Bob of 55-40 returns to the plate, after yesterday’s strikeout. On the points:

1. Bob responds by saying he needn’t provide support for his allegations because… I’m unwilling and unable to be satisfied by any such documentation. That’s convenient.

2. Bob argues that General Petraeus forfeited his “immunity from criticism” by testifying before Congress:

Petraeus is on active duty fighting a war. Any minute he spends doing PR for Bushwacker-in-chief is a minute away from his post. Petraeus’s Congressional flackimony was thoroughly debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it. In my opinion, leaving your post to be a political flack forfeits your supposed immunity from criticism.

a. Again, Bob provides no support for his allegation that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “thoroughly debunked.” But as we learned in point 1, Bob doesn’t need to support any of his allegations.

b. Bob alleges that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it.” It’s not clear exactly how this happened, or who exactly is in possession of a flux-capacitor… but I suppose time travel is as immaterial to the supposed debunking as supporting documentation is for proving points. In fact, I bet Bob has already read and debunked this post, prior to my publishing it.

c. Bob alleges that General Petraeus is guilty of “leaving [his] post” and thus deserves criticism. Perhaps Bob was unaware of the fact that General Petraeus was mandated by Congress to testify:

H.R. 2206 — SEC 1314. (b)(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS — Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

3. Bob concedes that he indeed does not understand the Vets vs Kerry / MoveOn.org comparison:

It’s not integral to my point, so I’ll give you that one.

How generous of you, Bob.

Greg Siskind (my former boss, btw) seems to argue that generic amnesty is always justified because it allowed a single recipient in the ’80s to stay in the country and later develop a popular product.

He mentions the case of Philippe Kahn, who appears to have entered the country under false pretenses (with a tourist visa), began working in this country illegally, lost his job because of his immigration status but remained in this country illegally for another FOUR YEARS, then was covered under a blanket amnesty, after which time he went on “to achieve greatness,” inventing the camera phone.

Not factored into Siskind’s equation is how other blanket amnesty recipients may have subsequently contributed in a negative way, or if the specific achievement he cites would have been developed by the same individual while living in another country. Siskind also doesn’t consider the effects of a more targeted, individualized amnesty (rather than blanket amnesty), or the possibility of a private relief bill based on merit or national interest.

For Siskind, the end justifies the means, except he only mentions the ends that seem favorable to his argument, while ignoring everything else.

Would Siskind argue in favor an amnesty covering all criminal activity if he could later point to one former inmate who went on “to achieve greatness” afterwards? I doubt it.

It would be hard for him to deny that the main reason Siskind favors amnesty for illegal immigration is that it would serve his financial interest. Illegal immigrants do not need his legal services, but amnesty applicants do. And that’s the bottom line.

I think we should liberalize our laws in order to allow more immigrants and relatives to visit, work and live in this country legally. But blanket amnesties are a signal that we don’t take our laws seriously and we don’t respect our own sovereignty.

Bob, there are three major problems with your post:

1. You allege that General Petraeus “came back… to serve as Bush’s mouthpiece, reading from a script written, embellished, and edited by the White House.” But you fail to provide any evidence, not even so much as a link, to support that allegation.

2. You imply that by giving a news interview General Petraeus “left his post” and “entered the world of politics.” If talking to journalists and reporters is what constitutes leaving your post, it would follow that a large number of our soldiers has deserted. Simply put, that is not the case.

3. You mistakingly assume that a comparison was made between General Petraeus and the Vietnam Veterans who stood up against John Kerry’s Presidential campaign in 2004. In fact, the comparison was actually drawn between that group and MoveOn.org, in terms of their message and how it was treated by news media. Your confusion on that point signals your misconception of the whole.

Three strikes, you’re out, my friend.

UPDATED: Here.

What happens when a soldier from a U.S. Representative’s district dies in Iraq, but his name is not published in any of that district’s major newspapers? Does his death become legitimate fodder for a political gotcha question? Lots and lots and lots of shameless liberals say yes. I say they’re full of crap.

“My heroes are the soldiers that have gone before me and died. And the ones that came home.”

- Jeremy Bohannon

UPDATE: It turns out the soldier mentioned actually wasn’t from the Rep’s district, and the reporter had to apologize. Don’t hold your breath waiting for our liberal friends to do the same.

It’s comforting to know that, despite what we think of the war in Iraq, we can all come together in supporting our brave men and women in uniform. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and all those in-between — we all stand behind our military, pray that they are successful in their mission, and want them to return home safe, as quickly as possible.

After MoveOn.org ran an advertisement in the New York Times (at a nice discount) accusing one of our top generals of “betray[ing]” our country, “cooking the books for the White House,” and claiming that he is “constantly at war with the facts,” it was encouraging to see the U.S. Senate “strongly condemn” the attack with a bi-partisan resolution.

The ad’s target — General David Petraeus — has dedicated his life to serving his country, and was unanimously confirmed to his current post, credited for having written the book on counterinsurgency. He graduated in the top 5% of his class at West Point, and he earned a MPA and a Ph.D. from Princeton University.

Our liberal friends at the Memphis Flyer also noted their disgust with the ad, calling the attack “utterly spurious,” “shameful,” “deceitful and disgraceful,” “loads of lies,” and an “outlaw smear campaign.” They even went so far as to call those behind the advertisement “assholes,” “liars,” and “malefactors of great wealth who would do something so dire against a man so pure and deserving.”

Oh, wait. Did I say the Flyer had written those things about MoveOn.org’s advertisement? My bad. That’s actually what they said about the Vietnam veterans who opposed John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004. Sorry for the confusion.

Here’s how the Flyer actually described General Petraeus and his testimony before Congress: “dog and pony show,” “whoopee cushion,” “Bush’s new poodle,” “rigged report,” and “total poppycock.” (more…)