Comments (67)

The Fool wrote on September 11, 2007 6:30 PM:

Over on the main page, where there are no comments, Josh Marshall said, "Even though he's made himself into a GOP operative in the domestic political fight over Iraq, I think I agree with Juan Cole that over in Iraq I believe he's doing his best as a professional soldier to salvage something from a catastrophic mess."

How extremely disappointing, Josh. And just when I was beginning to have a lot of respect for you. I didn't take you for the kind of guy who goes weak in the knees at the sight of a fella in uniform. I was extremely disappointed with Juan Cole too.

Look, guys. I guess Petraeus gives you all big woodies with all those shining medals, but that's no excuse for taking his conduct out of the relevant moral context. HERE is the relevant context:

1) Bush started a war based on an unprecedentedly fraudulent WMD hoax that was exposed as such

2)The war is a disastrous war -- the worst strategic blunder in American history -- costing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives and thousands of American lives, with millions turned into refugees.

3) The war started out in violation of international law and led to extreme war crimes in the form of torture.

4) This immoral aggressive war based on a hoax that should have led to impeachment has been supported by blatant lies all the way through.

5) The same war led to the President of the United States declaring himself free of all constitutional restraint in the form of checks and balances or Congress' constitutional role in war.

6) The same war also led to the President of the United States declaring himself free of all legal restraint and freely admitting to violating the FISA laws over and over.

7) We've been told by liars, including Petraeus, over and over again for years that things were improving based on the lastest change in strategy or new General or Prime Minister.

8) We've been so propagandized as a nation as a result of the reflexive lying that huge segments of the population continue to believe things that are demonstrably false about WMD and Saddam Hussein for years after they have been definitively disproven -- as if we were living in the USSR circa 1970.

Given the context outlined in 1-8 above, the idea that you would excuse Petraeus for being Bush's new Colin Powell (i.e. a big fat fucking liar trying to sell an immoral war that has desecrated our Constitution and destroyed our repuatation and moral standing AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS) simply because you think he's faithfully doing his goddamn job in Iraq makes me want to puke.

I am completely disgusted. The reputation of TPM and Josh Marshall had reached a high point with me in recent months, but now you've harmed yourself in a big way as far as I'm concerned.

It looks like TPM is going all Beltway. How sad.

1oldlady wrote on September 11, 2007 6:58 PM:

To Fool....I'm confused, you are making a comparison of TPM and its editor to GOP's and going Beltway. How are they? You only stated what what we all ready know!

The video was in reference to what he said and how he cleared up the question regarding Iraq and its relationship to our safety.

In my view, Petraeus was backtracking to cover his remark that he stated to Senator Warren, when Senator Bayh asked him about the statement. I watched the whole thing unravel!

Petraeus- was quick to tone, and over took the dialog from Senator Bayh. Petraeus NEEDED to cover his ass in order to protect Bush. Because Bush keeps repeating over and over that Iraq is the front of the "war on terror" and we all know what he is talking about.

1oldlady wrote on September 11, 2007 7:03 PM:

To Fool....I'm confused, you are making a comparison of TPM and its editor to GOP's and going Beltway. How are they? You only stated what what we all ready know!

The video was in reference to what he said and how he cleared up the question regarding Iraq and its relationship to our safety.

In my view, Petraeus was backtracking to cover his remark that he stated to Senator Warren, when Senator Bayh asked him about the statement. I watched the whole thing unravel!

Petraeus- was quick to tone, and over took the dialog from Senator Bayh. Petraeus NEEDED to cover his ass in order to protect Bush. Because Bush keeps repeating over and over that Iraq is the front of the "war on terror" and we all know what he is talking about.

Also, with out Petraeus faciliating Bush's argument to Congress, he will be out of $$$ for his buddies who have a large stake in contracts over there.

Keep in mind, that Bush has always and will always say that we want to fight them over there, because if we don't, we will be fighting them here!

So, yes Petraeus is just like Powel, and I only wish someone would remind Gen. Petraeus of what happened to the General who covered up Nixon and his war mongering.

So, General DO LIE in a way that seems creditable! Masters of WAR!

lysias wrote on September 11, 2007 7:20 PM:

Hitler's war was certainly a criminal, disastrous mess. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be true to say of generals like Manstein and Rommel that they were doing their best as professional soldiers to salvage something from a catastrophic mess.

Waiting for Truth wrote on September 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

OK, now that we all know the public restroom non-verbal communication method, take another look at this video and notice the repeated proposition going on in the background.

just a tiny little bit of levity in an otherwise terribly depressing day.

Thomas Simon wrote on September 11, 2007 7:44 PM:

Dear Fool - yes you are right - I am sick of the lies - Josh deserves a break though as TPM is one of the best on the Net for speaking truth to power. IMHO.

Jim Clark wrote on September 11, 2007 7:45 PM:

Bayh's clumsy questioning reminded me that, as a lawyer, I hate it when some clod stomps all over nice clean testimony I've elicited. I wonder what Bayh was thinking about. Or if he was thinking. And when he's going to get an adult haircut.

The Fool wrote on September 11, 2007 7:51 PM:

Thomas Simon:

I agree with you that TPM is great and so is Josh Marshall. The strength of my reaction was directly proportionate to my pre-existing respect for Josh. That's what made it so disappointing. If Kevin Drum said it, I wouldn't be so surprised.

Anonymous wrote on September 11, 2007 7:51 PM:

Heck of a job, Josh!

The Fool wrote on September 11, 2007 7:55 PM:

Dear TPM Censor: you posted my last post but not my 2nd-to-last post. I guess my explanation to 1oldlady that my first post was off-topic and not a comment on the video these comments are attached to was a bit too racy for TPM, huh?

Keith Smith wrote on September 11, 2007 8:15 PM:

There are two Bush/ Republican story lines; we can call one "Undermining America through lies, corruption and disregard for the Constitution." This is the storyline that FOOL articulated so eloquently. The second storyline is that of America being undermined by the Republican culture of incompetence. Let's give Josh credit of finding it remarkable that the General might be in the unusual position of participating in one storyline without participating in the other.

Norman wrote on September 11, 2007 8:16 PM:

Petraeus, caught in a moment of truth, reverts the party line.

David Finley wrote on September 11, 2007 8:23 PM:

Fool - that was a great synopsis of the situation.

Rick wrote on September 11, 2007 8:30 PM:

I have to agree with the fool here.
I'm disapointed that Josh seems to have given up on ending this war before '09, because without people like Josh and Juan Cole calling for defunding the war, it will never happen. And i'm tired of hearing "but the Dems don't have 60 votes to override a veto" - they don't need 60 votes - they control the adgenda, they don't have to submit any bill (better yet, keep submitting a bill with withdrawal attached, and when Bush vetos it, blame Bush for defunding the war)

Mary Garber wrote on September 11, 2007 8:44 PM:

Why does everyone give Bush credit by calling his crimes blunders? His actions have been deliberate throughout and he continues to get everything he wants.

His actions were and are criminal, with criminal intent. That's why he kept them secret.

RbS wrote on September 11, 2007 8:52 PM:

I'm reminded of a Krugman column from a couple years back, in which he talked about how they use whomever happens to have a high credibility quotient at the time and run him/her out in front of the public to give their message. Whether it be Colin Powell, Condi, or Jenna . . . you find someone who the public will believe.

Of course, you tend to ruin their credibility thru the things you have them say . . .but that's their problem.

RbS wrote on September 11, 2007 9:00 PM:

I'm reminded of a Krugman column from a couple years back, in which he talked about how the Bushies use whomever happens to have a high credibility quotient at the time and run him/her out in front of the public to give their message. Whether it be Colin Powell, Condi, or Jenna . . . you find someone who the public will believe and tell them what to say.

Of course, you tend to ruin their credibility thru the things you have them say . . . but that's THEIR problem.

I think they've done what they can to build Petraeus up as a credible guy, and now are doing their best to use his credibility to get their message across. But he seems like a smart guy . . .you think he'd see how they destroyed Powell's credibility and be a little more hesitant to play along.

RbS wrote on September 11, 2007 9:00 PM:

I'm reminded of a Krugman column from a couple years back, in which he talked about how the Bushies use whomever happens to have a high credibility quotient at the time and run him/her out in front of the public to give their message. Whether it be Colin Powell, Condi, or Jenna . . . you find someone who the public will believe and tell them what to say.

Of course, you tend to ruin their credibility thru the things you have them say . . . but that's THEIR problem.

I think they've done what they can to build Petraeus up as a credible guy, and now are doing their best to use his credibility to get their message across. But he seems like a smart guy . . .you think he'd see how they destroyed Powell's credibility and be a little more hesitant to play along.

RbS wrote on September 11, 2007 9:02 PM:

sorry for the multiple posts

TheraP wrote on September 11, 2007 9:05 PM:

Josh was for the war before he was against it.

Points 1-8 of The Fool are excellent, but really have nothing to do with Josh.

Josh's site tries to be a journalistic site, which means striving for objectivity - not polemic.

Mr. Fool, it strikes me that to rule Josh out and dump on him, simply because he's trying to be as objective as he can be (whether you or I like the positions he takes 100% of the time or not) is, yes, a bit foolish.

I don't think there is any human person I know with whom I agree 100% of the time. For a long time I disagreed with Josh's stand on the war. Over time his position has changed, and I've been pleased to see that. But all the time I have had enormous respect for the work he does. I feel the same about Juan Cole.

It's good to listen to different voices. It's good to voice our own thoughts. And I thank The Fool for his 8 points and his energy and outrage. I also thank Josh for all his careful thinking and hard work here. And I thank other posters. I love this site! I've agreed and disagreed with many here. And mostly it's been very civil. Thank you all.

gavin immerson wrote on September 11, 2007 9:13 PM:

It is indeed, discouraging to see serious military scholars(Kinseki, Abizaid, Powell et al) twisting in the foul breezes from Crawford.
Now, we have Petreaus evidently channeling Gonzales and the Ides of September promise more whimpers, although the bangs continue apace elsewhere.
Outside the Land of the Brave, we watch in shock+awe as the Yellow rose abnegates all that is true or fair or just with impunity.

If your chattering classes can't muster, say a million, in the streets of Washington this saturday (A pittance compared to the 15+ million of us who pleaded with you to arrest these criminals in March of '03) then its time for you to STFU, bend over and take your just deserts.

We find it inconceivable that Petreaus skates without ever beig asked about "Ass kicking".

Your MSM is back to Brittany 24/7+ Wolfie piddles about Mexican truckers trying to make a living.

Read some Roumanian History for hints on how real people deal with this bullshit or go back to the Mall, chickenshits chattering about chickenhawks, cowards all of you, except maybe Ms. Sheehan and her son and all who serve.
Honour the troops, my ass.

BTW, nice all those tributes to Pat Tillman around the league this sunday, Hooha.

Best of Luck

Steve H wrote on September 11, 2007 9:26 PM:

Notice how Petraeus looks down through most of his response this time, and also when he looks down (in both videos). Either he doesn't seem comfortable delivering his response the second time, for whatever reason, or he's reading a prepared statement off a sheet of paper, or perhaps both.

pepkoka wrote on September 11, 2007 9:52 PM:

Did anyone else notice General Petraeus's lips moving as if he were silently talking while the camera focused on Ambassador Crocker? It was about about 5:30 PM EDT, and Petraeus's head was visible over Crocker's shoulder and behind his head in the shot. Was he wearing a hidden microphone? Was he talking to himself? What did he say? Or am I imagining this?

1oldlady wrote on September 11, 2007 9:53 PM:

Fool...

I understand your angry at the old-fart politicians that just keep passing and covering Bush's daddy issues with this war on terror!

When will these out of touch politicians learn that Bush's tack its are only based on slogans!

Slogans are the only thing that this administration can do right!

Has the United States gone into the adverting business? Sure seems that way!

1oldlady wrote on September 11, 2007 9:56 PM:

Fool...

I understand your angry at the old-fart politicians that just keep passing and covering Bush's daddy issues with this war on terror!

When will these out of touch politicians learn that Bush's tack its are only based on slogans!

Slogans are the only thing that this administration can do right!

Has the United States gone into the adverting business? Sure seems that way!

History will NOT be kind to this administration, and historians should get THAT right - right down to the last letter - word - slogan!

Fr33d0m wrote on September 11, 2007 10:07 PM:

The Fool, referenced in comments as to fool fails to see Josh's point; that soldiers--General or Private--stand at the beck and call of their leaders. Do you really want it any other way?

Over the last few years many of our military officers have stepped over a barely visible demarcation between a professional military and a 3rd would one. In the case of these hearings, I can see this one trying hard to stay on his side of that line.

Mike Mid City wrote on September 11, 2007 10:09 PM:

Iraq has squandered our opportunities to decapitate Al Q. It has degraded our military to an army that is 2/3 NOT combat ready. It has yet to be paid for by our children, but it will be.

Our troops are at a level of service that is now a never ending cycle of 15 months of combat and 12 months (maybe) of training/down time? This is a deliberate misuse of the all volunteer service and the National Guard that is an issue of national security.

Will a Democratic Congress be forced to enact a draft?

Every star level officer left in service that hasn't spoken up against this plan is suspect.

tbhull wrote on September 11, 2007 10:14 PM:

Posted by: Rick
Date: September 11, 2007 8:30 PM

You are correct. The dems control both houses of Congress. Simply send Bush a bill that contains deadlines and eventually call for withdrawal, all consistent with what the people want.

Of Course Bush will veto the bill. Hardball. Keep sending Bush the exact same fucking bill until this idiot yields. If he does not then the government simply shuts down, including spending on this war. Blame Bush, as he could fund the troops all he has to do is sign the bill and then ask "Thank you sir, may I have another?".

The problem is many fold. Several factors keep the dems from doing this: (1) the dems are cowards; (2) the dems and the repubs are the same slaves to the war machine; (3) the dems cannot imigaine shutting down their raison d'etre, government; and/or, (4) the dems have no effective leaders.

And yes TPM/Josh is part of the problem for actually believing that giving up on withdrawal. The failure to lead is iften worse than leafing in the wrong direction. If in facgt a real difference exists between the dems and repubs (which I have come to seriously doubt) the dems will suffer far far more damage in the long run not confronting this issue NOW instead of playing politics with lives and avoiding any categorical imperative mandated by morality and by the foundation of our democracy.

Why are the dems so afraid to lead? The public loses respect for them every day the fail to step up to the plate. This loss of respect will have a negative lasting impact well beyond '08.

Sound and fury signifying nothing delivered by feckless cowardly rudderless snatches describe the current democratic majority.

etheryin wrote on September 11, 2007 10:38 PM:

You commenters attacking the fool are way off base. Petraeus isn't just doing his job. A soldier has a responsibility to obey an illegal order or an order that he does not believe to be in the best interest of his command, which by extension includes the American people. If it is true that Petraeus is essentially just lying, as the people apologizing for him necessarily believe, then he is unfit for command. It's actually quite clear that he's at least guilty of perpetuating and enabling propaganda with his Brit Hume interview, the EXCLUSIVE FOX INTERVIEW. Watch it. This man should be removed from command, isn't it just obvious that he is nothing more than a Bush crony and unquestioning loyalist? What more do you need to have against you to qualify as unfit for command?

oleeb wrote on September 11, 2007 10:41 PM:

Fool:

Agree 100% with your analysis of the Iraq situation but implore you to cut Josh a break. I don't think he's fooled by Patreus' ol soft shoe. He's just saying that he thinks the General is doing the best job he can as a soldier to accomplish the mission---not that he would be able to accomplish it or anything like it.

But getting back to the rest of it I must say you put the emphasis right where it belongs on the immorality of the war, the crimes committed by Bush and his henchmen both domestic and international crimes and the fact that this culture of lies, corruption and lawlessness has distorted the vision of Americans to the point where they can no longer see accurately how horrendous the situation has become.

Mat wrote on September 11, 2007 10:47 PM:

I have some sympathy for Petraeus on this one. (A lot less than I used to, because of the number-fudging that's happening in his name. But some.) He's been put in an absurd position by the administration: to try to solve a political problem by application of mildly increased military force. He's like an engineer on the Titanic who, having pointed out that with a hundred extra pumps the ship could be saved, is given a couple and told to get to work. So now he's dutifully reporting back that 20% more water is being pumped out and the water level isn't rising quite as fast as before, entirely avoiding the question of the gaping hole in the side of the ship, or what will happen when the pumps give out.

little d wrote on September 11, 2007 11:23 PM:

Mat:

Nice metaphor!

Murfee wrote on September 11, 2007 11:24 PM:

Hey Fool:

Lay off Josh. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with saying, on the one hand, that Petraeus is wrong about the war, while, on the one hand, merely observing that he is trying to salvage something from this war, as ludicrous as that might seem four and a half years on. I am as anti-war as anybody else, but I think the issue with the Petraeus testimony is that military leaders have a different mindset. He's not the maker of policy, but rather its executor. Blame his mindset on a lifetime of military service if you like, or even call him politically brainwashed, but don't deny his qualities as a "good soldier."

Petraeus's answer that he didn't know if the Iraq war made American safer probably comes from his willful subservience to the Commander-in-Chief. And it's because of that subservience that he probably won't cross the Rubicon on the way back from Iraq. The military leader who is subservient to policy, actually does a service to Democracy if that Democracy is governed by the people. Petraeus was not the one who took this Democracy out of the hands of the people. Petraeus is not a Rumsfeld, a Cheney or a Wolfowitz. This MoveOn.org demonizing overlooks the true criminals allied with the military (including lobbyists and defense contractors) off the hook and will ultimately backfire.

Josh wrote on September 11, 2007 11:53 PM:

For those wanting to defund, there are some problems with it:

1) It's not all that popular anyway. Back during the last supplemental, several polls were run asking whether people supported cutting off funding. Those polls only came in at about 35% in favor.

Back before the surge, there were polls asking whether Congress should fund it, and a majority opposed refusing to fund the surge. Hear that? A majority opposed refusing to fun an increase in troops which hadn't even happened yet - to say nothing about taking funds away from operations already taking place.

I remember one poll which asked whether people supported saying that funding only lasted until March and then ended, and that even fell flat in the poll.

Finally, back at the supplemental, it was asked who was most at fault for Bush vetoing the spending bill and the most people answered...guess who...CONGRESS! For passing a bill they knew Bush would veto, even though those same people opposed Bush's veto and supported the ideas in the bill.

In short, every poll ever done, no matter how it's asked clearly shows that war funding is pretty much a 3rd rail. Democrats mess with war funding at their own risk. Unfortunately the only other alternative is basically giving Bush what he wants, though hopefully they'll try to throw a bill with a timeline or two in it at his desk along the way.

Josh wrote on September 11, 2007 11:54 PM:

For those wanting to defund, there are some problems with it:

1) It's not all that popular anyway. Back during the last supplemental, several polls were run asking whether people supported cutting off funding. Those polls only came in at about 35% in favor.

Back before the surge, there were polls asking whether Congress should fund it, and a majority opposed refusing to fund the surge. Hear that? A majority opposed refusing to fun an increase in troops which hadn't even happened yet - to say nothing about taking funds away from operations already taking place.

I remember one poll which asked whether people supported saying that funding only lasted until March and then ended, and that even fell flat in the poll.

Finally, back at the supplemental, it was asked who was most at fault for Bush vetoing the spending bill and the most people answered...guess who...CONGRESS! For passing a bill they knew Bush would veto, even though those same people opposed Bush's veto and supported the ideas in the bill.

In short, every poll ever done, no matter how it's asked clearly shows that war funding is pretty much a 3rd rail. Democrats mess with war funding at their own risk. Unfortunately the only other alternative is basically giving Bush what he wants, though hopefully they'll try to throw a bill with a timeline or two in it at his desk along the way.

Josh wrote on September 11, 2007 11:56 PM:

Oops, sorry for the doublepost, and oh yeah, I'm a different Josh than the one who runs the site. I guess I should have thought of noting that.

SocraticGadfly wrote on September 12, 2007 12:18 AM:

Petraeus is enough of a shill huckster to be called "Tommy Franks with a military brain."

ahem wrote on September 12, 2007 12:20 AM:

I'm going to incline with Josh Marshall to some extent.

Elements of Petraeus's strategy, in the abstract, make sense: it makes sense to build security by restoring it in public spaces like markets and universities, which reunites communities and stops the segregation that further drives sectarian divides.

It makes more sense to have done it years ago. That way, it wouldn't end up as a set of Potemkin villages to show off to congresscritters, and maintained by people wanting to scrape together a living, even as many traders have been murdered and others have fled.

Petraeus can't tell the real, military-man's truth: that his approach might help fix things in Iraq if it was sustained for another five or ten years, with a draft that starts now, and with a massive chunk of the next decade's tax dollars poured into the desert.

That's because his career rise is down to Bush, and Bush's strategy is to get to 2009 and run away, like he's run away so often in the past. He's implementing that strategy: the create-a-diversion plan to allow Chimpy to escape.

If Congress can't impeach him now, impeach him later, when he's out clearing brush. Stick him on a plane and dump him at the Hague.

tbhull wrote on September 12, 2007 12:20 AM:

Posted by: Josh
Date: September 11, 2007 11:54 PM

It is not a fund or defund proposition, as this approach falls into the failed abyss of us v. them, dem v. repub, liberal v. conservetive, good v. evil simpleton dichtomy we have been too long stuck in. Finesse and the testicular power politics are needed.

The alternative to singing this sickening refrain that has polluted our politics for far too long is Congress saying we will fund this war on our terms, which terms have dealines and a withdrawal date. Dangle this carrot (send this bill to GWB) in front of our dickhead in chief's face and if he fails to bite then pass no legislation. Shut down government as long as it takes.

Leadership win lasting majorities, not pussy-whipped dandy election by election politics. Hell, if a strong approach with resolve can make people believe in an insufferable dumb ass like GWB, then the dems, with correct ideas and uissues behind their action, can win over the eletorate for elections to come if they take a strong approach, confont our prez and end this war. Of course all of this assumes the dems and repubs are actually different.

The democratic Congress needs to grow a pair if they care to address a categorcial imperative and answer to the electorate, which I doubt more and more as each failed day passes without leadership.

Josh this is not that hard. Please quit trying to carry the dem party line when it is a clear loser, both politically and morally.

somibear wrote on September 12, 2007 12:26 AM:

I'd like to see one of Petraeus's questioners start asking him questions about the Iraqi oil fields, and whether he thinks the surge will be able to protect outflows of Iraqi oil. Since that's the real reason we're there, and everyone in the world seems to know about it but us, get them on the record talking about it.

somibear wrote on September 12, 2007 12:26 AM:

I'd like to see one of Petraeus's questioners start asking him questions about the Iraqi oil fields, and whether he thinks the surge will be able to protect outflows of Iraqi oil. Since that's the real reason we're there, and everyone in the world seems to know about it but us, get them on the record talking about it.

somibear wrote on September 12, 2007 12:27 AM:

I'd like to see one of Petraeus's questioners start asking him questions about the Iraqi oil fields, and whether he thinks the surge will be able to protect outflows of Iraqi oil. Since that's the real reason we're there, and everyone in the world seems to know about it but us, get them on the record talking about it.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 12:48 AM:

>>It is not a fund or defund proposition>Dangle this carrot (send this bill to GWB) in front of our dickhead in chief's face and if he fails to bite then pass no legislation. Shut down government as long as it takes.>Hell, if a strong approach with resolve can make people believe in an insufferable dumb ass like GWB<<

How's that working for him? Not very well now that people don't actually think he's right or possibly right. I think people are taking the wrong lesson from Bush. They didn't like him because they thought he was strong. They liked him because they thought he was strong AND right. Once they saw that he didn't know what he was doing, people couldn't drop their support for him fast enough.

Being strong but wrong doesn't help you, and being weak but right doesn't help you (though I think it helps more than being strong and wrong). You have to be both. Unfortunately for the dems, it's basically impossible to be both because voting for defunding - or any action that results in defunding - won't be seen as "right" but giving Bush his money, which is the alternative, would be seen as "weak," largely thanks to the liberal base who is largely in favor of defunding.

A somewhat viable alternative would be to send a couple bills his way with timelines, bitch about Bush vetoing it and with republicans not willing to stand up to end the war, then send him the money as is pretty much inevitable. That would at least show that they tried, and that the problem is the republicans, not them. Of course the left wont be happy with that, but I don't think they'll be happy with anything short of Bush in the electric chair at this point either.

The Fool wrote on September 12, 2007 1:01 AM:

Murfee said, "I think the issue with the Petraeus testimony is that military leaders have a different mindset. He's not the maker of policy, but rather its executor."

Sorry, bro. The "I was only following orders" excuse doesn't fly with me. "I was only following orders" was rejected as an excuse at Nuremberg and it ought to be rejected In Washington D.C.

There's an immoral war on that has killed hundreds of thousands and is potentially destroying the oldest democracy in history. Lying in defense of such a war in circumstances this serious is indefensible.

If Petraeus was following orders in defense of some far less obviously immoral military action, then you might have a point. But the whole reason for my litany of the 8 points was precisely in order to establish that that is NOT a fair description of the Iraq War.

You're going to have to do better than that, murfree.

tbhull wrote on September 12, 2007 1:43 AM:

Posted by:
Date: September 12, 2007 12:48 AM

Strong but wrong is terrible, however, weak and cowardly, even if right, cannot even overcome strong, wrong and insufferably stupid. Remeber, the idiot GWB was elected, however dubious, on strength, not weakness and certainly not on reason.

The dems are politically, intellectually and morally correct on the war issue, if they believe what they say. They need to act and lead. Doing nothing and waiting until '08 is not leadership and will not pay off in the long run. Continuing with their hollow rhetoric void of any meaning ACTION to stop this prez in his tracks is bullshit cowardice that everyone outside the beltway clearly recognizes. People want leadership, something the dems have been afraid to deliver.

Strong and right is the porridge Goldilocks can stomach and what I propose. The dems need to lead with actions and ideas, not just rhetoric; therwise, these folks are poser dandies waiting for the next out with the pages around Adams Morgan.

tbhull wrote on September 12, 2007 1:53 AM:

Posted by:
Date: September 12, 2007 12:48 AM

This is balls to the wall power politics. The dems have lost all battles to date. BushCo must be brought to its knees (involuntarily) and yield to the will of the people/Congress. To do this, the dems must focus on VICTORY 1st, not compromise and alternatives. BushCo MUST compromise 1st, the alternatives can be considred. The dems must do this by not voting to defund, but by voting to fund with conditiond and not blinking by compromising, even if it means shutting down the government for months. I do noth think the dems know how to lead, they only know how to fold. This is too important and the dems have been limp-dicked pussies way too long.

rumrunnerok wrote on September 12, 2007 3:05 AM:

Please...stay on track.

The bloke said that he did not know.

Later...only to expound upon what it all means in the story-line of some administration gone awry.

Y'all need Occam's razor...[I have a couple I can loan out]. Cut with all the BS and get to the meat of the matter.

This conflict is about resources...As a military boy myself and with tendencies to read...a military-strategist is out to gain the resources...be they people or other... .

When you go to war...you kill the infra-structure...thereby dis-enabling the victims means of exhistance...That has been done. Now...it is a question of who gets to divvy up the goodies.

Forget your forlorn-hope diatribes...they bore me. This is about money/resources...and nothing else.

***

marc wrote on September 12, 2007 6:49 AM:

De-funding on-going operations will only hurt the soldiers on the ground our fellow Americans. The House and Congress are doing what they can to try to support and push timelines without endangering the lives of US soldiers. Also, for those "promoting" shutting down the Government -- exactly how will this help? Please grace us with a FEASIBLE plan as to how this will help get my fellow soldiers BACK from Iraq? Shout, yell and stomp your feet like children - but nothing will help in the current situation EXCEPT --removing those people/persons that got us into this mess. You want to blame someone for this situation ..blame every single person that voted for GWB ... the blame is with them! NOT the soldiers ..regardless of rank ..that have to execute this insane conflict. And btw ..someone mentioned that any STAR rank that hasnt spoken up yet is suspect!! Might want to do some research ..it is a FELONY for ANY rank in the US Army to make condescending remarks about our Military Leaders (this includes GWB)

lambert strether wrote on September 12, 2007 8:00 AM:

This was no accident. Bayh was muddying the "clean" testimony deliberately. He's a DLC guy, far worse than Hillary.

Billy wrote on September 12, 2007 8:02 AM:

Very interesting chatter here. Off topic somewhat but appropriately so. The Fool's 8-point description sums things up perfectly but I can't see why he is surprised by the idea that Josh isn't 100% in favor of immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. It has been my observation that Josh is somewhat of a John Kerry/Hillary Clinton war supporter, believing basically that it is regrettable that we are in this thing, but now that we are we need to see it through. We can't just pull out and let all hell break loose inside Iraq in our wake.
If the Democrats were all on the same page, all in agreement with The Fool here, then I would wonder why Josh wasn't on that page. But there are at least two opposing mindsets within the Democratic Party with respect to the war. One wants out ASAP while the other can barely be distinguished from the White House mindset. For Josh or Juan Cole to be somewhere in between these mindsets should come as no surprise to anybody.
The problem with this war is that the American people basically want what the objectives of this war are even though the war itself is completely illegal. We want:
1. Oil
2. Globalization (access to all the world's resources)
3. Poverty for those who oppose us
The problem in Iraq - and in Iran for that matter - is that those who oppose these American interests are in a position to become filthy rich from oil sales if we don't do something to prevent that. The objective of the Iraq War and the Iran War that will follow is to enable America and the globalized world economy to access Middle East energy supplies without emptying our bank accounts into those of Muslims, Arabs, and Persians.
Does anybody really care that international war crimes are being committed to reach this objective? I mean, isn't it kinda nice to know when we wake up in the morning that we can gas up the car today? Isn't it nice to know the heat is still working and will be when we wake up on some cold January morning?
We all want these things. Not all of us here in America are burdened by The Fool's conscience.

TheraP wrote on September 12, 2007 9:17 AM:

Seems to me that conscience is exactly the point here, Billy. I think the underlying themes of this whole thread are ethics and morality. The immorality of this war and the the ethics of the people, including the general, who continue the war or try to stop it.

Whether or not to obey an order, in terms of ethics, is something military people are taught but rarely face. And it seems to me that underlying this discussion is that very issue for Petraeus as a general, for the Dems, and even for Josh as a writer/reporter.

How we come down on this ethical/moral dilemma and what we actually do about it can be argued till the cows come home... due to all the grey areas. Some choose black and white. Some choose shades of grey.

This has been a fascinating and passionate discussion. I myself was against the war from the get-go. I would love to see us simply leave. But I realize there's a huge mess there, we caused a lot of it or allowed it, and this whole moral/ethical thing is going to be with us as a nation for a long, long time.

It's good to see so many addressing ethics and morality and how this all plays out in real life. Sad. But good.

Dancer wrote on September 12, 2007 9:21 AM:

Chris Matthews was fairly spitting with glee over having caught Petraeus in his little lapse from the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" script. OF COURSE the general had to quickly cover up that slip. Just how long do you think he would have continued as THE GENERAL if he hadn't? This entire exercise is a SHAM in the same way the lead up to the war was...and BTW just WHO are we fighting over there...why is this still called a war? That was over when Hussein toppled and the army was disbanded...now we are referees in an ongoing conflict between the people of Iraq (with a few AQ thrown in)...and if the fools who follow Bush don't think they'll ramp up for a conflict with Iran (and I don't discount setting it up then leaving THAT too for the next administration) they deserve to get Giuliani (or Giuliana as another brilliant Repug caller to WJ identified him)as our next DER LEADER!!!!!

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 9:58 AM:

Posted by tbhull
"The problem is many fold. Several factors keep the dems from doing this: (1) the dems are cowards; (2) the dems and the repubs are the same slaves to the war machine; (3) the dems cannot imigaine shutting down their raison d'etre, government; and/or, (4) the dems have no effective leaders."
(1) I disagree, they play the part of a coward to enable #(2)
(2) I agree
(3) Agree - goes along with #(3)
(4) I disagree - goals for #(2) are being met - therefor the problem is not leadership, it's goals

Posted by: TheraP
Date: September 12, 2007 9:17 AM
"Seems to me that conscience is exactly the point here"

I agree 100% - which is why it is so disapointing to see Josh and Juan Cole put politics above saving lives and ending injustice.

Druthers wrote on September 12, 2007 10:41 AM:

All Petraeus needs is a long line of Friedmans and a criminal Congress that will give them to him. The Titanic is going down and those in lifeboats will soon be alone in a cold dark open sea.

andy wrote on September 12, 2007 11:02 AM:

The Dems are just playing the politics. They know their base is never going to vote Rep so they are eyeing the independants and waivering rep voters that gave them an edge in 2006 elections. They are just trying to get to the 2008 elections without ticking of those voters.
The question is, if they get congress and the White House in 2008, will they "grow some" and do what needs to be done or continue in the same stratagy for the next election?
Unfortunately, I think in Washington it is always about the next election, so think we will have to settle for "at least the Reps aren't in power" instead of real change.

Etheryin wrote on September 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

Hello....

Read my post above, and then the one by TheraP acknowledging the point about conscience (originally made by me) while simultaneously applauding Billy for reminding us how lucky we are to have SUV's and furnaces. It seems that while Billy admits that he is not burdened by the Fool's conscience, he is definitely burdened with myopia.

The larger point that this discussion has yet to acknowledge is twofold, and it involves the "WHY" do Americans "want" Billy's three points he listed (oil, globalization, and "poverty for those who oppose us") and whether or not Americans actually want those things.

If Congress were not a corporatist lobbying cabal but rather a representative body of legislators, we would not be NEEDING the oil in the middle east, because by this time we would have developed alternative and renewable fuels, because that is what the American people want.

Billy, do you honestly believe that the American people would rather invade and occupy countries to steal their oil than use the money for the war to develop and produce systems of alternative energy? Do you sincerely believe that the American people are pro-Globalization, and that the American people "want," as you claim, poverty for those that oppose us?

It's time to do some laundry, Billy, that shirt of yours is looking a little brown.

John wrote on September 12, 2007 11:30 AM:

Honorable men loathe betrayal. Dishonorable men betray themselves.

Goodbye , Josh and Juan.

Etherying wrote on September 12, 2007 11:45 AM:

The "argument" of the month for staying in Iraq is now: We broke it, we bought it... a la Huckabee at the last GOP debate, meaning that since we're there, we can't leave, because if we do, it will be chaos and we will essentially be allowing a genocide to take place, and we must preserve our honor and "moral credibility" by staying and mediating a civil war.

This argument is ridiculous on its face, and anyone advocating it has a serious lack of independent thought.

1. The people telling us there will be chaos are the people who told us there would be flower petals and gift baskets for our Marines instead of IED's and RPGs. The neo-cons were and are wrong, and they should be exposed and tried for treason.

2. Our presence in Iraq is not helping anything. We are sending soldiers to die in what is essentially gang crossfire. The reason we are still there is because the Iraqi government, which Bush created, is a total failure, and to leave Iraq now would leave our role there up to another country, most likely a middle-eastern neighbor like Iran or Syria, and we can't allow that because then Billy won't get his oil. Further, our presence as an occupying force is categorically creating more terrorists and making us less safe as well as rallying fair-minded, non-terrorist Iraqis against us. It is a lose-lose situation to continue our presence there. The only entities who stand to BENEFIT from reaching the goals that Billy so clearly laid out are the Corporations and their government lackeys who started this war to begin with, not you Billy, and not the American people.

3. If we pull out and the Sunnis are eradicated or displaced, that is not our problem, it is their problem. Those two religious gangs have been fighting for centuries. We did not create the conflict that is causing sectarian violence, we only created a receptacle via our invasion whereby the violence and hatred of the rival religous gangs between each other can be expressed most freely, which at this point is a "civil war." It is not a justifiable mission of the US military to mediate a civil war so that multi-national corporations can secure the oil reserves and have something to stick up OPEC's a$$ when they try to flood the oil market and drop the price of crude so low that Halliburton and Exxon would be out in the streets panhandling.

4. There are no viable democratic candidates, that party has clearly shown itself to be so impotent as to provoke an invasion of US soil should they take complete control, while the Republicans are so corrupt and devoid of any concern for the American people that they are no better option. The only person who is in the position to do anything about these problems is Ron Paul.

I welcome disagreement on this, because this is the discussion we SHOULD BE HAVING... who can possibly address the REAL issues we face with honesty and reason rather than sloganeering and the completely twisted and irrational pretzel logic that leads people like Josh to apologize for Petraeus, the rank propagandist and mouthpiece not of Bush, but of Bush's "base," who are, as we all know, those in the top 1-2% net worth and the Corporations who have made them grow so fat.

It is just obvious that the interests of the American people are not the motivating force behind what our government does, despite all claims to the contrary. That is the biggest problem we are facing, and one that Ron Paul is addressing while EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is as empty as Larry Craig's bathroom stall. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

andy wrote on September 12, 2007 12:14 PM:

Just wondering... doesn't Joe Biden have a plan to withdraw. I'm not necessarily a supporter, I just happened to see him on CSPAN and checked his website.

Any other feedback on Biden as a candidate, other than it doesn't look like the poles favor him at all?

dasher wrote on September 12, 2007 2:21 PM:

I'm with the Fool on this one.

I also could have choked Bayh for handing over on a silver platter the opportunity for Petraeus to "correct" the impression. Although I suppose if he didn't, one of the republicans would have.

Etheryin wrote on September 12, 2007 3:59 PM:

Biden is an establishment candidate and won't actually change anything. He favors some kind of phased withdrawal from Iraq, but still agrees with U.S. foreign policy as it exists today.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, other than maybe Kucinich, who sincerely believes that if we continue to pursue this foreign policy, it will be to our own detriment.

The MSM has done a great job of marginalizing and discrediting Paul and his supporters, which is further evidence that the establishment fears him.

He's the reasonable, rational choice for President, and it is the responsibility of every American to learn about him so that they can make an educated decision, rather than sacrifice him to partisan loyalty, for you rabid Democrats in here.

tbhull wrote on September 12, 2007 4:25 PM:

Posted by: marc
Date: September 12, 2007 6:49 AM

Shuttin down government will allow the dems to demonstrate their power of the purse equally across all programs, including the mother's milk of murder. This would be a fair and balanced expression of Congressional power. The first to complain of this somewhat extreme approach are those suckling the nipple of government's largess, and this includes certain sectors of the military and their cronies.

The juxtaposition of the New Deal and this approach could be used by the Dems to sell their new found and demonstrable clever facility and flexibility. The times will dictate what is needed, new government, big government, little government and even no government. Government is not an end, but no government could be a means to a just end to this war.

Chou Klein wrote on September 12, 2007 10:35 PM:

Obviously, Bayh got a call from the WH during the recess.

Steve wrote on September 13, 2007 12:53 AM:

The USA was actually prevailing in Vietnam just prior to congress ending funding. So who are we to believe... certainly not the press? I believe that Iraq possesses the natural resources to be a shinning jewel in the middle east. It is this transformation from the dark ages to modernity that will enlighten the world that islamic nations can transform themselves into global participants. To isolate them will continue to drive them to perfrom desperate acts. Already a greater percentage of their population participates in elections that we do in the USA. How many Americans would vote in the USA under threat of physical harm of terrorism? Not many I assure you. Roughly a 1/3 of the British subjects living in North America banded together and overthrew the most powerful nation on earth to form the USA. The deaths and other misfortune in Iraq is the price paid for not revolting and overthrowing the Saddam years ago.

Billy wrote on September 13, 2007 8:37 AM:

Myopia... How did you know? But in my post above I was not exactly speaking my own mind. I was advocating for the devil. Myself, I am burdened with decades of energy-saving pollution hating conscience. The only thing is, I look around me at the rest of the people around here (Maine) and see a lot of gas guzzling SUVs and pickups and 4-wheelers and speedboats and snowmobiles and Harleys and just about anything else you can imagine guzzling gas. People around here burned wood for heat three decades ago when oil prices soared. Some still do but most have long since given that up in favor of cleaner newer modern (etc.) oil guzzling heat.
I know it's tempting to think that we have turned the corner as a nation and no longer have this "me first" attitude, that no matter what anyone else's best interests are, it is American interests that count. But most of us in America haven't turned that corner yet. Many never will no matter what. I tend to collectively call those people "Republicans" whether they are or not.
All this corruption that Josh and Juan Cole and so many others write about isn't something that just exists in Washington. It is ingrained deep in American culture. That's my point. It's far too easy for us as truth-seekers to let our conscience filter out the fact that we really are corrupt as a society. We serve ourselves no matter what price others have to pay for that. We don't care if the people who sew our baby clothes or make our kids' toys work as virtual slaves halfway around the world. We simply do not care!
And most of us in America when we gas up our Expeditions and Priuses don't give a thought to the people dying in Iraq or the people driven from their homes or the people who will die from radiation if we nuke Iran. We don't even make that connection. But the fact is that we are at war in the Middle East right now to secure the future of our energy needs and our enemy is the local population from whom we are trying to steal resources that they think they have a right to control and profit from.
From a truly American perspective, the war is legitimate, just as legitimate as when America drove out the native people here in our homeland to make room for our expanding western civilization. This is our legacy and our custom whether our Fool's conscience despises it or not. This is us and it will remain us until we as a society decide to change. You may see that change happening but for me, for now at least, that change is just hopeful thinking. It ain't happening in our society as a whole. Genuine green "Progressive Democrats" are still a small minority in Congress, growing perhaps but still essentially powerless. Why? Because we as a society aren't ready to support those ideals yet.
The devil, for whom I advocate above, still reigns.

Geoff wrote on September 13, 2007 12:05 PM:

To Fool;

You made excellent points one through eight, but I think it is important to remember that a general's job is to prosecute the war he was chosen to lead. I don't think anyone in their wildest imagination expected Petreaus to declare that "Iraq was a Fool's Errand, and its time to go home." I personally was more disappointed in the Dems who should have asked that "considering the meddling of Iran and a prevailing mnindset that military intervention is required there as well, what troop levels would he expect to be required and how will does he suggest the administration should raise and sustain those numbers to prosecute such asction. Force him to adrress the hand sitters that their youngins are highly likely targets as grist in the Bush War Machine, Petraeus stumbled into one, "Hell if I know", answer why not get him to at least address the likelihood of action in Iran, putting the seed in the handsitters minds. For all the blather of God Petraeus, he came off more as Nathan Jessup. Josh was quite right in explaining what Petraeus' job is and trying to make him out as just another tool of the Neoconservative string pullers and their Bongo Monkey Bush is counterproductive. It pleases the Left but adds zilch to the debate.

Etheryin wrote on September 13, 2007 12:12 PM:

Billy,

Well put. I had an inkling that you were being a tad facetious, but it does still seem clear that, at the least, in your opinion, the American people are "me-first" in attitude and apathetic to the plights of others around the world who are essentially sacrificed for our standard of living. I agree with this. However, I disagree that we're "not ready" for values that would run parallel to something like the progressive green democrats you mentioned. For me, hope for this country lies with Ron Paul. He would stop subsidizing the oil companies and let the market normalize the price of oil, if actually Free, unlike now where it is a government-corporate alliance for profit. Please, check out his record, his positions, you-tube his debate appearances. He advocates re-instating the constitution, doing away with the Patriot Act and restoring Habeas Corpus, all while challenging the corruption that is rampant in the ineffective Federal Bureacracy. He is also the only anti-war Republican candidate. The man is so principled, he voted against the AUMF for Afghanistan/Iraq. Instead, he proposed a Declaration of War and proceeded to vote against it, along with just about everyone else. His point is that going to war without Congressional declaration is a violation of the Constitution as well as international law. Search you-tube for "Neoconned," a speech he gave on the house floor about Iraq and the neo-conservatives. I'd be interested to know why someone as thoughtful as you would not support Ron Paul.