Who Has Betrayed Whom?

When MoveOn.org ran its full-page ad defaming General Petraeus, our Commander in Iraq, in the New York Times last September, my American blood reached the boiling point.  How dare they!

My first thought was for our troops risking their lives and limbs far away from home, under the command of this distinguished Gentleman-Scholar-General, and how such disrespect at home would affect their mission.  Ever since then, trying to unearth the real truth surrounding this disgusting incident, my blood hasn't stopped boiling, it's just been put on a slow simmer that threatens to boil over at any given moment.

The ad itself accused General Petraeus of betraying America and "cooking the books for the White House," of lying, in other words.  The Soros-backed, MoveOn folks made a number of scurrilous charges, most of which were easily debunked by the Washington Post Fact Checker, who gave the ad a three-Pinocchio label for dishonesty, stating that Move On's charges contained "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."  Probably the only reason that the "General Betray Us" ad caused such a stir was that it ran on the first day of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress, submitting his formal report on the situation in Iraq.

I urge every American to read the General's full report here.  It's written in plain, succinct, easy-to-comprehend English, without the dodge-ball rhetoric so preferred by our politicians.  But to make it easier for the pols to comprehend, he even brought charts and diagrams.  The General's report, despite his Master's Degree in Public Administration and his Ph.D. in International Relations, is remarkably unfettered by the meaningless verbiage so characteristic of academic elites.  The General's report is 9 pages of pure, unequivocal substance. 

So what, in the name of Congress, is so hard to understand about this?
"While there have been setbacks as well as successes and tough losses along the way, overall, our tactical commanders and I see improvements in the security environment.  We do not, however, just rely on gut feel or personal observations; we also conduct considerable data collection and analysis to gauge progress and determine trends...Two U.S. intelligence agencies recently reviewed our methodology, and they concluded that the data we produce is the most accurate and authoritative in Iraq." (Emphasis mine.)
Or this?
"Iraq-wide (as shown by the top line on this chart), the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, and it would have come down much further were it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric Al Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence." 
Throughout his entire report, General Petraeus acknowledges the failures and miscalculations of Iraq War policy, and gives specific and very credible evidence that the surge is working, in many places far better than was anticipated.  Since September, even the most skeptical have been forced to admit that Petraeus was right.

In my opinion, the soldiers currently serving under General Petraeus in Iraq are far better suited to give opinions about him than any of the lot that make up MoveOn.org.  When I asked my own sources in Iraq what they thought of the Gentleman-General, all agreed he is top notch.  One Lt. Col. perhaps said it best:
"One thing that I have found out having served under General Petraeus for the past 10 months is that we are all on Petraeus' team over here.  General Petraeus is a team builder who recognizes the contributions of everyone and treats all with dignity and respect from the lowest ranking soldier to the highest ranking dignitary."
I cannot possibly imagine a more American attitude in a more, truly American Gentleman-General. 

The real question then, would seem to be, who has betrayed whom?         

Both Houses of Congress, to their credit, did pass condemnation statements aimed at the MoveOn ad, but, both Democrat front-runners for the 2008 Presidential nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, voted "nay."  Senator Clinton not only voted "nay," but even went so far as to publicly, and on the record, accuse General Petraeus of lying during his testimony, saying with her eyebrows fully raised incredulously, and her scornful eyes honing in on her target, that the General's statements required "the willing suspension of disbelief."  

Then she appeared the same week on
Meet the Press and straddled yet another verbal fence, saying, "I don't condone anything like that (the MoveOn ad), and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country." 

And once again, my blood is boiling.

This incident is just a tiny scrap of fabric in what appears to be a whole tapestry of betrayal by the Democrat Party, a betrayal against the valiant men and women serving our Country in Iraq, whose mission was overwhelmingly authorized by Congress itself.  Lest anyone has forgotten, on October 11, 2002, the United States Congress passed a Joint Resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.  Much has been made of the WMD raison d'etre, and how upon the fall of Baghdad, the caches of weapons actually found, did not seem to be all that they had been purported to be.

Congress' Joint Resolution listed a full 23 "Whereas" reasons to go to war and remove Sadam Hussein from power, and only 5 of those reasons even mention Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Yet, if you have been listening to mainstream news outlets for the past 4 years, as they hash and re-hash the lack, or disappearance of all those WMD's, you've probably heard nary a mention of the other 18 reasons our Congress listed.  Congress even listed fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq in the tenth "Whereas":
"Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the U.S., its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
Well, Al Qaeda was certainly in Iraq, and as General Petraeus and many, many others have confirmed again and again, Al Qaeda-Iraq has made quite a nasty nuisance of itself, perpetrating a host of barbaric acts.

When the Congress of the United States of America authorizes the Commander in Chief of the armed forces to wage war in the name of the American people, these Representatives form a sacred contract with those they are sending into harm's way.  Brave men and women put their lives on the line, based upon this pact of trust, and have every just reason to expect everything necessary for the completion of their mission to be readily forthcoming.  The weapons and equipment.  The money to keep them well-fed, well-rested and well-armed.  And, last but not least, the moral support! 

Our fighting forces have kept their part of this sacred trust.  Has the Congress kept its part?  Or have they betrayed the trust of the men and women serving at their behest?

John Kerry voted for the war, but on December 4, 2005, Senator Kerry appeared on Face the Nation, and accused our soldiers of "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children."  John Murtha, another infamous Democrat veteran, rushed to publicly convict the Haditha marines of murdering "innocent civilians in cold blood," after he bought, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda allegations of our enemies, which have now been proven completely false or vastly exaggerated.  But the real cake-taker in this lot has to be Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid's bold proclamation to the entire world on April 19, 2007 that "This war is lost."

Add these caustic insults to the real injury of a constant array of stalling and infighting for an entire year over the appropriations for the War, and various attempts to legislate defeat by tying the funding to publicly stated withdrawal timetables, and in my book, you have one huge, heinous, incontrovertible betrayal of our troops in harm's way. 

Frank Durrum, a former army captain and West Point graduate, currently has a son serving in Iraq as a First Lieutenant, and sums up his feelings about the Democrat Betrayal of our troops:
"As a veteran, I try to put myself in the shoes of the troops.  As a parent who jumps at every phone call, and waits nervously for my son's safe return, when prominent political leaders say our son is risking his life for a losing cause, that is illegal in the first place, and was started by a liar for his own political advantage, it hurts me.  It also makes me very angry.  What these Democrats, who publicly criticize our troops and their mission, are really doing is like spitting on them, as they did in the Vietnam era - just a little more sanitary."
One would be hard put to find a more heinous act of betrayal.  Shame is too mild a word for it.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com.    
When MoveOn.org ran its full-page ad defaming General Petraeus, our Commander in Iraq, in the New York Times last September, my American blood reached the boiling point.  How dare they!

My first thought was for our troops risking their lives and limbs far away from home, under the command of this distinguished Gentleman-Scholar-General, and how such disrespect at home would affect their mission.  Ever since then, trying to unearth the real truth surrounding this disgusting incident, my blood hasn't stopped boiling, it's just been put on a slow simmer that threatens to boil over at any given moment.

The ad itself accused General Petraeus of betraying America and "cooking the books for the White House," of lying, in other words.  The Soros-backed, MoveOn folks made a number of scurrilous charges, most of which were easily debunked by the Washington Post Fact Checker, who gave the ad a three-Pinocchio label for dishonesty, stating that Move On's charges contained "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."  Probably the only reason that the "General Betray Us" ad caused such a stir was that it ran on the first day of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress, submitting his formal report on the situation in Iraq.

I urge every American to read the General's full report here.  It's written in plain, succinct, easy-to-comprehend English, without the dodge-ball rhetoric so preferred by our politicians.  But to make it easier for the pols to comprehend, he even brought charts and diagrams.  The General's report, despite his Master's Degree in Public Administration and his Ph.D. in International Relations, is remarkably unfettered by the meaningless verbiage so characteristic of academic elites.  The General's report is 9 pages of pure, unequivocal substance. 

So what, in the name of Congress, is so hard to understand about this?
"While there have been setbacks as well as successes and tough losses along the way, overall, our tactical commanders and I see improvements in the security environment.  We do not, however, just rely on gut feel or personal observations; we also conduct considerable data collection and analysis to gauge progress and determine trends...Two U.S. intelligence agencies recently reviewed our methodology, and they concluded that the data we produce is the most accurate and authoritative in Iraq." (Emphasis mine.)
Or this?
"Iraq-wide (as shown by the top line on this chart), the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, and it would have come down much further were it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric Al Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence." 
Throughout his entire report, General Petraeus acknowledges the failures and miscalculations of Iraq War policy, and gives specific and very credible evidence that the surge is working, in many places far better than was anticipated.  Since September, even the most skeptical have been forced to admit that Petraeus was right.

