Posts Tagged ‘petraeus’

…I guess we will have to win without him, won’t we?

Let’s examine his points in reverse order:

#10 He doesn’t like the voices of conservatism these days. He forgets that during those wonderful days of Buckley and Goldwater the democrats ruled. Firing line was on 35 years, 31 of them were years of Democratic house control, During Goldwater’s 30 years it was even less. Reagan never had a house majority. Liberals always respect conservatives as long as we lose. Even better when we lose gracefully

#9 Can you define what is a Nativist? Does being against Illegal immigration make one a “nativist” Is that something like Andrew Sullivan’s “Christianist” term?

#8 As for birthers I’ve hit them myself but also pointed out that the Administration loves them because it is to their advantage for them to exist. This is a very tiny fringe of the conservative movement and his inclusion of it elevates it to liberal advantage.

#7 Excuse me? Didn’t this president stress Afghanistan all during the campaign? I seem to recall him attacking the war in Iraq and elevating Afghanistan over and over again. The General who was in charge was his general, the decision to replace the general was his decision and the latest surge is his surge (and when Petraeus wins this war it will be his success and he will deserve it). Yes Bush went in first, yes Bush focused more (correctly) on Iraq but right now this war is our current president’s responsibility.

#6 Anti-science? I’m sorry but did you come out of a coma and miss the entire climategate scandal? I suggest you google “Hide the decline” or “global warming e-mails“. Let’s put it another way, other than not believing in the Global Warming Climate Change where else do we see conservatives as anti science? Oh and check this link from Glen yesterday.

#5 Yeah that horrible tea party that drew 10k in Boston in April and has energized voters. The Polls are close in NV and the Prof might have already given up but I wouldn’t be so ready to haul up the white flag. If we only listened to the MSM and the RNC about the tea parties a year ago what would conservative prospects be right now?

#4 This one is a good point. The GOP did fail to restrain spending but that is due to their unwillingness to act “conservative” Ironically it’s those tea party voters that you disrespect so that are holding republican feet to the fire and will desert those same republicans if they after winning congress decide to go back to their spending ways. (Although I would add the caveat that the war spending was and is justified, I actually think that some of the spending was to buy votes on the war from dems but that is strictly my opinion).

#3 I didn’t see the column in question am reading it now…You’ve got to be kidding. That column has gotten your knickers in a twist? It’s not much of a column but if that column is your number #3 reason to be embarrassed to be a conservative then you need a Valium quick! Update: And how many people voting conservative have even heard of these guys? Do you think the conservative movement hangs on their words? If you think so you need to get out more.

#2 You are correct that Tancredo is wrong. I wrote a post called: Let’s not get carried away making that same point. Am I embarrassed by Tancredo being wrong? Not really, so he’s wrong big deal. If the conservative movement was pushing for impeachment and running on that platform that would be a different story. But this is a mountain out of a molehill

#1 Let’s be blunt here. It is #1 that drives all the others for you. Palin Derangement Syndrome. How embarrassed must you have been that Palin almost managed to win the 2008 election for John McCain until he went along with the bailouts. How horrible that she has brought the Hoi Polloi into the political process. How terrible that she draws huge crowds and raises money hand over fist for conservatives. How horrible that she started as a mayor and rose through the ranks to a governorship, succeeded as a governor and has managed to do this without an elite university degree or the backing of the eastern elites and the inside the beltway crowd? I’m old enough to remember the elites hitting Ronald Reagan the same way.

Put it another way, what American has been more successful in the last 2 years in advancing both their personal fortunes and the fortunes of their worldview? Who has done more to advance conservatism that Sarah Palin? Who other than Rush kept fighting when the rest of the GOP wanted to run? Who had a better and more impressive record going into the 2008 election? Palin or our current president?

You want to hate Palin, you are welcome to do so. You want to be embarrassed by Palin? Feel free. You want to get a few extra hits and a popular memeorandum thread? Go wild, but don’t beat your breast about being embarrassed to be conservative these days. You sound like Braxton Bragg after Chickamauga unwilling to follow up the victory.

As I said at the start, if we have to win without you we’ll manage, but I’d just as soon win with you, because once we do win, we will need people to help keep the new congress honest on spending and you can be an important part of that.

Oh and Prof I’m not embarrassed by you from what I hear and have read in the past you are an OK guy, you just happen to be wrong today.

Update: left out the phrase “climate change” and added to point 3

Update 2: Professor Jacobson farts in their general direction.

Our next contestant is Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul of the Pakistani army. His topic the bleeding obvious:

described the documents’ release as the start of a White House plot. It will end, he posited, with an early U.S. pullout from Afghanistan — thus proving Gul, an unabashed advocate of the Afghan insurgency, right.

President Obama “is a very good chess player. . . . He says, ‘I don’t want to carry the historic blame of having orchestrated the defeat of America, their humiliation in Afghanistan,’ ”

Here Gul, 74 shows himself a little less knowledgeable than he thinks. The Wikileaks stuff isn’t part of a administration plot, but the media, the left and anti-victory members of the administration will use it to their advantage.

Let me repeat, the goal is to engineer withdrawal and political defeat before Petraeus manages to engineer victory.

I’m sure that such a defeat will have no chance of emboldening the forces of Jihad all over the world. There is absolutely no chance that the next Osama Bin Ladin will be able to convince radical Islamists that there is no danger in opposing the US or in hitting America again. Once we stop fighting Jihad I’m sure those trying to push Sharia all over the world will decide we are friends and stop.

One word of advice: make sure you don’t drive after drinking whatever the people who actually believe that nonsense are.

Why is this so confusing? Let me answer you:

1. Preventing Afghanistan from being used as a forward base for terror.

2. Neutralizing the Taliban as an effective fighting force.

Why is it so hard to understand that?

The Morning Joe crew has one good point. You don’t win a war simply by throwing more troops at it you win a war by having a smart stratagy to win it and the right leaders and tactics to do so.

Anybody who thinks the US military can’t win in Afghanistan is an idiot, but it’s more than that. The president in one of he few really good moves has put Petraeus in charge over there. There reason you see the Wikileaks and the push against the Afghan war now just as the strategy has changed is not because the left is afraid of losing this war, its because the left is afraid we will win it.

Expect more of this meme, in their minds the battle cry is “Stop Petraeus before he wins again!”

…one about the past and one about the present.

Nasty Thought #1: All this draft nonsense:

Do you get the feeling that MSNBC and the left are pushing and talking draft right now because they are afraid of Gen Petraeus? Not afraid of him politically but afraid of him as a general. I have the horrible and uncharitable feeling that they are afraid he will actually win this war.

Success in the war would mean a more powerful US. One more likely to act rather than talk. The concept of the US military as a force never to be used is even more sacred to the left than the first black president. They aren’t in a position to attack Petraeus so the only way to counter him is to get the country talking draft. With a high unemployment rate and college so expensive it is a tempting solution to several social/economic problems but it would scare the britches off of many in the ME generation.

The left has never lost their love of 60’s radicalism, it was their greatest moment, it is their dream to bring it back in living color.

Such an appraisal is not very fair to most of the left and is as I said a nasty thought, but right now it is stuck in my head and won’t come out.

Nasty Thought #2 Al Gore

For years I’ve wondered why Al Gore didn’t assert himself during the Clinton Impeachment stuff. It would have been up to Gore to talk to the president and say it was time for him to go. If he had conventional wisdom says he would have easily won election in 2000 and maybe even in 2004. Not only did he not assert himself but he after the impeachment vote made that ludicrous speech calling Mr. Bill “One of our greatest presidents” (talk about grading on a curve)! In my mind the question has always been: Why did he play along?

I have the nasty feeling that question has now been answered. Does anyone believe for one moment that if the Clintons knew Gore had some ahem “interesting diversions” they wouldn’t have held that over him? Al understood that people judge a Rogue differently than a “strait arrow”. It’s the expectations game. People were not surprised that Clinton was messing around and judged him accordingly, but Gore? He would be judged by his strait arrow image.

Again this is a nasty thought and assumes Gore’s guilt but I can’t get it out of my head.

Are these thoughts a sign I am becoming paranoid or am I just becoming more street savvy? What do you think?