This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Politics

  • How NOT to support the troops

    Stevie Wunder could see it from space. Anyone who remembers the late 60s and early 70s can spot the signs. The Left is gearing up to go after the troops since they can’t change the course of the war in Congress in hopes to discourage a new, young generation from considering a stint in the military.

    Of course, the early signs were that huge, stupid poster we all witnessed out in California or Oregon or some-damn-where hippies are allowed to be as stupid and smelly as they like that read “We support the troops when they kill their officers”. That was about as lame and intellectually vacant as anything the Left has ever written – encouraging soldiers to volunteer for life imprisonment.

    Last year, Joshua Sparling, an amputee soldier, was spat upon by an anti-war protester in DC. They can’t even be original sometimes.

    We’ve had politicians like Dick Durbin, John Murtha, John Kerry, John Edwards who have all taken turns slandering the troops and minimizing their sacrifice to this country. That sets us up for this coming weekend.

    Crotchety Old Bastard reports that the whole Haditha thing might be a complete fabrication from the NCIS investigators. (I never trusted that Mark Harmon anyway) It was the whole reason Murtha used on ABC to justify bringing the troops home (or redeploying them to Guam or some-damn-where).

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express has trolled the depths of the Democrat, anti-national security websites and assembled quotes from the various commenters that all seem to disparage General Petraeus – who, by the way is one of the troops. Notice his uniform? That’s how I recognize the troops whom I thank for their service around this town – regardless of their rank.

    Dadmanly goes after the ACLU and Time Magazine for blowing US committed atrocities out of proportion to turn the public against our sons and daughter.

    Gateway Pundit, Hang Right Politics’ Kathy and Michele Malkin catch MoveOn.org calling the good general a traitor. A traitor to what, for Pete’s sake? How utterly vacuous to call a general a traitor for merely reporting on the war. The same group of alleged people (alleged because I’m not sure they’re from this planet anymore) who were formed to prevent a president from being impeached on real and damning evidence has now stooped to calling a general a traitor BEFORE HE’S SPOKEN A WORD OF HIS REPORT!

    Pete Hegseth at The Weekly Standard reminds us that no general is an island;

    Let’s be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has ‘betrayed’ his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his ‘on the ground’ experience does not align with MoveOn.org’s political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America’s military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

    General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is “cooking the books,” then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, ‘betray[ing] us.’

    They, the Left, just picked General Petraeus as their target because they think they did a clever job of misspelling his name so the sheep can bleat it in unison. They have trouble remembering stuff if doesn’t rhyme apparently. And he wears a uniform.

    The Left likes to use the Old Europe concept of generals being rich, connected royalty-types, when in fact the United States armed forces has always been made up of the kids in your neighborhood, the kids who played with your kids, the kids who delivered your newspaper (the VFW has put together a video on that very same subject). There’s no secret farm somewhere upon which are bred secret super-soldiers. They’re bred in your hometown. 

    Yeah, I see the Left getting ready for major league troop-bashing. Chickenhawk Express warned me to take my spit shield this weekend – I think I’ll bring my spit bat instead.

  • The surge comes to Washington

    The surge against the Administration has begun in earnest this week. Smelling a political defeat (instead of the military defeats they enjoy), the Democats have begun clinging to their only remaining weapons – deceit and the media. Eric Pfeifer in the Washington Times reports this morning that Joe Biden on Meet the Press yesterday, changed horses in midstream and declared that we need a date certain withdrawal;

    “I really respect him, but I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Mr. Biden said when asked about Gen. Petraeus’ expected recommendations. “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops, and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”

    Mr. Biden voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and previously advised against setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American forces.

    If he figures that Gen. Petraeus is wrong, why’d Biden vote for his confirmation a scant few months ago? Why is Biden bothering to listen to Petraeus?

    According to the Wall Street Journal’s Neil King and Greg Jaffe, Biden has been beseiged by reality, though;

    Senate Democrats, propelled by strong opposition to the war within their party, have tried for months to force a swifter withdrawal of U.S. forces. Those efforts won some Republican support, but not enough to overcome a presidential veto. Democrats now acknowledge there is little to no chance that enough moderate Republicans will defect to force a major change in strategy.

    “Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto there is nothing we can do to end this war,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, (D., Del.) on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Nothing he can do except keep talking down the war. The Washington Times’ Sharon Behn reports that the troops in Iraq say the surge is working but only barely;

    Many U.S. soldiers on the ground in Baghdad caution that improved security in the capital city will last only as long as the surge. If American troops were to leave, they say, the insurgents could be back within hours.

    U.S. forces broke up insurgent networks and curtailed the ability of terrorists to strike, said Sgt. Gregory Rayho, 30, of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the recipient of three Purple Hearts during his time in Iraq.

    His overall assessment is upbeat: “It is my opinion that the surge is working.”

    But he also said continued success in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, where his fellow soldiers patrol, depends on the continued presence of American troops. Should they be withdrawn, the future could be deadly.

    Why would the terrorists flow back into the void left by Americans? Is it because they anticipate a military victory? Of course not – they know the desparation of the situtation would only encourage the fifth columnists here in the US to whine and wring their hands and work against our victory with deception and lies.

    All for the sake of politics, according to Biden as quoted in the Washington Post;

    “What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. “Whether or not they’ll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen.”

    They haven’t made it difficult for terrorists in Iraq or terrorists in Afghanistan, or terrorists in Guantanamo – they’ve made it difficult for Republicans in Washington.

    And the Iraqis are asking us to stay, asking us for more time (hardly sounds like an occupation by “crusaders” does it);

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers Monday that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country.

    “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough,” he told parliament.

    “Despite the security improvement, we still need more efforts and time in order for our armed forces to be able to take over security in all Iraqi provinces from the multinational forces that helped us in a great way in fighting terrorism and outlaws.”

    But the Democrats would rather heed the advice of bin Laden (who sounds more like Al Gore everytime he broadcasts a new video, by the way) and leave the Middle East – the source of most of the world’s problems for decades. The Washington Post puts more emphasis on Ambassador Crocker’s report – because it will show less progress in the last three months;

    Yet despite the spotlight focused on what has become known as the Petraeus report, the testimony of the man sitting beside Petraeus at the witness table, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, may carry far more import for the long-term future of Iraq and the U.S. presence there. With little progress to recount in how the Iraqis have used the political “breathing space” that Bush promised his war strategy would create, Crocker’s inevitably more nuanced appeal for time and patience is likely to be the tougher sell.

    Yeah, cuz three months of piecing together a political solution for Iraq is an eternity, right? Petraeus will give the good news that the first part of the plan for Iraq is working - the part that needed to be accomplished first.

    According to Kamangir’s translation, the Democrats have already succeeded in emboldening the Iranians;

    The newly-assigned commander of the IRGC stated, “If the enemy succeeded in securing Iraq, they would definitely attack Iran. Fortunately, and thanks to Muslims of the region, they failed in this conspiracy.” He added “If they are not sure about their plans, that’s because of their failure in Iraq”. “The Islamic Iran has turned into a great regional power…and all world powers are anxious about the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran”

  • Londoners get 1/2 price fare while VZ children scrounge for centavos

    I actually wrote about this a few weeks ago, but I got tipped to this blog story from Kate of A Columbo-Americana’s Perspective. It’s from a blog called Las Armas de Coronel – a relatively new blogger – who posted these two pictures yesterday;

    I’ll let the author explain the pictures;

    The text on the London bus is a bit hard to read but you can probably see how the Mayor of London and the “Bolivarian” regime of Hugo Chavez have joined forces to subsidize the “poor” people of London. For this initiative Venezuelans will always be “grateful” to Mr. Alfredo Toro Hardy, the Chavez Ambassador to England, one of the most sycophantic followers of the dictator. In the other picture a small Venezuelan child cleans windshields in a Venezuelan city to get a few coins to survive. There are thousands of abandoned children in my country who lack the most essential protection but Chavez is giving away money to rich nations to play the global defender of the poor for the uniformed populations of Europe and the United States. I find this a crime against my country, against decency and against principles. since the motivation behind the subisidy to Londoners is not altruistic but one of political propaganda. This is one small example of the disaster Chavez has rained on Venezuela.

    So let’s hear the Left defend Chavez from this abomination.

    Since I get traffic from Venezuela on occasion, they’ll appreciate this picture of chavistas I also got from Coronel’s blog;

    In the meantime, Fuerzas Aliadas PANAMAX 2007 finished up yesterday (h/t Western Hemisphere Policy Watch);

    More nations than ever teamed together in Fuerzas Aliadas PANAMAX 2007 to ensure the continued security of the Panama Canal , signs of both the multinational cooperative spirit and the importance of the waterway to worldwide commerce, high-ranking officials said Sept. 7.

    The participants exclude the Bolivarian Socialists;

    FA PANAMAX 2007 participating nations were: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Honduras , Nicaragua, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, the United States and Uruguay.Â

    Three nations acted as observers: El Salvador, Mexico and Paraguay.

    Well, Equador is in the mix – but I guess they’re not so Socialist that they want to chance trade with the US East Coast being cut off by the closure of the Canal. The exercise turned real on September 4th;

    PANAMAX this year demonstrated the real-world interoperability of the multinational civil and military forces, Stavridis said. Brazil and Peru Task Force Commanders took over command and control responsibilities when USS Wasp (LHD 1) was diverted to the coast of Nicaragua to offer humanitarian assistance after Hurricane Felix made landfall Sept. 4.

    I wonder if they brought the Hondurans the ever-essential Chavez brand tuna.

    But the best Chavez picture today comes from Jungle Mom at The Jungle Hut;

    She gets the Saturday Award for best chavista quote, too;

    There will be room for the opposition participation and feedback in the discussions on the proposed changes to the Constitution. However, “nothing expressed by the opposition is constructive or in the people’s interest.”
    Cilia Flores, chair of the Venezuelan Congress

    From the picture of Sra. Flores on The Jungle Hut, she looks like Nancy Pelosi, too.

  • Kokesh jailed in DC already

    Photo from Washington Post

    Adam Kokesh, the little ex-Marine (I know ya’all Marines say there are no ex-Marines – but this guy fits, believe me) who made a stink about the Marines downgrading his discharge because he wore his uniform at anti-war protests and poorly representing our fighting men and women while still in the service, was arrested Thursday, according to the Washington Post;Â

    The demonstrators, members of the antiwar Answer Coalition, have been in an ongoing dispute with the District and Park Service over their right to post signs in public places.

    The D.C. government has fined the coalition about $20,000 for posting signs, and the Park Service has asked the group to remove them.

    The coalition countered by filing a lawsuit challenging the District’s regulations. The suit is pending.

    The group assembled for a news conference yesterday at Lafayette Square to promise to put up more posters, regardless of possible sanctions. Within minutes, the pledge was tested. An officer approached and asked whether the demonstrators had a permit for their gathering.

    Here’s a link to the Youtube video of the arrest of three “activists”. I get the impression that they were there just to get arrested. The Park Police officer (not a Metro cop as many news reports record) asked them to stop putting up posters and they continued. How hard is it to not put up posters.

    The ANSWER clowns have put those garish yellow posters all over the city – disregarding the ordinance that forbids it. The posters stay up for months after the protests end and eventually are either posted over by new ANSWER posters or city workers have to remove them – at great, useless cost to taxpayers (since it’s DC, all US taxpayers pay for the removal).

    Now, the incident happened in Lafayette Park, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, which is policed by Federal Park Police since it’s a national park – the Park Service forbids putting posters up in national parks. I guess Kokesh and his little buddy, Tina Richards, didn’t factor that in to that little demonstration of their idiocy.

    Of course, the “activists” blame Bush in the video – he’s so unemcumbered by his duties, he’s worried about two halfwits putting posters up in Lafayette Park. The Park Police would’ve done the same if Clinton (either one) was President.

    The closest thing to an incident I’ve had with Park Police is Mother’s Day last year when I confronted some Code Pink goofballs in Lafayette Park. The Park Police asked me to leave the park and then they escorted me off. I shook their hands when I left and thanked them for their good works. It was that easy.

    I’d say the police did us all a favor – those ugly yellow posters are all over the city and they’ll still be all over the city next Spring. I’ve wondered how the city can let them get away with it after they passed the ordinance three years ago to prevent this de-facing of the city.

    In the beginning of the video, you can see the Park Police ask them for their permit to assemble – of course they didn’t have one. Again claiming their First Amendment rights. I hope none of them are lawyers.

    But Lt. Phil Beck of the U.S. Park Police said the officers took action only after the demonstrators ignored a command to remove a table and stop posting the signs.

    That’s all apparent in the video. I guess if they’re this wired up before their “Die-in” next week, it ought to get real interesting. And I’ll be there to capture it all. I love this non-paying job.

  • Washington Post; Petraeus “dismayed” and “disappointed”

    On the front internet page of the Washington Post this morning, it announces that General Petraeus is “dismayed” at the political state of Iraq. Click to the story and he changes from “dismayed” to “disappointed” in the Michael Abramowitz and Karen DeYoung (hereafter referred to as “the usual suspects”) story;

    In a preview of his report to Congress next week, Gen. David H. Petraeus yesterday expressed disappointment in the lack of progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq. Administration officials said he wants to return to Washington for another assessment in six months to allow more time for Iraqi politics to catch up with what Petraeus regards as rapidly improving security conditions.

    Writing to his troops, the top U.S. commander in Iraq emphasized that violence there had diminished in eight of the last 11 weeks. But while “many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress,” Petraeus said in a letter addressed to “Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians” serving in Iraq that “it has not worked out as we had hoped.”

    Well, luckily for those of us who actually pay attention, the Washington Post includes a .pdf file of the actual letter – but the average reader will just let the usual suspects explain the story to them.

    The tone of the letter to his troops (I’ve uploaded the .pdf to this website in the event that WaPo takes the link down as is their wont) is quite different than that portayed in the usual suspect’s story. The letter praises the troops accomplishments over the last two months, and warns them of the difficulty in the days ahead – moreso than an expression of “dismay” or even “disappointment”.

    It appears that the Washington Post and specially these two usual suspects are worried that the reports we’re going to hear next week will change public opinion about the progress in this war, and the opinion of this President’s conduct of the war in particular, so they’re getting out ahead of the report to undermine the truth with their weasel words. 

  • WaPo’s Colbert King; Thompson’s no DC outsider

    A few days ago I wrote that the Leftist media has been busy digging up dirt on Fred Thompson in an effort to derail his campaign before it gets off the ground. I have one rule when it comes to voting – I don’t let the opposition tell me what’s wrong with my candidate or which candidate I should support.

    When John McCain was running in 2000, the media told me that he was a uniter, that his support crossed party lines – that made me suspicious. Sure enough, McCain started hammering the Bush taxcuts in South Carolina. I suspect that the media wanted McCain to win the primaries because he was the easier candidate for Gore to beat in the general election because of his involvement in the S&L scandal.

    This year, the media has chosen the least likely to win candidate, Ron Paul (oh-oh, here come the nutjobs), to label the most likely to draw voters from both parties. And since Thompson is the biggest threat to any Democrat candidate (seein’s how Clinton is awash in campaign scandals, Obama is a foreign policy babe-in-the-woods and Edwards is a Class A hypocrite), the Washington Post, in the person of Colbert King has begun launching their attacks on Thompson’s Washington outsider personae;

    Far be it from me to start trouble, but former Tennessee Republican senator Fred Thompson, the presidential candidate who portrays himself as a conservative outsider capable of reforming Washington, is playing down his kinship with this town. Thompson may campaign as a steadfast son of the South, but he is really one of us.

    In fact, no other White House hopeful, Republican or Democrat, can come close to matching Thompson’s insider credentials. He alone among the contenders has managed to reach the pinnacle of Washington influence: the presidency of the Federal City Council, a powerful, behind-the-scenes group comprising a who’s who of this city’s top business, professional and civic leaders. The Federal City Council is synonymous with the Washington establishment, and Thompson was its chosen leader from 2003 to 2005.

    Yeah, far be it from anyone on the Washington Post to start trouble where there is none. That’s never happened before has it? Like the William Arkin incident a few months ago (he occasionally stops by here to see if I still don’t like him – I don’t Willy), or the Walter Reed “scandal”, ya know idiot stuff like that.

    King goes on to question Thompson’s down-home style;

    No doubt, Thompson, a native of Sheffield, Ala., knows his way around the hills and valleys of the Bible Belt and Appalachia. But he’s also a man of McLean, the upscale Virginia community just across the Potomac.

    He may charm rural America with his drawl and “aw, shucks” manner, but we know better.

    What do you “know better”, Colbert? Davy Crockett served in Congress for 12 non-consecutive years – are you going to question Davy Crockett’s “aw, shucks” manners, too? I haven’t heard the Leftist media question Al Gore’s “aw shucks” manners when he born and raised in a DC hotel room.

    Now, the most disingenuous part of King’s WaPo column;

    Thompson should raise his hand if that mammoth federal institution, home to more than 200,000 workers and 22 agencies — the largest bureaucratic merger since the creation of Defense Department in 1947 — is ever asked, “Who’s your daddy?” Or at least he should admit to having had something to do with its birth.

    ‘Tis true that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman initially proposed creation of a Homeland Security Department shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush objected to the proposal. The idea nonetheless gained Democratic backing in the Lieberman-chaired Senate Government Operations Committee. Bush finally came around with a proposal of his own, but the Senate deadlocked. In 2002, with the Senate session drawing to a close, the homeland security bill was on life support.

    Enter, stage right: Fred Thompson and the GOP takeover of the Senate in the fall elections.

    Mr. King, go back and check the WaPo editorials of the period – the Washington Post editorial board urged President Bush to make the Homeland Security Office a federal Agency, along with Democrats, to make operations available for Congressional oversight – in other words, so Congressional Democrats could waggle their fingers in the faces of more Bush appointees on camera. So they really shouldn’t lay the Homeland Security Department at Thompson’s feet – especially since he’s been out of the Senate since January 2003 and the Department was established in November 2002. I find it hard to believe that anyone could blame Thompson who served in the Senate two months (two holiday-heavy months) while the HSD was in operation.

    I’ll bet cash money that King has never pulled a lever for a Republican, nor probably, has any member of the Washington Post staff, so they should really concern themselves with their Democrat candidates, who seem mired in problems of their own making, and stop involving themselves, and embarrassingly so, in Republican politics.

  • Clinton to AARP; untouched Social Security, higher taxes

    Wall Street Journal’s Jackie Calmes reports that Hillary Clinton, while speaking to that lying, criminal group of insurance salesmen called AARP, promised to maintain the Social Security status quo – but promised to raise payroll taxes;

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told an AARP convention that, as president, she would move quickly to fix Social Security’s long-term finances, but that cutting benefits or raising the eligibility age would be “off the table.” That would leave only higher payroll taxes as a solution. 

    You know those elderly thugs of that lying, thieving group of insurance salesmen calling itself AARP just applauded their dusty asses off when Hillary promised to raise taxes on the younger people to transfer the wealth from one generation to the next. Apparently the Demcrats are back to dividing the country into interest groups and pledged to pitting one group against the other.

    A reasonable person might ask Hillary if she’s so concerned about retirees then why did her husband raise the taxable portion of Social Security benefits from 50% to 85% in the 1993 tax increase – and ask her what she’s going to do about that. That’s double taxation on those benefits, since the money was taxed once when it was earned by the beneficiary and then again as it’s returned to the beneficiary.

    Higher taxes always seem to be the solution for that crowd – maybe because they’re too intellectually vacant to solve the problem at which they want to throw my money.

  • Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy failing

    The Washington Post’s lead story this morning is General Petraeus’ impending recommendation of drawing down one combat brigade from Iraq. The Weisman/Wright written piece begins;

    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 U.S. troops from Iraq early next year, with more to follow over the next months based on conditions on the ground, according to a senior U.S. official.

    The pullouts would be contingent on the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to sustain what the administration heralds as recent gains in security and to make further gains in stabilizing Iraq. President Bush signaled the possibility of drawdowns after visiting Anbar province earlier this week. After meeting with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Bush said he was told that “if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have hit a brickwall in their “redeployment” scheme – the Republican Administration. From the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller;

    Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party’s leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

    “The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus.

    “We need bolder steps from the Democrats,” she said. “The people of this country are waiting for some leadership — some bold leadership — from the people that they elected to be the majority of the House and the Senate.”

    Um, the people also elected the Republican Administration, Ms Woolsey, because they don’t trust Democrats to protect us and the country. I don’t know what bolder steps you can take – neither does the Democrat Leadership as quoted by the Washington Post;

    “Clearly, we don’t have the numbers to override the president’s vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), “nor do we expect to for a long time.”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

    So while the Democrats try to make the withdraw from Iraq look like their plan and their idea, the President is actually getting ahead of them and doing it without a time schedule from Congress and as the tactical situation permits – like he has planned to do all along. And the Democrats can’t keep their promise to force an immediate withdrawal of troops so they can have photos splashed across the front pages of newspaper of people climbing on the last helicopter out of the Baghdad Embassy in time for the election next Fall.

    But the Democrats are cherrypicking which reports they want to believe from WashTimes’ Miller;

    Democrats planned to seize upon other war studies presented this week that, in part, highlight failures of the fledgling Iraqi government, including a report on Iraqi security forces yesterday by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe.

    The report, however, did not support calls for a speedy troop withdrawal, which Democrats say would extract U.S. forces from a civil war and force the Iraqi government to take charge.

    Commission member John Hamre, president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a House panel that continued U.S. military presence in Iraq safeguards the United States’ many strategic interests in the Middle East.

    “Every one of those interests would be seriously diminished if we have to crawl out or run out of Iraq,” he told the Armed Services Committee.

    The report concluded that Iraqi security forces would not be ready to police their country alone for at least 18 months. It recommended giving Iraqis a lead role but with substantial support and training by U.S. forces.

    Frederick Kagan in The Weekly Standard why the Post is cherrypicking and leaking the Jones report in “What the Jones Report Really Says“;

    SOME IN THE MEDIA have been remarkably quick to report on leaked copies of reports about Iraq before the average person has a chance to read them. There is a reason, apart from the usual journalistic desire to be first with a story. The reports often don’t say what the reporters want them to. First leaks about the National Intelligence Estimate and the report of the Government Accountability Office turned out to have painted them darker–and in the case of the NIE much darker–than they actually were. That is even more true of the report of Retired Marine General Jim Jones about the state of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

    Roy Blunt, House Minority Leader, farting in a hurricane, asked Democrats to be objective;

    House Minority Whip Roy Blunt urged members to take a “broad, objective look” at the reports, noting that the Jones report showed “that real progress is being made in raising a reliable Iraqi army.”

    “As Congress continues to take in these reports and evaluate the merit of their recommendations, we owe it to our men and women fighting abroad to take a broad, objective look at the conditions in the field, the progress they continue to make, and the ways we can come together as an institution to help — not hinder — their continued success,” said Mr. Blunt, Missouri Republican.

    Here’s the farting in a hurricane part;

    Democrats have attempted to discredit Gen. Petraeus ahead of his delivering the administration’s war assessment.

    Mrs. Woolsey said Gen. Petraeus’ report would be “packaged spin” from the White House, echoing early criticism of the report from Democratic leaders.

    Mr. McGovern also took a pre-emptive swipe at the progress reports.

    “What the president has to say doesn’t carry much water here,” Mr. McGovern said. “I don’t trust the president on this war any more. I know those are strong words. I just don’t [trust him].”

    Yeah, well, when you talk like that, Congressman, we don’t trust your party with the keys to the White House. The Post quotes McGovern as threatening a revolt from the hairy-armpit crowd;

    The new effort at compromise by the Democratic leadership could alienate liberals. “You may end up with a revolt from my wing of the party if we do something that doesn’t pass the smell test and, quite frankly, infuriates our constituents,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a firm opponent of the war.

    Sorry, but your constituents don’t have a say in a representative Republic – they voted for you they didn’t vote for the other 334 representives. They only get a voice once every two years – pity they continue to waste that vote on you, Mr. McGovern.

    The Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades reminds us that Petreus had not one nay vote for his confirmation. Including Schumer.

    COBDanny (who, by the way has first hand experience with General Petraeus’ briefings) says this won’t sit well with the peace-at-any-cost Left.

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express trolls the depths of Democrat.com and comes back with trophy gems like this;

    General BETRAYOUS told the conservanazi republikan caucus what he was going to report BEFORE HE EVEN WENT TO IRAQ. GEN. BETRAYOUS IS A CONSERVANAZI STOOGE THAT WANTS TO KEEP THE conservanazis IN POWER.

    Gateway Pundit explains their derangement – apparently 42% of Democrats think President Bush had something to do with the 9-11 plot.

    The NY Sun wants Petraeus to run for President. (h/t Micheal Goldfarb)

    Sweetness and Light catches Schumer’s edits to his anti-troops statement earlier in the week. Shades of Orwell’s Winston Smith.

    Wordsmith at Flopping Aces tempts the Paulians in with red meat.