Defending General Petraeus
If you haven’t already seen or read General Petraeus’ testimony to Congress already I have his complete testimony and accompanying Powerpoint slides posted at Forward Deployed. Additionally I have posted the full page ad taken out in the New York Times by Moveon.org smearing General Petraeus.
I highly recommend that everyone read my posting on this that totally destroys the leftist fantasies dreamed up in the Moveon.org ad.
see GI the libs will never admit to progess especially not with an election coming up
their main gripe was US casualties and not seeing anymore american bloodshed and now that number has dropped significantly since the surge they will focus on the political bitching about iraqi civial war, the governments shortcomings
liberals are never satisified with common-sense approaches
they only know one end state and that is to cut and run at first chance
"General Betray us"
Man, at least they can come up with a better pun.
What is funny about the libs is that they complained about Rumsfeld and he has since been canned, they complained about there not being enough troops and then more troops were sent, they complained security was poor and now there was been major improvements in security, so now they complain about political progress.
The next thing the military will do once the security situation stabilizes is focus on political progress. When political progress is made the libs will find something else to complain about. Notice everything with them is complaints and no solutions.
The guy that has been coming up with the best solutions General Petraeus they are committed to destroying. Then these same people have the nerve to complain about Iraqi politicians?
The blog from the "forward deployed" tore apart that ad with surgical precision. I loved it.
Ironically, for Iraq to make political progress, leaders who might be considered "liberal" by their standard would have to seize control of the place.
I could have tore that ad apart even more if I wanted to but I wanted to keep the posting in a readable length for a blog entry.
As far as political progress we will be able to make a much better determination on this in March when Petraeus reports to Congress again. If the trend stays the same and security continues to approve more progress politically will be made. However, until the JAM militia and their Iranian masters are taken out there will be no reconciliation. So I fully expect once Al Qaida is effectively destroyed in Iraq that the US military will launch an offensive to destroy what is left of JAM.
Yesterday afternoon NPR was a “the U.S. is failing in Iraq” love-fest of liberal propaganda.
First was Richard Clarke. A few things he said stuck out, such as the Global War on Terror (GWOT), according to him, isn’t global, isn’t a war, and isn’t on terror. He called it an “oxymoron.” Tell that to the folks we have on most (all populated?) continents targeting terrorists. By his definition we’ve probably not had a “global” war.
Then he was skeptical of U.S. intel assessments that Bin Laden may be in Pakistan. The reasons he gave were; a) U.S. intel info on this is from 2002 (again, according to Clarke) and going on that old info is the same problem we had with the bad intel on Iraq’s WMD, b) Bin Laden’s lieutenant is probably in Pakistan and the likely would not be located together (as if that border region is a two stoplight town with one hotel), and c) it’d be easy for him to leave that region. Each of his points has gaping logic problems. He suggested Bin Laden might be in Yemen. Clarke has, amazingly, become even more pathetic since his book came out a couple of years ago.
Then NPR referred to a poll where Iraqi’s contradict Gen. Petraeus assertion that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq. Basically they gave the same or more weight to some Iraqi guy on the street saying “things are way worse” than the nation-wide data Petraeus displayed on his slides. Perception vs. the hard data. Emotion vs. fact.
And I got a lot of flack on my blog and at the Marmot’s for suggesting that the terrorists use our media against us.
Liberals (especially those in Congress who voted to authorize OIF) always rely on the blame game …
– During the 2004 election cycle, it was "Bush's War" …
– With their failure to defeat Bush in 2004, it suddenly became "Rumsfeld's War" …
– After Rumsfeld resigned, it became "Bush's War" again …
– Unable to bear the American public's long-standing confidence in the US military, liberals (specifically Speaker Pelosi) are now using language such as the "Bush-Petraeus Plan" and the "Bush-Petraeus War" …
– I am sure that as we get closer to election day in 2008, liberals will start calling it the "McCain-Guiliani-Romney-Thompson War"