It All Circles Around to Vietnam

I was listening to the Oregon Public Broadcasting program "Think Out Loud" the other day and they had on two McCain representatives who are veterans to talk about McCain's military experience and his current war policies. Unfortunately, neither was a very solid speaker, jumping from talking point to talking point, including dissing on Obama for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance (sigh).

The bit I caught involved talking about how McCain's Vietnam experience have prepared him to take over the War in Iraq.

There was the interesting assertion that those who have seen combat from ground level have some innate sense of war that allows them to make more correct decisions about war later on. This comment, unfortunately, went unchallenged, but I'd love to hear the rationale.

Then there was the assertion that men who have seen combat are more likely to know the horror of war and be more reticent to get involved in war. The host asked how this assertion squared with McCain's pledge to increase troop levels in Iraq verses Obama and Clinton's intentions to begin withdrawal of troops. The responder started rambling about how Iraq and Vietnam are two completely different wars, incomparable in his mind, because, you see Johnson was trying to appeal to the hawks and the doves at the same time, so he was...at this point the host cut him off and repeated her question about the apparent contradiction. The guest responded with, and I am not making this up, that the way he saw it was that all the talk of withdrawal would embolden the terrorists, just like it did the North Vietnamese.

At that point, I switched the channel.

But I expect we're going to hear a lot more about how John knows war! meaning both that he is the most likely to win the war and the most likely to withdraw the troops as soon as possible.

No One Takes Him Seriously Anyway

I read today that General Petraeus said that political progress is not being made fast enough in Iraq. Quoting him, "no one...feels that there has been sufficient progress in the area of national reconciliation."

General Petraeus, meet Charles Krauthammer.

By "Iraq", We Mean "Oil"

From Solar Power Rocks dot com

The comments will give you some indication that we live in a truly divided America.

Me Thinks

The GOP are trying very hard to "prove" that Petraeus was not "influenced" by the White House.

They cannot, however, point to any statement or recommendation that Petraeus has made that counters anything the White House has been saying for weeks or was not predicted by the left before the hearing. In other words, he's reading the talking points.

Huzzah!

Rep. Kathy Castor does her job!

She asked Petraeus about the many reports and statements from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that this thing just isn't working and that if the Iraqis don't get their shit together, no amount of troops or time will make a difference.

Petraeus proceeded to ramble on about how the Iraqis did a really great job of hosting a celebration in Baghdad, providing security for over a million people. Which is great, if you overlook the thousand people killed every month.

Rep. Edward Royce R-(CA)

Is an idiot.

I think he just suggested that the US military(?) should be monitoring the purchase of one-way plane tickets into Damascus. From Saudi Arabia. Because it is obvious that such a purchaser would be a terrorist headed to Iraq.

Oops

We all know President Bush has always said that he will provide the Generals with exactly the number of soldiers they think are necessary to get the job done.

Petraeus just said we wishes he had more troops, but he has what the Army can give him.

Huzzah!

Rep. Ackerman, you earned your pay today!

He asked Petraeus to explain how we can withdraw from Iraq once it is "stabilized" if Iraq is just a battlefield in the global war on terror. Shouldn't the goal be to kill all the terrorists in Iraq?

Petraeus ducked the question.

Disappointment (So Far)

So far no Dem has brought up the GAO report and asked Petraeus to clarify the differences between that report and his report. They have asked very off-topic questions about refugees and diplomacy with Iran.

Benchmarks

I love this GOP idea that the benchmarks are bogus because we didn't meet them, but it is possible to come up with new benchmarks that have been met.

It's almost like these guys have been to an AGEL conference.

His Position on Cherry Trees Is, As Yet, Unknown

General Petraeus, like another citizen soldier I could name, has never told a lie.

Unforeseeable Consequences

So the general theme seems to be that Iran is a major factor in on-going instability and violence. If we withdraw a moment before "General Petraeus" says we can, then Iran will take over Iraq. And we all know how horrible that would be.

New Iraq Strategy

Apparently Ambassador Crocker intends to keep talking until next March, thereby rendering this entire discussion moot.

Oh, and who could have foreseen that Iran might be interested in influencing Iraq? I don't think any serious thinker planned for that.

The New Greatest Generation

Shorter Petraeus

Things are improving. I'll let you know how it's going next March.

Job Openings in the House

There will be an entire staff fired for this microphone cock up, one would assume.

Alright, the one guy that moved Skelton's mike gets to keep his job.

Even the Tippecanoe Vets?

Apparently withdrawing from Iraq means betraying every veteran of the Unites States -- ever.

Which Level Are We On Now?

I'm not a big believer in hell, but there must be some sort of eternal punishment for these Republicans that are not only pretending like the White House didn't write the Petraeus Report and influence his testimony, but go so far as to attack those that point out this simple fact.

Everything Is Socially Constructed

The NIE and GAO reports on the Iraq War said violence in Iraq is up. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have said that violence in Iraq is on the rise.

They are all wrong.

The military will report next week that it is down. Violence is way down. They would prove it to you, but the data are, unfortunately, classified.

GOP Talking Points

On the GAO and "Patraeus" Reports, you are allowed to hold one of two positions.

1. The benchmarks are artificial and the product of yesterday's thinking. You always opposed these benchmarks. The benchmarks are "top down" and "centralized." You are not a pussy, so you are not actually allowed to use the phrases "from the ground up" or "organic," but you can certainly let your listener come to those words on his or her own. There is progress being made.

2. If your opponent should assert that there is no progress being made and for whatever reason you are not allowed to use talking point number one (perhaps you host some sort of media show that keeps transcripts), then accuse your opponent of not waiting for General Patraeus' Report. Accuse him or her of being a leftist who already has his or her mind made up. Keep asserting that progress is being made because General Patraeus says progress is being made.

Since both of these talking points ignore all facts and are inherently and internally contradictory, it is recommended that you team with a partner and deploy both tactics simultaneously and loudly.

REMEMBER! Democrats are scared of men in uniforms. When in doubt repeat "General Patraeus, General Patraeus, General Patraeus," at no time will any of them dare dispute anything we tell him to say.