Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Wednesday, August 08, 2007
General Petraeus On Alan Colmes Show
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:56 AM
General David Petraeus appeared on Alan Colmes' radio program yesterday.

That's a smart move by the general, and Colmes is a fine host, though his site doesn't provide transcripts.

The folks who slandered the general for appearing on my show will now be writing what?

UPDATE: Here's a transcript provided by a reader. I can't vouch for its complete accuracy, but I trust the sender::

ALAN COLMES, FOX NEWS HOST: We welcome the commander of the Multi-National Force, General David Petraeus. General, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE, IRAQ: Good

to be with you, Alan.

COLMES: Appreciate it very much.

You have an interesting pedigree. You have a PhD in international relations from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. How does that inform what you do day to day?

PETRAEUS: Well, it's interesting because I've often thought that helped a great deal, particularly early on because it was one of those, what you call out of the intellectual comfort zone experiences and in many cases that's the kind of endeavor this is, it's out of our intellectual comfort zones, not strictly high-end, major combat operations. It involves a lot of other activities and endeavors and frankly, I guess a lot of other skills at various times.

And I think that that has helped enormously over time. Even some ofthe basic concepts of economics and political philosophy were quite useful early on when we were in Mosul and some of the other places, so it has helped and I've drawn on that on a number of different occasions.

COLMES: Sir, we are heard this hour on Armed Forces Radio ...

PETRAEUS: I'm sorry. I can't hear you right now. Hang on a second.

COLMES: All right.

PETRAEUS: My apology. I'm sitting outside and that helicopter ...

COLMES: What are we hearing in the background? What is - that is obviously a helicopter.

PETRAEUS: That is a helicopter.

COLMES: We are heard on Armed Forces Radio during this hour of our show. I wonder what you might like to say to the men and women listening on Armed Forces Radio to you right now.

PETRAEUS: Well, I would say that - will (ph) remind them that all of America appreciates enormously what they're doing and that they really should be very, very proud of what they're part of.

Tom Brokaw, who, as you know, wrote the book, "The Greatest Generation" about the World War II generation was with us one day and after he saw all that our troopers were engaged in, he turned me to me before leaving and said to me, surely, this is the new greatest generation.

I really agreed with that then and I still do very much. They're great Americans, special in so many ways and we're very fortunate to have them serving in uniform serving our country.

COLMES: General, is the surge working?

PETRAEUS: Well, it is. We are making progress. We have achieved tactical momentum in many areas, especially against al Qaeda in Iraq, and to a lesser degree against the militia (ph) extremists. We're also heartened by the number of Iraqi tribes and local citizens who have rejected al Qaeda. We cannot attribute that to the surge but the surge certainly enabled that to move much more rapidly, we believe, than it otherwise would have.

COLMES: Now you ...

PETRAEUS: Having said that, there are innumerable challenges. And obviously an enormous amount of hard work remains to be done.

COLMES: The surge strategy has been referred to by some as the Petraeus Doctrine and when you and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report to Congress on September 15, it would be unlikely for you to report that your own strategy isn't working, right?

PETRAEUS: Well, I have vowed that I will provide a forthright and comprehensive assessment and I'm not going to pull punches, and I have all along, frankly, reported setbacks as well as successes and we intend

to do that when we go back and it will not be an unblemished report.

The interim benchmark report was not an unblemished report. It's more of a mixed bag.

There has been progress in certain areas. Certainly there has been tactical progress. There has been progress again in this sort of local reconciliation but there has not been comparable progress at the national political level here in Iraq.

COLMES: You've been - you've come under fire in the press in this country for a series of positive reports as far back as 2004 when you actually appeared with Charlie Rose and you talked with reconciliation and progress along those lines. In 2005, when you made a presentation, I believe it was at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, and you showed pictures of Sunnis and Shiites standing together. You talked about huge

progress on November 7, 2005 being made in training Iraqi Combined (ph) troops.

Do you still stand by all of those statements or has time shown in some of those cases the progress to which you were referring was not exactly as great as may have been implied?

PETRAEUS: No, I certainly do. And in fact if you go back and look at those you'll find that generally those reports of progress were also tempered by reports of caution and measured statements.

Some of what we did was undone by a variety of different events that

tragically transpired and I don't think anyone disputes that Mosul was moving along quite well when we were privileged to be up there with the 101st Airborne Division. Unfortunately, six months after we left the governor was assassinated, the political situation went into turmoil and

four months later the police collapsed under the weight of an al Qaeda offensive.

That was a huge setback and there were no bones made about it but it

didn't mean that there had not been progress in the year prior to that.

I think, tragically, the progress that was made in the Iraqi security force arena, and again, I think if you look at what I provided at those times, that there was acknowledgements that it was literally always a term of qualified optimism or what have you and it depended on continued

progress and continued efforts in certain areas but the sectarian violence of 2006 very sadly undid an awful lot of what had been achieved

in previous years and as you know, it spiraled out of control to levels that were really horrific and tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in the latter part of 2006 and into early 2007.

We're still, frankly, dealing with that situation very much and it is a situation that has much more fear, as Ambassador Crocker has described rightly in a number of occasions than certainly we experienced

prior to the last departure from here in September 2005 for me, for example.

COLMES: So when you made those statements in 2004 in 2005, and talked about great progress and some degree of reconciliation, there was

no way to foresee that there would be such sectarian violence in 2006 and early 2007 to kind of blow up some of those statements from earlier?

PETRAEUS: Well, I don't think anyone foresaw the Samarra Mosque, the third holiest Shia shrine being blown up the way that it was, nor the events that followed that over time and unfortunately that happened at a time when you'll recall - there were these moments of optimism, certainly, first of all following liberation, then with the elections, the new government, the transition from CPA to the Allawi government, the famous purple finger moments and I think it's very legitimate to feel some degree of optimism at times like that.

I will tell you that I at this point in this endeavor will not say I

am an optimist or a pessimist, I will say that I am a realist. And I have a very realistic appraisal of the challenges that are here and the enormous difficulties that face this country in our endeavor.

COLMES: Jack Kelly (ph) in the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" reported in August of 2005. He said ever since Army Lieutenant General, at the time, you've been promoted since, David Petraeus took responsibility for

training Iraqi security forces last year, the target date for beginning a major American withdrawal has been June 2006. What happened?

PETRAEUS: Well, what happened was in part the Samarra Mosque bombing, again. And the rise of sectarian violence that resulted in certain of the Iraqi units being actually hijacked by sectarian interests. Very sadly.

Some of the units that were among the most courageous say in the fall, winter of 2004 and into early 2005 really became instruments of sectarian instruments later in Iraq's time and in fact, the minister of interior has replaced all nine of the brigade commanders of the national

police and about 70 percent of the battalion commanders in the last four

to six months so things did take a turn, certainly for the worse and that sectarian violence did do enormous damage to this country.

COLMES: General Petraeus, "The Washington Post" reported on Monday of this week that the Pentagon lost track of about 190,000 AK-47s, assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005. The U.S. Accountability Office says U.S. military officials don't know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons and I quote from the piece that says, "The GAO says weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005 when security training was led by General David H.

Petraeus."

What happened?

PETRAEUS: Well, what happened was we were in a period where, as you'll recall, the Iraqi units of April 2004 had really crumbled when they were ordered into operations during the first Fallujah uprising and

when we came in a started standing up the train and equip mission that came to be known as the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq in the summer of 2004, there was not much in the way of structure.

We did start to receive equipment, both from - ordered by the CPA initially and also by the Iraqi government and it was a tough situation.

August was the time when Muqtada al Sadr took over the mosque in Najaf and again forces had to go into action. By that time we then had some Iraqi forces that were ready to fight but they didn't have equipment and that was the beginning of a number of decisions to help provide equipment top Iraqi forces, sometimes literally under fire. In one case actually flying into Najaf, into a helipad at night, a hot LZ, literally, in Chinook helicopters and actually kicking two battalions worth of equipment off the ramp and getting out of there while we still could.

That type of decision was something that we made at the time because

those forces needed those weapons and that equipment. We weren't going to stay there in the dark and make guys do a serial number inventory and

sign them up and that is what happened. We believe those weapons all certainly were given to Iraqi units. Those units did have advisors, but

they did not have the property book officer, they did not have the property book records that we would associate with normal procedures and

yet they were units that needed to go into the fight, the Iraqi government was under enormous pressure. They made their request known to us and frankly it seemed to us that we needed to get the weapons into

their hands and so that is what we did.

And that's what resulted was an inability to track by serial number some percentage of those weapons that were issued during that time.

As we got into the - as we built slowly that new headquarters, the Multinational Security Transition Command and its subordinate elements, we were able to establish normal property accountability procedures, to get property book officers in to create literally a property book, as it's called, and to support the same with these new Iraqi units as they came online.

But they were, frankly, building them faster, in fact, under pressure because of the Allawi government trying to get a grip on the violence that was rising during the fall of 2004 and staring elections in January 2005 squarely in the face, to do all that they could and again we had to decide whether to hold things out until we could get every single piece in place or again, help them out when they wanted to fight and confront al Qaeda, the insurgents and the other associated movements at that time and we decided to help them out.

COLMES: You say you have a sense of where those 190,000 weapons are

or is there a good chance that some of them fell into the hands of the insurgency and how do you prevent this from happening again?

PETRAEUS: Well, we did in fact take measures, Alan, again, starting

in the spring of that year as we got these warrant officers in, these property book officers and so forth and created first our own logistical

structures commensurate with a task of that magnitude and it was an enormous task.

We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest air craft

while in flight and while being shot at. But we gradually starting putting those procedures into place. Got them really established, I'd say in the summer of 2005 and then built from there and continued gradually to build the Iraqi depot system, their own property accountability systems and all the rest of that, keeping in mind, again,

that this is being done while these units literally were fighting.

They went from the parade field the battlefield in very short order and that was the order of the day and again, over time, those procedures

were put in place and I think the GAO acknowledges that and notes that fact.

COLMES: How many of those weapons do you think would be in the hands of our enemies?

PETRAEUS: I don't know. Again, reestablished accountability for the vast majority of them, certainly, they are on property books. Over time what we now have is a procedure that actually has biometric data associated with every serial number but again, when this started out, this is a very, very tiny organization, initially, as were the logistical structures. And there was no logistical structure of the Iraqi Army.

When we stood up the organization in the summer of 2004, the Ministry of Defense did not exist. Their joint headquarters was literally a handful of officers with cell phones and so forth and so there was an enormous amount of building that had to be done to rebuild the institutions that we would associate with any normal kind of armed forces.

COLMES: Do you anticipate the same level of troops after the fall?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think, Alan, it's very well known and the secretary of defense and others have all been very clear that the surge has always been viewed as something that is temporary and the Army, the Marine Corps cannot maintain the surge levels of forces. That is well known and so the question is really how and when do we begin to drawdown

from that surge and I expect we need a bit more time, certainly, to have

a sense of where we'll be a few months hence but General Odierno, the Multinational Corps Commander and I have been working for some time already to do what we call the battlefield geometry, to figure out as all of the troop rotations take place starting in the fall, because there is a large number of brigade rotations that will be ongoing in the

fall, the winter and into the spring.

Where is it that we thin out? Where do we want to keep what we have

right now and so forth? We obviously want to do this in a way that does

not surrender gains that our soldiers have fought very hard to achieve as you would imagine.

COLMES: You know, Admiral Mike Mullen who is testifying before Congress as he is up for chairman of the Joint Chiefs said no amount of troops, no amount of time will make much of a difference in Iraq. Do you concur with that?

PETRAEUS: I think he said something beyond that. Could repeat that.

COLMES: No amount of troops in no amount of time will make difference in Iraq, and I think he's talking about unless you have reconciliation.

PETRAEUS: I think he said no amount of troops in no amount of time will make a difference if there is not commensurate progress on the political level ...

COLMES: Right. It was reconciliation.

PETRAEUS: To eventually lead to national reconciliation. And I have said the same thing. I have said repeatedly that military action is necessary, very necessary but it is not sufficient and I think he is absolutely right.

Long term national reconciliation, the achievement of what we term sustainable security, is only possibly if the Iraqi national leaders can

resolve some of these really tough issues with which they've been grappling, issues like the reform of the de-Baathification law, the oil revenue sharing law, provincial powers and provincial elections and so forth.

COLMES: What is your relationship like at this moment with Prime Minister Maliki?

PETRAEUS: My relationship with Prime Minister Maliki is quite good. We talk typically several times a day and meet several times a week. Usually, I -- with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, my diplomatic wing man here and a real consummate diplomat and Arabist. This is his third tour in Iraq.

We are absolute partners in this endeavor, and the campaign plan is a joint campaign plan between Multi-National Force Iraq and the U.S Embassy with the British and Australian embassies and others contributing to it as well.

COLMES: You probably are familiar with ...

PETRAEUS: Again, we have a good -- a very good relationship with Prime Minister Maliki, and that's contrary to some reports that were put

out by some political figures in Baghdad ...

COLMES: Right.

PETRAEUS: ...who were trying to throw sand in the gears of that relationship I believe because he courageously and publicly came out against militias that are associated with some of the political parties of these individuals.

COLMES: Well, "Stars and Stripes," as you're familiar -- as you just alluded to, printed an AP story on July 30th, claiming that Maliki wanted you removed from Iraq because of the strategy of arming Sunni militias and quoted you as saying, I'm going to speak up, and I have on occasion, and you said, another couple of occasions, have demonstrated the full range of emotions in your conversations with Maliki.

PETRAEUS: Well, I think it's important in a hugely important endeavor to our country and when you're representing 160,000 great young

men and women as different coalition countries to be very clear at times

with your counter-parts. I can assure you that the full range of emotions is a very rare occasion, and in fact, it -- they haven't been in evidence with him (ph) in some number of months. And it certainly is

not over the issue of the form -- arming of former Sunni insurgents.

In fact, we -- the ambassador and I met with him the other day, and he has just approved what was really a very tough decision for him, and that is to accept some 1700 or so individuals from the Abu Ghraib area, some of which are clearly former members of the Jashaislami (ph), which was an insurgent group, but which is now decided to oppose al Qaeda Iraq, it rejects the Taliban-like ideology of al Qaeda Iraq, and wants to be part of a legitimate government security forces.

And you know, we sat down with the prime minister and we all agreed that reconciliation is done between former enemies, not friends. That's

what makes it so tough. But his office has an organization, the Reconciliation Committee, we have engagement cell (ph) in the Multi-National Force headquarters, it has both diplomats and senior officers in it, and they work together on these types of issues.

But that is what transformed Anbar Province. It was sheiks and tribes who, at best, turned a blind eye to what al Qaeda Iraq was doing before, but then came to some of our commanders and said that they had decided that they were tired of the violence, tired of the demands of this, again, Taliban-like ideology which is really foreign to them in which they had only supported because of their feelings of having been, at least in their perception, dispossessed and really disrespected, if you will, in the wake of liberation.

They came to our commanders, they asked if we would support them if they turned their weapons on al Qaeda, and instead of, in some cases, probably having them turned on us. And I think understandably we applauded, said that we would support them.

And in fact, that has transformed Anbar province from one that was described in an intelligence document last year as lost to one that is now just remarkably different. Peace has broke out in much of Anbar province.

There is certainly still some clearance of al Qaeda needed in the area north of Fallujah in the far eastern part of Anbar province. But I

think it has been literally months since Ramadi, for example, once the capital of the new caliphate under Zarqawi, was -- has even had a mortar

attack.

