The depth of MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad blunder is steadily becoming more apparent as a budding war between the Democratic Party and their liberal base begins to brew.
Firmly left-of-center columnist Froma Harrop - who sometimes graces the pages of the Seattle Times and Everett Herald - is less than pleased:
MoveOn should be a positive force for Democrats. It raises lots of money and rallies disaffected liberals. But it has a history of dated tactics that -- while gratifying to some on the fringes -- alienates the moderate voters that Democrats need to win. Its messages too often make the left look juvenile.
Former Democratic campaign guru Susan Estrich is likewise critical:
It's one thing to attack the president as a fool and a bumbler, as misguided in his policy and incompetent in its execution. That's easy: almost everyone outside Bush's family will agree with you, even the Republican candidates, who are generally the ones forced into an elaborate two-step as they try to defend the war and distance themselves from the Commander-in-Chief who has been in charge of it.
Then there's this lede from a recent Politico story:
To judge from the wall-to-wall coverage of MoveOn.org's full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, the liberal group strolled to the 18th hole up by two strokes, pulled out its driver and shanked one deep into the woods.The solidifying Beltway consensus is that the ad, which refers to Army Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us," was a blunder of the highest order, uniting Republicans and distracting Democrats at a time when the party could instead be pressing for an end to the war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both distanced themselves from it, while Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) denounced it. "I would have preferred that they not do such an ad," Pelosi said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
It's a simple fact modest Congressional majorities have great trouble getting their agenda through both chambers of that legislative body intact. Never mind when the President is of an opposite party. Republicans and their conservative base learned that lesson the hard way in the mid-to-late '90's. Watching the Democrats' liberal base learn likewise was to be expected, but still isn't very pretty to watch.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 14, 2007 06:57 AM | Email ThisI believe the original Betray Us came from none other than Keith Olbermann, who is trying to slip back into the sports arena with a segment on, I believe, Sunday Night Football on NBC- the Worst Person in Football Award- similar to his Worst Person Award on his comedy show on MSNBC.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 08:47 AMThe left is misreading poll numbers in their arrogance and assuming most Americans think the way they do. People in Seattle may think that way, but Seattle is not most of America.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2007 08:52 AMmoveon meets regularly with pelosi and reid.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 09:08 AMThat's just it, the Dems don't want a debate, and neither does MoveOn.org. They simply want a political gain from the rallyingy cry of pacifism and withdrawal. A debate would require the rational concession that withdrawal or failure to consider the report of the highest ranking professional in theatre, might lead to an even bigger disaster.
When you want things to change, you don't throw a tantrum, you calm down and work to get the solution you desire. The spectacle we witnessed on Monday and Tuesday with Democratic congresspersons calling General Petraeus a liar, and dismissing his duty to provide a candid report, was one of the low points for this country. Democrats are really unaware of just how demeaning this is to the majority of citizens.
I'm fully in agreement that the Iraq situation was not handled well from the start, and that we should have focused more on Iran. But we need a rational solution to our presence their, not the trite emotional rhetoric we are getting from Democrats.
The Democrats will pay dearly at the polls for this one.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 14, 2007 09:11 AMto quote andrew sullivan today:
"If the anti-war crowd must disown Moveon, why is Ann Coulter still on Fox?"
focus on your own house of horrors and maybe you'll earn some credibility back.
Posted by: dinesh on September 14, 2007 09:21 AMWow, both parties would be in chaos then. GOP can't agree if they want a moderate or 'family values' candidate. No clear winner in the polls, just biding their time for loosing the big house in 2008.
But I like the standard Leftwing tactic of changing the subject with a tu quoque non-argument. But if you are going to try to hold people to their own standards (and charge hypocrisy when they don't) you might consider getting and demonstrating some of your own, first.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on September 14, 2007 09:32 AMI don't want you to disown them. I want you to embrace them even more. Shout it from the hilltops. Here. Here's a megaphone.
BTW, the anti-war crowd is Moveon. There's no differentiation. You couldn't 'disown' them if you wanted to.
Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2007 09:36 AMWhat did you listen to the testimony of General Petreaus? He does not think the war is lost. He does understand the consequences of a loss.
