By I posted before about the truth of why the Democrats are suddenly attacking General Peter Pace. As further news gets released it appears that Pace’s comments about gays is only part of the reason. The next reason is to create a perception that US military generals are incompetent:
Earlier this week, Reid accused Petraeus and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of failing to provide Congress a frank assessment of the Iraq war.
The criticism comes just a week after lawmakers told Gates they would challenge Pace if he were nominated for a second two-year term as chairman. Gates said he concluded it would better if Pace were not re-nominated by the president.
The Democrats need to paint the generals, especially Petraeus as incompetent in order to discredit Petraeus’s report to Congress in September on the status of the “surge” strategy:
Reid said Pace hadn’t done a good job and he also said he was concerned about Petraeus, who told USA Today this week that there are “astonishing signs of normalcy” throughout the majority of Baghdad. Petraeus was quoted as saying, “I’m talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks, big ones, markets that are very vibrant.”
Reid, D-Nev., said the remark “gives you a feeling that he’s not in touch with what is really going on in Iraq or just trying to make the president feel good.”
I guess Senator Reid sitting in his Washington, DC office is more in touch with the ground truth in Iraq by reading the Daily Kos every day than is General Petraeus. What is even more deplorable is that he is making an accusation that Petraeus is willing to sacrifice the lives of his men in order to please the President. Truly disgusting.
Expect more of these types of reports throughout the summer and especially right before Petraeus reports to congress. Remember the last time Petraeus testified before Congress and the Democrats used this article from LTC Paul Yingling to try and discredit General Petraeus and the new commanders in Iraq as incompetent. If you actually read the whole article it has nothing to do about the current leadership in Iraq, but it was highly touted by the media and politicians as being a scathing indictment of US leadership in Iraq.
When September rolls around expect demagoguery of amazing proportions in order to discredit Petraeus because signs of improvement in Iraq are becoming more clear as General Petraeus pointed out before and that even some in the mainstream media are beginning to notice in regards to the Anbar Salvation Council and the fact that insurgent groups are now allying with the US military to destroy Al Qaida in Iraq.
The Democrats have taken down Pace and clearly Petraeus is the next one they are gunning after even though they voted to confirm him as the US commander in Iraq and his counterinsurgency strategy just a few months ago and now they want to destroy him.
Remember these same people used to say that President Bush didn’t listen to his generals either and now they say the generals are incompetent even though they voted for them. These are also the same people who wanted more troops in Iraq and now that that they got them there they now don’t want them:
Sen. John Kerry, Bush’s Democratic opponent in last year’s presidential election, told NBC’s “Today” show that the borders of Iraq “are porous” and said “we don’t have enough troops” there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed Bush’s notion that sufficient troops are in place.
“I’m going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq,” the Delaware Democrat said. “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”
Biden argued, “The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly.”Â
The complete “surge” forces are now in theater to fully implement the new strategy, but the usual suspects had already declared the strategy a failure before it even had a chance to be fully implemented:
For their part, leading Democratic congress members have told George W. Bush that his policy of increasing troops in Iraq was a failure, AFP reports.
The leader of the majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, president of the House, defied Bush by sending him a letter prior to a last-minute meeting in the White House on Wednesday.
The flip flopping and demagoguery is truly incredible, however, when no one holds the demagogues accountable they will continue to get away with it. So expect only more of this as September rolls around because this is all about gaining political power in 2008.
12:43 pm on June 17th, 2007 1
[...] [GI Korea] The Further Truth Revealed Published: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:50:23 +0000 I posted before about the truth of why the Democrats are suddenly attacking General Peter Pace.Â* As further news gets released it appears that Pace’s comments about gays is only part of the reason.Â* The next reason is to create a perception that US military generals are incompetent: Earlier this week, Reid accused Petraeus and Gen. [...] Read More… [...]
2:21 pm on June 17th, 2007 2
[...] Drop The Further Truth Revealed NK Defectors Arrive in South Korea Macau Money Returned to North Korea Korean Politicians Complain [...]
11:08 am on June 18th, 2007 3
[...] This. Read this. I’ll elaborate further when I return from work, however I’ll say now that I hate seeing the [...]
11:10 am on June 18th, 2007 4
[...] This. Read this. I’ll elaborate further when I return from work, however I’ll say now that I hate seeing the [...]
11:21 am on June 18th, 2007 5
[...] This. Read this. I’ll elaborate further when I return from work, however I’ll say now that I hate seeing the [...]
9:49 pm on June 17th, 2007 6
I thought I was alone in seeing this. Glad to know there are some, better informed individuals out there who also see this.
11:06 pm on June 17th, 2007 7
Hmmmmm. with all of these "Improvements" in Iraq, why is it the death toll is increasing monthly? Why has the increased presence of troops in Baghdad suppressed attacks there only to have them increase elswhere? As for the generals — the only ones that Bush will promote are yes-men who will report the findings they see through "Rose-colored glasses". Yep, you just confirmed why Republicans will fall on there sword for this idiot president rather than admit he is a failure. History will tell a different story.
4:03 am on June 18th, 2007 8
I read this to my father back in Maine over the phone.
Some days I get the feeling our government really doesn't care about soldiers. I hate seeing the military used as a political tool.
6:07 am on June 19th, 2007 9
I really don't want to start a war over this, but does the military not deserve some of the blame for how things have gone in Iraq ?
Who dropped the ball on the scenario after the conflict, and left all the loose ends there. Thanks
6:58 am on June 19th, 2007 10
What can you say to people that desire to believe in failure.
I believe Reagan received insults from the same type of people.
7:13 am on June 19th, 2007 11
Dan … I don't think it's really a case of believing in failure. I think perhaps it's looking at the facts, and seeing no way to have a "victory" in the normal terms that we associate with the idea.
It seems that there was no thought to what happens after Saddam is gone, and why we seem to think that other people want to be just like us, quite amazes me. The Middle East has been a disaster for a long time, and we didn't appear to notice that the tribal idea doesn't mesh really well under "our system". We tend to think of ourselves as Americans, but they seem to regard themselves as Sunni/Shiite/Kurds before they get the word Iraqi in there. They have hated each other for ages, and our arriving on the scene and trying to get them to accept our type of democracy was really going to be tough slog. The Brits had the same problem in No. Ireland. Trying getting a Catholic & Protestant to kiss and make up. It's taken a long long time, and many skirmishes to get to what is happening there now.
3:15 pm on June 19th, 2007 12
Brett,
Good examples of hindsight in Iraq, but that is not what worried anit-war types before the war; they were talking about U.S. troops getting decimated, the Republican Guard fighting for months and months or years to the last man, Saddam using chemical weapons or firing missiles on Israel, chaos spreading quickly throughout the region, etc.
I don't think anyone was saying that Iraqis wanted to be exactly like the U.S. or the West, but that they do want some form of democracy. The elections they had proved that to be true overwhelmingly. What is preventing that is a sizable, louder and much more violent minority. That is fundamentally different than how you attempt to frame the issue.
Yes, it will take a long time, hence the recent comparisons to the U.S. effort in South Korea (in the press anyway, some of us have been noting that for awhile). Decades ago South Korea was considered a basketcase that, according to “experts,†could never hope to achieve much more than the upper tier of third-world status.
Defeatists – which your comments do in fact mark you as – today sing the same tune.
8:35 am on June 20th, 2007 13
[...] The Further Truth Revealed — [GI Korea] I posted before about the truth of why the Democrats are suddenly attacking General Peter Pace. As further news gets released it appears that Pace’s comments about gays is only part of the reason. The next reason is to create a perception that US military generals are incompetent: …The Democrats need to paint the generals, especially Petraeus as incompetent in order to discredit Petraeus’s report to Congress in September on the status of the “surge†strategy. [...]
7:00 pm on June 19th, 2007 14
Brett T.
I can't believe you said, "We tend to think of ourselves as Americans, while they tend to think of themselves as Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds before they get the word Iraqi in there." I am not trying to go on the attack here, but your really out of touch. Need Examples, African-American, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, Asian-American, Korean-American, Native-American. Interestingly, you don't hear or read much about European-Americans. There was no block to check, while I was in the Army, for European-American, or Irish-American. Those were covered by a single block, (White). Which is a Color.