COLMES: Can the Iraqi security forces and police be trained? I know that when you were promoted to lieutenant general, you were charged

with the task of training the new Iraqi army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command.

How well is that going? Can they be trained? Is it a matter of more numbers? Are you confident that the time will come when they will be able to take over security for their own country?

PETRAEUS: Well, they have actually taken over security in a number of different places, Alan. If you Samawa (ph), Nasiriyah, Najaf, Karbala, we hardly have any forces in those locations at all.

Occasionally they will ask the Special Forces team in the area for some assistance. And we are happy to bring in close air support if needed, if the militias get -- act up or something like that.

There are other areas that have serious al Qaeda threats like Mosul,

by the way, which has come back impressively, and which has army police forces that have now proven quite resilient.

In fact, just a few days ago, it was an Iraqi army element that killed the emir of Mosul, the al Qaeda emir of Mosul. That same day they found and cleared I think it was four car bombs.

Certainly al Qaeda has the ability to continue to conduct car bomb attacks, suicide attacks that are trying reignite sectarian violence.

But our soldiers and Marines and other forces have done enormous damage to them in recent months in particular, and especially since in the past

seven weeks of this surge of offenses that has been possible by the surge of forces.

Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, look, Alan, there is no two ways about it, some of these Iraqi forces went off the rails during the height of the sectarian violence. And some of that started to appear in

the late 2005 period.

And it went through 2006. And in the wake Samarra mosque bombing again, because a major concern, which is way, as I mentioned, the minister of interior has replaced all of the brigade commanders of the national police, the unit most suspected -- actually shown to be -- to have been an instrument of sectarian violence.

And we still have concerns about them. And so you have elements at that level -- or at that end of the spectrum. And then you have others that are very much fighting either in the lead independently or alongside our forces.

And they are losing -- their losses are three times our losses in an

average period. So they are definitely fighting and dying for their country. Again they are uneven in quality, but there are dozens and dozens of very good units out there.

And their high-end units are truly very fine elements. Their commando battalions, their counterterrorist force, their national emergency response unit, their special tactics unit and so forth. These

are truly legitimate high-end forces that rank with the best of the Special Forces in this region.

COLMES: We only have moment left. I want to ask you, when the president says the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th, and that is why what happens in Iraq matters for security here at home, is that a nuanced enough understanding of exactly who the enemy is in Iraq?

Is it truly al Qaeda or is it much broader than that and much more complex than that?

PETRAEUS: Well, the enemy in Iraq is very, very complex. And as I have mentioned, it is not just al Qaeda Iraq. We tend to see al Qaeda as public enemy number one. But it is probably not the enemy in Baghdad

right now even that is conducting the majority of attacks against our soldiers.

That would be these different militia extremist elements that may be

conducting as many as two-thirds or so of the attacks. However, having said that, the attacks that have the most strategic significance, the --

again, the car-bombings, the suicide vest attacks and so forth that cause such significant damage to the psychological fabric of Iraqi society and as well as just sheer physical damage, those are conducted by al Qaeda Iraq.

And they are very clearly linked to the so-called AQSL, the al Qaeda

senior leadership, located in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border tribal areas, without question. I mean, we -- you have seen released on a number of occasions communications between them. And I can assure you that that does go on.

We have been able to damage very seriously the media operations of al Qaeda in Iraq and their communications ability. In fact, we even killed the three al-Turki brothers, who were former -- in Afghanistan area al Qaeda who were sent over to al Qaeda Iraq to help shore up the situation in northern Iraq, which has been under particular pressure in the last several months.

As we have cleared Baquba, taken al Qaeda out in most of Anbar province, pushed them out of neighborhoods in Baghdad and so forth. But

again, there are also still some insurgent groups that are disconnected from al Qaeda. There are other that we call al Qaeda affiliates, if you

will.

And so again, this is a very, very challenging endeavor, and that is

before we even talk about the violent criminals and others who are taking advantage of the absence of the full rule of law in many parts of

Iraq.

COLMES: As you know, there is great political pressure in this country and a great debate that goes on here about whether we should stay or leave or get out or whether this was ever a good idea in the first place.

How does that affect you? And do you see us any time soon doing what it seems like an increasing number of Americans want, which is to bring men and women and wrap this up?

PETRAEUS: Well, as I mentioned, first of all, some are going to come home because, again, the surge is a temporary measure. Again, the duration of our involvement is up to the policy-makers at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and to those who provide advice and consent and resources at the other end.

It is not up to Ambassador Ryan Crocker or myself. Our job is to provide an honest, forthright and comprehensive assessment of the situation, to provide recommendations on the way ahead when those are called for and needed, and we will do some of that in the near future.

And also to provide our assessment of the implications of various courses of action that might be entertained. And that is what we intend

to do when we are back there in September.

COLMES: General, what do you miss most about not being home?

PETRAEUS: My family.

COLMES: Yes.

PETRAEUS: This is my fourth year or longer deployment since 2001.

That includes now over three years in Iraq and on top of a year in Bosnia and a lot of other time away from home. And just like every other soldier over here, you know, I'm not applauding the fact that I'm here, but I know that this is a hugely important mission. I'm proud and

feel very privileged to be soldiering with the great young men and women

who wear the American flag and the coalition flags on their right shoulders.

And I'll tell you that on the Fourth of July we had a particularly special moment when there were 588 of those great young men and women who raised their right hand, and I was able to administer the oath of enlistment to them as they re-enlisted for another tour of duty in America's Armed Forces, despite knowing the sacrifices that would be required of them by signing on for another hitch.

COLMES: How long do you think you'll be there?

PETRAEUS: I don't even think about that.

(LAUGHTER)

COLMES: Well, listen, sir, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. It's a privilege and I wish you great safety and tremendous success in guarding over our interests and our men and women who serve you and serve our country.

PETRAEUS: Well, thanks. It's been a pleasure to be with you, and thanks for what you do as well.

COLMES: Appreciate it, and thanks for standing up to some direct questioning here. Appreciate it very much.

PETRAEUS: You bet. OK, Alan. Bye-bye now.

COLMES: Thanks, General Petraeus. Thanks very much.



View in ascending order View in descending order
Joe writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:06 AM
Petraeus is compromised by this
it is a clear sign he is in the left's pocket. Petraeus must be a liberal! There is no other explanation.
clarityseeker writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:18 AM
C'mon Hugh
You know the answer to your question. The general appeared on your show first. He only agreed to appear on a liberal program to appease the left---that's the long and short of it---there was no genuineness to the general's appearance on Colmes' program.

That is the answer you will receive.
Lerxst writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:24 AM
Rae - try reading
The General appeared on Alan Colmes RADIO show...Hannity not included. Nothing to do with Hannity. Hannity not on that show. Hannity doesn't "run the show" etc etc....
Dottie writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:31 AM
Just a thought
It seems that many on the left truly do not see any kind of left leaning bias. They believe the MSM is objective in all respects. Of course they are going to think Petraeus is a right winger because he is saying things that they do not want to believe, and he is countering their world view.
jtb-in-texas writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:32 AM
Since when do leftists need
to read? They are /passionate/ about the things they believe!

/sarcasm

Seriously (and a bit OT), here is an interesting opinion piece about Duncan Hunter that compare him with other candidates and finds him superior: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1877589/posts

Sure, I know... but read the piece first and then tell us why any of the other MSM-sponsored candidates is better...

Jsmith writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 9:39 AM
Naive Hugh
You think the General (and the administration given permission) would have appeared on the show if the left had not raised a stink about it?

Lets be serious - if the reverse had happened, Hugh would have had a hissy fit and wet his adult pampers too..
cmoore writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 10:06 AM
"....will now be writing what?"
....that Alan Colmes is a sell-out of course. Like you even had to ask.
Dottie writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 10:35 AM
The MSM bows to the right?
Holy Cow, rae!!! How far left are YOU on the political spectrum? If you see the MSM as biased toward the right, I would say outer fringe.
soothsayer writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 10:38 AM
Did Petreus have any comment...
Did Petreus comment on the GAO report this week that 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols issued to Iraqi security forces have "disappeared" since the 2003 invasion - while Petreus was in charge of training those forces? Is arming the insurgency really best the republicans can do to "support the troops"?

What about YET ANOTHER four-star general (Volney Warner this time) pointing out how the Bush administration's incompetence and failed policies make it impossible for the USA to succeed in Iraq?

BD writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 10:43 AM
rae
That's a great parody of a looney-lefty you're doing ..... not quite up to "soda out the nostrils laugh out loud" level, but it's darn good.

Kudos!!!!








P.S.

It was a joke, right?
Tim writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 10:56 AM
Feeding the troll
Evidence that the MSM "bows to the right" is legion as we can see by the following:

The constant boosterism they give to the energy power industries.

The incessant vilification they heap on (for example) Castro, Chavez, Sheehan, Penn.

The unending repetition of the successes the coalition forces have achieved in stomping our collective enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

The endless reminders that our enemies are not just bin Laden, but all branches of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jamatt Islamia, etc., etc., etc., to include every jihadi Islamist the world over.

The boring reiteration of the fact that this conflict is between those who value the premise of the Declaration of Independence and those who value the totalitarian, xenophobic, misogynistic writings of a 7th century conquest-driven barbarian.

The daily rehashing of how the Islamists initiated this latest bloodshed, and how they have also been attacking the US since our very inception.

The ceaseless harping on the progress -- slow, and unsteady, but nonetheless positive -- in the construction from whole cloth of a new civil society in Iraq.

The continual downplaying of the Islamists increasingly rare but spectacular mass murders.

The unwavering support and perspective provided to Israel as opposed to the scorn loaded onto the residents of the still politically unnationalized portions of the old Palestinian Mandate, particularly their late, unlamented, terrorist leader, Arafat.

The blackouts placed on statements of defeat by Reid, Durbin, Murtha, and others versus the uncritical trumpeting of even the most cautious statements of potential success by anyone from the field.

The inevitable deference and kowtowing shown to the office of the President and Vice-President, not to mention the nausea-inducing bowing, scraping, and boot-licking treatments actually given to George Bush and Dick Cheney themselves.

Yep. Good one, rae.
daderdog writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:12 AM
We are evolving to different life forms
Rae is an example of how, it is not that we disagree on what is true, it is how we are living in completely different worlds. Rae and the other Leftists may be absolutely right concerning everything they say. I doubt it. But the fact that she looks at the same world that I do and believes such incredible things suggest that our eyes are tuned to completely different ranges of the spectrum. I wonder what color the sky is in her world.
Matt, Esq. writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:23 AM
Hrm
Holy crap, where did all the trolls come from ? And look, nobody is saying ALL of Fox's programs are non-partisan - nobody is saying Hannity is non-partisan. The "fair and balanced" part comes from the news reporting, which is typically without spin (well, assuming you don't consider spin anything you don't agree with/like).

Apparently Hannity now has the power to control Colmes mind, even when they're not appearing on the same show? If I had that power, I'd make sure people like Rae learned to read and think for themselves rather than parrot ancient talking point.

Good Captain writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:26 AM
Reply to daderdog
Evolve or devolve?
paddy o'furniture writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:45 AM
rae is so...
..out there, even Sooth thinks he's nuts.

BTW, don't worry Sooth, the UN has appointed inspectors to find the missing guns. Should be no problem....if they ever existed in the first place..... :-)

Remember, thanks to Blanco and Nagin watching out for our rights, guns disappear in this country too....!
SonnyJim writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 12:33 PM
So rae,
why do you keep changing names? Are you trying to make yourself into a self-contained majority. Is it the sock puppet gag? Do you really think that we'll beleive there are more of you if you keep re-naming yourself?
paddy o'furniture writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 12:36 PM
rae
You're seeing a whole TEAM of psychiatrists, aren't you...?
SGRivette writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 12:57 PM
remember
Rae thinks either:

A- Jim Webb is a congressman who serves two year terms

B- Jim Webb is a senator who serves two year terms

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/spotlight-looney.jpg

paddy o'furniture writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:02 PM
SG
C- Jimmy Webb who wrote all the hits for Glenn Campbell :-)
soothsayer writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:17 PM
rae seems ok to me
. . . other than some spelling challenges, her/his heart seems to be in the right place. You people have to remember we're not all in lockstep with the Bushbots.

Colmes' Fox News radio show gets its direction from the same place as his Fox News tv show. Of course hannity ain't calling the shots -- he's just a talking head playing a role. Same for colmes, and all the other propagandists that work for murdoch. Its just funny when people believe its all real!



SGRivette writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:41 PM
Anyone who hates Fox and Murdoch...
...must not watch the Simpsons.

Would it not be hypocritical to be anti-Fox News/News Corp/Rupert Murdoch yet watch Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation's FOX TV's popular show The Simpsons?

If you watch The Simpsons, you're only helping Rupert Murdoch increase his personal wealth. And accordingly, Matt Groening(a Democrat)must be getting his directions from the evil Rupert Murdoch.

So, according to some of the posts here, the liberal Matt Groening would be no different than the liberal Alan Colmes, a mere pawn in Rupert Murdoch's plan to take over the world.
SGRivette writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:48 PM
George Lucas is no different
George Lucas, a liberal, must also be no different than Alan Colmes. Not only have the recent Star Wars movies help increase the Lucas empire, but Rupert Murdoch has gotten rich off of the movies. And where does the Star Wars money go????? You got it, Fox News. Who would think that Obi Won Kenobi helped pay Bill O'Reilly's pay check?
soothsayer writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:50 PM
Psssst...
Someone needs to explain to sgrivette the difference between entertainment shows and news programming.

I can't do it because she is afraid of me.
paddy o'furniture writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 1:57 PM
pssssst
There is no difference.....
SGRivette writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 2:21 PM
conglomerate
Well, that's one way to ignore hypocrisy.

I guess the News Corp media conglomerate only counts when it's about things liberals don't like such as Fox News or Regnery Publishing, but when it has to do with movies like Star Wars or shows like the Simpsons, liberals hands are clean. Got it. Liberals only boycott Fox News, but not the Simpsons. Right on.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corp also own a stake in the Colorado Rockies MLB team. I don't see liberals boycotting them.

Uh, oh!!! Murdoch and News Corp also own a majority of The National Geographic Channel. Start the boycotts.

Liberals must not watch NFC football games broadcast by the Fox Network.

Liberals, put down those tostitos and Budweiser for you will be boycotting the upcoming Super Bowl which is being aired by Fox, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Matt, Esq. writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 2:31 PM
Rae

First, I'm just going to ignore all the ad hominems. They're not original or clever. In fact, they make you sound irrational. I mean, who hates an entire cable news network that much ?

Second, I'm confused- you say that the way in which Fox reports the news is biased and you cite Spectre's being tagged as "dem"? This occured on a fox news update or on Hannity or O'Reilly? Again, I'm not debating whether either of those gentleman are partisan- both of them are. But those aren't "the news" those are talk shows, like Oprah or Dr. Phil, just focusing on politics. The news is generally straightforward reporting. Reporting bias is more readily demonstrated by the Dan Rather national guard memo situation- a story was run, despite the lack of fact checking, for the sole purpose of torpedo'ing a presidential campaign. Would you then agree that CBS is left leaning ?

Assuming Fox has the bias you claim it does, why are the viewers morons ? They tune in for a more conservative slant on things. Fox caters to that demographic. Its a smart business decision. Why would I want to suffer through Keith Olberman or Katie Couric when I can watch a news channel that, at the very least, does not treat conservatives with the sheer level of comtempt we are treated on other channels ?

