Wednesday, April 9, 2008

More M$M Man-crushery...

...It isn't just for McCain any more.

The cocktail-weenie waggers of the M$M can not drop to their knees in front of the Man-God Petraeus, he of the rank of General, fast enough. They make certain committee republicans look downright slow on the ass-kissing uptake; and Sessions flat-out embarrassed himself yesterday with that humiliating display of blind fealty and googly-eyes. I half expected him to pass a heart-shaped note to the witness table.

Yesterday as Dave of the Four Stars took up his turd-polishing position in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he faced some tough questions by Republican as well as Democratic Senators. Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Richard Lugar and George Voinovich - republicans all - all had harsh words for the General; but to hear the M$M tell it, the poor defenseless fellow was set upon by a pack of mad-dog Democrats, snapping and snarling and rabidly unreasonable.

The front page of the LA Times sported the headline Petraeus, Democrats square off. (emphasis mine). The tone of the piece downright dripped dismissive contempt of congressional concerns and oversight.
As expected, back-to-back Senate committee hearings spotlighting Army Gen. David H. Petraeus became a confrontation between two immovable forces. But there was no real decision at stake: President Bush is expected Thursday to endorse Petraeus' recommendation for a suspension of withdrawals in July, insisting that security gains over the last 15 months can lead toward a sustainable future, with continued U.S. help. (emphasis mine)

Speaking for hour after hour in his professorial monotone, Petraeus pressed that case, colliding repeatedly with an entrenched view among Democrats that Iraq's time to become more self-sufficient had arrived, and that troop withdrawals could help bring it about.
Really, those unctuous, impertinent congresspeople should check their station and thank their lucky stars he even deigned to present himself before them, since what they think doesn't matter anyway; he and the president will do any deciding that needs to be done, and Congress can go hang.

Campbell Brown on CNN painted opposition as a purely Democratic phenomenon: "The general's plan would leave about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for an undetermined period of time, news that didn't sit well with Democrats, who pressed Petraeus about how long it could be before there are more withdraws." (emphasis mine)

Robert Burns, writing for the AP: WASHINGTON – The top U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress Tuesday that hard-won gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise any troop pullouts beyond this summer, holding his ground against impatient Democrats and refusing to commit to more withdrawals before President Bush leaves office in January. (emphasis mine)

The New York Times: The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, refused under persistent questioning from Senate Democrats to say under what conditions he would favor new troop reductions, adding that he would not take the matter up until 45 days after a current drawdown is complete in July. His recommendation would leave just under 140,000 American troops in Iraq well into the fall. (emphasis mine)

But the prize goes to the Chicago Tribune for hitting a two-run homer with "Gen. Petraeus answers his next boss." The article actually starts with Petraeus in front of the Senate facing questions from committees that include the three Senators vying for the presidency, but the piece barely mentions Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, then quickly segues into a puff-piece on McCain and his goals for Iraq!

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. They aren't even trying to pretend they aren't biased any more. Never mind that the American people in general, not just Democrats, are sick of this war and want to find a way out, and not take a hundred years to do it?

(h/t Think Progress)

UPDATE I - Blue Girl @ 4:20 p.m. has answered the question "How do you spend a hundred years in Iraq?"

No comments: