McCain, Giuliani, Clinton and Gen. Petraeus

FLORENCE, S.C. -- As Sen. John McCain barnstorms the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, he carries with him a laminated copy of a full-page ad in The New York Times.

The MoveOn.Org advertisement accuses General David Petraeus of "cooking the books" on the war in Iraq and asks: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

"My friends, that's a disgraceful thing, disgraceful,'' McCain said at a VFW Post in Rock Hill, S.C., this morning as he made the case for keeping troops in Iraq and not setting a deadline to leave.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, put his own ad in The New York Times on Friday as he demanded that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, apologize to Petraeus.

"You do not honor the troops by attacking their general at a time of war," Giuliani said.

McCain, too, has repeatedly called on Clinton to renounce the anti-war group's rhetoric.

But as Clinton received the endorsement today of Gen. Wesley Clark, the retired four star general who opposes the Iraq war, she twice refused to do so.

"I made clear my great respect for Gen. Petraeus and his service to our country,'' Clinton said, referring to her remarks at the Senate Armed Services hearing last week.

Now looking around (from Wisconsin ) we have some comments:

Ralph Dillon: MoveOn.org tactics hurt Dems' 2008 prospects
A letter to the editor — 9/15/2007 9:37 am

*************************************

Dear Editor: In its effort to discredit anything said by Gen. David Petraeus, MoveOn.org went on the "offensive" by attempting to belittle one of the few military leaders with a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University.

Petraeus gave a lucid report that showed the kind of progress that is being made in Iraq as a result of the surge, which had hardly been fully implemented until two months ago.

Titling a picture of Gen. Petraeus with the words "General Betray-Us" was a mean-spirited, juvenile play on words that is typical of the infamous success claimed by the left for their supposedly wildly successful Internet base.

The fact that none of the Democratic presidential candidates -- including Hillary Clinton, who leads in the poll -- is willing to condemn MoveOn.org's insult indicates the fear they have of possibly offending this cowardly organization.

The public sees this as a principle and integrity vacuum on the part of the Democrats and, regardless of how the public feels about the war in Iraq, this gives the Republican candidates an opportunity to pound this idea home to the independents as well as members of their own party.

A succession of these kinds of mistakes may make a sure thing come 2008 become a real race for the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Ralph Dillon, Middleton

A letter to the editor — 9/15/2007 9:37 am

From WND:

Democrats' so-called 'support' of troops

**************************************EXCERPT**********************************

Democrats' so-called 'support' of troops

Posted: September 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Gen. David Petraeus

In another stellar showing of their "support for the troops," Democrats last week did more to destroy unit cohesiveness than any other single issue in U.S. military history. If this week doesn't settle once and for all the outright disdain Democrats have for the military, nothing will.

Gen. Petraeus by all accounts is a man who has dedicated his life to service to his nation. His commitment to honor is without question. Yet in two short sessions before the United States Congress (united... what a joke) Democrat interrogators attempted to reduce this fine man to nothing more than a partisan hack of the Bush administration. In their words, the general lies and cannot be trusted.

Mind you, this is the man the Congress unanimously confirmed to lead the "surge" in Iraq – the leader of the troops Democrats claim to support. They support the troops but not the mission, and now they want you to believe they support the troops but not their leader. Funny way these Dems have of showing support.

After a week of Moveon.org, Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. attacking him, Gen. Petraeus is tasked to return to his command in Iraq and lead the forces who have just been told their leader cannot be trusted. Is this a brilliant Democratic idea or just more evidence of the outright hatred the Dems have for the military? Democrats expect the troops to trust this man and his orders when they repeated over and over this week they don't? Even Al Franken can't make that work.

(Column continues below)

There was a glaringly important element missing from the Democratic response to Gen. Petraeus' report and President Bush's address. Not one Democrat leader or liberal commentator acknowledged any military progress. Startling given Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reported progress in security and a marked improvement in the morale amongst the troops on his visit to Iraq. Katie Couric reported improvements on her recent trip. John McCain corrected Mitt Romney that the surge is working. Troop re-enlistment rates indicate it is. Gen. Petraeus says there is improvement. Even five-term democratic Rep. Brian Baird, who voted against the Iraq invasion, has stated that we are making progress. Yet, despite multiple reports of progress on the ground, not one acknowledgement from Democratic leadership.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., claims "by all objective measures, the surge has failed." Sounds like Harry telling us we lost the war completely back a few months ago. What is it with these Democrats? Are they really that against any progress? Do they want defeat at any cost?

If the Moveon.org ad portraying Gen. Petraeus as Judas and Code Pink's lack of respect for decorum with violent outbursts during the hearings doesn't prove that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the most extreme elements on the left, nothing will. Few, if any, Democrats denounced Moveon.org or gave back money they received from kissing George Soros' ring. Hillary, John and Barak have all taken money and continue to do so from Moveon.org. We are judged by the company we keep.

