Gen. Patraeus

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

When asked pointedly, by....REPUBLICAN senator John Warner/Va.............."Is what you've laid out before us with regard to your mission in Iraq, ....making AMERICA safer" ???

(Petraeus)...."I DON'T KNOW"........"I'm only following orders"


ATTENTION EL-CHIMPO.

If you have ANY resemblance of a SPECK of "NADS", as a man.......STOP hiding behind your top commander in IRAQ, knowing FULL WELL, that he will not EMBARRESS you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I give the General credit(and ambassedor Crocker) for answering TOUGH questions truthfully .

While thinking back 6 years ago today(9/11) is troubling..................................THINK about how much MORE damage to this country, that EL CHIMPO + CHENEY can do, with almost 500 more days in office !!!

Imagine how the troops will feel about Petraeus's answer, when they hear it tonite over Armed forces radio ??

Imagine, that your lying in Walter Reed Hospital....MINUS 2 LEGS...and your top commander answers(truthfully) "That I'm NOT sure that what we're doing is making America safer

 

[Gilding the Lily]

When asked pointedly, by....REPUBLICAN senator John Warner/Va.............."Is what you've laid out before us with regard to your mission in Iraq, ....making AMERICA safer" ???

(Petraeus)...."I DON'T KNOW"........"I'm only following orders"

This is a gross misstament of General Petraeus's testimony and it should be corrected. I do not recall, at any moment, in which Petreus said "I'm only following orders." Here is the transcript for those who actually care:

Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Warner: Does that make America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind; what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq. I have not stepped back to look at the -- and you have heard with other committees what is the impact -- I have certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strains on our ground forces in particular has very much been a factor in my recommendations. But I have tried to focus on doing what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the obectives of the policy from which his mission is derived, and that is what I have sought to do sir.

Video of testimony

 

[UAL_TECH]

This is a gross misstament of General Petraeus's testimony and it should be corrected. I do not recall, at any moment, in which Petreus said "I'm only following orders." Here is the transcript for those who actually care:

Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Warner: Does that make America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind; what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq. I have not stepped back to look at the -- and you have heard with other committees what is the impact -- I have certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strains on our ground forces in particular has very much been a factor in my recommendations. But I have tried to focus on doing what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the obectives of the policy from which his mission is derived, and that is what I have sought to do sir.

Video of testimony

Thanks Lily

God bless NHBB, but the emotion sometimes outweighs facts.

As for the question: "Does that make America safer?"
I thought it was a pretty stupid question that Warner knows the answer to but doesn't have the guts to answer.
I forget, did he vote for the war or against the war?

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[tech2101]

Thanks Lily

God bless NHBB, but the emotion sometimes outweighs facts.

As for the question: "Does that make America safer?"
I thought it was a pretty stupid question that Warner knows the answer to but doesn't have the guts to answer.
I forget, did he vote for the war or against the war?

Take Care,
B) UT

Warner most definitely voted in favor of the war. The roll call vote list is here.

Gen Petraeus' job is not to determine if what he is doing is making America safer. He is executing the orders from the Commander in Chief. The problem with Petraeus is that he inserted himself in the political process by writing this op-ed piece in the Washington Post three years ago. It is a must-read. Read his assessment then and compare it to his testimony now.

"Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct." (Now the idea of completely dismantling the Iraqi police force is being floated because they are completely infiltrated with militia members)

Since when does a General write an op-ed piece trying to justify to the American people what he is doing? I'll tell you when...when he is ordered to by the Commander-in-Chief. He has now become a political pawn in this game.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Ah..Lilly...Tech,

THAT certainly(by Petraeus) was a fancy way of saying.....I'M FOLLOWING MY ORDERS/Doing the job I was assigned.

And therein lies the dillema for those couragous military man. He's been given an IMMPOSSIBLE assignment, and by answering HONESTLY is unable to KNOW if it will ULTIMATELY work !!!!!!

The problem is NOT Gen. Petraeus. It's that FUUKING IMBECILE in 1600 Pennsylvania avenue !!

(Unfortunately) I can't wait to hear the defense(by some of the regular posters on this thread), when EL CHIMPO and DIRTY DICK...BOMB Iran(and maybe N. Korea/Syria/Somalia...all in the same day)

 

[Garfield1966]

Part of the problem is that the Current administration has been caught in so many lies the people no longer believe anything that is said. The blame for this lies squarely with W and his administration. They sent out Powell to the UN to lie (whether he knew he was lying I do not know), Casey does not give the answers that W wants so he gets the boot. Scooter lies to a grand jury, gets convicted and then W pardons him. They lied about the presence of WMD, they lied about the links to 9/11. They plan the hearings right on 9/11 trying to prey on the raw emotions and yet again subconsciously link 9/11 to the war in Iraq.

Does anyone really have to wonder why no one trusts a damn thing that comes out of this administrations mouth?

 

[jerseyfinn]

Does anyone really have to wonder why no one trusts a damn thing that comes out of this administrations mouth?

Abject cynicism is certainly an admirable way to live life GF.

But General Petreus's testimony pretty much pours cold water on the whiny assumption that nothing is working in Iraq. It also clearly demonstrates that life is imperfect and you can't always get what you want. Of course the media downplays the fact that things on the ground are evolving rapidly and for now, have objectively improved. No surprise that dems won't utter a word acknowledging such.

