Sunday, July 22, 2007

Gen. David Petraeus

I'm a little late to the party on this, but earlier this week Hugh Hewitt had the General on his show for an interview that was very candid on the state of things in Iraq. You can read Hugh's comments on the moronic backlash against the General, and the transcript to the actual interview here.

Will the surge work? Signs point to some early successes already. The General will present his report in September, but as Hugh already notes the left is out to discredit the General as a partisan mouth piece for the Bush Administration. As if we needed any further evidence of the media's role as a fifth column for the anti-America left. But hey, they "support" the troops, just not the General. Funny how they say things like this, but what they really mean is that the American fighting man or woman isn't really an adult; they are a child (or, stupid, like John Kerry thinks) and need to be protected (read: brought home) - thus, Democrats "support" the troops.

It'll be interesting to watch the news in September, when the General makes his report. Who wants to bet me a cool grand that the media will pick and pluck the sober news from the report and give the American people the "doom and gloom" version?

All the news that fits, prints.


Call Me Mom said...

I wrote this a few years ago, just as a way of sorting through my own thoughts on the subject. I think it fits nicely with the topic of this post, so here it is.

"Oppose the war but support the troops"???
I have been thinking about this phrase for a while now. There was always something about it that has seemed insincere. I think I have figured it out.
The troops take an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States. As I understand it, that oath is basic to their service. Because the "support and defend" part comes before the part about obeying the president, superior officers and the UCMJ, that means that it is more important and it overrules all commands from superior officers and the UCMJ, if I am correct in my thinking. (Please correct me if I am not )
Now see if this makes sense. If you are a member of the public who believes the war is unconstitutional, you cannot support the troops while disagreeing with the constitutionality of the war. If you believe the war is unconstitutional, then by definition, you are saying that all those who fight in it are disregarding the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. So by saying the war is unconstitutional, you are at the same time saying that every one of those duly sworn soldiers who take part in it are forsworn and should be tried as traitors for violating their oath.
So, isn't that like saying "Hey, you're a traitor - but I support you!"?

Michael Tams said...


Great point. I suppose a cynic (yours truly) would say that indeed that would be what the Left is saying... if in fact they gave a flying leap about the Constitutionality of the war. They don't. I think they hate their political opponents, in addition to hating anything manly or good about America (such as the military).

They say they support the troops for a couple of reasons. At the risk of painting with too broad a brush:

One, they're just politically expedient liars; they don't like the troops but can't come out and say it because they are cowards. Or, two, they're engaging in their insane word games (depends on what your definition of "is" is, in other words). "Support" = put you in al-Gore's lockbox where you can't be harmed (or do harm, but we won't mention that).

Either way, to me there's nothing more pathetic than a person who revels so much in self-loathing as to hate their country and want to see it lose. Perhaps, as the man says, liberalism is a mental disorder.