I guess what really startled me the most about this week was the new sixth sense the Democrats have developed for identifying the truth. They didn't even hear Gen. Petraeus speak to know he was lying. Moveon.org placed the ad days before his testimony. Hillary and company were giving comments before listening to one word. Tom Lantos said "I don't buy it," 15 minutes before the Gen. uttered a syllable. I found it rather appropriate that Gen. Petraeus' microphone was not working. The hearing had to recess for repairs. Why? Democrats were not going to listen anyway. They had already made up their minds. He is a liar. There was no need for a microphone.

The general took great care to establish in his first few words that he wrote his report himself and did not clear it with the Pentagon or the White House. But the ESP-equipped Dems knew better. Why with this new-found talent there should be no need for a justice system. If you are accused of a crime, just have a Democrat listen and look at the evidence, and they will be able to tell you who is guilty and who is innocent without any testimony. Heck they don't even need to look or listen. They apparently can just divine the truth. Think of all the money and time they will save us. More cash to spend on the failed social programs they so enjoy. No need for judges, courtrooms and yes… lawyers. Hallelujah!

Democrats have done a great job making the public distrustful of anything they have not ordained to be the truth. Israel struck Syria last week claiming concerns about possible nuclear activity and documented shipments of arms from Iran to Hezbollah. Syria claims it is not true, and Israel is doing to them what the U.S. did to Iraq. Now Syria, a known sponsor of terrorism, is believed by the press, and Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, is painted as a liar. Do those who undermine everything done to fight extremism realize the damage they do?

Let the Democrats continue to undermine all U.S. military efforts, and it is only a matter of time before there will be no need for a military. In fact, if they hold Congress and win the White House in 2008, they can disband the military. Think of the money they will save there as well. It is clear to me they see no need for a military or they wouldn't translate labeling military leaders and the commander in chief liars into support for the troops. What soldier is going to follow the orders of a liar?

One of the leading spokesman of the far left:

***************************************************************

OH JOY:

Noam Chomsky
On Religion and Politics

*************************EXCERPT*********************

Professor Noam Chomsky is arguably one of the most influential political analysts of our day and age. While some may read anything ever written solely because they know they will agree with everything he has to say, others may dismiss him entirely. This interview with Amina Chaudary is part of an ongoing effort at trying to understand the world today in the face of religious-based violence, political failures and increasing divide along the secular and religious across the globe.

Amina Chaudary: First, Professor Chomsky, thank you so much for your time. I’d like to begin with a very broad question. Current affairs tend to indicate that a tension between and within religions, some say especially in the case of Islam, lies at the center of many conflicts in the world today. Do you think religion is exerting a greater influence on foreign policy today, both here in the U.S. and abroad? Would you also address what happens when religion merges with politics – and how this is any different than other forms of identity merging with politics, such as ethnicity?

Noam Chomsky: Well the major problems of the world are those that appear in the most powerful states almost by definition, because whatever affects them affects everyone. And the most powerful state in the world by orders of magnitude is the U.S., and it also happens to be one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. Extremist fundamentalist religion may well have a greater hold in the U.S. on the public than say in Iran, though I’ve never seen a poll in Iran. But I doubt 50 percent of the population thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago exactly the way it is now. This is actually strange because way back in American history to the time of the colonists, there have been eras of religious revivalism. Most recently we see this in the 1950s, which was a big period of religious revivalism. That’s how we get phrases like “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God.” Religious revivalism picked up again in recent years. Until recent years, it was not a major force in political affairs. That has happened in the last 25 years and it is now an enormous force – fundamentalist religion, not all religion by any means. So, for example, the U.S. has often been bitterly opposed to Christianity. That painting (points to a picture) is an illustration of the hatred of U.S. leaders for the Catholic Church. It was given to me 15 years ago by a Jesuit priest. It is a painting of the Angel of Death on one side with Archbishop Romero, who was assassinated, and right below are six leading intellectuals who were murdered by an elite U.S.-run battalion. That framed the decade of the 1980s: Romero was assassinated by U.S.-backed forces in 1980, Jesuit priests in 1989 and, in between, the U.S. carried out a major war against the Catholic Church. Many of the victims of (President) Reagan’s efforts in Central America were nuns, lay workers, and for clear and explicit reasons, which you can see officially stated, like the famous School of America, which trains Latin American officers.

There is a book (now available in paperback ):

***********************

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz

********************************************************

And reviews:

****************************************

Editorial Reviews

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review

David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle

An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

***********************************************************

See all Editorial Reviews

Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006

Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews

A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.

The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,

Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.

***************************************

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.