Surge Politics

This past week marks one of the most important days leading up to next year’s presidential elections, and it was started off with a bang. General David Petraeus, the leading commander of our forces in Iraq, gave his testimony to Congress about President Bush’s surge. For those of you who haven’t been following the news in the past 6 months, President Bush ordered a troop surge of 30,000 troops in hopes of better stabilizing Iraq. According to Petraeus, these troop increases greatly cut down on violence, particularly in the areas around Baghdad. “The situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult and sometimes downright frustrating,” said Petraeus. “(But) I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, although doing so will be neither quick nor easy.”

Most pundits would agree that the report was rather fair; portraying the surge as working while being extremely critical of the Iraqi government at the same time. Several Democrats praised General Petraeus, from both a personal standpoint as well as his leadership positions. Petraeus also started his presentation by making a point to say that the words were his own testimony and had not been reported to either the Pentagon nor the President.

Unfortunately, this did not stop Democrats from playing politics.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) said that to believe General Petraeus required the “willing suspension of disbelief.” Translation: The leading Democratic candidate for president called a 4-star general who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate a liar to his face. And it gets worse.

Moveon.org, one of the leading liberal websites bought a $100,000+, full-page ad from the New York Times (the most popular newspaper in the country) titled “General Petraeus? Or General Betray Us?” People were hung for treason for less than this during our great nation’s former wars.

Neither Clinton, Barack Obama (D-IL), nor any of the other Democrats running for president condemned the ad. Clinton accused Republicans of “generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president’s failed war policy.” How long does it take to condemn an ad calling our country’s top general a traitor?

None of the Democrats running for president acknowledge the War in Iraq as apart of the global war on terror (which John Edwards called a “bumper sticker”). Obama in particular is set on capturing bin Laden; even warning that he is more than prepared to go into Pakistan after him without their permission. I personally think it’s weird that bin Laden himself speaks out so strongly against the War in Iraq in his latest video sent out two weeks ago…doesn’t he realize that it’s not apart of the war on terror?

Some may wonder why this is going on. It’s very simple. The leading Democrat in the senate is Harry Reid (D-Nevada). In April of this past year he declared the war in Iraq as “lost.” Can you imagine that? Better, can you imagine a United States Senator declaring in World War II that that war was lost? I mean, things were getting pretty bad up until 1942. We lost a tremendous amount of people; we were in a war in a far off country fighting Germany who didn’t attack us…

No, of course you can’t imagine that. This is a time of war. What Senator Reid said is 100% stupid and borderline treason. Al Qaeda would love to get its hands on that tape; it’s a terrorist training video. Osama Bin Laden called the United States a “paper tiger” in the 1990s, what else would we need to do to prove him correct?

The reason the Democrats are rejecting General Petraeus, as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker, is pure politics. You can’t win an election if your only hope for victory is America’s defeat.