I’m watching the media reports on the change of command at the top of the war in Afghanistan and I’m thinking two things….one I figured out, the second, I’m a little confused about.

First, my column of a couple days ago was spot on (easy prediction, actually). The media cares not about the heart of the matter, the rules of engagement of the war, instead they love to focus on the matchup between their Beloved Obama and General Stanley McChrystal. They love it because they knew this was a battle Barack could win with the swipe of a pen. Damn the consequences of his actions, Beloved Obama could put a General in his place and the media are celebrating a victory for the president they put in the White House.

doris-kearns-goodwin

It’s almost like they are sharing this victory and can take credit for it as their own. Doris Kearns Goodwin, liberal history queen and accused plagiarist, declared this as one of Beloved Obama’s historic victories. I guess when you’ve had so few victories, they do stand out. Meantime, our troops in the battlefield are still wondering why they have to give Miranda Rights to terrorists and what will happen to them if they scratch a Taliban terrorist on the back of the hand while taking him into custody. Somebody in the media might want to at least think about asking that question.

Second, is this the same General Petraeus? I know that name from somewhere and I’m pretty sure it’s spelled the same.

I remember a General David Petraeus (same first name and same spelling as this “new” Petraeus) who was brought before Congress while that president before Obama was in the White House. If I remember correctly, the media and their Democrats pretty much hated First Petraeus. I think they called him “Betray-us” and some “left leaning” web site put an ad in the New York Times blasting the guy.

General-BetrayUs

If I remember correctly Hillary Clinton said something about First Petraeus, “suspending disbelief”, which is a fancy way for lefties to call people a liar when they really don’t want to call them a liar, but they really do.

I remember the word “failed” was mentioned a few times relative to First Petraeus. The ad by that “slightly to the left of center” group talked about the war effort failing and a Senator Majority Leader, I believe Harry Reid said something about how the war had “failed.” Reid is my Senator and I’m sure he wouldn’t mistake that First Petraeus for this new Petraeus. They also look a lot alike. I’ve seen the pictures and they look almost like the same guy, but they can’t be. No way.

I remember Newsweek talking about First Petraeus. They said:

When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias‘ cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they’ve essentially won.

I think Newsweek was saying then is that the surge is not working, would not work and they declared victory for the terrorists. “They’ve essentially won,” is the way I read that last line. Hummmm. There must be a First and Second Petraeus.

I also recall a vote in the U.S. Senate condemning the ad that claimed First Petraeus was “cooking the books for the White House” and deceiving the nation. Beloved Obama was just a little Senator back then and he had a chance to vote on what he thought of the ad and he decided to vote “absent”. No vote. No way. The measure passed 72-25. Oh well. Those are tough political calls to make and who can expect a rookie Senator to know how to go with that. He just didn’t vote. He sure seems to like Second Petraeus much better than First Petraeus.

It seems all of a sudden the media and their Democrats have forgotten all about First Petraeus. Good for him that they’ve forgotten him, almost like he doesn’t exist. I’ve heard everybody has an evil twin.