posted on April 24, 2007 10:04:11 AM new
Yup the demorats now are showing how well they support the troops and advance terrorism.
Democrats Skipping Military Briefings -- Where's the MSM Outrage?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 23, 2007 - 14:34.
A few sources, not the least of which is Michael Barone, are reporting that the Democrats are ignoring important Iraq briefings conducted by General David Petraeus in an apparent effort to stymie efforts in Iraq. It is well known that they are not supportive of the troops in Iraq and the president's "surge" plan they are currently conducting, but whether they like the plan or not, to skip these briefings is an act of blatant negligence that borders on the criminal. So where is the MSM's outrage? Why are we not being told of this Democrat negligence?
Barone, one of the best political pundits out there today, closed his recent Real Clear Politics Report with the following:
What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.
It has also been reported that one recent meeting with Gen. Petraeus on the Hill only saw one Democrat in attendance, that being Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
It might be too early to say directly that it is some concerted effort or plan of the Democrat leadership to steer clear of Iraq briefings, but at the very least it certainly reveals their collective feeling that the war is already lost and that it's time to move on past it all.
But here is the thing; they simply cannot claim to "support the troops" if they won't even attend briefings held by the General in command of those troops. If the Democrats don't attend these briefings they simply cannot claim to have the knowledge they need to make decisions necessary for policy direction. Unless, that is, they have fully decided, regardless of what is actually going on on the ground where our troops are facing the enemy, that all is lost.
If they have, indeed, completely quit wanting to have the discussion of what is actually going on in theater, then it is downright abusive of our troops for Democrats to ignore them in this way. This unconcern over what is happening to our forces simply makes it impossible for the Democrats to claim they support the troops.
It should be remembered that General Petraeus was given a unanimous vote in Congress and he never made any bones about the fact that he intended to implement the president's surge plan, so Democrats simply cannot claim they didn't know he was going to do so. But, it appears that the support they gave him for the surge was a cynical attempt to allow the plan to crash and burn if their ignoring his efforts to inform them of the actual accomplishments of the plan is any indication.
I have seen a few pundits and commentators claiming that the Democrats are somehow putting themselves in a bad position by ignoring these briefings and to that I say pish tosh. They have surely weakened their moral position and made their claims of supporting the troops untenable, but this will probably not harm them at all -- not that it shouldn't. The problem with the feeling that this will harm the Democrat Party is that no one, by and large, will ever hear of this betrayal of our troops. It is doubtful whether the story will ever break through the din of the cycles controlled by a news media supportive of the Democrat agenda.
In any case, the Democrat Party is acting irresponsibly to say the least, criminally at the worst. The biggest question, however, is will the News Media allow the American people to become aware that the Democrats are so badly falling down on the job? Will they be held accountable for the harm they are causing our country, cause and our troops not to mention the harm they cause the Iraqi people by this turning away from their needs and concerns?
Sadly, my guess is no.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 24, 2007 02:20:45 PM new
Democrats Skipping Military Briefings and endangering the troops the Tillman incident are two DIFFERENT things or has you reading comprehension become that deficient.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 24, 2007 06:04:18 PM new
And maybe you should really crawl out of the cave once in awhile....the Tillman/military thing was a big COVER UP by the military....they don't have a history of being honest....follow the dots....I don't believe what any military personnel have to say.
posted on April 25, 2007 09:47:59 AM newI don't believe what any military personnel have to say
Is that because all of you Demomorons only believe the lies you tell so much.
Last I saw, the military is stating that it was friendly fire that killed him. This is just a case where mis-information was given and the liberal media blew it out of proportion again.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on April 25, 2007 09:57:04 AM new
Ranger Alleges Cover-Up in Tillman Case
Updated 3:23 AM ET April 25, 2007
By ERICA WERNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when the former football star was cut down by friendly fire in Afghanistan said Tuesday a commanding officer had ordered him to keep quiet about what happened.
The military at first portrayed Tillman's death as the result of heroic combat with the enemy. Army Spc. Bryan O'Neal told a congressional hearing that when he got the chance to talk to Tillman's brother, who had been in a nearby convoy on the fateful day, "I was ordered not to tell him what happened."
"You were ordered not to tell him?" repeated Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"Roger that, sir," replied O'Neal, dressed in his Army uniform.
The revelation came as committee members questioned whether, and when, top Defense officials and the White House knew that Tillman's death in eastern Afghanistan three years ago was actually a result of gunfire from fellow U.S. soldiers.
The committee also heard from Jessica Lynch, the former Army private who was badly injured when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq in 2003. She was later rescued by American troops from an Iraqi hospital, but the tale of her ambush was changed into a story of heroism on her part.
Still hampered by her injuries, Lynch walked slowly to the witness table, took a seat alongside Tillman's family members and said the heroism belonged to others who fought in Iraq, such as her roommate Lori Piestewa, who died in the same ambush in which Lynch was captured.
"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate lies," Lynch said.
Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had walked away from a huge contract with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
His family was initially misled by the Pentagon and did not learn the truth for more than a month. Tillman was awarded a Silver Star based on fabricated accounts _ who fabricated them still isn't clear after several investigations.
"We don't know what the secretary of defense knew, we don't know what the White House knew," Waxman said. "What we do know is these were not a series of accidents, these stories. They were calculatedly put out for a public relations purpose. ... Even now there seems to be a cover-up."
Kevin Tillman was in a convoy behind his older brother, a former NFL star, on April 22, 2004, when Pat Tillman was mistakenly shot by other Army Rangers who had just emerged from a canyon where they'd been fired upon. Kevin Tillman didn't see what happened. O'Neal said he was ordered not to tell him by then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Tillman's platoon.
"He basically just said, sir, that uh, 'Do not let Kevin know, he's probably in a bad place knowing that his brother's dead,'" O'Neal testified. "He made it known that I would get in trouble, sir, if I spoke with Kevin."
O'Neal said he was "quite appalled" by the order.
Bailey's superior officer, then-Col. James C. Nixon, has testified to the Defense Department's inspector general that he ordered that information on the facts of Tillman's death be shared with as few people as possible so that the Tillman family would not learn those facts through news media leaks. That, in turn, shaped Bailey's guidance to his troops.
The Army said initially that Tillman was killed by enemy gunfire while trying to help another group of ambushed soldiers. The family was not told what really happened until May 29, 2004, a delay the Army blamed on procedural mistakes.
Kevin Tillman and Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, also testified Tuesday but were not in the room when O'Neal spoke.
After the hearing, Mary Tillman approached O'Neal, introduced herself, embraced him and sobbed.
Kevin Tillman, in his testimony, accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in the portrayal of his brother's death.
"Revealing that Pat's death was a fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," the brother said.
"Our family will never be satisfied. We'll never have Pat back," Mary Tillman testified. "Something really awful happened. It's your job to find out what happened to him. That's really important."
Last month the military concluded in a pair of reports that nine high-ranking Army officers, including four generals, made critical errors in reporting Tillman's death but that there was no criminal wrongdoing in his shooting _ a conclusion the family has disputed. The Army is reviewing the actions of the officers.
In questioning what the White House knew about Tillman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., cited a memo written by a top general seven days after Tillman's death warning it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire and making clear his warning should be conveyed to the president. President Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written.
A White House spokesman has said there's no indication Bush received the warning in the memo written April 29, 2004, by then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.
Questioned by Waxman, Defense Department Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble said he did not believe the memo ever went to the White House.
Gimble said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent him a letter around the time Rumsfeld left office last December saying he hadn't known Tillman's death was from friendly fire until around May 20, 2004. Abizaid told Gimble he was traveling in the war theater and didn't see the memo saying Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire until after Tillman's memorial service.
Mary Tillman dismissed the suggestion Abizaid hadn't seen the memo as "ridiculous," and said she believed Rumsfeld must have known. "The fact that he would have died by friendly fire and no one told Rumsfeld is ludicrous," she said.
The committee had wanted to hear from retired Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger, who was in charge of Army special operations and came under the heaviest criticism from military investigators for misleading information about Tillman's death.
Kensinger's attorney sent Waxman a letter last week saying that if Kensinger were called to testify he would refuse to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
___
Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw contributed to this report from San Francisco.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Bear asked you this "has you reading comprehension become that deficient."
Bear having the nerve to ask anyone about "comprehension" is VERY FUNNY.
Bear sounds more like his step MOMMA LIAR_K everyday.
What a perfect example of a Texass Red Neck he is. When he dies they should pickle him and display him in the (Ripley's Believe It Or Not) Museum. Ripley could lable his display as a 2007 NEW-CON Republican, from the era of a failed conservative right wing religion backed political movement.
posted on April 25, 2007 01:08:08 PM new
Imo, those dems/liberals are failing to do the job they were elected to do........................................[just for roadsmith ..........................
and should be IMPEACHED.
NOTHING is more important to the future of our Nation than this WAR. And they can't be 'bothered' to attend EITHER progress meeting?
IMPEACH the worthless jerks.
"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 April 26, 2007 09:14:07 AM new
In an April 24 ABCNews.com article, in what ABC characterized as "Breaking News," ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "will not attend" an April 25 briefing on Capitol Hill with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, but noted that a "Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out," and that Pelosi and Petraeus had spoken on the phone for 30 minutes. However, when Tapper reported on this matter on the April 25 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, he stated only that Pelosi "spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday and was briefed that way." Tapper made no mention of Pelosi's request for "a one-on-one meeting," as he had the previous day on the ABC News website.
