Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Levin Again Displays Ignorance of Military Issues; Cross Examines Petraeus Like Criminal Defendant; Dems Use Troops As Pawns

We can only thank whatever deity we believe in that Michigan's Democratic Senator Carl Levin represents only a small portion of the American political landscape and that our system of government allows only one vote per person.

In his latest outrage perpetrated on the American populace, and especially the military, Levin again attempted to boost his political standing by using the blood and sacrifices of American troops to advance his political agenda and that of his cronies in Congress.

Levin's actions and statements in Congress during a public interrogation of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker today represent another low point in American politics. I had believed that we couldn't possibly sink any lower than last year's similar interrogations that were opened with an advertisement in the New York Times paid for by one of Levin's benefactor's, MoveOn.org, calling Petraeus a traitor.

But leave it to the American Congress to show the world that the best of America is not reflected in its government. No wonder it is so hard to get qualified people to run for office.

Petraeus and Crocker were supposed to be briefing Congress on progress in Iraq, an event that by any measure of concern for the troops should have been held behind closed doors, with no media present. This could not be more critical, considering it was only within the last couple of weeks that media reports have focused on a study directly linking anti-war statements in America with increased attacks, including suicide bombings, on our troops in Iraq.

Considering that Levin and his cronies did not close the hearings, it is apparent that Levin is willing to sacrifice American troops in order to prove some nebulous political point. To say that he has the blood of the dead and wounded on his hands is a classic understatement.

Levin didn't even wait for Petraeus to give a briefing. Instead, Levin opened the inquisition with his statement on his view of conditions in Iraq, even though Petraeus is there all day every day commanding our troops and Levin only goes there on government junkets. Then instead of discussing the issues with Petraeus, you know, like one American leader talking to another American leader, Levin went after the general like a small time night-court prosecutor hammering a repeat traffic offender.

What temerity. What arrogance. What a poster for term limits.

Who the hell cares what Levin thinks? We hear from this jerk every day of the week. He is one the Congressional leaders in getting his face on camera. He can run his sewer any day of the week and the American media, not to mention Islamo-fascist news outlets that see him as a prime recruiter of jihadists, will film him as long as he wants.

The substance of Levin's commentary is not worth recounting. It was blah, blah, failure, yada, yada, withdraw, natter, natter, Bush Administration. True to his party's talking points, Levin lied to the public by stating that military operations over the past year had accomplished nothing - this from a guy who like his cohorts, claims to support the troops, poor uneducated, non-performing losers though they may be, in his view - and then ignored continuing political progress.

The other lemmings on his committee apparently followed the party line and approved talking points. I don't know for sure because I stopped watching, but occasional news blurbs showed their lips moving so I can safely conclude they were still reciting their lines.

But beyond the obvious willingness of Levin and his assorted Congressional thugs to use American troops as pawns for their political purposes, the commentary today
demonstrates an insufferable ignorance not only of military tactics and history, but of basic American history.

For instance Levin's Lemmings harped on last week's fighting in which Iraqi troops took it upon themselves to launch an operation against terrorists running the show in Basra with backing from Iran. Even though the Dems have been yammering for years that they want the Maliki government to show signs of taking charge of his own country, they were critical of him when he actually did it.

Typical hypocrisy.

Then, rather than congratulating our new ally on the successes of that mission, carried out by 15,000 Iraqi troops without American infantry involvement, the Dems focused on an estimated 1,000 Iraqi police forces and some troops who had deserted rather than fight. It turns out that the police were local and their families were vulnerable to recriminations from terrorists.

But the truth is, every new army has bad moments as well as good when it is building its own image, and its own traditions of bravery and courage. Not everyone stands and fights when they should. Just look at Levin and his Congressional stooges.

How many desertions were there under Washington at Valley Forge? How many stood with him when facing the British in New York?

Don't know? Well here are a few excepts from research on America's Colonial Army at Valley Forge that I found on the Internet using a Google search that took less than one minute.

February 3, 1778
"Yesterday twelve deserters went over to the Enemy, viz. 10 sergeants, one corporal and a private from a Regiment of Artillery commanded by Col Proctor." (Stoudt, "Ordeal at Valley Forge," 115)

February 6, 1778
"Regarding deserters from this Army of last Tuesday, this same paper reports: "No less than thirteen sergeants and a corporal belonging to Col Proctor's Regiment of Artillery, in the rebel service, and a number of privates from other regiments, came to Philadelphia. The accounts they give of Mr Washington's Army are distressing beyond description." (Stoudt, 120-121)

February 7, 1778
"The spirit of desertion among the Soldiery, never before rose to such a threatening height, as at the present time." Washington to William Buchanan, Commissary General of Purchases of the Continental Army (Fitzgerald, Vol. X, 427)

February 12, 1778
Desertions were "astonishingly great." B.G. James Varnum to Nathanael Greene (Trussell, "Birthplace of an Army," 66)

February 18, 1778
"There has been no considerable desertion from this camp, to my knowledge within a few days past, nor have the Enemy made any number of Prisoners on the other side of the Schuylkill…" Washington to Nathanael Greene (Fitzgerald, Vol. X, 476)

March 31, 1778
"I hope a due attention will also be paid to keeping up a sufficient quantity of Cloathing, that the Soldiers may never be reduced to want and nakedness. Not only a loss from Sickness, follows the want of covering, but desertion to a very great degree. I am astonished, considering the sufferings the men have undergone, that more of them have not left us." Washington to James Bowdoin (Fitzgerald, Vol. XI, 181)

Total number of deserters from the Colonial Army under Washington at Valley Forge. Estimates put it at 1100 to 1200. More than the number who quit fighting in Basra last week.

Quite an eye opener wouldn't you say? Well, it is everywhere except in Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin's hearings in the United States Congress. Oh, the other 14,000 Iraqi troops kept right on fighting and did quite well according to reports from the scene.

You didn't hear much about that in Congress Tuesday.

How many setbacks have there been in American military operations across the centuries when tenacious enemies threw themselves at our forces, gaining a temporary advantage that was later reversed. Can you say Battle of the Bulge or Bataan?

This political posturing when our forces are fighting in the field is criminal. Recent studies have shown what most people with a double-digit IQ already knew instinctively, that there is a direct correlation between battlefield casualties and denunciations of war efforts on the floor of Congress.

To continue this charade when in possession of knowledge that it is a direct cause of American casualties is beyond hypocrisy. It is obvious that it is time to start holding some real hearings in Congress, not these fake kangaroo courts, and it is the Congress that should be on trial, for treason.

But that would require some backbone in the minority party. I don't see that happening either.

What I do see happening is a continuation of our successful policies in Iraq, and an eventual draw down of American troops as Iraqi forces get more experience and more confidence. It has happened elsewhere with our assistance and I am confident it can happen in Iraq too.

But it will happen in spite of Carl Levin and others of his Congressional ilk. Frankly I don't see anything happening in that part of American politics until the only law that really matters any longer is finally forced on that disgraceful collection of sponges and leeches:

Term limits, term limits, term limits.


You are much smarter than I am!! I watched the whole thing. I am a CSpan junkie.

You've put this all very well. I will say the part that always surprises me is when a Congressman(woman) will ask the exact same question as one that has just been asked and answered. At first blush you think "Is so-&-so stupid?" or "Was so-&-so out of the room when that question was asked?" But no, they just want to get their face on camera asking that question so their local news stations can run it. After all a local news station isn't going to run all the questions and they are certainly not going to say "Senator Asshat, was the fifth Senator to ask this probing question. LOL

I love the fisking of the desertion charge against the Iraqis in Basra. Really great.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Post a Comment


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts