Pat Sullivan Blog

Trashing Petraeus - A Shame for Democrats

I have not written much recently about the Iraq war.  I have watched with interest the reports (even by some liberal reporters) about some success of the "surge".  I also noted one Democrat who openly said that it would be "a problem" for Democrats if the surge produced progress.  This is because the Democrats are so invested in America's failure in the Iraq war.  I don't think it is about the war though.  I think it is only about winning the White House and Congress. 

With apologies to the WSJ, I have copied this OpEd because it is so right on.  To accuse Gen. Petraeus of betrayal of his country even before they hear what he has to say is slanderous and a new low in national politics.  This piece says it all as far as I am concerned.   I respect both Lieberman and Biden for disavowing the trashing of this mans integrity for no other reason than political advantage.  Pure slime! 

Trashing Petraeus

September 11, 2007; Page A18

Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.

Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."

"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse.

MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos.

In an editorial on Sunday, the New York Times, after saying that President Bush "isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public," asserted that "General Petraeus has his own credibility problems." We read this as an elision from George Bush, the oft-accused liar on WMD and all the rest, to David Petraeus, also a liar merely for serving in the chain of command. With this editorial, the Times establishes that the party line is no longer just "Bush lied," but anyone who says anything good about Iraq or our effort there is also lying. As such, the Times enables and ratifies MoveOn.org's rhetoric as common usage for Democrats.

Late last week, for instance, we heard it said of General Petraeus that, "He's made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual." This was from Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.

The Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, said Thursday that General Petraeus would not be the author of his report; it would be written "by Administration political operatives." He opened yesterday's hearing, moments before General Petraeus was to speak, by saying, "We cannot take anything this Administration says on Iraq at face value."

So far, only two Democrats that we are aware of have repudiated this political turn. Joe Lieberman, already ostracized from the party for dissent, called the MoveOn ad an "act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn." And Joe Biden, after the MoveOn ad was read to him on "Meet the Press" Sunday, replied: "I don't buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth."

These are the exceptions. Another of the party's activist groups, Democracy for America, released a statement about the time General Petraeus began to speak: "It is offensive that our commander-in-chief has ordered a four-star general to mislead Congress."

As General Petraeus finished his statement yesterday, Senator Chris Dodd's Presidential campaign spammed an email about "the accuracy" of the report: "The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus's report is not surprising given that it was brought to you by this White House." Thus in Mr. Dodd's view, General Petraeus, returned from the Iraq battlefield, is a complicit ventriloquist's dummy.

Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.

Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.

Today General Petraeus testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Its Democratic Members include Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Jim Webb. This would be the appropriate setting to apologize to General Petraeus for the MoveOn.org ad. Or let it stand.

9/11 - We Still Remember

(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

Bush Breaks Campaign Promise

I have said here a few times that I have been disappointed in Bush. He has managed to pretty well piss everyone off at some point.   In my opinion, this one is a big screw up.

He said when running for his 2nd term that he was against using mercury in vaccines. 

"I support the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material has been definitely included or excluded."

Now he plans to veto a bill specifically because it would have eliminated the use of mercury in flu vaccines. I have written often that we should eliminate the use of mercury in any medical or dental procedure.  It just makes no sense to use such an incredibly toxic heavy metal, especially when we inject it into babies whose brains are still developing.  I imagine it would be a "hardship" on big pharma.  I am sure they have millions of vaccines on the shelf that contain this neurotoxin.  They have no qualms about using it on babies etc.

I hate it when politicians don't do what they say they will do.  This is shameful!

Where Will We Go for Health Care?

I know that the Health Care biz is really screwed up.  But like Democracy, is it the best of the worst?  I am not a fan of Nationalized (socialized?) medicine in American for a lot of reasons.  The number one reason is that the experiment in Canada seems to be a serious failure.

The stories of Canadian citizens coming to America for their health care are well documented.  Here is a great article of one where a man is suing the Canadian government over the issue.

If we are unfortunate to have our right to get our healthcare where we choose, where will we go when we are deathly sick and cannot get treated immediately?

Proof Global Warming Caused by Media Hot Air

I said in a post not long ago that I remember back in the 70's being told by the media we should fear Global Cooling.  I suggested that what actually is going on today with global warming is nothing more than media hype.  The media LOVES controversy and fear.  That is what sells news. 

I also suggested that the climate is constantly changing in cycles and always has.  Looking at the long history of the "news cycle" back and forth between global cooling and global warming it suggests that I am right.

I was more than delighted to find this post from the website at www.businessandmedia.org.  This article documents the continually changing scares coming from the media dating back to the '20s.  It is a really fun read and shows that global warming is in fact created to sell the news.  And perhaps to get big grants from the government and other foundations.

14% of Americans Happy with Congress; Could pollsters have really found that many lobbyists and illegal immigrants for the survey?

(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

Some funny commentary by Jon Sanders on a new survey about American's (lack of) confidence in Congress.  Also funny because he compares it to other national surveys, like how many people believe that Elvis is still alive and how many people believe in UFOs.

Two views of Iraq

No one would argue today that mistakes have not been made in the war in Iraq.  I certainly would not.  I have said so before in this blog here.  But is that all there is to talk about?  Certainly the Mainstream Media only portrays one side of the war so we all clearly know the bad side. 

But is there another side to the war?  A friend of mine, Foster Friess, who founded and runs Brandywine Funds, a really great mutual fund company, recently returned from a trip to Iraq.  He met with many Iraqi officials and talked with many of the regular people in the streets while there.  I greatly enjoyed his report of his trip. 

Of note is how peaceful it is now to live in the Northern Kurdish section of Iraq.  Saddam persecuted this area constantly.  He killed hundreds of thousands there.  Needless to say, they are absolutely thrilled with their liberation and love America and George Bush for what we did for them.  But we never hear this in the media.  I thought you would enjoy reading his report.

Why is it that we are not proud of what we did for this people?  We allow Islamic terrorists, intent on blowing up their own people, to drive the news reports we get everyday and cause us to be tempted to believe that nothing good was gained and all is lost.  This is foolishness.  Don't we realize that much of what the terrorists are doing are specifically designed to influence Media coverage and Congressmen?  Our media gladly goes along with this giving them all the more reason to blow more people up.  It is a vicious cycle and our media is very much a part of it.  Congress is guilty as well. 

Congressmen calling for our immediate withdrawal never offer a plan regarding how to prevent massacres if we actually did what they call for. They also don't address the loss of face in the Middle East if we SURRENDER.  They only thing that the Islamists respect is strength. We have only surrendered once before.  We should never do it again.  We have done a lot of good there.  Not the least of which is we have created a magnet for the crazies to come and fight us there, not in NY or Chicago or LA etc.  That seems to me to be a really good unexpected outcome.

Foster also introduces a wonderful Video regarding the history and present danger we face with the radical Islamic groups that are sworn enemies of ours.  Watch the preview of this here.  Clearly, no reasonable person believes that these people are just going to open up deli's if we leave Iraq without helping them to stabilize.  It is awful that we have to have a war but we need to remind ourselves that we did not start this war.  We finally responded to the many attacks over the past 15 years.  We cannot stand idly by.  To do so would be tragic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A few weeks ago I posted on Global Warming and got a number of comments.  I came across a TV  documentary created in England called the "Great Global Warming Swindle" when I read an Op Ed piece by Thomas Sowell (one of the smartest people on the planet I think)

The film runs 1hr and 13 mins.  I found it fascinating and very well done.  It enforced my sense that what we are dealing with when we talk about Global Warming may well be simply hysteria ala Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" which back in the late 60's made all sorts of dire and outlandish predictions that simply did not happen!  Back then I was on the side of hysteria.  I really believed what Erlich was preaching.

One of the humorous points made in the documentary was that in the 70's, all the environmentalists were yelling about Global Cooling and making dire predictions about civilization freezing to death.  The global temperatures were falling at the time.  When they began to rise again, they switched to Global Warming.  The fact is the earth temperature is cyclical.  The cycles are totally driven by the rise and fall of sun spots and other natural phenomena, but NOT CO2 gases.   

The film also makes the point that massive amounts of monies are in play for funding for scientific study.  If you want to get funded you have to be politically correct and say you are studying something that may play a part in Global Warming.  Any studies to the contrary are simply never funded.  I always say, "follow the money."  Many thousands of jobs and huge bureaucracies are totally dependent upon Global Warming being true including the jobs of "Environmental Reporters" who will ONLY report something that is radical and alarming; preferably more alarming than the last report that came out.  Any scientist who reports that small changes in temperature have been happening for eons is simply ignored because it does not sell newspapers.

The documentary is worth watching regardless of which side you are on in this important debate.  I encourage you to take the time and enjoy it. 

Both Sides of the Global Warming Debate

Global warming is in the headlines again.  No one disagrees that warming is actually happening.  There is a scientific debate however, as to the actual cause and the possible results of global warming.  Here is a great summary of BOTH sides of the debate.  We almost NEVER hear the other side in mainstream media.  They prefer the more alarmist's view and yet there is a large group of scientists who don't agree with that view.  Good to know both sides of any argument.  I especially like this one.

Personally, I remember Paul Ehrlich's doomsday predictions regarding population growth in his book called "Population Bomb."  None of his alarmists predictions proved true.  None.  I feel the dire predictions of global warming may well fall into the same category as Ehrlich's.  I guess wild predictions sell papers!

Bergergate

(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

Which is worse, Watergate or Bergergate?