Friday, April 18, 2008

Displaced Denigration

F.Y.I., folks, those ramrods over at Lydia Cornell's site are still, STILL, referring to General Petraeus as General Betrayus (I guess being castigated by 90% of society isn't a deterrant). I mean, sure, I'm pretty pissed off at "W", too, for having the gaul to put Petraeus IN THAT POSITION (on Capital Hill, being grilled by self aggrandizing politicians), using him as a political football, etc.. But why, pray-tell, would anyone want to take out their anger on a fellow who's seemingly only doing his job? That's what I really want to know. It's like, of course he wants to "win", thinks he can "win", and, yes, if given enough time, thinks he will in fact prevail. That's how all soldiers, when in the heat of conflict, "spin" things to civilians (that's why the Commander-in-Chief isn't in the army, for Christ, why we have civilian over-sight, etc.). But, NO, denigrate anyone who even has as his job-description, "service to the President", serves at the pleasure of the President, etc.. I mean, how frigging despicable is THAT, huh?

9 comments:

Voltron said...

Hi Will!,

Yeah they beat up on Petraeus, but they have nothing but praise for the other members of the military who've been asked to step down or resign by the administration.

No discussion of how many generals Lincoln fired during the civil war until he found Grant.


Not comparing Bush to Lincoln mind you, but there are some similarities besides the high turnover of generals.

They accuse Bush of suspending Habeas Corpus, Lincoln actually DID it.

Bush gets an anal probe investigation of firing US attorneys who "serve at the leisure of the President".

Lincoln actually threatened to throw a congressman in prison.
(can you imagine the reaction if Bush did that?)

You want to see how long the history of the Dems are in these tactics? Google up "Copperhead Democrats".
They actually recommended surrendering to the south.

They ARE communists or communist sympathizers.

We often hear of how "evil" Joe McCarthy was and how he destroyed innocent people and families.

Since the release of the Venona Papers in 1999, we KNOW that every person accused by McCarthy WAS a communist. AND they held high positions in government, particularly the state department and the DNC.

Voltron said...

Too funny.

I just posted a reply to Cliffy's global warming spew.

It was serious and non offensive.
It was summarily deleted.

The message is clear: Dissent is not allowed.

And these are the people who want control of our government?

And they call Bush a dictator?
Must be envy...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

On the McCarthy point, didn't he accuse Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of being a Communist? And didn't Eisenhower himself ultimately excoriate McCarthy? Maybe I need to do more research. Oh, and another question, did McCarthy ever make a distinction between members of the American Communist party (those accepting of American democracy) and actual traitors working for the Soviets? That would seem to be an important distinction. I don't know, when I think of great Republicans (and there have been many over the past 150 tears), McCarthy wouldn't necessarily be on my list. But, like I said, I'm willing to do more legwork on the subject. Later, bro.

Voltron said...

Will,

Several members of the American communist party were active in passing information to the Soviet Union.

I don't recall the Eisenhower thing, but it's probably true. I think there was a great deal of fear of what the public reaction would be if it was known how far into our government the communist infiltration had gone.

But because McCarthy was stopped so early on that infiltration was never adequately cleansed. And it still exists today.

Not helping the Soviets anymore obviously, but they DO have their own plans for America.

Anonymous said...

The problem I have with the General is as follows:
Last summer he said the surge was working before it was even really implemented...Causulties at that point were up not down and certain types american deaths were not counted...seemed like he was saying exactly what the administration wanted/needed...OK OK I know Generals do this but come on! This and the fact that the insurgents were being paid to join Iraqi security...the scum that was killing our men now became our allies...a point convienently omitted by General Patreus, Crocker and the war apologists...
Normally military men are not supposed to be used for political purposes, but here I wonder??? Does the General deserve ALL the bile heaped on him???Perhaps not but lets make sure we understand whats going on. MK

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I believe I've made my points over and over again on the surge. It was idiotic to begin with and it isn't working. There has been no political reconciliation (the whole damn point of the surge) and the corruption in the government is vast. Hell, according to a recent 60 minutes piece, insurgents and or Al Qaeda (Ql Qaeda, for crying out loud!!) have a strong infiltration into every single ministry. And the ultimate reduction in violence was far more the result of Al Sadr's cease-fire than it was an increase in Coaltion check points. My only point is that Peteaus isn't responsible for the policy in Washington OR the corruption over there. Bush and Maliki are the big-time stooges in this mess, not a soldier who has served his country impeccably for over 30 years. He should have never, ever, been put before Congress, period. That is Bush's responsibility.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And speaking of "jumping the gun", was it not Moveon.org who, prior to the general even stepping foot before the Congress, tarred him with such an obnoxious nick-name? They were questioning the man's patriotism, for Christ. I mean, aren't the liberals always complaining (and, yes, with good reason - people challenging President Bush should not have their patriotism questioned) that the conservatives are questioning THEIR patriotism? They can't have it both ways.

Tom said...

A better name for the good general instead of "betray-us" would be General Westmoreland version 2.0;

Cause he has Westy's playbook on how to spin bad news down real well.

And he learned the version of only reporting good news and downplaying bad news like he was on Westy's staff at MACV, but since he didn't graduate from West Point until 1974, he must have read the book and drunk the Westy kool-aid instead.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That would have bothered me a lot, LOT, less. I mean, I don't know how air-tight the analogy is but at least you don't appear to be questioning his patriotism. As for the hearings, I didn't hear them all, obviously, but I actually heard him (Petreaus) give a lot of sobering answers. Crocker and, before him, Bremmer, that's a different story.