the War. Or course, all of them are traitors....along with all the Dems who oppose it.
I agree with Patricia that there is too much partisan bickering ... there are pro and anti war people on both sides of the issue ... we should have better press coverage for one thing.
Al Gore, didnt believe Oliver North, years ago, when North tried to warn him about Osama- LIE, At that time OBL was our ally in fight against Russia.
Castro a dictator supports Clinton and Obama, LIE, Castro never endorsed any Candidate, Faux News did LIE about that knowing their mindless idiots would believe.
No wonder we went to war based on lies, too many gullibles.
Google your lies and see for yourself.
I'll back up one of his claims...that Ollie North warned Al Gore about Osama. This myth has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Even North denies that such a thing ever happened. The originator of this piece of garbage confused Abu Nidal with Osama bin Laden...either deliberately or through ignorance.
Here is the Snopes link.
Right Wingers have been repeating this lie for years, bashing Al Gore in the process. I guess they figure if you repeat it often enough some people will believe it. That was Hitler's strategy too...and unfortunately it sometimes works.
That's true. They were, and still are, between a rock and a hard place. It's a political minefield. If they cut funding the Bushies will scream that they are "unpatriotic, not supporting the troops" etc. The problem is, the President can start wars without Congressional approval. Or without the approval of the American people, for that matter.
Of course, Bush didn't do that. He carefully fed us a load of BS to justify the war, and with 9/11 still fresh in our minds, we bought it. Congress bought it. He muffled the CIA when they tried to correct his distortions. When the truth finally came out, it was too late...we were already at war, and nobody can do anything about it short of impeachment. Congress lacked the political courage to take the only action that could have maybe forced Bush's hand, but I can't really blame them for that. The last thing anybody wants is for the troops to be put at risk because of lack of equipment and supplies. You can call opponents of the war unpatriotic of disloyal, or whatever you want, but the truth is, opponents of the war are just as loyal and patriotic as you are. And the reluctance in Congress to do anything to imperil the troops in Iraq is proof of that.
History will show, I believe, that the Bush presidency has done more damage to our country than any presidency in the last hundred years. And the people who have opposed his policies, distortions, and power grabs will be the patriots...not his spin doctors and yes men.
You're also correct that no matter who gets into the White House, the troops are not coming home any time soon. We broke it and we're going to be stuck trying to fix it for another generation at least. Let's hope after the mess Mr. Bush made that any future president of any party looks at Iraq and remembers the lessons of being pig headed and refusing to listen to those who actually know something about an area you've decided to invade. Even had Mr. Bush actually accomplished anything else in his administration, this egregious and disastrous decision will be his legacy for all time.
The strategy error of invading Iraq, because of an ideological clique's hubristic, imperialistic unilateralist dreams of making the United Sates the world's sole superpower has resulted in just the reverse: powerful alliances have formed in reaction. The United States no longer can no longer afford to pursue a hegemonic, militaristic policy abroad. The United States economy through its foreign debt will
increasingly become the sacred bull of rising powers: they will hold reins and be able to control United States influence and its foreign policy.
Our loss of stature morally and strategically needs to be restored . Withdrawal from Iraq is a step in that direction. Strategically, the defeat in Iraq is not significant. It will not diminish our power in the region. Rather, it will serve to help restore our influence in the region and , perhaps more important, it can demonstrate to other powers we may be willing to stop acting like a roque, militaristic power who cannot be trusted to deal with or allied to.
The politicians have failed to inform Americans of the real situation and the current corrupt administration, with the support a corrupt Pentagon and military leadership and a compliant media , has lied repeatedly to the people. The Bush administration still has elements that even seem so deluded as to pursue further military adventures in the Middle East, even to attacking Iran, a nation we could and should have worked to normalize relations with for more than a decade. Instead we are pressuring for regime change and sanctions against Iran and falsely portraying them as having militaristic aims and as a threat to other nations and to stability in the region.
Our military is exhausted and hasn't even fit equipment to fight with. It is in danger of
becoming stuck in the middle of a rebellion and forced to exit through the north into Turkey. The phony surge has likely made the situation more perilous. The purpose was to pacify Baghdad, but the result has been to strengthen the control of the Shia militias in the areas that were cleared and further divide the city into separate districts. The handing out money and arms to Sunnis in Sunni areas has not lessened their opposition to our occupation,which is above 90%, but it has strengthened their ability to fight Shia factions who dominate the government.
Since January 2007 the military has been bombing more than since the beginning of the invasion and killing many civilians, which has increased the insurgency against the United States occupation. This bombing is the same old military operational strategy , which is counterproductive.
The reconcilitaion of the factions cannot go forward until we make it clear we are withdrawing. The overwhelming majority of attacks now are against the Americans and Brits - not against civilians or between factions.
We cannot help settle the three main power disputes over in the north , baghdad and the south. Iran can help provide a positive, restraining influence , which is in its interest for it doesn't want a more virulent civil war to occur. But they won't cooperate with us until we recoginize their rightful postiion as a regional power. No other nations in the region and elsewhere will or help restrain and contain the situation in Iraq and aid in its reconstruction until we withdraw as occupiers.
It is our first responsibility , having invading and destroyed a state, to work to restore it and prevent a failed state - not a state that we want to choose and determine for Iraq. Withdrawal is a necessary step in that direction.
I agree that a defeat in Iraq as far as our image or prestige will not affect us.
But moving out of the area will be a military blunder, which is why I think we
are staying there.
One way or the other the goal here has been Iran and Syria, a necessary goal, a just goal and best for all.
We simply cannot turn back and allow terrorist entities in the Middle East to rake in petrodollars and consolidate military power and technology until they have nukes and missiles - period, exclaimation point!
Whatever is going on good or bad in the Bush administration does not change a thing about the threat from the Middle East and Islamo-fascism, it just makes us more or less effective against it.
I'm thinking also that it is a delusion to think Iran can help anything. How can anyone trust a country run by the nut job Ahmadhinejad and the mullahs?
They are talking 3 days to obliterate the military targets in Iran by bombing ... then I think we should give 10-15 years of the Iraq treatment because it is the only safe way to proceed. They have had their chances, and still do.
President Bush is a very, very bad thing that has happened to us as a nation.
But there are good things too.
It is a very good thing that you are not running the country, bruce k.
That said, I totally agree with you that Moveon.org was totally over the top with that ad; I usually wish they'd keep their mouths shut. The inane ramblings of such radical Leftists are just as destructive as those from the radical Right. We need adults that can see, and deal with, the countless shades of gray that exist in the adult world.
Even if the Dems had their way and we pulled out of Iraq, it would be foolish to assume that the pull-out would be immediate. We wrecked their infrastructure; the least we can do is have a peacekeeping force on the ground long enough to help Iraqis rebuild. We could have had UN help, but Bush had to have that Oppositional-Defiant attitude: "Whatever, I do what I want!" That lost us every vestige of international goodwill we had.
By the Administration's OWN BENCHMARKS, we aren't achieving what we wanted to achieve with this surge. The cherry-picking and tailoring of data to "support" a rose-colored report support our skepticism rather than overturning it.
What's next, re-instituting the draft? Where else will we get more targets -- oops, I mean soldiers?
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)-Theodore Roosevelt
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. - Edward R Murrow
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair. - H.L. Mencken
During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism. - Howard Thurman
Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may. - Mark Twain
Would any of you call these people unpatriotic?
Good article! However, you've certainly got your exercise in for the month just jumping to conclusions! First, MoveOn serves the same role on the left as does Limbaugh and his cohorts on the right. They have virtually nothing to do with anything except their own opinion. And their add didn't call the general a betrayer but ask the question, would he. And if that is over the top then everything Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Lavin and others on the right certainly qualify, but we don't hear the right talking about these. It's just when MoveOn gets radical that we hear about it.
To imply that any senator is "aligned" with MoveOn is disingenuous, to say the least. The Times did, in fact, charge the same rate for the Giulliani add, by the way. And yes, it was politically motivated, so what? Most of the media is Republican so one paper being liberal shouldn't be out of line.
It is amusing to realize that the key question of the testimony was asked by John Warner, "Is this making us safer." And the general answered it honestly, "I don't know."
As far as Osama's comments, aren't you aware that a clock that is stopped is right twice a day? If Osama is right about something that does not make him any less of a bloody terrorist and an enemy of our nation! However, it's beginning to look like he is aligning himself with the Republican party as his supportive statements Democrats will undoubtedly drive voters to vote against them. Suppose he is being paid by the party or is it free lance like the swift boaters?
You mention "emboldening the enemy" would leave us believing that there is an army waiting to attack a base or a nation that would feel free to do so because of what is printed in the news. Not so! Emboldening the enemy is a pretty vague concept and has a very slippery meaning in terms of end results. If the enemy reads and comprehends our media that well then there is no secret about it anyhow.
If we are really "fighting" Osama then what the heck are we doing in Iraq? He sure isn't there. You've got to make up your mind whether we are fighting Osama or refereeing a civil war. If we are after Osama we need to be somewhere else than Iraq and if we are refereeing a civil war then it is true that we cannot win because we are not a participant in that action!
Still, good article and good writing, as usual!