Redstate

And let's not forget the NY Times agreed to allow this egregious ad on their pages. The gutter cannot be far from their door.

Excerpts from Gen. Petraeus' column three years ago. Ask as you read them, if they could do this in a year, what happened during the past three years? Finally, judging by the General's bio from just three years ago, Bush had to dig pretty deep down the pile of resumes to find someone to say yes to the command:
"The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004."

Relevant Excerpts:
"Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished."

"Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf."

"Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month."

"Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions -- generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area -- are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently. Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct."

fools to defend us !!

I hope that the GOP will demand the Democrats distance themselves from this disgraceful ad. I'm sure Tom Cole and John Ensign are already all over this, but they need to really target red-state Dems with this thing. Every campaign ad should feature this moveon.org disgrace right next to a picture of the many vulnerable redstate Democrats up for re-election next year.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

but then poetry and insanity are not an unknown combination.
Time for those ritualistic "we support our troops" declarations from Congressional Dems. Throw in the indignant "I'm tired of having my patriotism questioned" nerve toucher.

This will go over well with the loons far gone enough to take the NY Times seriously but I await the Democrats rising in anger and denouncement. However I will not hold my breath.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I called his office here in DC. The response I got was that "the Congressman hasn't issued a statement regarding that and I wouldn't want to speak for him." I asked the intern (I'm guessing) to pass along that I would like for Congressman Boswell to go into the hearing with an open mind. The intern said he would pass it along.

In my opinion, what happens during and after Gen Petreaus' testimony is what is important here.

Which I can do since I WFH. If only there were a way to get the Petraeus part without the idiotic posturing by Congress part. I just hate these people.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

There is some serious hypocrisy at work on both sides of the isles on this issue! First of all, I'm appalled that so many commentors are taking this "holier than thou" attitude in assuming that there isn't serious spin on both sides, there is. As much as I dislike the tactics of MoveOn (tacky! tacky! tacky!), is it all that different than what groups like "Freedom Watch" are doing?

The thing that pisses me off is that neither side has the interests of the soldiers or this country in mind. It has become all too obvious that President Bushs current strategy is to simply stretch this thing out until the next President. The Democrats, for the life of me I can't figure out whats going on in their minds except I think they believe they can parlay the continued public weariness into more Congress seats and maybe the Presidency, which is incredible callous and a disservice to the troops.

In the middle of this are the actual troops. At this point, there appears to be no end in sight for these guys. I don't have a problem with war in cases where we have a real threat, a realistic goal, and a real plan for getting there, but I feel like we only have 2 out of 3 here (the plan part seems a little lacking). "The surge" was sold to us as a means to stabilize the country long enough for Iraqi politics to get things resolved, every report we've seen has said not only is the Iraqi government not there, it's actually getting worse! What's the US contingency plan in this case? How long do we continue doing this if the government fails? I have no doubt, and never did, that our troops were more than capable of providing security, they are the best trained, best equipped in the world, but as it has been shown throughout history, military might alone is not enough to stabilize a country.

I think we need to snap out of this mindset that military officials are above reproach, if anything they should be scrutinized moreso than anyone else. Remember, one of the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment was as a protection against the possibility of a military getting "out of control". The minute we stop being vigilant (and sometimes brutal) about judging the intentions and analysis of our military figures (especially command officers), we are in for a world of trouble. Also, given the fact that there have been several articles about how Betraceus's report is being "touched" by the WH and others, I think people do need to question the validity of the content (especially given the fact that so many other reports have come up that are contradicatory to what he is forecast to say). However, a full page ad in the NYT is not the proper place for such an examination, the chambers of Congress most certainly are.

Finally, it seems to me the real issue isn't military progress, but political progress. Why is everyone concentrating so much on Petraceus and so little on Crocker? As I said, the US military can definately get the job done when it comes to security, but wasn't security just supposed to be a means to facilitate a political end?

The reason the spin game is in overdrive is because reality is in the process of kicking our asses. The spin is merely about who takes the blame. Everybody knows the invasion of Iraq was a collosal mistake. The competing two strands of spin taking place are:

1. The Bush administration and the GOP initiated the war in Iraq, are primarily responsible for keeping it going, and are thus to blame for the Iraq mess.

2. The Democrats are to blame for losing the war in Iraq because they have undercut support for the troops, even while they voted to authorize this mess.

so far have been raked over the coals by both Duncan Hunter and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Outstanding!!

What the lefties are trying to do to Petraeus, and all the Dems support either by overtly supporting it or by voting for those who support it will NOT play well with the American public. The naked desire for defeat for America and the naked loathing for the best of our military is on display for all to see.

It is now undeniable that all Dems either support defeat and hate our military OR vote for those who do.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The General says that this is his testimony and not anyone elses. He, I'm sure, is well aware of the drawbacks of lying to Congress, so I seriously doubt he is lying.

Lets see if any of the Congress Critters question his integrity now.

I am the poster who used the moniker "Cousin It". I was kicked off of the blog and I think it is unfair. I violated none of the posting guidelines.

Moe posted that I was "bashing Israelis". That is completely untrue. I like Israelis. I merely suggested that the U.S. cannot expect to be perceived as a fair mediator when it sells billions of dollars in arms to Israel. That is a legitimate opinion on U.S. foreign policy, not an anti-Israeli rant.

As far as I know, dissenting opinion is a reason for being kicked off the blog. Everything I (as "Cousin It") posted was legitimate political opinion.

I don't think our current involvement in Iraq is due to our concern for the emir of Kuwait - I merely thought Moe was talking about the current Bush, not his father.

But if the moderator of this blog can explain what I did to be banned, I'd appreciate it. Send me a private email if you like.

Sincerely,

Cousin It

questions what does the term re tread mean?

Also, what is the origin of 55555?

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I think paying so much attention to MoveOn.org is a waste of our time. Plus, I think that many of you are framing this argument the wrong way... The Democrats are not, and have never been, the anti-war party - it's been the opposite, in fact. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the current Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is a San Francisco liberal. He is also perhaps the most pro-war person in Congress, of any party.

His Republican counterpart (before the Democrats took control of Congress), the highly-esteemed U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), opposed the Iraq war, and opposed the neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy vision, that got us into this mess.

What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful... and I definitely oppose that organization.

However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General's report.

As I have pointed out numerous times in the past... The top Democrats in America today are not truly anti-war... far from it, in fact.

Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this.

And before the 2006 Congressional elections, I made the same type of argument, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.

And now, I just saw an article featured at The Hill, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party's takeover of Congress, and who I named there, were the same ones heaping lavish praise, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The pro-war, anti-war, and partisan reactionary segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies - many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today's "conservatives," along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.

Ultimately, it may be the battle on the Right, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines what direction our nation will go.

Thank you for your inquiry. I had forgotten that I had also posted this comment, at this entry... There is a fuller version, that is here, and also addresses the anti-war views of Lantos' Republican predecessor.

U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) of San Francisco is one of the liberal hawks in the Democrat Party leadership. He was elected to Congress in 1980, and since then, he has supported just about every single major U.S. military action that has been proposed, whether it the president was Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush.

The liberal Congressman pushed hard for the current Iraq war, and he was proud to have delivered so many liberal and Democrat votes, in favor of the Iraq war resolution. Lantos was also a very strong supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War (and all the other wars, including the countless military deployments and interventions in Clinton's atrocious policies).

[Note: That resolution was co-authored by the top U.S. House Democrat, then-Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, who was one of the many Democrats who advocated the war even before President Bush was ready to support it. The same is true for U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), who supported the Iraq war long before many Republicans did. Like with the House International Relations Committee, the Democrat takeover of Congress has led to the hawkish Biden becoming the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while with a Republican majority, U.S. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) was Chairman. The Republican Senator from Indiana is a strong critic of the Iraq war, and I don't think he ever truly supported it, from the start - just like former House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL).]

Yes, the pro-war Congressman from San Franciso has become a convenient critic of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war situation, but that's what liberal and Democrat leaders do - they play politics!

(In this case actually though, other war hawks, such as the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman have been very critical of the way the Bush administration has managed this war.)

For many of the Democrat leaders though, it is not about being anti-war. It is about unprincipled opportunism, and exploiting situations for political gain. Many of these so-called "anti-war" Democrats were advocating military intervention in Iraq (as well as other places) before President Bush was... When President Bush made the decision to go to war, and the public later started turning against it, many of these Democrats changed their positions. (Notice how so many of them became "anti-war" around election time?) A lot of it also has to do with the fact that a Republican (who many of their supporters despise) is in the White House. But many of the policies implemented in Iraq by President Bush (the preemption doctrine, nation building, WMD claims, the troop surge, etc...) were earlier advocated by the Democrats, when it was politicaly opportune for them [that way, they could be opposing the President, which they love to do, especially around election time].

Many of the weblogs on the blogroll here have pointed out the very things that I just said above, as have Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

When we were at the College Republicans national convention this summer, David Horowitz gave a pro-war speech, in which he pointed out these same issues, about the Democrats, and their partisan hypocrisy - considering that many of these policies, towards Iraq, were originally their own ideas!

Now, some of these same "anti-war" Democrats are criticizing President Bush for not being hawkish enought, in places such as Darfur [Congressman Lantos was recently arrested, for protesting outside a Sudanese embassy], and also, for being too soft on Iran.

With the anti-war Republicans heading the foreign policy Committees, in both the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, they kept a resolution punishing Iran (which was co-sponsored by Nancy Pelosi!] was kept bottled up in Committee... This was reportedly done at the behest of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

And at the liberal Huffington Post it was none other than U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) who authored an article advocating tougher action against Iran.

Meanwhile, U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), another top Democrat & pro-war liberal, published an article there attacking President Bush for being too soft on Iran... That hawkish attack piece is also at his official U.S. House website.

The Democrats acted the same way in 2004, attacking President Bush for "inaction" in Haiti.

They show their true liberal internationalist colors, except when it is politically opportune to do otherwise.

This is the type of attitude National Review's Rich Lowry meant, when he discussed "the rise of reactionary liberalism."

I hope that this clarifies the point in my previous post, and provides some additional information and perspectives, about this topic.

(And I am glad that this discussion is civil, unlike much of the rest of the Blogosphere's comment threads!)