Monday, September 10, 2007
|
|
Debating General Petraeus And His Report
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
4:38 PM
|
Doug Bandow and I debate the report and the general behind it over at The Los Angeles Times.
I believe the repulsive ad by MoveOn.org in the New York Times this morning is a defining moment for the left and all the Democratic senators, representatives and presidential candidates who have accepted MoveOn.org money and support in the past. For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings. The Democrats who fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American are complicit in that slander.
|
|
Why do lefties always attempt to stiffle criticism of their outlandish remarks by saying "it's called free speach (sic)"?
The ability to speak freely does not immune the original speaker from rebuke. |
|
Slander is not covered by "free speech".
Go back to school. |
|
In part:
According to Patreaus' own words six months ago, Bush’s “surge” is not responsible for progress in Anbar. The Sunni sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans “traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy.” Nevertheless, the Bush administration “dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation.”
Last week, CNN correspondent Michael Ware also noted that the Sunni insurgency in Anbar offered to work with U.S. troops — not the Iraqi government — to fight al Qaeda in 2003, but the United States rejected the offer. Only “after four years of bloodshed” was the United States “finally ready to accept those terms.”
more to come....... |
|
An opinion cannot be slander.
Go back to school. |
|
Petreaus, six months ago BEFORE Bush's surge:
"You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhaps six months ago, or certainly before that." [Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, 1/23/07]
Bush then sent 4,000 troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. |
|
|
The Democrat Party has congealed around the Iraq War as its fulcrum. The Communists, Socialists, anarchists, Gays, Peaceniks, Feminists, and Labor unions all realize their interests can only be advanced within the Democrat Party. And for the party to win the Presidency, it must have programs to offer these groups and the money to finance the programs. Therefore, dogging the war as a boondoggle and getting us out quickly before the election will, they hope, look to be a good decision and a feather in their cap, helping their election chances. With reduced spending on the war and tax increases they will legislate following their election, the Democrats will then be able to finance their social programs and steer the country away from Capitalism toward Socialism, thus advancing their party's interests. So what else is new? |
|
Treason always hides behind the rights they are working to destroy.
MoveOn.org = Vile Traitors
Plain and simple. |
|
|
Hugh, your writings have really hit the mark for me. You have led me to do some serious introspection and analysis that have shaken my way of thinking deeply. You have brought me to the point where I am forced to say a few things, but yet the words fail me. Please try to stay with me, because I am afraid my words won't do my heart justice, but here goes ..........HOW ABOUT THEM CLEVELAND BROWNS!!!! |
|
real-estate cheats, too...
But the fact is that General Petraeus is telling the truth.
Is it an inconvenient one for you left-wits? |
|
Watching the Hearing
These slimy pols don't deserve to sit in the same room as General Petreaus.
Brad Sherman - what an idiot!
Some other fool actually brought up an oil development contract!
God help the USA! |
|
|
Move.On and its vermin may have given us Repubs the boost we need right now.Along with General Petraeus' strong showing this week--and,try as they will,the newsies won't be able to successfully smear it--some 'Sets of Um' being shown by a few key members of congress against the sliming and the Facts on the Ground.Thank you,rabid Left,for the energizing we may have needed.Don'tcha just LOVE IT ! |
|
The events of the past 48 hours tell us just how serious they are about home lands security and national defense:
Dems are seen standing with if not hugging Moveon.org, Code Pink, Brian DePalma and Cindy Sheehan,
Republicans have Gen. Petraeus’ testimony to stand by which bodes well for 2008..
Good video images for the 2008 campaign season.
|
|
Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
So sayeth Homer Simpson. |
|
The events of the past 48 hours tell us just how serious Dems are about home lands security and national defense:
Dems are seen standing with if not hugging Moveon.org, Code Pink, Brian DePalma and Cindy Sheehan,
Republicans have Gen. Petraeus’ testimony to stand by which bodes well for 2008..
Good video images for the 2008 campaign season.
|
|
|
that many, many folks who call themselves Democrats DO NOT adhere to this kind of claptrap; quite the reverse. My closest associate who would be a Proud Dem, HATES this crowd for maligning him with their support. Sorry Jacob! Kudos to the MoveOners for their candor and energy. Finally the mainstream Dems and, more importantly, the left-leaning centrists cannot claim ignorance of what worthless morons these Angry Lefters are. They would be well-named traitors if there was enough consistency to hang a hat on. They are merely nutters; these Truthers, Gaia-worshippers, nihilists, Commies and other professional complainers. They reveal themselves as such. Toss them a nickel and walk on. Their hour is past. |
|
I could be mistaken, but think talisman just said: "Petraeus lied and people died."
|
|
Boris writes: " I stand with Moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Sen. Lantos, and Brian DePalma.
You conservative scum can have Gen. Petraeus.
We Conservatives respond: We'take Petraeus. |
|
Boris writes: " I stand with Moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Sen. Lantos, and Brian DePalma.
You conservative scum can have Gen. Petraeus.
We Conservatives respond: We'take Petraeus. |
|
|
If the events that led to the RELATIVE |
|
This fool just compared Patraeus to Westmorland!
There are 58,000 names on the VN Memorial for no good reason because we quit right on the verge of victory! Because Uncle Walter said we'd lost the Tet Offensive fighting when in fact we'd won!
What a MORON! |
|
How can Anbar be an example of the success of the surge if the events that led to the relative stability in Anbar preceeded the surge by months?
|
|
"the positive development" that Patraeus speaks of was precisely the reason part of the surge was targeted to Anbar - of course we exploited the opening - that's what military planning is all about! The General would forever have been criticized if he had not taken advantage of this change of heart among the Sunnis. Duh!
At the time of his testimony, the surge had already been drawn up and wargamed and warning orders given. It takes months to do this type of planning - are you trying to imply that Anbar was already secure and in two weeks Bush and the Generals cooked up this surge thing to take the credit for it? You must be joking - have you ever try to plan anything larger than a wedding? I would not be surprised to find out the surge had been on the books since last fall.
There is no doublespeak - success in Anbar would have been much more difficult without the Sheiks' support - and the Sheiks alone would not have driven out AQI. Credit should be given to both our brave fighting men and women and the people of Iraq. Patraeus does just that - "the most significant development in the past six months likely has been the emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists.."
What doublespeak are you referring to? His comments in January are consistent with his prepared remarks today.
We are winning - get over it and Moveon |
|
It's true not all Dems think and agree with Moveon.org. Problem is, unless they clean their own house, the moveon.org people own the Dems. These die-hard Dems continue to vote Democrat b/c "I'm not a Republican..." yet their own party elites have turned on what used to be a decent political party. And they think the Iraqis have problems?
We have pro-life Dems in our state who get elected - guess which committee they land on? Agriculture - like their pro-life views will see the light of day - no way. Same nationally.
These so-called moderate Dems are no different than so-called moderate Muslims - they don't agree with their thuggish/elitist leaders but haven't the courage to stand up to them. BY default, the bullies win. I don't care if Dems are not moveon-org - the moveon people own the Dem party now, hook, line and sinker. |
|
|
Some serious scrutiny was given to George Soros, the bankroll behind Moveon.org? He made his vast wealth not by creating anything worthwhile, but by currency trading. A deracinated Jew from Eastern Europe, he has an idea of the role this country should play in the world, but I don't think it's one anyone not on the hard left would like. Let's see -- I know! -- why doesn't the New York Times take a hard look at this sinister character? |
|
|
big difference between a change of heart by the tribes and success in Anbar - Talisman incorrectly reads Patraeus comments from January as the fact that Anbar had turned - it was a positive development that led to the success of the surge - but AQI was still potent prior to the surge - "they want to support and be affiliated with and supported bu the U.S. Marines..." - the battle had not been won at the time, but the stage was set for victory |
|
|
It's quite simple actually. The military recognized the positive signs in Anbar and developed a strategy to compliment them and maximize the benefits for us and the Iraqis. There's a big, fancy military word for this approach to war strategy: adapting. |
|
Gosh, with pronouncements like this, why even debate? What's the point of a congress to begin with? Wouldn't a truly unitary executive be best?
I mean, since all of the general's data is classified and thus closed to scrutiny, we should clearly believe that over independent transparent data! And the PowerPoints are pretty! If you don't agree you're a traitor!
If this is the best the war's supporters can say, then there's no intellectual debate left.
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU |
|
...Red Menace sound as if they're going to burst....!
One can't help but be amused..., but what do you expect? They know that a victory in Iraq, or even progress in Iraq, would deal a disastrous blow to their delusions of a Socialist USA. |
|
They are trying to question the facts and data that his charts are based on, non of which is classified you can find them all over the web right now. I just laugh when so called intelligent Congressmen ask about if they actually count shots to the front of the head not the back. That's what we've gotten to no one believes anything but they believe everything.
Where the heck is that disrespectful a**hole Wextner from in Fla? What a dips***, using a bunch of liberal emotional arguements nothing based on facts to challenge him just accuse him of lying.
He and Lantos are such dopes all this slugs are using this for election videos for '08.
The Democrats don't want an end to this war, it gives them their "wedge" issue in '08 so they can keep everyone from focusing on their real agenda's. They want to be able to say we in Congress tried to stop him but we couldn't so elect us and we will stop it, no veto then folks.
But then be prepared for the rest of the package... |
|
|
Does anyone have link to the Moveon.org Gen Petraeus ad in the NY Times? The tofu eating Benedict Arnolds took the ad down from their site. |
|
A "Packaged Ideology" is one in which you must accept the totality of positions.
Namely, to be a Democrat you must be for gay marriage, against the war in Iraq, for global warming, etc.
The rejection of any of the goals of the movement makes you into a bad person who needs to be re-educated or, destroyed.
The name is: Totalitarianism.
The institutional regulation of individual ethical believes and behavior and the restriction on free discussion and criticism.
Socialist are not people that simply disagree but people that are determined to curtail your freedom by any means necessary. Ask Janet Reno.
The sin of the Republicans is they continue to simply agree to disagree with people that instead must be defeated. Republicans live in the 18th century like if we never have known of Stalin, Mao, Hitler or, Mussolinni.
The goal of the Democrats is the establishment of a Mussolinean single mass party were the elites would have total monopoly over the culture, the ideas and the mass media in concert with the international corporations and a populace which is completely dependent on the state; from transportation, to health care, to employment and housing.
|
|
There is only one name for Political Correcteness, Multiculturalism and Packaged Ideologies.
A "Packaged Ideology" is one in which you must accept the totality of positions.
Namely, to be a Democrat you must be for gay marriage, against the war in Iraq, for global warming, etc.
The rejection of any of the goals of the movement makes you into a bad person who needs to be re-educated or, destroyed.
The name is: Totalitarianism.
The institutional regulation of individual ethical believes and behavior and the restriction on free discussion and criticism.
Socialist are not people that simply disagree but people that are determined to curtail your freedom by any means necessary. Ask Janet Reno.
The sin of the Republicans is they continue to simply agree to disagree with people that instead must be defeated. Republicans live in the 18th century like if we never have known of Stalin, Mao, Hitler or, Mussolinni.
The goal of the Democrats is the establishment of a Mussolinean single mass party were the elites would have total monopoly over the culture, the ideas and the mass media in concert with the international corporations and a populace which is completely dependent on the state; from transportation, to health care, to employment and housing.
|
|
megapotamus writes:
'One should remember that many, many folks who call themselves Democrats DO NOT adhere to this kind of claptrap; quite the reverse. My closest associate who would be a Proud Dem, HATES this crowd for maligning him with their support.'
I feel for your friends, but they may wish to reconsider their party affiliation:
When MoveOn says jump, Reid and Pelosi say 'How high?'
Regarding the Democratic Party, MoveOn says,
“Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
You take their money, you support their views.
|
|
I just watched the Business-School Presentation by Petraeus -- charts, graphs, statistics -- and then the fantasy by Crocker in his first or second sentence, about believing in the possibility of a "free, stable, democratic Iraq" at peace with itself and "its neighbors," and then decided to check into JW and found Robert Spencer's sober prescription for a dose of reality.
Here, in the same spirit, is what one would like to see asked of General Petraeus, but that, alas, he will not be asked, and so will have no need to answer:
Q. General Petraeus, the population of Iraq is, with the current flight of the Christians, now about 98% Muslim, isn't that correct?
A.: I'd have to check my figures, but that sounds about right.
Q.: So it might be helpful to find out what Islam is all about, isn't that right?
A.: Yes sir.
Q.: General Petraeus, isn't it true that Muslims are deeply attached to their faith, and that that faith offers them a complete regulation of their lives, tells them what to do, what they must not do, and how they must regard art, science, democracy, everything?
A.: I'm not sure about that, but I'll take your word for it.
Q.: General, have you read the Qur'an?
A.: Well, not entirely sir, no. Parts of it, yes.
Q.: Do you remember which parts, exactly?
A.: No, sir. I'd have to get back to you on that.
Q.: General, I wonder if you could tell us if you have read any of the Hadith?
|
|
A.: Sorry -- could you repeat that question?
Q.: Yes. I'm wondering if you could tell us if you have read any of the Hadith?
A.: No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't, but I'll be happy to do so, or possibly one of my aides, the very talented colonels who work with me, have done so and could fill me in.
