General Issues

Greetings from the Left Coast! In previous entries, I said I'd try to explain why I can't envision a situation where I would ever again vote for a Democrat. Let's start with the recent testimony of General David Petraeus before Congress, since that's what finally pushed me over the edge into the blogosphere.

But first, I have a couple of vocabulary words to share with you, just for the fun of it (emphasis added):

"Treason - (1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (2) A betrayal of trust or confidence." (from the American Heritage Dictionary)

The Dictionary.com entry, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, also states: "Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection."

Moving right along now...
Back in January, the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. By "unanimously," I mean that no one voted against him. There were nineteen Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who didn't vote. Seems to me that was a pretty important vote, and one that you'd want to be on the record for, but let's put that aside for the moment, and look at some of the Senators who voted for the General's confirmation. That list included Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer. Yep, all of those Senators believed that General Petraeus was the best man for the job. Couldn't speak highly enough of his qualifications.

Now, as part of his testimony during his confirmation hearings, General Petraeus was very frank about what he was going to need to perform the job that he was, in effect, interviewing for. In particular, he addressed the planned troop surge. You'd think that if you're hiring someone to take on a difficult job, and that person tells you what he needs to be successful at that job, you would do one of two things: either hire him and make sure he has what he says he needs, or hire someone else. Seems to me it would be the height of stupidity to hire that person, speak glowingly about what a great person he is and how perfect he is for the job, and then not give him what he says he needs to be successful. Yet the ink was barely dry on the General's new orders when the Democrats began doing all they could to prevent the troop surge the General said he needed. Brings to mind Mark Twain's famous quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Of course, the Constitution says that the President is the Commander-In-Chief, so the General got what he asked for.

In the subsequent months, we heard over and over again that the surge had failed. Interestingly enough, the Democrats were telling us in March, and in April, and in May that the surge had failed even though all the troops hadn't got there yet! (They were, of course, counting on the American people having a short attention span and not realizing that it does take a few months to move 30,000 soldiers and all of their supplies and equipment halfway around the world. They really don't think much of our intelligence, folks.) It was late June/early July before the surge was at full strength, yet we had already been hearing for months that it had failed to reduce the violence, failed to make Iraq a safer place, failed, failed, failed. Heck, it was in April that we read about Senator Harry Reid telling journalists, "I believe...that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything..."

In case you missed that, let me just run that by you again. Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, the Senate Majority Leader, who voted to confirm General Petraeus, told journalists that the war was lost and the surge wasn't accomplishing anything a good two months before the surge was even at full strength! That spinning sound you hear is FDR and Harry Truman turning over in their graves.

As time went on, it became more and more difficult to deny that the surge was, in fact, working - it was decreasing the violence, killing or driving out the bad guys, and increasing security. Consider the following quotes from the month of August...from Democrats:

"...The Military Aspects Of President Bush’s New Strategy In Iraq, As Articulated By Him On January 10, 2007, Appear To Have Produced Some Credible And Positive Results." (Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, in a press release dated 8/20/07)

“We’ve Begun To Change Tactics Iraq, And In Some Areas, Particularly In Al Anbar Province, It’s Working.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in an address to a VFW convention, 8/20/07)

“More American Troops Have Brought More Peace To More Parts Of Iraq. I Think That's A Fact.” (Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/9/07)

“The Surge Has Resulted In A Reduction Of Violence In Many Parts Of Iraq … And It Is, I Think, A Product Of More American Soldiers Bringing Peace To Areas Of Iraq That Have Been Ignored In The Past.” (Senator Durbin again, as quoted in the State Journal-Register of IL, 8/9/07)

Ah, but now we're in September, and it's time for General Petraeus to make his report to Congress on the progress of the war and the troop surge. This was, by the way, a report that Congress insisted upon when they confirmed him. As the cold, hard reality began to set in that Petraeus was going to report that progress was being made, and that the troop surge was working, and that (gasp) people might actually remember what they had said back in January (and February, March, April, May, June, and July), panic began to set in as well.

On September 5, Senator Chuck Schumer (who, I remind you, was among those who voted to confirm General Petraeus) stated, on the floor of the United States Senate: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here." Wait - forget, for the moment, the slam against the competence of the U.S. military, which doesn't surprise me, considering the source - you mean al Qaeda is actually in Iraq? I thought they were all in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror? And haven't we been hearing for years now that the main problem in Iraq is that the Iraqis won't stand up and fight for themselves? But now that they are standing up and fighting for themselves alongside our guys, that's a bad thing? Sheesh!

On September 7, Senator Dick Durbin (yes, the same Dick Durbin who was quoted just a month before as saying that the surge was working) was quoted as saying, "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Patraeus report will try to persuade us that the violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." Huh? Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong?

Then, on September 10, we had the now-infamous Move On ad in the New York times, referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." This shameful ad, which would have been astounding had it come from any other source, impugned the honor of a decorated four-star General of the Army who has devoted over 30 years of his life to the service of this country, and accused him of "Cooking the Books for the White House." This was before General Petraeus had said a single word in his testimony before Congress. Now, I have read American History, and I'm not going to try to tell you that this is the lowest point ever in American political discourse. Unfortunately, it isn't. But it's extremely interesting to see how leading Democrats have reacted to the ad.

Senator Joe Lieberman, whom I believe to be an honorable man, has denounced it. Senator John Kerry, somewhat to my surprise, has also denounced it, and I give him credit for doing so. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, took the forceful position that she "would have preferred that they not do such an ad," but went on to say that it wasn't for her to say how people expressed themselves. So far, neither of the Democrat's leading Presidential candidates have denounced the ad. Let me repeat that: It's been a week now, and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama have denounced the ad, even when specifically asked about it.

Now cut to the opening of the Congressional hearing itself. General Petraeus sits in silence while the committee members pontificate on and on. No one has asked him a question yet. California Representative Tom Lantos, makes the following statement: "...the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say, I don't buy it." In other words, General, before you even begin your testimony today, I'm putting you on notice that I'm not going to believe your testimony if it contradicts my preconceived position. My mind is made up, don't go confusing me with facts. And when it became Senator Barak Obama's turn to question the Senator, he asked...oh, wait a minute - he didn't actually ask anything. He just spent his entire time bloviating. Sorry, my mistake.

Kudos to Representative Duncan Hunter for calling Lantos out, and stating for the record that "...I think it's an outrage that we spent the last week prepping the ground, bashing the credibility of a general officer whose trademark is integrity, who was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate for his position." So do I, Congressman Hunter, so do I. And, by the way, here's what you didn't hear during the two days of hearings: You didn't hear a single Democrat ask, "General, what can we do to support you and help you accomplish the mission we've asked you to perform? How can we help you win this war?" Why do you suppose that is? If your country is at war, and you care about winning that war, and you don't think things are going well, wouldn't that be a reasonable question to ask?

And the outrage continues. After the hearings, Senator Reid held a press conference in which he said, "the surge has failed to bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation." What!? I don't recall that being the mission, Senator! Of course, he's hoping that in this sound-bite world, people will just pick up on "the surge has failed," and not realize that what he's really saying is that it has failed to do something it wasn't supposed to do in the first place. I've learned that you have to listen very carefully to what politicians say (most of them are, after all, lawyers). You often find, when you carefully analyze the language, that they really didn't say what you think they said. And, believe me, that's not an accident.

Although it's hard to tell with Senator Reid. Just when I think he's amazingly devious and clever, he pulls something like his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal (September 15) in which he's quoted as saying that "one million Iraqis have been killed since the war started." That would have meant an average of 600 deaths per day, every day since the war began. Iraq's own heath minister, back last November, estimated the number of Iraqi deaths since the war began as between 100,000 and 150,000, and those numbers are double the Brookings Institution estimates, which were largely drawn from United Nations data. So we've increased the number of Iraqi's killed by a factor of 7 or 8 in only 10 months? Wow, and I thought Rosie O'Donnell was over the top with her accusation of 655,000 killed. Now that's one hell of a surge. Apparently, like Alice (of Wonderland fame), Senator Reid has learned how to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Bear in mind, folks, this is the Senate Majority Leader we're talking about here - this is the man Senate Democrats have chosen to be their standard-bearer.

And now that the President has announced plans to start bringing troops home by the end of the year, and hopefully be back to the pre-surge level by next summer, suddenly that's not good enough. But wait, wasn't it just a couple of months ago, when they were debating the last funding bill, that the Democrats were insisting that we do just that? In fact, if I recall correctly, their last position back in May was that we had to at least establish a time line for when we would start planning to bring the troops home. So isn't this exactly what they wanted? Well, no, it isn't. Because they can't take credit for it unless they're seen as having forced the President to do it. If every al Qaeda operative left Iraq tomorrow, peace broke out across the country the next day, and all the troops were home a week from Tuesday, the Democrats wouldn't be happy unless they could take credit for it.

I am forced to conclude that the people running the Democrat party care about one and only one thing: power. They care about holding onto Congress, and they care about winning the White House in 2008. To do that, they are willing to jeopardize your family's safety and mine. They are willing to undermine the mission of our men and women in uniform and make public statements that demoralize them and embolden the enemy. Some of them are willing to abandon Iraq to the bloodbath that would inevitably follow a precipitous withdrawal, if only they can pin the blame on President Bush and his "failed policy." They would rather see the United States defeated than have President Bush look good. As others have observed, they have now gone so far down the road of declaring that the war is lost, the policy has failed, we can't possibly succeed in the mission, that they are invested in defeat. Victory in Iraq would make them look so bad that they'll do anything to avoid it, unless there's some way that they can claim credit for it.

I have never seen such a cynical display of partisan politics in my lifetime, and I will show my disgust the only ways I can - by voting against them at every opportunity, and by exercising my free speech rights to tell the world why I feel this way.

Thanks for...excuse me? Oh, the vocabulary words? Well, I'm sure that my readers can draw their own conclusions. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. On the other hand, as a famous movie character might say, "Treason is as treason does."