previous post next post  

Well, if this is how the Democrat Party leadership feels...

By The Armorer on September 6, 2007 | | Comments (20)

...why bother wasting everybody's time? General Petraeus has better things to do than be Star Chambered, methinks. But, then we couldn't posture and pose and slap him around, could we.

From the Washington Times this morning (admittedly a paper that is no fan of the current Congressional Leadership, so allow for some hyperbole).

Dems already dismissing Iraq war report
By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007

Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Heh. So, the next time the Dems hold the White House, of course, somehow, the Generals will all be truthspeakers rather than the lying mouthpieces they are now? Overnight?

I despair for this Congress. The leadership seemingly lives in a state of continual cognitive dissonance.

From what I've seen in the news and elsewhere the report is likely going to say something along the lines of: "The surge is having measureable positive impact, though certainly not all that we'd hoped for. BTW, we can probably start returning some troops and drawing things down, accelerating that as the Iraqis take more of the load themselves."

I should note - I've not seen the report, this is just gleaning from the news and email.

Of course, when Robert Novak vents his spleen, he charactizes it thusly:

The most politically significant element of President George W. Bush's surprise visit to Iraq was his seemingly offhand comment that there might be troop withdrawals in the offing. That brings out in the open what had been implicit anyway: that the debate over Iraq is no longer whether there should be troop withdrawals, only how rapid they should be.

The President is neatly boxed with verbiage that does spin any reduction as a victory for the "Run Away" crowd, vice, just possibly, rational policy.

I am sick of the never-ending election and the lunacy it brings out in the political class. Just sick of it.

Message to the next President (who will most likely be a Democrat, sadly) - if this is how your party truly views the Generals, how can you do anything other than fire them all? Import some Brit, German, French and Canadian Generals to run things while you clean house.

Message for Congresswoman Boyda, this is how my email runs today:

Should we have expected something else? I hope Nancy underestands that this won't peddle here.

Hopefully, she'll listen and then judge, unlike the people who supposedly set the example.

Share This Article:

Categories:

20 Comments

By Instapilot on September 6, 2007 12:26 PM
John, There's a difference between cognitive dissonance and cognitive absence. I think our problem is the latter...
 
By fdcol63 on September 6, 2007 12:59 PM
" ... Import some Brit, German, French and Canadian Generals to run things while you clean house. ..." This IS their agenda ... to cede American sovereignty and military authority to the UN. John Kerry, interview with the Harvard Crimson, 1970: " ... I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. ... "
   
By Rita on September 6, 2007 2:16 PM
The Democratic leadership, what a bunch of idiots. I cannot wait for the next election, I am voting for Bugs Bunny. Oh, and thank you Democrats for taking another big chunk of change from my paycheck to pay for some "social" program that has not worked in 40 years. Oh, and DICK Durbin, well the name says it all.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on September 6, 2007 2:44 PM
Actually, they'd probably have to sack almost the entire officer corps, since almost every officer I know thinks we can win in Iraq and that we should keep pushing.
 
By markg8 on September 6, 2007 3:08 PM
John, They're calling it the Bush report because: A. there's no better way to discredit anything these these days than by tieing it to the chronic liars in the White House. B. The WH announced last month they'd in fact be writing the report, not Petraeus. You must have missed it. The Bush WH has politicized every other agency of government, it's no surprise then that Petraeus himself has been distorting facts and outright lying in appearances in rightwing media outlets trying to sell the surge. His past work training the Iraqi military has been a disaster. The proof is in the pudding, the Iraqi military is incompetent, corrupt, and riven with sectarianism. One of his top aides in that effort, Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph is being investigated for billions of dollars worth of missing weapons. There are any number of reports, (GAO, Jones, NIE, etc.) that refute with facts the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, sectarian killings are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is little to no security, potable water, electricity, or working sewers in most parts of the country. There is a cholera outbreak north of Baghdad. We're arming Sunni insurgents in Anbar. Sure they'll use them against AQ wannabes but you can be sure they'll eventually use them against the Shiites, Kurds and our guys. They've said as much. You don't end a civil war by arming everybody to the teeth. None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met. We never had enough troops to pacify Iraq. The few more brigades we sent were sent because it was all we had to send. This is no plan for success, it's just another attempt to put off the inevitable. And in the long run arming everyone will make the violence much worse.
 
By jim b on September 6, 2007 3:30 PM
They are all bound by a fax sheet on what to say and .... a common Chinese thread. It stretches all the way to our governor.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 4:08 PM
Geez, HL, I was trying to keep the Night of the Long Knives in scope...
 
By bad cat robot on September 6, 2007 4:10 PM
markg8, you are a busy little beaver, aren't you? I keep finding the same post over and over, at any site committing the sin of defending Gen. Petraeus. I just wanna know why the MSM referred to it as "The Petraeus Report" right up until they started to suspect it was not 100% gloom and doom .... it's always had the same requirements. Congress specified them. Why are they surprised now?
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 4:21 PM
And Mark misses my broader point - which was if the Dem leadership thought the report was going to be bogus, they should have kept their yaps shut, done the homework, and then asked General Petraeus the hard questions at the hearing. Or, in a burst of real honesty, just said, "Never mind, we're not going to believe you, let's not waste our collective time on this report." Rather than what is, to me, a dismayingly childish run up. And that leaves aside any and all question about what anyone thinks about how the White House and all the lying military guys are saying. Though, I know a lot of lying military guys, actually. And I don't think they're lying. Putting the most positive spin they can, certainly - in some respects they have little choice, given the climate. As for the "casualties are up" mantra - believe me, I know. Each and every fatality drops into my email. No one promised that casualties would drop during the execution of the surge, did they? Did you know, that if, on any given stretch of highway, more cars are driven on it there is an increase in the numbers of accidents and moving violations... until enforcement pressure and structural and procedural changes put downward pressure on things? Kinda like there was this sudden huge spike in casualties in the ETO on June 6, 1944, and those casualities continued to climb, with peaks and valleys, all through the rest of the year and into early 1945? Then, they started dropping until they trickled to a crawl, with most of them being mostly entropy-related vice kinetically induced by outside parties. My irritation is with the entire political class, Mark - but for this post, on this subject, the Dems are leading the way in a petulant fashion. I'd rather they lead as adults. But that's seemingly too much to ask for from the political class these days.
 
By markg8 on September 6, 2007 6:25 PM
markg8, you are a busy little beaver, aren't you? I keep finding the same post over and over, at any site committing the sin of defending Gen. Petraeus.
Don't you mean any site whining about the Mooney Times article and how he's being exposed as the shill he is? Through the magic of memeorandum I can find all you guys.
I just wanna know why the MSM referred to it as "The Petraeus Report" right up until they started to suspect it was not 100% gloom and doom
Me too. We on the left have been complaining about that for weeks. John,
if the Dem leadership thought the report was going to be bogus, they should have kept their yaps shut,
We've seen this PR offensive before. You keep your yaps shut and you get bulldozed. There is ample and mounting evidence lately that Petraeus and his men in the Green Zone are trying to cook the books along with the WH.
No one promised that casualties would drop during the execution of the surge, did they?
You're right. That hasn't stopped them from trying to claim (falsely) it lately though. Look hardly any casualties in Anbar! Hardly any in Bagdhad! But a lot more in Diyala. Whackamole works as whackamole. To use your analogy there were hardly on Guadalcanal in 1944 either.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 7:14 PM
And... Guadalcanal was done on a shoestring and took months longer than they thought it would, and only went our way when we could bring a preponderance of power to bear over what the Japanese could bring in... and that it took longer because we couldn't stop the Japanese from sneaking stuff in... i.e., the local Japanese forces were supplied from outside - and we choked them off because we could bring power to bear on them. And that all took place on a virtually uninhabited island, where we didn't have to try to tread lightly on the local populace, because they pretty much weren't in the line of fire. And we weren't able to do Normandy until we had what Eisenhower believed were forces sufficient to the job, with the conditions set. That said - I agree that the post-invasion planning was punked. I thought so at the time and said so. And I wasn't in favor of the invasion, either. Of course, I wasn't in favor of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, either. However, since I was still on active duty, I soldiered on to the best of my ability. But I am in the camp of having started this, we need to give it our best shot at finishing it, and am in favor of continuing to hand over missions to the Iraqis and making them take more and more responsibility. As for your earlier comment about Maliki... this Congress hasn't gotten much done, either. Should we abandon them? Are we going to use the US Congress as an example of behavior the Iraqis should emulate? But now I'm just getting mean and picking on an easy target, fair enough. Interestingly enough, Mark - I'm actually on an advisory committee on Veteran's and Military Affairs to a Democrat Representative, Nancy Boyda of Kansas. I actually have access because she thinks I'm not a loony wingnut or moonbat. How does that fit into your perception of this place? 8^ )
 
By Alan (aka Le Trappeur Fou) on September 6, 2007 7:15 PM
I just want to put on the record as a good Canadian my indignation at the use of the word "beaver" to describe the comment maker above. Retract and replace, please. We have our canoes at the ready and the maple syrup storage locations in your country have been noted. Govern yourselves accordingly.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 7:34 PM
Well and good to be all huffy and demanding you plaid-cap-wearing furriner (if you aren't parading in your Budyanka), but what term do you suggest BCR apply in order to soothe your beer-fueled, syrup-soaked ire? And it's not like we don't have beaver down here, too. We've some of the finest beaver on the planet right here in River City! [Casts wary eye on the PG-17c] Hmmm. Still shell-shocked from the Return of Bill.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on September 6, 2007 7:34 PM
Don't get too frisky, Alan, or we'll never give Lord Stanley's Cup back.
 
By bad cat robot on September 6, 2007 10:05 PM
Alan, I regret to inform you that due to a childhood stint in Thunder Bay, Ontario -- in the winter -- I was granted the honor of certain Canadian privileges (some obscure treaty or other, the Pig War may have been involved ...) Ergo, markg8 remains a busy little beaver. I also have a +5 modifier to any activity attempted in a canoe, and I know the words to "O Canada". The original ones, before PC really got revved up. Plus, great-great-Granpa was a maple sugar farmer in Vermont, so BRING IT ON! (After we feed markg8 some treats and see if he has any more amazing feats of logic for us, that is. I don't know about you but after learning General Doctor Petraeus was a "shill" the scales, like, just fell from my eyes.)
 
By Instapilot on September 7, 2007 5:44 AM
"Lordy...you walk away for five minutes and they're back...," he mutters as he walks around looking for the can of TrollBeGone and the nearest light switch...
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 7, 2007 6:34 AM
That's a poor way to talk about Alan, Dusty! As for MarkG8, he just disagrees, but does so politely and doesn't indulge in petty behaviors, so he's not a troll, either, by my reckoning.
 
By Instapilot on September 7, 2007 6:53 AM
Alan wasn't my target...and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the other chap...
 
By Alan on September 7, 2007 9:50 AM
Zoot McAlor! You guys sure know how to make one's tartan wool shorts shift aboot. Thank God for the Grey Cup, that's all I can say.