Posted on 10/07/2009 4:42:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
War Strategy: When Bush and Petraeus proposed the surge in Iraq, Democrats demanded that the general testify before Congress. So why has the Senate blocked a similar invitation to our commander in Afghanistan?
Those with memories longer than the 24-hour news cycle recall that in the dark days of the Iraq War, David Petraeus was summoned to Washington to explain the surge strategy that would eventually lead to victory in Iraq.
Democrats hoped for a show trial. MoveOn.org took out a full-page ad in the New York Times labeling the commanding general of our efforts in Iraq "General Betray-us." Then there was Sen. Hillary Clinton telling Petraeus, "I think that the reports that you provided to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is on record boasting of how he "forced" Petraeus to testify before the Senate on his plans for Iraq, a war he had declared we had already "lost." Back then, the goal of Democrats was to embarrass a Republican president and make Reid's statement a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But as it turned out, Petraeus gave a virtuoso performance, giving a realistic assessment of the situation on the ground and explaining to Congress and the American people in unfiltered words how his strategy would work and why it was necessary.
Sen. John McCain wants to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our embattled commander in Afghanistan, the same opportunity. He offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have required McChrystal to testify before the Senate on his Afghan counterinsurgency plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Because McChrystal’s name can’t be twisted into a “Betray Us” sound bite for the brain-dead Dems to chant as their mantra of the week?
That must be it
Why No Testimony From McChrystal?
That’s easy. McCain proposed it.
Because our side ran a loser and we lost. If the rinos continue running things we will never be back. If the press destroys our guys to the point that even we don’t like them we will be stuck in the wilderness.
lrg.jpg)
"When former President George W. Bush launched the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan less than a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the country's Taliban government was providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists. Eight years later, the Taliban regime is no more [huh?] and al-Qaida is scattered and weakened [oh?]. But the Afghan government is considered corrupt and ineffective, Taliban insurgent [which is no more?] hoping to retake control are gaining strength and terrorists continue to plan attacks ...."This uncertain progress has come at a cost of nearly 800 U.S. lives."
"Gibbs said Obama's decision is still weeks away."
From: "Eight years: Obama, war council weigh Afghan shift" By JENNIFER LOVEN
Given all we have read:
Flag_This: Has it ever crossed your mind, no matter how wild such reasoning would be; that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other infamous Obamacare brokers would stoop so low as to hold off on agreeing to McChyrstal's request for 40,000+ troop additions until opponents of government health care would agree (or save face )with the passage of some "robust" version of an ObamaCare bill?
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours scenario. Washington where deals are made. Where collateral damage is accepted. Where "under the bus" recognizes no allegiance.
bump for AM read
No, that honestly hadn't crossed my mind, but I have no doubt that Obama and Co. would not hesitate to use our troops as bargaining chips. I believe they despise our military.
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.