Not much need to add to what Cap'n Ed Morrissey wrote regarding the Democrats' two-facedness regarding General David Petraeus:
I had a dim view of the Democrats' ability to put together a coherent and/or rational policy on Iraq when they gained control of Congress in 2006.At Heading Right, I look at the sudden use of the phrase "the Bush report" in describing Petraeus' testimony, and how it seeks to undermine the integrity of this career officer for the political expediency of the anti-war Democrats. Of particular note is the fact that the same Senators who didn't cast a single vote against this highly-regarded commander taking over the effort in Iraq suddenly feel that Petraeus would conspire with George Bush to deliver a dishonest report to Congress. Which is more likely -- that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
I'm sorry to say that their performance has failed to rise to the level of my low expectations.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.