Read time: 2 minutes

Pat Buchanan's Conservative Rag To MoveOn: Eat Your Heart Out?

Instaputz is just asking the question: will right wing blogs and congresspeople go nuts about this cover the way they did the MoveOn ad? (h/t Agitpro

conservative betrayus cover Instaputz is just asking the question: will right wing blogs and congresspeople go nuts about this cover the way they did the MoveOn ad? (h/t Agitprop)

The article in question, by historian Andrew J. Bacevich, starts out making a common sense argument, then goes completely mental. Bacevich says that Petraeus should have been honest rather than political, and gone before Congress not to argue success of the surge. So far, so good. But Petraeus should have pressed Congress, not for a tiny lil' withdrawal based on successful benchmarks, but rather, an urgent need to...wait for it...double or triple the forces on the ground in Iraq!

Even Joe Lieberman would laugh at that one, right? Right? Um, right? Nevermind.

[UPDATE: Several reasonable correspondents have written in directly to my email saying I am misrepresenting Bacevich's argument. One of them wrote:

"Bacevich is arguing that if Patreaus was honest and logical, since according to him (Patreaus) the surge is working, he (Patreaus) would and should have asked for "...More time. More money. And above all, more troops."

I don't see how that leads to me being corrected but I want you to know you've been heard.

UPDATE 2: Okay I've read the entire comment thread for this post and I get it. Bacevich, you're saying, is writing a hypothetical speech for Petraeus based on reality-based reasoning against the war. But who is to say that if Petraeus did make this argument, the rubber stamp Congress would not just approve said increase without blinking? I hate, hate, hate to say this, but we are now beyond the point where "reasonable people" can disagree about this war. It's a quagmire based on a lie, and there is no "there" there on any position which argues that it should continue. ]

You'd think there would at least be a House vote condemning The American Conservative's editorial board for allowing such treason and disrespect to stand. The article's conclusion could have been written by, gasp, yours truly, and I've been known to wish Fidel Castro a happy birthday at my blog, for crying out loud:

The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

We Need Your Help Now More Than Ever

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook and social media are drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or subscribe for an ad-free experience.

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team