Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (241564)	9/11/2007 6:17:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Why are they so impatient for American defeat, I wonder? Why so insistent that they they have to make out that all the generals in the military are liars? Your first question is nuts. And, as for the second, so many generals have proven to be charlatans or out of touch with what was going on in Iraq that it is hard to avoid the feeling that they are either liars or incompetent. Guess you haven't read Fiasco. Or a number of other books documenting that. Flip open Fiasco, and you find a big map of Anbar province, titled "The Heart of the Sunni Insurgency" The situation is changing. It has definitely changed since Fiasco was written. Gen Casey did not succeed in his mission to pacify Iraq, that much is clear. However, that is insufficient evidence to call him either a charlatan or an incompetent. War is a hard business, and I am not qualified to second guess him, much less call him a liar without evidence. However, there is a new General in charge now, pursuing a different strategy. General Petraeus was overwhelmingly confirmed by Congress to pursue that strategy earlier this year. Now all the Democrats want to call him a liar, just because he has some success to report. Think about that for a minute. "That's a big problem for us," as one representative said. "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'" instapundit.com And no surprise to anyone, Moveon.org did exactly that by running a full page ad in the NYT under the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House." Why is American progress on the battlefield such a big problem for one political party that they have to call a general they themselves confirmed only six months before a liar for reporting it? You think I'm nuts for concluding that they fervently wish for an immediate defeat instead of a continued battle, even if the continued battle might lead to a much better outcome? What other interpretation is there? That the Democratic Senators are all such military experts that they know the situation is completely hopeless, even if the Marines and the Army and the General in Command and the Ambassador and the Joint Chiefs say otherwise? Please, what planet are you living on? This is pure politics. Politics that only cares for the defeat of one enemy, and it isn't Al Qaeda.