SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13073)8/10/2007 9:52:49 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224718
 
'Get It Done'
Gen. Petraeus is a man of "straightforward decisiveness" who values "action with results."

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

In the lives of interesting people, there are bound to be interesting events. This is about one in the life of Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Gen. Petraeus of course will be all over television in September, reporting to Congress on the war, and America will be getting used to him. He is not in an easy position. The left and most Democrats are invested in the idea of Iraq as disaster. The right and most Republicans placed their bets on the president and the decision to invade.

Normal Americans just want Iraq handled. They want America to succeed: for the war to end in a way and time that prove if possible that the Iraq endeavor helped the world, or us, or didn't make things worse for the world, or us. My hunch: The American people have concluded the war was a mistake, but know from their own lives that mistakes can be salvaged, and sometimes turned to good.

Whatever Gen. Petraeus says, it will be used politically, by politicians. "They'll be trying to fit his round facts into their square holes," as the novelist Tom Clancy, who has followed Gen. Petraeus's career, put it.

But Gen. Petraeus is also in a good position. America is still open to good news that is also believable news. They will welcome hope that is grounded in data.

They have no faith in Republican boosterism or Democratic pandering. They're tired of blowhardism on all fronts. But if Gen. Petraeus comports himself like what he is, a professional soldier, if he seems to be giving it to you straight, if he sounds as if he didn't get rolled by the White House or pressured by the political atmosphere, if he seems to be thinking clearly, he can make a big and even decisive impression. And he will buy time.

I write as if we can guess what he will say, and to some degree we can, because he's already said it in interviews: The job is not done and won't be done for some time.

Gen. Petraeus graduated from West Point in 1974, 10th in his class, and his career has been the very model of the new Army: a master's in public administration, Ph.D. in the lessons of Vietnam, a fellowship in foreign affairs at Georgetown. Wrote the book, literally, on counterterrorism. Ten months in Bosnia. Time in Kuwait. Fought in Iraq, in Karbala, Hilla and Najaf, and became known and admired for rebuilding and administrating Mosul. Academically credentialed, bureaucratically knowing, historically well read. Also highly quotable. Of his use of discretionary funds for public works in Mosul, he said, "Money is ammunition." He is said to have asked embedded reporters after Baghdad fell, "Tell me where this ends." That was the right question.

He is decisive. Which gets us to the interesting story.

it happened on Sept. 21, 1991, when Gen. Petraeus was commanding the Third Battalion of the 101st Airborne in Fort Campbell, Ky. He was at a live-fire training exercise. A soldier tripped on his M-16, and it discharged. The bullet hit Gen. Petraeus in the chest.
He was taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. A local surgeon got beeped and called in. He was told there was a Life Flight helicopter coming in with a guy with a gunshot wound to the chest. He was hemorrhaging.

The surgeon rushed to Vanderbilt and arrived before the helicopter. It landed, the elevator doors opened, and the surgeon saw a soldier on a gurney with a tube in his chest. A uniformed man was next to the patient, along with a nurse carrying bottles of blood draining from the wound.

Doctors at busy Vanderbilt hospital were used to treating gunshot wounds, and the fact that the patient was military was "a nonissue," as the surgeon said the other day in a telephone interview.

What was an issue was that the patient had lost a lot of blood, was pale, and was losing more.

The surgeon had to decide whether to open Gen. Petraeus up right away or stabilize him. The general was conscious, so the surgeon said, "Listen, I gotta make a decision about whether to take you straight to surgery or stabilize you first, give you blood."

Gen. Petraeus looked up at the surgeon and said, "Don't waste any time. Get it done. Let's get on with it."

"That's unusual", the surgeon told me. "Usually patients want to stabilize, wait." This one wanted to move.

At this point I'll note that the surgeon that day 16 years ago was Dr. Bill Frist, who later became Sen. Frist, and then Majority Leader Frist. He had never met Gen. Petraeus before.
Dr. Frist got Gen. Petraeus to the third-floor operating room, opened his chest, removed a flattened bullet that had torn through the top of a lung, stopped the hemorrhaging, took out part of a lung.

The operation was successful, and within 24 hours Gen. Petraeus asked Dr. Frist if he could be transferred back to the base hospital so his soldiers wouldn't be too concerned. "As soon as he was stable, we got him over there. His soldiers were first and foremost in his mind. That's why they like him so much."

Gen. Petraeus, says Dr. Frist, now describes his wound to troops as damage done by a round "that went right through my right chest--happily over the 'A' in Petraeus rather than over the 'A' in U.S. Army, as the latter is over my heart."

Over the years, Dr. Frist and Gen. Petraeus became friends. They found they'd both done graduate work at the Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton, where Dr. Frist is about to return as a teacher. They ran the Army 10-miler in Washington together--"He left me in the dust!" exclaims the doctor--and the Frists spent time with Holly Petraeus when her husband was fighting in Baghdad.

The majority leader also visited Gen. Petraeus in Iraq, and wound up, three years ago, standing with him "on a hot, dusty compound" where the general was leading exercises training young Iraqi soldiers.

Mr. Frist says that after observing the young recruits carry out their exercises, Petraeus gathered them around and told them what happened on that fateful day in 1991. He introduced the senator and told them of the role he'd played. "He didn't say we got the majority leader of the Senate here, he said, 'This was my doctor.'" Why was he telling them the story? "The point was to tell them, 'Listen, if you're not perfect right now you can grow, you can make mistakes, people are forgiving, you'll grow.'" The point was also to thank the soldiers at Fort Campbell who cared for them in the minutes after he was shot.

What does it all mean? Life is interesting, mysterious, and has an unseen circularity. You never know in any given day what's going to happen or who's going to have a big impact on you and on others. A future military commander got shot, and a future leader of the Senate stopped the bleeding.
What Mr. Frist, a supporter of more time for and renewed commitment to Iraq, gets from the story is this: What he saw and heard that day 16 years ago, is what he's seen from Gen. Petraeus in the years since: "straightforward decisiveness" and a "call for action with results."

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13073)8/10/2007 9:54:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224718
 
Democratic Dustup
The far left isn't the path to a governing majority.

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, August 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

"They'll find their way back to the middle. And if they don't, they won't win." So says a blunt Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, of his party's current crop of presidential candidates. The question is just how many would-be Democratic presidents recognize the wisdom of his words.

Mr. Ford is in a feisty mood throughout our chat, as well he might be given the shelling his group has recently endured at the keyboards of the far left. Skip back 15 years, and the DLC stood as the proud architect of Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" campaign victory. Liberals derided the outfit's goals of nosing the party back toward the political center, but Mr. Clinton understood the perils of running as Jimmy Carter. He took the DLC's advice, talked up "opportunity, responsibility, community" and won.

Today, the DLC is again battling for the souls of those Democrats who would occupy the White House, urging them toward a centrist agenda that will seek to convince the broad middle that Democrats can be trusted on national security, values and fiscal responsibility. Mr. Ford's colleague, DLC founder Al From, thinks the stakes are giant, and that the public's unease over the war, health care and the economy has created the "first time in modern political history" that his party has the opportunity to "build an enduring majority in the progressive center."

That is, if his party doesn't blow it. And Mr. From's problem is that a whole lot of folks still think him a heretic, and this time they're louder, ruder and more coordinated. The far left has found something to unify it--hatred of George W. Bush. Technology has given it the means to organize; what the right found in talk radio, liberals have found in the "netroots" Internet, from MoveOn.org to Daily Kos. Its activism has of late overshadowed groups like the DLC, which still believe in such creaky notions as ideas. Even Mr. Ford, who took over the DLC chairmanship in January, is willing to admit his outfit has been eclipsed: "The DLC and other moderate groups have struggled a bit to find not only our voice, but a way to be heard."
Making it harder is that this newly energized left is directing inordinate firepower on the DLC itself, in a crazed, purist drive to purge any group that would exert a moderating influence on the Democratic Party. New Republic scribe Noam Scheiber let loose a few weeks back in a New York Times hit piece, calling the DLC "radioactive" and "quaint," gloating that its "fading influence was good news for the entire party," and arguing that it should just get lost. Markos Moulitsas, chief flogger-blogger on the Daily Kos, this week slammed the DLC as a group that wants to "blur distinctions with the GOP," and reveling that Democrats had won in 2006 because liberals like himself had "forced" Americans to pick sides.

The real target audience for these pronouncements is the Democratic presidential field, and the threat is clear: Touch the DLC, and you will be (to use a favorite, medieval Kos word) "punished." At least a few activists danced a victory lap, too, a few weeks back when every last Democratic candidate spurned the DLC's annual convention in Nashville, instead turning up at Mr. Moulitsas's YearlyKos event in Chicago.

Messrs. Ford and From, in their usual optimistic way, insist that backslapping is premature. It's primary season, they note, and that means the candidates are catering to the left. None of the front-runners bothered to show up to the DLC event in 2003, either, though nominee John Kerry was pitching to the group come the summer of 2004. "In the primaries you play on one end of the field, but you have to play on the whole field in the general," says Mr. From.

Yes, though what's also clear is that so far it has been the netroots calling out the plays from the sidelines. Congress alone should be cause for the DLC's concern. Nancy Pelosi shrewdly presented her party as more centrist in last year's election, yet upon winning tossed the gavel to her liberal wing. Egged on by activists, Congressional Democrats have spent eight months fighting for surrender in Iraq, tanking trade pacts with Latin America and South Korea, and maneuvering to institute backdoor socialized health care. This undoubtedly has something to do with Congress's approval rating, which now stands below that of even President Bush.

And the presidential candidates? Mr. From says he's happy that none of the front-runners have so far "gone off the deep end," but this might be considered faint praise. The one grown-up on national security has been Sen. Joe Biden, who barely registers in Democratic polls. Hillary Clinton has come out against even a South Korean trade deal; this from the wife of the DLCer whose own free-trade impulses (at least his first term) delivered Nafta and GATT. Barack Obama produced a little shiver among his party's fiscal disciplinarians when he recently blurted out (at the Kos event, in case you were wondering), that he'd be happy to run up deficits in the name of greater domestic spending.

No doubt the ultimate nominee will backpedal and finesse these points for the broader national audience. Just how much finessing goes on--just how far the candidates come back to Mr. Ford's "middle"--will be the ultimate test of whether groups like the DLC have a role in the future of the Democratic Party. Mr. Ford, for his part, has dark warnings for those activists selling the line that last year's election is proof that their liberal ideas are now "mainstream," or that Democrats' reputation on national security and the economy is so secure that the candidates run no risk going left. "That's called short-term memory," he says, with a few references to Carter, Mondale and other ghosts of failed Democrats past.
As he does his convincing, Mr. Ford is going to be holding up a few key facts, ones that no belligerent blogger has yet been able to refute. The party's most impressive gains last year all came from politicians straight out of the DLC cast. Four governors spoke at the DLC convention this year; all four had beat Republicans. The vast majority of the pick-ups in the House came from DLCers in red states in the South and Midwest. The Senate wouldn't be in Democratic hands were it not for Montana's Jon Tester.

"The reality is, without the DLC, and without candidates who subscribe to our platform, Democrats wouldn't be in the majority today. If we abandon that group, we will lose the majority and we will lose the White House," says Mr. Ford.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13073)8/10/2007 9:57:20 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224718
 
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been in a tiff these past couple of weeks over Obama's various foreign-policy miscues. There's no doubt that Mrs. Clinton is getting the better of the dispute, if only by default, since Obama is showing himself to be as callow and shallow as Mrs. Clinton had hoped and as anyone who thinks he has a chance of being elected could fear.

But now it turns out that Mrs. Clinton, who criticized Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, did so herself about a year ago. The Associated Press reports:

[Mrs.] Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention--possibly even a nuclear strike--to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

She's entitled to change her mind, of course, but spokesman Phil Singer's explanation is far from convincing:

"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

That "nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate" is priceless. Nor, for that matter, was the administration--which she was criticizing for taking essentially the position she takes now--speaking as a freshman senator. But this really amounts to an admission that Mrs. Clinton's position, at least on this topic, is driven by politics rather than principle. Is it possible that this is true of other views of hers as well?

opinionjournal.com