I think that I should start out this post with a Bryan Fischer commentary reposted on Dave Oliveria's Huckleberries on-line. Not only did that bring a hot and heavy response, but the hottest and heaviest responses seems to have come from one Clayton Cramer, running for the Idaho state legislature representing Ada County. To say that he is the religious radical coming on board Oliveria's Spokesman-Review blog, would probably be an understatement of the century. I have extended my personal invitation to him to discuss what he wishes and provide links to his own blog where I may have a go at him more directly. Well now, I am merely answering my calling. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to the topic of Iraq and parts of the General Petraeus testimony before the Senate. It was quite the news revelation that members of the Iraqi Security Forces had a lunch break before they were willing to take on "the enemy." Oliphant cartoon republished in the Spokesman-Review of 8 April 2008 edition, hundreds or thousands of Iraqis throwing down their arms and fleeing. GW sees this as: We really are winning. Petraeus thinking: Should I even tell him that's the Iraqi Army? In reference to a news report of large numbers of the Security Forces suddenly deserting their units. Now given the news media reports in the last few days; it should not be surprising that Petraeus as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker could come up with slightly straighter talk than they managed to last September. Indeed, I believe I heard the word "incompetent" at one point during their combined testimonies as referenced the Iraqi Army.
Before coming in to blog, I listened to General Petraeus not trying to actually answer specific questions by such Senators as Kennedy and Warner. He danced around the topic of, "Was it worth it" and "Does it make America safer." Instead, what we got from Petraeus was that we are no longer really fighting in Iraq to end the Al Qaeda menace so much as it is for the (bottom line) global economy. In short, I can see where some (old) lefty bloggers really would go to town on excerpts of Petraeus' testimony before the Senate. Yeah, the global economy did pass Petraeus' lips. And the "global economy" is not what Americans want to hear as they go to vote in November. Not when our economy is in deep doo doo. --At one point, a war protester was screaming, "bring them home, bring them home." --We didn't really go to Iraq to instill democracy and put an end to a brutal dictator so much as to guarantee profits for multi-national corporations? Let's put it bluntly, that definitely can not be helpful to the GOP or Senator McCain in November. That is likely how (old) lefty bloggers would interpret it. As for myself, I did not join the service in the U.S. Army from 1979 to 1991 to assure the "global economy" that better benefits corporations (in the short term) than the people. I did so because I wished to serve my country and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because of the Soviet menace. I knew what I fought for and it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, for multi-national corporations. What Petraeus ultimately states is worse than a gaff.
On further note, the problems with the Iraqi Security Forces wasn't necessarily discussed in the presence of Dick Cheney. What was discussed in testimony was that Iraqi Security Forces had sustained heavier losses than had American forces and thus, (believe this or not) proves how they have accepted the burden of fighting and dying for their country. Wow! Isn't there a greater proof of incompetence by someone if the people you ally with sustains greater losses against a presumably smaller and ill-equipped enemy? If not the Iraqi commanders on the ground, then certainly by the American command that presumably trained them. A further argument indeed that we had already lost this big time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuckle of the day: His name is Mark Penn, he has been on the Senator Hillary Clinton campaign for president staff since she announced her bid for the presidency. GW wants to knock out tariffs in Columbian trade that presumably would give American exports an "equal playing field." Senator Clinton officially opposes it. Mark Penn did a Barack Obama oops and visited with Columbian dignitaries about how much he supports it. As a result of this news item, Clinton was forced to engage in a staff shake up and demoted Penn.
For myself, Columbia (as GW admitted) being an ally in the war on drugs, doing battle with the narco-terrorists FARC, facing the problems of Hugo Chavez bringing his Venezuelan military up to Columbia's borders; should surely not want their economy undermined by GW's interesting ideas of a "fair playing field" for American business interests. Their economy by the way, is one reason why narco terrorists like FARC flourish. Which GW neglected to note. So GW wants to economically ruin an ally in our war on drugs and war on terrorism? Wow! Even this conservative can see some real disasters ahead of this "bold decision." The profits of business interests come ahead of even geo-political decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to the topic of Iraq and parts of the General Petraeus testimony before the Senate. It was quite the news revelation that members of the Iraqi Security Forces had a lunch break before they were willing to take on "the enemy." Oliphant cartoon republished in the Spokesman-Review of 8 April 2008 edition, hundreds or thousands of Iraqis throwing down their arms and fleeing. GW sees this as: We really are winning. Petraeus thinking: Should I even tell him that's the Iraqi Army? In reference to a news report of large numbers of the Security Forces suddenly deserting their units. Now given the news media reports in the last few days; it should not be surprising that Petraeus as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker could come up with slightly straighter talk than they managed to last September. Indeed, I believe I heard the word "incompetent" at one point during their combined testimonies as referenced the Iraqi Army.
Before coming in to blog, I listened to General Petraeus not trying to actually answer specific questions by such Senators as Kennedy and Warner. He danced around the topic of, "Was it worth it" and "Does it make America safer." Instead, what we got from Petraeus was that we are no longer really fighting in Iraq to end the Al Qaeda menace so much as it is for the (bottom line) global economy. In short, I can see where some (old) lefty bloggers really would go to town on excerpts of Petraeus' testimony before the Senate. Yeah, the global economy did pass Petraeus' lips. And the "global economy" is not what Americans want to hear as they go to vote in November. Not when our economy is in deep doo doo. --At one point, a war protester was screaming, "bring them home, bring them home." --We didn't really go to Iraq to instill democracy and put an end to a brutal dictator so much as to guarantee profits for multi-national corporations? Let's put it bluntly, that definitely can not be helpful to the GOP or Senator McCain in November. That is likely how (old) lefty bloggers would interpret it. As for myself, I did not join the service in the U.S. Army from 1979 to 1991 to assure the "global economy" that better benefits corporations (in the short term) than the people. I did so because I wished to serve my country and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because of the Soviet menace. I knew what I fought for and it wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, for multi-national corporations. What Petraeus ultimately states is worse than a gaff.
On further note, the problems with the Iraqi Security Forces wasn't necessarily discussed in the presence of Dick Cheney. What was discussed in testimony was that Iraqi Security Forces had sustained heavier losses than had American forces and thus, (believe this or not) proves how they have accepted the burden of fighting and dying for their country. Wow! Isn't there a greater proof of incompetence by someone if the people you ally with sustains greater losses against a presumably smaller and ill-equipped enemy? If not the Iraqi commanders on the ground, then certainly by the American command that presumably trained them. A further argument indeed that we had already lost this big time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuckle of the day: His name is Mark Penn, he has been on the Senator Hillary Clinton campaign for president staff since she announced her bid for the presidency. GW wants to knock out tariffs in Columbian trade that presumably would give American exports an "equal playing field." Senator Clinton officially opposes it. Mark Penn did a Barack Obama oops and visited with Columbian dignitaries about how much he supports it. As a result of this news item, Clinton was forced to engage in a staff shake up and demoted Penn.
For myself, Columbia (as GW admitted) being an ally in the war on drugs, doing battle with the narco-terrorists FARC, facing the problems of Hugo Chavez bringing his Venezuelan military up to Columbia's borders; should surely not want their economy undermined by GW's interesting ideas of a "fair playing field" for American business interests. Their economy by the way, is one reason why narco terrorists like FARC flourish. Which GW neglected to note. So GW wants to economically ruin an ally in our war on drugs and war on terrorism? Wow! Even this conservative can see some real disasters ahead of this "bold decision." The profits of business interests come ahead of even geo-political decisions.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment