A Slimey New Low
A pretty fair assessment of how low the Democrats have sunk and what that portends.
Money quote:
"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse."
Disgraceful.
Money quote:
"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse."
Disgraceful.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:01 AM
13 Comments:
Gil-
Lighten up.
"Betray-Us" rhymed and "Cover-My-Ass" and didn't.
Like I said, disgraceful.
And becoming typically so.
Libs are like angry children. When they get to acting out they point their fingers and scream that their opponent is guilty of what they are. It’s the political equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”
Everyone knows that these radical Lib anti-war groups are the traitors to their country in all this. Simply accusing the other side of this changes not this truth.
Heck, they sound just like Osama when they really get on a roll!
Traitors? That's the best you can do? No wonder you right-wingers on the fringe aren't taken seriously. How's this: guys like you sending young soldiers to their unnecessary deaths are helping the terrorists by saving them a trip. Your fear mongering increases the feelings of terror among Americans, So, by the same half-ass logic you use regularly, you are terrorist.
As for Petraeus, he got dealt a crappy hand and is playing it the best he can. He can't control the political aspects needed for "victory", but without political progress and more Iraqi's "standing up", the surge is not worth the cost in lives. He's not going to contradict the President in any significant way and the plan is clearly to run-out-the-clock until Jan 2009.
Petraeus is probably one of the most honorable generals left (the others quit), but he still follows Bush's orders and is trying to paint the most favorable impression of the surge and his own efforts.
His is not the only assessment of progress and his emphasis on what is important may be biased and skewed.
He has to realize that contradicting Bush would end his career. Maybe he feels the cause is lost but more lives would be saved under his command rather than a Bush loyalist. If true, he can easily rationalize covering-his-ass to protect the troops.
Nice wiggling.
Give it up, Dave. This thread is not about the content or motivations of Petraeus’ report but about the despicable preemptive attack on him by his treasonous fellow Americans.
Yeah, they ran it before they even heard what his report contained. What's that tell us about their level of blind oposition?
They already knew what the report contained. These reports are always leaked before the hearings (people get copies in advance to print up). Besides, Petraeus had already discussed the key conclusions over the past few weeks and the White House was briefed beforehand.
Also, independent organizations (not under direct White House orders), including the GAO and national intelligence estimates, and various experts have evaluated the progress as well.
So, to pretend that the Petraeus report was a surprise is ridiculous.
To pretend that LibDems hadn’t decided months ago that they would oppose it is ridiculous.
Liberals like Chuck Hagel?
But under questioning from Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Crocker conceded that "there is an enormous amount of dysfunctionality in Iraq; that is beyond question."
Hagel, an increasingly outspoken critic of Bush's war policy, underscored a series of Iraqi government failures, including what he described as the loss of four southern provinces to "lawless" Shiite militia elements.
Citing more pessimistic reports by the Government Accountability Office and an independent group of retired military officers, among others, he told Petraeus, "We've got too many disconnects here, general, way too many disconnects."
"Where is this going?" he demanded. "Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?"
So, Randy, is Hagel a traitor now too?
How about that famous "liberal", Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Committee, reflected growing frustration among Republicans about the course of the war.
"At this stage of the conflict, with our military strained by Iraq deployments and our global advantages being diminished by the weight of our burden in Iraq, it is not enough for the administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or report," he said in his opening remarks. "We need to see a strategy for how our troops and other resources in Iraq might be employed to fundamentally change the equation."
Lugar also was critical of the administration for failing to create a forum for regional cooperation in stabilizing Iraq, despite the clear-cut interests of Iraq's neighbors in curtailing the violence.
"Bold and creative regional diplomacy is not just an accompaniment to our efforts in Iraq," he said. "It is a precondition. . . . If we have not made substantial diplomatic progress by the time a post-surge policy is implemented, our options will be severely constrained, and we will be guessing at a viable course in a rapidly evolving environment."
You’re grasping, Davy.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that every LibDem decided months ago that they were going to blindly oppose the report no matter what it said because they hate Bush and want to again use the war for votes this election?
Two leading Republicans question Petraeus and I'm the one grasping? Randal, I notice how you didn't address how these guys aren't traitors (though somehow I was for questioning progress in Iraq for the same reasons).
Busted!
Thanks for playing. Better luck on the next thread.
Huh? Have you been drinking tonight, Dave? I’ve already won this one.
The filthy LibDems were against it even before they were against it. And that’s that.
Rand-A-L
Petraeus had already revealed his opinion before he wrote the report to support it.
Plenty of military experts have been studying the problem for years. We've never had the right number of troops to do the job in the first place, and without real political progress, no amount of troops can fix the problems now.
So, if we are not going to commit another 100,000 to 150,000 troops, we are just over-stressing the troops that are there.
Petraeus probably realizes that more troops would be needed, but he won't ask for them because we don't have them. So he'll use the troops he has nd hope for the best.
Post a Comment
<< Home