So you were disappointed that the questioning of General Petraeus was ‘softballed’ yesterday. Possibly you might consider that the ‘Screaming Eagle’ on his shoulder, plus the Ranger badge pinned above enough fruit salad to fill up a football lineman might be intimidating and an indication that the gentleman before them, who is addressing how the war is progressing, might just know a little more about it than the questioners. The fact that he was voted in without a single dissenting vote to the task on which he was reporting might also be a factor. The fact that his total time in Iraq- outside the fairyland Green zone- exceeds the combined amount of all his Inquisitors yesterday AND today by several orders of magnitude might also be in play.

But possibly you, Freddie, could do better job probing the intricacies of fighting this war with your in-depth experience as… Kansas State debate champion and literary award winner. Maybe not; but how about the time spent with dust and mud and blood on your boots outside the wire in Iraq…how much?

Mind you, neither have I. But then, I have learned to respect the majority opinion of the ‘boots on the ground’ in most situations. With the modern technology of the web, that opinion is available from scores of sources on a daily basis. When I need expertise on the Northeast literary circuit and high end audio equipment, I will certainly defer to you, as I would expect you to defer to me in the area of Ugandan orphan and disability issues (where I’ve picked up a share of dust and mud, but- fortunately- no blood).

I’m sure liberals could scrounge around and find a few who have ‘been there, done that’ in Iraq that would debate the good General’s testimony; for every one of those, I’m sure a dozen others would support Petraeus as giving an accurate assessment.

None of this speaks to the advisability of continuing this effort, only the current situation and the strategic plans for the short-term. Contesting Petraeus on this is not only disingenuous, but politically stupid. The continuance of the strategic direction is an executive function, while the funding necessary is a legislative function; that is how our government is constituted, something that is frustrating liberals to no end. If this was about principle and not political power, the Democrats in Congress would have cut off funding long ago, would they not? They DO hold the majority, do they not?

On a final note, isn’t it just amazing how often that hick cowboy in the White House seems to manage to defeat the most brilliant liberal minds in the political arena? Doesn’t it just chap you to no end?

Getting the report from Petraeus is like getting the report from the fox who's guarding the henhouse. Come on, he can, with a straight face, say we're making progress. What else can he say? No, let's throw in the towel and go home? That wasn't his mission; they didn't give him a command to fail; how idiotic can you get, if you expect an objective report from this man? He probably even believes he's objective and telling the truth. So the beat goes on ... so the war and the killing and the stupid spending of money continues.

Look, Bush has a history - a history, a long line of past events that always ended the same way - of taking someone who is good and perverting them. Powell is one example. Rice is another. These good people go to work for Bush's administration and get sucked in. Then they either toe the line and lie, lie, lie; or they deceive themselves about the fact that they're lying and think it's the truth; or they get so disgusted they resign; or they try to tell the truth and get fired by Bush. Nothing complicated about that. It's Bush's history.

It's all about the oil. Don't ever forget it. If Iraq wasn't one of the largest oil reserves in the world, no one would give a damn about any deaths resulting from our withdrawal. Remember that, and look at how hypocritical we've been about plaxces like Darfur. Oil is the 600 pound gorilla that most people won't mention. Petraeus is a stooge, turned into one by Bush, just like Colin Powell and Rice; does anyone in their right mind expect Petraeus to come out for a withdrawal? His career is on the line: look at the generals who have been retired when they tried to tell the truth about Iraq. It's all quite disgusting how easily such people allow our troops and Iraqi civilians to be killed, and no one even thinks about the silent contractors and what has happened to them. Disgusting. And the media usually hasn't a clue.

Yes 'Save Darfur' which really means 'Invade Sudan' Which does not have resources (such as oil) that can be used to kill 'infidels' wholesale. On this day of all days, one should give pause to think about that. Besides, such 'humanitarian invasion' tactics have a great recent history there; remember Somalia?

OCPAtriot, how many days have you spent doing charity work in Africa? Myself, I just got back from my second trip, working with orphans and war refugees. It's always easier to demand something be done, than get up and do it yourself.

So in your view, Mike, "because I said so" is a clinching argument, and it's all a matter of who has the authority? Is it worth pointing out that everyone who had the kind of authority you fetishize was firmly opposed to this military adventure in the first place?

Now is an excellent time to ask Petraeus if he thinks we should stay there for another year and a half, only to bail out as soon as the worst President Ever is back at his ranchette for good.

And by the way, in what wet dream of yours is Bush a cowboy? He's fourth generation new england politcal aristocracy. His daddy was president of the united states of america. His entire jmortal existence has been an unbroken chain of unearned privilege. His record displays some real weaknesses in the system -- it was possible for a reckless president to do unchecked damage, and it is not possible to force him to correct that damage. We learned that when Ronald Reagan was president (star wars, iran/contra, the "reagan revolution" featuring Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, and there's much more than that). We didn't really need a repeat lesson, did we?

We have been made to wait for nearly a year, since the last elections made it clear that the electorate wants out. I don't know what the republicans are waiting for. They are the ones with the most to lose, since Bush's viking funeral promises to remove their party from existence. Norm Coleman, who has the brains of a small dog, seems to have figured that out. I don't know what the rest of you clowns are waiting for. Waiting for Petraeus was a stall, and now that time's up we are promised...more fo the same, more stalling. We seem, currently, to be modeling our strategy on the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Would you care to explain to me why that's a good idea?

My, my, does the frothing of the leftish mouth start easily here.

'Cowboy' is a term the Left applies to Bush frequently, discussing attitude, as opposed to upbringing. Thought you might have recognized that, but your systems seem to be crashing; take a deep breath and reboot.

He goes back to his ranch (ranchette only in relation to the Armstrong spread) undefeated at the polls. You vote for President for foreign policy, Congress for legislation; a little document called the Constitution has something to say about that. Yes, a large part of the public, after a continual drumbeat of negativity from the MSM elitists have pounded them with for several years. A drumbeat that has little in common with the facts on the ground, according to the vast majority of warfighters coming back from over there (not just one general). Besides, the pampered Americans that are devoid of attachment to this war are upset that their TV remotes don't work to turn it off. I'd be interested in a poll of the warfighters and their families- you know, the ones with a real 'dog in this hunt'- on whether this is worthwhile.

As for the death of the Republican party related to Iraq, one who went through the Goldwater years can only laugh at amusement at such a statement (Freddie can vouch from the fact that I date back to AuH20 days). Even if it is a major setback for the Republican Party, millions of Iraqi lives depend on the brightest and the bravest like Petraeus helping them establish a level of stability; American political costs be hanged. Of course, I think the Iraqis are worth trying to save from this mess; don't you? Or is power for the leftist movement worth 'Killing Field' numbers again?

Bringing up Reagan; you left out the end of the Cold War and his high popularity on leaving office and afterward. And Savimbi was a piker compared to a number of other dictators I could mention. And what did dear Billy Boy do about Rwanda? Possibly you can ask my Rwandan 'niece' why she had to watch her parents be dismembered, have a spear stuck int her head and walk out of the country, drinking from streams that tasted of blood for weeks. Maybe the Clinton gang could tell Sandra Karigirwa how their foreign policies were better than the Republican 'cowboys'.

Wow, what an amazing display of sophistry. But here's a nice solution for you. Let's just get rid of this whole democracy thing. People are obviously too stupid to make decisions. Instead of providing input on how their government should be run, the people will just look to you to pick the expert of your choice to tell them how the government should be run. That way we can get political hacks like General Petraeus as the "expert" in the field. We can ignore the fact that 72% of the (more or less indoctrinated) US troops in Iraq think withdrawal is the only sensible option, you see, these are just the stupid "people" that we should not be listening to. We should also not listen to the 78% of Iraqis who have the courage to admit that they wish the occupation ended. No, these are all just the ignorant masses, and, after all, when we talk about imposing "democracy" in the Middle East, we are talking about the rule of the elitists like, say, yourself, Heaven forbid we let the ignorant masses make decisions! Yes, we should listen to the "experts" selected by the media and you to tell us what to do, and we should just uncritically do that, since, after all, we are all just too stupid to make up our own minds.

I wouldn't beleive Mike if his tongue came notarized.

Last I looked, polls (especially unsourced ones) do not dictate policy; election for those offices and the roles they play in our republic do. Our is that too sophisticated for you?

And the best bit in your last few posts is this: while sneering at the congress, the voters and the vast majority of the actual soldiers (not "warfighters" but fucking SOLDIERS, Guardsmen and Marines. At least get your language straight) are opposed to continuing the war for another week, you have the stones to accuse your opposition of being ELITISTS. So what kind of non-elitist are you?

You blame the killing fields on our withdrawal from Vietnam? Why not blame them on the witless expansion of the war into Cambodia and the vain, arrogant destruction of the neutralist Sihanouk government? The same geniuses responsible for that fiasco (Abrams, Negroponte) are making policy decisions for Bush RIGHT NOW. So tell me about the killing fields again, why don't you?

You blame Darfur on Clinton. Why? Bush has been president for six and some years now. Why isn't anything HIS fault?

You think the president makes foreign policy, including declaring war, without congressional oversight? And you claim the basis of that belief is in the constitution? WHERE? Make your citations clear, simple and directly to the point. It's not that big a document. I'm not sure you've read it since junior high, but this dictatorial presidency you think is there is a mirage.

Oh, and one small point. Bush did not win at the polls, at leat not the first time out. Gore won. I know you elitists hate it when we point that out, but it's true.

I don't care what Petraeus has to say, one way for the other. Any kind of real solution in Iraq will begin with diplomacy, and that's not his department. Crocker is the one who should be getting fried by Congress, and probably will, before the week is out. And in the end it all comes down to Bush. He's been weaseling out of all resp-onsibility for a public accounting for his vanity war with one bit of theatrical nonsense after another. The killing fields in Iraq are already happening. You blame Clinton for Darfur. so who's to blame for the thousands of dead Iraquis?

And now the profanity... left-leaning brains are locking down.

Warfighters is a common term that covers soldiers, navy personnel and marines; use soldiers to cover marines in their presence and you'll be instructed what they think of the term. Of course, possibly you don't know any marines to know that (my brother served 20). War fighters also implies those who have been to theater.

And I was not blaming Clinton for Darfur; it was the Rwanda genocide that occurred on his watch. Of course, I assumed someone of your intellect might realize that they are separate events and locations; forgive me for such an assumption. Actually, neither president is responsible for either; neither did anything about them. And Rwanda was 4 times worse than Darfur to date. I won't even get into the messes that are the Congo, Northern Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc. For decades, nothing has been done about any of them by any western powers; in fact, France more or less signed off on the Rwandan massacre. They would all be very messy to clean up, if they can be cleaned up at all; go visit and find out for yourself.

Congress gave permission for the current actions; accept it, get over it.

Sorry, Bush won by the electoral college, which IS the constitutional method of winning the presidency. And naturally, AFTER the current action was underway, he won the popular vote by 3.5 million. Again, accept it, get over it.

"Warfighters" is rehetorical bullshit. Petraeus himself wasn't anywhere near actual armed conflict until four years ago.

Congress (back when it was dominated by the republican party that is currently going into the ground) gave Bush permission to force Saddam Hussein to give up some Weapons of Mass Destruction which Bush claimed he had...and which turned out not to exist at that point, as the o0nly people on the ground and with any real authority (Blix and UNSCOM) said. Bush said he knew better. That, at least, was a lie. So Bush had limited authority, which he got through deceit, and has exceeded it immensely.

You failed to make any distinction between Rwanda and Darfur. I suspect you're just making this stuff up as you go along. Clinton couldn't get enough support from Congress for a meaningful intervention in Haiti, much less an intervention in Africa that would hav had any hope of succeeding. He only managed to finesse the Kosovo intervention by doing it through NATO (you know, the "old europe," coalition building, all those now-forgotten skills) and guaranteeing that no US "warfighter" would suffer so much as a hangnail. Perhaps while you're being so smart and all, you can explain why Bush senior avoided any involvement in Bosnia? I'm sure, as an expert in genocide and such, you can understand that the people of Srebrenice (before the ethnic cleansing) might have questions about that.

You blather about how we need to keep troops in Iraq for no reason other than to cover Bush's political ass and general ineptitude, and you're bothered by some simple profanity? Heavens to Betrsy, what a jerk you are!

Bush won because he was appointed by the Supreme Court. Get over it. He has never won an election that was not tainted by fraud. Get over that, too.

Tainted elections: Care to compare the number of Republican election workers convicted of election fraud vs. Democrats in both 2000 and 2004? The number is St Louis alone was quite telling. I've spent many years as a county and state level election worker and would say 85-90% of all fraudulently cast ballots are voted straight Democrat. It's something we've learned to live with for decades; just trying to keep the volume down to levels below third world levels.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3- including liberal members- on the salient points of the 2000 election, which was you can't keep doing recounts until the right people like the results. If you want to relive all of this, go right ahead. I've got bigger fish t fry.

And who was doing the prosecuting?

This is pointless. We agree about nothing and it descends to throwing dirt, bluster and lying. your republican urban myth that Democrats steal elections and if there would only be enegetic prosecution of voter fraud we'd see a golden age of republican leadership was proven false during the last six-plus years. Bush's WH made pursuit of voter fraud a major priority for DOJ, to what end?

Look at the mess you guys have made. For once, look at the mess and admit yo were wrong.

Oh...yes. You don't do that.

Yeah, sure.

"Last I looked, polls (especially unsourced ones) do not dictate policy; election for those offices and the roles they play in our republic do."

That's true as a matter of power. Whether it should be the case as a matter of policy is another matter.

This administration doesn't care what anyone else thinks. It doesn't care what Congress thinks. It doesn't care what the courts think. And it certainly doesn't care what the public thinks. Bush feels he can do what he wants, even if he's the only person who wants to do it. And yes, he has the power to do it, because he got reelected one day in November a few years ago. But rule by the power of one person, "will of the people" be damned, sounds to me like what we fought a revolution against, not what the founders risked their lives for.

As for blaming Democrats for not having the guts to cut off funding, I agree with Biden, who refuses to vote to cut funding until there are a veto-proof 67 votes in the Senate to do so. Even if Congress cut off funding, there is little doubt that Bush will not bring the troops home. They'll stay in Iraq until his term is up, regardless of the wisdom or the futility of his choice, and regardless of what a majority of Congress thinks, or what an even larger majority of the public thinks. He's the Commander In Chief, and Congress can't make him withdraw the troops, at least not with a simple majority.

So if the troops are going to stay, I feel that Congress may as well fund them so that as few of them die as possible. Let Congress pass a funding cut-off, let Bush veto it, then pass the funding with the responsibility of the lives and treasure squarely on W.

And even if by some miracle Congress gets a veto-proof majority to bring the troops home, I have little doubt that Bush will ignore that directive as well, claiming that it's an unconstitutional infringement on his Article II powers as Commander In Chief. By the time the courts decide the question, it will be too late in his term for meaningful action anyway.

So even though I think our continued troop levels in Iraq is a tragic mistake, I'd still vote to fund them, because I don't see what defunding would do except create more dead young Americans.