posted on September 14, 2007 07:58:43 PM new
Gotta LOVE stupid liberals who think they KNOW what I THINK.
"Linda thinks having a missile defense in Europe will help protect the homeland."
I'm just SURE you can post where I EVER stated that? LOL Nope, as usual you can't but continue to post MY position. See, LYING again, ld. tsk tsk tsk Is that ALL you can do here? It appears it is. tsk tsk tsk
What Linda thinks, UNLIKE one of your DELUSIONAL guessing games, is that the US needs to have places all over the world to take IMMEDIATE action against any enemy advances towards US or our allies.
TRY to appear a just a TINY bit intelligent....your posts continue to show your OWN ignorance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 16, 2007 07:28:03 AM new
Good morning, linduh......got an answer ???
LOLLLLLLLL
"""""""And that has what to do with the OP?
You know, the OP that states that the General who knows everything is NOT AWARE of any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
The OP that has the General saying he doesn't know if the war in Iraq has made usa safer here ?????THAT OP....
Trying to change the subject for some reason, linduh ?????
OH, and from your very own post a direct quote:
"""Petreaus is the MOST respected General the US has ever had""""
and their surrogates, one is left to ponder, as I have previously, what has happened to the Democrat Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy---which championed our national security and honored Patriots?
It is now infested with hypocritical,
nescient, impotent, reprehensible, gutless, half-witted, asinine, obsequious,
meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent,
ignominious, duplicitous, ungrateful, socialist, sycophantic prevaricators,
who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom, as political fodder for
their next campaign[/b].
Taken, in part, from the PatriotPost....who also see the radical left wackos for what they prove by their own actions/words, just whose side they're NOT on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 16, 2007 03:20 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2007 03:09:14 PM new
""""and their
surrogates, one is left to ponder, as I have previously, [b]what has happened
to the Democrat Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy---which championed our
national security and honored Patriots? It is now infested with hypocritical,
nescient, impotent, reprehensible, gutless, half-witted, asinine, obsequious,
meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent,
ignominious, duplicitous, ungrateful, socialist, sycophantic prevaricators,
who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom, as political fodder for
their next campaign[/b].
Taken, in part, from the PatriotPost....who also sees the radical left wackos for what they prove by their own actions/words whose side they're NOT on. """"
So Petraeus is all those things linduh??
Gee, you thought he was our greatest living general ????
You have no comment on HIS words...you know , like in the OP....or are you again being a weinie and trying to wiggle around this one???
Do you really think you're fooling anyone ????
LOLLLLLLL!
OR you just can't admit you were WRONG ?????
I bet that's it !!!!!
Your honored general sure put your tail in a spin HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
posted on September 16, 2007 03:30:56 PM newMORE DEMO-GOGUE "RETREAT AND SURRENDER"
In January 2007, at the end of his second tour in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus was nominated for promotion from Lieutenant General to General. His confirmation made him Commander of Multi-National Force Iraq (MNF-I). The Senate vote recorded no dissenters, and for good reason: Petraeus is the best commander for the job.
Gen. Petraeus is a USMA graduate (1974), and he has an outstanding career record as an infantry officer. His professional and academic-advancement record is also exceptional. He earned the George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (1983) and later earned master and doctoral degrees from Princeton. Notably, the subject of his doctoral dissertation was, "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam."
I suppose his vita makes him the poster boy for those who Jean-Francois Kerry (http://PatriotPetitions.US/kerry/) claims are "stuck in Iraq" (http://PatriotPetitions.US/news/stuck.asp)
because they are too dullard for a "real" job like Kerry's.
In his eighth months in command of MNF-I, Gen. Petraeus was called to Capital Hill this week (the sixth anniversary of 9/11 (http://PatriotPost.US/September11/)) to testify before Congress about progress in Iraq. Ahead of that testimony, he said, "I've tried to spend the last 33 years going around minefields instead of through them." Monday and Tuesday, he successfully marched through the most contentious minefield of his career.
[b]Those mines were planted months ago when plans for Gen. Petraeus's testimony were announced. Democrats, who have bet their 2008 election prospects on failure in Iraq, began a campaign to undermine anything
positive Gen. Petraeus might report about Operation Iraqi Freedom[/b][http://PatriotPost.US/Alexander/edition.asp?id=541),
because good news is bad for retreat and surrender Demos (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=545).
Here are a few representative comments from Democrat Senators who voted for Petraeus's confirmation and command of MNF-I made before his testimony:
"[Petraeus has] made a number of statements over the years that have not proved to be factual." ---Sen. Harry Reid
"I expect the 'Bush report' to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same'." ---Sen. Dick Durbin
"I was against the war, I continue to be against the war, and I'm going to do everything I possibly can to bring American troops home at the earliest possible time." ---Sen. Ted Kennedy
"President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is 'dead flat wrong' for warning against major changes... The fact of the matter is that American lives remain in jeopardy and... if every single jihadi in the world was killed tomorrow, we'd still have a major, major war on our hands [in Iraq]." ---Sen. Joe Biden (And we would be fighting whom?)
"I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view in that sense... You can be sure we'll listen to it, but I don't think he's an independent evaluator." ---Sen. Dianne Feinstein
"I was against the surge when it was first proposed. And I believe that nothing which Petraeus or Crocker or anyone else coming before the Congress will say next week will in any way undermine the basic problem: There is no military solution." ---Hillary Rodham Clinton
While John Kerry abstained from voting on Petraeus's nomination, he did get Hillary's ditto-Demo memo on "military solutions" and declared, "We should not be fooled into this tactical success debate... There is no military solution."
For his part, Gen. Petraeus sat stoically before Demo-led panels Monday, prior to delivering his remarks, as they questioned his credibility and patriotism. His face and stature did not betray any degree of contempt for the politicos slandering his character. He is a good soldier.
Rep. Tom [b]Lantos began the hearings by declaring that Petraeus would be doing
nothing more than reading White House talking points[/b]: "We cannot take any
of this administration's assertions about Iraq at face value anymore. The fact remains, gentlemen, that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say: I don't buy it."
In response to this backhanded nonsense, Gen. Petraeus opened his remarks
saying, "At the outset I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although
I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I
wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone
in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out."
Much to the consternation of Democrats and Leftmedia defeatists (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=514), Gen. Petraeus did not suggest the U.S. retreat and surrender, but rather declared, "The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met."
In fact, since additional forces were committed to Iraq ("The Surge" in June,
and tactical constraints were loosened, the number of "security incidents"
has "decreased significantly" in eight of the last 12 weeks; civilian murders
have dropped 45 percent and "ethno-sectarian deaths" (Shi'ite vs. Sunni) have dropped 55 percent. For the year, IEDs targeting civilians are down 49 percent, and the U.S. has captured or killed more than 1,000 key al-Qa'ida insurgents and more than 2,500 other al-Qa'ida fighters.
"Additionally," said Gen. Petraeus, "in what may be the most significant
development of the past eight months, the tribal rejection of al-Qa'ida that
started in Anbar province and helped produce such significant change there
has now spread to a number of other locations as well."
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker corroborated Gen. David Petraeus's
testimony and spoke about the significant improvements to Iraq's economy,
noting they "are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far
from Baghdad."
Unfortunately, in 2003, nobody thought it would take longer than five years to fend off attacks from Islamic jihadis (http://PatriotPost.US/papers/primer01.asp) while trying to undo generations of Ba'athist tyranny and establish a Republican government in the heart of the Islamic world (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=494).
If the OIF campaign continues to improve at this rate, Gen. Petraeus said
the 168,000 troops in Iraq now could be reduced to 130,000 troops by mid-2008.
On that note, President George Bush insisted later, "[b]When we begin to draw
down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home[/b]."
Still, Gen. Petraeus's remarks fell upon deaf ears in Congress.
"Clearly, continuing to pursue the President's flawed escalation policy until
at least July 2008 is not in the national interest of the United States,"
protested Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"There is a big disconnect between the truth of the matter and the reality. I
mean, the truth of the matter is that... the administration's policy and
the surge are a failure," concluded Sen. Joe Biden.
The dizzy Leftcoast House Speaker, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, issued a press release
after Petraeus's testimony with the lead, "Continuing Failed Surge in Iraq
Until at Least Next Summer Is Unacceptable." Pelosi insists, "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made... It is time to change
the mission of our troops... so that the numbers... can be reduced on a much more aggressive timetable."
Yeah, like the 2008 election timetable?
Of course, doing the bidding of al-Qa'ida, the Democrat's Internet lapdog,
Moveon.org, paid $65,000 for a full-page ad in Monday's edition of The New
York Times with the caption, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" and
the subheading, "Cooking the Books for the White House." What followed was
a rant impugning the trustworthiness of OIF's commanding officer, which is
a shot at all uniformed Patriots.
Among the many facts omitted by Moveon in the ad was that The Times gave them a 60 percent discount from the standard rate for full-page ads (likely an FEC violation). According to the New York Post, "If a company sells an ad worth [$181,692] for $65,000, then, that would be an in-kind contribution of [$116,692]. Corporate contributions to PACs are illegal under the campaign-finance laws The Times itself has long championed: 'Corporations
and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections,' according to the FEC."
Frankly, I'm surprised The Times charged the pantywaists at Moveon at all,
but I suppose it had to look somewhat legitimate.
Downwind from the billowing fumes of these Demo-gogue traitors (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=342) [b]and their surrogates, one is left to ponder, as I have previously, what has happened to the Democrat Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy---which championed our
national security and honored Patriots[/b]?
[b]It is now infested with hypocritical,
nescient, impotent, reprehensible, gutless, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent,
ignominious, duplicitous, ungrateful, socialist, sycophantic prevaricators, who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom, as political fodder for their next campaign[/b].
If the Democrats force a retreat and surrender from the Iraqi front with
Jihadistan (http://PatriotPost.US/papers/primer01.asp),we will have to contend with jihadis on our own soil---again---and return to the
Middle East at what then will be a much higher cost of life and resources.
Oh yes, lest we forget, Iran's resident psychopath, President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, recently said of the Democrats' plan to retreat, "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region."
Iran, handing off nukes to al-Qa'ida or other jihadi proxies, is going to offset that "huge power vacuum" with a huge power detonation somewhere close to home. This is the terminal objective of jihad. Nineteen terrorists killed 2,996 civilians. There are thousands of jihadi terrorists yet to be captured or killed. Do the math.
posted on September 16, 2007 04:15:25 PM new
Your "hide away your embarrassment " post does NOT change the following :
posted on September 11, 2007 12:54:32 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, here's the general, the ultimate Iraq "expert", the guy who has ALL the information, in HIS OWN WORDS:
When asked by a senator if the war in Iraq had made Americans safer the general replied,
" I don't know."
When a senator noted the "coincidence" of the report coming out on 9/11 he asked the general if there was any evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, the general answered,
"Not that I'm aware of".
lindu, """"""Petreaus is the MOST respected General the US has ever had""""
So I guress you beleive him even though you can't admit it
posted on September 16, 2007 04:20:52 PM new
Again, I can only HOPE other voters see how what I've said about how the liberals TALK a good talk but don't ususally VOTE the same way they're 'talking'.
Just like we see in their COMPLETE approval of General Petraeus BY THEIR SENATE VOTES...and then discounting his credibility on what he DID say....even BEFORE he said it.
What they SAY to the voters in front of the cameras, for the '08 election and what they actually VOTE for/against....needs to be watched closely. The two rarely match one another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 16, 2007 05:01:25 PM new
When asked by a senator if the war in Iraq had made Americans safer the general replied,
" I don't know."
When a senator noted the "coincidence" of the report coming out on 9/11 he asked the general if there was any evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, the general answered,
"Not that I'm aware of".
lindu, """"""Petreaus is the MOST respected General the US has ever had""""
So I guess you beleive him even though you can't admit it
posted on September 17, 2007 11:40:04 PM new
linduh, """Just like we see in their COMPLETE approval of General Petraeus BY THEIR SENATE VOTES...and then discounting his credibility on what he DID say....even BEFORE he said it."""
So I take it YOU believe every word he said ....right???? Right????
posted on September 18, 2007 03:54:27 AM new
profe51
posted on September 13, 2007 05:50:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General refused to speculate about whether we are safer at home because of the surge. Who could blame him for that? This is one of Bush's key points however, and sooner or later he's going to have to do a Colin Powell if he wants to stay on the team.
=========================
Best of the Web Today - September 17, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
WSJ
All You Need to Know
Frank Rich opens his New York Times column yesterday (link for subscribers) as follows:
"Sir, I don't know, actually": The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff. . . .
On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not.
The Times illustrates the column with a drawing of a tiny Petraeus beneath an enormous cartoon bubble containing the quote. The N and O in KNOW are written in thick, baroque letters to set them apart from the rest of the quote.
Rich's column, however, is misleading. WashingtonPost.com has the transcript, and here is the remark in context:
Sen. John Warner (R., Va.): Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
Petraeus: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Warner: Does that make America safer?
Petraeus: Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.
I have not stepped back to look at--and you've heard, with other committees, in fact, you know, what is the impact on--I've certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strain 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 objectives of the policy from which his mission is derived. And that is what I have sought to do, sir.
Petraeus wouldn't say whether we were safer because his job is to carry out his mission, not to make policy. Later, however, he backtracked from this position:
Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.): I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question, and that was, he asked you, going forward, the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer. And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your--beyond the scope of your responsibilities.
Petraeus: Well, I thank you, actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly.
Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise. But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests--achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. . . .
So I think the answer really, to come back to it, is yes.
So Petraeus first said he didn't think it was his place to say whether the country was safer, and later said that it is safer. The notion that "Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not" is nothing more than a product of Frank Rich's fevered mind.
But it may be that Rich came to this opinion out of ignorance--that "Sir, I don't know actually" is all he knew about Petraeus's exchanges with Warner and Bayh. This would be so if his source of information was his own newspaper, which did not publish the transcript, and which had only this to say in its news report:
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is one of the party's leading voices on foreign policy, asked whether the current strategy in Iraq was "making America safer." General Petraeus retreated to an explanation that he was doing his best "to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
But when pressed again, he said: "Sir, I don't know, actually."
Frank Rich is an opinion columnist, and as such he is entitled to express the tendentious view that this out-of-context quote "was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington." But it's embarrassing to the Times that its news judgment is in line with the politics of one of its shrillest columnists.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 18, 2007 03:56 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2007 08:45:15 AM new
Hahaha!
So now if da generals say da wrong thing they're "taken out of context" ???!!!!! Ya , RIGHT! NOT!
I heard with my own ears as Petraeus spoke and he SAID, "I don't know."
Isn't the whole "mission" ABOUT keeping America safer ???
T H A T is what we were told by bushit. Petraeus didn't NOW ????????
Now I suppose he will CHANGE HIS OWN WORDS on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq not existing .....have they got to him about THAT yet ???
OR will acknowledge what bushit wouldn't refused to but the rest of the world KNEW....there was NO connection......something Petraeus let slip in a moment of GASP! honesty.
BTW, linduh, you abject coward, you just couldn't answer in your own words....you HAD to spend HOW many days googling until you could find ONE C&P saying what YOU wanted to see, ONE article !
For most of the last year, the dominant narrative in most media, and for most voters, has been that we are getting nowhere in Iraq and that the Democrats, after their victory in last November's elections, are going to get out of Iraq.
But events are not playing out that way.
Last week, the Senate failed to pass an amendment that would have made it more difficult to rotate troops into Iraq -- and passed, by a 72-to-25 margin, a resolution denouncing the moveon.org ad that attacked "General Betray Us" for "cooking the books."
Polls show that the public approves of Petraeus' performance and endorses his recommendations for going forward with the surge -- the first margin of approval for the administration's course of action in a long time.
Petraeus argued convincingly that we are making real progress in Iraq, that the downward spiral of violence has been turned around and that the battle against al-Qaida in Iraq is meeting with success.
George W. Bush, in a Roosevelt Room interview with columnists, made it plain that he is determined to provide Petraeus with the troops he needs, *****and the Democratic Congress has made it plain that it will not stop him*****.
To be sure, Petraeus has recommended reducing forces, starting in December, and going back to pre-surge levels next summer. But this is a far different thing from what the Democrats had in mind six months ago. And the results on the ground seem to be far different from what they expected.
True, some Democrats persist in saying that the aggressive surge strategy has made no difference, and large numbers of voters are not convinced that it has. But it is now possible that the added troops will, in Bush's phrase, "return on success." That's a sharp change from what has been the dominant narrative.
Another event that undermines that narrative took place on Sept. 6, but only began to be appreciated in Washington last week. That was the Israeli air attack on Syria. Israeli officials have said nothing in public about this (although opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said he supported the action), and Bush flatly refused to comment in his press conference. But on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens speculated that "the least unlikely possibility" was that the target was a North Korean nuclear installation.
North Korean technicians were known to be in Syria, and the North Korean government protested the attack. By Friday, The Washington Post reported that "Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, said U.S. government sources."
Bush has been mocked for calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea "the axis of evil." Suddenly that doesn't seem so far-fetched
. Iran's ally Syria has apparently been in cahoots with faraway North Korea. And perhaps Iran has been, as well; perhaps this was part of the mullahs' efforts to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
The Syrian program may have been stopped by Israel's Sept. 6 air strike, just as Saddam Hussein's nuclear program was stopped by Israel's destruction of his Osirak reactor in 1981. That was condemned by just about everyone at the time, including the Reagan administration. But today almost every decent person is glad it happened.
The response to Petraeus and the emerging story about the Israeli air strike lead to two conclusions, both at odds with what has been the dominant narrative. It's a dangerous world. And we can make progress.
Advocates of speedy withdrawal from Iraq talk as if there would be no bad consequences afterward, as we face no other threats in the world. But the possibility of a nuclear Iran is a real threat, one which Bush says he gives as much attention to as Iraq. The success so far of the surge strategy and the apparent success of the Israeli air strike indicate that there are things we can do to meet those threats.
The dominant narrative is that we are headed to defeat in Iraq, and Bush's political adversaries want him to acknowledge that. With stubbornness or steadfastness -- call it either one -- he has refused to do so and now has started to establish a different narrative, "return on success." Voters may come to understand that however delicious the Democrats find defeat, its consequences in a dangerous world would be devastating.
=======================
Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future.
posted on October 2, 2007 12:17:05 AM new
Sounds like the poor neocons are still smarting from having the "world's most respected general" blow their little myth and bushit's big LIE right out of the water.....must burn....
