Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neocons, Petraeus could still rise from Iraq's ashes
Capital Times ^ | 7/31/2007 | Ed Garvey

Posted on 09/07/2007 12:57:29 PM PDT by SJackson

In looking at the Republican presidential candidates, one must ask, "Where is the A team?"

Undeclared Fred Thompson is about as attractive as our Tommy; John McCain has embarrassed himself by kissing up to the demagogues on the Christian right and in so doing has traded his integrity and wide appeal for support from the lunatic fringe. (I once worried that I might vote for him. What was I thinking?)

Mitt Romney? C'mon. This plane just won't fly, and serious people can't take Rudy Giuliani seriously. He won't get to second base. You can fake a resume for only so long.

The rest of the field is not very exciting. So the Democrats should relax, do nothing on the occupation, support the troops, and get ready for the inaugural balls. Right? Wrong!

The neocons are not throwing in the towel and opening the gates to people who just might try them as war criminals. No sireee! Imagine a conversation between Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz: "Well, Paul, hell of a run, but now it is transition time. Let them investigate all they want. Our time is up. Let them open the secret files, call in the FBI, hire special prosecutors. What the hell -- have at it." (And the spotted cow jumped over the moon.)

I think the money boys and the neocons have a candidate, and it isn't Fred Thompson, Rudy, John McCain or Ron Paul. In their view, it is time for a president in uniform. It is time for the modern-day Douglas MacArthur. When MacArthur clashed with President Truman over war policy in 1951, with the general wanting to run the risk of engaging China, President Truman did what he had to do. He asserted that under our Constitution, men in suits controlled men in uniforms. He fired the war hero, and the conservatives of that day wanted MacArthur to run for president in 1952. Cooler heads prevailed, and MacArthur faded away.

Fast forward to 2007. The president, vice president and the neocons in the Senate, led by Lindsey Graham, appear to have ceded all civilian control of the war in Iraq to Gen. David Petraeus. (See Frank Rich's superb column in last Sunday's New York Times, regarding the coup that he believes has taken place.) Rich may be right that a coup has taken place and Petraeus is now in charge, but I think it is not so much a coup as a clever campaign to elect the general president of the United States in November of 2008 on the theme that, however bad things are in Iraq, better to have a military man in place as the conflagration grows than a weak civilian.

Here is how I see the danger. The Congress will do nothing to punish the administration for lying us into war, taping our phones, humiliating us by use of secret prisons and torture and on and on. There won't be an impeachment or censure because the leaders don't have time both to argue over bridges and highways and to deal with those who have stolen our democracy. The Democrats won't cut the funding for this outrageous occupation, and voters will blame the Democrats for the mess. Millions won't vote, and, with a couple of billion to spend, the neocons will help establish another third party effort, and they win!

Why is this nightmare scenario possible? First, the Democrats are convinced it will be President John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden and then they can pull out gracefully. In the meanwhile, take no chances.

Second, they will yield to Petraeus, who is going to call for more money, more troops, and more time. More, more, more. And guess what? They will give all three, and before they know it, they will be smack dab in the middle of the presidential race.

Third, Democrats are listening to political consultants like Bob Shrum that they must not appear weak on the war on terror. That means wimping out on a real end to the occupation.

Once committed to more troops, and more time, the neocons figure just enough voters will be sucked in again and turn to Petraeus to lead them to victory.

Can this be stopped? Only if people raise the roof over the Petraeus report and demand an end to this suicidal episode. Only if Democrats in Congress take the lead, discard the Petraeus report, and end the funding of the occupation.

For me? I'll be at Fighting Bob Fest on Saturday, Sept. 8, in Baraboo to join Cindy Sheehan, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Laura Flanders, Matt Rothschild, Jeremy Scahill, Jim Hightower, Mike McCabe, Barbara Lawton, Tammy Baldwin, Dave Obey, Gwen Moore, Bob McChesney, John Nichols and thousands of progressives in saying "no and hell no" to more of this nonsense. It is time to bring our troops home. Now.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fredthompson; iraq; neocons; petraeusreport
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: SJackson

I am so ‘proud’ to live in a state with ‘progressives’ like the author. I am sure he will have a great time getting lessons from Congresswoman Gwen Moore on how to slash republican get out the vote vehicle tires, and from Cindy Sheehan he can get some lessons on dealing with Hugo Chavez. Should be a great time at Fighting BOb Fest..Glad I will be nowhere near Baraboo this weekend.


21 posted on 09/07/2007 1:41:00 PM PDT by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Ed used to be head of the Football Players Union when they nearly destroyed the game with their strike .....But out of his insantiy he did come up with a good idea. PETRAEUS FOR PRESIDENT does have a ring to it I think. We need a no nonsense kick ass kind of guy to deal with the dimmies like Pelosi and Reid


22 posted on 09/07/2007 1:46:59 PM PDT by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: milwguy; SJackson
Ed Garvey coming up with my idea (or actually any idea) proves the old adage

Even a blind hog can sometimes
find an acorn in the woods.

23 posted on 09/07/2007 1:51:19 PM PDT by Zerodown (Petraeus. The next Eisenhower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
“Neocon” is code for “Jewish Conservative Republican”.

Maybe. IMHO, It might be the code for a formerly liberal Democrat who suddenly woke up and discovered his politically correct old Left former fellow travelers were hot to sell Israel down the river.

So maybe it's more accurately code for "a Jew who got the wake-up call." In my limited experience, the classic Republican social and limited government agenda may not immediately be their preferred tonic. However, I am a "big tent" Republican and for Israel, so they're very welcome while we work on whatever's left of their formerly Liberal tendencies.

And OTOH, what really matters is winning the fight to the finish against the present phase of the eternal Muslim drive toward conversion of the world. Survival first. Politics later.

24 posted on 09/07/2007 2:06:00 PM PDT by Zerodown (Petraeus. The next Eisenhower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
There has been a media cover-up of Tapegate. This is the first person to call the administration out on taping our phones.

Next, Larry Craig will claim he was misrepresented, and that he was actually taping his foot...

25 posted on 09/07/2007 2:18:19 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
He asserted that under our Constitution, men in suits controlled men in uniforms. He fired the war hero, and the conservatives of that day wanted MacArthur to run for president in 1952. Cooler heads prevailed, and MacArthur faded away.

Second time in a week I've heard this argument. Are there ANY dims who learned that in 1952 a former general was elected president from the Republican party?

26 posted on 09/07/2007 2:21:26 PM PDT by Philistone (Your existence as a non-believer offends the Prophet(MPBUH).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

What the hell is a Neocon? You are either conservative, or not. These jerks simply want to drive a wedge between any conservatives. The Paleo Cons that they love were Israel haters (Jew Haters)—that is the distinction...


27 posted on 09/07/2007 3:03:41 PM PDT by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor
What the hell is a Neocon? You are either conservative, or not. These jerks simply want to drive a wedge between any conservatives. The Paleo Cons that they love were Israel haters (Jew Haters)—that is the distinction...

Moving target.

Today, a neocon is a warmongerer who opposes an immediate, total withdrawl from the mideast.

28 posted on 09/07/2007 3:10:45 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Philistone
He asserted that under our Constitution, men in suits controlled men in uniforms. He fired the war hero, and the conservatives of that day wanted MacArthur to run for president in 1952. Cooler heads prevailed, and MacArthur faded away....Second time in a week I've heard this argument. Are there ANY dims who learned that in 1952 a former general was elected president from the Republican party?

It's a fascinating arguement isn't it, which GENERAL was more suited to replace the HABERDASHER then occupying the White White House, base on dress.

Me, I'd probably have supported MacArthur.

He was a neocon, after all.

29 posted on 09/07/2007 3:14:29 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zerodown
Maybe. IMHO, It might be the code for a formerly liberal Democrat who suddenly woke up and discovered his politically correct old Left former fellow travelers were hot to sell Israel down the river. So maybe it's more accurately code for "a Jew who got the wake-up call." In my limited experience, the classic Republican social and limited government agenda may not immediately be their preferred tonic. However, I am a "big tent" Republican and for Israel, so they're very welcome while we work on whatever's left of their formerly Liberal tendencies.

If you look at the history of most of the Jewish neocons usually cited, look to the 80s when we had a neocon President, you'll see that the wakeup call related to the spread of communism, not Israel. This is something that's difficult for the nutballs to work into their conspiracy theories, so they ignore it. You're correct that social issues aren't a factor, it relates largely to foreign affairs.

30 posted on 09/07/2007 3:19:35 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

BTW, IMO conservative is losing it’s meaning as well.


31 posted on 09/07/2007 3:20:58 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

What, no BARF ALERT?


32 posted on 09/07/2007 3:21:00 PM PDT by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
Capital Times serves as a barf alert.

I presume you're not familiar with Berkley-Midwest, but you'll know next time. :>)

And should they be reading this, I commend them for being one of the few (only?) Progressive (capital P, didn't call you guys liberals) publications not to ban posting of their content on FR.

I agree with them on a national issue.

33 posted on 09/07/2007 3:23:31 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Time for the tinfoil. Break out the secret decoder rings:
“Alpha, Popcorn, Dogfight, Briarpatch, Zulu, Zulu, Seven. That is all.”


34 posted on 09/07/2007 3:30:01 PM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

What the hell is a Neocon? You are either conservative, or not. These jerks simply want to drive a wedge between any conservatives. The Paleo Cons that they love were Israel haters (Jew Haters)—that is the distinction...


35 posted on 09/07/2007 3:48:15 PM PDT by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Paging Ed Garvey.

You forgot your brain.

We have it here in lost and found.

In a match box.


36 posted on 09/07/2007 4:05:06 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner (Here's how to prove God's existence: ask Him to reveal Himself to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

No. That’s just Ed, LOL! We’ve been mocking him for years.

But correct me if I’m wrong:

EVERY STINKING MEMBER OF CONGRESS voted to approve General Petraeus, did they not?

A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS voted to approve additional FUNDING to support the surge, did they not?

WTF is WRONG with these LibTards? (That’s rhetorical, of course!)


37 posted on 09/07/2007 5:29:34 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

taping our phones????

The horror, the horror

That must be a new form of torture by the eviiilllll neo-cons..... you reach for your phone and discover it’s wrapped in tape and you can do anything with it.

This Ed Garvey is a genuine drooling moonbat.... so how did he manage to come up with such a good idea.....

DAVID PETRAEUS FOR PRESIDENT!!


38 posted on 09/07/2007 5:51:45 PM PDT by Enchante (Reid and Pelosi Defeatocrats: Surrender Now - Peace for Our Time!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I joked with John Bolton one time that Neo Con is a word invented to cover up the fact that liberals have not had a foreign policy for 40 years.

He laughed.

He also denies that he is a neo con.


39 posted on 09/07/2007 8:11:12 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Today, a neocon is a warmongerer who opposes an immediate, total withdrawl from the mideast.

So today it means that, and tomorrow it will mean whatever is convenient? Sorry, I can't buy that. Let's leave relativism to the liberals; they do it well.

Not to mention that your definition uses 'warmonger' in an EXTREMELY broad sense.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the war as it is, but an "immediate total withdrawal from the mideast" would be a disaster in every sense. And if Dr. Paul actually thinks that 'total withdrawal' is a good idea, then he's quickly finding his way off my short list of preferred candidates. If that makes me a 'neocon' by your definition, so be it.

//Thompson/Hunter '08

40 posted on 09/07/2007 11:31:55 PM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson