Strategic Mistake

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:

"In a stern warning to critics of a continued troop presence in Afghanistan, Gates said the Islamic extremist Taliban and al-Qaida would perceive an early pullout as a victory over the United States as similar to the Soviet Union's humiliating withdrawal in 1989 after a 10-year war.

''The notion of timelines and exit strategies and so on, frankly, I think would all be a strategic mistake. The reality is, failure in Afghanistan would be a huge setback for the United States,'' Gates said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN's ''State of the Union.''

''Taliban and al-Qaida, as far as they're concerned, defeated one superpower. For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think, would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, al-Qaida recruitment, operations, fundraising, and so on. I think it would be a huge setback for the United States.''

Pictures from Iran

On Flickr.

Missile Defense

Michael Ramirez

Just who is crazy?

John Bolton or Allison Kilkenny?

Tightening the Defense Budget

Secretary of Defense Gates talks about the defense budget, and defends recent cuts, particularly cuts to the F-22 Raptor:

SEC. GATES: I think what we’re trying to do is not reduce emphasis on conventional warfare, but be more selective about the weapons systems that we fund to fight that kind of a fight. I’m not cutting the F-22; I’m not recommending the F-22; I’m simply recommending that the program set in 2005 was to build 183 of these aircrafts. I’m simply saying, let’s finish that program and then let’s focus on buying large numbers of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, which has 10- to 15-year newer technology, has some capabilities that the F-22 doesn’t have.

The F-22 is a great airplane, all you have to do is ask the pilots who fly it, but – and it will remain in the inventory, but there is no military requirement for more than 183 of them, 187 with those that are in the supplemental. So we’re doing that, we’re building additional ships, we’re doing more in the way of theater and tactical ballistic-missile defense. We’re converting more ships to have ballistic-missile defense that would help against China. So I think there’s kind of a misunderstanding of exactly what it is we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to be more selective about systems that actually work and that can be delivered in a reasonable period of time than some of these exotic systems.

Regarding missile defense:

SEC. GATES: We have two threats: theater and tactical ballistic missiles and ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles from rogue states like North Korea. We are significantly increasing the missile defense capabilities to deal with the theater and tactical threat, from Iran or Hezbollah or others like that, in a number of different ways – a lot of money being added to the budget.

We are not cutting the number of interceptors in Alaska, we are going to fund – robustly fund research and development to keep enhancing their capabilities, we are keeping alive the airborne-laser program, we are just not buying a second research platform. We’re going to make do with one 747 to do this research. The procurement program was completely out of control, with 27 47s and so on and so forth. So I think we are doing a lot, we do very well with terminal defense, with THAD and the theater missile. We do very well at midcourse with the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.

Now, we’re continuing to do research work on the boost phase, where they’re just coming off the pad, and we have several programs, some of them classified, that are aimed at taking care of that. So I think we have really strongly supported missile defense, and I think that what we have taken out of the budget, frankly, were some experimental capabilities that were really not intended for the rogue-state missile threat but rather, a much larger threat. So I’m trying to conform our program to our policy. Our policy is to have a missile defense and it was – as it was in the Bush administration, our policy is to have a missile defense against rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. That’s what our program does.

Popular Mechanics has more: The 7 winners and losers under Gates' proposed budget. Littoral combat ships and the F-35 win big, the Army's Future Combat System and F-22 lose.

The Petraeus and Bush relationship

Great article by Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post:

"As Centcom commander, Fallon was technically Petraeus's new boss. In practice, however, Petraeus bypassed the chain of command and answered directly to Bush, enjoying what was probably the most direct relationship between a frontline general and his commander in chief since the Civil War."

This description may lend some credence to the claim by some that Fallon and Petraeus hated each other. Now, for any student of the Civil War, Lincoln's relationship with his generals draw many interesting comparisons with that of Bush and Petraeus. Prior to, and during the battle of Chancellorsville, for example, Lincoln received reports via courier directly from Major General Joe Hooker. Furthermore, Lincoln himself visited the front to participate in strategy planning with the general. Hooker was appointed by Lincoln to change the course of the war, much as Petraeus was. Neither Lincoln's Secretary of War, nor his Army Chief of Staff supported Hooker's appointment, and they had little dealings with the commander of the Army of the Potomac. They left him to deal directly with the President, which was just what Hooker preferred.

The Fewest Deaths Since The Start Of The War

U.S. military deaths plunged in May to the lowest monthly level in more than four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too, as Iraqi forces assumed the lead in offensives in three cities and a truce with Shiite extremists took hold.

And the AP headline?: Deaths in Iraq plunge, but will it last?

I think it will. Military and civilian deaths, along with attacks, are at record lows. I see a trend. Even the Washington Post jumps in.

Maybe the war isn't lost after all.

Free Tibet, America?

"Free Tibet, I mean, actually, I mention this in America Alone. It’s not really what the book’s about, but I just happened to mention it in passing. Free Tibet is the classic liberal cause. It’s the all-time great bumper sticker. You go to any college in America, they’ve got a Free Tibet society. Everyone’s got the bumper stickers. The left, God bless them, got the bumper sticker in 1957, they put it on the Ford Edsel, and every time they buy a new car, they peel the Free Tibet bumper sticker off and put it on the new car. It’s the quintessential liberal cause in that nothing has happened. Nothing is done. It’s a bumper sticker, and that’s where it ends, and Tibet is less free than it ever was, and in fact, has been comprehensively wrecked and undermined by the Chinese. Butthey don’t mind as long as they get their little bit of posturing out of it."

The above is Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. We've been tryin got "free tibet" for how long?

I write this as a former card-carrying member of "Students for a free Tibet" back in high school.

Columnist to the world Mark Steyn, the Pulitzers, Petraeus, Iran

"...occasionally, people have talked about putting me in for a Pulitzer for this, that and the other, and it turns out an undocumented American can do almost anything in this country. He can get a fake driver's license and all the rest of it. But apparently, the Pulitzers still maintain, it's like an old-time country club. It's very hard to get into."

Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt, discussing his book, America Alone.

Here is Hugh later on in the show, making an excellent point about the Petraeus testimony:

"I’m struck by the fact that when he [Petraeus] goes about methodically telling people on the Hill that Iran is killing Americans, and it doesn’t seem to register, I mean, Joe Lieberman was on the program yesterday, and it registered with him, and it registered with some of the Republicans. But the fact that Iran is killing Americans doesn’t seem, Mark, to make an impression on Democrats."

Steyn responds:

"I think essentially, Iran is at war with us, and we’re pretending not to notice."

Positive revisionism

VDH - Nothing Succeeds Like Success:

Such positive revisionism can take years to develop. Assessments from the battlefield must be digested, partisan distortions rectified, and volatile news cycles balanced by the more measured perspective that comes only with time.

John McCain's youngest son

...gets a New York Times bio:

By enlisting in the Marines, Jimmy seemed to be giving up his birthright. The Navy is, by reputation, the most aristocratic of the armed forces, the McCains among its most storied families. Now he would hold the lowest rank in a branch known for its grittiness. “The first time I heard he was going to be in the company, I couldn’t believe it,” said First Lt. Sam Bowlby, one of Lance Corporal McCain’s officers in Iraq.

The article also notes Senator McCain's reluctance to discuss his son's military career:

Mr. McCain did not speak publicly about whatever anxiety he may have felt about his son’s deployment

And Lance Corporal McCain's humility

Just before Jimmy’s departure, Mrs. McCain decided she had to see him one final time, according to Lieutenant Bowlby. With a few well-placed phone calls, she won permission to visit the Air Force base from which his unit would depart. When Lance Corporal McCain found out, he protested. No special favors, he said. Mrs. McCain stayed away.

You have to admire Lance Corporal McCain's willingness to serve his country, particularly in the toughest branch of service, especially given his family's background. Likewise, John McCain's reluctance to exploit his son's military career for political gain is equally deserving of respect and admiration.

"When the facts change, I change my opinion"

"...what do you do, sir?"

The quote comes from David Mamet, paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, in a recent New York Post article describing Mamet's conversion from a "brain-dead liberal" to the right:

"I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson and Shelby Steele . . . and found that I agreed with them: A free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism."

Reading of Mamet's conversion, while I cannot speak of his theatrical work, reminded me of the philosophical political conversion I underwent during the fall of 2006, just after the mid-term elections. I was pretty solidly a Kerry guy in 2004, although I wasn't entirely sure why, other than he wasn't Bush. Yet, I realized soon after that I had done little in the way of research on Kerry the candidate. But what really triggered my political conversion was the war in Iraq. The valiant efforts by the soldiers and Marines on the ground, coupled with the determination of many Iraqis to rid themselves of the entrenched insurgency prevented me from seeing the deliberate Democratic ignorance and opposition as anything but disgraceful. Once the surge was put in place and real gains were evident by mid-summer 2007, I felt personally vindicated and resolved that my beliefs and intuition were true.

Political posturing is one thing, but woeful ignorance, fraud, and the tacit hope that your own country will lose in combat overseas pushed me to ever new heights in my distaste of the shameful sophism and baseless prognostications among the left. They seemed to hope for a Pyrrhic victory, a position that is simply unacceptable.

I tell friends that I am largely a single-issue voter, and that is true. "Partisanship must end at the water's edge" said Harry Truman. That is one maxim that should never be broken.

Once I reached an opinion regarding the American-led effort in Iraq, my analysis of the situation led to further inquiry in the realm of foreign policy - North Korea, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, China. And if one can accept that the United States does not act solely for its own benefit, that Americans have and continue to die in order to support the birth of infant democracies across the globe, and that our government is not inherently evil, solely determined to gobble up the world for shareholders - then we have a place to begin a debate.

Unfortunately, because of the combination of military success overseas, and the political impotence of its leaders at home, the American left has largely resorted to incendiary ad hominem attacks against all that is honorable about our military, to the most baseless of US motives in the middle east, to the conviction that America deserves each terrorist attack perpetrated against it.

Social security, Medicare, highway spending, and taxes will sort itself out here domestically. These problems are daunting but secondary to security and the world energy supply located in the least stable region of the world.

A series of poor choices, political rhetoric, and desperation have lead the American left toward its current political positions, costing it pragmatic centrists like myself, patriotic realists who can no longer stomach the anti-American sentiment coming from home, nor the obvious weakness manifest in its own inability to pass legislation while holding the majority.

DailyKos Slams Democrats

Is there a Civil War still going on in Iraq? Perhaps.

But there is another Civil War brewing... within the Democratic party.

From the DailyKos: Promises, Promises...

The past few days haven't been kind to Senate Democrats. They had their asses handed to them on habeas corpus, the Webb dwell time amendment became a joke, and Feingold-Reid went down in flames, with each defeat prompting an, "oh well, let's move on."

That's not the only bad news for the "progressive" blogosphere. If the left has also been following reports on Iraqi civilian casualties, they will have learned that violence in Iraq has plummeted, dropping to its lowest level in 18 months.

The "progressive" left has become so pathetic, they have to resort to outrageous, disgraceful blogging, with posts such as: Kansas cemetery ‘full’ because of Iraq war.

It is bad enough that Harry Reid can't get Republicans to vote for his legislation, but 22 Democrats recently crossed the aisle and sided with Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad.

This Democratic "sectarian" disagreement is nothing new, but it is getting nastier as the Iraq war is getting better.

Update: The Levin-Reed amendment failed to pass. Yet another Democratic shortcoming... no surprise there. DailyKos once again full of woe: Where's Congress?

"The NYT's editorial page is on a quest, along with all of us, for an effective Congress"

Also no surprise.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

...that some Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, were complicit in the
smearing of General Petraeus, the Daily Kos Thanks Hillary for Calling Petraeus a Liar.

If that still isn't enough proof, Senator Clinton also voted against the Senate bill condemning the MoveOn.org ad which accused General Petraeus of betrayal. This should come as no surprise, considering the accusations the Senator made to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during the hearings:

"I want to thank both of you, General Petreaus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult... Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts both in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us, really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

To score political points, and to fire up her base, Senator Clinton and other leading Demcorats took shots at the General.

That is shameful pandering.

Liberal Bloggers Defend Ahmadinejad Visit To Ground Zero

The "progressive" CarpetBagger Report second guesses the decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero:

I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.

But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.

CarpetBagger goes on to quote other liberals with conciliatory attitudes. The liberal Booman Tribune writes:

[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.

Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.

The ignorant credulity is astounding. "Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy?" The same man who directs his Revolutionary Guard to actively kill Americans in Iraq? CarpetBagger also quotes another blogger by the name of Anonymous Liberal:

Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.

Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.

But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.

CarpetBaggers sums it up by saying:

If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?

No, the leader of the largest state sponsor of Islmic terror should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. This would be an offense to every casualty of 9/11, to their families, and to every ordinary American citizen that was attacked that day.

It is appalling that all the while acknowledging Ahmadinejad probably has ulterior motives, and likely using the trip as a "stunt," it's worth dirtying the memory of our dead for something that may be "a 'good faith' gesture."

Why is this about Republicans? Bush Derangement Syndrome and multilateral political correctness has reached new heights among the morally bankrupt and excusatory left.

Al Qaeda's Mistakes

Among its many blunders: Videotaping decapitations, the overzealous killing of Muslims (resulting in Sunni's and Shi'ites rejecting its murderous ways), and of course perpetrating 9/11, which awoke the sleeping giant, al Qaeda has fumbled again.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two "boasted that the U.S. was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts."

Interesting that Zawahiri should state this position when Muslims in Iraq are now offering bounties for the capture of al Qaeda leaders.

But as Gateway Pundit noted, Zawahiri stole Harry Reid's talking points. In fact, he stole the Democrats' talking points on the war. In preaching America's defeat, Zawahiri is only reinforcing the well-established Democratic Party line, and strengthening the resolve of those who are determined to see through to victory.

When Zawahiri says:

"The Crusaders themselves have testified to their defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the lions of the Taliban," he said. "The Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

...he is speaking specifically of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments from April 2007.

Ironically, as Zawahiri professes America's "failure," regurgitating Harry Reid's shameful politicking, the AP reports:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate...

On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

The AP beat me to it. I was on the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count earlier today, and noted that September's total Iraqi Security Force and Civilian deaths stood at 530 so far, whereas the entire month of August totaled 1,674.

Additionally, a look at U.S. military fatalities reveals that as of today, September deaths are the lowest this year by far, and at the lowest pace since August 2006.

The effectiveness of al Qaeda's killing machine is clearly diminished. I can't wait to see what DailyKos writes about the casualty count... probably something to the effect of "Iraqi civilian deaths greater in September than September 2002 under Saddam!"

Then again, Kos bloggers have already declared that they don't support the troops, what more needs to be said?

It is at least heartening that some liberal bloggers are openly disgusted with the Demcorats' weak opposition and squandered opportunities. Democrats can hardly lead a majority in Congress, how would they fight a war? For these reasons, many political observers are asking: Who bears blame for anti-war failures?:

For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen. David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any clear change in our government’s Iraq policy?

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days.

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

H/T Instapundit.

And what "change in course" do the Democrats even propose? Answer: Stop training the Iraqi Police and Army.

We also learn that al Qaeda, in its hubris, has decided to open yet another front in its war: Al Qaeda Bin Laden Message Declares War on Pakistan President Musharraf.

Enemies of al Qaeda should welcome this declaration. If bin Laden and Zawahiri are delusional enough to think that while losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can open a third front in their war, American and Pakistan should seize the opportunity and welcome the excuse to kill more terrorists.

The convergence of al Qaeda's goals, and that of the pusillanimous Democrats is as ironic as it is sad. Worse, still for the Democrats, they don't even appear aware that they are being played.

The Defeatist

Donal Kagan: Today's Defeatists:

The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

And a historical analogy... the Civil War:

In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, “that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory.” Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!” The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens.”

The Democratic convention was dominated by the anti-war faction whom the Republicans called “Copperheads,” after the poisonous snake. According to their best historian, they were “consistent and constant in their demand for an immediate peace settlement. At times they were willing to trade victory for peace. One persistent problem for [them] was their refusal or reluctance to offer a realistic and comprehensive plan for peace.” Pressed by the Copperheads, the Democrats nominated a rabidly antiwar candidate for vice president and adopted a platform that called the war a “failure,” and demanded “immediate efforts” to end hostilities….” Their platform statement would permit abandonment not only of emancipation, but of the most basic war aim, reunion. Even New York’s Republican Party boss declared that Lincoln’s reelection was widely regarded as an “impossibility…The People [were] wild for Peace.” At the end of August defeat for the Republicans and the Union cause seemed inevitable, but Lincoln refused to seek peace without victory, saying that he was not prepared, to “give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration.”

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: “Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House.”

Sound familiar? Many of these allegations of military "failure" have been repeatedly uttered by the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

History has already been doomed to repeat itself.

Let us hope the Iraqi Civil War turns out as ours did - with hope, reconstruction, and peace.

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.

The Gullible

Like conspiracy theories surround 9/11, many will credulously swallow illogical, wildly outrageous rumors because they want to believe.

President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

Aside from the obvious fact that General Petraeus would not abandon his troops for personal political gain... why on earth would he confide in an Iraqi politician, of all people?

Patrick Cockburn of The Independent should employ a more skeptical journalistic pen, and some common sense.

Tony Snow vs. Helen Thomas

Top Ten Tony Snow Exchanges With Helen Thomas

Number 1.

Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
MR. SNOW: I don’t think so, Helen.Helen Thomas from NPR
Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
MR. SNOW: What’s interesting, Helen –
Q And this is what’s happening, and that’s the perception of the United States.
MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view.

Read the rest.

H/T Hot Air.