Hate the war, love the warrior – The Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus even though every Democrat and a few Republicans are vocally against the strategy he supports. Kate O’Beirne suggests the reason why: “Because Gen. Petraeus is an experienced, credentialed, credible advocate of the new strategy, Senators have no interest in tangling with him. When you're playing at being a military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission rather than the veteran general who will be in command.”
Extra - More on the Petraeus hearings from Q&O.
2 comments:
From:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/our-supreme-general-has-spoken.html
There is nothing like a feeling of besiegement and desperation to make a political movement -- one that knows it is in its "last throes" -- show its true colors... As usual, Bill Kristol was ahead of the authoritarian curve, last week proclaiming that war critics are "so irresponsible that they can’t be quiet for six or nine months." Yesterday, Party loyalist Hugh Hewitt unveiled what he and his comrades are calling "The Pledge" -- a creepy, Soviet-sounding declaration of loyalty, all based on Gen. Petraeus' decree, that vows to repudiate any Republican who opposes the "surge," and even refuses to donate to the NRCC unless they agree "in writing" that none of the contributions will go to any "surge" opponents. As Hewitt instructed:
Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy. . . . Don't believe me. Believe General Petraeus.
Bush followers across the Internet are now huddled in strategizing conference calls, and leading right-wing luminaries such as Glenn Reynolds have endorsed The Pledge. Reynolds' case is particularly instructive because, in order to defend the Leader and Don Rumsfeld, Reynolds previously and continuously opposed sending more troops to Iraq, insisting that we had the exact right amount there. As but one example:
I think that calling for "more troops" is a way to criticize while not sounding weak, and that it thus has an appeal that overcomes its uncertain factual foundation.
But that was when the Leader said we had enough troops. Now, the Leader and the General have spoken, and that settles that -- now, not only do we need more troops, but it is unpatriotic to suggest otherwise. Yesterday, this is what Reynolds said when explaining the "rationale" for his support of The Pledge:
I think that Hugh's right to start this drive. Opposition to the surge is wrong (see what Petraeus said) and it's also political suicide for the Republicans.
Opposition to the "surge" is "wrong" because Gen. Petraeus said so, said that it would help The Terrorists. What is most notable about this duty of mindless submission to the General is that it emanates from the very top of the Bush movement...
There are countries where citizens have a duty to affirm the Leader's decisions and submit to the Supreme General's decrees about war. The U.S. isn't one of those countries (although, revealingly enough, that belief in submission to the decrees of authority and infallabile wisdom of Supreme Leaders is one of the defining attributes of "The Enemy" whom we are fighting). But as usual, the dwindling band of authoritarian extremists propping up this presidency don't believe in American values of any kind. Those values are merely props they use to justify their endless wars and their endless demands that the Leader's will be followed.
For the record, I oppose the "surge": http://vikingpundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/time-to-sink-or-swim-in-iraq-ive-been.html
And I have not, nor do I intend to, sign the "pledge."
By the way, tonight I read a piece in the liberal American Prospect criticizing war opponents for choosing political calculation over moral courage. And that's what bugs me about the non-binding resolution: it's a place-marker for opposition...but not really...and we supported the troops all along if things turn out OK. Which they won't.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12405
Post a Comment