| My Thoughts on Candidates and the MoveOn.org / GEN Petraeus Debate RON PAUL WHO? I didn't even know Ron Paul existed until the debate in which (in my opinion) he made a complete ass of himself. His main message is that we need to pull out of Iraq immediately, nothing less than 100% evacuation of the region. He wants to make all the hay off of NOT being a Bushite that he can, even at the expense of reason. He really struck me as a loon. UH-OH RUDY. YOU MAY HAVE STEPPED IN IT THIS TIME Did you see McCain's recent comments on Rudy's NRA stance? It's stuff I didn't know and find interesting if not disturbing. Apparently, several years ago Rudy called the NRA "extremists, as much as the other side" in a Larry King interview. Then, to make matters worse, he tried to pull off a completely contrived phone call from the missus as spontaneous, but it especially looks phony in light of the fact that he pulled the same stunt just a few months ago. NRA members in attendance were not impressed and neither was I. I get the impression that he feels so weak when it comes to the family values issue that he needs to resort to stunts instead of just being himself. Not something I want to see in a candidate this early. The fire hasn't even gotten warm yet and he's pulling tricks. Anyway, that's a real biggie to me. Of course, as always, if he's the candidate I would have to vote for him simply because I cannot abide a socialist dictator (think again if you think that is not exactly who she is) in the White House, but his support for holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun crime is a big problem for me. WHY MoveOn.org and ANYONE WHO AGREES WITH THEM IS WRONG ABOUT GEN PETRAEUS Hillary's refusal to sign the condemnation of MoveOn.org. pretty much let's everyone know exactly where she stands. David Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for his 4th star and command of troops in Iraq. In his first major appearance before the Senate after that confirmation she had the nerve to call him a liar. I'm going to add my next comments for the benifit of any of you on the "TO" list that may have even entertained questions about this man's integrity. I served with (then) COL Petraeus in the 82nd Airborne Division. He commanded the 1st Brigade from 95-97 (precisely the time that I was there). I was not in his brigade, however, but what makes that remarkable is that every soldier in the 8,000-strong infantry side of a 15,000 man division knew that this guy was a rising star. Lieutenants we fighting for the opportunity to serve under him. My battalion commander was also a "fast-tracker" but paled in comparison to DP. Petraeus was a legend even as he arrived in the division. His stellar performance as Brigade Commander lived up to expectations, if not exceeded them. All that said, look at it from this standpoint: Officer's (specifically General's or those bound to make General) serve in excess of 30 years. Petraeus has 33 years since graduating from West Point in 74. Many Presidents come and go in the span of an officer's career. It does no good for a an officer to be beholden to any Commander-in-Chief. The President can only recommend General officer appointments. Congress must approve every star the General puts on his shoulder. This is precisely done to prevent unholy alliances between Generals and the CinC, lest a military dictatorship ensue. That, in itself, is one excellent point for Petraeus NOT cooking the books for the White House. Another is that he has nothing to personally gain by doing so. He cannot be promoted and, if he could, it would take Congress to do it; so why would he risk alienating himself from the very body that controls his future (see Peter Pace) by perpetuating a lie? But he CAN'T be promoted and he has the option (with the President's approval) of retiring at any time (see Tommy Franks). We now have removed immediate personal gain from the list of motives to lie. Lastly, you may say, would be to protect his legacy. Petraeus literally and literarily wrote the book on counter-insurgency. He is the author of our current doctrine. He may be loathe to admit failure lest his entire career lose it's legitimacy. There is really only one place to look to determine the legitimacy of command; the soldiers. Popularity is certainly not on the list of great command qualities, but the reasons behind one's popularity (or lack thereof) can be very telling. Soldiers will be the very first to tell you how they feel about a Commanding General (see George Patton or Douglas MacArthur) personally and professionally. Professional soldiers render respect to rank because that is required by law. They can do so readily without the slightest ounce of personal respect for the officer whom they salute. Likewise, personal respect will not exist for an incompetent leader or one with great political aspirations. Conversely, when that respect is rendered as well as felt, it becomes very clear why. It always lies in the competence of the commander, not the charisma. As it was a decade ago at Fort Bragg, it is today in Iraq; soldiers respect him for his knowledge, forthrightness and courage. He has sat personally with a very good friend of mine (a Sergeant First Class Platoon Sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division) for hours LISTENING to what was going on and what was needed. Even though he wrote the book, he seeks council from those on the ground, not when they return or are laid up in a hospital bed in Germany, but by being on the ground with them. THAT earns personal respect from those who give it very sparingly. He puts himself in harm's way not for headlines, but because that is the place of a warrior. Anything less would be failing to lead from the front and that is something he has never failed throughout his career. Above all, soldiers see that his plan is working. His legacy lies in the hands of those who serve under him, not in the outcome of this war. That is where Bush's legacy lies and he deserves every bit of it, good, bad or otherwise. GEN Petraeus' legacy will lie in the effectiveness of his command (regardless of the overall outcome), his generalship, both on the battlefield and in Washington, and his conduct as both an officer and a gentleman. I was particularly impressed with his ability to be unaffected by the personal attacks on his character. That strength comes from knowing you are right and knowing that you are above reproach. I can't think of a single member of Congress who would know what that feels like, the least of whom would be Hillary Clinton. The Constitution calls for a single Commander-in-Chief, yet, even now, democrats in Congress are calling for the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group to become policy. There is no mention in the Constitution of a Commander-by-Committee, whether in Congress or otherwise convened. Don't think that that was by mistake. It was very deliberate if for no other reason than a group can rationalize and diminish the importance and individual responsibility behind the single most difficult decision to befall a commander; whether or not to give the command that will cost the lives if his subordinates. Neither Congress nor any committee it convenes or endorses is charged with the responsibility or authority to conduct foreign policy. That falls to the President and no amount of gavel beating on Capitol Hill will change that. Historians can debate Bush's effectiveness, decisiveness and judgement as a commander (and I do not purport that he has been a good CinC), but there is one reality that he cannot avoid and of which Congress cannot relieve him (barring impeachment) and that is this: Everything from January 21, 2001 to January 20, 2009 is his responsibility and his alone. How he is judged by history is not tallied by the number of war dead (see GEN Robert E. Lee) but by the leadership he displayed while accountable. I personally think he has been a disaster as a commander-in-chief and a continual disappointment as President. But he still holds the reins and, contrary to current belief, no Congressional election can change that. Democrats in Congress did not gain the power to override the Constitution because they won a majority. "The people have spoken," may be a true statement, but they didn't speak as it pertains to our national foreign policy. If the people voted to change foreign policy, then they voted two years too early. That wasn't at stake in the Congressional elections. It is only at stake in the upcoming Presidential election. That's just how our system works. So, examine the records of those who would besmirch an officer more distinguished than his famed and afore-mentioned predecessors and ask yourself: Who has the motives to be less than honest in this debate? GEN Petraeus' integrity and loyalty are beyond reproach and to insinuate otherwise for political expediency is reprehensible and treasonous. Military service is a life of sacrifice, period. What sacrifices have Clinton and MoveOn.org performed for the security of this nation? What qualifies them to question the manner in which those who serve so gallantly perform their sworn obligations? Is the willingness to abide an assault on an honorable servant a characteristic of one worthy of the White House? Is the blatant denial of what is right for the sake of money (MoveOn.org controls the purse-strings of the left) indicative of what we need in leadership? Of course, many claim that Bush has been a whore to big business and the oil industry and that may very well be true. It is certainly now evident that Hillary is a whore to the most extreme and socialist organization in the country, MoveOn.org. Trade one whore for another and you'll only get a different type of disease. |
 | |  |