Tuesday, July 31, 2007
|
|
Andrew Sullivan's Shame
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:25 PM
|
|
I just checked in after flying across the country, and think these are a few of the most devastating paragraphs I have ever read, posted by Dean earlier today:
Does Andrew think nobody notices? He attacks General Petraeus as a man of no integrity and bluntly accuses him of a willingness to lie, and then asserts "[t]here's been no 'smearing' of General Petraeus, as far as I can see."
There are only three possible explanations: (1)Sullivan does not understand his libel of General Petraeus on July 18 to be offensive, which would reveal Sullivan as an individual of no honor at all; (2)Sullivan forgot he smeared Petraeus; or (3)Sullivan doesn't care what people think of him, provided they think of him. (I fell for it before, but no more.)
For a concise summary of the smears directed at Petraeus, including a citation to Sullivan's, see this.
Even the anti-war fringe must be disgusted with Sullivan, who is with them until he realizes that he's gone a slanderous bridge too far.
|
|
How much longer before lawmakers start working on a real plan?
WP-Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush’s nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the war in Iraq is taking a heavy toll on the U.S. military, warning that American forces are “not unbreakable” and stressing the need to “plan for an eventual drawdown” of troops.
Appearing in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mullen, 60, acknowledged that the increase in U.S. forces cannot continue past April 2008 under the military’s current force structure. He also cautioned that Iraqi political reconciliation is not keeping pace with security improvements.
Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the “breathing space” that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, “no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/troops-at-breaking-point
|
|
|
member moi. Got so driven by need to spank Kimby that I used even...well,way to much. |
|
Everyone: Is it even mathmatically possible for
...say...even one in every 12-million randomly
chosen folks to be even a close second to Kimby's level of...errrr...how to say this...
Cluelessness,idiocy,ignorance,failure-to-get-it,
bone headedness ????...Words bloody fail me,Lads.
BUT,I absolutely guarantee the Olberman can translate for us suffering Kimber Impairment. |
|
"...these are a few of the most devastating paragraphs I have ever read, posted by Dean earlier today"
Agreed. I started to comment on that thread yesterday but decided it wasn't necessary.
Barnett's simple, linked quotes - Sullivan's own words - were quite enough. It suffices to allow Sullivan to speak for himself. Nothing else is really necessary. |
|
Details from the AP
BAGHDAD - Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country’s rival factions, …
…Rafaa al-Issawi, a leading member of the Front, said at a news conference that the bloc’s six Cabinet ministers would submit their resignations later in the day.
Al-Issawi said the decision to pull out from the government followed what he called Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s failure to respond to the Accordance Front. It gave him seven days to meet its demands, and the ultimatum expired Wednesday.
Among the demands: a pardon for security detainees not charged with specific crimes, the disbanding of militias and the participation of all groups represented in the government in dealing with security issues.
READ MORE
http://www.controlcongress.com |
|
Joe -- yet again tossing the "leftist" tag at... Andrew Sullivan? Thomas Friedman? How, pray tell, are either leftists? Both were in favor of the war. Sullivan is libertarian just about across the board. Friedman is one of the biggest promoters of capitalism, of globalization in America. How is that leftist? Get a grip. At least discern between the various groups you hate.
Matt, esq. -- you can't have it both ways -- either Iraq was oppressed or it was unstable when Saddam was in charge. But you say people didn't know if they were going to disappear when they left home -- and that has changed how? You sarcastically imply that Iraqis wouldn't want to go back -- well, just look at what the captain of the footie team said this week -- he wishes the US never invaded. I bet you'd find a sizable portion of the population would say the same thing. Certainly, a large majority wants us to leave. |
|
The left are liars. They do not want success. They want their narrative to be proven right. They know it but won't admit it. I'd say that's got to be hard to live with but its the left we're talking about.
|
|
Is the sheer joy so many of the folks from the left seem to exhibit at the possibility of a report of tragedy in Iraq.
*we invaded their country and destabilized it. We are responsible.*
Clearly, it was alot more stable under Sadaam Hussein. Oh sure, Iraqis were being ruled by a brutal dictator, the country was terrorized by a Sunni minority and at any minute, any of your relatives could disappear for any reason, or, for no reason.
Yes, I bet the Iraqis long for the return of that stability. Too bad we can't put Udey and Kusey in charge. |
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/01/international/i013427D67.DTL&tsp=1
(08-01) 03:32 PDT BAGHDAD, (AP) --
A parked car bomb killed 17 civilians and left a gaping crater in a busy square Wednesday in central Baghdad, police said.
Another 32 people were wounded by the blast, a police officer said on condition of anonymity out of security concerns.
An Associated Press reporter at the scene said the explosion ripped a hole more than 3 feet deep and nearly 5 feet wide in the asphalt. Three minibuses and six cars were damaged by flames and flying debris. Blood pooled in the street.
A gas station and a nearby restaurant, which was closed at the time of the blast, also suffered damage.
The explosives had been planted in a vehicle in al-Hurriyah square in the mostly mixed Karradah neighborhood, and detonated around 10:15 a.m., the police officer said.
Thamir Sami, 33, was carrying clothes from his menswear shop out to his car when the explosion shook the area.
"Women and children were lining up near the gas station to get fuel ... I saw burnt bodies. Other motorists and I helped evacuate the wounded before the ambulances came," he said.
The bombing occurred nearly a week after a cluster of explosions, including one from a massive truck bomb, hit the same neighborhood. Karradah previously had been thought to be one of central Baghdad's safest areas. Last Thursday's blasts killed more than 60 people.
---------------------------------------
Oh yeah, things are rosy all right.
If these attacks were happening in the U.S. would there be considered "progress"?
The average American is not so stupid as you all want to think they are. There is only one reason these car bombs are happening: we invaded their country and destabilized it. We are responsible.
|
|
I am thankful U.S. troops death are down, but if civilian death is up in Iraq how can that be a good sign?
USATODAY(AP) — American military deaths for July rose to 76 on Wednesday with the report of three U.S. soldiers killed by a powerful roadside bomb in Baghad, but the toll was still the lowest in eight months as the U.S. said it was gaining control of former militant strongholds.
By contrast, July was the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year, according to an Associated Press tally.
U.S. military officials, while saying they were heartened by the downturn in American deaths, cautioned it was too early to predict a sustained trend.
“We had said over the summer it’s going to get harder before it gets easier,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman in Baghdad. “We’re hoping that we’re in the easier part, but we still obviously have a long way to go.”
Iraqi deaths rose, with at least 2,024 civilians, government officials and security forces killed in July, about 23% more than the 1,640 who died violently in June, according to AP figures compiled from police reports nationwide. That made July the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year; at least 2,155 Iraqis were killed in May.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/death-up-for-civilians-in-iraq
|
|
Hugh's remarks about the risible Andrew Sullivan has surely brought out the defeatocrats and the tucktails in force.
It makes me all warm and fuzzy to see them so desparate in the face of good news.
______________________________________________
Defeatism Defeated?
Cracks on the homefront.
By Thomas Sowell
If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.
One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.
Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?
The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.
Senator Reid had to preempt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader’s failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.
An optimist might even hope that some of the senators thought it was wrong for the country.
Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focusing only on American casualties — in the name of “honoring the troops” — is now starting to show cracks.
One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless.
But an op-ed piece in the July 30 New York Times by two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution — Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack — now paints a very different picture, based on their actual investigation on the ground in Iraq after the American troop surge under General Petraeus.
It is not a rosy scenario by any means. There are few rosy scenarios in any war. But O’Hanlon and Pollack report some serious progress.
“Today,” they report, “morale is high” among American troops and “civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began.”
In two cities they visited in northern Iraq “American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate” in providing their own security.
“Today,” they say, “in only a few places did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.”
In the last six months, O’Hanlon and Pollack report, “Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists.”
In Ramadi, where American Marines “were fighting for every yard” of territory just a few months ago, “last week we strolled down the streets without body armor.”
Victory is not inevitable, any more than victory was inevitable when American and British troops landed at Normandy in 1945. General Eisenhower even kept in his pocket a written statement taking full responsibility in the event of failure.
But victory is not even defined the same way in Iraq as it was in World War II. American troops do not need to stay in Iraq until the last vestige of terrorism has been wiped out.
The point when it is safe to begin pulling out is the point when the Iraqi military and police forces are strong enough to continue the fight against the terrorists on their own.
That point depends on how much and how long the current progress continues, not on how much the Democrats or their media allies need an American defeat before the 2008 election.
O’Hanlon and Pollack warn that “the situation in Iraq remains grave” but conclude that “there is enough good happening in Iraq that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”
But 2008 may have an entirely different significance for politicians than for these Brookings scholars.
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me that you really believe Olberman or Greenwald are worth anybody's time. You leftnuttia's are really out there.
Yes,indeed, you should go and read Michael Yon's dispatches. You claim to be so much f-ing smarter than the neo-cons, so how about educating yourself with the likes of someone who has no political interests at stake,makes plenty of sacrifices and relies solely on donations to make a living? I am so tired of your BS,kimbat, really. Your triple-L syndrome is only getting worse. Do us all a favor and just try to see it from another view than the slanted leftist lunatics like Olberman, Greenwald. (Oops, did I say that out loud?) |
|
'Anti-war fringe?'
Sorry Mr. Hewitt. I am sure you're a great law professor, and you do a pretty good interview. But math? Not so much. By my count, the majority is against this distraction from bin Laden, and the 'fringe' is now 'Pro-war.'
Peace be with you. |
|
If the surge is such a success...
...why so worried about criticism? Won't they look foolish once Sunni and Shia hug each other and Iraq looks like Poland in about four weeks?
Why so concerned? Won't the defeatocrat lib dirty hippies just look foolish?
I mean, why be so concerned, unless all this "good news out of Iraq" is only a motley collection of scattered, qualified, slanted statistics that only look good compared to the last few months?
Right?
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU |
|
Yes, yes I know... But really the first indication of a fool is someone who looks to the medium and disregards the content.
Me oh my, I finally, after just a little parrying, or to be candid, persevering over resistance to my habit of indifference, I went and read some of his banter.
But I digress: Fore it is a dull tack indeed that tumbles faultingly from precarious heights to attack the medium, messenger, when buoyant thought requires contact with content.
"Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine."
And there is no better sally, but only salacious smears splattered on the ground of vacuous mouthings by either a malicious ingrate, or an indignant fool.
Nough said. |
|
and Friedman and other "leftist" who begged for more troops, more action in Iraq. Go back and read the posts.
Freidman coined the phrase "just enough troops to lose" to describe Rumsfeld's policy.
Hugh just kept providing cover, ignoring all the signs, complaining that there was too much attention on Abu Graib and that John McCain was ruining things with his Gang of 14.
Shame? Look in the mirror.
|
|
If Iraq falls apart, it will not be Andrew Sullivan's fault. It will be President Bush's fault.
I hope that does not happen, but that is the truth. And if a pundit has culability for Iraq's failure, Hugh has more than Andrew does. |
|
"Andrew's right. Patreaus is willing to be interviewed by a partisan hack - without having the good grace of doing the same for Keith Olbermann ..."
Why would anybody agree to be interviewed by an insane ranter like Olbermann?
As a political commentator, he makes a good sports center anchor. |
|
"I don't think even the General's
assessment in September guarantees any future outcome"
My God Scott, I don't either! You want "guarentees"? I would submit there are none.
Also, I'm totally pissed that the Iraqi's are taking a month off while our troops are in arms way protecting and faciliating their hopes for a stable nation. Patience is running thin on both sides of the isle. It's just the alternatives that many care not to have to endure.
|
|
Because support for this war is waning even for the base. Petraeus shored up support where it was easiest to do.
Does that make him bias. No. Judge him by what he is saying.
Petraeus is doing his best and forestalling a complete collaspse in Iraq. I disagree with Andrew Sullivan that we should pull out now, but if things do not start improving fairly soon, we may have to. That is because the situation left by Don Rumsfeld was disasterous. And Hugh and Dean gave Rummy cover. |
|
|
HH and DB seem to have a huge emotional investment and perhaps even thrill in the continuance of the war, at the expense of others' blood. And our supposed apolitical General P happily talks with such partisans. Andrew Sullivan calls him on it and HH (and his dwindling band of armchair warriors) is shocked, shocked! Oh, that November 2008 were next week! |
|
What is DailyKos? Is it a supository or a laxitive? Can I get infected?
Kos and DU NEVER allow dissenting debate. Only moderate liberals dare attempt to put perspective into the conversation on those BDS sites.
Have a nice evening all....and God Bless
|
|
Rovin, thanks for the diagnosis :-) But seriously,
I don't think whether I agree/disagree with Sullivan
really counts for much. The only thing that will
matter are the cold, hard facts, and the truth.
I'm a total self-admitted armchair observer, but
after watching all the events unfold for the last
4 years in Iraq, I don't think even the General's
assessment in September guarantees any future outcome. I think only the Iraqi's can ultimately
decide the final outcome. I think we have made
too many bone-headed decisions and lost our
ability to control events long ago.
I have absolutely NO idea whether Gen Patreaus has
a political agenda, only he does, and that's his
choice. I am guessing Sullivan has his own agenda,
and I'm positive Hewitt has his. After reading and listening to their (pundits) "outrage" after all they say and do, it's almost
laughable. And for you and me to consider either
of them journalists probably would say more about
you and me than them.
|
|
--It's too bad that Scott and Kimberlick have no clue as to what Patreaus will report--
"Nor do you cons. Or do you?"
Of course we do, that's how we do things around here.
You can find the evidence at NRO's symposium on the recent NY Times piece. Michael Yon just talked to General Petreaus. That gives me, and any sensible persons, clues as to what he might say in September.
Do you understand this? Do you have any questions with regards to this point? Could you sit back and think for a couple of minutes about my point instead of thinking about the rebuttal? It's really quite simple.
Regards.
|
|
Rob said:
"I still have yet to have a con explain why Petraeus has not done a similar interview on a non-con talk show . . . nor have i had any con explain what a "meantality" is . . ."
Petraeus doesn't answer to anyone but his superiors. And to the President. I know this is a novel thought for some on the left that ASSumes that there is some agenda to a positive report. Try for a moment to read Michael Yon's reports of what is really happening on the ground. Or Iraq the Model, that shows the up's and downs of daily life in Iraq. There is progress and it's positive proof that Petraeus is succeeding in many ways.
Don't wait for his report to be some "all good feeling" bias that makes it all worth the fight. Give the accessment a just apprasial, instead of pre-judgeing the whole affair.
I miss-spelled mentality (good one), but it's just questioned when I'm confused. Con's can get that way. :-)
|
|
|
How else can the presence of so many trolling liberals here be explained? Of course, if a mob of conservatives tried to post at Kos or DU, they'd be cyber-lynched and banned in a heartbeat. |
|
Fatigue is physical and/or mental exhaustion that can be triggered by stress, medication, overwork, or mental and physical illness or disease.
Scott, while it may have been unfair to associate you with "cheering for the enemy", you either agree with Sullivan or you don't.
Sullivan has become a hack journalist, IMO, and his agenda is well established. He also has mistakenly pronounced that Patreaus will be making a political statement as to the state of the "surge" in Iraq. THIS IF FALSE!
To politicize this assesment would be a travesty to what this nation deserves. Sullivan assumes that Patreaus has an agenda to some political end. This is total BS. And Hugh is probably just as sick of the hegemony as many are.
If you agree with Sullivan, I will look forward to you speedy recovery. |
|
Rovin,
Did you actually READ what I wrote? How did
you connect me to "cheering on the enemy" to my
fatigue of Hugh being so flabbergasted about some
other pundit's comments? |
|
It's too bad that Scott and Kimberlick have no clue as to what Patreaus will report. Or even take the time to access the situation on the ground today in Iraq. The pathetic attempt to smear Hugh (and for that matter, Patreaus) by implying that the General's report will some how be structured by his political affiliation speaks volumes about the meantality here.
Are you people so afraid of success for a nation that yearns for the same liberties we take for granted here? There is substantial change in the scope of the violence over the past few months-------al qeada is getting run out of the country, all because of Patreaus. But by all means, keep up the cheerleading for our enemies.
Some, (like Sullivan) and others are good at it. |
|
I was waiting for some gratuitous jab at a) Andrew's homosexuality or b) his illness! I knew it would be only a brief wait, so, well played Banjo1! Seems rich on this site to make light of someone's serious illness.
I am quite sure, given his background, that Sullivan is about 10 times as smart as you are. |
|
|
I know Hugh thinks that millions listen to Sullivan and his rants. They don't. Most people don't know who Sullivan is. Most people don't know the General in charge in Iraq. It is up to the Right blogs to expand that knowledge and stop being so parochial in thinking the public is dying on every blog's commentary. The Dems sway toward Kos because in their little black hearts, they are Kos. But, so many Right bloggers just want some issues dealt with by the pols we already have or they could replace. They do not hang on every slight on the Right or the Left. Who cares what Sullivan writes? He doesn't have a huge audiance. Cal Thomas has more columns weekly than Sullivan has in a month. There are some op-eds which sway people. But, most of our ignorant public gets its news from the MSM, still, unfortunately. It is up to Hugh and others like him to get his work out to the masses. If one thinks that every jot and bon mot of all these blogs really sways millions, that one is in need of much counseling. The fact is , the political junkies care, some at least. It is still issues on a general national level which get our attention. Getting the General's positions out to the millions is actually more important worrying whether a lefty fruitcake is moving masses toward an anti-war stance. |
|
Save us the over-hyped drama, Hugh.... this blog spends a huge chunk of it's space doing just what
you cry about. Honestly, if you take an
on-duty General, and put him on a political
radio-talk show, what would you expect? But hey,
whatever it takes to get folks re-elected, right?
You got moxie, I'll give you that... |
|
It just encourages him to be even more vile. While I'm somebody who spends a great deal of time reading viewpoints different than my own, I long ago stopped wasting time reading viewpoints that are presented as serious but, really, are just rage-filled banter.
And that's all Sullivan is good for anymore -- which is surprising and disappointing, because at one time he was quite readable...even when I was disagreeing with him.
He's a bright guy and, as soon as his dander goes back down, I'll probably start reading him again. But that may be a while. He's really gotten quite emotional. |
|
|
but he is dead on about you. |
|
|
|