War, is a situation where you attempt to be pro-active, but in the end, it is a reactive situation.
To the individual that can't seem to understand why the number of deaths have gone up. Let me break it down for you.
More troops on the ground, which is what the Dems wanted.
More aggressive Action, "surge", which is only now starting.
Equals more contact and more shots fired.
It's really not hard to understand and I'm not a Rocket-Scientist. Just a retired troop who spent his last year in the Army, in Iraq.
Some people are so blinded by their hate of the President, that they can't see beyond it.
Well, this President got elected TWICE. So He did something right. We won't talk about the economy, or the lack of a second 9/11.
Personnally, I wanted McCain for President. But it didn't happen, so I support the person that is.
At least he is no Jimmy Carter. Who I did vote for! Big Mistake on my part. But I don't call him names. He was the President of the Fu–ing UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Deserving of some respect. Just like the Soldiers that he sent to their deaths are deserving of some respect.
3:20 pm on June 20th, 2007 15
First of all I was there during the war and its aftermath. There was planning for the aftermath just the wrong planning. No massive environmental disaster and no massive refugee crisis among of host of other expected outcomes. Where the government went wrong was putting the State Dept. in charge of post-war occupation. Bremer I'm sured meant well but he and the State Dept. were absolute failures. If the US military was in charge of planning for the occupation instead of the State Dept. we would be much further now in reconstructing Iraq.
Jay Garner a former US general was originally in Bremer's position until State raised a stink and Bremer replaced him. Garner was shocked when Bremer decided to disband the Iraqi Army. Garner had no intention of disbanding the Iraqi Army. Bremer saw things through the State lens of Iraqi Army as being equivalent on Nazis, Garner saw the Iraqi Army through a militay lens of a potential security force. I can go on and on about early mistakes but I'm more concerned about right now.
And right now just about everything is being run by the military which means things are running much better compared to the Bremer days. The work the US military has done in Iraq is incredible to say the least and the efforts to slime the military as I have pointed out over and over again on this site are truly abhorent.
Also in 2003 if 3,500 American died during the initial war there would have been little outcry because the media kept saying taking Baghdad was going to be a blood bath which didn't happen but if it did it was expected and understood. Where Bush went wrong was that he did not raise expectations of the long occupation which everyone in the military that was there in 2003 knew was necessary. I had no idea how backward Iraq was until I got there. I figured with all that oil wealth the people wouldn't be so backward, boy was I wrong.
Back to the increasing US body count it is because of the counterinsurgency strategy which is putting small American units of about 30 men combined with Iraqi police and Army in joint security stations in neighborhoods throughout Iraq including known insurgent hotbeds. The surge in Baghdad combined with Shiek Sattar's Awakening movement in An Bar has pushed Al Qaida into Diaylah province. The US military is trying to organize the shieks there to fight Al Qaida along the lines of what is happening in Anbar. Also the last surge brigade is in place and now going on the offense.
In regards to bombings, bombings are extremely difficult to stop. If you have some magic idea of how to stop suicide bombers than I would like to hear it, but stopping them requires GIs to be on the streets at checkpoints checking vehicles and people which makes them vulnerable. That is what is happening in Baghdad and the attacks are way down in Baghdad due to the increased checkpoints and security. Al Qaida has pushed their suicide bombings to the fringes of Baghdad. Look at where bombings happen. I know the geography of Iraq really well and many of the bombings I see happening now are in small country cities primarily to the north and northeast of Baghdad. The terrorists know they have to keep their body count up in order to help the Democrats claim the surge is not working. So they go anywhere they can blow people up even if it is some small out of the way farming community. They cannot do this anymore in An Bar because of the Awakening movement which has literally barricaded towns and local fighters allied with the US military are controlling access to the villages from one entry and exit point.
If an Awakening movement can be formed in Diyalah and the villages can be fortified and local fighters can guard their own cities then the death count will drop.
Al Qaida's tactics are not winning Al Qaida popular support but they know if they can get the US withdraw they don't need popular support within Iraq because their recruiting will soar from abroad. They will need these recruits because they will then be in direct conflict with Iran over the future of Iraq. That is where the regional war breaks out. Iran will never let Al Qaida have Iraq and the Mahdi Army is their proxy Army prepared to fight Al Qaida over Iraq. The Arabs will fund and man Al Qaida while the Iranians fund and man the Mahdi Army. It is very similar to Lebanon where Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies will ensure that Lebanon never becomes an independent country.
That regional war will be a collosal humanitarian disaster with shocking death counts that will dwarf anything happening there now.
That is why the US military is working hard to stand up and train the Iraqi military which is something that cannot be done quickly. The Iraqi military needs to be strong enough to provide internal security and then the US can move to border areas to secure the borders until the Iraqi military is strong enough to do that as well.
However, since war critics are usually just critics because they hate Bush no amount of logic I type means anything. But I do have to say that the Democrats taking over Congress has had some benefits to the US effort in Iraq. First of all the shieks in An Bar probably would not have rallied as quickly as they did if it wasn't for the Democrats. The shieks saw a potential US pull out which would mean Al Qaida would be in charge in An Bar with Iran Proxies running the government. The shieks follow US politics and news very closely and the An Bar shieks made their move now because of the possible US pull out. Also the increased pressure from the Democrats is getting the Iraqi government to being working out political concessions with the Sunnis. These are all positive things that the Democrats could take credit for. Unfortunately the Democrats do not want to take credit for anything because of the blind hatred for Bush which means in September the effort to discredit one of the best US generals General Petraeus will be in full effect.
Unfortunately for Petraeus he needs more than an Anbar and Diyalah Awakenings, he needs a Washington Awakening as well. That will probably be the hardest Awakening to start.
4:49 pm on June 20th, 2007 16
Dan,
"African-American, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, Asian-American, Korean-American, Native-American"
Bad example, dude… unless you are trying to reinforce, and not counter, Brett Timmermann's statement.
Just like Sunni-Iraqi, Shiite-Iraqi and Kurdish-Iraqi, I am going to propose that the Hyphenated-American is tearing our country apart in a similar way… though slightly less violent.
The Melting Pot of Americans has been replaced by ethnic, racial and nationalistic groups so worried about their non-American "identity" they are splintering a unified America with diverging goals and values… and, in some cases, actively trying to change America to be more like the shit-hole nations they do not wish to live in… while demanding America embrace and celebrate the broken cultures which created them… and insisting America make changes to accommodate their differences instead of the other way around… etc.
…and the Liberals and Neo-Conservatives (who are not conservatives except in the same way Soviet Communists might be considered conservatives) fall all over themselves praising "our differences" and subsidizing forced "diversity"… instead of championing American unity by encouraging inclusive assimilation while recognizing voluntary national adoption of the best parts of non-American culture.
In Iraq, Hyphanated-Iraqi disagreement is settled with sectarian violence and genocide… based on a many centuries of tradition… making quick, forced unification with touch-feely, all-inclusive "democracy", rather than a brutal Saddam-style dictator very, very, very difficult…
…or maybe impossible. Defeatism or Reality? I don't know.
If I was in charge, I'd reinstate a brutal, secular dictatorship with the goal of developing the country through education, equal rights of women and economic freedom through a manufacturing economy.
Wait a minute… that sounds like Saddam! Why did we take him out again?
Anyway, once the economy gets rolling, gradually change from a dictatorship to a democracy…
…and that would be the true Korean Model.
J!
7:41 pm on June 20th, 2007 17
CH, You said it better than I ever could.
When I was a young E4, a Sergeant explaned to me this: "You are not white and I'm not black. We are both Green." I really enjoyed being in that Army. It died during the late 90s.
1:34 am on June 21st, 2007 18
Chickenhead,
You actually echo sentiments I have expressed before that Iraq needs there own Park Chung-hee. Saddam was a brutal dictator that wasn't committed to building anything in Iraq besides his own power. That country needs a true nationalist to lead it. The only one that comes to mind is Alawi. However, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, we are stuck with the Prime Minister we got.
In the book the Rise and Fall of Nations the big reason for the decline in nations is when special interest groups wield so much power that they harm the national good by only concentrating on achieving narrow advantages for themselves at the expense of the general public. You see this happening in slow motion in America now. Can we overcome it? Maybe.
Our two worthless political parties and the special interests get away with all that they are doing because of the apathy of the American public who rather watch another episode of American Idol instead of doing things like educating themselves on issues and voting. The special interests carry so much power because they vote which causes the political parties to cater to them. If the US had a national law that made it mandatory to vote this would drastically reduce the influence of the special interest groups because then the politicians would have to cater their platforms to the general public instead of just the special interest groups.
If such a law was ever attempted to be passed I can guarantee the special interest groups would be the ones most vigorously fighting it because it would dilute their power in Washington. Such a law is definitely feasible though because one already exists in Australia. In Australia it is against the law not to vote and is punishable with a large fine. Even if you don't like any of the candidates you still have to show up to the polling station and check on the ballot you don't want to vote for anyone.
Why do think someone like John Howard can be so outspoken against illegal immigration in Australia and literally move illegal immigrants from Australia and hold them on an island until they get sick of being on the island and go home. It is because he knows he has the support of the general population in the ballot box unlike in America the general population is fed up with illegal immigration but nothing gets done on it because of the special interest groups who wield so much power.
9:01 am on June 21st, 2007 19
It make perfect sense that the Dumcrats are willing to go after Petraeus. They are politicizing the Iraqi War to the hilt. Which disgusts me because they believe a political defeat for Bush is better for them, than a united front against the terrorists in Iraq. They can't get the US public to turn against the troops so they have to start calling the Generals incompetent. Notice that they don't enrich us with their own plan to win in Iraq other than "DEFEAT". You'd figure with the President so far down in the polls they could get us out of Iraq with a snap of a finger. But, thank God there are still some Americans that have memories and enough intelligence to know that isn't an option. They remember the Democrats saying we need to leave Southeast Asia. They also remember that MILLIONS died after America left the region. Not a peep from the pro-peace crowd that feigned concern for the Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. Guess they were the wrong color. Not this time, pal.
HOOOOOOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11:51 am on June 21st, 2007 20
Sir, you have convinced me of the sober intelligent judgement of President Cheney, err Bush, and all he appoints. He is a man of integrity who has never used the Iraq conflict for political gains, for example his noble never-mentioning it during the 2004 reelection.
Not like those dissenting 'demagogues'! Cursed Democrats! Their invective hurts the feelings of we soft-spoken and civilized Republicans. If only they could be reasonable, eloquently articulate and able to think over opposing views on their merits, like our Republican scholars Limbaugh, Hannity, and of course COULTER, a woman the very example of reasonable, unpoliticized debate.
These proud three, and the army of GOP radio pundits who follow them, are truly Great Americans who would never pander to emotions on questions of the national interest. (When I think of Rush's eloquent, reasoned rebuttal of Michael J. Fox's crafty, liberal, Parkinson-faking argument for stem cell research, I wonder if such shaking and sarcastic jiggling makes him the new Plato),
6:30 pm on June 21st, 2007 21
Dear Hugh,
Have you taken your medication today? I was just wondering because I like how you missed the elephant in the room. Namely, the Democrats behavior for the last 3 1/2 years. I'm talking about your "favorites" like Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Clinton, Kucinich, Kerry and list keeps on going. When they say that Bush "lied to them","he's a loser", "manipulated intelligence", "he knew and let 9/11 happen", "he just wants to enrich his buddies at Haliburton" and whatever crap talking stains their mouths these days. I guess that's ok behavior in your deluted world. The Democrats know that the majority of the intelligence came from the Clinton Administration. That's why it was a bi-partisan vote to invade Iraq.
The majority of the Republicans in the late 30's were isolationists because there was this Democrat Woodrow Wilson, got America into WorldWarI. After Pearl Harbor the Republicans didn't criticize Roosevelt in front of "OUR" enemies. When there were terrible setbacks they didn't want to "cut and run" or talk to our enemies. I think the Democrats today could learn some patriotic lessons from those past Republicans.
8:17 pm on June 21st, 2007 22
Pete Dawg, you are a Great American. (TM)
You are absolutely right. The Democrats behavior for the past 3.5 years they were out of power is responsible for the terrible mess in Iraq, as you say.
Seriously, I have a non-partisan message for you. Pete Dawg, while you might be excellent at other things, when it comes to complex political analysis, well, you are dumb as poop. I notice you never tackled me head-on.
Your saddest and most pathetic Republican moment was here: "I’m talking about your “favorites†like democr democr …"
Where in my post did I mention any of these names? You have no ability to explain the good points of George Bush, only quack-repeat criticism.
Pete Dawg, you are the king of 'four legs good two legs bad'. You have not the education to understand that reference. You will never understand it, but I am a working class person too (your writing style is unmistakable) and I will do my best to make your future and your childrens future better.
Pls explain to me why I am wrong about Rush, Hannity and Coulter. Easy for me to dare, I know the subject will be changed and those GOP with smarts will avoid the subject. Another fishing post here we come!
I have no expectation of honesty. – "Well, we honestly thought GWB was the best choice. Things, to be honest his decisions, have gone badly wrong, but we never meant this to happen. Our party screwed it up. It's a mess. What we have to do now is forget about sacrificing the nation for one desperate man's desire to save his "legacy", and for us to find the right thing to do – be that withdrawal, or staying"
That is the speech some Republican could make, be honest, and get massive re-election. If you want to stick to "I Drank the Iraq Kool-Aid" you are going to get creamed!
12:24 am on June 22nd, 2007 23
He'yall Hugh,
I is sorri masa for xpres-sing mies Oppiniun. Isa hardd tryin too takes carre alLL dees chiduns. Whin ewe macking are phuture betta kan u bye meee "Animal Farm" so I kin b smarrrt likes u? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
My families and my future are quite secure. We don't need a "Superior Intellect" like yours any where near my family. I don't give a damn about the Democrats "hurting" peoples feelings. I do care that by their speech and actions they are giving the terrorists hope that America will defeat itself politically. Because they certainly can't beat us militarily. They have said in interviews that they have learned from the North Vietnamese. Yet, people like you HUGH don't care that the "cut and runners" are part of the terrorists strategy for a political victory in Iraq.
Let me give you a NON-PARTISAN message. I don't give a damn if it's a Republican or Democrat that achieves a military and political victory in Iraq. I just want us to win. Hell, if (World War II) Truman was reincarnated I'd vote for him in a millisecond. Someone that does give a crap about "political correctness". A person that will bomb a church, synagogue, temple and mosque to kill the enemy wherever they are hiding. (Which we did to many churches in Europe during World War II.) A person that will dictate to the defeated country that this is how its going to be. Like it or leave it. I have many problems with Bush, but he's the only one willing to confront the terrorists. I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "victory" plan in Iraq. Yet the Democrats are playing politics while we are at war. In the 2006 elections the only thing that the Democrats ran on nationally was raising the minimum wage and eradicating corruption in Congress. (Pelosi is doing such a great, eh?) They said they wanted a change in Iraq, but because of political reasons never stated what that change was. Which is why it's disingenuous for the Democrats to say that they were voted in to pull the troops out of Iraq. BS… If that's the case why were they "PANTS" by a politically weak lame duck president. The public doesn't want to lose that's why. So please stop A$$uming things about me. It makes you the A$$.
What I don't understand Hugh is why the obsession with Rush, Hannity and Coulter. They are political commentators. They aren't even close in power compared to the Democratic leaders in congress. Last time I checked it's still a free country. You don't hear a cry on the Right to ban the expansive pantheon of Liberal idiots in the media. The heavyweights such as Maher, Franken and O'donnell. I'd take Coulter over O'donnell every day of the week and twice Sunday.
12:46 am on June 22nd, 2007 24
Hi Hugh,
I really like the way you attack and insult those whom you do not agree with. You remind me of someone. Humm, who could it be? Oh, I got it, you remind me of Dr Yu! Are you a young Korean male? You sound like one. You seem to be suffering from (Bush Derangement syndrome) also. Sorry, there is no known cure untill at least january of 2009. There still won't be a cure, but the name will change. You will suffer the side effects of this for years to come.
He must be a very powerful person to inspire and influence people the way he obviously has you. President Clinton NEVER inspired such feeling in me, and I thought him a failed President also.
Maby that is the differance between the D's and the R's. The R's don't lose their minds like the D's do.
Pete D. Nice to know I'm not the only one that remembers Southeast Asia.
3:23 am on June 22nd, 2007 25
Hugh is just trolling. He is the perfect example of what I have been talking about. He so blindly hates Bush that tomorrow the Iraqis could have a victory parade and dance and sing in the streets in praise of US soldiers and Hugh would still find something to complain about. He can't argue the points I have made and thus has to pull out Ann Coulter references. That is a sign of desperation. I don't listen to Ann Coulter and I don't think I have even mentioned her once on this blog before or Limbaugh or Hannity who I don't listen to as well. Also notice how liberals love to claim freedom of speech but want to shut up those that don't agree with them.
I have pointed out that the Democrats actually have a number of things they can directly claim credit for in making both political and tactical progress in Iraq. However, in their blind hatred of Bush and in effort to appease the Daily Kos crowd instead of taking credit they have aimed to destroy the man, General Petraeus and his strategy that they themselves overwhelmingly approved of. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy are probably all rolling over in their graves seeing what the Pelosis, Murthas, and Reids are doing to their own party, the military, and the country. Notice I didn't mention Hilary because I think she is the most sane out of all of them.
6:51 am on June 22nd, 2007 26
Here's an encouraging report from a sensible conservative columnist (not "pundits" like Rush or Cutler) that challenges ready made assumptions that "Iraq is a faliure" Hope the link works, if not read the column by Max Boot about Ramadi.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot24a…
12:35 pm on June 22nd, 2007 27
Joseph,
Thanks for the link, it was a good article as usual from Max Boot. I highly recommend you read Bill Roggio and Michael Yon for probably the two best analysis of what is going on in Iraq. There is not one major news site that can come even close to those two guys.
What is interesting is that war critics used to mention Anbar as a lost cause all the time, now the critics won't even mention Anbar. Anbar will probably be a major portion of Petraeus testimony to Congress in September. Expect Al Qaida to try and discredit him just like the Democrats will try to by launching some spectacular attack on Anbar near when he testifies to give ammunition to the Democrats to attack him with. Other attacks will be launched as well. Al Qaida if they survive the current offensive will want to discredit him as much as the Democrats. Before Petraeus testifies I think it would be a good thing to ban all vehicles in Iraq from moving just like during the elections. CENTCOM can't make it public until a day or two before so Al Qaida has no time to react. It worked during multiple elections so it may be a good thing to do as well before Petraeus testifies in September.
2:26 pm on June 22nd, 2007 28
Didn't finish the comments and came in late…
But, it's great to see people call others stupid as poop when they say things like:
I guess that would be Sen. Hannity and Rep. Limbaugh and Sec. of State Coulter, right???? I mean, it would have to be to match the dim-witted commentary, right?
5:34 pm on June 22nd, 2007 29
Amen GI Korea,
I especially like reading Michael Yon. His latest post really hit me like a ton of bricks. It really choked me up. Being Catholic one of my favorite hymns was "Be not Afraid". Reading that he found a prayer card with that hymn gave me hope and comfort. It sounds like it did the same thing for Michael. Those guys are in my prayers. I hope they don't get killed. I hope they don't get injured. I hope they can come home to there families. I hope that the mission is successful in Iraq. I hope the Iraqis will live in freedom like the Filipinos, Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, French and all the people that have been liberated by the American military. I hope…
7:05 am on August 23rd, 2007 30
[...] have talked about this before, but as the September progress reports come nearer expect the attacks on General Petraeus’ [...]
9:17 pm on August 27th, 2007 31
[...] a paper known to be strongly against the war in Iraq. Is this just coincidence? I think not because I have been reporting for some time that attacks on Petraeus would materialize in the media before his report to destroy [...]