President Bush’s strategy to bind the US military into Iraq for the remainder of his term – and probably beyond – was sharply challenged by both Republican and Democratic Senators today.
In the second day of the Congressional progress report on Iraq, the upbeat assessment from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker received a much rougher ride than it had yesterday at the House of Representatives.
Barack Obama, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination next year, said: “We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation is considered success. And it’s not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake.”
The presence of Mr Obama along with a clutch of other presidential candidates gave today’s Senate committee hearings added political charge. Senior Republicans present have been nervously eyeing the prospect of entering the 2008 election without a consensus on Iraq.
The only thing I am interested in hearing from Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc., is their condemnation of that vile, Move On.Org ad in the NY Times yesterday, which ad effectively and openly, called Gen. Petreaus a traitor.
Sen. Obama is a light weight, who really has neither experience nor an educated view of foreign affairs.
The longer they are silent, the more obvious it is that $$ from Soros & the Move On folks, has bought and paid for the Democrat(ic) Party.
So, with the continuing silence from the democrats, we are left with the clear understanding, that they are calling Amb. Crocker, Gen. Petreaus and their boss, Pres. Bush, traitors to the USA.
How’s that for reasoned discourse?
I’m with you , Scotsreb.
I must say, the Democrat Representative for SW Washington, Brian Baird, has come out against the NY Times ad. He has also reconsidered his position on the war–and folks are calling him names. Though he is not of my party, I admire and stand with him on this issue!
Just to be bi-partsian, it may be useful to remeber that Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says he remains deeply skeptical of the U.S. war strategy there. He says the military campaign reminds him of a farmer who risks his savings by planting on a flood plain.
#3, Surely, can’t even the most partisan person can see a difference between one person saying he is (personally) deeply skeptical of a policy and another, who publically flames others, calling them traitors?
Intellectual honesty would demand of anyone, that they draw a scale of comparison between the two statements and find that they are completely different. The one is a personal position while the other is a radical political flaming smear.
The Move On dot Org ad, has been silently accepted by all the leading democrats in Congress. This ad names as traitors, those carrying out government policy. That poicy I would remind you #3, was VOTED on and APPROVED by most of those who now silently allow the charge of treachery to stand.
The Democrat(ic) Party is now so deeply in thrall to the ultra hard left radicals of Move On, that they are more and more seen by the general population of the land, as being a completely unsafe party, when it comes to defending the land from enemies.
#4
The word ‘traitor’ appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad nor anywhere on the MoveOn.org page about the ad.
While I am not convinced the Gen is “cooking the books”, he & Crocker are moving the goalposts. The truth – now & before Bush’s war of choice – is that General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.
bob carlton, see the definition below:
trai·tor (trĒtər) pronunciation
n.
One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
Are you contending the ad wasn’t accusing Patraeus of betraying us?
Perhaps in Bob’s universe if I say that his mother sleeps with men for money I still haven’t called her a whore because I didn’t say the specific word.
His point falls into the realm of a distnction without a difference.
Furthermore, “everyone” doesn’t “know” what he and his compatriots believe. He has come to a conclusion and only the facts that support that conclusion as the relevant ones. I wonder who really is being intellectually dishonest. The comment about “moving the gaol post” is telling. That metaphor is supposed to be about changes that make it harder to succeed, not harder to fail. Is our failure in Iraq his idea of success?
No Presidential candidate who will not condemn his colleagues’ calling the military leader of the war effort a liar is qualified to be the Commander in Chief. The longer these Democratic candidates delay their condemnations of this outrage, the less believable their eventual statements (if they make them) will become. Have these people no honor or decency?
[quote]No Presidential candidate who will not condemn his colleagues’ calling the military leader of the war effort a liar is qualified to be the Commander in Chief. [/quote]
I didn’t see where anybody was calling Petraeus a liar. But in any event, that is a silly statement. If a “military leader of a war effort” is lying, he should be called on it.
For the most part, the real warriors are politely ushered out after they make lieutenant colonel. You don’t make general by producing reports that say your CIC’s objectives are muddled and unrealistic and his strategy is fundamentally flawed.
um, Reactionary, if you do a google search for Petraeus lies you will get quite a few hits. From the NYT to quotes by members of Congress! Evidentally quite a few people are calling the General a liar, without basis, without proof, but rather for political purposes, and simply because they disagree with the current strategy, and even with the necessity for the war (for which they all voted).
As for Obama, everything he says now has to be filtered through a ‘campaign’ meter, as one can’t tell if he is speaking from conviction or from what he perceives as being necessary to get elected.
jim,
A brief Google search failed to reveal any instance of a congressman calling Petraeus a liar. Perhaps I didn’t scroll thru enough pages. In any event, my point stands: if a general is lying, he should be called on it. If a general is engaged in spin or bad analysis, he should be called on it. The idea that a representative democracy should blindly defer to military members of the Executive branch is absurd and dangerous.
R
to assume that Pertraeus is lying BEFORE he even presents his report is to defame and besmirch his character, whether by newspaper editors or congress.
Exactly, the smears were made before the report was delivered, upon the sole basis that what was expected to be said contravened their prejudices, therefore it must not be true. Because of course the information available to the CO on the ground has to match the opinion offered on the Daily Kos or else it’s treason and lies. I suppose to lefties there is no such thing as Truth, so “their truth” is whatever they damn well please.
The fact is the last thing these people want is an American victory, while they beleive that an American defeat will help them electoraly. And as all else is subservient to the domestic politics of the immediate present, any statements deviating from the party line of “America’s loosing, horray!” must be decried with force, regardles of source or veracity.
Well I can tell you my assumption: Petraeus would produce a report that mirrored his boss’s intentions and sure enough, he did. That’s how generals get to be generals. If that is defaming and besmirching his character, so be it.
And again, I did not see where any Democratic representatives called Petraeus a liar.
Andrew,
What would you call “an American victory?” Does it have anything to do with preserving American territorial integrity or protecting the lives and property of American civilians?
A stable Iraq would be nice.
I know, Reactioanry, that you dwell in the happy 19th century where ironclads can keep us safe, but some of us do live in the 21st, where old school isolationism doesn’t work.
Andrew,
A stable Iraq, like a stable Sudan, Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, Kosovo, etc., is not my concern. If the Iraqi people want a stable Iraq, they can build it on their own dime.
Where is the evidence that “old school isolationism” doesn’t work? Islamic militancy is only a problem for us when we go over there and we allow them to come over here. The present situation is exactly as I have described in that sentence, and proves abundantly why the US should return to “old school isolationism.”
#14, do you accept the aphorism, that silence means consent? Politicians call each other liars all the time, but they phrase the slam in political speak.
My point is not that Gen. Petaeus has been called a liar, but rather, he has been called a traitor. Thus, Move On has accused a general office in command of troops in the field of treason, a capital offence.
The resounding and deafening silence from all the leading democrats in Congress to this vile canard, is all the thunderous. By their silence, we can see that they (the leading dems) agree with their financial masters (Move On) in this scurrilous and mendacious statement.
By the way, you may consider that all warriors in the US Army, etc., are winnowed out once they rise to light colonel, but consider this.
Among his other decorations, Gen. Petraeus is the holder of the Bronze Star (V) for combat heroism. Do you mean to demean his service as a warrior, or denigrate the medal, simply because he has risen to the top of his chosen profession?
Do you honestly think the US would be best served by establishing a policy like that of Tokugawa Japan, becoming a Hermit Kingdom where no people or products enter or leave our borders? As has been shown by the recent arrests in Germany, simply banning all Arabs from entering won’t immunize us, they can send converts. And we can’t have trade, either, else a nuke come into one of our ports aboard a freighter. Not hard, especialy as nuclear proliferation will really take off once the US nucelar umbrella has been removed and US intelligence assets are no longer used to prevent nuclear technology proliferation.
In some form or another, Commodore Perry will come and end our self-imposed exile, and your isolationism is only sticking our heads in the sand till he does.
Scotsreb,
I too failed to express publicly any denunciation of MoveOn.org. I expect millions of other Americans did as well. General Petraeus may be the second coming of George S. Patton for all I know, but I tend to doubt it. The fact that his report simply mirrored what Bush has already expressed leads me to think he is not.
Andrew,
If that parade of horribles is realistic, then the genie is out of the bottle and neutrality in inter-tribal conflicts 6,000 miles away becomes even more important. You are arguing a straw man. Hong Kong has the freest trade on earth and I don’t see them sending troops all over the globe.
You don’t see the difference between a city inside a fairly strong second tier power and the current hegemon? It’s like saying Manchester hasn’t deployed it’s own troops.
And if you bring out Singapore, it’s called free ridership. The USN keeps the Straits open and free of piracy, as the RN did before it, and so Singapore thrives.
Reac,
How about Tom Lantos:
“The fact remains, gentlemen, that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say: [b]I don’t buy it[/b].”
bold added — but in plain words: General, you are lying! So there you go. That’s one.
Thankfully, the General had a comment to his detractors:
“At the outset I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or the Congress until it was just handed out. As a bottom line up-front, the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met.”
jim,
Hyperbolic nonsense. Your lot just want to quash dissent.
Andrew,
That only begs the question of why US taxpayers must pick up the tab for this “free” trade.
You don’t think it’s a problem that for about half the population political discussion has fallen to “either you agree with me 100%, or else I’ll call you a traitor?” That seems perfectly OK to you, and you think that if someone has a problem with it they are out to squash dissent?
“jim,
Hyperbolic nonsense. Your lot just want to quash dissent.”
Aside from being extremely insulting, can you back that up with anything? And if Democrats really want success in Iraq, which they lamely claim they do, and only when pressed on it, why did they all sit on their hands and not even clap when President Bush in the SOTU speech mentioned succeeding in Iraq? The Republicans all stood up and clapped. The silence from the other side of the aisle spoke volumes.
Well again, where is the accusation that Petraeus is a traitor? I think he’s a yes man who’s telling his boss what he wants to hear. Does that trouble you? I think you’re just afraid that there’s another side to this debate and it is beginning to attract an electoral majority.
Alli B,
Now that’s truly hilarious. Democrats don’t want victory in Iraq (whatever that is) because they don’t leap to their feet and clapping at the Great Leader’s mention of the glorious success of Iraq. Brings to mind the anecdote about the Soviet party Congress where they gave Stalin a standing ovation, and then everybody was afraid to stop clapping.
If any criticism or disagreement with the great and good Petraeus is to be spun as calling him a liar or accusing him of treason, I think the inference is clear: all dissent is worthy of being quashed.
Because we get a greater benefit from being able to trade in a stable world system than we would save be allowing either anarchy or a hostile power to become hegemon. We are a trading nation, and have been sense Jamestown planted tobacco. Trading states, be they 5th centruy BC Athens, 12th centruy Venice, 17th century Netherlands, or 21st centru America, benefit from international stability and free sea lanes for their trade.
It also goes back to Marshall’s “millions for defense, not one farthing for tribute” in response to the Barbary Pirates, which is a restatement of the notion from antiquity that it is cheaper in the long run to pay for your own defence than to pay tribute and buy off threats.
Reactionary, perhaps you’ve not heard, but MoveOn.org ran an ad in the NYT saying “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” I think most any vaguely fluent English speaker will agree that “Betray Us” and “Traitor” are related.
Reactionary, as you averred to the Move On ad in your #20 and not having personally condemned it, how can you then disengenuously state in #27 that Gen. Petraeus has not been declared a traitor?
However, your silence on the matter is of as much value as my silence on the matter …. i.e. not worth much.
However, it is the silence emanating from those who we have hired to lead the country, that is so damaging. The democrats, by their silence, is accepting fully, the ad put on by Move On, who have taken on the role of Paymaster to the Democrati(ic) Party.
Their position of cutting and running and declaring defeat and coming home, may be of some value to a libertarian view on foreign policy. However, one of the main reasons that libertarians have not attained power in the USA, is that this feckless foreign policy is seen by most in the land, to be absurd and not to be trusted.
REac
Yes, I agree — Lantos was spouting hyperbolic nonsense, and insulting a member of the armed forces he voted for in the first place. Calling him a liar is the same in this case as calling him a traitor. He should be ashamed of himself.
Andrew,
I didn’t read the MoveOn ad as I am not particularly concerned with what MoveOn or the NY Times have to say on anything. The play on Petraeus’s name strikes me as the rough and tumble of free speech. I see no need for anybody to condemn it to prove their bona fides.
jim,
Don’t fall apart on me, lad.
Just responding to your #27, answering your question.
[blockquote]Their position of cutting and running and declaring defeat and coming home, may be of some value to a libertarian view on foreign policy. However, one of the main reasons that libertarians have not attained power in the USA, is that this feckless foreign policy is seen by most in the land, to be absurd and not to be trusted.[/quote]
Scotsreb,
You can keep on saying that, right up to the time George Bush’s beloved Hispanic constituency puts Democrats in the majority for the foreseeable future. Americans voted for a change of policy in 2006. They are going to vote for it again in 2008.
The change in policy wasn’t over Iraq. It was over the failure of Repbulicans to act like the fiscal conservatives they claimed to be!
The motto of the last four years prior to the election could have been “We’ve never met a spending bill we didn’t like”. And the people were rightly angry about that.
Who had the biggest gains among the Democrats elected to Congress? Those who claimed to be moderate and in many cases in favor of the war in Iraq, who promised to reign in spending. Nancy Pelosi found out quickly that she could not depend on many of these freshman senators and congressmen to fall into lock-step with her plans for the new congress, as they one and all announced to her that she was way to liberal for them, and they would in no way promise a blank check to her policies.
That was the change of policy granted.
Oh, and by the way, the Republicans have NEVER gotten a majority of votes from the Hispanic or Latino community. Except in Florida for JEB Bush, and that could have been his fluency in Spanish plus his Columbian wife. But not Nationally.
I still wish Jeb had run for President before George, though I voted for both.
Yeah, with JEB we would have seen that VETO pen come out on a regular basis.
#37,
That is my point. Under George Bush, the country has seen the greatest influx of Hispanic and other ethnic nationalities in its history. They have high birthrates, and they don’t particularly care whether the Iraqi government is safe from its citizens.
Reactionary, your non sequiturs are getting hard to keep up with.
And you said: “Alli B,
Now that’s truly hilarious. Democrats don’t want victory in Iraq (whatever that is) because they don’t leap to their feet and clapping at the Great Leader’s mention of the glorious success of Iraq.”
It’s not that they didn’t even so much as clap that they don’t want success, it’s just further proof of it. They’ve been undermining this war effort for years, and there’s plenty of reason to believe they don’t want success. It would hurt them politically. If you watched the speech, you would note what they agree with and what they don’t by who claps for what. It’s actually quite easy to discern. No mystery involved.
I thought Jeb Bush’s wife was born Mexican, not Colombian. I could be wrong.
Interesting to read this thread and realize that the isolationist right and the far left are at one on this issue.
Katherine,
That is not quite accurate. The far left has always been in favor of exporting democracy and human rights through military means. Also interesting to see that the far left and the neo-conservatives both believe in expanding entitlements, federalizing education, maintaining farm subsidies, and open borders.
Shouldn’t be surprising. What makes the neo-cons “neo” is that when the Left decided that it didn’t like America in 1968 or so, the ones who still wanted us to win the cold War became neo-cons. And lately the far left is conflicted between those you mention, and those for whom anti-Westernism is the dominant motivator. They act like pacifists at the moment because the West can defeat their communist/islamist/insert odious ism here buddies. Weaken the West till the forces of darkness are strong enough to impose collectivist anti-Western policies on us all. Not a coordinated, concious plan, I think, but the end result is the same.
The far left, in my observations since my adolescence in the the 60s, has been against using military force for just about anything since that time, much less for exporting democracy and human rights — unles you mean U.N. “peacekeeping” forces, which don’t do anything very military.
Andrew,
I can think of no better way to weaken the West, and the US in particular, than by expanding the welfare state and fighting overseas wars, all while opening our borders to nationalities that hold us and our institutions in contempt.
The neo-conservatives have driven the Old Right out of the GOP and in doing so have doomed the GOP to minority status for the indefinite future.
I agree to a large extent, Reac, I just disagree that a precipitious withdrawl in Iraq would serve our best interests. It would confirm that the US can be frightened off with relativly light casualties, and encourage our enemies.
Well let’s work from that point of agreement. We broke it, so yes, we have definitely bought it and no, we do not need film of platoons sprinting for the helicopters. The problem as I see it is that our strategy seems to have stymied the process of getting a credible Iraqi state to emerge.