GENERAL DAVID PATRAEUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS - HONOR, INTEGRITY AND.....EXTREME PATIENCE!
There are three words that I will use in an article that describe the treatment of General David Patraeus by Congressional Democrats both in the House and the Senate. The other words are not used in my vocabulary and if so they are not decent for print, but their descriptive nature probably better defines the Democrats. But the words that will be used here are DISGUSTING, DESPICABLE AND DISGRACEFUL !
During two days of grilling by both Senate and House committees concerning the report that the General was submitting to Congress on the progress in Iraq, Patraeus was the epitome of calm and patience during insults to his character, honor and integrity that most of us would have used as reason to plaster someone to the floor in response.
In , "questioning, " that was reminiscent of the Joseph McCarthy hearings of the 1950's General Patraeus despite the diatribes and lecturing by arrogant Senators and Representatives presented a report of great progress and success since the beginning of the surge. With advanced indications that this would be the case Democrats reacted to the progressive news with forgone conclusions and accusations that fit their surrender agenda, having no intention of accepting or even admitting that the report that Patraeus was giving showed any signs of success or progress.
Democrats as a whole acted like spoiled children who when confronted with not getting their way will stomp their feet and throw temper tantrums. Seeing that the report was not going to adhere to the falsehoods and deceptions that Democrats have been spewing forth since the surge has begun and that Patraeus was not going to fall in line with them and advise the President to immediately pull out of Iraq because of a failed policy, Democrats in both Chambers of Congress attacked the General, refused to allow him to answer many questions and lectured this honorable man while impugning his honor and integrity.
Senator James Inhofe, (R. OK), senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee has posted a website dedicated to compiling citizens signatures to join him in urging Democrats to actually read the report rather than make assumptions based on foregone conclusion which follow their surrender agenda. I encourage you to visit the site.
Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry and Representatives Robert Wexler and Gary Ackerman are among Democrats who rather than listening to the Generals report chose instead , from their fast experience as military commanders, to lecture Patraeus on his responsibilities while accusing him of only given partial statistics and false reports. RINO Republican Chuck Hagel also joined in on this line of , "questioning." Senator Russ Feingold would not even give the General the courtesy of answering his diatribe of misleading and lecturing , "questions, " but continually interrupted Patraeus and would not allow him to get a word in edge wise, while lamblasting the General in a manner reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
Senator Charles Schumer actually attributed the decrease in violence in the Anbar Province to the War Lords and stated that our troops had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Continual accusation that Iraq has detracted from the search and elimination of Al Qaeda rose despite the General reporting that since the surge began, "5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters."
General Patraeus also stated that if current progress and success continues that approximately 5000 troops could be home by Christmas with the entire 30, 000 added for the surge home by next summer. Of course this has been the entire media focus from the Generals report which coincides with Democrats plans to make another attempt to force a complete and immediate pull out, (surrender), as announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after meeting with the President and hearing that he is accepting General Patraeus' recommendations for Iraq.
Through all of this General Patraeus showed the poise and patience of a gentleman whose honor , integrity and ability to command place him among the greatest that this country has produced. Privately one must wonder if the General longs for the peace and quiet of the battlefield after facing agenda driven Democrats who see him as the enemy and his duty as a commanding officer their responsibility to question and condemn.
Democrats did prove three distinctive things during these hearings.
1 - Their claim to support the troops is a lie, since they spent every opportunity berating what our brave men and women have accomplished and refused to give them any credit for success or progress. This runs hand in hand with an obvious hatred for the military as a whole.
2 - They have absolutely no desire for victory in the War on Terror since they not only would not acknowledge any of the progress or success that General Patraeus reported but have already indicated that his report was basically a lie and contrived by the Bush Administration despite the Generals opening statement to the contrary and they plan to continue with their surrender at any cost agenda.
3 - Their claimed notion that they are concerned about the security of America and Americans is only a shallow campaign pledge that is designed to garner votes and has no semblance of truth. Their only goal is political power and if sacrificing the country and her people in the process is what it takes they are willing to make that happen by their actions in Congress.
We have a responsibility as citizens of the country we love to remove this ant-American, blame America first leadership from the halls of Congress. If allowed to continue through the next election Democrats will destroy this nation, surrender us to our enemies and remove all aspect of freedom replacing them instead with a Marxist/Socialist society that they can control with every American as their Socialist slave to an all encompassing government.....if the nation survives the enemy they favor and coddle.
Ken Taylor
During two days of grilling by both Senate and House committees concerning the report that the General was submitting to Congress on the progress in Iraq, Patraeus was the epitome of calm and patience during insults to his character, honor and integrity that most of us would have used as reason to plaster someone to the floor in response.
In , "questioning, " that was reminiscent of the Joseph McCarthy hearings of the 1950's General Patraeus despite the diatribes and lecturing by arrogant Senators and Representatives presented a report of great progress and success since the beginning of the surge. With advanced indications that this would be the case Democrats reacted to the progressive news with forgone conclusions and accusations that fit their surrender agenda, having no intention of accepting or even admitting that the report that Patraeus was giving showed any signs of success or progress.
Democrats as a whole acted like spoiled children who when confronted with not getting their way will stomp their feet and throw temper tantrums. Seeing that the report was not going to adhere to the falsehoods and deceptions that Democrats have been spewing forth since the surge has begun and that Patraeus was not going to fall in line with them and advise the President to immediately pull out of Iraq because of a failed policy, Democrats in both Chambers of Congress attacked the General, refused to allow him to answer many questions and lectured this honorable man while impugning his honor and integrity.
Senator James Inhofe, (R. OK), senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee has posted a website dedicated to compiling citizens signatures to join him in urging Democrats to actually read the report rather than make assumptions based on foregone conclusion which follow their surrender agenda. I encourage you to visit the site.
Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry and Representatives Robert Wexler and Gary Ackerman are among Democrats who rather than listening to the Generals report chose instead , from their fast experience as military commanders, to lecture Patraeus on his responsibilities while accusing him of only given partial statistics and false reports. RINO Republican Chuck Hagel also joined in on this line of , "questioning." Senator Russ Feingold would not even give the General the courtesy of answering his diatribe of misleading and lecturing , "questions, " but continually interrupted Patraeus and would not allow him to get a word in edge wise, while lamblasting the General in a manner reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
Senator Charles Schumer actually attributed the decrease in violence in the Anbar Province to the War Lords and stated that our troops had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Continual accusation that Iraq has detracted from the search and elimination of Al Qaeda rose despite the General reporting that since the surge began, "5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters."
General Patraeus also stated that if current progress and success continues that approximately 5000 troops could be home by Christmas with the entire 30, 000 added for the surge home by next summer. Of course this has been the entire media focus from the Generals report which coincides with Democrats plans to make another attempt to force a complete and immediate pull out, (surrender), as announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after meeting with the President and hearing that he is accepting General Patraeus' recommendations for Iraq.
Through all of this General Patraeus showed the poise and patience of a gentleman whose honor , integrity and ability to command place him among the greatest that this country has produced. Privately one must wonder if the General longs for the peace and quiet of the battlefield after facing agenda driven Democrats who see him as the enemy and his duty as a commanding officer their responsibility to question and condemn.
Democrats did prove three distinctive things during these hearings.
1 - Their claim to support the troops is a lie, since they spent every opportunity berating what our brave men and women have accomplished and refused to give them any credit for success or progress. This runs hand in hand with an obvious hatred for the military as a whole.
2 - They have absolutely no desire for victory in the War on Terror since they not only would not acknowledge any of the progress or success that General Patraeus reported but have already indicated that his report was basically a lie and contrived by the Bush Administration despite the Generals opening statement to the contrary and they plan to continue with their surrender at any cost agenda.
3 - Their claimed notion that they are concerned about the security of America and Americans is only a shallow campaign pledge that is designed to garner votes and has no semblance of truth. Their only goal is political power and if sacrificing the country and her people in the process is what it takes they are willing to make that happen by their actions in Congress.
We have a responsibility as citizens of the country we love to remove this ant-American, blame America first leadership from the halls of Congress. If allowed to continue through the next election Democrats will destroy this nation, surrender us to our enemies and remove all aspect of freedom replacing them instead with a Marxist/Socialist society that they can control with every American as their Socialist slave to an all encompassing government.....if the nation survives the enemy they favor and coddle.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:16 AM
17 Comments:
Ken, I haven't posted for a while, but I will give you a couple of thoughts.
First, there is no military solution for Iraq. The point of the SURGE was to improve security so that Iraq's politicians could solve their problems. That clearly has not happened.
Just look at what you wrote and the venom you have for Dems. Yet, you must believe that the Sunnis and Shia will put aside blood feuds going back centuries and come together for the good of Iraq. It is not going to happen.
Second, even by what Petraeus is projecting, we will end the SURGE next summer and then we will get back to the pre-SURGE level. That is not progress, that is just moving the bar back to where we started in February of this year.
Third, if we are really making progress in Iraq, then why do the Iraqi people not believe we are making progress?
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1043a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf
In addition, if we are making progress why is it resulting in the worst American casualties of the 4 1/2 year war? September is shaping up to be the worst with 32 dead already. August 2007 was the second worst August of the war, July the worst, June the worst, May the second worst, March the worst, February the worst, January the second worst. Americans don't want to spill any more blood to prop up the inpotent and highly corrupt Iraqi government.
Fourth, we have spent a half trillion dollars already. As I have pointed out in the past, this money is being borrowed from foreign governments including China and OPEC nations which include Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Most Americans inherently know that this is a bad idea and don't want to continue throwing good money after bad.
I agree with you that the 2008 election is an important one. But it seems to me that those candidates who support Bush's policy of flushing more lives and dollars down the Iraqi toilet will be the ones who are in trouble.
Welcome back Rob, first your point in the surge giving time for the Iraq government, remember though they have fallen short in many areas, (Iraq government), the surge has not been in place long. The full increase has only been for twp months. Time is needed at its present course to finish what was started in the surge.
Second, though I am usually more even handed yet against liberals, the actions and treatment by Democrats of Patraeus was disgusting, unwarrented and unnecessary. There was no excuse for denegrating this honorable man and excellent commander.
It was obviously for the purpose of getting press coverage showing their , "power, " and their hatred of the military. It was a dispicable display of idiocy and power hunger.
As far as the Sunnis ans Shia. I agree that thoudands of years will not disappear any time soon. That is NOT why we want time for the Iraqi government. The time is to allow them to stabalize so that outside influencs like Iran and Syria, especially Iran have no chance of moving in when we move out.
The internal problems that have existed for generations can then with a safe, stabalized Iraq who is strong enough to prevent a take over from Iran, can come to some sort of compromise or shared government with the tribes. that is not nor ever has been our responsibility nor a goal that we have pushed by our presense.
Our purpose is simply to make Iraq safe from outside influences including Al Qaeda so that the Iraqis can iron out their differences and government.
Oh BTW when are your Bears going to wake up and set Grossman aside so they can actually have an offense to match their defense ? Good luck! LOL
Bears first - I love Grossman and think he is going to be a great player. Since 1985 the Bears have been changing QBs constantly. For the first time in 2 decades they actually have a decent player. He got them to the Super Bowl, which is more than what most QBs can say. No matter what anyone thinks about Grossman, the loss to the Chargers was in no way his fault.
I am not sure what "actions and treatment" you are referring w/respect to the way the Dems questioned Petraeus. Nor do I understand your comment about Congress "showing their , "power," and their hatred of the military."
"Stay the course" is standard operating procedure for our current CIC. The fact is that we have been told that progress has been made over and over and over again. Yet, American soldiers are dying at a faster pace than ever. We are spending more money than ever - $3 billion a week right now. And, all the while there is no political solution anywhere on the horizon between Iraqis.
I simply do not understand how or why you think there will be national reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq. If it does ever happen, it won't come anytime within the next decade, and it most certainly will not happen with an American occupying force propping up the current, impotent and corrupt Shia dominated government that is openly warm to Iranian influence.
At best - based on what Petraeus and Crocker said - by next summer, we will get back to where we were in February of this year in terms of the number of troops. And, Petraeus and Crocker both testified that there is no guarantee that there will be reconciliation.
Funding Iraq has nothing to do with supporting our troops. People who continue to support Bush's Iraq policy are basically betting the lives of about 1000 American soldiers and about $250 billion in borrowed money that the current Iraqi politicians will resolve their differences and end their feuding. Personally, I don't see the point in making that bet. I'd rather save the lives of American soldiers and take that $250 billion for U.S. infrastructure.
Gee thanks Rob. If I wanted the Moveon.org point of view I would visit their web site.
Ken: Thanks for sharing the link to Senator Imhoff's letter:
http://www.readhisreport.com/signletter.php
I signed, and proudly.