Q.: No, General, I think you really should read these -- a few hundred would do, and don't worry, they are not something you need to memorize, you merely need to get the flavor -- yourself.
A.: Fine. I'll be happy to do so while I am in Washington.
Q.: General, do you know much about Muhammad?
A.: I know that he is considered to be the prophet of Islam, sir. For Muslims he is like Jesus.
Q.: Is he? Is he like Jesus, General?
A.: I couldn't really comment on that without knowing a bit more, sir.
Q.: Did you know, General Petraeus, that for Muslims he is the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil?
A.: No, I didn't know that. But I'll have my staff look into it.
Q.: Would it surprise you to learn that Muhammad, the model of the Perfect Man, is a very different figure from Jesus, General?
A.: Well, I'm not one of those people who thinks that all religions are exactly the same. I understand there are differences. But still, I think that there are far more similarities between religions, between Islam and Christianity, because it stands to reason that the kind of consolation and explanation people seek, all over the world, would be more or less the same.
Q.: Are you quite sure of that, General?
A.: No, I'm not. And I will talk to my staff, and i'll be sure to get back to you on this.
Q.: General, that's all for now. There will be more questions just as soon as we remove those people, screaming their heads off, and so un-pretty in pink, from the back of the room.
Taken from Hugh Fitzgerald's essay at http://www.jihadwatch.org |
|
I am a liberal democrat, a member of Move on but I think for myself. I found Petraeus presentation well stated and am very pleased to see at last we have a leader in Iraq that is bringing about positive results. But the issues in my mind is that we have buried ourselves with debt for this war and we have exhausted troops. So it really leaves us without the resources to continue the surge even if we all agree that it should continue.
I also worry that the chaos in the Middle East is beyond our capability to do much about it. Whether we stay or leave I fear that the chaos is going to happen no matter what we do. So I have to ask myself are the lives of those brave military personnel worth the sacrifice when there is not solution.
i hope we can rise above the name calling and hooting to consider the really desperate situation that Patraeus and us as a nation has to face.
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between what Petraeus recommends and what Hillary and Obama is saying?
Both sides are trying to score political points instead of dealing with the reality in Iraq. The truth is a surge or withdrawal is a tactic not a plan.
The real issue is Iraq is torn apart by sectarian tribal violence that traces back to 700AD. The concept of forming a strong federal government in the near future in Iraq, that is like the west is not achievable.
The other solution of local control in Iraq is merely a containment strategy that requires the U.S. to get off Muddle East oil ASAP.
It does look like the new strategy is to build up strong local control while the military fades out of fighting in Iraq. And I find it strange that Hillary, Obama and Biden are against this idea since they claim they support the concept.
The only real debate is do we have a long term military presence in Iraq. Yet all the front runners from both parties seemed to support the idea of our military being in the Middle East long term. It seems both parties want our military to protect our oil interest in the Middle East and not focus on getting off their oil. This is the part I disagree with!
READ MORE
http://www.controlcongres.com
|
|
trojan140:
"Does anyone have link to the Moveon.org Gen Petraeus ad in the NY Times? The tofu eating Benedict Arnolds took the ad down from their site."
I went to http://www.moveon.org and clcked on the link. right at the top of the page, that said "See the Ad and Substantiation". It took me to:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
The NTY Ad itself is there as a clickable .pdf.
I don't see how anybody, least of all a bunch of people who have ready-made insulting nicknames for just about every Democratic Senator and a good chunk of the House Democrats on the tips of their tongues at all times, can call that ad "repulsive" or "slanderous".
I caught alot of Hugh's starry-eyed praise of the general last night, and alot but not all of his actual testimony. Did he say anything about the relationship between areas where violence has decreased in Baghdad and areas where ethnic cleansing has been largely completed?
|
|
To Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, et al.:
Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.
Do ye suppose that, because so many of your brethren have been killed it is because of their wickedness? I say unto you, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain; for I say unto you, there are many who have fallen by the sword; and behold it is to your condemnation; For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.
And now behold, I say unto you, I fear exceedingly that the judgments of God will come upon this people, because of their exceeding slothfulness, yea, even the slothfulness of our government, and their exceedingly great neglect towards their brethren, yea, towards those who have been slain. For were it not for the wickedness which first commenced at our head, we could have withstood our enemies that they could have gained no power over us. |
|
didn't bother to answer Hugh's point about moveon.org's ad.
Instead, he changed topics IMMEDIATELY.
A typical liberal tactic; when you are caught dead to rights, change the subject.
What a pos.
Let me amend that: that pos is just part of a pile. |
|
|
|