Thursday, 13 September 2007
GUEST COMMENTARY: ANN COULTER ON THE ANTI-WAR CROWD
Anyone who reads this blog knows I have some very major problems with Ann
Coulter. But her latest column is so worth reading that I overlook them
today to reprint it.
I acknowledge that I sometimes need a strong stomach to read Ann
Coulter. But anyone who can her latest column and still trust
Democrats with our foreign policy has a stronger stomach than I will ever
Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress
on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their
Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the
battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find
individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for
a humiliating retreat.
It's been the same naysaying from these people
since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives
in Congress voted in favor of that war.
Mark Bowden, author of "Black
Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000
to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to
Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the
Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass
destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United
On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of
another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major
al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been
separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been
distracted soon enough."
This week makes it six years since a major
al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has
Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas
Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks,
Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of
Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more
times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them
again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest
The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the
proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic
We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few
casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no
invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no
ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were
certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.
But liberals soon began
raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a
failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of
Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to
be elected president definitely made America safer.)
Next, liberals said
the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we
killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said
the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.
current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without
a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution,
Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a
They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for
January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."
Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in
September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I
personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January
... because there's no security there," he said.
At the first
presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing
statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an
election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be
elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the
security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been
referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.
October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe
enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."
before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an
article on the election this way:
"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who
could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into
a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking
water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"
there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking
water and voting, I have yet to hear it.
And then, as scheduled, in
January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free
election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election.
They've voted twice more since then.
Now our forces are killing lots of
al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving
democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I
think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it
may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those
OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew
what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only
fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.
As the co-author of our book and the person who does most of the blogging
here, I apologize to all readers for the lunatic comments of the previous
If the point here is that Bush is killing off people who
disagree with him - and that's what the point seems to be - then whoever is
making it needs competent psychiatric help. Using that "logic", President Bush should, by now, have killed
off ALL of the 7 soldiers (what good would 2 have
done?), about 90% of the journalists, almost every Democrat and half the entire
A CARGO TRUCK OVERTURNED. That's what happened. Does keith idiot
think Bush was driving it?
One last thing: if someone is killed BECAUSE he met with President
Bush, who is supposed to have killed hm? The Bush administration?
This is sick hatred. Nothing else.
AN ADDENDUM TO MY APOLOGY
I apologize for leaving something out of my apology:
There apparently is no record of General Fallon calling General Petaeus the
names attributed to him in barry's blog, other than "unnamed sources".
Which is to say there is no evidence of any value at all that it ever was
Petraeus called "ass kissing chicken shit" by his boss Admiral Fallon
We need him to testify NOW.
U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the
lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his
testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the
Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first
meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with
reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him
to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that",
the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by
making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to
Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders.
Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for
continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington
Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq..
The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations"
between them is "the understatement of the century".
toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for
Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over
Iraq, according to the sources.
The policy context of Fallon's
extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement
in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort
to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken
command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate
debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb.
7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's
office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq
adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound
military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which
Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.
The CENTCOM commander believed the
United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because
he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on
Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to
maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."
By the time Fallon took
command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama
bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as
being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's
largest population of Islamic extremists.
Plans for continued high troop
levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the
Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been
determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war,
in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a
Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic
assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way
for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington
Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been
"saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "
One of Fallon's first
moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the
term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had
used to describe the fight against terrorism.
Fallon was signaling his
unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate
period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of
a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops
would remain in the region indefinitely.
During the summer, according to
the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the
U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the
U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.
The conflict between Fallon and
Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post
story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of
Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend.
Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to
cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from
Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential
threats in the region.
Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against
Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest
possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations
was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy
has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders.
Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy
to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.
had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic
behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a
military source familiar with his thinking.
Fallon is a veteran of 35
years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is
expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain
and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the
Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to
powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command
from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward
and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials
with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.
He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in
February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to
the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military
necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to
war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his
watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.
crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other
hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant
executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later
executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His
experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success..
The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over
Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security
policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and
the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June
SPEAKING OF PEOPLE IN BED WITH MOVEON.ORG.........
This article from today's New York Post doesn't need any commentary. Read it
and understand who the "neutral" New York Times is rooting for. Pay
special attention to the paragraphs in bold print:.
TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A
HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief
September 13, 2007
-- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a
full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen.
David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House,"
the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly
at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress
- that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of
public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to
The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a
reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times
advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price
of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused
to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and
the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the
"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for
the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to
run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."
I apologize again for the garbage being spewed by Barry.
I hope you are as sickened by it as I am.
The Democratic senate UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED General David Petraeus. Every
one of them. No exceptions.
But if General Petraeus doesn't tell you that we are losing in Iraq, or that we should lose, or that we should turn tail
and run so al qaeda can have a victory which they'll use to recruit terrorists around
the world? That makes him what barry put in his title, which I won't
repeat. If you want to read it, go there, not here.
To these sick lunatics the enemy is our General, not the people who want us
dead or enslaved.
MORE ON THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN SCANDAL
The Wall Street Journal (along with - surprisingly - the New York and Los
Angeles Times) are among the few major media venues telling people about how
dirty the huge Democratic fundraiser, Norman Hsu, really is, and how tainted his
I apologize for the length of this article, but you have to know to be
educated, and where else are you going to get the education? From the
network news? GMA or the Today show? You're kidding, right?
Here is the Wall St. Journal piece in its entirety.
Tells DA That Funds
A $40 Million Shortfall
By IANTHE JEANNE
DUGAN and BRODY MULLINS
2007; Page A1
Where did Norman Hsu get his
That has been one of the big questions
hanging over the prominent Democratic fund-raiser, as reports have surfaced
about hundreds of thousands of dollars he made in political donations, plus
lavish parties, fancy apartments and a $2 million bond he posted to get out of
jail earlier this month.
New documents reviewed by The Wall
Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu
recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel
Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969.
That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.
told Mr. Rosenman the money would be used to manufacture apparel in China for
Gucci, Prada and other private labels, yielding a 40% profit on each deal,
according to a business plan obtained by the Journal. Now the investment fund,
Source Financing Investors, says Mr. Hsu's company owes it the $40 million,
which represents 37 separate deals with Mr. Hsu's company. When Source Financing
recently attempted to cash checks from the company, Components Ltd., the
investors say they were told the account held insufficient funds.
Source Financing's arrangement with
Mr. Hsu's company, according to court documents and investor accounts, echoes an
older matter that came to light in recent weeks. In 1991, California officials
charged Mr. Hsu with grand theft for failing to repay investors for money he
raised to import latex gloves from China.
"Norman Hsu has an extraordinary
ability to deceive," says Seth Rosenberg of Clayman & Rosenberg, a lawyer
representing Mr. Rosenman.
Mr. Rosenman and a partner, Yau Cheng,
wrote a joint letter on Monday to alert their fund's investors. "Last week, our
attorneys met with representatives of the Manhattan District Attorney's office
to inform them of the situation," they wrote. The district attorney is
investigating, the letter says. A spokesman for the district attorney did not
respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Hsu's lawyers had no immediate
comment to the allegations by Source Financing.
Where Mr. Hsu got his money has been a
burning question in recent weeks. He financed a web of political donations and a
lavish lifestyle, despite two bankruptcies and a felony record. Telling
acquaintances he was an apparel executive, he set up multiple companies,
sometimes giving early investors profits, they say, so they would bring in
friends. In some cases, investors in his businesses say they were so eager to
please Mr. Hsu that they donated to political candidates alongside
Mr. Hsu himself has donated $750,000
to Democrats and Democratic parties out of his own pocket since 2004, according
to campaign-finance records.
In checks no larger than $2,300 apiece
-- the legal limit for donations to single candidates for a primary or a general
election -- Mr. Hsu also raised more than $850,000 for New York Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. He co-hosted fund-raisers that brought
in hundreds of thousands of dollars more, including a recent event for Mrs.
Clinton at the Modern, a restaurant at the Museum of Modern Art in
The contributions are now haunting the
Democratic party. Mrs. Clinton's campaign said on Monday it would refund all of
the donations made or raised by Mr. Hsu. More Democrats announced yesterday that
they would dispose of funds that Mr. Hsu gave or raised, including Rep. Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York ($25,000), Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
($35,000), Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu ($11,700), Montana Sen. Jon Tester
($4,750), Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill ($20,700) and Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph
Sestak ($2,500). Others have given their money to charity, including Manhattan
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, whose campaign received $2,000 in March
from Mr. Hsu.
More Democrats are expected to follow. A Wall
Street Journal analysis of campaign finance reform records has linked Mr. Hsu
with at least $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.
Mr. Rosenberg, the attorney for Mr.
Rosenman, asked politicians to hold on to the funds so that Source Financing and
other investors can be made whole. "It appears that Source Financing Investors
joins Hillary Clinton...and many others as his victims," Mr. Rosenberg said in
an interview. "We urge candidates who received contributions from Mr. Hsu to
retain those funds so that they may be returned to victims of the
According to his communication with
investors, Mr. Rosenman became suspicious after press reports over the past
three weeks examined Mr. Hsu's political fund raising and his business past. The
first was a Wall Street Journal story in late August that called attention to
similar donations by Mr. Hsu and a California family who shared one of his many
The family lives in a modest home and
one member, William Paw, is a mailman. Campaign-finance records show the $55,000
in donations the family members have made to Mrs. Clinton since 2004 place them
among her leading financial supporters. The family has donated about $225,000 to
Democrats since 2005. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating possible
Grand Theft Charge
Then came revelations that Mr. Hsu was
wanted in California. Mr. Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft charges in 1992
for swindling investors of $1 million in the latex-glove scheme. Facing three
years in prison, he vanished before his sentencing hearing. He ultimately
emerged in New York as one of America's biggest political
Late last month, California
authorities demanded Mr. Hsu turn himself in to face the 15-year-old charges. He
appeared in court and was released after paying $2 million in bail. He then
skipped his next court hearing before re-emerging in a Colorado hospital last
week. He's under arrest there and expected to be extradited soon back to
Mr. Rosenman, the son of a Long
Island, N.Y., orthodontist, is best known for his role in Woodstock. In 1967,
Mr. Rosenman had degrees from Princeton University and Yale Law School, but was
working as a guitarist at clubs on Long island and in Las Vegas.
He and a friend with a big trust fund,
John Roberts, decided to pitch a situation comedy about a hapless duo who
hatched a new business plan every week. Looking for material, they placed an ad
in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times that said: "Young Men With
Unlimited Capital looking for interesting, legitimate, investment opportunities
and business propositions."
responses -- thousands of them -- inspired them to become venture capitalists
instead of screenwriters, according to a book by Messrs. Rosenman and Roberts,
"Young Men With Unlimited Capital."
One of the ideas was for a three-day
concert. Together with two others, the pair raised money, produced and organized
Woodstock in 1969.
That same year, Mr. Hsu, who grew up
in Hong Kong, received a Social Security card and enrolled in the University of
Woodstock's creators, meanwhile,
struggled with enormous debt and bad publicity, according to the account by
Messrs. Rosenman and Roberts. They opened and then sold a recording studio in
Manhattan. Eventually, they opened an investment firm in New York called JR
Capital. Mr. Rosenman co-produced Woodstock '94, a 25th-anniversary reprise of
the first iconic event.
In an interview with the Daily
Princetonian in 2001, Mr. Rosenman said he examines a handful of business
projects every week. "I am still doing the same thing as in 1968," he
Mr. Rosenman's partner, Ms. Cheng, met
Mr. Hsu while working for an Internet company in 2000. She began investing in
one of his businesses and made a profit, according to someone familiar with the
matter. In 2002, she joined JR Capital and introduced Mr. Rosenman to Mr. Hsu.
That year, Mr. Rosenman invested and also made a profit. He began telling
friends and relatives about the investment opportunity.
Mr. Rosenman described the deal in a
pitch letter he provided to prospective investors for Source Financing
Investors, which he launched in 2005. The investment pool would "lend to U.S.
private label designers that needed interim financing to fill orders for a
select group of well-known, high-end U.S. apparel retailers." Since 2001, he
writes, "the return of these short-term (typically 4 months) loans has been no
less than 40%."
In a "step-by-step" outline of a
typical transaction prepared for investors, Source Financing describes the way a
deal worked with Mr. Hsu. Source Financing would agree to provide bridge loans
for seasonal high-ticket, high-quality retail goods made in China for exclusive
brand names, according to investors. Mr. Hsu told the company that he would
obtain from Chinese manufacturers a price quote for apparel production. He would
then add a mark-up and give the quote to a high-end buyer in the U.S.
If the U.S. buyer accepted, according
to the outline, Source Financing would transfer by wire what Mr. Hsu said was
80% of the necessary loan, with Mr. Hsu saying he would provide the other 20%
himself. Mr. Hsu told the investors he would then receive a letter of credit
from a Chinese bank and that the manufacturer would ship the apparel to the
U.S., where Mr. Hsu would deliver it to the merchant.
Mr. Hsu would give the investment firm
a check, post-dated for 135 days beyond the wire transfer, for the amount of the
loan plus profit. When the check matured, Source Financing would deposit it and
allocate the money to investors. The company that would carry out these
transactions, Mr. Hsu told investors, was Components Ltd., set up in
Some investors in Source Financing
said they got involved through friends who knew Mr. Rosenman. Some did not know
who Mr. Hsu was until news about him broke in late August.
On Friday, Aug. 31, Mr. Hsu appeared
in court in Redwood City, Calif., to address the long-dormant grand theft
charges. His case, and his $2 million bail bond, was front-page news across the
country. In recent days, some media reports have raised questions about
political contributions that appeared to be linked to Components Ltd. and Mr.
On Monday, Sept. 3, Labor Day, Mr.
Rosenman and Ms. Cheng talked to Mr. Hsu to find out about the status of their
investments, they said in a letter to investors dated the next day.
They said that Mr. Hsu had vowed that
he would deal with their orders personally, the letter said. "He expects
substantial new orders this season," it read. "Because his personal schedule has
become so hectic," it added, he may need up to five days beyond his promised
target to finish an order. After consulting with advisers, they decided to give
him time to perform.
The day after that letter was drafted,
Wednesday, Sept. 5, Mr. Hsu skipped his next court hearing in California and
went on the run from the law, via an eastbound Amtrak train. He was arrested the
next day in a hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., where he was taken off the
train after passengers reported he was ill.
In a letter this Monday, Mr. Rosenman
told investors that the 37 outstanding deals with Components Ltd. are set to
mature "over the next four months." But he indicated that was not likely. He
said he had deposited two checks from Components that "matured Sept. 7." He was
informed by the banks that there were insufficient funds.
"This development, coupled with recent
revelations," he wrote, "led us to believe that payments due on our recent
transactions with Components and Hsu may not be made."
SOME COMMON SENSE ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON, MOVEON.ORG & REPUBLICAN COWARDICE
"I really do think to accuse a
general of the "willing suspension of disbelief," particularly in the atmosphere
that Moveon.org has created with these terrible attacks, I don't know, I mean I
think that's not the way in a responsible way to go about , you know, forging
the foreign policy of the United States and the military policy of the United
"I think this name calling, you know,
saying to people, 'willing suspension of disbelief, and then saying the
horrible thing they said about betrayal -- that is the last thing we need right
"What we need right now is a reasoned
account, we need statesmanship not political venom."
.That quote is from Rudy Giuliani, in answer to Hillary Clinton apparently calling
General David Petraeus a liar.
Thank you Mr. Giuliani. It needed to be said. And more needs to be said
It is increasingly clear that when Eli Pariser of moveon.org said his
organization owned the Democratic party two years ago, he was right.
As we watch Democrat after Democrat try to out-moveon each other (just the
way their earlier racist segregationist counterparts used to try to out-seg each
other to win elections in the south) it becomes more and more difficult to
escape this conclusion.
moveon.org put out their despicable, dishonest ad attacking General Petraeus, the
commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, and each Democratic
presidential hopeful, like programmed robots, has
tried to "prove" he/she is the one most in agreement. It is like a grotesque game
of show-and-tell with george soros and the Tides foundation as the teachers.
What is lost in all this (or is it?) is the value such an attack provides for
our enemies, both in and out of Iraq.
Does the propaganda value of presidential contenders in the USA denouncing
their own military leader during a war mean nothing to the Democratic
party? Do they want the other side to benefit from it? What happens
to us - Democrat no less than Republican - if they do benefit from it?
It is time - actually long past time - that media start
talking honestly about this. And way long past time that they start talking
about who funds moveon.org, what these people are and what their goals
When Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most of the other Democratic
candidates suck up to moveon.org, they are sucking up to the people and
motivations behind it too.
Finally, where are
the REPUBLICANS? What rock are they hiding under? If media are allowing moveon.org to own and operate
the Democratic Party without educating voters about this organization, what in hell are THEY
doing about it?
What exactly is the Republican party afraid of? That if they expose
voters to their own positions they'll lose elections? If so, they
should formally change those positions. Maybe a good start would be
for them to call a press conference, apologize to harry reid and
nancy pelosi, then say they were right all along and beg
Do Republicans really believe that speaking up in
support of General Petraeus and our objectives in Iraq, as well as talking
about the damage being done by Democrats who are attacking both, is not the right thing
to do? If so, they've already lost the next election. Because they
are it is telling the country that moveon.org and the Democratic party
If Republicans think that hiding from their own positions or trying to be
some ridiculous version of "Democrat lite" is going to be a winner, they
might as well start writing their concession speeches right now.
Bernard Goldberg, the former liberal/now conservative emmy-winning news
correspondent, had a best-seller out this year, called "Crazies to the Left of
me, Wimps to the Right of Me". That title says it all.
Speak against the war and you might be murdered. Think this is coincidence.??
A reminder, that 7 soldiers in Iraq wrote an OP ED piece for the NY
Times. 2 were killed before the article was printed. One was shot in the
head the other was killed in a car accident as recorded by the US
Now word comes that a third soldier died in another car accident two days
ago. Little has been reported of this except by Keith Olbermann.
Also, a Sunni leader who met with W on his sneak visit to Iraq was killed
yesterday. Iraq as you can tell is now very safe according to W and his
boys who testified this week and he will tell us so tonight.
2 Soldiers Who Wrote About Life in Iraq Are Killed
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 Engaging in the banalties of life has become a
death-defying act, the seven soldiers wrote of the war they had seen in
They were referring to the ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about
their lives with death and suffering all around them. They did not know it at
the time, but they might almost have been referring to themselves.
Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war, in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on
Aug. 19, were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor
on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in
The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among
the authors of The War as We Saw It, in which they expressed doubts about
reports of progress.
As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd
Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press
coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has
neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day, the
My son was a soldier in his heart from the age of 5, Sergeant Grays
mother, Karen Gray, said by telephone today from Ismay, Mont., where Yance grew
up. He loved what he was doing.
But he wasnt any mindless robot, said the sergeants father, Richard Gray.
Sergeant Gray leaves a wife, Jessica, and a daughter, Ava, born in April. He is
also survived by a brother and sister.
Sergeant Moras mother, Olga Capetillo of Texas City, Tex., told The Daily
News in Galveston that her son had grown increasingly gloomy about Iraq. I told
him God is going to take care of him and take him home, she said.
A native of Ecuador, Sergeant Mora had recently become an American citizen.
He was proud of this country, and he wanted to go over and help, his
stepfather, Robert Capetillo, told The Houston Chronicle. Sergeant Mora leaves a
wife, Christa, and a daughter, Jordan, who is 5. Survivors also include a
brother and sister.
While the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff
Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy, was shot in the head. He was flown to a military hospital
in the United States and is expected to survive. The other authors were Buddhika
Jayamaha, an Army specialist, and Sgts. Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck and
We need not talk about our morale, they wrote in closing. As committed
soldiers, we will see this mission