Folks like yourself need to take a hard look at the root cause of the Fox news hatred. Why do you worry so much about it when liberals have so many more media outlets (at least in TV) which cater to your particularl political leanings. Why won't dems go debate on Fox news but republicans will submit themselves to Chris Matthew's absurd questioning (please don't tell me Matthews isn't partisan)? If conservatives have a news outlet, nobody is forcing you to watch it- so why do you hate it so much ?
manfred writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 3:31 PM
Umm...
Does anyone have anything to say about Petraeus's interview?

Colmes seems to ask the basic questions -- so "bias" questions appear out in this case. He doesn't exactly probe, but it looks like it was not a long interview. Petraeus says nothing that will change opinions on either side. Overall, a push, I think.
paddy o'furniture writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 4:39 PM
manfred
That quaint old American expression, "The proof is in the pudding" comes to mind. (I suppose that could be English.... but I digress)

The only thing that matters in the long-run is results. I am sure both the general and Colmes are under no illusions to the contrary.
Noah Zark writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 6:18 PM
Psstt....
Pssst....someone needs to explain to Soothsayer that sgrivette's point was that other liberals are happy to have Fox broadcast their programs, and that Fox / Murdoch don't get involved in their content --- not even their political content. Sooth's job is to counter that point with facts and evidence to the contrary. he won't.

Pssst....someone needs to explain to Soothsayer that commentary/opinion shows such as H & C that are entertaining AS WELL are not just "entertainment". Dismissing, as many liberals do, Rush Limbaugh, for example, as an "just an entertainer" means (to them) that they don't have to address his arguments.

But that "works", because sooth, rae, brob, manfred etc. don't "do" argument. Their strings of unsupported assertions are supposed to speak for themselves.

And, of course, sooth offers no evidence to support his sneering claim that Colmes "only" says what Murdoch (or Ailes) orders him to. Will he tell us that OTOH the liberal "suits" over at CBS (such as Clinton -buddy Rick Kaplan) give Katie free rein?

If toeing the conservative line is necessary to hosting a Fox News program, then what are Greta and Geraldo and card-carrying Democrat Chris Wallace doing there? If Murdoch and Ailes demand conservative orthodoxy, then why are NPR's JUan Williams and Mara Liasson regulars on Wallace's Sunday show and occasionally on Hume's as well? They're not Murdoch employees, are they? THEY WORK FOR NPR.

If Fox is so biased in favor of Bush and republicans, then why does Brit Hume end his nightly news/opinion show each night with snippets from Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Colbert and Stewart, in which they regularly Bash Bush and Cheney with wicked (as in "wicked funny") parody and satire? And why do Hume and his panel bust a gut at the humor? Why do Murdoch and Ailes allow this blasphemy to continue?

Noah Zark writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 6:31 PM
A shout-out to Tim....
Excellent post responding to rae.

manfred writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 7:30 PM
Noah
It is fine to argue that Fox is "fair and balanced" in its news division -- but I imagine no one will deny that Hannity and Colmes is dominated by Hannity (who speaks at nearly a 2:1 ratio); that O'Reilly is to the right; and -- contrary to what you write -- I would say Hume's show is skewed, also. You cite the last joke as evidence of balance: but consider the "Grapevine," which is almost exclusively to the detriment of the left. The former is gentle; the latter seeks to devastate.
More to the point, the "All-Stars" are terribly skewed, as are, so often, all of these "round table" discussions (see, for example, Chris Matthews's sunday show). Here is why: Juan Williams fancies himself a JOURNALIST, as does Mara Liasson (both of whom, by the way, like Colmes, are pretty pathetic). But Kristol, Barnes, and Krauthamer, who almost always appear in at least a pair, are COLUMNISTS. This means that the latter are free to advocate, while the former don't see their roles as advocacy. Similarly, on Matthews's Sunday show, he will often have David Gregory to balance, say, Kathleen Parker. Now, many will whine and say, "Gregory is a lefty" blah blah blah. But he is required to avoid advocacy -- while Parker is a columnist who is not similarly restrained.
If Fox wanted a better balance on the All-Star panel, they would hire some lefty who is the equivalent of Barnes and Kristol, like Katrina vanden Heuvel (I am NOT a fan, but she would at least be free to be as partisan as Barnes and Kristol).
The point is not that there are NO representatives of the moderate left -- it is that they are tokens. By your logic, ALL networks are "fair and balanced," because, for example, CNN employs Lou Dobbs, Glen Beck, Pat Buchanan etc etc etc; MSNBC has Scarborough in a prominent show etc. etc. etc. The Washington Post has Will, Krauthamer etc.
Noah Zark writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 8:33 PM
More strings of assertions.....
Manfred,strings of assertions are NOT arguments!

How about some EVIDENCE?

Saying that Liasson and Williams are JOURNALISTS, proves what? They and the horde of liberal JOURNALISTS such as David Gregory also appear as panelists in "opinion" programs such as "this Week" on ABC. What's the diff?

If on Sunday Williams and Liasson are not free to advocate their opinions, while Kristol can, and newsman Humes cannot, then.....why do all other news commentary and opinion shows, on all the networks, have the same kind of forums -- but mostly with fewer conservatives?