I do not see any surprises in the general's remarks. Some things are improving, others are not. It's called reality and reality does not kow tow to presidents or to political partys who issue benchmarks from afar. Reality has been there before our faces from day one, but there are political and media factions who don't want this reality out in the open light of the public forum to discuss because it doesn't synch with their view of the world. So hey man, keep on with the disparaging diatribes and insults. Reality is out there whether you or a political party want to acknowledge it.

I can't say that I know how things will turn out in the long run, but I believe in this country through good times and bad because another reality is that the good times were never quite as good as memory sees them, nor the bad days near as dark. This trait I call optimism, and this too in an inherent human attribute. Ironic indeed that a political party which prides itself as being of the People lacks this humility and optimism and has instead chosen a policy based upon negative invectives and obstruction.

But we each make our own bed and must sleep in it.

I'm increasingly optimistic that we may still have contested election next year because of the manner in which the dems have been unable to disavow the hateful moveon.org policy of hate Bush & obstruct Iraq policy. Sure, lots of folks have had it with Bush. But no one can say for sure what the reality in Iraq will be some 10 months from now. If the dems choose wrong on Iraq policy or at least the public's opinion of it, they could make a run away election a close one and there could be another Al Gore Mastercard moment.

In the mean time, I support our troops and the folks leading them in the field -- and out of plain and simple respect, the Oval Office, even if I disagree with some its decisions.

Barry

 

[KCFlyer]

In the mean time, I support our troops and the folks leading them in the field -- and out of plain and simple respect, the Oval Office, even if I disagree with some its decisions.

Barry

Good for you. It's too bad that from 1992 thru 2000, the right wing couldn't do that much. We are supposed to respect the occupant of the Oval Office. But just like a kid watching their parents smoke tends to take up smoking, the dems watched their predecessors not only disrespect, but SLANDER the occupant of the oval office. So can we blame them for lacking a little respect for a president who:

1. Sent troops to war because of WMD's and then made jokes (looking under chairs) saying "they gotta be around here somewhere"

or

2. Sits in the Oval Office and urges the enemy to "Bring 'em on". Sorry...crap like that doesn't tend to make me want to respect that man.

 

[Veritas]

In the mean time, I support our troops and the folks leading them in the field -- and out of plain and simple respect, the Oval Office, even if I disagree with some its decisions.

Theodore Roosevelt:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

 

[Garfield1966]

Respect is earned not given. W threw any respect this country or I had quite some time ago. The General serves at the pleasure of the President. Ask General Casey what happens to a President who does not give a report that is favorable.

You are not being so naive as to argue that that the people trust this admin are you? They have lied countless times so they have lost the trust of the governed. I am sorry if that fact does not sit well in your marble tower.

You don't know how this will look in 10 months? Why would it look any different from the past several years? How many american lives are you willing to sacrifice to test your theory? Humility and optimism? You are too funny. Perhaps the Dems and the people who voted for them are fed up with the lies, are fed up with loosing close to 4,000 american lives in support of a war that no one wants. I for one am fed up with the loss of those lives and the half trillion dollars wasted over there. Perhaps if your sacred republicans had an ounce of humility they would have accepted the fact that their incompetent leader has lead them on a wild goose chase that it is time to face reality. But nooooooo, it far easier for them and you to blame someone else.

As far as I am concerned, the moveon advertisement is a legitimate question. De the general betray the people of the US when he testified in front of us or not? Who's side is he on? When General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker give an exclusive interview to Fox News it is legitimate to question who's side they are on and if what they are saying is the truth.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

jerseyfinn,

Hatefull groups/move on.org ??

May I respectfully suggest to you, that your computer is capable of visiting the following sites;

1. The HERITAGE FOUNDATION
2. the RUTHERFORD GROUP
3. The DRUDGE REPORT

I rest my case !!

 

[Garfield1966]

And yet another reason to doubt and question Petraeus.

Notice how he also said that a war with Iran would not occur on his watch.

Admiral Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge


Jersey,

Trust and respect are earned. Everything W touches turns to lead. He has cried wolf so many times, that he is no longer trusted. Members of his own party do not trust him, not a single candidate running for office has had him speak on their behalf. Your party is disintegrating and you are worried about.

What cold water are you referring too?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296779,00.html

The White House told Congress Friday that Iraqi leaders gained little new ground on key military and political goals, a discouraging assessment a day after President Bush said progress justifies keeping a large U.S. military presence there.

Very little progress but yet we should still keep troops there. Why?


The report underscored the difficulty of Bush's argument that continued American sacrifice was creating space for Iraqi leaders to make gains on tamping down the sectarian fighting that leaves Iraq persistently fractured and violent.

Yes reality is out there. Even your Fox channel is publishing it. You can either figure it out now or have it explained to you in Nov 2008. You pick.

 

[Garfield1966]

Seems the dam has quite a few cracks in it.

More opposition in the W admin

 

[UAL_TECH]

Seems the dam has quite a few cracks in it.

More opposition in the W admin

Fallon said he and Petraeus have reached accommodation. "The most important thing is I'm very happy with what Dave has recommended," he said. As for earlier discussions, he begged off. "It's too politically charged right now."

😛 UT

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . . the dems watched their predecessors not only disrespect, but SLANDER the occupant of the oval office. So can we blame them for lacking a little respect for a president . . .

You mean the guy who sat in the oval office and stuck his dick in a gal's mouth and got caught and lied about it? That's right, lots of folks got upset about that didn't they? You mean that Clinton could have sued all of us for slander? Gee :blink:

Barry