A few questions for the Democrats on the board..

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Borderline Divine

While I thought Kerry was a very poor choice for the nomination, I was really steamed by the Swift Boat tactics.

Maybe his wounds weren't as severe as some would require, but the fact remains he recieved multiple purple hearts for being wounded while in country.

Although old news, I can't let this opportunity pass without comparing his service with that of Bush or Cheney.

And frankly, my hat is off to Karl Rove for his ability to make Kerry look like a war coward while working for the election of two men who avoided service. You gotta hand it to him...

... then to be consistent, you should be steamed at Tom Lantos and MoveOn.org. Otherwise, your anger at the Swift Boat veterans rings a little hollow. (I might argue it's hollow anyway ... but that's another debate.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Borderline Divine

And frankly, my hat is off to Karl Rove for his ability to make Kerry look like a war coward while working for the election of two men who avoided service. You gotta hand it to him...

Rove is an absolute genius. No question about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me ask you this: If things were going badly, do you think there is any way in hell that he would say as much? I'm inclined to believe that he is going to say anything that his commander in chief wants him to say.

This one's for you, sequiter. An extra to the WSJ:

"America's soldiers are committed to the war. But they're not going to lie about its progress." by Owen West, a trader at Goldman Sachs and a director of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, who served two tours in Iraq with the Marines.

[While] the country can thrive as a politically divided nation, its ability to defend itself diminishes alongside faith in the fidelity of the military. The unbalanced portrayal of the conduct of our soldiers has done damage enough. To impugn our warriors' motives as political is thoroughly corrosive and hurts all Americans.

...

Finally, we should remember that Doug Zembiec and Ray Mendoza saw the true face of terror in Fallujah, and it cemented their resolve. Like them, Gen. Petraeus is a guardian whose lifelong calling is service to his country. He knows the enemy. He knows our limitations. And he is telling the truth.

Read it all.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010592

[Borderline Divine]

Originally Posted by Tex

... then to be consistent, you should be steamed at Tom Lantos and MoveOn.org. Otherwise, your anger at the Swift Boat veterans rings a little hollow. (I might argue it's hollow anyway ... but that's another debate.)

(Did I just say that?) Trite thought he saying may be, two wrongs don't make a right. The tactics employed by both the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and of Moveon.org are deplorable.

But you guys started it (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Tex

Total red herring. Are you sympathetic to one a leading American serviceman, a 4-star general and reputed honorable man, being referred to as a betrayer and a traitor ... being called a liar before he's even spoken?

Were you one of the ones with his pants in a twist over the purported war hero John Kerry being besmirched?

Why does being a serviceman -- even a 4-star general -- garner someone instant credibility? I have no idea whether he's an honorable man or not, but I'm not going to assume he is just because he's in the military. As far as calling someone a liar before they've spoken, isn't that basically what you and the rest of your conservative cohorts did for 8 years while Clinton was in office?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Why does being a serviceman -- even a 4-star general -- garner someone instant credibility? I have no idea whether he's an honorable man or not, but I'm not going to assume he is just because he's in the military.

I think someone gets the benefit of the doubt until they've provided a reason to think otherwise, especially someone with a track record like Gen. Petraeus. You don't typically get to be a 4-star if you have a reputation for being a lying, political hack. And just for good measure, don't forget he was unanimously confirmed.

Do you walk around assuming everyone you meet is a liar?

Originally Posted by non sequitur

As far as calling someone a liar before they've spoken, isn't that basically what you and the rest of your conservative cohorts did for 8 years while Clinton was in office?

Don't change the subject. I totally reject such a stupid premise, but even if I did accept it, it doesn't excuse what the Dems are doing now.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Borderline Divine

Although glib, that was my answer. You got your pets we got ours.

My point being that neither party is going to cricize its mouthpieces. And both will always play to their base.

Your base just happens to be wrong about everything

Good one and fair enough.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Tex

Do you walk around assuming everyone you meet is a liar?

Of course I do. I assume everyone wretched until they give reason to think otherwise.

You don't typically get to be a 4-star if you have a reputation for being a lying, political hack. And just for good measure, don't forget he was unanimously confirmed.

Wasn't William Westmoreland a 4-star general?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Wasn't William Westmoreland a 4-star general?

Westmoreland wasn't lying to cover for a Commander in Chief. He was deluded by his ability to wage a guerilla war in Southeast Asia. It's not an appropriate comparison.

My problem is that you've made an a priori assumption that everything General Petraus will say is an untruth because he has an ulterior motive to protect President Bush. I dispute this assumption for several reasons.

First, his military career, experience and title are worthy of recognition. He has forgotten more about military strategy than a civilian will ever know. When a four-star general speaks on the success of a war strategy, we should listen closely.

Second, he has no motive to protect President Bush. He was not an original architect of the Iraq war, but he was sent four years after the fact to try and clean it up. He must realize the enormous likelihood that a Democrat will be the next president, so he has nothing to gain from endearing himself to this administration or the Republican party.

Third, his future career and legacy depends on the success of this military campaign. If failure is eminent, a man of his experience would realize that he must change strategy. He would have overwhelming political support if he made that decision. There is no reason why he would stake his great reputation on a failed strategy.

While you may not like Petraus, President Bush or the Iraq War, the only intellectually honest way of evaluating his congressional testimony would be to give it a fair reading. You, and many others, have failed to do so.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Westmoreland wasn't lying to cover for a Commander in Chief.

It doesn't matter why he lied. He lied. My point is that just because you're a general, doesn't mean you're immune from political obfuscation.

My problem is that you've made an a priori assumption that everything General Petraus will say is an untruth because he has an ulterior motive to protect President Bush.

I don't assume he's lying. I just don't give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's telling the truth.

...he has no motive to protect President Bush. He was not an original architect of the Iraq war, but he was sent four years after the fact to try and clean it up. He must realize the enormous likelihood that a Democrat will be the next president, so he has nothing to gain from endearing himself to this administration or the Republican party.

Bush hand-picked him, so there's always the chance that his politics are aligned with GW's politics. I'm not calling him a liar and I'm not calling his character into question. But GW wanted a surge and if he's any kind of a politician he's going to pick a general who shares his military strategy.

If failure is eminent, a man of his experience would realize that he must change strategy. He would have overwhelming political support if he made that decision. There is no reason why he would stake his great reputation on a failed strategy

Ask Colin Powell what happens when you don't step in line with GW's military policy. If Petraus wants to keep his current position, he'll fall in step also.