Just who is it, besides you, who thinks such restrictive rules exist, and why would any journalist put himself into that kind of straitjacket?

Saying Jaun/Mara are "pathetic" without saying why is just.... chickenbleep. If so, why they NPR heavies, let alone on Fox. Myself, I don't always agree with them --- especially Williams, who mounts emotional arguments frequently --- but I listen carefully to them, as they are obviously very smart people, plugged into washington as few are.

All you've told us is that Fox's liberal panelists aren't liberal enough -- for YOU!

p.s. by arguing that Fox News is not "unbalanced", I am not here claiming the other news/opinion shows are, or are not.
NeoConScum writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 8:51 PM
Sonny Jim:My Gawd,You're Right About Rae
...He-She-It is morphing under several WINDY monikers. He's "brob" on another thread today...
I'd thought manny was one of his-her-its aliases...But Manny ain't half that looney. Never thought I'd say something 'nice' about manfred,but here goes: YOU'RE NOT RAE.
Liberal Patriot writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:34 PM
Noah Zark
There you go with that "string of assertions, not evidence" argument. In the first place, you get 2000 bytes, so you don't have time to develop "evidence" in these threads. In the second, if the person is motivated enough and ideological enough, he can read the meaning out of anything--evidence or no. Find a little piece of inaccurate minutae here, or some compromising fact about the advocate there, and presto, you have discredited the "evidence."

So enough of that stupid argument. Meet the assertions with assertions of your own. Explain why you are rational. Explain why the other guy is irrational. But leave that "assertions vs. evidence" argument for the forensic sector, not the opinion sector. There are true opinions and there are false opinions, and we human beings possess the means to distinguish one from the other.
Liberal Patriot writes: Wednesday, August, 08, 2007 11:50 PM
Alan Colmes
..is the liberal equivalent of David Brooks. Liberals love David Brooks. He's a reasonable guy. You could field questions from him all day long. I'm quite sure Republicans feel the same way about Colmes.

Again, our Officer Corps is more and more acting like just another interest group in the Republican party. It may elevate the stature of Republicans, but it diminishes them.
Tim writes: Thursday, August, 09, 2007 12:05 AM
Thanks, Noah
Hi, Noah, and thanks for the compliment.

I'm sick of the "MSM is right wing" nonsense some folks trot out, and today the Muse was upon me.

The 2000-character limit kept me from commenting on how the MSM so loves to discuss the well-evidenced beneficial economic effects of the Bush tax cuts, not to mention the robust economic environment the US has managed to maintain despite the attacks of 9/11, Enron, WorldCom, Wilma, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, and our on-going war and reconstruction efforts.

But your comment gives me the opening to do so, so thank you again.

I just wish I had the space available to "develop 'evidence.'"

Alas, it is simply not possible to do so in less than 2000-and-one bytes.
Tim writes: Thursday, August, 09, 2007 12:19 AM
One of these things is not like the ....
I know I'm talking crazy here, but perhaps our Officer Corps really isn't a filthy mess of partisan political hacks.

Perhaps the current goals of the Republican Party simply match up more closely with the current goals of our Officer Corps than the current goals of the Democratic Party do.

Particularly the desire of two of the above to achieve achieve victory in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of defeat and national humiliation.

Liberal Patriot is probably right, though. Undoubtedly, our Officer Corps has no higher ambition than to ensure Republican domination of the US government.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 9 Minutes 46 Seconds Ago
Last updated 11 Minutes 28 Seconds Ago
Last updated 13 Minutes 14 Seconds Ago
Last updated 16 Minutes 42 Seconds Ago
Last updated 24 Minutes 9 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 December 2009
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Time To Clean House, Both R's And D's
 Re: Other Hand-Picked Perks in the Senate Health Care Monstrosity
  By Bitter Klingon
Bob Munck
 Re: Liberals Abandon Obama
  By arch
thieves
 Re: Other Hand-Picked Perks in the Senate Health Care Monstrosity
  By Tom Ketchum
OK, who likes the bill?
 Re: Pro-Lifers Examine Reid's "Compromises"
  By coldfuse
Munck Big shot liberal socialist racist!
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By arch
SkyPete
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Ahenobarbus
Ahenobarbus 11:44 PM
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Bob Munck
Rasmussen, who always polls,
 Re: Liberals Abandon Obama
  By cottoneyed
Jo
 Re: Republican Hardball Tactics Are Not Only Fun To Watch -- They're Working
  By arch
Munck
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By NOTW
doctorfixit
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Sky Pete
I am thinking
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Tea Party
Bob. yap Yap yap yap yip yip!!!
 Re: Democratic Rhetoric Sounding Very Republican
  By arch
This is a disaster...
 Re: Republican Hardball Tactics Are Not Only Fun To Watch -- They're Working
  By Dose of Reality
"Jillian" maybe you haven't heard,
 Re: Liberals Abandon Obama
  By cottoneyed
Rhode Island Voters
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Rosemary
M.K. writes:
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Sky Pete
I'm curious, Bob
 Re: Dem Sen: Opponents of Health Bill Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias, Aryan Groups
  By Ahenobarbus
Peter.
 Re: Democratic Rhetoric Sounding Very Republican
  By arch
Arch
 Re: Republican Hardball Tactics Are Not Only Fun To Watch -- They're Working
  By Jo

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll