Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pat Buchanan’s Conservative Rag to MoveOn: Eat Your Heart Out?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-07-07 08:17 AM
Original message
Pat Buchanan’s Conservative Rag to MoveOn: Eat Your Heart Out?


By: bluegal on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 4:31 PM - PDT

Instaputz is just asking the question: will right wing blogs and congresspeople go nuts about this cover the way they did the MoveOn ad? (h/t Agitprop)

The article in question, by historian Andrew J. Bacevich, starts out making a common sense argument, then goes completely mental. Bacevich says that Petraeus should have been honest rather than political, and gone before Congress not to argue success of the surge. So far, so good. But Petraeus should have pressed Congress, not for a tiny lil’ withdrawal based on successful benchmarks, but rather, an urgent need to…wait for it…double or triple the forces on the ground in Iraq!

Even Joe Lieberman would laugh at that one, right? Right? Um, right? Nevermind.


“Bacevich is arguing that if Patreaus was honest and logical, since according to him (Patreaus) the surge is working, he (Patreaus) would and should have asked for “…More time. More money. And above all, more troops.”

I don’t see how that leads to me being corrected but I want you to know you’ve been heard.

UPDATE 2: Okay I’ve read the entire comment thread for this post and I get it. Bacevich, you’re saying, is writing a hypothetical speech for Petraeus based on reality-based reasoning against the war. But who is to say that if Petraeus did make this argument, the rubber stamp Congress would not just approve said increase without blinking? I hate, hate, hate to say this, but we are now beyond the point where “reasonable people” can disagree about this war. It’s a quagmire based on a lie, and there is no “there” there on any position which argues that it should continue. ]

You’d think there would at least be a House vote condemning The American Conservative’s editorial board for allowing such treason and disrespect to stand. The article’s conclusion could have been written by, gasp, yours truly, and I’ve been known to wish Fidel Castro a happy birthday at my blog, for crying out loud:

The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC