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
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Gen. Petraeus' Pivotal Report
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Petraeus' report is a creature of this instantaneous and pervasive media. For better or worse, he is responding to the condition and using the condition.

War doesn't operate on media time or political calendars. Petraeus' report will address that fact. The Baghdad clock and the Washington clock run at different speeds. The Baghdad Clock is ponderously slow and painfully incremental. Why? Because what the Iraqi government does and does not do must be politically digestible in a nation where democratic politics is a brand new experience.

Washington's clock -- at least the one run by the likes of Sens. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton -- is set to the 2008 election.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disdains their myopia. At a news conference earlier this week, Maliki said: "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses."

Petraeus will give all politicians an opportunity to come to their senses.

Style always counts. I am certain he will be honest, disciplined, sobering and judicious in his presentation.

As for substance, I'll wager he will ask for the antithesis of the instant: patience.

Instant experts will demand numbers, and odds are Petraeus will have mathematics and graphs. He may address semi-quantifiable factors like the number of trained and equipped Iraqi troops, the number of qualified Iraqi senior and mid-level military officers who can plan and lead their own operations, and the number and locale of police precincts judged competent and minimally corrupt.

But the gist of his message will be what military veterans call GUTINT -- gut intelligence. GUTINT says sticking with the effort in Iraq is crucial if we want a more peaceful and prosperous 21st century, for Iraqis, Americans and every one else on the planet.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
jerabaub
I have discussed issues with you on TH before. We have even agreed on some things. For what it is worth I believe you are reasonable and fair-minded. Obviously we disagree on some other things.

In your first post you used the term "reason", singular. From that I inferred that you were claiming WMD was the only motive offered by Bush for deposing Saddam. One other reason I made this inference is that there are many anti-war posters who claim outright that WMD was THE reason. Often I have probed such posters and become convinced that they make this claim because WMD is the issue where they feel Bush is most vulnerable to attack.

I have maintained a vigilant effort to try to reset the issue back to what was actually said prior to March of 2003. I too get caught up defending my side of the argument. An anti-war poster caught me last week with some info I truly believed but had either heard it wrong or it was reported wrong by my source.

I have corrected that part of my argument. I think we all get too concerned at times with winning the argument and the truth either gets muddled or lost in the process.

I hope you will review the things I've said and if you find they are true keep them in mind the next time you speak up in support of someone who has, like I was, been given incorrect information.

It is hard enough for our nation to pull together when we all have the same, truthful facts. Misinformation (on both sides) makes it impossible.

sjpatejak
Anne Coulter is a "polemicist". A person who writes political OPINION.

She is NOT an officer in the US Military who took an oath ON HIS PERSONAL HONOR to defend the country and was still on the payroll of the US Naval Reserve. Coulter writes her OPINIONS in the free media per her protected rights under the First Amendment. She was NOT testifying under oath before the US Senate about things she claimed to have personally witnessed, as Kerry did.

On her worst day Coulter has more legitimate reason and/or evidence for the 'charges' she makes against Bill Clinton than Kerry ever had for the outrageous accusations he made against his own 'band of brothers'. And Coulter, even if she was lying, would have enough intelligence to express her lie in her own original words instead of repeating communist propaganda verbatim.

Finally, the lowest buck private that peeled potatoes in 'Nam is worth twenty Bill Clintons.

Today we are certain that Kerry's words were false. Do you know for certain that Clinton didn't rape Juanita Broaderick? Do you know he didn't condone the untimely death of any of the 47 people on the infamous list?

I think Clinton DID rape Broaderick. I doubt that he ordered or condoned murder (and we both know he doesn't have the balls to do it himself), but this charge has not been debunked nearly as thoroughly as Kerry's testimony under oath has been.

Why do we get a strawman accusation from you instead of a defense of Kerry?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
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.