Topmost (in use)

General Petraeus questioning today:Two teams in America: those on the Left; those on America’s side

image It’s an astounding display.  And a very informative one for Americans and Canadians alike. 

The Democrats in the Senate Armed Services Committee are using this latest opportunity provided by the presence of General Petraeus with his official update report, to display something one wouldn’t necessarily expect:  their utter contempt for General Petraeus and the war he—and ostensibly his country—is engaged in to win, in Iraq. 

The liberals refuse to accept a general set of standards:  the surge has proven to bear much success, and this thing has a shot at succeeding in the end, whenever that is.

The General is a man who even a liberal-left Martian would agree should be viewed as nothing short of a well-respected hero for his brilliance in his successful execution of the troop “surge” in Iraq last year.  And by the way, unless I’ve lost all my mental fortitude, success is supposed to be viewed as, well, success—not as failure.  Thus the use of the word “success”.  Yet Democrats see that word as a negative.  Success is bad.  Success is failure.  It’s Bizarro World.  They hope for failure in Iraq.  Victory—or any success—bodes well for Republicans, and America.  Thus liberals and Democrats are frustrated by all the success

America be damned—we’ve got an election to Win!  It’s a disgrace.  But a useful one in this election year. 

General Petraeus has (with able help from dedicated troops and a solid backer in President Bush) turned the Iraq war around and Iraq now appears to contain the seeds of possible success, where failure APPEARED (in the media!) more and more inevitable.  Democrats are glum over this. 

This is the man—Petraeus—whom many including me thought should have been a shoo-in for “Person of the Year” honors by Time magazine in the last go-round, but yet the man about whom the far-left smear merchants at took out a full-page ad in the very imagewilling and open-armed New York Times, describing him as General “Betray Us”.  And they bashed him as a liar and a traitor to their defeatist left-wing cause.  And they besmirched him as they did only to help stir-up negative popular sentiment among Americans, to in turn force America’s leaders to affect a surrender and to thus lose the war, with its inevitable, horrible consequences for America and the entire west.

This is the man about whom Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton infamously declared (during his last report to the Committee) that accepting his report at face value required “the willing suspension of disbelief”.  That’s Clintonesque for liar, but luckily everybody has a sound knowledge of that language by now.  (And of course it turns out Hillary couldn’t have been more wrong, on most every level.  So this is not a candidate equipped with the kind of good judgment required to lead America, clearly). 

Democratic Senator Carl Levin displays nothing less than hatred toward the General today as I watch the proceedings.  It’s astonishing.  The questioning isn’t that of one comrade or countryman or team-mate to another—one of his own Generals—it’s an adversarial standoff between a General who is doing his job, very well, for his country, and a left-wing political huckster who wishes the General and his war ill.  Wishes he wasn’t doing his job at all, and certainly not so well; and against a Senator who finds it his job to try to make the General look as bad as possible on national television, for the Senator and his Party’s callous, wrong-minded political ends.  It’s bizarre. 

Democrats ask questions of General Petraeus as if they are the enemy of Petraeus rather than on the same team. 
Senator Joe Lieberman—the lonely sensible Independent Democrat from the left—said it very well.  He too was astounded by the questioning and angst over the “success”, from the left.  He said (I’m paraphrasing) that they appeared to hear no progress, see no progress, speak of no progress.  And yet there is a report of progress being presented right to their faces.  They just can’t accept it—don’t want to—refuse to. 

…Which is weird since they call themselves “progressives” and pretend to seek progress.  Again, this is all good information in an election year.

Pick a side.  I’m on America’s side.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
Comments are closed.

It's a question.