| West Virginia Republican Party Chairman Doug McKinney went into a hissy fit earlier this week because MoveOn.org put out a factually accurate ad about Gen. David Petraeus' history of misrepresenting the facts. (Remember when Petraeus claimed the Iraqi military and police would be providing all of the security in the country soon because he was in charge of training them? That was in 2004. How'd that work out?)
From that, McKinney called MoveOn's fact checking a slur against all of the troops (talk about a leap in logic, but Republicans are ruled by emotions and not facts.) and called on Senator Robert C. Byrd and others to condemn MoveOn.
MoveOn.org's malicious attack on General Petraeus and our nation's troops should be condemned by West Virginia Congressional Democrats immediately.
"After trying unsuccessfully to block funding for American soldiers and second guess our commanders on the ground, this radical left-wing organization has resorted to launching slanderous assaults on our nation's brave men and women who are fighting the War on Terrorism. As the father of a United States Marine, I take personal offense at this attack.
But MoveOn's ad was rather mild compared to the name-calling of Petraeus from another obviously far left dirty hippy, Petreaus' superior officer, CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon:
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 superior.
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.
The 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".
Fallon's derision 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.
I'm sure McKinney will be just as quick to condemn Admiral Fallon for his "slanderous assaults" just to remain consistent.
Otherwise, McKinney is a hypocrite.
Maybe McKinney should take a moment and think before he speaks - nah!
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.
Fallon was 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 region.
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 chapter.
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.
And I'm sure McKinney will call on vulnerable Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito to condemn the remarks made by House Minority Leader John Boehner, who called the deaths of nearly 3,800 American soldiers in Iraq and the spending of $2 trillion a "small price to pay." I doubt if their families who sacrificed their loved ones would think they were a "small price to pay."
Will McKinney be consistent and call on people to condemn Fallon and Boehner or should we interpret his silence that he approves of their remarks?
UPDATE:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D):
"I was appalled to hear Minority Leader Boehner's statement yesterday that the loss of American blood is a 'small price' to pay in Iraq. The loss of American blood is never a small price. This war has stretched our military thin, and in order to be prepared for a new or unexpected conflict we must responsibly redeploy our troops. It's time to refocus our efforts on fighting those responsible for 9/11-al Qaeda-restoring our military to peak readiness, and to protecting Americans from terrorism.
"After four and a half years, $565 billion, 3,759 U.S. troops killed, more than 27,770 U.S. troops wounded, and no exit strategy, I hope to hear the President tonight offer a plan for redeployment and a true New Direction for Iraq, rather than continued commitment to a failed policy in Iraq.
"I also think it's important to put some perspective on the President's speech this evening. As he prepares to ask the American people, our men and women in uniform and our military families for continued sacrifice and commitment to his war in Iraq, I think we should keep in mind his promises and declarations throughout the four and a half years of this war.
"The President started us on this rollercoaster in May 2003, when he declared the mission accomplished and the end of major combat operations. Fifty three months later, the combat rages on, with American soldiers stuck in the middle of a civil war.
"In April 2004, he promised we would stay the course and 'complete the job'-a job that apparently wasn't accomplished.
"In May 2005, Vice President Cheney infamously declared that the insurgency was in its 'last throws.' Seven months later, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld took a dramatically different view, reporting that the insurgency was gaining strength. Twenty eight months after the Vice President's remarks, the insurgency continues to surge.
"In June 2005, the president assured us that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
"And in January of this year, when the President announced his surge plan, he said he was firm with Iraqi leaders that our commitment wasn't open ended. He said, 'If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.'
"Here we are, nine months after the surge plan, and the Iraqi government has not delivered on its end of the deal.
"The Iraqi government has failed to deliver on 15 of 18 benchmarks outlined by the Bush Administration. While our military has made progress in giving the Iraqi government some breathing room to make political progress, the commitment and sacrifice made by our brave military has not been matched by the Iraqi government. The line has been blurred between assistance and dependence, and its time to match our deeds with our words."
UPDATE 2.
Republicans so eager to condemn MoveOn's critical ad of General Petreaus hate being asked about Boehner's much worse remarks. Still kudos to Senator John McCain for at least not being a hypocrite (unlike ::cough:: WV Republicans):
On the bus, McCain responded to John Boehner's remark that American lives were a "small price" to pay for a victory in Iraq.
Asked about it on the heels of his demanding that Democratic candidates "repudiate" the MoveOn.org Petreaus/Betray Us ad, he grimaced: "He misspoke. With all due respect, every American wounded or sacrificed is the greatest possible price to pay," and we should all be grateful, "particularly those of us who sit in relative safety while those young men and women are fighting."
snip
"He ought to retract it." |
