From my note to Dean Barnett of soxblog today on my reaction to the defaming of General Petaeus this week in Washington:

"DB:

 

I could not bring myself to listen to the Patraeus hearings.  The conduct of the dhimmis, to include moveon, was too much for me.  We have reduced ourselves to blatant hypocrisy and political opportunism by using the public defaming of our military through the media and congressional/DNC propaganda as the tools to executive/congressional power,  and the ultimate installation of the Greater Socialist Republic of North America.

 

Politics is no longer the grand game that many of us played and/or watched with glee, marveling in the competency/incompetence of the participants, rooting on our guy/girl with words and actions.  We got a huuuuge problem in this country, and, it seems to me, conservatism is losing big time.  In spite of the very articulate spokespersons for the conservative cause, the dhimmi media buries the right.  I have not read Mr. Newt's latest predicting the steamroller of 2008 for the dhimmis, but I will later today, and then comment on that. 

 

I am very worried about the future of our country.  Snakes spew venom, and the air was full of venom this week spewed by the left, and if the predictions prove to be correct, we will be ruled by the snakes come 2009.

 

Beyond preaching to choir, how would you, HH, and others propose to combat this serious threat to our way of life?

 

Regards,"

 

TommyO

Two posts on NRO that shud be a must read:

A Fair Hearing for General Petraeus   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Governor Mitt Romney e-mails, exclusive to "The Corner":

As many have noted this morning, MoveOn.org's latest outrageous act is an attempt to call into question the reputation and character of General Petraeus even before he testifies in front of Congress.  As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon writes today, "General Petraeus is a straight shooter."  Like the men he commands, he is risking his life to protect our freedoms here at home. We should not prejudge him or his testimony, or give him anything less than the full respect he deserves.

Democrats must make a choice.  Will they embrace these deplorable tactics or give General Petraeus a fair hearing?  It should be the hope of all Americans that we give him a fair hearing.  Certainly, he and our men and women in Iraq deserve it.  In the coming days and weeks, there will be much debate about the future course in Iraq, but this debate should be free of the kind of shameful tactics MoveOn.org has shown today. It's time we heard from the generals, not Washington politicians and not ultra-liberal advocacy groups. All Americans should keep an open mind.

09/10 10:28 AM

Are there any Democratic firemen in an emergency?   [Victor Davis Hanson]

Cannot the Democrats get some of their more seasoned pros—not involved in the election cycle or mortgaged to their extremist base—to start doing damage control and adopt a more Zen-like posture concerning the upcoming Petraeus hearings? Stridency and name-calling only echo the desperate tapes of Bin Laden, who is terrified of what is transpiring in Iraq, and his general loss of face worldwide.

This is not a cigar-chewing Gen. Curtis Lemay they are now serially defaming, but one of the most thoughtful, nonpartisan and educated military officers of a generation, whom they themselves confirmed unanimously and at one time praised early in the war as a voice in the wilderness. Far wiser would have been to prod for greater withdrawals while praising the efforts of Gen. Petraeus—while taking oppositional credit for shake-ups in policy.

They should see that the mini-McCain surge is based on just that, a tripartite way of damning the past, taking credit for the present changes, and expressing confidence in the future.

But the current course invests the Democratic Party only in defeat, and if that doesn't happen, they will once again implode. Events are changing rapidly on the ground in Iraq, and while critics insist that the United States' profile has eroded in the region, it seems that all the players in and outside Iraq look more than ever to America to stabilize things.

Democrats should keep in mind as well, that no one can ever be sure of the pulse of the battlefield, and often success comes right after the worst of the fighting—whether summer 1864, or late spring 1918, or Okinawa in April 1945. Far smarter, would be to wait and keep an eye on the Iraqis.

And while the Univision debate was novel and may win the Hispanic vote, the pandering to a particular ethnic bloc in such ingratiating fashion will only hurt them more, especially as the border slowly closes, and the healing and greater assimilation proceeds. It makes no sense, after the populist tide against the immigration bill, to invest now in bilingual separatism, when all the trends are heading back to ending illegal immigration and trying to restore the melting pot.

Add to all of this bin Laden's pathetic cribbing of our own Left—with no doubt more embarrassing and desperate rants to come as Gen. Petraeus testifies—and it hasn't been a good week for the Democrats, even as those in Republican House and Senate seem at two- or three- month intervals to spontaneously ignite and exit the stage.

09/10 09:51 AM

Nuff said.

TommyO

From NRO this morning, the incomparable VDH hits another home run.  While it is obvious that AQ is using the Ho Chi Min/Giap playbook [and the MSM plays their prescribed role faultlessly], the TET offensive may not be in Iraq, but closer to home, somewhere in the vulnerable West.



Lessons from Tet   [Victor Davis Hanson]

Gen. Petraeus's letter to his troops was candid and circumspect, as well as being well-written, detailing successes as well as the dogged political stasis in Iraq—a Grant-like synopsis of things the was they are. The White House should not get involved with it, or try to spin it one way or another. But simply let the facts speak for themselves, and let others analyze them if they must.

In April, July, and November of 1967 Gen. Westmoreland, back in the states for various reasons and desirous of ever more troops,  gave a series of appraisals of Vietnam. Reading them now does not suggest that in themselves the reports were misleading—confident, but far from assuring that victory was right around the corner.  (After all, he wanted more soldiers so it was not in his interest to claim imminent victory). In fact, his prediction of Vietnamization proved prescient.

 But the Johnson administration almost immediately try to prod him for more, and then in near-suicidal fashion, LBJ began formulating what Westmoreland had outlined into something far more like rapid and inevitable victory, which the general had not quite said.

The result was that just three months later, the North Vietnamese attacked, were soundly defeated during Tet, yet  scored a brilliant political victory—not just because of things subsequent revisionism months later after My Lai, but due also to the same politicians, who in the glare of media outrage at the great/terrible news cycle, began to blame Westmoreland for past so-called "light at the end of the tunnel" unreal memos and predictions (that they had themselves sexed up).

The result was that the Gen. had no credibility, and was left hanging when sensational film came back of the embassy attack. And so he proved unable to explain that in fact U.S. forces by May 1968 had crushed the communist offensive in a series of victories.

Had the Johnson administration not prodded Westmoreland, but simply referred inquiries to the statements made, and emphasized the magnitude of the challenge, and the stark choices ahead, with ample warning of ups and downs, the public might have been able to sift through the defeatist coverage and see that the NVA had suffered a terrible victory.

No need to mention the rest.

As a side note, it  will be critical to see what al Qaeda in Iraq and/or bin Laden tries to do while Gen. Petraeus is testifying and we begin year seven after 9/11:  Militarily we can handle it, but politically not if we  upgrade unreasonably the general's letter today or his report to come.

09/07 06:05 PM

Mr. Cline has it correctomundo.  Do not expect the Fredster to spend any time in New England, let alone NH.  I am sure he will devote much time and resource to Aroostook County Maine as well.  The engine starts chugging in South Carolina.



Granite Write-Off
Is Thompson even trying to win New Hampshire?

By Andrew Cline

---

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2ZiNjM5ODFjYWI0YmJjOWNhMWRmYmFiZjIxYzQ2MTg=

Veddy Interesting

http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm

 
From NRO Corner 8/14.  VDH is the best.



It’ ain’t over, till it’s over... [Victor Davis Hanson]



With all the news about Rove leaving and the president down to his last year and a half, with his approval polls not much above 30 percent, and the same old media chorus about the lamest of the lame ducks, etc, we forget that 17 months is an entire era in politics and the world often changes as we speak.

For all the mistakes-run-away federal spending that discredited the efficacy of tax cuts, the lack of a veto in the first term, too many uninspired but highly visible appointments, the disastrous immigration policies of the last six years, the equivocal occupation in Iraq (from the pullback from 1st Fallujah to the reprieve given Sadr to cumbersome efforts to make the perfect water, sewer, or electrical systems when ad hoc local ones were needed, et al)—we forget that all of this is still reversible and that in fact many things are in flux still.

There has been no repeat of 9/11, and for all the hysteria, al Qaeda really is scattered, and its rhetoric is wearing thin on the Middle East street.

Afghanistan is doing better than the media lets on. Korea could still disarm, and internal opposition in Iran is growing and its foreign friends shrinking.

Europe is slowly changing, and more worried about Americans leaving than staying, or not leading than preempting. The strong-arm rise of Russia and the endemic criminalities of China have sobered anti-American European diplomats, and much of the world at large. The economy is still good, and, at last, the border is starting slowly to close (I say this after listening to complaints of employers in the
Central Valley).

If Iraq can be stabilized, then the enormity of that achievement will eventually be appreciated and dwarf all else (taking out the worst regime in the Middle East and fostering a consensual society in its place, while defeating on its home ground the worst radical Islam has to offer). The Democrats seem to have ceased blaming each other for voting for Iraq, and demanding time lines of immediate withdrawal, but now are shifting in order to have a fallback position of “Well, they finally listened to me in Iraq and so things settled down” should Gen. Petraeus’ report convince even some of them of real progress.

The responsibility of governance is not the same thing as easy op-ed criticism, and the nation is learning just that as it listens to our would-be future presidents—whether Obama’s apparent Pakistan invasion option, or Hillary’s pandering with pseudo-accent to African-Americans, or the obsessions of Mrs. Edwards with Obama, or her husband’s continual embarrassment of living high in one nation, while lecturing others about the needs of the other.

I say all this remembering that friends used to tell me that in March 1991 George Bush would win by a landslide in 1992, and in 1987 Ronald Reagan would either be impeached or resign, or that after 9/11 and the despicable pardons, Bill Clinton would be ranked among our very worst presidents.

The point is that few know exactly how the country and the world will look by November 2008, but it may very well be that the U.S. will enjoy a position of strength and respect abroad and security at home — and someone still in office in late 2008 will get a great deal of credit for that.


08/14 12:07 PM

 From NRO Online 8/8.  Written by 'committee manager' Lacy.

The 'Fredster' is on the move!

UPDATE: From the Lacy link above, an op-ed in which he gave thoughts on how Fred's campaign would shape up:

Working with Fred in 1994 and his 1996 reelection campaign and working in Republican presidential campaigns from 1980-1996, I can make some pretty definitive statements about what Fred will bring to the presidential campaign:

? Fred ran in 1994 to make a difference, a cliché but also a truth. He gave up a lucrative and comfortable life in law and character roles in Hollywood to join the Washington rat race. It was a big sacrifice. He’s not running because he needs to be president; it’s a cause to him. That’s powerful motivation.

? He’s an intellectual conservative who will please the party faithful but whose folksy style and maverick impulses (like supporting the McCain-Feingold so-called campaign finance reform) soften his image, an invaluable general election quality.

? His experience during the Watergate hearings and the Tennessee pardons and parole scandal later in the ’70s established him as a committed reformer.

? He’ll run an unconventional campaign: Experts and journalists who jump to negative conclusions about his campaign’s tactics while ignoring his campaign’s substance do so at their peril. Just ask Tennessee U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, his ’94 opponent.

? While he has only won two elections, he came back from being written off in his first race. He will not blow people away every day but will wear well over time. He learned in the courtroom and in movies that his performance at critical junctures is far more important that a heavy schedule. Some say this shows Fred lacks energy. I used to hear the same thing about Ronald Reagan.

Fred isn’t Superman. His style has some similarities to President Reagan, but he hasn’t been around as long and proven himself as much. He needs a solid team with national campaign experience to craft strategy, do the planning and execute the myriad tasks such a large undertaking entails. He does have a Senate voting record, which will be scrutinized, and like all first time presidential candidates, he faces a challenging vetting process. He has no national campaign experience and hasn’t been through that large-scale rough and tumble.

But he has been tested: In the darkest hours of his political career, when the wheels were about to come off his first campaign, he figured out how to scoop them up, put them on a red truck and drive off into the sunset.

It was classic Hollywood — a happy ending. I hear they are planning a sequel.

08/08 12:00 PM

 
From NRO Online 8/9.  Great stuff!

Post-Surge Dialectics   [Victor Davis Hanson]

The larger question that will await Gen. Petraeus is not just the tempo of the surge per se—after all, given the efficacy of the US military it can pretty much do what it wishes if it is willing to invest sufficient amounts of time, material, and manpower, and take casualties. 

Rather the dilemma will arise to what degree has the tactical success of the surge allowed a degree of confidence and security that will push Iraq over the top from barbarism to civilization, and thus allow gradual, if at first tiny, withdrawal  of US military forces-at a timetable that is sober and not pushed by frenzied anti-war public opinion. 

Usually successful campaigns help lead to strategic resolutions, but our current one is far more complex, involving the Iraqis' willingness to step forward to stop the random violence, and the American electorate's willingness to accept daily depressing news on the assurance that the four-year commitment is both winding down and becoming less costly—while leading to something far better than the prewar past that will contribute to regional and US security. 

So the key is not debating whether the surge is "working" (it is), but rather concentrating on the post-surge, and defining exactly what are the conditions that result from it vis a vis Iraqi security and our military situation and national mood. In the meantime we must deal the enemy such a blow that security and utilities improve radically, Iraqis join the perceived winning side, and present regional troublemakers alter their assumptions that we are going to leave in defeat to their advantage.    

08/08 01:54 PM

 My comment on the HH blog on DB's post on the scandalous TNR episode.

Little Papi Hits for The Cycle

DB, the comeback kid! Looked like he was down and out last week, but now vindicated. I see that the dhimmis are trying, weakly, I might add, to find some glimmer of salvation in the utter failure of FF and TNR to tar the troops ala Vietnam days, but all I read is sputtering and re-hashes of days gone by. Good work DB, HH, Michael Goldfarb, Ace, Michelle, and countless others who understood exactly what this was about from the start, and relentlessly pursued the truth. Sorry bout dat to the dhimmis, who would not know the truth if it kicked them in the a**.

 
Two great takes on the NYT piece by O'Hanlon and whoever on the future of the U.S. in Iraq.

Check Here:  http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/

And here: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/07/nyt-article-on-iraq.html

Blasphemy from the left.  These two guys have strayed from the reservation and will need counseling.

Check It Out:

http://hnn.us/articles/41147.html

My comment on DB's latest post on his Sthttp://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/904pffgs.aspandard article.

Baby Boomers

Ah, 'Little Papi', what has thou wrought? Reading all of the above has given me a large headache. I have been trying to determine what generation I am from. Born in 1936, I am too late to be the 'greatest' and too early to be a 'boomer'. As an enlistee in 1956, I was too late for Korea and too early for Vietnam [managed to change that in 1962 however]. As an NCO, I watched the deterioration of the Army throughout the sixties, finally giving it up in 1970 [no pension is worth this much bulls..t]. Has the boomer generation had a profound negative impact on life in the good old Hew Ess of AAA? Without a doubt. The attitude of ME has been passed on to at least three other genrations. Those young men and women who have answered the call [Little Papi's 9/11ers] are the exception, not the norm. They are not 'chickenhawks' nor 'neo-cons', but patriots.

The Iranians continue to moon the 'W' on a daily basis, and he does nothing about it.

They are right in the middle of the Iraq war providing training and weapons to the bad guys for the express purpose of killing Americans.  Yet the 'W' stands by without reprisal.  The long war is here but Americans don't think so, or don't want to think so, therefore any hit back at the Iranians is bad form, politically.

It is likely that the future President will also do nothing but mouth platitudes,

Sad commentary on our national resolve.

The cracks in the facade appear deeper and longer this morning as the 'W' prepares to fight off another attempt by the totally inept congress to end the war in Iraq.  Repubs are now cowering  behind the polls that tell them that they must run away now or lose their precious place at the teat of corruption.

There is no moral equivalence here, only self-preservation.

It has become clear to me that 'W' has lost whatever momentum he once enjoyed, and he is on the way down and out.  The veto-proof cockiness is gone, and a sense of desperation is replacing it.  I can smell defeat and fear in the bulls..t that is now coming from the administration.

The dhimmis know that whatever happens in Iraq after we leave can not be blamed on them.  Another SVN genocide or Cambodian killing fields occurs and the blame goes to Bush.  After all, if we had not gone there, none of this would have happened, eh?  It all makes perfect sense in the demented world of the dhimmi.

Another attack in the U.S., and, of course, it will be Bush's fault because we went to Iraq and pissed off the friendly inhabitants of the ME.  Somehow, he will also be held responsible for 9/11.  Prepare yourself for revisionist history to be espoused by the bubba on the campaign trail.

After this is all over, after all the losses we have endured since 2003,  after all the losses to come as we attempt to dislodge 140,000 troops from a combat zone,  after all the rhetoric, what will remain?

Think of the books to be yet written, the posts to the blogs, the speeches to be made analyzing the failures of leadership, the inability to communicate to the people the whys and wherefores, the seemingly total lack of knowledge of the ME, its people, it's religions, its mores, and the apparent lust for bloodshed and violence by its citizens.
 
So, does the 'W' deserve to lose?  Does America deserve to lose, again?  And what does the failure in Iraq mean for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Lebanon, and Israel and the West in general?

Islam wins!  The decadent West loses big.  How about a little more Sharia  for England and Europe.  Here is a trade - no bombs for a Sharia sub-coulture.  Everybody wins, except maybe if you are a muslim female.

Hunker down for the great congressional retreat of 2007.  How about an attempt at impeaching the President and Vice president simultaneously?  A John conyers special. Naaah.

I will wait and watch as the 'W' does his last stand.  As the muslim cleric hands out just the right size of stone to the bloodthirsty crowd waiting to murder the hapless woman buried up to her neck in a pit for some percieved sin against allah, so the media will now redouble their attack on the hapless Bush, destroying what is left of his  ability to govern, happily accepting the correct size stone from the mullahs of the dhimmi party.

Bad times, they are acoming.

I guess that Townhall has a reason for not having a topic on 'war' or 'terror' etc.  Anyway, here is Jules with the straight scoop as usual.  I cringe at every American casualty in Iraq, but I believe I understand the long range threat posed by AQ and Iran.  Are the NYT and the dhimmi party so consumed with BDS that they can admit to the consequences of a surrender, but still insist on doing same?

The 2008 election is critical to our future.  Can you imagine a second run by Bubba [what's that, you say, he won't be the prez, Hillary will --  what a foolish person are you. eh]?

Anyway here is Jules.  Read him every day:

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/07/08/genocide-prefered/#more-1531