The Redhunter

Tom

God love 'em, newspapers and their candy ass editors keep me amused!

And now that the liberals have told us how to "fight" a war, I am using their latest rules of engagement in my upcoming book describing the "atrocities" committed by liberal FDR in fighting the Nazi's and how many of our troops were killed "needlessly" by him.

Also, JFK hired McNamara who gave us Vietnam. Both Harvard grads. Using liberal logic-Harvard is the "belly of the Beast".

Bottom line though. We'll be getting the suicide bombers here soon. How will liberals fight them when they start blowing up theaters? Probably put someone like J Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI like liberal FDR did.

Yours with the Republic,

Jim

Oh yeah...we need to create our own term limits for congress.

Vote any Senator or Congressman who has served two terms of their seat out of office, no matter what party they belong to.

We can no longer afford their lifetime appointments. These guys look at it as a business. It isn't. Can you believe we pay these guys retirement, including those thrown out for corruption?

VOTE THEM OUT!

Actually, liberals have consistently complained about the civilian leadership in the war in Iraq, not the military leaders (aka 'the generals'). Most rational evaluations of the situation in Iraq have faulted the civilian leadership and their rosy and overly optimistic view of the post-war period (inadequately prepared for) as a major source of the problems we have had since Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on the aircraft carrier. Since then, we have seen Iraq enter an insurgency, and now as The Economist (hardly a bunch of leftist socialists) states, a civil war.

Often is has been the military leadership which has criticized the politically appointed civilian leaders at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Chalabi, etc.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen

In fact, Gen. Tommy Franks used a grunt's bluntness to describe Doug Feith a "the dumbest fvcking guy on the planet"

I know you get your jollies from blaming the left, but the reality is that the left (and many within the military brass) have blamed the civilian leadership for the quagmire in Iraq, not the generals fighting this misled war. Read the Nation article, they are a bonafide leftist magazine, that specifically points out the failing of the civilian leadership, and honors the work of the military generals.

Grants quote doesn't apply, we have appointed excellent generals to fight the war, it has been the direction provided by the civilian leadership (the chickenhawks) which has resulted in the current quagmire in Iraq, as often decried by the favorite punching bag of the right, the evil left wing media. Blech, same old story.

jason, methinks thou doth protest too much!

You know perfectly well by this point that I don't blame the libs of the media for the current situation (not entirely, anyway), so just stop it.

But you seem to have entirely missed the point of the quote, which is that it is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain. Whether the libs are or have attacked the military or civilian leadership is irrelevant.

And oh, didn't Senator Reid call Generals Pace and Petraeus "incompetent" recently?

Point well taken about Harry Reid, but hey, he wears a bow tie and likes to put his arm around Nancy Pelosi in a painfully awkward way. They actually make my skin crawl, he's not what I consider a 'great leader.' On the same note, it has been a disappointment to watch the democrats really flounder with their control of the House: same earmark process, same lobbying shenanigans, same low opinion amongst the public as the previous republican Congress they replaced.

Actually, the linked article in the Nation refutes the notion of the quote, the most meaningful critiques have come from active military brass who served in Iraq, hardly people you would decry for "sitting on the sidelines and complaining."