Speaking of political reconciliation, Crocker gave so many excellent examples of how this is working now across the country. It's just those pesky benchmarks, written by Democrats and evaluated by Democrats, that remain difficult to fulfill completely.
God forbid we would quit just when things are going well. Only a Democrat would even think of doing such a stupid thing.
Oh, and for Senator Schumer, maybe we should send his office a copy of that letter the Anbar Government gave to President Bush dedicating their victory against Al Queda to the American victims of September 11th.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Rob!
Bravo Ken!
Everything you said is true.
First let me say I am glad to see Chuck Hagel go, Good Bye, Good Riddance RINO!
What Move On .org did is despicable. This really get's my blood boiling.
I cant believe the Democrats that are now "Owned" by MoveOn.org let that trash slander a man that put on the Uniform of This Country and has risked his life for this Country and for those in Congress and running for President for thier right to speak in Congress.
And they treat him like a liar and dont denounce the Move On Ad!!!
They have become the lowest of the low.
I personally think Patraeus should use thier own tactics against them, I think he has a lawsuit! DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER!!
Sue MoveOn.org I say!!!
Screw 'em!
In addition, if we are making progress why is it resulting in the worst American casualties of the 4 1/2 year war? September is shaping up to be the worst with 32 dead already.
This is dated, but I think still has relevance.
Also:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
I really do think that our enemies "over there" are taking a page out of the Viet Cong play book, and are paying close attention to what we are doing "over here". The more they can make headlines in the media, the more they know they can influence Congress and American public opinion.
From The Measure of a Nation, by Mark Silverberg:
Arnaud de Borchgrave noted that during the Vietnam War, General Giap relied on the American peace movement to weaken American resolve. That had the effect of turning an American military victory into a political defeat. Former North Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin once said that the peace movement was "essential to our strategy." In America, the open support of Hanoi by Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (now head of International ANSWER, which coordinates the largest protests) and others "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses," Bui Tin said. "Through dissent and protest," the US "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."
As a result, the surprise 1968 Tet Offensive (which involved suicidal attacks by the Viet Cong in some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously) turned the political tide of the war against America and eventually led to the protest movement that (in turn) led to the American defeat in Vietnam. From a military perspective, it is important to note that the Tet Offensive was a singularly unmitigated disaster both for Hanoi and for its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam. Not one of the objectives of the Viet Cong in that Offensive was achieved. Yet, it proved to be a major turning point in the war.
Being the first major "television war," Americans watched the carnage in horror and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a military disaster for America. One of America's most trusted newsmen, CBS's Walter Cronkite, even appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning a helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. Eugene McCarthy carried New Hampshire and Bobbie Kennedy stepped forward to challenge the policies of an already distraught President. Six weeks later, Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of national protest, announced that he would not seek re-election. His ratings had plummeted to 30 percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war had dropped to 20 percent. He had concluded that the war was unwinnable.
In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear that the antiwar movement in the United States (which led to the collapse of political will in Washington) was "essential to our strategy."
Iraq and Vietnam are two totally different wars. But I think the nature in how was is covered has changed; and whereas those we fight don't pay attention to their own body counts, America has lost the will to sustain losses in order to win conflicts. It doesn't matter that 100 al-Qaeda fighters might have been killed in a firefight. What matters to us and our evening news are the "2 more U.S. soldiers dead".
Americans are willing to sustain losses if there is a clear mission and end game in sight. Bush is constantly changing the goals - removing Saddam, removing WMDs, allowing the Iraqis to have an election, allowing the Iraqis to write a constitution, turning over sovereignty to Iraqis, etc.
As near as I can tell, our mission for our soldiers is to serve as a police force to prevent Iraqis from killing each other. By quelling the violence, the Iraqi politicians will then, theoretically, be able to resolve their differences. The problem with Iraq is simple - the political forces within the country refuse to come together.
You can continue to support the idea of sending more soldiers to their deaths and spending billions more in borrowed cash, that is up to you. But the point of the surge and any real solution to Iraq will only come when there is national reconciliation. That is not happening and the current Iraqi government, especially Maliki and his cronies, are not up to the task.
Rob, I understand your point but I do not believe there will be a national reconciliation in the way that we would prefer. In fact, we will never have reconciliation here between our parties. I know the two things are vastly different, but the underlying concept isn't. Groups believe in thigns and will not give in just to make nice.
I hated Grossman when he as at Florida. He was a pain in the side of my Auburn Tigers. I don't much follow pro football because I think they are a bunch of pampered brats, but I do know that Grossman is the real deal and if they are smart enough to build an offense to take advantage of him the Bears can succeed.
Robert, I am curious, do you believe that the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq will achieve any form of reconciliation any time in the near future?
As for Grossman, the Chicago folks who bash him are simply ignorant. He has been the starter for one year and the Bears got to the Super Bowl. If he cuts down on the turnovers even a little bit, the Bears should be all the better. The coaches, players, and Bears organization support the him, so he should be fine.
Tough loss to South Florida - saw the game. The Tigers should get back on track as they beat up on Mississippi State this weekend. Good luck.
Rob,
I don't know with any kind of certainty at all, about "national reconcilliation". But I do think that just saying "It's impossible...won't happen" also isn't reality.
Here is an interesting observation by Matt Sanchez:
With all the talk of sectarian violence, on the surface it seems very simple: Group A hates group B, group B feels it is OK to rob, steal and murder people from group A, so retaliation leads to frustration and hostilities escalate, or at least that's the media translation. But the reality is a bit more complicated – or simpler – depending on your point of view.
You see, in Baghdad, where I interviewed many Iraqis on the subject of old hatreds, religious sects or ethnic cleansing, almost all of them said there is no difference between Shia and Sunni. In fact, historically many neighborhoods have been very mixed, with Shia and Sunni marriages not uncommon. This may be where confusion in language and culture comes in, because in Baghdad violence often takes place along ethnic lines, but the reasons are possibly simpler than religious ideology.
Greed. The angry man knew very well who had forced him to leave his home, because the aggressors were mostly his neighbors, people he knew.
Here's another example of Iraqis coming together, regardless of ethnic differences. It's just one example.
I believe that outside forces- al-Qaeda and Iran- as much as anything have fueled and fomented the sectarian violence, keeping Iraq in a state of instability and chaos, and the U.S. "bogged down" in a "quagmire".
I agree on the point you made in your last paragraph.
But I also would say that Maliki's government is largely made up of corrupt, anti-Sunni folks who don't help. And, the national police force has been heavily infiltrated by Shia death squads.
In the end, Iraqis are going to have their civil war and there is nothing we can do about it. That is my opinion which is why I believe we shouldn't spill any more American blood or go any further into debt to the Chinese to fund the war.
I accept that you are willing to make the long-shot bet of another 1000 American deaths, 10,000 Americans injured, and $200 billion in additional debt owed to foreigners that over the next year Iraqis will resolve their differences. I just don't agree with you.
We'll see who is right.
But I also would say that Maliki's government is largely made up of corrupt, anti-Sunni folks who don't help. And, the national police force has been heavily infiltrated by Shia death squads.
I understand, Rob. But there have also been instances such as this one, happening.
Every now and then Maliki's government throws a bone. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that the current Iraqi government and national police force are dominated by anti-Sunni Shia.
Ultimately, you are willing to make the long-shot wager. I think it is a mistake. We will see who is right.
Thanks for the condolences. Auburn was completely clueless last week. The first weekend the O line was terrible and QB Brandon Cox was good. This week the O line was awesome, and Cox was terrible. I hope we can beat up on Miss State and get some traction. Glad you saw the game, and hope you tune in for another Auburn game or two this year.
I don't think that we can fill the chasm of Sunni/Shia differences. I do think that the country can reconcile enough to stop the violence and establish a government. After that is done, we can leave them to deal with their own issues, and if civil war erupts nationwide, then we at least gave them a solid footing.
I'm a University of Virginia grad - not much success in football in recent years, but I think we have a chance to do some damage this year. My senior year we did get to a #1 ranking had the #4 and #6 vote-getters in the Heisman, and got to the Sugar Bowl (I was there and witnessed a horrible last minute loss to Tennessee).
If they can get any kind of QB play. We have a true sophomore and a true freshmen that have both played in the first two games.
I'm fairly confident Auburn will soundly defeat MSU. Good luck - although I don't think Auburn will need it.
As for Iraq, we'll just have to see. I am not nearly as optimistic as you, and I certainly don't believe we should be betting so much blood and treasure.
Post a Comment
<< Home