When All Else Fails......Attack the Messenger

The lovely Robin Meade on CNN this morning introduced a "salute the troops" segment. Can some one tell me where CNN was six months ago when our troops were in need of more support and salutes?

Julian E. Barnes, a Los Angeles Times Staff Writer thinks the next assessment of the conditions in Iraq should not be put on the shoulders of "one general" (David H. Petraeus), because it underminds the "public trust". Only problem, Mr Barnes story is based on total anonymity:

WASHINGTON -- Top military leaders at the Pentagon want to avoid a repeat of the last public assessment of the Iraq war -- with its relentless focus on the opinion of a single commander -- when the Bush administration makes its next crucial decision about the size of the U.S. force.Concerned about the war's effect on public trust in the military, the leading officials said they hoped the next major assessment early next year would not place as much emphasis on the views of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who in September spent dozens of hours in testimony before Congress and in televised interviews......link

"This is not Dave Petraeus' war. This is George Bush's war," said one senior official, underscoring the military's view that its role is to carry out the decisions made by political leaders.The senior official, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration has not made final decisions about how next year's assessment, planned for March, will be presented. (emphasis mine)

This is America's war Mr. Anonymous senior official. Our military are fighting for this nations security and to provide a young nation with the opportunity for the same freedoms we take for granted here. May I remind everyone that the United States Congress authorized this war, a Congress that represents "we, the people".

also from the article:

'Still, Petraeus may agree with the advice to step out of the spotlight. Since September, he has seemed to keep a lower profile, and one military officer said Petraeus would be happy to avoid another marathon session before Congress."

Do you mean Patraeus may want to avoid another embarrassment put forth by MoveOn's "support" for our military? Can Mr. Barnes and the LA Times explain why a general that has led this nations military to the successful turn of events in Iraq would have less political credibility this time around? Could the Times constant cheerleading for defeat and surrender, (while catering to the radical lefts political agenda), have anything to do with why they, (and these anonymous military officials) would prefer someone other than Patraeus to correct the media's fabrications?

"We are now in another unpopular war," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Separation of the American people from the men and women who wear the uniform would be a disaster."

Can this anonymous official tell us when we have been engaged in a popular war? And when did any war become a popularity contest? Wars are waged because political and diplomatic solutions failed. General Petraeus has turned all this around with a solid military victory and will soon pass this back to the politicians and diplomats to find solutions. He has earned the right to demand they do not fail.