The MoveOn ad

I'm tired of hearing people with usually progressive views (like Mark Shields or John Kerry) complain the latest MoveOn ad in the New York Times asking if General Petraeus has Betrayed Us is counter-productive, "alienating those who would otherwise agree with us." It's the same bogus argument we hear about forthright atheists saying what needs to be said. I doubt anyone who genuinely questions this war will be led to support it because Move On ran an ad in the NYT some are uncomfortable with. Of course the Right Wing Noise Machine is in full throttle:

A political group supporting President Bush's Iraq war strategy with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign is airing a new TV ad denouncing a liberal group's sharp criticism of Gen. David Petraeus.

The campaign is the second rollout of ads by the group, Freedom's Watch, and capitalizes on Democratic Party unease over a newspaper ad run this week by, one of the leading anti-war voices among liberal activists.

The MoveOn ad appeared Monday in The New York Times on the morning of Petraeus' first appearance before Congress to testify about conditions in Iraq. The ad accused Petraeus of "cooking the books" for the White House. "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" it asked, playing off his name.

The ad has become a rallying point for Republicans, who have demanded that Democrats disavow it.

Some Democrats have voiced concern. On Monday, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the ad "over the top." (AP)

You know these guys would be doing something else if they didn't do this. That's what they do for a living. These are the same folks that are the Swiftboaters, so they know despicable (from the inside).

But let's look at the substance here. Move On did what they should do: they called Petraeus out. The ad appeared on September 10. Move On was not the first to raise these questions. Both General Petraeus's colleagues in the military and his boss did it before that, and in far less delicate language than Move On. This, on August 19:

After being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America?s troop surge.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him "General Betraeus" on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war. (TimesOnline)

Move On was not nearly the first to use the Petreus/Betreus/BetrayUs homonyms. His colleagues got their ahead of them.

Petraeus is a political water carrier. In February he took up residence in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R., KY) office, where, according to the Washington Post, (February 7) he jawboned senators just prior to the debate on the troop surge. The role as pitch man by an officer at the time not even in command in Iraq reportedly sat badly with this boss, Admiral Fallon. Actually that's putting it mildly:

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century". (Gareth Porter, IPS News)

Fallon has a reputation as an independent military man with a history of standing up to power and authority when he believes it is necessary. It's reported that in early September, Fallon, Petraeus and Bush met and Fallon made his case for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, while Petraeus defended the Bush policy. We know who prevailed, as if that was ever in doubt with this President.

Just as Fallon has a history of independence, so Petraeus has a history:

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.


A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success. (IPS)

Petraeus is the latest in a string of Generals whose careers have intersected with the Iraq Debacle: Generals Shinseki, Casey and Abizaid, to name a few preceded him in various posts. They have been replaced by a President not known for tolearting differing views. Petraeus has a doctorate from Princeton. Big deal. Kissinger had one from Harvard and he is a war criminal. Petraeus wrote a highly praised counter insurgency manual. Big deal. If he had written an excellent interrogation manual or a weapons guide it wouldn't make him any more qualified to make policy. While the policy is Bush's, Petraeus's role is to willingly and eagerly enable and promote it.

If you knew nothing more about General Petraeus than George Bush had hand picked him to take over (and possibly take the blame for) the Iraq catastrophe, you might suspect that Fallon's description of him as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" was quite plausible.

I hate people like that. Too.

MoveOn is Right On. Without their ad we wouldn't be talking about this. They called Petraeus out. Good for them.

More like this

My impression of General Petraeus (FWIW) is that he is a people-pleaser. The sort who gets to his job at least a half-hour early, and takes on some of the less pleasant communal tasks, because he would rather have people like him and praise him than not. That doesn't mean he doesn't do good work or have integrity. I personally would rather work with that sort than with someone who believes the worst of people on brief acquaintance, and feels that making (and destroying) enemies is an effective managerial tactic (having worked with and for both kinds).

Under my theory, the reason he admitted to Senator Warner that he didn't know whether the Iraq campaign is making the USA safer, when he could have continued to dodge the question, was partly that he respects Warner and didn't want to lie to him. Rumsfeld could have lied and taken pleasure in it.

JimV - Petraeus truly was a betray us. After this testimony to Warner there was a recess and Petraeus freceived a phone call and presumably a chewing out from Bush or other high functionary and later hedged his statement to Warner.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

Anyone who wears the uniform deserves a lot more respect than you give here Revere. I gave it to John "I participated in atrocities" Kerry even though he had the cleanest uniform I had ever seen in the military that was in a combat situation. I also called into question the way he carried his weapon. Either he had not ever used it or he was too busy cutting off ears to use it properly. But thats besides the point. Different day, different problems.

You can say what you want about General P. But Fallon could relieve him if he wanted as his boss. But if a guy has made it to three stars and that also means Wesley Clark with four, you really need to give them the respect that they deserve. I would never denigrate Wes Clark even though I thought the Kosovo thing is a replay of this and Iraq.

As for Gen. Petraeus I saw several clusters on his uniform for being under fire and that means real live shooting stuff. Not that we bombed them from the air thing that Adm. Fallon did. In fact Revere, I cant see from his record that he ever dropped a bomb or shot at anyone in anger. But he is due the respect that he has for enduring everything from Carter to Clinton. Bullets, bombs, rockets at ground level is what I am talking about. You indicate that Petraeus was compromised by the President. Based upon what? I guess the attacks are up, the numbers of Iraqi's that are being killed up? Certainly we have something to base that upon? Or is more that you just dont like us being there and that your anti-war position is more what the above is about? I dont like being there but it certainly makes all the miltary sense in the world to me. Two birds with one army kind of thing. We took Saddam out because he was an asshole. Do you want him back? We took the Taliban out by supplying the forces in the North. Put the birka on Ms. P. and see how she likes it. Now we have Iran on two flanks and they sure know it. Its one of the reasons they are trying to destabilize Pakistan in such a hot fury. Their objectives are obvious, and thats to gain nuclear weapons by any method available.

Is Petraeus painting too rosey a picture? Well, I have been watching and the attacks are down, way down. Once the shooting stops the Iraqi's can get on with their lives. And it will stop eventually. I can safely say that if they are going to pull it down by five combat brigades then its a tremendous victory. A combat brigade is between 2000-8000 men strong depending on the composition of the brigade. That is decided by the number of personnel, amored vehicles, artillery etc. So about mid point, 20000 men and women are going to see Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanzaa with their families and be home by November next. About 5000 are going to see it this year. Thats not my numbers, its theirs. So what could that mean my gosh, that the surge worked and its time to go home? Cant possibly be that? When a plan is failing you might see a lot more dead Americans and that we are getting our asses whipped at every turn. I havent seen any attacks on the US and only a few on our allies recently. Can it be that we have them on the ground? Saddam isnt sticking his head out of his hidey-hole either. So what gives?

If what we hear out of the UN Security Council this week then Iran is going to be toast by October of this next year as Germany has dropped its opposition to the use of military force to stop their nuke program. With Jacques "Iraq" Chirac out along with Villepin in France who was selling stuff to Iraq that was on the forbidden list it would appear that the people of France have had enough as well. How do you sell stuff to a restricted nation? You ship it as a mass order and you only list it by its milspec number. Germany did it too but stopped when the heat started going up. They complied with the restriction and then their economy started to go downhill. But how do you do it? You ship it wrongly labeled too. And for this you get oil for TOTAL which is the equivalent of our Halliburton for 35 bucks a barrel when the rest of the world is paying 65. Aint it great having allies? The French are in NATO only because they might need us to fight someone else off for them and to cause as many problems as possible. Is that the "If you are not with us, you are against us thing?" I wonder why Lady Laura Bush went to visit Chirac four months in advance of his possible start on an election? Might it be that we were going to out him and France in the UN Security Council. Then if they sided with him, then it would have allowed for the dissolution or minimization of that role in the world in lieu of one with NATO? I dont want to hurt anyones delicate feelings but they are kidnapping Swedes now in Iraq. So the second most peaceful nation in the world has a problem too. But even they know how to take care of it.

Now here is some real news that you never see in the media and its just the past week.…

But you allude that there is some animosity between Fallon? Who is in charge of Iraq? Not someone that is sitting at McDill I can tell you and that pisses Fallon off. Fallon is also the first naval officer in charge of CentCom and there is an automatic rub there. Navy may be in overall command, but the ground war is being fought by Petraeus and his bunch. To have that stupid sack of communist crap Hilary Clinton telling the VFW people that the surge is working one week and then hammering the general three weeks later is bullshit. Petraeus could have come in with the head of Osama himself and they would have said that it didnt look like him. The progressives are on the attack, they have not one answer, not one valid idea but when something goes good they have to call someone in uniform a liar to try to insinuate that something is wrong. Just because some stupid assed Senator or Congressman says it, doesnt make it so or the truth. Time will tell if Petraeus is telling the truth and the difference between a politician and a general is that one makes policy the other follows it. So who was in the wrong here?

If it had been me I would have come across that desk and gotten dead up in Hilary Clintons face and told her where she could stick her opinion. But my arent we so politically correct? I would never, ever command troops again as a result but I guarantee that I know what the American people would have said about it.

Its the difference between having honor and having to try to achieve it all your life. Politicals never get it, the people in uniform automatically have it.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

This is Joe Kleins blog from Time where the suggestion was made that Chris "I lost my ratings" Matthews indicated that a call was made from the White House. It doesnt work that way. It would go to Fallon, then Petraeus. It should have been Fallons ass out on the carpet.

And as with all things military, we serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. We were and are, all puppets of the CIC. We follow orders. But the Uniform Code and general law prohibits any sort of lying to the Congress. They can and would be instantly held accountable for it.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

Randy: It's not supposed to work that way but I understand that's how it did work. Fallon and Petraeus hate each other but Bush is protecting Petraeus. And he was giving opinions, so the lying isn't an issue here. How about Rummy? That's about all he did was lie to congress.

Listen, I've got all the respect for General Doktor von Petraues that I do for Charlie McCarthy. First thing out his mouth is, "I wrote this myself. All on my own! I'm not reciting a script written in the White House."

No, a script written for the White House. Big difference! Ass-kisser.

It's a matter of my personal honor. If I claim to above-and-beyond respect this obvious purveyor of transparent bullshit then I spit on everybody I ever before honestly said I respect. If I satisfy the critics and act as though, bedazzled by his battle scars and shiny stars, I therefore believe every single word he said then I have tossed overboard the whole concept of truth-vs.-lies. Screw that.

By W. Kiernan (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

W. and Revere. All I can say is that you should PROVE he was lying to Congress. Big offense and I have to say that listening to the opening statements by each Senator of which the majority was Democrat I think they had their hatchets all ready to go. But the ad, now that was flat too much and they are now having to defend themselves from the true American court and that is the one of opinion. Democrats are distancing themselves hard and fast from that one. And needs to just move on as far as I am concerned. It is nothing more than the equivalent of just as despicable sites that the other side runs. The NYT has some answering to do as well. Its pretty blatant control of the press and sooner or later someone on both sides of the aisle is going to go to jail or end up paying one hell of a lot of money to settle a lawsuit or two.

Was he lying? Probably only three or four people know that for sure. Embellished? Maybe, but in the US you have the benefit of the right of innocence until PROVEN guilty. Me, I would have wheeled out my lawyer and started proceedings against and its owner George Soros. Why? Because they cant prove that he was lying and they know it. Remember in a civil proceeding (remember OJ trail #2) you are guilty until you prove your innocence. Nor do you have the right to slander someone.

Also Revere, if Fallon, Bush and Petraeus were in the same office Bush as CIC could simply override the commander of CentCom. So whats Fallons problem? If the CIC sees something diferently then thats the way it goes. And thats the reason they are elected. I would say the problem lies with Adm. Fallon. If he cant follow orders or has an opinion differing from the President then he can take that uniform off and speak anytime he wants, off the record and with no classified information involved. He could also resign just about anytime he wants if he is so burnt up about it. I have friends in CentCom and they say he isnt the greatest and has an only "Navy" way of doing things. He also as commander of US Pacific Command took a very, very conciliatory approach towards China. Something that in light of Chinese nuclear tipped subs surfacing a mile away from one of our carriers inside the exclusion zone is really grabbing my ass for one as the first Navy Commander of CentCom. I think the Senate ought to be investigating that little problem more than this.

