Hiding Behind the General

Joe Klein is on the money about Bush, Crocker, and Petraeus.

Comments

Yep.

Apparently not even Joke Line can ignore that Petraeus is a Bush shill, nor that Boxer (like most Democrats) is spineless and easily led astray.

The 'controversial' MoveOn ad behind the controversy is factually unassailable.

Its worth noting that Petraeus replaced Gen Casey, who criticized increasing troop numbers in Iraq, and, in turn, that Casey replaced Lt Gen Sanchez, who was implicated in the Abu Ghraib atrocities, and who has since claimed that the "Iraq war is lost."

The White House doesn't want a military strategist. They want a four-star spin doctor. From day 1, the Iraq War has been all about the spin.

Posted by Monty | September 16, 2007 5:13 PM

You overosld the piee imo.

It has some good points but always falls short of dealing with the basic question of what to do about it.

But frankly, you do the same thing when you refuse to consider what the Congress should do.

It seems we have all been brainwashed into believing in an imperial Presidency.

Posted by Armando | September 16, 2007 5:56 PM

Bush Petraeus Iraq War Tax

If Bush, Petraeus, and the Republican Congress love the Iraq War so much then they should pay for it.

Democrats need to include the "Bush Petraeus Iraq War Tax" as part of the defense supplemental spending bill.

Congress passes defense supplemental spending bills without paying for them. The bills are passed outside of the federal budget so there is no revenue paying for them. They are being added to the deficit and every five-year-old child will spend their entire adult life paying for it.

The Bush Petraeus Iraq War needs to be paid for today not passed on to future generations.

If Republican members of Congress don't support the "Bush Petraeus Iraq War Tax" it proves that they don't support our troops.

Support the Bush Petraeus Iraq War Tax!

Posted by Enslaved | September 16, 2007 7:00 PM

He hasn't retracted the comment about Crocker wanting Maliki gone, has he. Maybe Mehdi would
be a good alternative, with his command of English
and his financial background.

Posted by narciso | September 16, 2007 7:34 PM

Indeed but I wonder if we should still attack Iran.

I'm guessing we should have a Dem pres who says they'll attack Iran or maybe will attack Iran (that's only if they have a kewl southern accent though and personally pulled the switch on at least a dozen convicted shoplifters) and sounds really convincing when they say these things but then at the last minute does a head fake and doesn't bomb Iran but maybe bombs somewhere more defenseless.

Or something.

Posted by Linus | September 16, 2007 7:46 PM

JK: "It seems clear the President has won this round."

See, a more sober, serious, and responsible column would have focused on the actual issue-- you know, the war that's being justified on bogus grounds-- instead of feeling the need to judge the theatrics and throw in a few digs at Democrats.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 17, 2007 2:32 PM