What's ironic is that Eisenhower is the one who warned us against the "military-industrial complex" and all his fears have come to pass.
Given that Petraeus is a suck-up politician (he has admitted to thinking about running for office), to doubt his truthfulness was not outrageous.
Why, Gonzo, didn't they insist that the General testify under oath? They let him testify without swearing in! I believe nothing of what he says because of that. If I'd been on that panel I would have walked out in protest. Take a look at all of John Dean's recent books. He's still a Republican, btw.
Either way Bush and Petraeus try to spin things, the reality is nothing but a distortion of the truth. The following gives a much more accurate portrayal of events going on of recent:
Gonzo - I was struck most by how Petreaus's crystal ball was so murky when asked about what the situation would be even 6 months from now if we stay in Iraq and execute all his plans. How dare someone ask such a hypothetical!!! Then the picture miraculously cleared up when he was asked what would happen if we pulled out. He responded with the usual litany of very specific horrors. So, it seems to me that if he knows the results of pulling out, he can work to mitigate the possible bad effects, right? On the other hand he has no idea of what will happen if his plans are kept in place. By his own logic the less risky choice is to pull out. But what do I know ...
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the nine U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq the same day General Petraeus testified before Congress: 2.
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the MoveOn Petraeus ad: 500+.
I think the examples you gave point more towards Petraeus's intent to be as forthcoming as possible than the reverse.
Think about it:
>>I was struck most by how Petreaus's crystal ball was so murky when asked about what the situation would be even 6 months from now if we stay in Iraq and execute all his plans..<<
That's because he can't control all aspects of the situation. He cannot entirely influence the Iraqi political situation. And with factional infighting there's no way for him to guarantee a status 6 months from now. He'd be a fool to talk in absolutes in response to this question.
>>Then the picture miraculously cleared up when he was asked what would happen if we pulled out. He responded with the usual litany of very specific horrors...<<
Yeah, of course! If we pull out before a political solution then the factional chaos rises to an alltime high with no force-of-arms to moderate it.
I watched almost the entire report to the House and I was struck by how much the General was not sugarcoating anything. He was being blunt. I don't think Congress is used to "blunt".
Concluding, my opinion is that this guy has a fine track record, recently and in his career, as a military commander. Let him do his job. Leave the political end to other branches of the government.
PS: I recall a quote from an Army officer years ago during the first Gulf War. It was (and I don't recall the exact words), "the Army teaches us how to kill people and break things, not build a country".
Gonzo wrote: my opinion is that this guy has a fine track record, recently and in his career, as a military commander.
He was in charge of training the Iraqi police - total failure. His predictions about - everything - were wrong. His boss says he's a chickens*it and an suck up. Where's the "fine track record"?
And where was all this angst when any military experts who have said the occupation is a failure were really skewered by the right wing? Not to mention the Swift Vote **wipes Who Lied, or what Bush's crowd did to Max Cleland.
If you actually read the MoveOn ad, there's nothing untrue in it. But the right makes such a big stink about MoveOn's right to free speech, we don't even look at the content. How Rovian.
Good? Why isn't the content of the ad the topic of discussion instead of this lie of denegrating Petraeus? It didn't do that, but you don't read, so you'll never know. Well, mayve it does denegrate him, but it's the truth!
And I repeat - where was the outrage about all the others I've mentioned?
And I still want you to read those John Dean books. You can take them out of the library.
I don't read??? The difference between us is I *do* read, and not just what agrees with me. I can't recall the last time you cited anything remotely balanced.
The meat of the ad, if there were any, was overshadowed by the garish headline. That was my point. That's the political disaster.
And you know who's outraged by the body of the message? That teeny, tiny minority of strident leftists you believe in. The rest of the normal, moderate country sees the headline and that's where the anger lies.
Yammer all you want about John Dean and the evil within or whatever ... but if MoveOn or other extremists keep irritating the rank and file you will have no say so whatsoever. Politics requires rationale discourse, not name calling.
You only read what agrees with you, too, my friend.
The stink about the ad was a creation of the guys who thought nothing wrong with Swift Boats, etc. Where was the indignation then - on your side, that is. Making a stink about the ad clouds the room with poison so we can't talk about the actual issues.
The most vocal people coming out to say Bush is the worst thing that's ever happened to our country are not only from the left. Some of the most conservative right-wing ideologues ever have called for his impeachment. It's bi-partisan agreement that he has almost destroyed what our country stands for.
Do you know who Bruce Fein is? Here's an excerpt of an article:
While noted experts -- including a few Republicans -- are saying Bush should be impeached, few think he will be. It's not clear that the political will exists to hold the president to account. "We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon," Turley says. "If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy."
Similar fears are voiced by Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Fein is very much a member of the right. He once published a column arguing that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork."
Suddenly, though, Fein is talking about Bush as a threat to America. "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law," he wrote in the right-wing Washington Times on Dec. 20. "He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."
What alarms Fein is not only that Bush has broken laws but also that he has repeatedly shown contempt for the separation of powers. Fein wants to see congressional hearings that would explore whether Bush accepts any constitutional limitation on his own authority.
"The most important thing to me, in terms of thinking about the issue of impeachment, is to recognize that the Constitution does place a value on continuity," Fein says. "We don't want to have a situation where you make a single error, and you're exposed to an impeachment proceeding."
Fein says Congress should probe Bush on whether he plans to keep "skating the edge" of federal law by trying to concentrate power in the executive branch. "That's the key. It's that probing that's essential to knowing whether we're dealing with somebody who's really a dangerous guy. If he maintains this disregard or contempt for the coordinate branches of government, it's that conception of an omnipotent presidency that makes the occupant a dangerous person. We just can't sacrifice our liberties for ourselves and our posterity by permitting someone who thinks the state is him, and nobody else, to continue in office."
No, I don't read only those things I believe in or how else explain the complimentary post about MM the other day? Don't dissemble, Suzie. I read ALL SIDES. You don't. I can prove my objectivity; you can't.
Now here comes Bruce Fien....more yadda, yadda. It does nothing to back you up.
The left fucked up BADLY with the Petraeus ad. Deal with it. Don't try to hude and rant and misdirect. DEAL with it.
Gonzo wrote: The left f*cked up BADLY with the Petraeus ad. Deal with it. Don't try to hude and rant and misdirect. DEAL with it. "
Rant and misdirect. It's sad you can't see it's YOUR side that's doing that. Still talking about running the ad instead of the content, which was - and still is - truthful.
The content wasn't truthful and even if it was, it was a low attack. The ad was a disgrace; the military should never be attacked for promulgating political will. Bush is fair game but the generals shouldn't be.
The left didn't like what Petraeus was going to say so they proactively shit on him. That's it in a nutshell.
It was a cheap, juvenile shot.
Real Americans don't act that way and real Americans are revolted by that sort of grandstanding.
There has never, ever been an administration that so undermined the core tenets of our Constitution.
An article in the WashPost yesterday (day before?) analyzing what Petreaus said and what the actual reports say concludes that his numbers are the exact opposite of what the GAO and other reports show.
I just have a huge problem with the whole "Betray Us" ad. It's unfair and, yes, unAmerican. The military is apolitical and Petraeus cannot respond to attacks like that even if he wanted to.
2 things - the ad had a question mark at the end of the headline. It was a question.
second - the US has loads of history with regard to reigning in the military. The founding fathers made it very clear they didn't want the military to be making decisions, which is why the commander-in-chief is a civilian. So the politics here is Bush hiding behind a general. It SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A GENERAL testifying to Congress. It should have been Gates or someone else. It was Bush who made the military political.
Well, you're wrong there, historically. Generals always have briefed Congress dating back to the Civil War (although maybe before, I'd have to check).
It's not a question of hiding anything, it's the principle that Generals in the field are as beholden to Congress as they are the President and can be called to report at any time.
waiting to hear the outrage from the right about Limbaugh's disrespect for our military. Hmm? Certainly not hearing it from Fox Noise. Soldiers who don't approve of this war are "not real soldiers?"
There are now more military brass who have left the military so they can speak their minds publicly (since they were ignored when they spoke privately to the powers that be). According to Limpdick, they're all "not real soldiers, including Jack Murtha.
Limbaugh was taken out of context and what's being bandied about is a manufactured controversy. Just like Edwards misspoke when he said all your blacks will be dead or in jail. You don't see me hyperventilating over that either.
Officers don't quit so that they can speak their mind, officers retire due to regulations or being passed over and then say things you loons want to hear to make money.
Limbaugh was NOT taken out of context. I have heard the entire, un-edited piece (not the one HE edited the next day when he was trying to get out of it). In fact his mention of "phony soldiers" came before he even mention the one guy who really is a sleaze.
This isn't the first time that he has denigrated people who oppose the war, including the military. Why are you defending him?
As for officers only resigning when they get passed over for promotions - so you're suggesting that these guys have no integrity? That it's impossible that they resigned for moral and pricipled purposes? ALL of them? Now look who is denigrating the military. Let's start a firestorm over you, too!
As for the Edwards quote - I've never heard that. Please cite an unedited version, thank you. Otherwise I'll treat it as a right-wing conspiracy ;-)
Suzie, much as you want to believe that Limbaugh was denigrating all soldiers even you have to agree that doing that would be really out of character for him and makes no sense.
As to Edwards comments, I guess you didn't look very hard. In his own (mangled) words:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6142.html
I prefer to give both gentlemen the benefit of the doubt because Limbaugh has been pro-military for decades and Edwards has no record of stereotyping blacks.
As to former military men resigning on principle alone, please forward me a link. I'm open-minded on that possibility but I need proof.
It is NOT out of character for Rush to denigrate everyone who disagrees with him. That's what he does. So if it's military, well, they get denigrated too.
I just came across this commentary about an article on FoxNews.com. Care to comment about the hypocrisy of the Fox writer?
And I suppose you'll support a resolution on the Senate floor condemning both Rush for his remarks (all of them, not what Rush has edited about his tirade) and the "American Conservative" magazine for it's comments about Petreaus. It's a cover story with the headline "Sycophant Savior" and includes this text:
"He has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country."
You could just substitute "American Conservative" for "MoveOn.Org" Good idea, right? Or is it only outrageous when the left says it, but not the right? I expect you to write your Congressman to be "fair and balanced" about this. (gag)
I repeat, it is out of character for Rush to attack the military in general. I heard the audio and I'm smart enough to know to whom he was referring to and it wasn't the military in general. Again, it's anti-Rush wishful thinking to figure otherwise.
I see you didn't comment on Edwards gaffe. I repeat, you don't see me jumping up and down thinking he meant literally what he said. Because I can...gasp....reason.
I'd have to read the American Conservative article to comment knowledgeably but if they said that then, yes, they should also be publicly condemned.
30 comments:
What's ironic is that Eisenhower is the one who warned us against the "military-industrial complex" and all his fears have come to pass.
Given that Petraeus is a suck-up politician (he has admitted to thinking about running for office), to doubt his truthfulness was not outrageous.
Why, Gonzo, didn't they insist that the General testify under oath? They let him testify without swearing in! I believe nothing of what he says because of that. If I'd been on that panel I would have walked out in protest.
Take a look at all of John Dean's recent books. He's still a Republican, btw.
They didn't swear him in because it was a report to Congress, not testimony. That would be my guess.
It was preordained that whatever this guy said the anti-war crowd was going to reject it, call him a liar, and otherwise besmirch his character.
so we are now seeing the reports on violence in Iraq coming in - reports that directly contradict Petraeus' testimony. He's a liar after all.
So you're saying that it's a good thing that you can find data to be able to call him a liar after you've already done so?
That's pathetic.
Either way Bush and Petraeus try to spin things, the reality is nothing but a distortion of the truth. The following gives a much more accurate portrayal of events going on of recent:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4545
That's interesting, Hunter.
Gonzo - I was struck most by how Petreaus's crystal ball was so murky when asked about what the situation would be even 6 months from now if we stay in Iraq and execute all his plans. How dare someone ask such a hypothetical!!! Then the picture miraculously cleared up when he was asked what would happen if we pulled out. He responded with the usual litany of very specific horrors. So, it seems to me that if he knows the results of pulling out, he can work to mitigate the possible bad effects, right? On the other hand he has no idea of what will happen if his plans are kept in place. By his own logic the less risky choice is to pull out. But what do I know ...
One more thing:
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the nine U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq the same day General Petraeus testified before Congress: 2.
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the MoveOn Petraeus ad: 500+.
I think the examples you gave point more towards Petraeus's intent to be as forthcoming as possible than the reverse.
Think about it:
>>I was struck most by how Petreaus's crystal ball was so murky when asked about what the situation would be even 6 months from now if we stay in Iraq and execute all his plans..<<
That's because he can't control all aspects of the situation. He cannot entirely influence the Iraqi political situation. And with factional infighting there's no way for him to guarantee a status 6 months from now. He'd be a fool to talk in absolutes in response to this question.
>>Then the picture miraculously cleared up when he was asked what would happen if we pulled out. He responded with the usual litany of very specific horrors...<<
Yeah, of course! If we pull out before a political solution then the factional chaos rises to an alltime high with no force-of-arms to moderate it.
I watched almost the entire report to the House and I was struck by how much the General was not sugarcoating anything. He was being blunt. I don't think Congress is used to "blunt".
Concluding, my opinion is that this guy has a fine track record, recently and in his career, as a military commander. Let him do his job. Leave the political end to other branches of the government.
PS: I recall a quote from an Army officer years ago during the first Gulf War. It was (and I don't recall the exact words), "the Army teaches us how to kill people and break things, not build a country".
Gonzo wrote: my opinion is that this guy has a fine track record, recently and in his career, as a military commander.
He was in charge of training the Iraqi police - total failure. His predictions about - everything - were wrong. His boss says he's a chickens*it and an suck up. Where's the "fine track record"?
And where was all this angst when any military experts who have said the occupation is a failure were really skewered by the right wing? Not to mention the Swift Vote **wipes Who Lied, or what Bush's crowd did to Max Cleland.
If you actually read the MoveOn ad, there's nothing untrue in it. But the right makes such a big stink about MoveOn's right to free speech, we don't even look at the content. How Rovian.
The MoveOn ad is blossoming into a huge political disaster. Good.
Good? Why isn't the content of the ad the topic of discussion instead of this lie of denegrating Petraeus? It didn't do that, but you don't read, so you'll never know. Well, mayve it does denegrate him, but it's the truth!
And I repeat - where was the outrage about all the others I've mentioned?
And I still want you to read those John Dean books. You can take them out of the library.
I don't read??? The difference between us is I *do* read, and not just what agrees with me. I can't recall the last time you cited anything remotely balanced.
The meat of the ad, if there were any, was overshadowed by the garish headline. That was my point. That's the political disaster.
And you know who's outraged by the body of the message? That teeny, tiny minority of strident leftists you believe in. The rest of the normal, moderate country sees the headline and that's where the anger lies.
Yammer all you want about John Dean and the evil within or whatever ... but if MoveOn or other extremists keep irritating the rank and file you will have no say so whatsoever. Politics requires rationale discourse, not name calling.
You only read what agrees with you, too, my friend.
The stink about the ad was a creation of the guys who thought nothing wrong with Swift Boats, etc. Where was the indignation then - on your side, that is. Making a stink about the ad clouds the room with poison so we can't talk about the actual issues.
The most vocal people coming out to say Bush is the worst thing that's ever happened to our country are not only from the left. Some of the most conservative right-wing ideologues ever have called for his impeachment. It's bi-partisan agreement that he has almost destroyed what our country stands for.
Do you know who Bruce Fein is? Here's an excerpt of an article:
While noted experts -- including a few Republicans -- are saying Bush should be impeached, few think he will be. It's not clear that the political will exists to hold the president to account. "We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon," Turley says. "If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy."
Similar fears are voiced by Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Fein is very much a member of the right. He once published a column arguing that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork."
Suddenly, though, Fein is talking about Bush as a threat to America. "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law," he wrote in the right-wing Washington Times on Dec. 20. "He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."
What alarms Fein is not only that Bush has broken laws but also that he has repeatedly shown contempt for the separation of powers. Fein wants to see congressional hearings that would explore whether Bush accepts any constitutional limitation on his own authority.
"The most important thing to me, in terms of thinking about the issue of impeachment, is to recognize that the Constitution does place a value on continuity," Fein says. "We don't want to have a situation where you make a single error, and you're exposed to an impeachment proceeding."
Fein says Congress should probe Bush on whether he plans to keep "skating the edge" of federal law by trying to concentrate power in the executive branch. "That's the key. It's that probing that's essential to knowing whether we're dealing with somebody who's really a dangerous guy. If he maintains this disregard or contempt for the coordinate branches of government, it's that conception of an omnipotent presidency that makes the occupant a dangerous person. We just can't sacrifice our liberties for ourselves and our posterity by permitting someone who thinks the state is him, and nobody else, to continue in office."
Errrr....
No, I don't read only those things I believe in or how else explain the complimentary post about MM the other day? Don't dissemble, Suzie. I read ALL SIDES. You don't. I can prove my objectivity; you can't.
Now here comes Bruce Fien....more yadda, yadda. It does nothing to back you up.
The left fucked up BADLY with the Petraeus ad. Deal with it. Don't try to hude and rant and misdirect. DEAL with it.
A simple "oops" would suffice.
Um, no, Gonz, the left was far too kind with that ad.
This is what the real issue is, no matter how much sand the neocons throw in our face to distract us.
Gonzo wrote: The left f*cked up BADLY with the Petraeus ad. Deal with it. Don't try to hude and rant and misdirect. DEAL with it. "
Rant and misdirect. It's sad you can't see it's YOUR side that's doing that. Still talking about running the ad instead of the content, which was - and still is - truthful.
The content wasn't truthful and even if it was, it was a low attack. The ad was a disgrace; the military should never be attacked for promulgating political will. Bush is fair game but the generals shouldn't be.
The left didn't like what Petraeus was going to say so they proactively shit on him. That's it in a nutshell.
It was a cheap, juvenile shot.
