Gen. Hagel v. the Upstart Petraeus

I just saw the headline this morning, Hagel puts screws to Petraeus, or some such nonsense. Basically Hagel is saying he doubts the general's testimony, blah blah blah etc etc etc. You know, how he got himself into this position in the first place, essentially becoming a casualty of Petraeus's winning strategy. He set himself up to lose if we win. Way to go Chuck. And he just keeps piling on. Obviously, he knows better than the good general, he is, after all, a US Senator.

I also remember reading some ridiculous story many weeks ago, John Bruning (I think) had returned from Iraq, and basically said 'uh, guys, the country really is not on fire' and of course Chucky slammed him down, saying that, since Gen. Hagel was a soldier, he knows better, and it would be best if John would just be realistic, please. While that is obviously stylized, the point was that Chuck said he knew better because he was once a soldier in a war. ok then.

Petraeus

This is quite remarkable.

Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to ‘differ substantially’ from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

( Newsweek is doing some serious sleight of hand by mentioning the “alternate” Pentagon report “differing substantially” from Petreaus’ recommendations of how to win in Iraq. It’s not a plan drawn up out of consideration for victory in Iraq, but one drawn up as a contingency in the event the Pentagon were to decide that it was more important to have a reserve of troops on hand for other possible conflicts. The so-called dispute with Admiral Fallon is not based on Fallon having a differing view of how to achieve success in Iraq, but of Fallon’s desire to have a ready reserve available for surprise conflicts. Newsweek would have you believe that there’s some report being drawn up that will claim that Petraeus’ Iraq assesment is wrong or even untrue. Not the case. )

I'm having a hard time believing what I'm seeing with regard to the general. And it is making me incredibly angry.

Politics, its all the Dems know. Soldiers dying, body armor, all of these issues, it don't matter, except how can we use it to our political advantage. How much do the Dems support the troops?

Zero. One of the most notable things about Petraeus’ testimony today was how often, and uncompromisingly, he indicted Iran for “killing” our troops. Now given this ongoing threat to our troops’ lives, and given the fact that every Dem knows, even in their own delusional fast-pullout scenarios, that many troops will remain in Iraq, it would seem to be one of the most important matters of the day. They should have clearly recognized that this threat needed to be addressed, that it was homicidally negligent for them not to step up to the plate and demand that some form of action be taken to address Iran’s undeclared war and protect our troops. But they didn’t. Because they weren’t there today to address how best our country can conduct a war, let alone to protect, let alone to support, our troops. They were there for politics. They were there to support themselves, and no one else.
Iran gets a pass. Petreaus gets libeled.

Libeled is right. These people are slandering him, calling him a traitor?? What could they possibly be thinking? These people are scum, straight up. This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen.

Case Against the Babykillers Crumbling

It is now obvious these guys did nothing wrong.

Patdollard

And Newsmax also reports the prosecution’s main witness fell apart:…the prosecution’s star witness all but collapsed on the witness stand after a withering cross-examination.Wrote Helms: “During four hours of cross examination by defense attorney Lt. Col. Colby C. Vokey, Dela Cruz was unable to clearly explain his previous testimony. At one point he simply stopped talking and stared into the distance, seemingly at a loss for words. At other times he simply rambled on until he was ordered to quit talking.”

Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy group that has represented Marine Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who was charged with failing to fully investigate and report Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha. Thompson wrote:

Newsmax:

A video taped from a Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle – purported to show the action that took place in Haditha when 24 Iraqi civilians and insurgents were killed – was heavily edited by government investigators, a NewsMax investigation reveals.The reason, according to an inside source: to avoid showing anything that exonerates the Marines who were accused of murdering the victims.

Four Marines originally faced murder charges stemming from the Haditha incident. Charges against three of them have since been dropped, but Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is still facing a court martial.

NewsMax can reveal that the video – which was broadcast by CNN – was a small, carefully edited part of what the Scan Eagle transmitted during its daylong surveillance flight over the battle scene on Nov. 19, 2005. And shockingly, the approximately one hour of edited footage was the only Scan Eagle footage provided to the Marines’ defense teams by the prosecution. According to CNN, “The video appears to show that, throughout that day, Marines engaged in fierce firefights and called in air strikes to level buildings - often with no definitive idea of who was inside.”

Had the entire video been shown it would have revealed that the Marines knew exactly “who was inside” - insurgents were clearly shown entering the target buildings before the structures were bombed. If CNN had been able “to review the whole video, they would see that we did indeed have a definitive idea of who was inside,’” an intelligence officer told NewsMax.The insurgents’ car parked outside the buildings “was packed to the gills with weapons, and we had just witnessed them complete an ambush on our ambulance,” the officer said. “We saw them enter the house, clapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves.”The deliberate editing of the video to show the defendants in the worst possible light, the Marine intelligence expert told NewsMax, “should have the defense screaming prosecutorial and NCIS misconduct.”