How do you conclude the war is lost? To misquote General George Patton, the objective is not to die for you country, it is to make some other Son of a Bitch die for his. Last check of the casualty statistics indicates that the US has a 10 to 1 advantage in that statistic. and the US is winning the allegiance of the locals. Some lost war.
Finally, can you explain what strategic outcome do you want from this war between Western Civilization and 7th Century Islam?
Are you a neo-isolationist? Do you expect the true believers to leave you and your posterity alone? If so why? The first wave of Islamic war against the world ran from 635AD until the 1683 and the Battle of Vienna. I would expect that if the current leaders of Islam win in the early stages of this war we will be facing them for a long long time.
Posted by: Not a Yank on September 14, 2007 09:46 AMNot so sure on that. I'd bet that in the end, those of us on the right will fall into line quickly behind whoever we think is the best chance to defeat a progressive candidate.
Whereas on the left, there will be much flailing and moonbattery from all of the Nutty constituencies like DKos, Code Pink, MoveOn.org and the rest of the Soros orgs, unaffiliated Moonbat protesters, opportunistic tire slashers, inane GOTV rockers and rap artists, etc. etc. There's not enough time in the day to count all the nuts on the left that think they own the Democrat party. And there's not enough time in the year to count all of the nuts out there that think they help the Democrats by resorting to violence, and other artful, angry and highly visible protests.
And it's clear that Reid and Pelosi are somewhat fearful that it will explode on them if they step on the wrong toes.
Good luck.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 14, 2007 09:51 AMWe know Soros is a big backer, but who runs it? Day to day? Who does the Special Projects?
We need to name the names and call them out to be accountable.
We know Soros is a big backer, but who runs it? Day to day? Who does the Special Projects?
We need to name the names and call them out to be accountable.
What has Coulter said that indicates her desire to sell books and appear outrageous is the same as moveon? There are some quotes she has made that were outrageous, taken out of context and misquoted. But, you never hear of her meeting regular with Democratic Party leadership.
Sometimes I read what she says and write and agree with your assessment dinesh because she is usually on a different plane than I am on. But, after reading and listening to the context, her comments are outrageous but not treasonous.
And when people say 'failed' war or disastrous, I take umbrage. What is your definition of a failed war? The war with Hussein was won in a matter of days. It is the peace reconstruction that is difficult, not failed or disastrous.
We have the bad guys on the ropes. There are over 2100 days since we have had a terrorist attack on our soil. That sounds successful to me if you are complaining about the War on Terror.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 10:10 AMAccountable for what? No one has committed a crime. You guys accuse the left of being whiny, sheesh this takes the cake for big fuss over nothing.
I'll repeat, there is no difference between moveon and the Democratic Pary leadership.
That's like saying Sound Politics is the mouthpiece for the Washington State GOP . Two separate entities that sometimes agree with each other and and sometimes do not.
The war with Hussein was won in a matter of days
Why are we still over then if the objective has been taken care of? =)
There are over 2100 days since we have had a terrorist attack on our soil.
Let's see, there were over 2190 days between Terrorist Attacks during the Clinton years (OKC April '95 to WTC - Sept. '01). Before that the record was the first WTC bombing in '93 terrorist attacks were pretty much limited to third world countries.
Do you count people burning down condo developments around town acts of terrorism? No one dies, they are not as dramatic, but the police classify these as acts of domestic terrorism. If so it would certainly throw a kink in your number.
It's something completely different to attack an uniformed military officer, which the left seems to do on a frequent basis.
Once sworn in, one of the candidates will be Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and as such, General Petraeus' commander. The president, and any would be president, should defend in the strongest possible terms the honor and integrety of the military officers. That the current crop of Democrat candidates don't denounce the moveon ad shows that they're unfit for command.
LOL
Posted by: MY Way on September 14, 2007 10:54 AMThe WTC bombing in 1993 was carried out by Muslim extremists. That happened on Slick Willie's watch.
Our embassies are US soverign soil, right? In 1998 our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were bombed by Muslim extremists linked to al Qaeda. If I remember correctly Clinton was president.
The USS Cole was bombed in 2000 by Muslim extremists. That's an act of war on a US warship and US citizens. Let's see, who was president? Oh, that's right, Clinton again.
And what did Clinton do? Nothing. He didn't even visit the WTC in 1993. He's a pathetic loser, unwilling to defend our country.
I have no problems making fun of Ollie North. The uniform hardly gave an defense to Colin Powell when the right-wing was calling for his head. Welcome to America, public figures attacked daily.
No terrorists attacks on the US while Clinton was president?
Maybe if you actually read the post you would realize I didn't say that. I gave a number of days between attacks just like Swatter did.
BTW, the USS Cole doesn't count as it's was not on 'American Soil' which is what Swatter was counting.
Besides Israel has much stricter security measures than we do and they are under constant attack by terrorists. In the US the odds of terror attack are much much slimmer.
If SP met regularly with the GOP, mapped strategy and told the GOP how to vote, I would agree with you. However, all I see now at SP are a few GOP reading and fewer posting. Hardly a good comparison.
Why are we still in Germany sixty some years later? Why are we still in Kosovo- the Clinton War? Good question to ask.
This one is more difficult because the enemy doesn't have a flag or land to defend.
Follow Petaeus' testimony? I thought not. Go to Hewitt or Praeger and download their podcasts.
When the bad guys are mostly gone or they are attrited enough, we will leave victorious on the two wars.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 11:31 AMAmtrak train derailed in Arizona in October 1995.
Centennial Park bombing in Summer Olypics, Atlanta, July 1996.
Ali Abu Kamal shooting on the Empire State Building, February 1997.
U.S. Embassy bombings (which ARE American soil), August 1998.
All that said, I disagree with swatter. Anthrax attacks in late 2001. John Muhammed (DC Sniper), October 2002. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar on the campus of UNC, March 2006. And let us not forget Naveed Afzal Haq at the Seattle Jewish Center last July.
Posted by: pudge on September 14, 2007 11:39 AMIf I can win the argument I'll change the story.
Cato & SeattleJew
Remember the 1968 election when you guys let the crazy left take over your party. ( YOU LOST THE ELECTION)
(If I can't win)
Posted by: Army Medic.Vet on September 14, 2007 11:44 AMYeah, this site lost all it's good blowhards. I think it's a fair comparison since SP pushes it's own agenda locally when it so desires (see I-25 and Stefan's pursuit of fake voted in 2004 election). Stephan also lists his recommendations on who to vote for (100% GOP).
Why are we still in Germany sixty some years later?
Originally it was defending Europe from the Soviet Union, now it's a convenient stop off on the way to Asia. We're also still a NATO member.
Why are we still in Kosovo- the Clinton War?
Why isn't anyone else there? Europe seems pretty lame at picking up the slack in their own back yard.
This one is more difficult because the enemy doesn't have a flag or land to defend.
True, but we also gave them the motivation to fight. We pretty much played them as pawns back in the 80's by arming both sides during the Iran/Iraq war, encouraging the Soviets to invade Afghanistan while arming & training the rebels at the same time. Would they be as bloodthirsty had we just let the regional wars play out?
IMHO, I think Islam needs to reorganize itself and get back on track. Start emphasizing education over Islamic law. I mean the middle east looks like Europe pre-WW1 with it's kings and factions fighting each other over whose land is whose and what religion is best.
What are you talking about?
You make stuff up again to continue your personal campaign against me. It's not like you have anything intelligent to contribute. Seriously, I'll be happy to converse with you if you actually had something to say.
The difference between now and 1968 is that a Republican President started a war under false pretenses as opposed to a Democrat who escalated an existing war started under false pretenses.
I just can't see California going for Giuliani, much less a family values voter in Iowa (hell, even his kids wouldn't vote for him). He doesn't even have much of a chance in his home state against Hillary. This will be another close election for sure.
Regardless of attempts to distract from the original topic, the Dems opened the door into their faces this week. Maybe we'll get another "I'll take those oil company profits!" gaffe from Hillary just to make the week complete. The more the general voting public learn about who these people really are the better
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2007 12:15 PMTrue, they are not EXACTLY the same. I was thinking more of a metaphor for comparison. Oh well.
There is also huge difference between a liberal PAC that donates money to candidates and the Democratic leadership/party that receives them. They are not one and the same as Swatter claimed at #18.
Did you fail history Cato. Many BIG dem's agreed with Bush for this war and so did B. Clinton.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
And JKF brought us into WAR in NAM along with Johnson. We went from NON-combat advisors, to JFK Combat advisors! Then the dem's gave Johnson the green light for an all out war.
And yes I do enjoy pointing out when the people here call you out for your for your many errors.
But I still like you and your even right sometimes
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 14, 2007 12:49 PMCato, I am diffentiating moveon from other liberal causes. moveon has severely violated campaign laws and have been subject to huge fines, also.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 12:54 PMJust about every Dem under the sun and some very influential Republicans have changed their minds (with the exception of Hillary). I'm not rewriting history, I'm just pointing out things have changed a lot since 2004 election when the Iraq war was still popular.
Democrat who escalated an existing war started under false pretenses.
JFK / Johnson, Both Dem's - Check
French fighting in 'Nam before us - Check
Gulf of Tonkin Incident used to escalate 'Nam later discovered to be as truthful as originally claimed - Check
Today, Tomorrow or yesterday.
Like I said, don't try to re-write history.
Bush has made many errors and I along with others have hammered him over it.
By the way when my REP party asked me for money which I have given for many years I said Hell-No, when they fix the border then I may give again.
I'm no Bush yes man.
You are making several errors in logic and fact.
First, Stevens is not being defended by people on this blog and so I think that trying to use him as some sort of foil against the charge that Moveon.org and the democratic party are not in cahoots is specious.
Second, Iraq was not started on false pretenses, so your Gulf of Tonkin comparison fails. There were errors in the intelligence, but it was not a false pretense.
Third, democrats are not all saying that the war was a mistake and are backing off their votes. They don't have that much courage. What they are doing is trying to pretend they were misled (hence your reiterating the false pretense pretense) into voting for the war. Democrats are against the war because it is the only way they can gain power, and may have been the reason they voted for it in the first place. It is hard to really know since they change their tune depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Fourth, using popular opinion as some sort of policy guide is the stupidest thing to do when it comes to international conflict. The US population was all for the war, now they are all against it. They are responding based on the constant flow of negative information about the war and the poll's only value is as a measure of the effectiveness of the MSM in selling their brand of false reality.
Fifth, it may be true that it was a mistake to go into Iraq now that we see things from 5 years out, but that does not change the fact that making a mistake does not mean we make a worse one afterwards. A decisions was made, it was supported and then implemented. Now that we skin our knees over there, everyone is rushing to point fingers, assign blame, and trying their own version of "I always thought this was a bad idea, but..." Despicable. We are there, we chose to be there and we should have the courage of our convictions to do the right things and finish what we started. Anything else is pure dishonor.
Posted by: Eyago on September 14, 2007 01:45 PMCato, Hillary Clinton has pontificated in a voice only a shrill like Stefan (per a poster on another thread here that Stefan later swatted in the tradition of the flyswatter) could love. She has said the day of, or was it the day after, her inauguration, she was bringing the troops home. Later testimonies have driven that home.
This person or pander bear think she is Bill and can get away with it, but when we go into the booths to cast the ballot, we will remember.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 01:56 PMThey won't be able to use the "Bush lied us into an illegal war" line any more. Whatever will they do?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2007 01:59 PM"Stephan also lists his recommendations on who to vote for (100% GOP)"
Actually, most of the contributors to Sound Politics have made endorsements, not just Stephan. And the endorsements usually do include a few Democrats.
Posted by: Jim Miller on September 14, 2007 02:00 PMWith countries like France, Russia and others who were helping him, how long before we would have been forced to stop him?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 14, 2007 02:13 PMLets see Bush wanted to go to war, he made it happen. No Nigerian yellow cake (so no WMD's), no threat to American soil. I was against the Iraq war, lots of people were running around saying the facts didn't add up (Baghdad Jim anyone?), we went anyway. That's false pretense in my book.
It's a shame so many high level Congresspeople went along for the ride based on the 'evidence available at the time'. Jim McDermott knew it was a lie, but no one cared/wanted to care.
The US population was all for the war, now they are all against it.
The US population was all for Bush, now they are against him (since the truth has come out).
Unpopular President + Unpopular War + Lack of early front runner = 4 Years of Hillary
We are there, we chose to be there and we should have the courage of our convictions to do the right things and finish what we started. Anything else is pure dishonor.
We're going to be there regardless of who's in office. The election is just a non-event in a war much like last years election. Troops still fighting, yup. Troops still fighting after 2008 election, yup.
Troops still fighting in 2020, quite possibly since one goal will lead to another goal. Whether it be staying to 'protect Israel' or to 'maintain regional stability', or to 'preventing future attacks by terrorists' we will have some excuse to still be there in a wartime like capacity. At the rate the Iraqi Govt. is going it's going to be at least another decade before they complete the original benchmarks for progress.
Huh? Where did you get your book?
"lots of people were running around saying the facts didn't add up (Baghdad Jim anyone?"
What "facts didn't add up"? Yellowcake? It has been shown over and over that Joe Wilson and his wife lied about their whole involvement in this. Sadaam DID try to purchase yellowcake, which was the issue. President Bush, in his State of the Union speech did not even say that Sadaam had tried to buy yellowcake, which in and of itself would have been accurate. He said the British Intelligence indicates that he had tried to buy it. Britain still stands by this, so your problem is what?
So you were against the Iraq War. So what? What does that have to do with your blatantly false statement about "going to war under false pretenses"? This is just a liberal lie to try to distance themselves from the war--nothing more.
As I have said over and over again, liberals give themselves away by accusing the right of doing what they themselves are doing. In this case, lying.
Which of course brings us back to the original theme of this thread--Moveon.org. They are showing themselves to be shameless, bigoted, and beyond the pale. It doesn't matter if you see it or not--it only matters that the mainstream of the U.S. sees it. And they have.
There are a lot of johnny-come-latelys around, though, including your Democratic pander bears.
Finally, my biggest problem wasn't Saddam. He was going to die within a few years anyway. It was the two offspring that worried me. They were even more ruthless and bloodthirsty than Saddam. I was glad they chose to fight it out instead of surrendering so they couldn't engender sympathy by the antideath penalty crowd here in the states during a trial.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 03:12 PMJim McDermott has proven himself to be a raving lunatic, so it is no wonder no one wanted to listen to him. But what was it, exactly, that "McDermott knew" was a lie?
Posted by: Bill H on September 14, 2007 03:33 PMYour so caught up in your own Conservative Jingoism you can't tell your head from your ass anymore. It's quite obvious which side is doing the talking.
They are showing themselves to be shameless, bigoted, and beyond the pale. It doesn't matter if you see it or not--it only matters that the mainstream of the U.S. sees it. And they have.
Here you are on one hand decrying the whiny Liberals while on the other whining and bitching about some newspaper Ad while hoping you cause enough stink so that it sticks.
It's like the Left harping on Sen. Vitter for the not getting the same treatment Sen. Craig is getting. Or maybe it's the political firings of the US Attorneys.
It doesn't matter both parties are trying to find some sort of BS issue that resonates with the public enough to keep around as a talking point.
Besides I doubt anyone will give a damn about the Ad in a month. This is short term whining trying to win some brownie points within the party.
One Ad, that ran for one day, in one newspaper, by a liberal special interest group will not cause Americans to suddenly reevaluate their party of choice. I don't care how hard you wish it so, it's a pipe dream at best.
There it is! The patented liberal ad hominem attack!
Just another reason I don't vote for anyone from the left. They don't seem to have the temperment to be in charge of much of anything.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2007 03:54 PMDon't give me that crap, he called me a liar before I ever said anything bad about him.
I quote:
"As I have said over and over again, liberals give themselves away by accusing the right of doing what they themselves are doing. In this case, lying."
This statement says much more about you than it says about me. Actually I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian.
"whining and bitching about some newspaper Ad while hoping you cause enough stink so that it sticks." Don't need to hope too much--it's definitely sticking.
"Besides I doubt anyone will give a damn about the Ad in a month." Oh, I'm sure "anyone" will be reminded. It's not going to go away.
"One Ad, that ran for one day, in one newspaper, by a liberal special interest group will not cause Americans to suddenly reevaluate their party of choice." You wish! You know what they say "Wish in one hand and Spit in the other..."
You must be worried...
Posted by: Bill H on September 14, 2007 04:16 PMIt's nice to see Cato upset over this whole Moveon thing though. As was mentioned, he must be worried. He'd be even more worried if the mainstream media covered the Norman Hsu contribution scandal the way they would if he'd contributed to Rudy instead of Hillary.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2007 04:39 PMI'm not a member a liberal or a concervative, I just like arguing.
Don't need to hope too much--it's definitely sticking.
Sure, if you read the Drudge Report. It's really a non-issue. Giuliani tried to exploit it but it looks like he's backing down a bit. Looks like he got same bad info about the Ad rates.
It's not going to go away
Sure it will. No one is really talking about the US Attorneys anymore now that Gonzales is gone. Dem's have tried but it's kind of moot issue. It will come up again when Bush nominates his new AG.
Maybe your right, the powers that be seem to want the public to associate Hillary with the Ad. The goal is to make people think she endorsed it on some level. It's a stretch but as we saw during the lead up to Iraq 2.0 if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
You must be worried...
I could care less. I don't live in a swing state, I doubt my vote will matter in 2008. I do plan to attend the caucuses though, those are fun. I'll be the only GOP rep for my Dist. =)
The connection with Hillary sure smells though, given all of the dirty Chinese contributions Bill received in 1996...
Posted by: Bill H on September 14, 2007 04:55 PMIran will send ever more deadly weapons and more provocateurs as well but this may serve to unite Iraqis against them just as AQI is uniting Iraqis against AQI. There is nothing like a common enemy.
We will use the reduction in pressure from the Sunni areas to supress the Mahdi militia and other Shia militias will help us.
We have a new stategy and a new General. Both look pretty good. If time proves me wrong so be it. Iran's promise to move in if we move out makes the extra effort just as worthwhile as the effort to keep Iraq from becoming an AQI haven.
Posted by: KW64 on September 14, 2007 06:32 PMYou a libertairen? Not in your dreams.... I've been reading your stuff for more than a year now.. No-bloody way
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 14, 2007 07:39 PMHere is Patraeus' FULL answer to Warner.
"Sir I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind; what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq. I have not stepped back to look at the -- and you have heard with other committees what is the impact -- I have certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strains on our ground forces in particular has very much been a factor in my recommendations. But I have tried to focus on doing what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the obectives of the policy from which his mission is derived, and that is what I have sought to do sir."
You also might have reviewed General Patreaus' interview with Brit Hume in which he gave some additional opinions on the thrust of this question.
HUME: "Both of you described today and asserted today that the situation in Iraq, if we fail there and it all goes to hell and we leave, as one that would be very much to the disadvantage of the United States of America and to the region and so on.
But what about success? What is the great reward of this undertaking? Which, even if we go forward with what both of you are hoping to achieve there, would mean the cost of much treasure, still many American lives, many Iraqi lives, as well, for a situation which is not likely to be--no one at least now seems to be saying it's not going to be a great beacon of democracy, as it's once been hoped. There were no weapons of mass destruction, which was originally--what, briefly, General, is the payoff here?"
PETRAEUS: "Well, I think an enormous payoff is the fact that we may be able to defeat Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda central, if you will, does regard Iraq as the central front in its war on terror. Our overall commander, who prosecutes the global war on terrorism in the Joint Special Operations Force commander, regards that as the central front.
And so this would be, frankly, an enormous blow to Al Qaeda, if we were able to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The converse of that would be a, really, a huge lift for Al Qaeda, and really, a shot of adrenaline to them."
Posted by: Bill H on September 17, 2007 12:58 PMSo they wait like attack dogs until they can distract the media with really stupid, irrelevant things, like a 1 page ad in the New York Times in September.
Now the neo-liberals will try to make this ad the issue for as long as they can rather than give the truth to the American public about the war. The truth is that the military is out of troops. The truth also is that the Iraqi people don't want their country occupied anymore. They've had enough. The American public has had enough.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 17, 2007 09:49 PM