What, no Bruce Willis ending? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added
posted at 10:45 am on April 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
According to the Washington Post, the testimony of General David Petraeus yesterday left Senators frustrated at the lack of specificity he provided. Evidently, they expected the very same date-certain type of withdrawal date that Congress has repeatedly attempted to set without success. When Petraeus reminded them that his focus remained on successfully implementing the mission and not on timetables, some got rather petulant:
Asked repeatedly yesterday what “conditions” he is looking for to begin substantial U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq after this summer’s scheduled drawdown, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said he will know them when he sees them. For frustrated lawmakers, it was not enough.
“A year ago, the president said we couldn’t withdraw because there was too much violence,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). “Now he says we can’t afford to withdraw because violence is down.” Asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.): “Where do we go from here?”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said: “I think people want a sense of what the end is going to look like.”
But the bottom line was that there was no bottom line. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker echoed what they said seven months ago in their last update to Congress — often using similar words. Iraq’s armed forces continue to improve, overall levels of violence are lower than they were last year, and political reconciliation is happening, albeit still more slowly than they would like.
This is a classic case of two parties talking past each other. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker came to Congress to deliver a status report on a mission with long-term goals and strategies, a rather obvious point to most people. They wound up meeting with people whose goals are nothing other than withdrawal and disengagement, with no thought to the consequences. When Petraeus and Crocker made plain the disaster that would accompany early withdrawal, these Senators wound up frustrated that they got trumped.
For instance, consider the reception Petraeus received when he requested a 45-day pause in pre-surge troop level drawdowns. In any other circumstance, this would be seen as an intelligent idea to ensure that American troops did not get left overexposed in potentially hostile conditions. Yesterday it got derided as a plan without an “exit strategy” by Carl Levin, head of the Armed Services Committee. Yet the point of Petraeus’ mission isn’t to exit, but to prevail in building a free, secure, and stable Iraq that will partner with us for regional stability and against terrorism.
And the truth is that Petraeus has taken us closer to our mission goals than we have been in Iraq at any time since the invasion. The Iraqi Army has trained hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who need more seasoning but overall perform well. The Maliki government has begun to unite the Kurds and Sunnis into his government, helped in no small measure by Maliki’s action against Sadr’s Shi’ite militia this month. The National Assembly has passed most of the legislation the American Congress demanded and will conduct provincial elections in the fall for the first time ever. Violence has dropped sharply all across Iraq and continues to improve.
Perhaps some American politicians expected a Hollywood climax that would signal the end of the mission, or maybe they have become so wedded to defeat that they have no patience for any other conclusions. Regardless, their frustration comes from the fact that Petraeus has discredited their September skepticism and kept this effort in Iraq moving in the right direction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The reason Gen Petraeus was not able to say much is because they were taking up all the time with long windbag statements. They did not give him a chance to speak let alone answer any of their questions.
I find it amusing that clinton, obama and McCain all managed to show for a hearing, but have been playing hooky when it comes to doing real work int he senate…
rbb on April 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Democrats see the goal of the mission not as succeeding and winning, but exiting as soon as possible. Therefore Petraeus and Crocker’s testimony wasn’t enough for them, because it didn’t address the quickest way to exit, but only the best way to succeed.
amerpundit on April 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
That kind of pointless remark from a Republican on the war is one more reason why politicians need to be kept out of war.
Everyone wants a sense of what the end is going to look like. I’m sure they wanted a sense of what the outcome of the Pacific campaign 60 years ago would look like. Would anyone have guessed it would look like a mushroom cloud leading up to the heavens?
MadisonConservative on April 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
The Democrats just don’t want to face the possibility of having to deal with Iraq when they are in charge. They face the real possibility of blowing up the middle east when they implement withdrawal in 2009.
or…
The face having to carry on the mission - and they have no idea how to win a war - only how to retreat and look like losers.
They are panicking in a big way.
jake-the-goose on April 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Here comes the Calvary, the theater audience applauds, then everyone goes home.
Wade on April 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Maybe there will be a Hollywood ending when we get more stuff like this.
p40tiger on April 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
If only Petraeus would pull a ‘Yippeekyaa, Motherf*!’ on Kennedy.
michaelo on April 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Here comes the
Calvarycavalry , the theater audience applauds, then everyone goes home.Wade on April 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM
This is the task we are left with, and Petraeus has made admirable progress. It is classic mission creep though and a long way from what Tommy Franks thought he was charged with.
dedalus on April 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I caught the micro-expression on Crocker’s face when Obama asked whether the status quo could be maintained with only 30,000 troops. Did anybody else see it? Crocker replied very professionally of course, something like “the status quo could not be maintained at that level…” but the micro-expression caught by c-span was utter flabbergasted surprise, as if it took him half a sec to comprehend what Obiwanobama had suggested, as if he had asked something like “What if we flew in a herd of magic unicorns to train the Iraqi troops? Would that maintain the status quo?”
JustTruth101 on April 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I wonder how Ike handled these “meetings” during WW2?
VikingGoneWild on April 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
One Congressman is actually standing up for Petraeus.
Congressman Conaway is doing a Petition for Petraeus:
It was a nice idea. And I signed it. Thought you all might like to see it.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Obama looked like an embarrassed plant for his own campaign.
Connie on April 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
However you get into a fight (helping a friend who was coldcocked in a bar, etc.), you cannot simply “withdraw”, -with “dignity” or otherwise.
You either beat the people trying to beat you, or you are beaten.
These Democrats must never have been in a real fight in their life.
(”Hey, you guys attacking me, I’m withdrawing now, okay? That means the fight’s over, right?”)
Delusional, as Rosie O. would say.
profitsbeard on April 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I think that Obama’s vision on an acceptable end pretty much summed up the Democratic view of how things are supposecd to be:
As with everything they do, make it a half-assed plan that is set for failure before it is voted on and call it a victory!
Pam on April 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
What did Bruce Willis do to the terrorist at the end of Die Hard?
Would be terrible if Ted Kennedy were to be dropped off of a skyscraper like that. His body hitting the concrete below could injure or kill pigeons and ants.
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I just wish General David Petraeus would stop holding back when being questioned by elected idiots like Feingold and instead give these Democratic Senatorial numbskulls the kind of piercing glare that would make anyone except a seasoned soldier in the field wet their pants just out of sheer fear alone.
pilamaye on April 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Didn’t he slap a soldier once? I suspect there would have been a whole lotta slapping going on.
I was wondering how WW2 would have been fought if the politicians kept putting their noses into it. Why is the Battle of the Bulge taking so long? Why can’t you slap down the Luftwaffe in one fell swoop? Why should we carpet bomb Dresden - think of the children, won’t anyone think of the children????
Politicians need to stay out of directing wars. They’re hopelessly inept at it.
mjk on April 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Me too, except anything more than a piercing glare and his career would be over in an instant.
CliffHanger on April 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM
It must be difficult for a man of his stature to have to kow-tow to idiots.
sdd on April 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Here’s another photo of Kennedy, Feingold and Levin at the Petraeus hearing.
fogw on April 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
fixed
BohicaTwentyTwo on April 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I’m sure it’s a lot easier for me to mouth off than it is for General Petraeus, but I honestly don’t understand why he can’t just say this:
“With all due respect, Senator Kennedy, deciding when to end an occupation is the job of Congress. MY job is to advise you. And that is what I am doing here. If you suggest a date or a set of conditions, I will give you my evaluation of how, or whether, that can be accomplished, and the likely consequences of that withdrawal.
“But bear in mind that, in my professional opinion as a trained soldier, publically announcing such a date or set of conditions in advance would give America’s enemies notice of when our forces will be at their weakest, and hence allow them to build up and either A) strike when we are at our most vulnerable point or; B) wait until we are completely gone and then implement a coup for the terrorist forces.”
Sorry if that seems out of line, but I don’t see how it would be. A soldier has to follow orders, but he always has an obligation to point out proper chain-of-command, even to a superior officer.
logis on April 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I am going to throw a grenade into this:
While I agree with the premises for the war, the tipping point against Iran, and establishing a ‘democracy’ in Iraq where they can govern themselves.
The problem with all this is time and money. Enormous amounts of both.
The root of the problem has been feckless leadership by the White House and tentative leadership by the military.
Here is my growing concerning:
1. Recent military history of this country is littered with the political and military unwillingness to go in and finish off and/or deal aggressively with the enemy.
2. Ample reasons are given for being a ‘foil’ to Iran, but despite ample evidence of their open involvement with arms, men, and weapons in Basra and elsewhere, and growing nuclear intentions, we are timid in dealing with them.
As a result, political concerns with a liberal congress and fallout from any bold leadership, this country is being willingly pinned down in a war of attrition, depleting our military treasure, resources, and manpower, against a foe with a home field advantage. With sizeable Quds forces to dribble across the lines, Iran is shrewd to force our ‘contest of will’ to the Chinese water torture spanning a decade. They can do about anything, save large scale intervention, and will not provoke a response they know we don’t want.
If this country, as our enemies well know, were forced to defend another front, it would be dire indeed, and in hindsight not to finish in 2 what continues for 5+. Any military analyst will tell you that sooner or later, our long term ‘boots on the ground’ numbers are untenable.
Starlink on April 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
That was Patton in Sicily. I don’t recall any type issue with Ike.
VikingGoneWild on April 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
To me, that is “what the end is going to look like.” I don’t know why A) idiot congresscritters can’t figure that out and B) why the General didn’t just put it in those terms.
Kafir on April 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I disagree that there has been mission creep. In the run-up to the invasion Bush read and thought highly of Natan Sharansky’s The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. He made arguments for invading Iraq based on ideas in the book. I took the WMD argument to be a pretext, and the mission was always a democratic Iraq.
I have my doubts about Sharansky’s optimistic ideas. I don’t believe that the muslim savages can behave like decent civilized folk, but still Bush was right. We were morally compelled to try civilizing them before taking more drastic measures to save civilization. We’ll what happens in Iraq.
thuja on April 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Evidence that Obama is unfit to command
All you need to know starting at 5:35. Check out the look exchanged by Crocker & Patraeus, watch how their breathing changes and body movement alters when Obama suggests withdrawal.
It’s as if they looked into the future and saw what is going to happen to the Iraqi people, and to us when AQ re-establishes the base with Iranian backing, and when Iran/Hizbollah gets their hands on Iraq’s vast oil revenues (ie, they will jack up the price, do substantial damage to us economically then plot attacks against us with the money they made from selling us Iraqi oil.)
Crock and Pat are as battle tested as you get, and they tried not to show it, yet their breathing and body language reveals the nightmare scenario they see resulting from precipitous w/d.
JustTruth101 on April 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Good response.
I wish he would of told them when the Senators were lecturing him on what bad idea it was to go into Iraq, “Hey, I’m not the voted on the matter, you did!”
terryannonline on April 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Thanks, man. I should have remembered it was Patton - he was pretty hardnosed (to say the least).
Okay here’s my next thought. Does anyone remember another politician during WW2 who started to direct the war the way he thought it should go, against all logical advice of his military leaders? Hint: AH were the initials. Yeah, that turned out real well for him didn’t it?
mjk on April 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Is this politics or math class?
“Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war? He said that war was too important to be left to the generals. When Clemenceau said that, fifty years ago, he may have been right. But now, war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination, for strategic thought.”
Wayne Clark on April 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Outstanding post, start to finish. Just a year ago or so Crocker was holding nice diplomatic meetings with representatives from Iran, for God’s sake. We already knew that Iran was arming the folks who were and still are killing and maiming our troops. Up until the 2006 election GW was going around speaking in bland platitudes about “staying the course” when the course was pretty disastrous. It took the defeat of 2006 to wake Bush the hell up, but it was only a partial awakening, IMHO.
Up through 2005/2006 the military was still cutting active duty force levels. It’s not a huge surprise that they had to extend tours to 15 months, and have had to rely upon reservists and the Nat’l Guard much more than they should have to.
The surge is showing success, which is fantastic. Will the Bush admin get out there and fight like hell to keep it going? Fat F’n Chance, if they are to be judged by their history. The only person who has fought like hell for the troops since 2004 is McCain. That’s why he is popular with military members and families who pay attention to politics. Many of us abhor his immigration stance, but he is one of the few politicians who fights to do more to support the troops than run his mouth.
funky chicken on April 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Actualy there were a lot of these types of meetings going on during WWII.
There were a LOT of political considerations which trumped military needs… especialy when dealing with our allies (Montgomery vs. Patton?).
Key was that there was not quite so much of a split as there is today, and even the war opponents understodd there was a threat out there.
Romeo13 on April 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
It almost make me think what is wrong with my generation!
We don’t want a strong military.
We don’t want a strong economy. I say that because if you redistribute wealth, our economy will go more in the tank.
We government to supply us jobs.
We don’t want a good health care system, as evidence by the universal health care crowd.
I’m really scared for our future.
terryannonline on April 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
If Obama wins, watch military retention rates drop through the floor.
funky chicken on April 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
The last straw for me was when Sen. Biden told the General that congress could not find 175 million dollars. How about ending all earmarks when we are at war?
Les in NC on April 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
“war is too important to be left to the politicians”
Agree, but is there any task so insignificant, that a citizen could trust it to a Democrat politician?
I wouldn’t personally trust a Democrat pol with, well, anything. If one lived next door and I asked him to get my mail while I was on vacation, I would fully expect him to not only read the mail, but to apply for credit cards in my name and use them, to drive my car, raid my liquor cabinets, sell my linens and finally to sublet my house.
Democrat politicians cannot be trusted with anything at all, period. Just because a subset of Americans are ignorant enough to vote these walking disasters into office, does not mean that they can be trusted with anything.
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Agreed.
However AH pushed the generals to take France against their will and he prevailed summarily on that front. His ‘bridge too far’ was turning on Russia, otherwise consolidations in Europe and rebuilding his air force would have lengthened the war.
Starlink on April 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
funky chicken on April 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
If Obama wins, watch those who are in do everything and anything to get out.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I hadn’t really thought about it at that level… but you may be onto somthing…
Problem is that when someone WINS! someone has to loose… and we’ve been taught to be reallllyyy nice to losers because its really not their fault… its someone elses (ie the winners) fault.
In WWII we went from an army of 174,00 active duty pre war, to almost 8 MILLION men served in a FOUR year span.
Now, we can’t increase 50 or 60 K in a year?
Romeo13 on April 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Absent strong conservative leadership, (which IMO does not exist at the moment), we will look like the EU in 10 years. France could not blow up a paper bag.
Starlink on April 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
When Ronald Reagan was in office, the lowest ranking soldiers in the military knew what Reagan wanted to accomplish. When Clinton was elected, I thought (as it turns out, rightly) that he was a total scumbag. Those were depressing and demoralizing times. So he simply didn’t do much. I recall a staff meeting where a someone tried to claim Clinton was in favor of his pet project - everyone stopped and stared at the guy like he just had an aneurism. Clinton’s only saving grace was that he was more apathetic toward the military than he was openly hostile to it.
But with BarackObama, there is no room for optimism. The man is either intentionally opposed to the interests of the United States of America or he is congenitally retarded - or both.
logis on April 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM
War is politics carried out by other means, therefore political considerations will always be a factor in war. And it had better remain that way, because only the safety, security, and freedom of a people, which is a political consideration, can provide moral justification for war.
njcommuter on April 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Ok. True. However, if politics trumps victory, then we are where we are at today.
Suppose politics prevented D-Day due to the ‘collateral damage’ that would be inflicted on the ‘innocent French women and children’?
Starlink on April 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I was in under clinton (no pun intended) and it was hell. You don’t have to tell me.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Perhaps there was too much faith put in the power of elections alone to transform a culture. The Pentagon and CENTCOM weren’t focused much on Phase IV operations, many of them thinking we’d be out of Iraq quickly once Saddam was removed. I have a lot of respect for Petraeus for picking up and focusing a military effort that Rumsfeld had fumbled. McCain deserves credit for supporting the objectives but criticizing the Pentagon when he did.
dedalus on April 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM
“And the truth is that Petraeus has taken us closer to our mission goals than we have been in Iraq at any time since the invasion.”
That may have been true four months ago, but since then violence in Iraq has spiked well past 2005 levels.
Seems like the pro-war crowd is engaging in their own bit of “”see no evil…” lately.
alphie on April 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM
A Bruce Willis ending? What the left really wanted was a hearing that ended like “A Few Good Men”, with Gen. Petraeus in the Jack Nicholson role.
jon1979 on April 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Then:
The surrender left: “Iraq has to deal with the Shiite militias”.
The surrender left: “Dealing with Shiite militias has turned violent”.
The goalposts on roller skates, pro-surrender, anti-American lunatic left.
NoDonkey on April 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
And my response would have been:
Well, Senator, that is nothing more than a false choice you are offering. The question isn’t whether we “can” withdraw when violence is up or violence is down, the question is do we withdraw when we will leave behind a nation that will descend into chaos and become a seething pit of terrorism, violence and death? Do we withdraw when it will result in abandoning thousands of innocent people to violence, torture and death like we did in Viet Nam?
OR
Do we withdraw when we can leave behind a strong, vibrant nation that has established the rule of law, that has a military that is capable of protecting itself from those who would advocate chaos and terror? When we can leave behind a nation whose citizens are not afraid of secret/religious police, where people are free to walk the streets, to engage in free elections, to build their businesses, to educate their young and raise their families in safety? When we can leave behind a country that has consolidated its diverse population into a real nation, one that can stand on its own and engage with the rest of the world in peaceful trade and commerce?
So, that is the question Senator. Not whether violence is up or down, but whether we withdraw leaving behind a legacy of choas, violence and terror to our lasting shame, or leaving behind a nation and a people that are safe, secure, free and capable of joining the rest of the world, one we can point to with pride and satisfaction instead of humiliation and shame?
Fatal on April 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Big difference - the Dems wanted to win that one. This time, they want us to lose out of hatred for Bush. You do know that’s more important than national security, don’t you?
jdawg on April 9, 2008 at 2:57 PM
funky chicken on April 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM:
Per http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf Active duty 2000-1,372K, 2001- 1,384K, 2002-1,411K, 2003-1,423K, 2004-1,411K, 2005-1,378K, 2006-1,412K. Yea, a drop in 2004/5 and back up in 2006. No info on 2007 that I found, but congress authorized an increase in forces for the army and Marines.
amr on April 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Key is that CONGRESS controls the size of the armed forces… its mandated by LAW.
In WWII we went from 174,000 active duty to about 8 MILLION served in about 4 years…
Now? we’re having problems because of the SIZE of the force.
IMO there should be NO National Guard troops deployed to ANY foreign war… its not what they are supposed to be for, but CONGRESS won’t allow our active duty force to get large enough to do what CONGRESS keeps telling them to do.
Romeo13 on April 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Precisely! Whatever it is that keeps Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker from telling the elected buffoons, “STFU. WE know what WE are accomplishing and YOU are clueless.” These 2 men are so much better then I because I would not have been able to control myself from humiliating the idiots who pose the idiotic question….Shelia Jackson Lee is on - my head is going to explode from her stupidity….
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM
They said it couldn’t be done, they said nobody could do it, but I think that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have done it!!!
Move over Al Gore, you may have invented the Internet, but they have invented a Perpetual Motion Machine!!!
Once most of the surge troops pull out of Iraq in a few months then -
If the situation in Iraq deteriorates then we can’t cut back any more on troop levels because then things would deteriorate more.
If the situation in Iraq gets better then we can’t cut back any more on troop levels because then that improvement would be put at risk.
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 5:24 PM
After 5 years, what kind of seasoning?
Tabasco sauce?
Three and a half years after the American entry into WWII, American troops were kicking German and Japanese butt to kingdom come.
MB4 on April 9, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Do these yoyos in the Senate not know how violence escalated with the drawdown of British troops in Basra and the south?
Are they not aware of the animosity that Shia of Iraq have toward the Shia of Iran/Persia?
Are they not aware that if Iranian forces overcome the south through infiltration that both the oil fields and the means of delivery are compromised, jeopardizing world economies and security?
I just now heard a brief audio clip on the radio of Madame Hillary! stumping for votes in one of the western PA mill towns claim, in practiced meausred tones (of course) that “we must end Bush’s failed policies in Iraq.” Apparently, (even with her lesser delegate numbers) she has peculiar definitions of “failure”. Was she snoozing during the hearing or just engaged in selective listening?
Barry-Oh! is just enchanted with the sound of his own voice and the word “diplomacy”. One negotiates from a position of strength, but he doesn’t quite grasp that idea.
The senators from New York and Illinois do not belong on the high-power committees on which they serve. For that matter, neither do the majority of Dems serving with them, seniority be damned. They are just entrenched in their stupidity, cultivated through the years.
onlineanalyst on April 9, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I wonder how effective the American troops would have been if “America” was only 3 years old, if the germans and japanese were living in the same neighborhoods as the soldier’s families, may have actually lived in those neighborhoods their whole lives and were not only threateninng those same families if the soliders fought, but were actually killing/beheading family members or soldiers themselves. Oh, and those germans and japanese were also blowing up the soldiers as they were being inducted, had access to the soldiers churches and schools where the soldiers were taught that fighting the germans and japanese was evil, a sin against god and that the “real” enemies were the drill seargents, the officers, etc.
I wonder if anyone could have even thought of a more inapt comparison if they had tried?
Sheesh!
Fatal on April 9, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Ok, we get you don’t like the war…
So, just what is your solution?
I’m sure you can find a quote somewhere.
Romeo13 on April 9, 2008 at 5:59 PM
You don’t like war, you don’t care for anything concerning it. What about the Soldiers MB? We know you don’t like Petraeus… but what about the little guys?
Because no matter what, tabassco sauce isn’t going to work with the sour taste you left in my mouth. So I am going to say this. I am sorry the Untied States let you down during Vietnam. Possibly spitting, yelling, beating you up. But don’t take it on the people (i.e. younger then you and not fighting YOUR GENERATIONAL WAR) who have had nothing to do with it. Thank you for your service, now can you calm down, please?
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Might I remind all you fine Troopers…?
All our initial spec ops success’s in Afghanistan were fought by men and women who somehow managed to “tough it out” under President Clintons so called “apathy” toward the military.
Probably at least 99 percent of the senior Officers and NCO’s that made General Frank’s “blitzkrieg to Baghdad” successful had to tough it out during the “eight hellish years” of President Clinton’s Administration.
Well hell, after reading your posts; perhaps they should have minted a special medal “Clinton’s-Service in Hell-Medal”. It could have been 8 pink bars on a yellow background.
The “rotund one from West Palm Beach” used to berate President Clinton on an almost daily basis for “bombing from 15 thousand feet”. So he, President Clinton wouldn’t be criticized for losing personal or aircraft to Serbian ground-to-air missiles.
General Wesley Clark was obviously aware of the Serb’s max accurate missile range and would have made that “bombing altitude” recommendation to President Clinton?
I don’t know…but I’d be willing to bet a case of “Sam Adams”… those B-17 pilots luv’ed, that “Command Decision”… and let that “fat-boy”, stay the “chicken hawk” he was and is…!
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Will you PLEASE stop, and get your lips off Clinton back end! Did you serve under Clinton? Because I sure don’t remember any “apathy” while serving and waiting for parts… and waiting.. and waiting.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 7:12 PM
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM
W
I wouldn’t say that about a sitting Senator, regardless of who, on a blog.
It makes HotAir look like Huff Po.
AprilOrit on April 9, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Olde soldier sends…
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM
How about answer my question.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Whenever I hear a democrat talking about the war, I’m always reminded that scene from Futurama:
Jones Zemkophill on April 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM
For goodness sake MB4 this is not a garden club dispute (which I have to tell you can resemble Fatal’s description at my cousin’s wife’s g.c. in Hoboken). The republicans in the senate can’t get Chuck Hagel to not bash them constantly but you want a full functioning republic built, defended and look clean {and dare I say all the Iraqi children articulate} in 90 days or else? Don’t you have some ‘beardo the weirdo’ to go instant message to reinforce your deluded and unrealistic view of the world, IMAO?
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM
He was doing this in another post last night. Not sure what his deal is.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Trolling in an “Eliot Spitzer-liberalesqe” style, no?
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 7:47 PM
upinak…
Check this…
Not entirely my thought…!
Just another fine Trooper…!
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 7:53 PM
LMFAO you could say that. I am not sure the style… but makes ya wonder.
I asked if YOU served. So answer it or I will just assume you are just another backackwards individual who runs with the Berkely/Code Puke in a pink tutu type.
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I’ve haven’t been… “another bassackwards individual who runs with the Berkeley/Code Puke in a pink tutu type.”
Since 1960, I’ve been, well… I actually might have enjoyed running with…
That scenario was not however; my good fortune. The gods’ of war saw fit to visit different violent and disturbing circumstances on my sorry boney arse.
J_Gocht on April 9, 2008 at 8:21 PM
upinak…
Just me, or does J_Gocht resemble MB4 in some above mentioned ways?
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM
My response would have been more terse. Combat operations change over the course of a year. What was true in April ‘07 isn’t true in April ‘08. If Congress wants to play armchair general, they had better understand that the real world doesn’t follow the Congressional schedule full of breaks where nothing occurs.
In other words, our troops were still serving and stuff was still going on when our idiot Senators went home for Spring Break.
highhopes on April 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Yes and no. One mentions Germans and Japanese and the other spouts off and uses your words against you, which MB does … maybe they are related?
upinak on April 9, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Or, they are manning both the “rescue rangers” log and the hotair trolling duty from their off-campus pad….
Branch Rickey on April 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Gen Petraeus needed this guy http://youtube.com/watch?v=QVBY_SqzJtI along to handle the questions. HAH!
smellthecoffee on April 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM
In their defense, I think a lot of these guys genuinely believe that they were in Vietnam. They see all the liberal media portrayals of vets as flea-bitten wild-eyed drug addicts, get confused, and think “Hey, that’s me up there! Man, I must’a saw some ba-a-a-ad shit go down, man.”
logis on April 10, 2008 at 4:52 AM
In watching our elected officials at work I now realize why we are the laughing stock of the world. How can the American people elect these retards, these people are embarassing. No wonder we have 20 million illegal aliens eating up 300 billion of our tax dollars so our system can go broke. It is votes and power it is not brains. These people are the ones that look out for us. The Democrats are only smart enought to make laws that they can not be charged as a criminals. Which actually does make them smarter than us dumb voters. I guess that is why Levin, Kennedy, Murtha and these other funkies get re-elected each year it is not them it is us.
Largil on April 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM
logis on April 10, 2008 at 4:52 AM
God help the other Vets.
upinak on April 10, 2008 at 10:59 AM