Real Americans don't act that way and real Americans are revolted by that sort of grandstanding.
Gonzo wrote: Real Americans don't act that way and real Americans are revolted by that sort of grandstanding.
Real Americans? You piece of Sh*t. How DARE you impugn me like that? HOW F*CKING DARE YOU?
I "impugn" you in the same way I would call you violent if you were standing there holding a bloody knife. If you support that MoveOn ad, then QED.
This "piece of shit" spent over 4 defending it, not undermining core institutions.
There has never, ever been an administration that so undermined the core tenets of our Constitution.
An article in the WashPost yesterday (day before?) analyzing what Petreaus said and what the actual reports say concludes that his numbers are the exact opposite of what the GAO and other reports show.
Well, that's a legit beef, then.
I just have a huge problem with the whole "Betray Us" ad. It's unfair and, yes, unAmerican. The military is apolitical and Petraeus cannot respond to attacks like that even if he wanted to.
2 things - the ad had a question mark at the end of the headline. It was a question.
second - the US has loads of history with regard to reigning in the military. The founding fathers made it very clear they didn't want the military to be making decisions, which is why the commander-in-chief is a civilian. So the politics here is Bush hiding behind a general. It SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A GENERAL testifying to Congress. It should have been Gates or someone else. It was Bush who made the military political.
Well, you're wrong there, historically. Generals always have briefed Congress dating back to the Civil War (although maybe before, I'd have to check).
It's not a question of hiding anything, it's the principle that Generals in the field are as beholden to Congress as they are the President and can be called to report at any time.
waiting to hear the outrage from the right about Limbaugh's disrespect for our military. Hmm? Certainly not hearing it from Fox Noise. Soldiers who don't approve of this war are "not real soldiers?"
There are now more military brass who have left the military so they can speak their minds publicly (since they were ignored when they spoke privately to the powers that be). According to Limpdick, they're all "not real soldiers, including Jack Murtha.
Limbaugh was taken out of context and what's being bandied about is a manufactured controversy. Just like Edwards misspoke when he said all your blacks will be dead or in jail. You don't see me hyperventilating over that either.
Officers don't quit so that they can speak their mind, officers retire due to regulations or being passed over and then say things you loons want to hear to make money.
Limbaugh was NOT taken out of context. I have heard the entire, un-edited piece (not the one HE edited the next day when he was trying to get out of it). In fact his mention of "phony soldiers" came before he even mention the one guy who really is a sleaze.
This isn't the first time that he has denigrated people who oppose the war, including the military. Why are you defending him?
As for officers only resigning when they get passed over for promotions - so you're suggesting that these guys have no integrity? That it's impossible that they resigned for moral and pricipled purposes? ALL of them? Now look who is denigrating the military. Let's start a firestorm over you, too!
As for the Edwards quote - I've never heard that. Please cite an unedited version, thank you. Otherwise I'll treat it as a right-wing conspiracy ;-)
Suzie, much as you want to believe that Limbaugh was denigrating all soldiers even you have to agree that doing that would be really out of character for him and makes no sense.
As to Edwards comments, I guess you didn't look very hard. In his own (mangled) words:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6142.html
I prefer to give both gentlemen the benefit of the doubt because Limbaugh has been pro-military for decades and Edwards has no record of stereotyping blacks.
As to former military men resigning on principle alone, please forward me a link. I'm open-minded on that possibility but I need proof.
It is NOT out of character for Rush to denigrate everyone who disagrees with him. That's what he does. So if it's military, well, they get denigrated too.
I just came across this commentary about an article on FoxNews.com. Care to comment about the hypocrisy of the Fox writer?
Fox News' attack on the honor and integrity of our war generals
And I suppose you'll support a resolution on the Senate floor condemning both Rush for his remarks (all of them, not what Rush has edited about his tirade) and the "American Conservative" magazine for it's comments about Petreaus. It's a cover story with the headline "Sycophant Savior" and includes this text:
"He has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country."
You could just substitute "American Conservative" for "MoveOn.Org" Good idea, right? Or is it only outrageous when the left says it, but not the right? I expect you to write your Congressman to be "fair and balanced" about this. (gag)
I repeat, it is out of character for Rush to attack the military in general. I heard the audio and I'm smart enough to know to whom he was referring to and it wasn't the military in general. Again, it's anti-Rush wishful thinking to figure otherwise.
I see you didn't comment on Edwards gaffe. I repeat, you don't see me jumping up and down thinking he meant literally what he said. Because I can...gasp....reason.
I'd have to read the American Conservative article to comment knowledgeably but if they said that then, yes, they should also be publicly condemned.
Post a Comment