The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, September 15, 2007
"Just Who Did the Democrat Voters Elect?"
As leaders of this great nation we should be constantly asking ourselves how our actions help us succeed in this war. The Republican Party has made it clear that our goal is success in Iraq. But Democrats have decided to allow the extreme liberal group, MoveOn.org, to become the megaphone for their party and lower the debate to uncharted depths. MoveOn.org has labeled General Petraeus a liar and a traitor to his country, a betrayer of the public trust.Read the whole thing here.
Republicans have condemned this ad and all that is suggests. Democrats have allowed, and tacitly encouraged, this extreme liberal group to define what their party stands for and they are doing nothing to stop it. That silence you hear from the other side of the aisle is because of one simple fact: because ‘they’ are one in the same -- Moveon.org and the Democrat Party.
"We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Those are the now infamous words spoken by MoveOn.org founder Eli Pariser when speaking about the Democrat Party after the 2004 elections. “We own it.” That message was clear when Senate Democrats objected on the floor of the Senate to a resolution to denounce the despicable ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor. Make no mistake -- MoveOn.org owns the Democrat Party.
“We bought it.” And how did MoveOn.org buy the Democrat Party? Campaign donations, of course. MoveOn.org has routed hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to Democrats and they show no signs of slowing down. Congressman Tom Allen of Maine has accepted over $250,000 in donations through MoveOn.org alone. So it’s not surprising that Tom Allen has been deafeningly silent on this issue. Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Democrats to stand idly by while a respected General is maligned before the country he has committed his life to protecting.
Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left
UPDATED Hillary the Leftist Chameleon
After watching this video, you certainly can't claim that Rudy Giuliani doesn't have a great sense of timing. It is going to be very important to continue to hammer away at the angry MoveOn left, and to remind independents of just how far gone the Democrat party really is. But equally important will be to hammer early and often at Hillary's frequent flip flops and untrustworthiness; when Hillary's mouth is moving, it is a virtual certainty that she is either lying or that there is video somewhere of her taking the opposite position in another venue.
If the public can be made to understand just how often Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth, it is going to make it easier for any of the Republican candidates to beat her next fall.
Don Surber has a lot more regarding MoveOn's monster miscalculation and the continuing questions about the New York Times' "discount".
UPDATE: Mark Steyn comments on the Democrats' nightmare week on the Hugh Hewitt Show (read the entire transcript here; audio is here):
HH: …well, first, let me get your reaction to the MoveOn.org smear on David Petraeus, or as they call him, General betray us. What do you think?
MS: Well, I think they have a…you know, you started with I’ve Got You Under My Skin. I think General Petraeus got under the Democrats’ skin at Congress in Washington this week, and I think they would have liked to be able to have a really fierce out and out go at him. But the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton and the others realized that in fact, you cannot attack and accuse a serving man in uniform of the sort of things that the net roots are accusing him of. I mean basically, for years, every time you make a criticism of a Democrat, as John Kerry did continuously throughout 2004, said how dare you question my patriotism. Well, the fact of the matter is if you say a man is betraying you, betraying you, that explicitly means he is a traitor, and you’re questioning his patriotism. And this was a very foolish strategy for Democrats to get mixed up in.
HH: Now he’s a four star general, recognized as Rudy Giuliani says in an ad tomorrow in the New York Times, if they accept it, as one of the 25 best leaders in America by U.S. News and World Report, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, two Defense Superior Service medals, the Defense Distinguished Service medal, and yet here’s Hillary on Tuesday, the day after the MoveOn.org ad, speaking to the General directly.
HRC: Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts and your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.
MS: (laughing)
HH: How can you read that as other than her calling him a liar?
MS: Well you know, I would love it in these situations if he’s said oh, sorry, when you said the report requires a willing suspension of disbelief, I thought that was your latest quarterly fundraising report, and your mysterious foreign donors. I mean, I would love it if these guys who are hauled up to listen to these blowhard Senators in committee who do this usual thing where they give a 20 minute speech and then there’s a one minute question at the end of it, Obama basically ran out the clock with his kind of posturing, and didn’t have time for a question. I would love it if they were to just be scathing and withering back. But in fact, General Petraeus just answered these idiotic questions very, very calmly. The fact of the matter is the Democrats are the ones with the problem here. They’ve decided, they’ve decided that they’re willing to consider anything except victory. And so when a guy comes along and he’s not interested in kind of talking about enabling an American defeat, then they basically have nowhere to go. Their questions have nowhere to go. Their questions have no point.
Labels: Hillary, Hypocrisy, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left
Friday, September 14, 2007
If MoveOn.org were around in 1944...
via Red State (click to enlarge)
Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left, The Surge
Thursday, September 13, 2007
All the Law that's Fit to Break
Day by Day by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)
Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus
NYT Nabbed in Felony for giving discount to MoveOn.Org
The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Meanwhile, it is good to see that guys like Uncle Jimbo are willing to hit back. And Rudy Giuliani wants the same deal for his ad:
Rudy Giuliani blasted Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org for "smearing General Petraeus" today!Meanwhile Fred Thompson and the RNC had more to say about this outrage:
Rudy is demanding he get the same discount from The New York Times for his ad that will appear tomorrow.
Yes!-- Here's the TERRIFIC AD...
Click to Enlarge
FRED THOMPSON also attacked the Democrats and MoveOn for their campaign against General Petraeus today:(h/t Gateway Pundit).
Fred Thompson fired back on Hillary and democrats for their despicable attacks on General Petraeus:"It’s more and more apparent to me every day that the average 20 year old who is serving us in Iraq knows more about national security than many of the 20 year veterans in Congress."Amen.
And... The GOP came out with an ad today against the democratic attacks on Petraeus:
HotAir has the video.
Rudy did well in this interview, too.
Labels: Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, NY Times, Petreaus
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Orrin Hatch Steps Up
A grownup has stood up in the Senate to denounce the “Betray Us” ad by MoveOn.org. The Democratic Party should be ashamed that it took Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to say what has to be said — and to defend the honor of a man who was unanimously appointed by the Senate.
A taste of what he said:
“Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General, and anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits, knows that these are dangerous and unwarranted allegations. However, there might be a silver lining to this slander. Libel, really, because it was printed The New York Times. Now, all of America understands MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots of our society. These people are nuts and they don’t care who they hurt, they don’t care who they smear they don’t care who they libel. Politics is more important than anything else and power is the most important anything of all.”
Every single one of the 49 Democratic Senators who voted for him but refuses to stand up to the Move On cowards — and Billionaire Wes Boyd who finances this front group — should be ashamed.
Support the troops? Then support the No. 1 Troop — General David Petraeus.
The video is here and here.
UPDATE: Rudy rips Dems for not ripping MoveOn.
Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Honor, Petreaus, The Surge
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Democrat Waterloo
Cartoon by Eric Allie (click to enlarge)
Labels: America War Support, Attack Politics, Cartoons, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Petreaus, The Surge
UPDATED Hitting the Iceberg; the Dems Self-Destruct
The Editors of the Wall Street Journal do not disagree:IN THE SPRING of 1954, the US Senate convened hearings at the instigation of Senator Joseph McCarthy to press his anticommunist investigations into the Department of the Army. The hearings were broadcast live on television, and the American public was able to witness firsthand the tactics McCarthy used to intimidate his foes. At a critical moment in the hearings, a key governmental witness, Army lawyer Joseph Welch, rose to defend one of the junior Army lawyers whose career, Welch alleged, McCarthy had destroyed. Welch turned to McCarthy and memorably intoned: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"It was remarkable political theater and historians credit it with breaking the back of McCarthy's attack on the Army, which in turn broke the back of his anticommunist efforts. In short order, McCarthy's allies abandoned him, he was discredited, and he left the Senate in disgrace.
We may be about to witness a McCarthy-Army-Welch moment in the debate over Iraq. This time, the role of McCarthy is played by MoveOn.org, a liberal political group that launched its own attack on a respected US Army figure. In yesterday's
New York Times , the day that General David Petraeus would give his long-awaited, congressionally mandated report on his military activities in Iraq, MoveOn.org ran a full-page advertisement that accused Petraeus of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without evidence, that Petraeus is not going to give his honest, professional assessment of the situation in Iraq but instead will be "cooking the books" to curry favor with the Bush White House. The heart of the advertisement is a juvenile pun on Petraeus's name: General Betray Us?The MoveOn.org ad is vicious, and would garner comment even if it were merely one more primal scream in the coarse blogosphere debate over Iraq. But it is not an angry e-mail or blog entry. It is a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible so that his military advice could be more easily rejected by antiwar members of Congress.
The attack was part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the Iraq war, and was foreshadowed by an unnamed Democratic senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful special interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.
Precisely because it is so vicious, so public, and so deliberate, the attack on Petraeus cannot be ignored by either side in the Iraq debate. Supporters of the war are duty-bound, like Joseph Welch, to rise and ask of war opponents, "Have you left no sense of decency?" Antiwar members of Congress, like Senator McCarthy's allies, are obliged to answer.
Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.Personally I think this brazen and ill-conceived attempt to manipulate opinion through such destructive yet transparent tactics--using an outright lie in a lame attempt to assassinate the character of an upright, brilliant and patriotic man of integrity, is going to blow up in the Democrats faces. Hell I think most Americans think this guy deserves his own ticker tape parade for the success he has had this year.
Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."
"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse.
MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos.
[...]
Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.
Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.
What MoveOn has accomplished single handedly is outing the Dems they have bought and paid for for who they really are: lackeys of the extreme Left. It is no longer a secret to Mom and Pop Independent voter in places like Peoria the Dem candidates who ran last fall in key middle America districts, posing as apple pie centrists, are instead bought and paid for hook line and sinker by hard left zealot Marxists. All of that "we support the troops" rhetoric they were trumpeting in the last election has now been exposed for the farce that it always was. These voters now know they were lied to, just as they are now learning that victory really is possible in Iraq; but worse, they now know that the people they voted for would rather America lose than win.
Think about that: the candidates Middle America trusted have now demonstrated that--for them--Party trumps country; that even if it means humiliation for America, mistrust from allies and foes alike for decades, and the higher likelihood of more destructive terror attacks on Americans, if it doesn't benefit Democrats, they will stand against it. They have shown that there is nothing more sacred to them than power or party politics. Nothing. They have shown that honor means nothing, and that there is no person, regardless of stature, character, integrity, or truthfullness--who they are not willing to smear with their smear machine; while meanwhile there is no sin or form of corruption which they were not willing to overlook from their own Party. Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word for this. Hateful is closer, but it isn't descriptive enough. There are very few words which have enough depravity to describe these people. And for the first time, people who did not see it are now beginning to--in large numbers. Thank you, MoveOn.
Of course many of us have known these things all along--but suddenly now, the people who trusted these hypocrites with their votes know it too. All because the angry, Bush Derangement Syndrome could not bring itself, as the American Military demonstrates just how unbelievably talented and excellent they are, to put their country above its own blind, single-minded lust for power. Hitler had nothing on these guys.
The Democrats are outed. It was never about putting country first. It is about putting Party above everything else, including the lives of the people voting for them.
You could almost see this coming; from the moment Howard Dean took control of the DNC, you sort of knew that eventually this would work to the detriment of the Democrats--that at some point Dean would allow his "yeeeeeaugh!" hyper-partisan core to override all semblance of common sense and values, and obliterate any notion that Democrats put America or Americans first. Yeah, right...
Somehow you just knew that as DNC chairman, the day had to come when such a decision would pull away the curtain and reveal the lack of soul--the Stalinist mindset--of the people he represents and collects all those big bucks from (are you listening, Mr. Soros?).
Well now it has happened; and strangely enough the nutroots could not have picked a more unadvantageous day to pull the curtain away. The rocket scientist that decided to run this ad on September 10 has got the be the stupidest man or woman alive. The day before September 11??
Or perhaps it was Karl Rove's or the President's greatest move--perhaps even an unintended one; somehow they probably thought that if they scheduled Petraeus' testimony at the same time as the 9/11 anniversary, they Dems would have to go easier on him. Or maybe they knew the Democrats' dark hearts better than even the Dems knew themselves. Either way it was brilliant. And for the Dems to actually choose to go negative and attack a man that everyone in America--except for the loons--knows has great integrity and impeccable credentials (remember, they approved him 81-0; even they knew). The guy at the Globe is right; this really is the Democrats Joseph McCarthy moment. Except much more is at stake now, and the whole country is saturated with the news to a degree not even fathomable in the 50's.
But now the genie is out of the bottle. Finally, they have finally gone too far. In football parlance, the Republicans have a clear path to paydirt here; all they need is to find some folks to carry the ball.
In the meantime, call your Representatives and Senators: if they are Democrats, call them out and tell them what you think of this. Demand that they disown MoveOn and give back every penny they received from them. If they are Republicans, urge them to speak out--to show their outrage. We cannot let this go. We need to take our country back from those who would destroy it. We have seen the darkness in their depraved collectivist hearts. Now, for the first time since the election I think, America knows what it is up against. We can't let them forget that, nor the high stakes of getting it wrong.
It's our ball now.
UPDATE: The Prosecution Rests.
Labels: America War Support, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Nutroots, Petreaus
Monday, September 10, 2007
Key Points from Petreaus (does it GET any clearer than this?)
Glenn Reynolds has more links and comments:As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.
One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.
We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.
Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels.
Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.
Additionally, in what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produce such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.
Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve. ...
LIVEBLOGGING THE PETRAEUS TESTIMONY, with extra snark toward the BBC's coverage. And lots more at The Tank.
Plus, threat of civil war in Iraq has been averted, according to Maliki. Further background, with charts and numbers, here.
And read this, too. Best quote: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'" Nice to know these folks have the courage of their convictions. . . .
UPDATE: Silencing Petraeus! Well, the mike didn't work, which the Limbaughs and Hannitys will have fun with. Plus this observation: "So you think technology is bad in Iraq? The U.S. House of Representatives can't get the commanding general a working mic in Washington, D.C. . . . Completely embarrassing." Video here. And this: "If this were a hearing or speech in Iraq, this would be a mocking example of how badly things are going there, how inept the infrastructure and the people who run it are. But it's not Iraq, it's Ike Skelton's committee."
Plus, trying to pretend it's July.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Full Petraeus transcript and slides, here. Further thoughts here.
And regarding that anonymous Democratic Senator who wants outside groups to do the name-calling, a reader emails:
What I find particularly interesting about the good Senator's position is that the Senate confirmed Petraeus by a vote of 81-0. Not one single Senator voted against putting him in charge of the campaign in Iraq. And the plans to "surge" more troops into the fight had already been announced, so they can't even claim "if we knew then what we know now".
Indeed.
So the bombshell is in. Because the surge has been so successful in meeting its objectives, General Petraeus recommends a drawdown of 25 percent of the combat brigades in Iraq by next summer, and expects to continue drawing down after that.
Since this is what the Democrats have been asking for, they must now shift their position, and insist that the drawdown be deeper and faster. This is the lesson of the Vietnam period. The Nixon administration often announced troop withdrawals in excess of what the Democrats had called for. Weeks later, the Democrats would conclude that the withdrawals were not nearly deep enough, or rapid enough, and press for more.
Notice the pickle that the Democrats are in, however — the difference between this and Vietnam. Petraeus recommends a massive drawdown because in his view we are winning and the surge troops won't be needed for much longer. But the Democrats have no choice but to dispute the premise of this recommendation — absurdly arguing, by implication, the troops are needed, but the cause is hopeless so we should withdraw anyways.
The fact of the matter is that between the desires of their base and the increasingly clear progress in Iraq, the Democrats have an almost impossible communications problem. It is going to interesting to see how they negotiate it.
Yep, they have a problem all right:
I must say that I sympathize with the bind that Democratic leaders are in somewhat. Defeatism is forced upon them by their base. That's why they have no choice but but to insist that Iraq is going disastrously badly, that it was all a mistake, and that we should get out now. Where they have no choice but to acknowledge that progress has been made, they must insist at all costs that President Bush's policies have had nothing to do with it. It is a matter of political reality. Their base will throw them back into the minority if they say anything else. Chuck Schumer's recent talking point — that progress has come in spite of the surge, not because of it — is something he has little choice but to say, no matter how little he believes it.
You can't acknowledge that things are going better in Iraq without implicitly acknowledging that the president was right after all. The electoral center, which gave the Dems their majority, is exceedingly fickle. They elected the president in '04 because they thought we could still in Iraq, then turned around and elected the Dems in '06, because they stopped believing it. If the president was right after all, then they might as well go back to supporting the president. The would be the end of the Democratic majority, and possibly the end of their chances in '08.
The Democrats problem stems from the fact that their base is composed of two groups that fundamentally do not share the same view of American foreign policy or of the war on terror. On the one hand, you have people who once supported the war, and on the other, the people who were always against it. Those two groups agree about only one thing now, which is that the Iraq war has been a disaster and we should get out as soon as possible. Until recently that view was held by a majority of Americans, which is what translated into the democratic majority.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the progress in Iraq is largely undeniable, and the American people are starting to believe it. For the first time in a long time, a majority of Americans believes both that we can win in Iraq and that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. That, of course, is the essence of the Republican platform on Iraq.
Consequently, Democratic-party leaders are faced with Hobson's choice. They must play the pessimist's part – it is the only way to maintain their majority. Anything else is political suicide for them. They are irretrievably invested in defeat. They therefore have to deny that we are making progress, no matter how obvious that progress is — and no matter how relieved they are, deep down inside, as Americans, that we are making it.
Sucks to be them...
Labels: Congress, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Petreaus, The Surge, US Senate
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Chalk up one for Vision and Perserverence
Labels: Petreaus, President Bush, The Surge, War Successes
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Battle of Petraeus Begins UPDATED
Make no mistake: the Battle of Petraeus is one of the biggest battles yet in this war--let's make sure we win it.
UPDATE: So far, so good.
UPDATE: More from The Hill.
Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Petreaus, Surrender Caucus, The Long War, War Successes
Friday, July 20, 2007
Petraeus briefs the Surrender Caucus
Write your Senators and don't let them buckle under to this pessimism, cowardice, and hypocrisy. The Dems can wail and moan all they want, but the fact is that they need 60 votes to even get a bill to the floor, and 66 to override a veto. Don't let them abandon our troops just as they are beginning to turn the tide in our favor.Joe Biden apparently decided to assume his role as 1/535ths Commander in Chief during the briefing. "You're not staying," he barked at the television as the three men on the ground tried to explain the situation. Biden seems to be very selective in his insistence that we "listen to the generals"; he seems to prefer the generals that aren't in command, those who have less information about the actual situation rather than axes to grind.
If it appears rather backwards to have Congress ignore the advice of the military commander on the ground in a war, along with the ambassador and the commander's #2, now we know why the founders made sure that the prosecution of war remained the responsibility of the executive. Congress insisted on benchmarks as their own standard of progress, and the truth is that they did a poor job of selecting them. Confronted with that truth, they have chosen to ignore the men closest to the situation and best able to analyze it in favor of their own flawed presumptions.
If you missed the Petraeus interview with Hugh Hewitt that I linked yesterday, definitely give it a look. Or you can download and listen to the whole thing here.
UPDATE: Speaking of Hugh Hewitt, here is a relevant portion of Hewitt guest host Dean Barnett's interview yesterday with Mark Steyn:
DB: Now Mark, we have some hard news to get into. Yesterday, as you probably know, Hugh had General Petraeus on for about an hour, in a very interesting interview. And yet your good friend, and your former colleague at the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, said that Petraeus’ appearance on this show pretty much announced him as a GOP tool. What are your thoughts on that?
MS: Yes, I think that’s a ridiculous thing to argue. I mean, you go where you think you can make the case and get a fair hearing. And the thing about Hugh is yes, he makes no bones about his particular political predisposition, but he does give people a fair hearing, he’s been tough on Republicans with whom he disagrees, and the idea that somehow this is a show that Hugh should be persona non grata for reasonable and serious people, I think is disgusting. I mean, I don’t quite understand why Andrew Sullivan is joining that crowd of, you know, John Edwards-type ninnies who say oh, no, we can’t go on this, and we can’t go on that. And to put Hugh Hewitt in that category, I think, is ridiculous.
DB: Well, the other thing is that one of the things General Petraeus was saying yesterday is that he wants to do as much media as possible.
MS: Yeah.
DB: And I haven’t heard any left wing media outlet, let’s say Keith Olbermann, or someone of that ilk, say I tried to get Petraeus, but I couldn’t.
MS: No, and in fact, they’re very uninterested in hearing about specific military operations, how they’re going, how well they’re going, what the mood of the troops is, and what the strategic thinking at the Pentagon is, because in effect, they’ve decided their position on Iraq, and it’s impervious to anything that’s happening on the ground. So in that sense, that’s the reason General Petraeus may sit around waiting for invitations from certain shows, and he’s just not going to get them.
DB: Yeah, actually, that’s my thoughts exactly. Now Andrew’s friends at the New Republic have also made some news this week. They published a report from somebody purporting to be a soldier in Iraq, relating tales of the most atrocious behavior of American soldiers, but without any corroboration whatsoever. And what are your thoughts on that, Mark Steyn?
MS: Well, you know, I mean the fact of the matter is that any, in any army, there are people who behave badly. That is a fact. There were terrible atrocities committed in what we now think of as good wars, such as the Second World War. There were terrible atrocities committed in all wars. That is just the nature of war, that people are under huge stress. And in stressful situations, they will sometimes do things that they should not do. The question is when those things are discovered, are they rooted out and punished. And in Abu Ghraib, for example, although people like Andrew Sullivan think it was a big sort of media victory, in fact, the Pentagon was already investigating it, and instituting disciplinary procedures before it ever came out in the media. The fact of the matter is I think Andrew Sullivan and the New Republic reveal their fundamental immaturity on that. If this is a war worth supporting, it isn’t, it suddenly doesn’t change and become not worth supporting because a couple of lunatics do something crazy in some freaky jailhouse in Iraq. You’re demonstrating, when you argue that case, as Andrew Sullivan did, that you’re simply not morally serious. Look, there are strategic objectives in this war. You can agree with them or not agree with them. But Andrew Sullivan’s problem, for example, is that he’s always been a big emotional ninny on the war. A couple of days after September 11th, he was talking about, he was quoting W. H. Auden, the famous poem about September, 1939, and saying that this was the great cause of his generation now, Andrew Sullivan’s generation, and what an awesome privilege it was. That is a ridiculous emotional overinvestment in the moment, and it’s one reason why Andrew Sullivan has been all but useless on strategic clarity since. You simply can’t discuss this thing in those terms. It wasn’t an awesome privilege in September the 13th, and it isn’t a discarded, shabby banner now.
DB: Hey, Mark, if people are taking notes at home, I assume you’d want them to write down the word ninny and underline it three times.
MS: (laughing) Now, now, now, I’m not going…
DB: I mean, just because you…
MS: I’m not going to suggest text enhancements to people. If you want to use the italics key and the bold, that’s up to you. I’m not going to issue instructions on that.
DB: Individual decision, it’s where your opinion counts, that’s what we always say. Now Mark, Mark Steyn, don’t you find it interesting that two months before General Petraeus reports, they’ve apparently already turned on him, and already sought to discredit whatever he might say?
MS: Yes, and I think this is a real danger, in effect, that they’re saying, they’re trying to make it appear as if he is a partisan figure. And he is, in the sense that he supports the mission, and he wouldn’t be directing the mission if he did not support it. But the idea that therefore he’s some kind of political hack, I think is absurd. And I think this is also, again, the Washington perspective on this. You know, this is, if you’re in Iraq, this is a war that you have to fight as you see fit. And to put it in this Beltway perspective, in terms of how, which particular radio show you go on, or TV show, or how it’s going to play here or there, that’s not how he thinks about it. He’s got huge numbers of American servicemen and women under his command out there in Iraq, and the idea that simply because of, that this was is somehow a postmodern war that’s only being fought in the TV and radio studios of America, I think is the sign of just how the left has sort of flown the coop, that in effect, the spin, its own spin has become the reality, and real reality can’t impinge on it.
DB: Now Mark Steyn, what do you think of the narrative that we often see come forward, that the troops are the children, and we must save our children and bring them home. How does that strike you?
MS: Well, I think it’s immensely insulting. For a start, they’re actually a lot more mature than the left wing commentators shrieking about the children. I was behind a car with a bumper sticker the other day, and the bumper sticker said honor the dead, heal the wounded, end the war.
DB: Ugh.
MS: You don’t honor the dead by basically making their death a worthless sacrifice, you don’t heal the wounded by saying this is yet another war that America lost because of the emotional mawkish exhibitionism of a lot of self-indulgent and desiccated twits back on the home front. This is not how soldiers think. They’re not children. They’re grown men, they’re doing a more grown up job than most of the people bleating back at home. And they deserve real support, not this kind of misplaced nursery teacher coddling that looks cute on a bumper sticker, but it utterly meaningless.
Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Petreaus, Surrender Caucus, US Senate
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Outstanding in-depth Interview with Petreaus
Labels: Iraq, Petreaus, War strategy, War Successes