In my opinion, the soldiers currently serving under General Petraeus in Iraq are far better suited to give opinions about him than any of the lot that make up MoveOn.org.  When I asked my own sources in Iraq what they thought of the Gentleman-General, all agreed he is top notch.  One Lt. Col. perhaps said it best:
"One thing that I have found out having served under General Petraeus for the past 10 months is that we are all on Petraeus' team over here.  General Petraeus is a team builder who recognizes the contributions of everyone and treats all with dignity and respect from the lowest ranking soldier to the highest ranking dignitary."
I cannot possibly imagine a more American attitude in a more, truly American Gentleman-General. 

The real question then, would seem to be, who has betrayed whom?         

Both Houses of Congress, to their credit, did pass condemnation statements aimed at the MoveOn ad, but, both Democrat front-runners for the 2008 Presidential nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, voted "nay."  Senator Clinton not only voted "nay," but even went so far as to publicly, and on the record, accuse General Petraeus of lying during his testimony, saying with her eyebrows fully raised incredulously, and her scornful eyes honing in on her target, that the General's statements required "the willing suspension of disbelief."  

Then she appeared the same week on
Meet the Press and straddled yet another verbal fence, saying, "I don't condone anything like that (the MoveOn ad), and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country." 

And once again, my blood is boiling.

This incident is just a tiny scrap of fabric in what appears to be a whole tapestry of betrayal by the Democrat Party, a betrayal against the valiant men and women serving our Country in Iraq, whose mission was overwhelmingly authorized by Congress itself.  Lest anyone has forgotten, on October 11, 2002, the United States Congress passed a Joint Resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.  Much has been made of the WMD raison d'etre, and how upon the fall of Baghdad, the caches of weapons actually found, did not seem to be all that they had been purported to be.

Congress' Joint Resolution listed a full 23 "Whereas" reasons to go to war and remove Sadam Hussein from power, and only 5 of those reasons even mention Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Yet, if you have been listening to mainstream news outlets for the past 4 years, as they hash and re-hash the lack, or disappearance of all those WMD's, you've probably heard nary a mention of the other 18 reasons our Congress listed.  Congress even listed fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq in the tenth "Whereas":
"Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the U.S., its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
Well, Al Qaeda was certainly in Iraq, and as General Petraeus and many, many others have confirmed again and again, Al Qaeda-Iraq has made quite a nasty nuisance of itself, perpetrating a host of barbaric acts.

When the Congress of the United States of America authorizes the Commander in Chief of the armed forces to wage war in the name of the American people, these Representatives form a sacred contract with those they are sending into harm's way.  Brave men and women put their lives on the line, based upon this pact of trust, and have every just reason to expect everything necessary for the completion of their mission to be readily forthcoming.  The weapons and equipment.  The money to keep them well-fed, well-rested and well-armed.  And, last but not least, the moral support! 

Our fighting forces have kept their part of this sacred trust.  Has the Congress kept its part?  Or have they betrayed the trust of the men and women serving at their behest?

John Kerry voted for the war, but on December 4, 2005, Senator Kerry appeared on Face the Nation, and accused our soldiers of "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children."  John Murtha, another infamous Democrat veteran, rushed to publicly convict the Haditha marines of murdering "innocent civilians in cold blood," after he bought, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda allegations of our enemies, which have now been proven completely false or vastly exaggerated.  But the real cake-taker in this lot has to be Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid's bold proclamation to the entire world on April 19, 2007 that "This war is lost."

Add these caustic insults to the real injury of a constant array of stalling and infighting for an entire year over the appropriations for the War, and various attempts to legislate defeat by tying the funding to publicly stated withdrawal timetables, and in my book, you have one huge, heinous, incontrovertible betrayal of our troops in harm's way. 

Frank Durrum, a former army captain and West Point graduate, currently has a son serving in Iraq as a First Lieutenant, and sums up his feelings about the Democrat Betrayal of our troops:
"As a veteran, I try to put myself in the shoes of the troops.  As a parent who jumps at every phone call, and waits nervously for my son's safe return, when prominent political leaders say our son is risking his life for a losing cause, that is illegal in the first place, and was started by a liar for his own political advantage, it hurts me.  It also makes me very angry.  What these Democrats, who publicly criticize our troops and their mission, are really doing is like spitting on them, as they did in the Vietnam era - just a little more sanitary."
One would be hard put to find a more heinous act of betrayal.  Shame is too mild a word for it.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com.