The Reaction to the MoveOn.Org "General Betray Us" Ad:
Over at Time.com, Michael Kinsley has a very good column on the "outrage" over MoveOn.org's advertisement about General Petraeus. A taste:
These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.I think that's basically right; There's a time-honored art to faux political outrage, and this ad created a fine opportunity to practice it.
Furthermore, the right has no standing to attack the "left" for attacking generals -- the right launched disgusting smear campaigns on General Clark, on General Batiste, on General Zinni, and countless other generals speaking out against the disaster in Iraq. If Bush wants to hide behind Petraeus, and Petraeus is letting him, this is the cost of it. More politicization of our military. The whole thing is quite sad.
Sure, I suppose you could do this. but the transparent fakeness of it kinda makes you look like a giant douche and a tool.
I agree with the tiredness expressed with faux political outrage in general, no pun here ;) But in this case, I think a lot of the outrage is more than faux.
Of course, the puffery of the right wing is "faux." But, don't these moveon.org folks really believe what they are saying. They do believe that the man is a liar and a puppet and a betrayer to the country. Don't they? Don't you?
Is that really your response? What a joke. I have a cousin in Iraq fighting his ass off right now. I worked in the Pentagon during September 11, ass**le. Your idiotic rant shows just how empty you and the rest of your ilk are.
That I show concern for the fact that our Iraq policy is a disaster, that our troops are being stretched to the limit of all limits (my cousin for example is in the Navy and has no training for ground operations, but is on the ground because of the shortage of troops due to the
surgeescalation), and that we are losing in Afghanistan and let Bin Laden get away scot-free for the murder of 3000 Americans actually means I, a Jew who has spent years in Israel no less, support Bin Laden. Some logic there. Did you pass 1st grade?Under your logic, the Democrats never filibustered any judicial nominees. . . . There are no real filibusters any more -- just cloture votes.
The way the Bush Administration positioned Gen. Peteraus turned him into a political figure -- once there, he was fair game for criticism. You can't have it both ways, hiding behind a uniformed man while expressing bitter, nonsensical outrage that criticizing Peteraus equates to inviting Osama over to control America.
Kinsley is right to point out that this dramatized outrage serves to stifle the conversation, not improve it, and your outburst is an example of it.
DU
Not according to the National Review's Michael Ledeen. This is only one of countless other examples, see Generals Zinni, Clark, Batiste, etc.
I think it would definitely be fair to attack the integrity of a general if some type of evidence was given to support your assertions. But when you are basically called a shill and liar before you even say anything, that's a bit over the top. Even if you don't agree with what Petraeus reported, what proof is there to say he lied or is just parroting some one else? Do people have the right? Of course! Do other have the right to dog people for calling him a liar without evidence? Of course again!
Half of the Dem caucus in the Senate (including the almost certain Dem presidential nominee) just tossed the GOP some more free red meat talking points by incomprehensibly voting against a resolution condemning the moveon.org slander.
Either the Dems who voted against that measure share that slanderous opinion or they are too cowardly to cross their rabid fringe. Either possibility does not commend the character of the 25 Dems.
Rove could not make this stuff up.
nope. it just means that half the democrats in the senate support free speech and that every republican is more than happy to tell you to sit down and shut up if you disagree with them.
when was the definition of the word "condemn" changed to mean "not condemned".
OK, I'm being facetious. I know exactly why it failed.
I mean, Bush is called a traitor all the time at DU, and at RedState people were calling to prosecute Kerry for treason. No one cares what a few loons think. For the commenters here to be outraged - can you explain what you are exactly outraged about? My god, you thin skinned people.
MoveOn is no longer a fringe group -- as dominated by loons as it may be. It is now a major player and funder of the Democratic Party -- as evidenced by the extreme reluctance of Democratic politicians to criticize the group.
And by the way, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. And it does not sanctify treason.
Cross-posted at Balkinization:
From the Department of The More Things Change....:
After the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Federalists in Congress denounced "self-created" democratic clubs which (said the Federalists) were responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion. Madison described the "game" in a letter to Monroe of December 4, 1794:
“The game was to connect the democratic societies with the odium of the [Whiskey Rebellion] — to connect the Republicans in Congress with those Societies…”
On the floor of Congress, Madison pointed out the absurdity of this in a republican government. He “conceived it to be a sound principle that an action innocent in the eye of the law could not be the object of censure to a legislative body. When the people have formed a constitution, they retain those rights which they have not expressly delegated. … Opinions are not the objects of legislation.”
true, but that a misrepresentation of what is actually happening. republicans are not saying "what you said is wrong" they are saying "it was wrong to say what you said". now this is a distinction that clearly not the same.
Another of Kinsey's statements in the article is “The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism.”
False official statement is a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Kinsey apparently either doesn't know that, or expects that most of the people who read his essay won't know it. So, is it "faux political outrage" to find it despicable to accuse someone of a felony without a shred of evidence - or have yet even made a statement? I'd judge from the comments to the Stuart and Johnson articles about DA Nifong's having done that, that there is a lot of genuine outrage when that is done.
And, judging the reactions of the candidates is important. It provides a candid view of their character, including their moral courage. Granted, for the Republican candidates it's a political "softball over the heart of the plate." [Excellent description, Keith -- a likely contender for the "Best analogy of the week" award.]
However, for the Democrat candidates, it isn't a softball. It is telling that the only Democrat who criticized Moveon is SEN Biden. The best former SEN Edwards could do was hide behind his wife (and he hasn't even come to her defense after she was attacked for criticizing Moveon). Interestingly, despite the many vile postings on the D'Kos, the only Democrat who didn't attend the D'Kos Annual Convention was, again, SEN Biden. This also follows the cancellation of the debate the Democrat candidates were to have before Fox News, due to the objections of Moveon, D'Kos and others on that side of the Democratic Party. There seems to be a pattern here.
Again, judging from many of the comments to the Stuart and Johnson articles concerning Pres. Broadhead's cowardice at Duke, there's a lot of real outrage when supposed leaders lack moral courage. The Presidency of the U.S. is much more important, much more difficult and complex, and requires much more moral courage than a University President.
Should any of the Republican candidates show up fawning over Michael Savage or Ann Coulter, that would also be appropriate for comment -- and faux or real outrage.
No. Kinsey has it basically wrong. While there is faux political outrage, there's a lot of real outrage -- and a lot of noting a lack of moral courage by most of the Democrat candidates.
Another example of Kinsey getting it basically wrong is the cliche attack on Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Perhaps Kinsey is merely revealing an abject ignorance of politics and journalism - and especially the history of their interaction. As Huey P. Long observed of the journalists who attacked him "I don't care what they say about me. In six months nobody will remember what they said, but people will remember my name." I assume that Kinsey doesn't intend to make them more influential, but his cliche attacks have that effect. Or, perhaps Kinsey is just preaching to the choir. If so, he's just wasting space in Time, and a columnist who can provide insight should be employed there instead.
1) i know. you said it already and the quote i was responding to was not written by you.
2) that is why i said in my earlier comment "half of democrats"
3) the majority of the fake outrage is coming from republicans, not democrats. when the majority of democrats begin to act like the republicans then i'll expand my statement to include them too.
It comes from French outre, beyond what is proper.
Made into a noun with -age, English notices the word rage. ``Something beyond what is proper deserves rage. The word itself says so!''
This covert doctrine is so useful that it was reimported back into French.
The doctrine is everywhere ; the news is based on it.
I think normal people know better. They stopped watching TV years ago.
That said, the only reason faux outrage works is because each party has base supporters who are willing to manifest genuine outrage whenever the outrage machine gets cranked up.
The vast majority of people simply don't give a crap about this ad either way. Some Democrats - or at least their political advisers - still appear to believe in the myth that there is this vast, red swath of America that gets up in arms every time a controversy like this occurs. No, sorry to say, it's just the nutters.
Umm, I don't think so. In Vietnam, people were rotated home after a year; four-year enlistment, one year in Nam. Units stayed on. Don't know Korea. In WWII and WWI, you were there for the duration. If you survived Tarawa, you got to visit Okinawa or Pelieu. If you hit the beach in Normandy, the only way home was through Berlin, a box, or a "million-dollar wound". Unit R&R was based on the needs of the war. In Civil War, enlistments were for a set period (1-2 years), until the draft hit, and then it began to change. Your unit saw action based on the decisions of generals. In Revolutionary war, there were enlistment periods, and again you got R&R based on commander's needs. Valley Forge was not R&R.
I may not know the exact details, but I know enough to question your assertion of that fact.
Most wars, you serve your enlistment, or for the duration. Battles are episodic, with refits in between if possible. COIN warfare is more continuous, but lower intensity.
Secondly, a nation loses a war when its capacity to wage war is destroyed, or its will to continue is destroyed. We clearly have the capacity. We have the will because we are meeting our recruitment and enlistment targets. Yet you claim we are losing. Petraeus disagrees with you. Have you lost your confidence in the American military? Have you lost the will to win?
Once a war starts, there is going to be at least one loser. And a country needs to fight like hell to stay out of that group, to do whatever is necessary to hopefully win, and definitely not to lose. Petain said (he should know), "war is a series of blunders (disasters?) that result in victory".
You go to war with the Army you have, including the CIC. If you're obsessing about the limitations of your leadership, you're losing your will to win. The winning focus is "the past is past, learn from it, so that we can figure out today and tomorrow how to win". If we learn and apply faster than the enemy, we win.
"My outrage was quite genuine, whatever Kinsley or you think of it."
That you actually think it was genuine is the true outrage.
These statements are demonstrably false, and show move-on to be incapable or unwilling to admit any shades of gray. This is an insult to our intelligence, and sufficiently indelicate so as to be raving.
Their denigration of Petraeus would not be objectionable if they were "calling it like was" instead they are calling it the way they wish it was and libeling the man in the process--who by many reasonable accounts deserves respect and deference that his opinions as stated to Congress are informed and honest.
You've hit n the real irony here.
Our public debate is so profoundly loony, that we are actually seeing claims that Petraeus is misleading the American people distract us from the simple reality that Petraeus misleading the American people.
I can't even begin to wrap my head around that one.
In addition, for Move-On, it was a manufactured moment to swear allegience to the cause.
They did it more to effect Democrat behavior than Republican. That's why it was so in your face. Its a measure you better step up to or your out.
Karl Rove could not have done better for Republicans, however. Hillary is on record voting against condemning it.
At least it beats talking about bathroom stalls in MN.
rubbish. this is a dumb leftist talking point that's all over the boards.
criticizing the CONTENT of speech, whether done by the senate, or anybody else, does not have anything to do with supporting or not supporting free speech. similarly, NOT criticizing it is similarly irrelevant.
as has been endlessly explained to people *but some still don't get it* criticizing somebody else's speech, even if done by a govt. agent is not a THREAT TO FREE SPEECH. it is part of free speech.
"true, but that a misrepresentation of what is actually happening. republicans are not saying "what you said is wrong" they are saying "it was wrong to say what you said". now this is a distinction that clearly not the same."
wow. talk about a distinction without a difference. there is NO DIFFERENCE in regards to the first amendment.
when one criticizes speech, one often thinks it was wrong to have said it. if you make a racial slur, i will clearly think and say it was "wrong to say what you said". it doesn't follow that i don't think you have the RIGHT to say it under the 1st amendment.
the 1st amendment protects (among other things) things that shouldn't be said. iow, things that individuals or organizations should have the decency not to say. it does not follow that believing that a person shouldn't say those things has anything whatsoever to do with the 1st amendment. if the repubs (or dems) said "moveon.org should not have the RIGHT to say what they said" ***THAT*** would be a threat to the 1st amendment, or at a minimum mean they don't understand the 1st amendment.
After that, they can run "Which Hussein said this?" ads and show pictures of Barak and Saddam side by side.
I am angry with the ad for a couple of reasons:
First, I read the text "General Petreaus or General Betray Us?" as equivalent to "General Petreaus or General Benedict Arnold?" It's offensive to equate the two.
Second, we have a fundamental divide between active duty military and politics for a reason. This ad attacked someone who could not respond in kind, which is fundamentally unfair. Note that Amb. Crocker is not called out, even though you could have fun with his name. Why is that?
If we fast forward in time to a point when General Petreaus is not in the military and, for example, running for office, then the headline for this ad would not be offensive because it is aimed at a political figure, not an active duty general.
wow. talk about a distinction without a difference. there is NO DIFFERENCE in regards to the first amendment.
An example of the former type of reply is "here is evidence that what you said is false" and an example of the latter is "shut up". they are not even close to being the same. conservative pundits and the resolution are making the later type of response.
rubbish. this is a dumb leftist talking point that's all over the boards.
HAHAHAHA
After that, they can run "Which Hussein said this?" ads and show pictures of Barak and Saddam side by side.
Yes, I for one am fine with it. either these types of ads are fine or they are not...it is not conditional on which political party you belong to. Which is why I say this is false outrage...where is the outrage to the above mentioned ads?
But, don't these moveon.org folks really believe what they are saying. They do believe that the man is a liar and a puppet and a betrayer to the country.
MoveOn asked a question, that's it. They never said he betrayed the country. The controversy surrounds whether people should even have the possibility presented to them, that Petraeus' motivations could possibly be suspect.
This is why I respect what MoveOn has done here. Even if it took the shine off of the week's news, the words people put in MoveOn's mouth say more about the person (and networks) commenting than it does about MoveOn. "Assuming facts not in evidence" and all that.
It may well be that the majority of the population cares in the "there they go again, the buttheads", sense, too tired of this crap to light a fire someplace.
But there is outrage.
As somebody noted, Hillary voted against the measure and wants to be Commander in Chief. How's that likely to sit with the troops, the veterans and their families? Who, I should point out, vote.
The deployments are arduous, rough on the families. When I was in the Army, most Infantry guys spent one year in three in Viet Nam, maxing out at three tours unless they had something special going on.
However. My father's division was well known in the ETO for getting the job done with few casualties. They did it principally by night fighting. When I got to Benning, the instruction on night fighting, training, and doctrine opened with an extensive reading from the 104th's after action report. IOW, the division was so good at getting the job done with few casualties that their lessons learned were considered still valid and important several wars later.
I did the math. My father's division, correcting for time in contact, likely replacements, and so forth, had a KIA rate of about fifteen times the casualty rate of our people in Iraq. In addition, they lived a lot rougher. Cold and wet rather than hot. Lousy food because bringing it up was so difficult. Getting ready to send some stuff to a relation, I called his wife for some hints. "Remember, his unit doesn't have a microwave," she said.
No war is easy, but as the re-enlistment rates show, this war is within the capacity of our troops. I wouldn't make the same claim about their families. The only thing rougher than being a soldier, the saying goes, is loving one.
If it weren't the stupid MoveOn thing, it would be something else. Anything to avoid the issues.
America at work. And many of the "OUTRAGED!!!" types are the same ones who complain the system is broken. Cry me a river.
And what's the implicit contradiction between being outraged and crying the system is broken?
When porksters get elected, they are good at pork. When statesmanship is needed, they are behind the curve. That's "broken", seems to me.
The whiny-ass "outraged" people are camouflaging the relevant issues. A bunch of get-a-life activists run a naughty ad, and that's more worth discussing than whether we have a snowball's chance in Tikrit of accomplishing our goals in Iraq?
People who subscribe to the Outrage of the Week are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I wouldn't call it fake outrage on the part of those supporting the war, as much as convenient outrage. They had good reason to be outraged, but it was still very convenient for them that moveon.org published this, and then so many of the Democrats in the Senate running for president essentially backed them on it.
On the other hand, I actually vote against candidates that make push-polling calls to my house and run negative ads. Maybe some of us really do mostly care about civility (I won't pretend to speak for Limbaugh, who I haven't listened to since I was in high school, but that is my own position.)
But how did a newspaper advertisement, of all things, become such a hot topic in the political discourse about the war? The answer: Republicans in Washington see it as a winning issue.
That's the case even though there were legitimate concerns expressed about Petraeus's selective use of statistics both before and after his testimony; even though a Washington Post poll before his testimony showed most Americans expected him to try to make things look better than they are; and even though the newest polls clearly show the public didn't buy what Petraeus was selling.
Here's two fantasy follow-up questions for Bush: If you make a general your political standard-bearer, don't your political enemies get to take aim? And is it possible Democrats were reserving their outrage for issues other than a political ad?
(Follow the link to get Froomkin's links pointing to some of his sources, and to RTWT of course.)
Well, my friends, I care. I thing the Moveon.com corps and their enablers are scum, and that is an insult to scum.
Of course, this kind of thing is hardly new. The Copperheads had this kind of character assassination down to a science during the Civil War. They even had their favorite generals, like McClellan – the “New Napoleon” run against Lincoln for a second term. I explore the similarities here. Even the names of the parties are the same.
Idiots.
The add shows that the Moveon people have lost all perspective on Iraq. They are unable to engage in a rational debate, an the thing that scares them most is any sign of success.
There is plenty of room for debate on Iraq policy and though I think an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster, one can make a good faith case for that approach. However, Moveon' vitrolic attacks on Petreaus makes many wonder if they are not rooting for the other side.
If MoveOn was just a fringe group then the ad and the outrage would have been ignored. But many left wing democrats seek its support, so it is seen as a legitimate and powerful actor. As such the attention paid to its ad was completely reasonable.
SFB
Exactly right. Many people, including myself, see Moveon as the "honest" face of the Democrat party. Not all of it perhaps, but certainly the leadership that has conference calls with them daily.
"Honest" because they say things that the electeds don't dare say ... yet, but believe in their hearts. How else to explain Hillary's statement that to believe Patreaus, she has to engage in the "willing suspension of disblief." That is a formulation for telling people you are reading fiction. A polite way of calling the General a liar, but essentially no different than calling him "General Betray Us."
It amazes me how, in the last year, we've managed to make "offensive" speech the single most important piece of news so many times. Moveon.org, meet Don Imus.
Oh, heavens. It's called "rhetoric," people. Where did you go to school?
1. Bush and the GOP have told us that our future in Iraq will be determined by Petraeus's evaluation.
2. Thus, a great deal of trust was being placed upon the general to make a realistic appraisal.
3. Petraeus's evaluation is demonstrably dubious.
It is not a great stretch, especially given the attraction of a pun to lower minds, to turn "betrayal of trust" into "General Betray-Us."
It's as if the lower-profile Ambassador Crocker had been ridiculed as "Crock-of-Shit," and then we had OUTRAGED people telling us that, in fact, Mr. Crocker is not a toilet.
But, sure, the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker was a dud; there's "No End in Sight" in Iraq; and American troops (the troops we're supposed to be outraged on behalf of) continue to be killed and maimed for no realizable purpose -- so by all means, let's rail on the silly lefty activists. There's a pony in there somewhere, folks ... keep digging.
This is the crux of the issue. I disagree with BrianK entirely about the ads (I disapprove of all of them), but I consider his commitment to principle over party more important that his opinion on any one issue. The people who trouble me are the ones in both parties who scream "Outrage!" (faux or not) when their ox is gored by questionable means, but stand by silently when their cohorts employ identical tactics at the opposition's expense. Those who honor their principles notwithstanding political costs and those who don't form a more meaningful divide than Left vs. Right. Unfortunately, based on how infrequently I see partisan self-criticism of any scale, I’m afraid the Principled When Convenient are winning the day.
Thus it has always been; thus it shall always be.
Thanks for your response. Can you articulate exactly why you are outraged? As I read the ad, it argues that the General is sugarcoating his reports. Do you agree? Do you think it is outrageous to suggest that might true? Or do you disagree that this is in fact what the ad says? I look forward to your explanation.
I agree that this MoveOn ad is a (small) winner for the GOP, and the GOP obviously wants this story to dominate a news cycle or two. I don't blame them for running with this; it's just how the game is played. But I think the recent phenomenon of cajoling one's opponents into condemning the offending individual or group is not just tacky politics, but not particularly effective.
MoveOn maligns Petraeus. The GOP tries to get every Democrat, from Senator to dog-catcher, to condemn MoveOn. Granted, it's a pretty slick move because it forces the Democrats to choose between annoying their base and tacitly endorsing something that most voters find offensive. But it's also ineffective to the extent that it gives every wise Democrat a Sista Soulja (sp?) Moment soundbyte: "The President's war has failed and the troops should come home, but it's disgraceful and wrong for MoveOn to impugn Petraeus' character."
The better way to handle this is to be quieter about bringing it to the public's attention. Wait a little bit: a week, a month, maybe more. Then go to the public and say "Senators Clinton and Obama take MoveOn money. They speak at MoveOn events. MoveOn has maligned Gen. Petraeus. The fact that Clinton and Obama continue to take MoveOn money and speak at their events even after it ran this shameful ad speaks volumes about what they really believe."
The key here is not to overplay your hand. By demanding condemnations, you're giving the Democrats an out, and an opportunity to look reasonable to centrist voters. Give the Democrats a chance to be Democrats, and the voters won't like it. Don't shame them into appearing to be something that they're not, especially when it's something more palatable to voters.
Well, you're right about that much, anyway.
Yes, we have the right to protest, but anyone who does has to realize that they are helping our enemy and perhaps causing more American deaths. Eriting to one's representative and voting for anti-war candidates is one thing but giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
About him Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell stated:
"Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI [Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive] columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a [Washington] Post White House reporter." See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Froomkin
When the WaPo Ombudsman concludes that his opinions are "highly opinionated and liberal", he's not reliable to present the facts. He's entitled to express his opinions - and gets paid for it - but don't confuse his opinions with presenting the facts, or, at least don't expect me to.
Well, you're right about that much, anyway.
And you seem oh-so-broken up about it, which is pretty much my point.
I don't think you understand. The disagreement here is about what is actually helping our enemies: each side thinks the other is helping the enemy. But fortunately no one is committing treason, because that requires *intent* to aid the enemy. The fact that you believe that an act has the unintentional effect of helping the enemy does not make it treasonous. You can imagine why by considering what would happen if we learned that our presence in Iraq is actually *encouraging* our enemies. Under your theory, you would be guilty of treason against the United States. Fortunately that isn't the case: this debate is about how to help America, and we're all on the same side here.
There is a sizable faction on the left that does want to aid the enemy, not that it is treason, but they want the enemy to win. As one prominent law professor as pointed out there are some that are "not anti-war, they are on the other side".
There are a couple of reasons for this, the most effective "anti-war" organization, International Answer, sees the US and the US military as the primary impediment to establishing communist insurgencies in trouble spots around the world. They want the US to have a humiliating defeat to reduce the chances of us intervening as we did in countless conflicts during the cold war. It is not a realistic platform, but they're communists. And to be clear, most of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions that have shown up at International Answer events are not communists, they are just useful idiots. Others have a more noble motivation for wanting to see the US lose, they actually are anti-war and they hope that a defeat for the US will reduce the chances for future wars. Then there is one other sizable faction, in which I include Move-On, that wants to see the US lose in Iraq. That faction wants the US to lose because they want to discredit conservatives so they can increase there chances of implementing a progressive (socialist) political agenda. They just don't take the war seriously, and they spout nonsense about the real war being in Afghanistan that they don't really believe as a meaningless talking point, trying to stir up some dust in the north 40. The Move-On wing of the democratic party thinks that the country will be better off if the conservatives (whether independents, democrats, or republicans) suffer a massive electoral defeats, and in their sophmoric way they trying to further that aim.
The conservative outrage at the ad is somewhat theatre, but the aim is to get the attention of the mass in the middle, and get them to realize what kind of people a significant wing of Democratic political activists are.
It's deja vu all over again, it seems.
In any event, I don't think anyone disputes why so many conservatives are intentionally misleading others about their outrage. It's for political advantage, obviously.
I'd really like to know why you want to bring the troops home now. I can think of these possiblities:
The war opponents I talk to tend to give pretty much the same reason to bring the troops home. The argument runs something like this:I'm curious why you didn't think of this argument, given how common it is.
you really need to lay off the weed before writing your posts.
We aren't outraged because it is what we have come to expect from Move-On, so yeah its for political advantage. Our society has lost its capacity for real outrage, there was a time that tar and feathers would have been a real option for an ad like that. A similar ad against General Pershing in WWI might have provoked a mob. WWII there would have been shunning, firings, evictions for the culprits. Now we try to make political hay out of it, but don't blame us, it is the cultural norm now. Personally I'd prefer the tar and feathers, then you wouldn't be doubting my sincerity. When the founders wrote the constution they guaranteed in the first amendment that the government would throw you in jail for unpopular opinions, nobody thought that meant that your neighbors wouldn't kick your ass. That was the cultural norm.
Nate F.,
Learn to read. Actually that isn't what happened, and we both know it. It is also a cultural norm on blogs to deliberately misread someone's comments and then condemn them for the misrepresentation. But just in case you really did miss it I specifically said:
And if you object to the characterization of most of the demonstrators as "useful idiots", there are only two types of people that show up at rallies organized by communist front groups: the communists, and the useful idiots.
Just one last comment from me tonight on your number 7. I hope that is not your opinion because it is truely idiotic. I don't doubt our presence in Iraq is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. BUT if you think that our defeat in Iraq wouldn't be ten times as effective as a recruiting tool, then you are just being naive. What sounds like a better pitch to you:
or
The first one is effective with suicidal phsycopathic religious fanatics, which evidently there is at least a limited supply. But the second pitch would be much more effective in a much broader audience.
(note: I got this link from glen greenwalds blog)
But all I needed to know about this issue I learned from Clyburn, ranking dem in the House. "Good news from Iraq would be a big problem for us."
Honest politician. Dangerous.
Where's the outrage to this post at NRO?
Quick answer -- that column, published in Jan 2004 was:
1. An individual's opinion;
2. Stated after Gen. Clark had retired from the military and was a candidate for the Dem. Party nominee for President.
Gen. Clark was not in command of anyone and had entered the voluntarily entered the political fray.
Gen. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate in his current command, and one of the conditions that went along with the position was making a report to Congress in Sept. 2007 on his evaluation of the effects of the troop surge.
Criticizing the president is one thing but criticizing active, leading military officers actively engaged in combat is over the top.
the following, on the other hand, is truly manufactured outrage. Or, if it's not manufactured, it's a gross mis-prioritization: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7006170.stm
I have in mind this post, for example:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1187285770.shtml
Orin, you have just as much a duty to pick a side; it's your civic duty. Just because you have a degree and a SCOTUS clerkship doesn't mean you are better than the mere mortals who are naive enough to actually get outraged over the outrageous.
just b/c you can predict the moves doesn't mean that one side might not be right and the other wrong.
But genuine outrage? Oh my god, someone made a comment that was outside the range of civil discourse! And it wasn't even true! If any of these outragedd people are Bush supporters, their ability to avoid any foolish consistency is laudatory. If they listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter, then they may be in line for a Darwin Award.
so it only became taboo to criticize generals in the past year or two? how convenient for conservatives
An individual's opinion
1) that was reposted by a contributor to the NRO so that at least means that a fairly widely read and respected conservative commentator agrees with it.
2) the moveon ad is also someone's opinion ...so does that mean criticizing conservatives for their opinions is wrong while criticizing liberal's opinions is right?
Stated after Gen. Clark had retired from the military and was a candidate for the Dem. Party nominee for President.
the article does not restrict itself only to clark...it clearly implicates most generals in its criticism. e.g. "There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment." and "Generals are dull. I don't mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn't-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull." and the most damaging one to conservative causes: "Generals are dishonest". this last one is pretty much exactly what the move on ad was accusing petraeus of being.
Gen. Clark was not in command of anyone and had entered the voluntarily entered the political fray. Gen. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate in his current command, and one of the conditions that went along with the position was making a report to Congress in Sept. 2007 on his evaluation of the effects of the troop surge.
so? does the fact that he took a position that required him to report to congress immunize him from criticism? petraeus voluntarily accepted the position knowing what it will entail. if he didn't realize what he said would be politicized by both the right and the left then he is an idiot who should have never been nominated in the first place.
The senate majority leader called this general a lair. MUCH more seriously the senate majority leader attacked and then blocked the reappointment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the crime of following the president's orders.
This game leads down one road. Generals getting personally involved in politics, then trumped up criminal investigations/charges for officers, then someone crossing the rubicon.
I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Justin: I can assure you that, contrary to what you may believe to be true, there are quite a few people in Memphis, TN, who were outraged. They clearly, of course, lack your insight, experience and overall superior knowledge--but they were pissed even if you believe they werent. If you fail to understand why people may not parse things as closely as the chattering classes and react to "General Betray-us," viscerally, you dont understand us dolts out here in fly-over country.
What strikes me is that no one's actually quoted the ad in question.
Here it is:
GENERAL PETRAEUS OR
GENERAL BETRAY US?
Cooking the books for the White House.
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there
was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect
of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do
everything we can to build on that progress.”
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General
claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre
formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated
Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any
other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious
civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are
desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
___________________________________
Some thoughts:
1) MoveOn does not accuse Petraeus of being a traitor. The specific language of the ad uses the word betray, rather than traitor. Those words have different meanings. It is possible to betray a person's trust without committing treason. It is even possible to betray a nation's trust without committing treason. What the ad does is accuse General Petraeus of not being forthright with Congress about the status of things on the ground in Iraq.
2) MoveOn attributes the sources for its contention that Petraeus isn't being forthright. It points to news stories that suggest that the way we're attributing civilian deaths and incidents of violence doesn't make sense. If the Pentagon is not counting civilian deaths from car bombings, there's something wrong with the way it's counting civilian deaths. If a car bombing doesn't count as an incident of violence, there's something wrong with the way we're counting incidents of violence. Same goes for assassinations. Shot in the front of the head, shot in the back, the result is the same. Unless one side of this civil war has produced a terror manual that says: "When assassinating the infidel, use of a bullet through the posterior skull is the only method of execution acceptable to Allah," it's a distinction without a difference.
3) If American deaths are up, and civilian deaths are up, what the hell kind of metric is there for claiming that the surge is working. Wasn't the point of the surge to increase security? Increased deaths mean security isn't increased.
4) Originally, General Petraeus was ordered to come from Iraq and deliver his report to Congress. Somewhere along the line, authorship of his report was usurped by the White House. Whatever you may think about General Petraeus, this administration has, in the past six and a half years, shown an aggressive affinity for incompetence. If they wrote the report, why should any American believe it? And if General Petraeus is willing to deliver that report, I'm sorry, but the validity of what he's saying is also suspect.
I don't think General Petraeus is a traitor. I don't think he's a bad man. I do think that he has allowed himself to be blinded to the realities of the situation in Iraq. The reality is that in order to accomplish our nebulous goals, we're going to need to commit to sacrificing a generation of American teenagers to the altar of a war we never should have started. General Petraeus' willingness to come home and tell Congress that the surge is working is a betrayal of the trust Congress placed in him. It's also a betrayal of the trust the soldiers under his command have in him. If it's not working, just say it. And then say we can't leave.
--G
Oh good grief.
The NY Times has published paid political ads from every side of the political spectrum from PETA to the NRA to the Unification Church. Anybody with a few bucks can take out an ad (and negotiate a discount rate, if that's your point) .
Please spare us the drama queen stuff.
Why? I seem to recall that during the Civil War there was extensive public criticism of the Union's top generals for their mismanagement of the early stages of the war.
"published in Jan 2004 was
so it only became taboo to criticize generals in the past year or two? how convenient for conservatives
General officers have been criticized for a very long time. Google "General Braxton Bragg" -- a man who always took time to quarrel with his generals. Or, try "Lt. George S. Patton" and "slapping."
However, these Generals, unlike Gen. Patraeus, were criticized for what they had done. The Moveon ad accused Gen. Patraeus of dishonesty before he had even made his presentations to Congress, and instead of disagreeing with his conclusions, was an attack on his honesty and integrity without any factual basis.
IF you want to contest Gen. Patreaus' conclusions, do so based on facts. BUT, before he's accused of "cooking the books" for the White House - which would also be false official statements, which is a criminal offense under the UCMJ -- there should be proof.
An individual's opinion
1) that was reposted by a contributor to the NRO so that at least means that a fairly widely read and respected conservative commentator agrees with it.
2) the moveon ad is also someone's opinion ...so does that mean criticizing conservatives for their opinions is wrong while criticizing liberal's opinions is right
Moveon bought a full-page ad in the NYT. It wasn't an obscure posting on a blog. And, it was still obviously "an individual's opinion." You were free to agree or disagree, in whole or in part, with it and submit comments to NRO.
And, merely because someone is a retired General Officer means that I have to uncritically accept their opinions. See Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III (ret). bio info on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine, and tell me if you uncritically agree with him.
"so? does the fact that he took a position that required him to report to congress immunize him from criticism? petraeus voluntarily accepted the position knowing what it will entail. if he didn't realize what he said would be politicized by both the right and the left then he is an idiot who should have never been nominated in the first place."
If you disagree with his conclusions, you may, or members of Congress may, or anyone else may do so -- but, resorting to personal attacks like "he is an idiot" isn't criticism. For criticism you state facts (not mere opinions) and argue your contention.
Yes, he and everyone else knew that what occurs in Iraq has a political dimension. The Al-Qaeda training materials that have been captured are clear that it knows that it cannot win anywhere militarily, and seeks to win by destroying US political will. Army doctrine is that "War is waged to overcome the will of the enemy to resist." In the Fall of 2006 the Dem. Party talking point was that there should be a "new strategy in Iraq." There is one. Gen. Patraeus wrote the book on it. It's called COIN (COunter INsurgency operations). It's working -- maybe not as fast, or as well, or the way you, me or many may others wish, and if you don't think that it's worth pursuing in Iraq, that's your opinion. I don't fault you for having opinions. However, I do fault anyone who resorts to personal attacks.
Which directly led to the upper ranks being full of dumbasses---which lasted through the Spanish American War and was only totally washed out by WWI.
So you're saying that when he said he didn't even let the White House read his prepared remarks before the hearing, he was lying?
What's interesting about this point is Al Qaeda has a history of using our presence in Saudi Arabia as a recruiting tool. This is has also been a significant point in the Osama Videos.
Now, how exactly will leaving Iraq but not SA change that? In particular, I think there is good cause to be reluctant to pull-out of SA because 1) of promises we made to the Saudi, for which withdrawal makes us look feckless and 2) the risk that the Islamic clerics will seize control of SA following such a withdrawal. Doesn't a similar analysis apply in Iraq?
Argument seven runs:
Given 1: Our presence in Iraq is a major recruiting tool for Al Qaeda
Given 2: whatever happens when we leave in Iraq will be pretty much the same if we leave in 2008 as it will be if we leave in 2013, 2018 or 2023
Therefore, leaving is strictly better than staying.
Err? What? But leaving isn't the same as staying; in particular so long as we stay, Iraq isn't annexed by Iran. Therefore, I do not accept "Given #2" and the argument isn't persuasive.
What's infuriating about engaging these people, is the point you omitted from #7, but which moveon.org did not. The last zinger to the argument, "and everyone knows it". Implicitly suggesting that anyone who opposes this position is dishonest or unreasonable.
No shades of gray.
There have been many headlines reporting polls of the Iraqi people stating that they have a strong preference for us to leave. This is usual spun as proof that our presence creates resentment. This isn't what the polls say.
The polls say that the Iraqi people would prefer that we _could and did_ leave but feel that we cannot leave now.
I can't fathom what place the Senate has in condemning a citizen protest. A pox on the 75 who voted to condemn it.
John Dean had a local speaking engagement here (St. Louis) last night. During the Q &A session, an older woman said she believed that "General Petraeus betrayed us" in his testimony, and asked Dean what he thought. He demurred, said he thinks the country is best governed from the center, and that he's not comfortable with name calling.
I'm no paleoconservative but I can agree with that, even where the name calling is retaliatory.
--G
However, these Generals, unlike Gen. Patraeus, were criticized for what they had done. The Moveon ad accused Gen. Patraeus of dishonesty before he had even made his presentations to Congress, and instead of disagreeing with his conclusions, was an attack on his honesty and integrity without any factual basis.
his report and its conclusions were not a big secret. its not like he made up the information in his testimony on the spot. did you read the ad? goobermuch was kind enough to post it before your reply to me. they do challenge his facts and the reporting of his facts and from this they challenge his conclusions. (read the second paragraph) and yes, i am well aware that historically generals were fair game for criticism...that is why i implied that the whole outrage over this ad is nothing but political fakery.
Moveon bought a full-page ad in the NYT. It wasn't an obscure posting on a blog. And, it was still obviously "an individual's opinion." You were free to agree or disagree, in whole or in part, with it and submit comments to NRO.
This appears to the second time you have willfully misconstrued my point. my point is not that its wrong to criticize the ad or that it is wrong to criticize a sitting general (as i made clear above i think neither is wrong). my point is that it is wrong to criticize liberals for doing something when you yourself do the exact same thing. if conservative truly believed that it was wrong to criticize a general they would have been all over article at NRO, but they weren't. it only became wrong to criticize a general's actions when liberals began to do it...that is pure politics and rank hypocrisy.
And, merely because someone is a retired General Officer means that I have to uncritically accept their opinions. See Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III (ret). bio info on Wikipedia,
strike three.
If you disagree with his conclusions, you may, or members of Congress may, or anyone else may do so -- but, resorting to personal attacks like "he is an idiot" isn't criticism. For criticism you state facts (not mere opinions) and argue your contention.
perhaps you missed the part where i said "if he didn't realize...then he is an idiot..." it is a conditional statement. he knew that his report would be politicized...it was guaranteed to be when Bush said something to the effect of "i'll follow petreus' recommendations". i know that he knew it and you know that he knew it.
for someone who hates personal attacks so much, you appear to have no qualms about making them: "I can't decide if you're being disengenious or you're totally ignorant of both the military and history." the sentence was totally unnecessary to your post.
The US pulled all of its troops out of Saudi Arabia in 2003.
But you are correct, leaving is not the same as staying. I think a dispassionate review of the consequences of us leaving, would conclude that it would be much better for us to stay, even up to 50 years with the current levels of violence, than to leave prematurely.
As it turns out, Al Qaeda is becoming our best recruiting tool in Iraq. We may not be gaining hearts and minds in Iraq, but Al Qaeda is rapidly losing them.
This is incorrect. The US had about 5000 men under arms in SA. There are now about 1/10 that number. Of the troops that did relocate, most went to Qatar.
This perhaps is why the objection is now framed in terms of men in the Middle East generally.
I think our ability to gain hearts and minds depends on
1) improving the security conditions (being useful, not harassing)
2) making it clear that we would prefer to leave but not that we prefer to leave so much that we would abandon our task at hand
3) making it clear that the best way to get us to leave is to stop the violence
For the record, I am damned sure outraged that the absolutely anti-American group MorOn.org and its toadying suckups gave outright aid and comfort to the enemy by taking out a NYT ad attacking the American commanding general during a time of war. It is treason, no more and no less.
This country, right and left combined, closed ranks together to win WWII. Had the Leftists driven a stake through the heart of the military like they are doing today, we would have lost WWII.
Now, we have to endure the self-serving ilk who make bogus statements like: ''I have a cousin in Iraq fighting his ass off right now.'' As if they give a damn about other, patriotic volunteers who enlisted to serve our country, knowing beforehand the dangers and hardships involved. I would bet a month's pay to a stale donut that the poster making that patently self-serving statement with crocodile tears in his eyes has never served in a combat zone. Ever since the draft ended, the Left's phony argument complaining that someone else has made the personal choice to volunteer for military service to our country has been nothing but insincere, self-serving rhetoric.
Art. III, Sec. 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I will be happy to act as one of those witnesses against every person who was a part of the decision to produce the MorOn.org ad attacking the commanding general of our troops in Iraq. Because my outrage against those anti-American, anti-military vermin and their toadies is 110% sincere.
Now... You wanna know what I really think?
There is no doubt that AQ is calling on all its adherents to fight the “Crusaders” in Iraq and Afghanistan and New York City, but it is simply not true that armies that are taking huge losses, as AQ is in Iraq, attract large numbers of volunteers.
Our own Civil War is an outstanding example. At first, there was a lot of patriotic fervor on both sides with both the Union and the Confederacy attracting large numbers of volunteers. During the early years of the war as the Union lost battle after battle, Union volunteers dried up. I refer you to my blog in which I compare the Civil War and Iraq. Lincoln was forced to institute a draft for 300,000 men because he could not get volunteers. Grant was desperate to capture Vicksburg and create a Union victory because the Union recruiting effort was drying up.
When the South began losing, Confederate desertions skyrocketed and their armies began to melt away. Drastic measure were taken by the Confederate government to catch deserters.
If you want to make the argument that Islamic fanatics are different in this respect, you would possibly have a point except you would be contradicting Osama himself who – I assume – is somewhat more familiar with his people’s psychology that the other posters here. He is quoted in an interview in December of 2001: “…when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Does this sound like he is describing a culture that attracts adherents who want to die and lose?
The bottom line is this: we can choose to win and we will be the “strong horse” that people will like. Or we can choose to lose and the Islamic radicals will attract adherents to their winning side. The choice is literally ours because we can’t lose militarily, only psychologically. And the reason for my anger at the MoveOn.org ad is that it is designed to create a losing psychology. That allies MoveOn.org with my enemy. To suggest that my anger is faked is to assume I don’t take this war seriously. 9/11 was enough to convince me that the enemy is deadly serious.
I am actually fascinated to find that people like Kinsley and you actually think that a lot of the outrage is being faked. Perhaps it has something to do with the people around you who are really opposed to the war and can't believe that the rubes in fly-over country take this sort of thing seriously. If you believe that the MoveOn.org ad is basically true, just a little over the top, you can't understand that people who take this war deadly seriously view psychological warfare as every bit as deadly as bullets and bombs.
Not particularly. Generally, on this blog, we prefer insight and original thinking.
Strange how this war was sold to all us Americans as a 'slam dunk" and that it would be over in a few months. Invade in March, establish a constitution in August, be all out in the fall. Oh, and all the costs of the war would be paid for by Iraq's own oil revenues -- they get to pay for the costs of their own indepence. Ha ha! The jokes gonna be on them!
Now, it's about five years later, over 5000 dead soldiers, estimates of Iraq dead, the ones we were supposed to HELP, are in the hundreds of thousands. Thousands of their best and brightest are refugees fleeing the country, depriving it of the very middle class people they need to rebuild, the war has cost us about 500 billion, and there is no end in sight.
Got a Plan for Victory? What is it? How will we know when victory is acheived?
This war has been a debacle, no doubt about it. Our dear leaders in the White House either lied to us, or were grossly incompetent about planning it. Yet none of this 'outrages' you. Nope, what makes you mad is anyone who actually points out these facts. WE are the ones losing the war, not Bush, not the generals. Nope, somehow, by me typing these words, I have done more to loose the war than any stupidity on the part of Rumsfeld or Bush.
Look: We will start supporting the war when you give us a real plan for victory. It is without doubt that all previous "plans for victory" have failed. Give us a realistic one that will actually work. You can blame defeat on the lefties if you like, but you would have define lefties as the vast majority of Americans, because the vast majority sees the situation as I have just described.
So no, Smokey. I'm not at all interested in what you think. What I AM interested in is a plan to succeed in Iraq. But I fear I'll be waiting a loooooong time for that one.
When the war started, about 90% of Americans were fully behind it. Today, only about 20% do. What caused such a significant drop? Was it the fact that the war has been a disaster for the us? That we went into it ill prepared? The fact that our soldiers for several YEARS didn't have proper body armor or reinforced trucks?
The drop in suppport for this war is a direct result of the ridiculously lousy planning and execution of it. Blame the lefties all you want, but these are the facts. Now, the war's supporters don't like this, so they blame the lefties on 'losing the war.' How about blaming the tops guys who planned all this, like, our commander-in-chief? Or our Joint chiefs of Staff? Or the top brass at the Pentagon?
Nope. Can't do that. Republicans can never accept responsibility for their actions -- it's always the fault of someone else, right?
Success (a term I prefer to the meaningless [in this context] term "winning") is not a matter of will alone. Sure, will plays a part in success, but so do many other things. To use your example, Grant and Lincoln both had a strong will to win, but that would have done them no good if every battle had been a Fredericksburg.
What we have now is Bush standing in front of a Potemkin village like Joe Isuzu, insisting it's a real village. Any fool can see through this; turning off the captions that tell you he's lying won't change that reality.
Brian K -- I believe you are being disengenious. Following that logic it is possible to conclude that all liberals "don't support the troops" because on Sept. 19th on Daily Kos (a site that registers about 500,000 hits a day, which is far more than NRO) there was a posting by an individual titled "I Don't Support the Troops..oops, there, I said it", which, among other things includes the statements "I am sorry but supporting the troops means supporting this illegal war." See www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/18384/0637
I don't see "liberals" rushing up the hill with torches lit to burn down the castle of the Daily Kos over this posting by an individual who his expressing his personal opinion. Thus, applying your logic, I would have to conclude that "liberals don't support the troops."
The logical fallacies in your line of reasoning are many. And, that is why I conclude you are being disengenious.
On one point I do agree with Kinsey. He wrote in his Time article “The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism.”
There is no hypocrisy in condemning Moveon for Gen. Petraeus' honesty since Moveon has no facts to support its allegation. Disagreeing with Gen. Petraeus' conclusions is different than an attack on his honesty.
There were a number of reasons for the drop in support of the war. First, the appearance that the conflict had no end. This was reinforced by newspaper reporting that emphasized the negative with virtually no reporting of the positive. Third, the existence of what I refer to as latter day Copperheads: people who do not want us to win for a number of reasons which I will be glad to go into but won’t here. These are the people who have managed to convince a meaningful number of Americans that Bush lied to get us into the war and that the war is unwinnable or, like Harry Reid, that the war is already lost.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but the fact is that we cannot be defeated by this enemy on the battlefield. They can break our will to win, and the fact is that the Left is their ally on this.
You can try to shift the blame by citing poor planning, poor execution, poor direction and poor strategy all you want. The fact is that we have never fought this kind of enemy before and to suggest that we should have had a perfect plan for a brand new war is just silly. We have adapted and we seem to have found a strategy that has pacified the most hostile province in Iraq. It is now being applied to toher sections of Iraq and I hope it succeeds.
Despite this, the Left is determined to force a withdrawal and engineer a defeat. I’m willing to accept responsibility for mistakes. But it seems the Left is not. For the Left, an American victory is a serious political blow, as it was for the Democrats after the Civil War.
And Mark Field, you are a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Keep in mind that it was Petraeus, not Bush that gave testimony to the current situation in Iraq.
If the Democrats quit pretending to take Move-On seriously, so will the Republicans.
When we started claiming ANYONE -- or any group -- was somehow immune to criticism.
You know what? Generals should be heavily criticized. So should Presidents, Senators, religious leaders, and [i]anyone[/i] in any position of power.
As for the ad: No one cares. The only polling response was a slight uptick from the devoted GOP base. If all the screaming and yelling and Sense of the Senate Resolutions created the massive damage of making people who would vote for the GOP if Satan himself was running a little happier about voting for the GOP -- it didn't make a damn bit of difference.
And frankly, I don't care about the ad. And I care even less if anyone was outraged. Grow a thicker skin.
Or better yet, come to accept that criticism of power is a [i]positive[/i] thing.
I really care about your inability to italicize.
I really, really do.
See that thingy above the comment block?
There's where the country went wrong!
Hmm. I'm going to rate that a spelling/grammer flame. (Well, technically a html-based commenting versus forum-based commenting flame).
I guess that's where you go when table pounding fails.
Care to try again?
you forget that this is exactly what many conservatives do. for example, any time democrats in congress attempt to cut/decrease funding for the war they are accused of not supporting the troops. any time liberals speak out against the war, they don't support the troops/want the terrorists to win/are traitors/etc.
your objection to my position only make sense if you assume one thing...that i don't think it is right to make this sort of criticism. as i've already told you, this assumption is false. i have no problem with people saying these things...but i do have a problem with the selective outrage displayed by the conservatives. if something is wrong...it is wrong regardless of who says it...it doesn't magically become right only when conservatives do it.
I don't see "liberals" rushing up the hill with torches lit to burn down the castle of the Daily Kos over this posting by an individual who his expressing his personal opinion.
liberals also didn't introduce and pass an amendment in the senate to condemn such speech (see my posts earlier in the board). liberals also don't condemn your right to say this (well...i'm sure some do but the proportion is much less and the intensity of the vitriol is much less). that is a difference. you can't have your cake and eat it to. to repeat, these postings are not equivalent. the only way they would be equivalent is if liberals constantly charge conservatives with "not supporting the troops" while giving a free pass to other liberals.
so please before posting again sit down and think about what claims i am really making. (and yes when someone claims that i don't support the troops i 1) laugh at them and 2) provide a great many examples of why they're wrong, usually using rhetorical questions. what i don't do is say "shut up. you have no right to say that" and i certainly don't call on congress to condemn their speech)
If I can interject here a moment can I ask a question?
When you say “any time liberals speak out against the war” what do you mean? Is it not the case that the Liberal case against the war is that it should not have been started and it should not be continued?
Leaving Joe Lieberman aside, can you cite a list of Liberals who oppose the war as it has been conducted who do not wish to pull out ASAP?
A follow up: what is your prediction about the effects of a pullout now both in the Middle East, and in the rest of the world.
So then why are you complaining about Move-On being criticized for criticizing Patreaus? Who said Generals were immune from criticism? The Republicans were just excercising their right to criticize Move-On for what they considered unfair criticism of Patreaus. Now if they were introducing Bills of Attainder against Soros and other Move-On financers and principles then that would indeed be over the line.
Grow a thicker skin.
I don't disagree here. But can you explain to me why thinking that we went to war on false pretenses and that continuing the war is not in our best interest are somehow equivalent to treason?
At what point do you call a spade a spade. While all of Petraeus's virtues can be readily admitted, they are all over-ridden by one fault that trumps all. Allowing himself to be used as a prop by Bush. Betray Us, indeed.
After Bush pretended to deliberate over whether he would agree to his own policy as presented by his general in well-rehearsed performances before Congress -- "President Bush Accepts Recommendations" read a headline on the White House Web site -- he established an ideal division of responsibility. Bush could claim credit for the "Return on Success," whenever that might be, while Petraeus would be charged with whatever might go wrong.
One week after Petraeus flashed his metrics, a whole new set of facts on the ground suddenly emerged: an admission (previously denied) by Petraeus that the United States was arming the Sunnis, who might use those weapons in the next phase of Iraq's civil war; the release of a Pentagon report that there is "an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South" (a report conveniently withheld as Petraeus was testifying); the Iraqi government's expulsion of Blackwater, a private security firm with close ties to the administration, after a band of its guards gunned down Iraqi civilians; the restriction of all nonmilitary U.S. personnel in Iraq to the Green Zone; a report by the Iraqi Red Crescent that about 1 million people are internal refugees as a result of ethnic cleansing (apart from the more than 2 million refugees who have fled the country); and the announcement by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of an investigation into the State Department's inspector general for quashing scrutiny and embarrassing studies of fraud in the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, among other projects.
Moveon.org correctly described General Petreus as a traitor and a liar because Mr. Bush agreed with his report and followed his recommendations.
In Heaven's name, how does the former follow from the latter?
What Blumenthal means is that Petreus "betrayed" the retreat and defeat crowd by gutting the rationale for their surrender plans.
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command our forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor-geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
"Accordingly, I'm readily and willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
----------
Randy R, 2007
Look: We will start supporting the war when you [Bush &Petraeus] give us a real plan for victory. It is without doubt that all previous "plans for victory" have failed. Give us a realistic one that will actually work. You can blame defeat on the lefties if you like, but you would have define lefties as the vast majority of Americans, because the vast majority sees the situation as I have just described.
The drop in suppport for this war is a direct result of the ridiculously lousy planning and execution of it. Blame the lefties all you want, but these are the facts. Now, the war's supporters don't like this, so they blame the lefties on 'losing the war.' How about blaming the tops guys who planned all this, like, our commander-in-chief? Or our Joint chiefs of Staff? Or the top brass at the Pentagon?
---------
There are good plans, bad plans, and successful plans. Good and bad plans are what you go to war with. How do the generals know its a good plan? Because it was successful during the last war. The enemy then gets a vote, and most of the time the generals have to throw out their "good plans" and start adapting to the new realities of this new war. The best generals focus on winning with creative strategies and tactics adapted to this new war, by ruthlessly seizing on and exploiting any success, and abandoning failed plans; and with leadership that emphasizes, encourages and energizes each soldier to not only do his best, but to improvise, adapt, overcome.
How do you know you have a "real plan for victory"? After you won the war, it was the last plan you were following. Not until then, will you know.
What's a bad plan? A plan put together by people whose business and expertise is not planning for war.
-----
If you're a soldier in a war zone, you have to fight with the sure knowledge that you're already dead. You can't have the expectation of coming out alive. What is left for you then? To fight with bravery, honor, and courage; first for your fellows, and then for your country. That is wny accusing a serving soldier of betrayal is such a serious charge: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-----
Cleary, betrayal is a lesser charge than treason. The first claims you have deliberately failed to do your duty; the other is that you have deliberately aided and abetted the enemy. During the Civil War, the Republican newspapers severely criticized McClellan. Even Lincoln reached the point of calling McClellan a traitor, tho not in public.
So Petraeus better have a thick skin, because there's a long history of civilians willing to call under-performing Generals traitors and betrayers.
I demur to do so. So far, Petraeus' plans are having an effect. The future is unknown to us. No one predicted that Anbar province would flip, and so fast. So Randy R, quit waiting for that real plan. You wouldn't know it if it slapped you upside the head. And commit yourself to either victory or defeat and act accordingly.
Certainly.
First, I don’t accept the notion that we went to war on “false pretenses.” It assumes that we invaded Iraq for a single reason, and a single reason alone. That may be the story that the Copperheads are telling each other, but it does not correspond with the truth. That assumes that Bush knew that he would find no WMDs after we invaded Iraq. Even assuming that Bush is as stupid as your side seems to think he is, if he knew that no WMDs would be discovered, don’t you think that Bush (or “Darth Chaney”) would come up with another reason for invading? Or at the very least “salt” the Iraqi weapons depots with WMDs? If Bush is that stupid, how stupid must the Democrats be to (1) tell us during the Clinton Administration that Saddam had WMDs and (2) during the run-up to the war claim they were voting for the invasion because Saddam had WMDs? (3) Lose two elections to him?
Second, once there we have a choice of either completing the job of creating a stable Iraq that is a showcase of (relative) democracy and pluralism without dictatorship ( a step forward in that benighted region) while providing us with a base over which we can watch over other noxious regimes in the region. The alternative is to demonstrate that we will cut and run if it costs too much or takes too long, proving once again that to be America’s enemy is dangerous but to be America’s friend is deadly. An excellent recruiting tool for OBL and the Islamic radicals. Or do you believe that winning a war makes you less popular?
By the way, treason is the term others have used. I prefer to think that most on the Left are deluded or ill informed. I may be wrong.
You seem to have a grasp or reality that most others here lack. How do you know a plan will work? Try it and see!
Randy, et al look for "plan." We look for success.
Someohow this discussion reminds me of the debate over global warming where people debate compute projections, for God's sake! The map is not the territory, but I'm always amazed by the number of people who confuse the two.
Losing in Iraq is a choice. How many on the Left choose to lose?
Here is the plan for victory: Stick it out.
Anybody with any knowledge of military history knows that very few wars (and just about none in American History) are won by brilliant campaigns or war plans. They are one by determination. Washington, Grant, Eisenhower all one their wars by muddling through, and the determination of the Nation behind them that they were going to win the war.
The truth is that we have already won in Iraq, the only possible way to lose now is to walk away.
No. It is not the APPEARANCE that the conflict has no end. It is the fact that this conflict has no end. Most people predict we will be in Iraq for at least another 10 years, perhaps even longer. Bush himself stated this will be extended to the next presidency.
"This was reinforced by newspaper reporting that emphasized the negative with virtually no reporting of the positive."
Really? And how many times has the White House said that we have 'turned the corner" on this war? It was about to end when they held elections -- three years ago.
But this is such nonsense. The war is not fought in the media. It is fought on the ground in Iraq. I wish people would stop with all this nonsense of shifting blame from the people in charge to 'the media,' or the 'leftists.'
"Third, the existence of what I refer to as latter day Copperheads: people who do not want us to win for a number of reasons which I will be glad to go into but won’t here. " Yes, tired old conspiracy theories.
"These are the people who have managed to convince a meaningful number of Americans that Bush lied to get us into the war and that the war is unwinnable or, like Harry Reid, that the war is already lost."
Many republicans are now arguing that the war is unwinnable and is lost. Such as George Will, even Charles Krauthammer. Are they all part of the fifth column, too?
"I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but the fact is that we cannot be defeated by this enemy on the battlefield." Then why is Baghdad still not secured? Why do they still not have reliable electricity?
" They can break our will to win, and the fact is that the Left is their ally on this." Yes, if by Left you mean the majority of Americans that now say this war was a mistake.
"You can try to shift the blame by citing poor planning, poor execution, poor direction and poor strategy all you want. " Shift the blame from whom to whom? The planning was done by Bush and his folk. that's who I place the blame on. Who do you think did all the planning in the first place? Mickey Mouse? It is YOU who is shifting the blame, from Bush to the lefties.
"The fact is that we have never fought this kind of enemy before and to suggest that we should have had a perfect plan for a brand new war is just silly." Then why did George Tenet say this would be a slam dunk, and Dick Cheney say that we would be greated as liberators with flowers? If it was so difficult to predict, then why did they predict that we would be out of Iraq in less than a year? If what you are saying is true, then Bush truly lied to us. He should have said, look, we don't know how long this will be, we don't know what victory will look like, and it might mean a long haul. But he didn't.
" We have adapted and we seem to have found a strategy that has pacified the most hostile province in Iraq. It is now being applied to toher sections of Iraq and I hope it succeeds. " Good. After five years, I would hope that we learn something from this war.
"I’m willing to accept responsibility for mistakes.' So far, you have not admited a single mistake or accepted any responsibility. Instread, you blame shadowy conspiracies and The Left.
"But it seems the Left is not." That's because the Left was against the war, was never in charge of the war, and therefore has not made any mistakes. You seem to forget that until last year, the Right and Republicans controlled all branches of gov't, and the congress never refused anything that Bush wanted in this war. The left never controlled or planned anything. It was never given a chance to even make a mistake.
But I may be mistaken. Please cite one instance that the Left has made a mistake in the planning or execution of this war.
Look, this one isn't going to fly. Bush and Rumsfeld had a free rein in Iraq and in prosecuting this war. They blew it. Now you are trying to blame everyone BUT Bush for any mistakes he made. Americans are a bit smarter than that.
The best generals make sure that their soldiers have the proper armor for their vehicles to protect themselves. Clearly, we do not have 'the best generals.'
" So Randy R, quit waiting for that real plan. You wouldn't know it if it slapped you upside the head. And commit yourself to either victory or defeat and act accordingly."
So tell me when you know when victory is acheived in Iraq.
The truth is that we have already won in Iraq, the only possible way to lose now is to walk away."
This one wins for the biggest bunch of malarky on this post. Anybody with any knowledge of military history knows that determination is perhaps one factor, but it doesn't count for much. Hitler was very determined to win his war. Didn't work out so well, did it? The American Indians fought countless wars against the federal gov't. How did that work out? What about the Japanese in WWII -- few people were as determined as ruthless as they were (ex. Rape of Nanking, kamikazes). But guess what? They lost their war! The ancient Greeks lost to the Persians, then the Persians lost to the Greeks -- it had little to do with determination, as both sides were greatly determined, and more to do with military tactics and a bit of luck.
Do you think Philip II wasn't determined when he built a huge armada to invade England? How'd that turn out? Oh, I suppose the real reason the French lost at Agincourt is that they weren't 'determined' enough! (Wrong, it was because the English mastered archery).
Right here in our backyard -- just tell any son or daughter of the confederacy that the reason they lost the war was because their ancestors weren't 'determined' enough. You have another civil war on your hands in a New York minute.
"Very few wars are won by brilliant campaigns or war plans." This one takes the cake. Napoleon, Lee, Perseus and countless other commanders would disagree. But now it makes sense to me -- you people really believe that having an actual plan for the war is pointless, so there is no point to having one. Which explains why Bush never had one. And so you really think that war is nothing more than just ginning up the guns and shooting away.
This is unbelievable, yet it explains why we are in such a quagmire.
"The best generals make sure that their soldiers have the proper armor for their vehicles to protect themselves. Clearly, we do not have 'the best generals."
I guess McClellan, infamous for his inability to move because things were never quite exactly perfect, is your favorite Civil War General. You must hold Patton, with his outgunned and underarmored Shermans, in total disdain.
The best generals complete their missions with the tools they have.
But, but, John Fleming, don't you understand? Petraues shouldn't even HAVE a plan! Plans can be bad, they can be wrong -- too dangerous!
Kasinki says all you need is love, er I mean, all you need is determination. Don't you understand that? It's the only 'plan' we need. and if it's good enough for George W., it's good enough for me.
And when lefties complain about the lack of a plan, we are told that we are ruining the non-existent plan. We should understand that a plan is not needed, just the will to 'stick it out.' Who cares how many more maimed and dead? 40,000 casualties is a drop in the bucket compared to the casualities these guys are willing to commit just to show our determination.
Why, I bet that they are willing to go for 100,000, if that's what it takes. Which is what it will, because although we have no idea what victory means in Iraq, we also have no idea what defeat is either, except that they look exactly the same.
I'm no military expert, but you're making me look good. Of course there have been brilliant generals in the past, but they have always been the exception, not the rule. Lee was a much better general than Grant, Washington's major strategy was to keep his army intact by avoiding decisive engagements at all cost. Logistics, technology and the national capacity to produce war material have always been the primary determinents of victory. We have all that in spades. The only thing that may be lacking is the determination to see the war through. But now even the Democratic candidates are backing off from proposals to withdraw, the Democrats in the Senate are studiously avoiding putting out any withdrawl proposals that have any chance of winning. The opportunity to lose this war is rapidly diminishing.
No. It is not the APPEARANCE that the conflict has no end. It is the fact that this conflict has no end. Most people predict we will be in Iraq for at least another 10 years, perhaps even longer. Bush himself stated this will be extended to the next presidency.
You contradict yourself here. “The conflict has no end?” Really? When I read that I had a flashback to an episode of the Dick Van Dyke Show (now long gone but great comedy). The character played by Dick Van Dyke was being told that his show had been cancelled. “Cancelled? I was told that the show would go on forever.” “In show business, seven years is forever” the manager replied.
An argument can be made that America does not want to fight wars that last more than “X” years, or that cost more than “Y” lives before it withdraws, but I have not heard those arguments much. But to claim that this conflict has no end is one of those over-the-top statements that reveal a mind that thinks in bumper sticker slogans.
I have always believed that we were in for a generations long conflict because we are facing an ideological enemy who, like the Soviet Union, desires universal hegemony. It's part of their creed.
I suspect that we may be in Iraq for decades, just as we have been in Europe for over a half century. But that does not mean that we will be engaged in low level warfare for that period.
The war is not fought in the media. It is fought on the ground in Iraq. I wish people would stop with all this nonsense of shifting blame from the people in charge to 'the media,' or the 'leftists.'
Of course it’s fought in the media. Have you not listened to a word being said? Have you not been listening to yourself? Breaking an enemy’s will to win is never just about shooting someone. Genghis Kahn fought and won most of his battles in his version of the media, explaining to a city he wanted to conquer just what horrors he would inflict if they resisted. Today, you erode the will to win by dwelling ceaselessly on American losses, by emphasizing enemy victories and by telling people that “the conflict has no end.” Meanwhile you undercut your leaders’ credibility by telling people that he is waging an illegal war (a charge made during WW2 against Roosevelt) or that the war objectives are a lie (a charge made against Lincoln) or that the current war was “sold” to the American people on a known lie (Bush knew there were no WMDs).
Would you not agree that this has an effect on the national will to win? But, you say, the war is being fought on the ground. Actually, that is only superficially right. Wars, even battles, are fought as much in the heads of the combatants and the nations or groups they fight for. Look analytically at the war in Viet Nam. Armies don’t fight wars: nations do. We can win every battle, but still lose a war, as we did in Viet Nam, if the nation decides to quit.
And yes, my friend, it so happens that the NY Times and the alphabet media is worth thousands of fighters on the ground in Iraq … to the enemy. Once they began – reluctantly – providing the good news of what Petraeus was doing with the surge, American support of the war went up. And conversely, since the enemy is focused on breaking American will (not being able to stand up in battle) a renewed American commitment to winning will erode their own will to continue to fight.
I have no argument with you regarding who is responsible for both successful and faulty strategies in this war as it is fought on the ground in Iraq. But the largest failure on the part of this administration is its failure to design and implement an effective media strategy to keep the morale at home up. With a free press, especially a free press that is hostile to your administration, that may be very difficult, but it is vital in a society that is engaged in a war.
If you are invested heavily in losing, you may be discouraged by signs of progress in Iraq. I hope you are not. I hope you want America to win so that the bloodshed can end and people – both here and throughout the world - can be free of the fear of terror attacks as well as free of the domination of radical Islam.
There is still a long road ahead. The soldiers on the battlefield have performed magnificently. The least we can exhibit as we live in luxury here in the US is to give them the support they need to prevail.
Perhaps if Bush had been just a bit more honest with the American public, then we wouldn't be having this shouting war. And he has consistently been dishonest about it. And you still have recognized the fact that many republicans have declared the war lost. It's not a problem with the lefties, as you keep saying, but a problem with Americans.
And it's not aproblem with the media -- hell, you mean to tell me that Fox News hasn't been Bush's best cheerleader? And when, after five years of war, we can't produce reliable electricity, what's the media supposed to do, ignore that fact and mislead the public?
And I notice neither of you bothered to answer the real question: What is considered a victory in Iraq?
REgarding plans for the war: At the beginning, many military analysts said that you need far more troops than were being planned. Bush and Rumsfeld ignored the advice. Why? Throughout the war, there were regular requests that Bush increase the number of troops. That was ignored. Then the Baker Commission came out with a report on the war, and Bush ignored that. Instread, he went with a 'surge' because he finally realized that we needed more troops to do the job, but many said it's too little too late. Bush ignored that fact, and now guess what? The temporary surge is going to remain permanant.
How many times does Bush have to ignore common sense? I never backed this war, but I often said that if you are going to go to war, at least do it right. It was obvious to anyone there was no plan to do it, let it alone do it right.
Look, in the early 90s, I worked on a project to help bring democracy to the former Soviet states and eastern europe. This project sunk millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of hours from volunteers, and it spanned over 10 years. Our goal was to help ease these countries to democracy and capitalism. We helped them write their constitutions, establish and indepedent judiciary, recognize the rule of law, respect contracts and basic freedoms. It took a LOT of effort and time, and our success was mixed at best.
We learned that the countries that were most westernized made the transition faster, such as Poland and the Baltic states and Hungary. the further east, the less likely success. Even in the best circumstances, there were powerful influences to go towards a disctatorship. Many states went that way. And this is when you have a peaceful revolution and the people wanted democracy!
So when I heard Bush is going to establish a democracy within a few months, I was incredulous. I knew IT WOULD NOT WORK that way. And I was right. Now, Bush has given up the goal of establishing democracy there, and success has been ratcheted down to just not as much violence.
I'm just a little sick and tired of this faith based administration: If you have good intentions and determination, you can accomplish anything.
Well, you can't. Sometimes you need a plan. And you need a GOOD one. And it's unbelievable that anyone would fall for the notion that plans aren't important.
Whew! At least we agree on something. You had me worried there for a minute.
" The only thing that may be lacking is the determination to see the war through. "
No, the only thing lacking is a workable plan for victory, and a definition of victory, and a plan for what to do once we achieve victory. Bush himself has repeatedly come out with a new plan for victory every year or so, so don't tell me that plans aren't necessary. If they aren't, then Bush should say so and refrain from issuing them.
The free press, by all accounts, fully supported the war during the first two to three years. It was only after they realized that things are not as rosy as Bush painted it that they started to report what was really going on. Bush had free rein during the early years of the war, and he blew the prosecution of the war. We were hamstrung right from the start with too few troops, and really bad decision making on the part of Ken Bremer, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and co. You know, the people who actually run the war.
Why must you keep blaming everyone else for this simple fact?
Let me explain why war plans seldom work and it usually comes down to national capacity, and yes determination, rather than a single successful war plan. The reason is that there is another side in a war. The other side also wants to win, when your plan achieves successes then they will change tactics to counter your plan. Then you have to come up with another plan. That is how wars work. Any general or president that throws up a blueprint for winning a war, and thinks that they are going to be able to ride the plan unchanged to victory is an idiot.
As for the press, who cares? They've made themselves irrelevent. They've quit reporting honestly, and just about everybody has quit paying (serious) attention to them.
Again, I agree. But that's far different from having NO plan, which is what we are still with.
And again, all everyone here keeps saying is that we must keep fighting. I'm asking, until when? No one can answer that. If no one can, then perhaps this was a bad idea right from the beginning, which was my original contention.
Look this thread has gone on a long time and it’s time to call it quits if you insist on making ridiculous statements. Need I remind you of some? The one about the conflict that would never end (unless we withdrew, right?)
The insistence that wars are not fought using the media. Come on, pull the other one.
About not accomplishing any stated goals. Really? Removing Saddam and his fellow butchers in his government is nothing? Making sure that there were no WMDs in Iraq is nothing? Ending the Food for Oil scandal is nothing? Allowing the Iraqis elect their own government is nothing? Working to find a solution to sectarian violence without repressive dictatorship is nothing? Be serious.
And then the rather pathetic insistence that we don’t have a plan. We had a plan, it took out the Iraqi military in a few weeks. The follow up plan for pacification of the country didn’t work out … as planned. So plans were changed. And changed again. And now we have a strategy that appears to be working because the Iraqis who first sided with the Al Qaida types decided that we were better.
No plan? You sit here and put your non-de-plume on an assertion that Petraeus is running a war in Iraq and is making it up from minute to minute? Is that your problem Bunkie?
Taking your assertions at face value, I sympathize with you that the people of those countries you “helped” did not decide to salute smartly and do what their American overlords wanted them to do. People are funny like that.
The end point for us in Iraq is a stable country where people can go on with their daily lives without fear of being blown up by some fanatic with a bomb in his trunk. Where the infrastructure can be repaired and improved without being sabotaged. Where the people are not our enemies and will not provide support for those who would do us harm. That may take a while.
You know, you may be interested to learn that the first volunteers for Mr. Lincoln’s army signed up for 90 days because that is how long the Civil War was going to last. If you had been around in 1861, I’m sure you would have been one of those that would have demanded that Lincoln negotiate with Jefferson Davis because, you see, the original “plan” wasn’t working. And you would have had a lot of company, including the first commanding general of Mr. Lincoln’s army. Lincoln was often accused of having a faith based administration.
You know something else that’s funny, Bunkie? After Grant took over, he tells us in his memoirs that he did not share his plan for winning the war with (wait for it) … the Secretary of War or … Abraham Lincoln. Strange, isn’t it how that secret plan worked?
Well, this is goodbye. I doubt if I have changed your mind, but perhaps among those who visit this site a light may have been turned on. One can only hope.