Additionally, in the April 25 edition of his "Politico Playbook," Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen cited Tapper's April 24 article in writing: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given the beleaguered Republicans an issue so juicy that GOP aides tell the Playbook they can't believe their good fortune." Allen wrote that Tapper quoted a "Democratic aide" saying that Pelosi "spoke with the general via phone today at some length." He did not mention Pelosi's reported request for a one-on-one meeting, nor did he note how long Pelosi's conversation with Petraeus lasted, as reported by Tapper. Allen went on to quote from several emails sent by congressional Republicans attacking Pelosi for not attending the Petraeus briefing.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 09:50:09 AM new
Democratic leaders SKIPPING these VERY important 'briefings'/progress reports explains WHY they're so misinformed on what IS going on in the Iraq war.
That way they can continue to LIE about how back things are going.....and pretend they don't know any of the progress we ARE making.
FAILING TO DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO.
Impeach the incompetents.
It's not that they don't KNOW...it's that they don't WANT TO KNOW our progress.
No wonder they want to surrender....they have NO CLUE and don't want to hear what the commanding officer has to say.
"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 April 26, 2007 11:02:44 AM newThat way they can continue to LIE about how back things are going.....and pretend they don't know any of the progress we ARE making.
Bush: Mission Accomplished
Rumselfed: the war will take only a couple of weeks or months
Cheney: the insurgency is in its final moments
McCain: there are neighborhoods in Iraq where you can walk without any military protection
It would seem those in the White House are not in touch with what is going on in Iraq
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Apr 26, 2007 11:42 AM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 02:28:41 PM new
I still hold the position that the REASON the liberals 'can't find the time' to attend these VITAL progress meetings....is because some of what is being said...they don't want to hear.
It doesn't go too well with their 'WE'RE FAILING in Iraq and need to GET OUT - SURRENDER' policies.
tsk tsk tsk
Just whose side are they on anyway???? Not ours....not our troops.....whose????
========
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> FOCUS ON IRAQ
Progress in Iraq's Anbar "breathtaking": US general
(AFP)
26 April 2007
WASHINGTON -
The US commander of multinational forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said Wednesday that efforts to quell unrest in the western Sunni province of Anbar have made almost "breathtaking" progress.
Speaking to reporters about the new US strategy to curb sectarian violence in Iraq launched two months ago, based on a US troop increase, Petraeus said: "We are ahead, I think, with respect ... to the reduction of sectarian murders in Baghdad. "Progress in Anbar is almost something that's breathtaking," he added.
The general illustrated his positive evaluation by citing the killing Friday of an Al Qaeda kingpin, identified by the US command as the "security emir" for the east of Anbar province.
He also pointed to the capture of the head of an important weapons network and advances in intelligence about Iranian involvement in the conflict.
Petraeus, speaking after meeting with representatives and senators in Congress, acknowledged that challenges remain in Iraq, particularly car bomb networks and suicide attacks.
His comments came several hours before the US House of Representatives voted to approve a war funding bill that includes a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq, ignoring a threat by President George W. Bush to veto it.
The narrow 218-208 vote by the Democratic-majority House links release of 124 billion dollars in military spending for Iraq and Afghanistan to a schedule for the pullout of American troops, beginning as early as October.
Lawmakers paid little heed to Petraeus, who during a closed-door session earlier in the day championed the troop "surge" strategy and appealed for time so it could show results.
"Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq—and the president will veto its bill," said a statement by White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
=======
And TODAY the democratically control Senate ALSO voted for our FAILURE in Iraq.
Now we can SEE why they don't want to attend these meetings.....they nor our liberal MSM WANT American's to hear ANY good news on our progress.
Just whose side are they on anyway?????
NOT OURS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 Apr 26, 2007 02:32 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 03:52:02 PM new
"D For Defeatism: Party Of Retreat:
The Senate's top Democrat has announced to terrorists a U.S. surrender in Iraq.
Considering our new strategy's documented successes, Harry Reid's determination to lose is practically treasonous.
In a week that saw the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, and a Senate committee subject the attorney general to a modern-day Salem witch trial, the Senate majority leader managed to say something that made headlines: 'This war is lost,' the Nevada Democrat told reporters Thursday, 'and this surge is not accomplishing anything.'
That's odd. According to the Pentagon, the influx of tens of thousands of troops, accompanied by a new strategy focused on counterinsurgency, and led by a new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, is accomplishing plenty.
Over the past six weeks, as the Baghdad security plan has been implemented, attacks on civilians in the city have been cut roughly in half.
Civilian casualties are down almost a quarter nationwide, with attacks on civilians off 17%. Only in north-central Iraq did violence grow...Reid has instead given moral support to the terrorists.
His 'leadership' has been to try to cut off our forces' war funding.
Now he has told the Islamofascists that victory is theirs if they can just keep blowing up U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens a little while longer.
In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he leads synonymous with surrender.
There is one way he can repair the damage he's done to the nation: step down."---Investor's Business Daily
========
And at LEAST TWO Senators are calling for him to do JUST THAT.
"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."
Are YOU a Bunghole?
..........................