Joe Klein is no fan of Bush's but at the same time he didnt run off as the London Times did about "General Betraeus", he took a pass and obviously didnt agree with the Post, or the NYT.

As I said, only time is going to tell if Petreaus and the President were sand bagging us all. If they were, they might be held accountable. But pulling out is no longer an option and everyone is going to have to get used to that. Vote your heart out but in this case we are going to be there for a while I think. It wont matter one swit if Hillary or O'Bama get elected. We are in there for the long haul. Hilary if elected will come back a few weeks afterwards and say that she wasnt aware of information and blame the previous administration and there we will stay.

All us can rant but its over. The fat lady sang and went home.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

He's in the chain of command. He's not exactly free to say, whatever he likes, really. I doubt that his mission is to be honest with Congress. His mission to win the war I'm certain does not have anything to do with saying something that would hurt the war effort (as he sees it). Maybe I'm too cynical, but when you consider who he reports to, his interests and obligations, I don't see why anyone would welcome testimony from someone in the chain of command. Christ, victory sells itself.


I kept waiting for "oil" -- and I heard a comment about withdrawing from Baghdad and settling the US military in positions to guarantee Iraq's external border and to defend its economic assets.

Anyone know what economic assets the USA plans to defend?

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan says

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

Greenspan went on to say in his book and on NBC this a.m. it was about stability and that he too wanted Saddam out of there. He also confirmed that he was briefed and that Saddams plan was to turn on Saudi Arabia and then on to Oman and close the Strait of Hormuz by threat of nuke having obtained one.

And with two you get eggroll.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 17 Sep 2007 #permalink

Randy, Iraq was never even close to a nuke.

Their project was effectively put out of business before it really got started, when the Israelis knocked out the Osirak facility back in 1981. Osirak was the only reactor they had that could feasibly produce the fissionables needed for a functioning weapon. And nobody, not even the French, was going to sell them another one right smack in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War.

As for Petraeus, yeah, he did what he was told. Same as Ollie North. Same as Colin Powell. Same as Westmoreland, in 1967. They all did what they were told. They all lied, just as they were ordered to do.

No army that lies to itself can win.

By Charles Roten (not verified) on 17 Sep 2007 #permalink

Charles, why build what you can buy? I still want to know what happened to all of the Soviet suitcase nukes and they still cant account for a number of warheads. I agree though they werent close to one-building it that is but they were confirmed to have obtained yellow cake and Hans and his boys did that. To boot and I disagree, Framatome of France was happily offloading container after container of nuke parts and CNC machines to mill the warhead that ostensibly didnt exist. They were offloading it during the Iran-Iraq war, they were offloading it the day that the US invaded during Iraqi freedom. Thats documented and they even have the pictures from the NRO to prove it. They even labeled them so that if hostilities broke out near them that no one would hit it for fear of a release. Lots of little goodies inside and very likely some fissionables or requisite radioactives to make the pit even more nasty.

Did anyone notice today that the Syrians and Iranians have 600 missiles pointed at Israel? Shihab -3's with a throw weight of 1700 plus pounds. More than enough to hit anywhere in Israel. Why do you think they hit the Syrian compounds three weeks ago? If they have even nuclear waste on hand they could kill everyone in Israel, Jordan with just five airbursts. Shit hit them again.

But as far as being close to a nuke... they said the same thing about Pakistan only three weeks before they popped their first cap in 98. They have been improving their capabilities. Greenspan though is right, its not about oil in all reality. Its about the stability of the worlds economies. Hell, even the French today said we need to prepare for war if Iran doesnt stop. I think things are about to get very, very ugly.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 17 Sep 2007 #permalink

To all my hawk friends (both parties) I say this.

If you do not support a draft, you do not support the war. You are making a very few carry all of the burden so you can be a hawk and you will not have to suffice with your blood or the blood of your children.

If you do not support a tax increase to pay for the troops and equipment, you do not support the war. You have decided that your money is better spent on extra toys for you and not equipment and supplies for the troops.

If you do not support the reduction of manpower in Iraq and and using that manpower to aggressively go after the terrorist in the rest of the world then you are setting this country up for another attack and I will hold you responsible for that attack.

Anon-451.... Sheyit bubba, you should be Farenheit 451. They'll get it when something else hits the ground or they WMD Haifa or Tel Aviv. Then we will have a no holds barred war. E.g. Syrians/Iranians fitting chemical weapons onto missiles. They got too hot and started to expand. There wasnt an explosion per se, just a rupture of the shit inside. They also knew about expansion so when the cases cracked they knew their shit was in the wind. They didnt make it.

This goes to how committed they are about getting us and Israel. Stop at nothing. SS Leader Ahmadinejad wants to lay a wreath at ground zero. Tell you what, lets let him hold one and then just turn Teheran into ground zero. Saves a plane ticket and we can reduce him and others to their carbon footprints.

Very, very likely as I keep saying we might just have to kill them all. They will keep going and going and going until something hhappens. Last time it was 911, next time what? The guy actually had the balls to suggest to the EU that if they sided with Iran, they wouldnt attack them. They of course refused and they tagged Spain.

I always was taught in the military that you had to have an end game. That end game here is going to lead to the destruction of one or the other and what will likely be wholesale slaughter of a bunch of innocent people to get at the probably 1 out of every 500 terrorists. Those 500 are not without fault though, they could always give up Osama and friends like Zawahiri. But they wont. The Russians have been fighting a terrorist war for almost 20 years now in Chechnya. The reason they have is the worlds largest repository of nuclear weapons is just 15 miles from their border. Its not to gain independence, its to gain a nuke. Once they get it they will shuffle it off to the south as fast as they can and then they will use it on the EU or the US or an asset. Then the gloves will fly off. It will be conventional thank God but off they will come.

My recommendation? There isnt one. Its all bad and we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 19 Sep 2007 #permalink


Given how poorly "the military" has learned the lessons of von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Col. John Boyd and even B.F. Liddell Hart and continue to make the same mistakes we made in Viet Nam, your claim to a military pedigree doesn't cut any ice with me.

Given all of the above, your claims are actually highly suspect.

Randy, if you have not figured it out yet, I am ex-military. Nothing torques me off more then people wrapping themselves up in the flag, surrounding themselves with troops (that are ordered to stand around these clowns) and at the same time question the loyalty of others. These people what to go to war as long as it is not them or their children having to go. None of them are prepared to give back a tax cut to pay for the war but are all over any one who does not want to borrow more money from the Chinese to pay for it and then leave the bill for the next generation to deal with.

I firmly believe that we are at war. We are at war for the very survival of the Western Culture and way of life. But the clowns in Washington (both parties) don't get it. Because one party has tried to do it on the cheap and destroy the constitution along the way, the other party is seeing it as wrong and that it just has to end.

The real tragedy is that the American people have been so polarized by these clowns that most of them don't get it either. All they know is that something is very wrong and no one is doing anything to make it right.

Vietnam Melanie?... I can without reservation say that we did learn lessons from that. Mostly on how not to fight a war. But as usual we PC a war operation into the old they got rights thing. The last guy that had any balls about doing the unthinkable was Curt LeMay as he had a much different idea about morality and legality in a war. If someone drops a nuclear weapon on you he said, you cant argue the legalities afterwards. He was absolutely livid with the way Vietnam was being fought. Cant sink this ship carrying missiles, cant knock out this bridge, cant hit this missile site because its next to a hospital. It wasnt a war, it was an arcade game. Yeah, we learned how NOT to fight one. He really pissed off the lefties when he launched the single largest raid himself from a B-29 low level with no weapons on the aircraft so he could carry more bombs to firebomb Tokyo at night. Paul Tibbets was under his command for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. But...morality and legality only apply if you are alive to raise the issues.

Same applies in Iraq. If I were in charge I would be vilified to the nth degree by the leftist but I can tell you now our people would be home. There would be no question of who won and as for insurgents, they would still be in Iran and incinerated. It takes millions in dollars, people and materiel to win a war Melanie. It takes everything you got to lose one. We tried the old win their hearts and minds crap again. Didnt work then, wont now. So whats that leave? Annihilation at some later date either them on us or us on them. I like the latter myself.

Be sure to vote in November next. It wont make any difference who gets elected. We will still be there 10 years from now. I do expect though that in light of current events in the S. of Syria with their little WMD's that everyone forgets where they went are going to get one helluva lot more antsy and probably willing to assist in elimination of a problem. There are only four nations in easy range for an insurgency. All could be gone in a day militarily speaking. The problem? They have lost their fear of us.

Fitting a missile with Sarin and VX. Syria's shit is about to be blown away by Israel and IMO its justifiable homicide and pre-emptively at that. GA Tabun, GB Sarin, VX and a few others? I guess they just had this really bad bug problem. Coming to a town via an ocean container near you soon.... Better hope not. That cockroach killer is the most wicked stuff short of a nuke that there is. A drop the size of a pin point will set you off into convulsions that would be strong enough to pull your spine completely into reverse. Your head would be touching your ass. But they got rights.

How did all these people gain a foothold? Its because the world PC'd them into having rights and human rights and everything else politically correct. Some were good, most were bad. The end game will result in a town or something being killed and thats when we are going to get into the furball of humanity. Surivival of the fittest and they wont screw around this time next.

You guys of course will disagree. But I am used to that old Saddam had nothing to do with it. Sorry, but IMO he did and plenty at that.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 19 Sep 2007 #permalink

Hmmm... It would seem that the US Senate has come down against the ad.

I think that is nothing more than a George Soros front and the French convicted him of insider trading several years ago. Big Clinton supporter. I wonder if we are getting set up to take a fall.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 20 Sep 2007 #permalink

Randy: Yes, the courageous Senate has come out against a newspaper ad but can't manage to come out against a war that is anathema to 70% of the people it represents. Profiles in courage. BTW, what is your evidence is a "George Soros front." I don't even know what a George Soros Front is, as a matter of fact. A front for a billionaire? Meaning what? Do you get all your talking points from Fox News? And where do they get their talking points from? How much money does Soros give to Is he the major contributor? How many others have contributed to Are you saying Petreus is not a sycophant, carrying water for George Bush? Just want you on the record on this one. Note that the first ones to call Petreus Betreus were reported to be his colleagues. We've already reported what his boss called him. What do you call him? Are you disgusted by what Admiral Fallon said? Maybe Admiral Fallon is attacking the military, too.

Revere-I dont agree with your first sentence. 56-44 is not 70% against a war but an ad. refuses to release its funding records. But that may change in the near future as the Hsu trial begins. If the money trail leads in there then its going to get very hot for a lot.

Petraeus has been on the job since January of 07. Sycophant? I doubt it, but you have the right to say it. I think it was a fair assessment as my old unit is well represented there. Emails from the front Revere. They tell me there are areas you dont go to but there are safe areas too.

Here is a question? If the commander of CentCom is Petraeus's boss why didnt he deliver the report? Its because IMO that he wasnt muzzled but that he didnt have too much of a clue what the real story was. Not that he was incompetent. Far from it. Fallon has been around for a while but he commanded a task group once off of the coast of Bosnia and Bush appointed him to his fourth.

The Navy likely has less of an idea how to fight a ground battle than the Army or Marines do. NONE of us know how to fight an insurgency war without massive civilian casualties and therein lays the problem. I think that from previous postings my position on that is well established. We make it so terrible to attack us that they dont do it again. That means civilians too. published that ad I believe within 24 hours of the report being delivered. The NYT has a lot to account for in this too. But its so nice to have a free press, thats if anyone buys their rag. I watched the hearings post of it and TIVO is great. I watched for the usual lies and videotape. The Dem Senators were coming out BEFORE the hearings and saying that it was all going to be a bunch of lies. Okay, lying to Congress is not a good idea. It has ramifications. I think when he said he didnt know, he meant it. That seems to have bothered a lot of Democrats. If Hillary Clinton gets in there the muzzles will go onto the lefty media and suddenly, it will become a story of compassion and help and that things are just perfect.

Time will tell but things are unfolding about that little group MoveOn.Org and now the Democrats are starting to feel the ire of the people and their relationship to it. Oh, there are groups that are conservative that are likely just as bad, but at least they werent stupid enough to put out an ad in a newspaper regarding a decorated military figure that was sure to get themselves whacked by public opinion. Tarred and feathered before he even took the stand.,2933,297482,00.html

Oh yeah, by the way if you havent noticed my assertion about the toppling of Pakistan has been realized.,2933,297574,00.html

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 21 Sep 2007 #permalink