On the eve of the Petraeus hearings, I wrote that if the Democrats didn’t call out the general on his partisan, politically motivated spin of the events unfolding in Iraq, they would prove their irrelevance on the issue of the ongoing occupation once and for all.
In the end, it was much worse than that. Senate Democrats took the time to join their Republican colleagues in condemning an ad produced by MoveOn.org that — accurately — pointed out Petraeus’ previous spin about progress in Iraq and warned that the general would “Betray Us.” The resolution passed by a vote of 72-25. Among the presidential contenders in the senate, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the resolution and Barack Obama and Joe Biden abstained.
In the real world, this is all beyond idiotic. That the Senate would take valuable time to debate something as trivial as an advertisement in the New York Times is an indication of just how unserious the discourse about the war has become in Washington.
With such a boneheaded move, Senate Democrats showed again that there is no limit to their Pavlovian responses to military issues. They stand petrified that they’ll be called dirty, America-hating hippies who “oppose the troops” by Republicans, that they’ll invite a conservative back-lash if they show spine on ending the open-ended occupation of Iraq or that they’ll appear “soft on terror” or anti-military. It is the same unique paranoia about military issues that will likely keep a U.S. occupation force in Iraq until the Iraqis force our hand.
After the Petraeus smokescreen; but, before the Move On advert, Reuters commissioned an updated poll on Bush and Congress. Bush ended up with 29% approval – Congress with 11%. Both of these the lowest numbers since the beginning of Bush’s War.
Here’s a list of the Democrats who did Bush’s bidding. Someone buy each of them a wheelbarrow so they can stand up on their hind legs.
Rabble Rouser, this is a bill, and it does criticize MoveOn. They cvouldn’t get support for a general criticism of the military supported by Democrats(watch what you say?) This is the defense appropriations bill. One question, suppose the resolution called for throwing MoveOn in jail, would you agree that the President should sign it and issue a signing statement that he will give the resolution the attention it deserves consistent with the Constitution?
#37, MikeN,
Sheet, if brains were made of dynamite, you wouldn’t have enough to blow your own nose. You are too effen retarded to be a moran.
It was a non-binding resolution.
Free daily Bush whine!
What are half of you guys going to do when he’s gone? Sheesh.
I can barely stand the guy myself, but geez some of you just can’t get enough the man or something.
Why do you spend so much time thinking about him? You should be relieved he’s gonna be gone soon and focus on the positive.
Oh, but it get’s better. Now, the Dems, against their interest and against public opinion, are going to give blanket immunity for all the lawbreakers in the Administration and the Tel-Co industry!
http://tinyurl.com/3dvkp2
Is there any rational explanation for this behavior? They are either willful traitors to the rule of law and their oath of office, or they are so terrified of defying the boy-king and his goons that they will do anything to meet their twisted, banana-republican needs. I have to stress, that this sort of blanket immunity at the AG’s secret discretion is something that even the most decrepit and lawless of states don’t codify into law! Not Stalin’s Russia, not Hitler’s Germany; do we really want to not only emulate these states in our foreign policy and the treatment of prisoners, but actually surpass them by making these activities lawful?! This is utter madness.
#41 – Frederick W. Kagan on the GAO report:
“The GAO notes against these briefs that overall attacks on civilians have remained constant (although its data appear to end in July), but its explanation for its unwillingness to accept the figures of the U.S. command is nothing short of bizarre: ‘GAO cannot determine whether sectarian violence in Iraq has been reduced because measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator’s intent, which may not be known.” As a statement of epistemology, this sentence is correct and worth meditating on. As the basis for denying that there has been a reduction in sectarian attacks it is ludicrous.'”
That GAO report was also a work of political maneuvering by anti-war politicians in the Congress, just as much as General Petraeus’ “White House Approved” report helped the advocates of the Baghdad Security Operation. So please, citing one report that was the result of anti-war politics to counter another “politically-biased” report does not prove you correct. If anything the two reports leave room for future study, analysis, and debate but making a claim of that someone “lied” is in fact, ludicrous.
And before you ask why the GAO report is politically biased, a work from William Kristol:
“The Democratic Congress ensured that the report would deliver negative “grades” for the Iraqi government by asking the GAO to evaluate whether or not the benchmarks have been met now–just two months after the major combat operations of the surge began. For the report from the White House, Congress asked the administration to detail if the Iraqis are making “sufficient progress.” But Congress asked the GAO, by contrast, to report if the Iraqis had “completed” the benchmarks. This ridiculous standard was a Congressional trap that forced the GAO to waste time and taxpayer money to come out with a pre-ordained and meaningless judgment, since no one ever promised or expected that the Iraqis would have met the benchmarks by now. And the GAO report doesn’t really shed light on the key question: Are the Iraqis making progress?” And nor do you, Mr. Fusion.
Question: When is progress not really progress?
Answer: When that progress is a result of the increased neighborhood segregation (both voluntary and forced) and especially from the erection of high concrete barriers restricting movement and reducing interaction along sectarian lines. Baghdad is becoming a city of barriers that increasingly reflect sectarian division, yet these people will have to somehow police and govern themselves as we draw down troop levels.
Certain approaches can distort statistical measures of violence into showing an improved situation. With enough segregation and barriers, sectarian violence can even become nonexistent. Will that be an acceptable sign of progress?
Question: Will we ever be able to declare victory and get completely out of Iraq?
Answer: No, because the point of our incursion was to maintain an increased military presence in this strategic energy producing region, and we’ve already built some lovely bases in Iraq. Complete success in terms of a peaceful, self-governing Iraq with no American presence would be a disaster of epic proportions. Fortunately, that scenario isn’t anywhere on the horizon.
RE: #45, Sorry, when I pasted that quote into my word processor I didn’t realize it was already formatted.
Nice rebuttal.
Mr. Fusion, your limited knowledge of William Kristol only scratches the surface. He’s very well known in neocon circles not only as editor of The Weekly Standard, but also as chairman and co-founder of the “Project for the New American Century” (the neocon organization which earlier urged Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein). Other prominent members of that illustrious organization include Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. And calling Kristol a neocon is nothing he wouldn’t call himself, as one of the books he once co-edited was The Neoconservative Imagination.
Kristol is certainly not your typical impartial observer, but I’ll agree on one point concerning the GAO. No matter how impartial they are, it certainly seems possible for a GAO hamstrung by restrictive reporting guidelines (defined by Congress) to put out a one-sided report. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that possibility without more of the tedious details, and hopefully from a less biased source than Kristol.
#47,
And thought through too. Plus, my own opinions except where properly attributed (cited).
#48, Gary,
The GAO does their own reporting. When they can’t report, they acknowledge that fact as they did several times after being blocked by the Bush Administration on previous investigations. In this case they pointed out the Pentagon refused to share their numbers or cooperate.
The fact remains however, the GAO investigated. Even if biased, they wrote a report and documented all their findings for all the world to see and criticize. General Patraeous didn’t write a report and his statistics and conclusions remain undocumented. On just that point, who would you believe?
Discounting the GAO because you disagree with their conclusion is shooting the messenger because you don’t approve of the messege. A bullshit attribute of the right.
wow – some of yall have some, what appears to be anyway, really strong feelings about this.
Me? I dont care at all. If someone wants to pay me to care, I’ll take up a sign & start doing my fair share of protesting… but until then i’m apathetic about this whole situation
The Senate website lists this as an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill.
Thats not smoke from my ass Fussy…..thats blow back from your breath when kissing my ass.
The GAO report is not only shown to be totally hamstrung by not only Kristol, but Gerald Baker of the London Times and others. Congress set the rules for the report and then had the report done BEFORE the surge was even complete, they didn’t interview anyone in any position of knowledge on the goals, one way or another.
I don’t mind supporting things I don’t agree with, if they are or may achieve the desired goals. Unlike you Fussbutt, I want to see American soldiers home, AND Iraq have the chance to survive as a nation(even if they really aren’t) if that is what they want. Maybe Canadians have lived to long under the protection of a stronger neighbor to understand how they as well as we will be affected by a collapse of American military abilities in the world of today.
You might expand that limited, ideologue mind of yours by reading and paying attention to ALL sides of the issues, and not just your left wing friends at Moveon and the DailyKos.
#53, joshua,
Great reply. Not one word of actual rebuttal. Just the mention that some right wing nuts have disagreed with the GAO report. Look armpit, that DOES NOT mean the report is wrong, poorly written, or even inconclusive. It means some people don’t like the message.
In your whole post, you didn’t offer up one piece of evidence that anything in the GAO report is incorrect. Like, who the fuck is Gerald Baker? Besides his mother, does anyone else care. After Murdoch bought the London Times , it has become just another right wing rag with zero credibility. Yet there you are joshua, suggesting some writer with the Times wrote or said something so therefore they are right and the GAO is wrong. Divine inspiration ???
If the GAO report is wrong, then point out where they are wrong and what is the truth. Don’t quote other fucking brainless idiots as references. YOU are disputing the report, find some documented facts.
Congress set the rules for the report and then had the report done BEFORE the surge was even complete, they didn’t interview anyone in any position of knowledge on the goals, one way or another.
That is not based upon fact but the Fox Spews crap. Congressional Members ask the GAO to investigate a question. The GAO sets the technique and assigns the investigators, not Congress. There are no “rules” for the report, again more Fox Spews discrediting crap.
BTW, there are no “goals” and there is no “surge” time line. This Administration has no idea of what or where they are or doing as far as Iraq is concerned. The Administration did not cooperate with the report nor did the Pentagon so don’t blame the GAO because there is no one knowledgeable on the goals.
And to think, you claimed to have attended college. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick with a smile on his face. Didn’t you learn the basics of writing? Then you went to Law School on top of that?!?!?! You’re just a fucken wannabe. Are you and the chknhwk03 related?
You throw out lots of criticisms, but then you had no idea that this was part of the Defense Appropriations bill.
#55, Mike N,
So who the phuk cares??? If you want to suggest it is part of the expropriations bill then post a link.
Hey, how come the New York Times is handing out favors to left-wing groups? They got an $80,000 discount on their ad, then covered it up by giving Giuliani the same rate. I say the FEC should investigate this donation.
MikeN, maybe the Senator who introduced this amendment can get the same $80,000 discount when he prints a full page apology for having wasted Senate time to repudiate a specific act of free speech by a citizens organization.
Also, it may actually be you who is confused on the “facts” that you were chastising Señor Fusion for his ignorance of. Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced this both as Senate Resolution 315, and as Amendment SA 2808 to H.R. 3074. And that appropriations bill to which Cornyn tried to attach this amendment was for Transportation, H.U.D., and related agencies, not defense as you characterized it. The amendment was struck down on a point of order, and only the resolution survived to make the news and discussion circles.
Let me quote from Cornyn’s resolution:
“Whereas a recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces…“ (emphasis mine)
Did I misread the ad? Did it really impugn the integrity of all members of the U.S. Armed Forces, or is Cornyn just grossly distorting reality for partisan political gain? The amendment was ruled “not germane” on a point of order raised by the bill’s Democrat manager, Senator Murray. Not germane sounds like a bit of an understatement. This Cornyn clown is a waste of perfectly good oxygen.
So often I hear variations of the old saying, “I don’t agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.” That adage just died at the hands of the Senate Republicans and the spineless Democrats whom they managed to drag with them. They don’t seem to be great defenders of free speech.