Attacking Toady Generals: How Not to Win the Iraq War Debate
Attacking General Petraeus once again plays right into the hands of the artful and shrewd Republican propagandists. Even the general himself knows, and has stated publicly, that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily.
But, bumbling by Democrats has allowed four more years of this Bush nonsense being parroted by General Petraeus. General Petraeus is simply doing what all good military commanders are expected -- and required to do -- obey orders. Attacking Bush's top military commander is not the way to win the Iraq War debate.
The recent testimony by no means reveals what General Petraeus's true feelings or observations about his commander-in-chief or the progress of the war are nor will they be known until he, like many other retired senior officers, leaves his military career and joins the chorus of his colleagues in a tell-all book exposing the ineptitude and arrogance by G. W. Bush in launching this catastrophic war which was based on lies and deceit.
In the meantime, the political price that Democrats may pay could be huge, especially when anyone has the temerity to question, even for a minute, decisions made by military commanders. The criticisms by Democrats are immediately spun into sound bites like, "Democrats want to raise the white flag of surrender" and "Democrats are unpatriotic and un-American."
Extreme and incendiary as those words are, they are exactly the rhetorical tactics that have kept the Republican Party in power for most of the last 15 years in the U.S. Congress and in the White House for 20 of the last 28 years.
Democrats must accept the truth that Bush is not so dumb a politician that he will pass up an opportunity to showcase in public a four-star general in full uniform, replete with row on row of medals, commanding his star performer sitting in front of the TV cameras with a clear message to congressional critics: "Show the medals and spit in their faces!"
What better proof of that than the vision of U.S. Marine Colonel Oliver North who made a mockery of his congressional testimony during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings even as he told lie after lie. To the public, however, he became a national hero and a cause célèbre for the radical right wing (and religious) extremists who found their groove in turning their agenda into huge political gains from the statehouses to the U.S. Congress.
John Kerry, on the other hand, proved that he was not up to the role of commander-in-chief in the 2004 election when he failed to counter the all-out attacks by the depraved, lying Swift Boat mob against his service to our country in Viet Nam and the decorations awarded to him, a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Heart medals, by the United States Navy.
Though I supported his candidacy and voted for him, I am still furious that he did not answer those character attacks with all the force that he should have while seeking the highest elected office in the land. Nor did he seem to understand the impact that those same kinds of attacks had on changing the landscape of the U.S. Senate when decorated Viet Nam War veteran, Max Cleland, who lost three limbs fighting for his country, lost his Senate seat in 2002 due to vicious ads accusing him of being unpatriotic and a friend of Osama bin Laden.
The Democrats have only one powerful tool, the power of the purse, and they refuse to use it. Instead, they continue the charade and farce by attaching pointless withdrawal dates of our troops from Iraq to legislative bills. But for what purpose? The legislation is so watered down that it includes language that allows Bush to ignore all of it anyway. Democrats will never have the Senate votes to overcome a Republican filibuster nor can they even dream of overriding a Bush veto which requires a two-thirds majority.
Independent Senator Joe Lieberman is as loyal and reliable a pro-war Bush vote as any in the Republican Party and votes almost in lock-step with Republicans. The truth is, the Democrats are not the majority party in the U.S. Senate any more than Harry Reid, the titular Democratic Senate leader, is capable of forcing Bush's hand in ending the catastrophic Bush war.
These circumstances have combined to give Bush the equivalent of a "Perfect Storm" in much the same way that September 11, 2001 became a fortuitous event for him after which his plummeting approval numbers soared to over 90% and remained there longer than his father's during the height of Desert Storm in the Gulf War.
The congressional testimony offered by General David Petraeus, though giving critics of the Iraq War an opportunity to vent, makes the congressmen look mean-spirited. Their aggressive questioning of the general, no matter how legitimate, has done nothing to raise their esteem in the eyes of the public who gives the U.S. Congress even lower approval ratings than G. W. Bush.
By promoting this propaganda, though, congressional Republicans are latching onto a set-in-stone policy that endorses and condones the deliberate and unlawful Iraq War which has put tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in early graves, nearly 3,800 U.S. military in body bags and wounded nearly 27,000 U.S. men and women in uniform, many disabled for life.
In the meantime, Osama bin Laden, who Bush once crowed that he would capture dead or alive, continues to taunt Bush and inflame the insurgency in Iraq six years after the hijacked airliner bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
It is up to the Democrats, if they are to win back the White House and gain significant majorities in both houses of congress, to provide stronger leadership that so far is lacking in the persons of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Richard A. Stitt
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Democrats won in 2006?
I'm beginning to wonder if they want to win. They seem to be going in the wrong direction from what the "mandate" was for in the 2006 "selection". New Democrats screamed loud and long about how they would do things differently and bring credibilitiy to the Congress (country).
-Even some stolen elections by Republicans (so called close elections) polls still show the people want us out of Iraq and the Middle East. They don't want permanent bases in the ME while closing ours at home (destroying our ability to even answer an earthquake or Katrina like disaster).
-"We the people" want the nuclear weapons taken from Israel not just Iran, etc. They want Israel back in their own borders.
-"We the people" want nuclear weapons not used at all by any countries including our own. The enviornmental damage is unthinkable for future generations.
-"We the people" have been upset about illegal immigration (not just from Mexico at the border but at the airports, ports, etc. from all over the world) into our ciites. Mayors have made them "Sanctuary cities" which is illegal and dangerous. Criminals are allowed to just stay and set up shop. Terrorists also can do to us as they please as "illegals"....or be made to look like "terrorists". It is a slap in the face to American workers and their families. It is also an insult to those who came here legally. How dare our party leaders take this on as a go issue for us Democrats. 70% of Americans don't want illegals (brown, green, or yellow from any country) or open borders. That 70% or more includes many Democrats and unions. Yet they ignore us and push for bills of amnesty.
-Accountability was a big issue against Republicans. "We the people" wanted the thug CEOs and government agency heads held accountable for fraud, lying, and treason. Where is it Democrats? Ken Lay? Gonzales? Rice? Generals? Hastert?
-Not swearing them under oath when testifying is an insult to "We the people". No we don't trust them to tell the truth because of their record on lying.
-"We the people" want our vote counted not elections picked by the Supreme Court (should have been impeached) and stopping the vote by our own party before all the fraud investigated and recounts are completed.
-NAFTA and the WTO have been a failure for this country and Mexico. "We the people" don't want to be a country with open borders between Mexcio and Canada (neither do they). It is unconstitutional since no country has even voted on it. Only the elite members of corporations prosper. They are like "economic royals" living with three homes, lifetime pensions, etc. when they are not owners of the corporation but employees whose pay and benefits are robbery. We the people want it gone yet both parties ignore this telling us the "benefits of globalization and free trade".
-Our infrastructure ignored since Reagan will cost us dearly in the future. If we can't distribute anything but products\jobs between borders how will we protect ourselves or even do business? People are dying on our bridges....failure of structure or vandelism?
Niagara Power plant was built by the residence of Western NY at a high cost. It was sold to a British company (who now uses that power for Toronto, CN, etc.). The power plant is now for profit. Cheap power built the area and was a model for power plants of the world. It is part of infrastructure where business can thrive. The area has lost half its population since the power is no longer cheap and companies have been "outsourced". Is that good business for America or even the citizens of Buffalo and Niagara Falls, NY.? What right direction?
We've always had international trade but the agreement was fair and to our advantage not to destroy and rob us of our Common Wealth (energy, forest, roads, etc for a few elite profit....even foreign countries). Even our public schools and universties are being attacked and under funded to encourage "private" ones.
-Leaders Pelosi and Reid ignore all this even though they were outraged over Republicans not "listening to the people". Since the election of 2006 all the hype and changes promised have evaporated into "political thin air". Seems we are now helpless to do any of those things promised over the years. Who won the 2006 election mandate? Fascist elites?
I was listening to the Democratic candidates in Iowa last night. Most the audience wanted Edwards or Dodd. I didn't see any Clinton or Obama signs. We Democrats don't want a globalization, Faith Based, or a war President (the RW media does).
"We the people" definately want our rights back. Where are they Reid and Pelosi? It should have been done on Day 1. You can't get them back even though the WMD was a lie? 911 was a lie? Katrina was an outrage where people's rights and property were stolen? Treason, murder, robbery, and lies on a grand scale since 2000? NO impeachment or jail for any high official in public office Democrats? Ken Lay (R-TX), Rove...Libby...Rumsfeld.. Rice, etc still free but Trafactant(D-OH) has been put in a mental institution and the key thrown away?
I don't want to wait for another election with MORE Democrats if they can't do it now. Democrats don't seem to want to win by taking on issues not wanted by the people. Their direction and leadership is not representive of their members (or the country). They seem content to allow the crooks and liars to stay in office...including the President (who is unqualified and illegal anyway). First they had control and now they have none?
Running for President and public office is more a self interest activity today than "public service". Payoff from corporations after service, book deals, etc. are very profitable.
Jefferson believed a democracy can only be destroyed from within (by religion, elite wealthy, corporate power, and corruption). Seems we have all of them today in America. That's not what a democracy is about.