posted on September 7, 2007 12:43:00 PM new
On General Petraeus' upcoming commentary before Congress: I think I need to write something a little longer to explain this, but everyone should know that my culture (in the Army, and this only applies to the Army) cannot say "no." We just can't. We are inculcated from our first days under arms to accept all missions. We never accept that we have been beaten, or even that we (taken as a whole I mean) even can be beaten. This starts when you are a cadet. Sometimes you will be assigned more material than it is possible to read, and more work than you can accomplish. This is done intentionally. It teaches us about making priorities, accepting risk, and making decisions up front. But it also, unintentionally, conditions us to accept loads that are too much. The process continues, again unintentionally, as you move through your career. You never tell your boss, "No sir, I cannot do that." You may tell him that you need additional resources (time, men, or material), but you always accept the burden. Always. It is the Army way. After a lifetime ... well ... you get the picture. You can be both a "Captain Trash" and do this as well, but it is a fine, fine line. Razor thin, one might say.
Lt. Col Bateman
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 7, 2007 12:51:08 PM newWill General Petreaus tell us the truth?
It all depends upon your definition of the truth. Do you want the truth or what you want to hear?
Yes, he will tell the truth. It may not be what you want to hear though logansdunce. As the add campaign says, it's time for the liberals to quit using politics in the war.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on September 7, 2007 01:24:53 PM new
Well...it won't matter to the liberals whether he does or not.
What's his name, that VERY vocal yo-yo liberal is already telling the press how what he's GOING TO SAY.....is bologna.
I love liberals who already know what the generals are going to say BEFORE they say it. Hey, the generals could just not even give their reports, and we could let the liberals tell us all about it. LOL
too funny.
===============
Supposedly from SOME reports he's going to say we need to keep troops levels as they are right now. I hope we do.
Then other reports tell us he's going to bring just a few home by January. Maybe 5,000 from the 30,000 surge numbers.
I think since things are going well...and we're beginning to see success....just leave things as they are. To bring some home to appease the raging liberals will only put the remaining soldiers in more jeopardy, imo.
If it ain't broke....don't fix it. And especially NOT to appease the screaming moon bats who have either been calling for us to surrender or hoping we'll FAIL in our mission.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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."
"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 7, 2007 02:25 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 7, 2007 02:28 PM ]
posted on September 7, 2007 04:14:19 PM new
Petreaus will say exactly what the bushits want him to say or he will be fired like all the other generals who didn't agree and goosestep in sync with this administration.
posted on September 7, 2007 04:41:26 PM new
Hasn't it already been established that the Petreaus report will be approved by the White House before it's given? End of story. It will be what they want us to hear and nothing more.
posted on September 7, 2007 04:45:05 PM new
"Hasn't it already been established that the Petreaus report will be approved by the White House before it's given? End of story. It will be what they want us to hear and nothing more"
No that LIE has been disproven. OVer and over again....but probably NOT on any liberal site. tsk tsk tsk
And the profe's post is just one more way the left proves how they REALLY feel about our military, their commanders, etc.
tsk tsk tsk
Petreaus is the MOST respected General the US has ever had.
That's why 100% of the DEMS/LIBERALS, in congress, voted FOR him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 7, 2007 05:39:51 PM new
Dems Already Dismissing Petreaus Report
Rick Moran
As a political party, the Democrats sure make lousy psychics.
You may recall Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's famous utterance that the surge was a "failure" even before half the additional troops earmarked for Iraq had arrived. Now the Democrats have turned their powers of prognositication on the report to be delivered by General Petraus next week before Congress and are already dismissing it as unreliable despite the fact they haven't heard or seen it:
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.
"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "
To accuse General Petreaus of lacking in credibility is unbelievable considering that the Iraq commander was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. Are Senate Democrats now saying that Petreaus is untrustworthy to hold the command they so recently bestowed upon him? It would seem so.
Beyond that, one needs to ask the Democrats why is they are already downplaying the significance of the report. Is it because it will now be harder to surrender to the terrorists and slink out of Iraq due to some encouraging results from operations connected with the surge?
Evidently, yes:
With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.
After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”
Shameless political prostitution! They were the ones who demanded Petreaus appear before them and update them on progress or lack thereof in Iraq. Now, not only are they dismissing the report that they asked for before they see it, they are planning on ignoring it anyway and going ahead with their plans for a bug out.
At the very least, Petreaus and the American military have done well enough to earn more time to affect the changes that are necessary in order for Iraqis to reconcile. For the Democrats to deny them that opportunity shows they are more interested in pinning a defeat on the President and Republicans than they are in the long term stability of Iraq.
I'll say it again: Shameless!
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 September 7, 2007 06:14:14 PM newHasn't it already been established that the Petreaus report will be approved by the White House before it's given? End of story. It will be what they want us to hear and nothing more.
Exactly profe. The general will tell Bush what he wants to hear. No matter what independent sources have said about Iraq, Bush will believe he is on the right course. Iraq has failed to meet 13 of 18 benchmarks but Bush will think that is a success because 5 have been met.
Even those in the military don't think Petreaus has the nerve to stand up to Bush. Colin Powell didn't so what makes you think this guy will.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 7, 2007 09:59:30 PM new
Another ignorant statement from ld who obviously doesn't read the NEWS, just liberal garbage.
President Bush has said he'd like to start withdrawing some of the surge numbers if things continue improving, as they have been. And Patreaus has said he believes they should STAY as they are, but would/could work it out to bring some home. Imo, to appease the 'surrender now crowd'.
As I continue to say....liberals vote the way they do because they are SO misinformed. They'll believe anything some liberal rag tells them while refusing to keep track of what's ACTUALLY going on in real life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 10, 2007 09:34:21 AM new
And yet we have another Republican that feels a scorecard that achieves 25% of the goals is a great thing.
You got to be kidding. Maybe in another 1000 years we can end the civil war in Iraq.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 10, 2007 01:42:36 PM new
The real facts instead of the half truths from General Betray Us.
The National Security Network, a group of national-security experts critical of the surge from the progressive wing of U.S. politics has issued its own fact check of Gen. David Petraeus's testimony so far.
Their take on his testimony is that the general states as facts statistics whose sources are in doubt or disputed.
The use of "fact-checking" by a group that is a party to the debate resembles what happens in political campaigns and demonstrates how much the debate over the future U.S. course in Iraq has indeed become something of a political campaign in its own right.
National Security Network Fact Check: Petraeus Quotes
Petraeus: Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%.
The Pentagon and Administration’s definition of “Ethno sectarian violence” excludes many types of violence that would indicate that the security situation in Iraq is not improving. Shi’a on Shi’a violence in the South is not included. Sunni on Sunni violence in the central part of the country is not included. “According to one senior intelligence official in Washington. ‘If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian,’ the official said. ‘If it went through the front, it's criminal.’" [Washington Post, 9/6/07]
According to figures compiled by the Associated Press, Iraq is suffering approximately double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year. The average daily toll has risen from 33 in 2006, to 62 so far this year. Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings — largely the work of Shi’a death squads. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count. These figures are considered a minimum and only based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. That said, the AP notes that UN figures for 2006 are higher than the AP’s. [AP, 8/25/07]
According to numbers released by the Iraqi government, since July civilian casualties have risen 20% across Iraq. The numbers fell significantly in Baghdad. The figures, provided by Iraqi Interior Ministry officials on Saturday, mirrored the geographic pattern of the troop increase, which is focused on Baghdad. The national rise in mortality is partly a result of more than 500 deaths, in an August truck bomb attack on a Yazidi community in August north of the capital, outside the areas directly affected by the additional troops. [NY Times, 9/2/07]
Various numbers from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior show no drop in violence. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, 984 people were killed across Iraq in February, and 1,011 died in violence in August. No July numbers were released because the ministry said the numbers weren't clear. But an official in the ministry who spoke anonymously because he wasn't authorized to release numbers said those numbers were heavily manipulated. The official said 1,980 Iraqis had been killed in July and that violent deaths soared in August, to 2,890. [McClatchy, 9/10/07]
Petraeus: "Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006."
According to General Petraeus attacks are only down in one of the last three weeks, but at the same time we have hit an all time low? In the National Intelligence Estimate released three weeks ago said that overall attacks had fallen in 7 out of 9 weeks. “The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks.” [National Intelligence Estimate]
The DIA’s statistics show that attacks on civilians were at the same level in July that they were in, back in January. The defense intelligence chart makes the point, with figures from Petraeus' command in Baghdad, the Multinational Force-Iraq. Congressional auditors used the same numbers to conclude that Iraqis are as unsafe now as they were six months ago; the Bush administration and military officials also using those figures say that finding is flawed. [AP, 9/9/07]
Petraeus: We endeavor to ensure our analysis of that data is conducted with rigor and consistency, as our ability to achieve a nuanced understanding of the security environment is dependent on collecting and analyzing data in a consistent way over time.
There were significant revisions to the way the Pentagon’s reports measure sectarian violence between its March 2007 report and its June 2007 report. The original data for the five months before the surge began (September 2006 through January 2007) indicated approximately 5,500 sectarian killings. In the revised data in the June 2007 report, those numbers had been adjusted to roughly 7,400 killings – a 35% increase. These discrepancies have the impact of making the sectarian violence appear significantly worse during the fall and winter of 2006 before the President’s “surge” began. [DOD, 11/2006. 3/2007. 6/2007]
Petraeus claimed that the surge helped transform Anbar Province from one of the most dangerous areas to one of the safest.
The “Anbar Awakening” began long before the “surge” and occurred because local Sunni tribes did not agree with Al Qaeda. The Anbar Salvation Council, which was formed by tribal sheikhs to fight the more extreme elements, was established in September 2006 and was showing significant results by early March of 2007 when the “surge” was just beginning. [NY Times, 3/3/2007]
The Sunni tribes attribute the change to a political agreement not to increased forces. The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president's plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit. [Washington Post, 9/9/07]
The “surge” has only added 4,000 troops to Anbar. The main focus was Baghdad. “Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops.” [White House, 1/10/07]
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 10, 2007 04:06:05 PM newThe real facts instead of the half truths from General Betray Us.
Well I'll believe a true American hero like General Petreaus, who has devoted his entire life to defending the USA over ANYONE, especially the opinions of surrender monkey donkeycrat defeatists who are praying for another US military defeat like they one THEY caused in Vietnam.
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 September 11, 2007 08:48:42 AM new
Amen to that Bear.
Logansdunce and the rest of the demomorons cannot accept victory.
What Logansdunce don't get is everything doesn't go as exactly planned. You have to make adjustments as you go.
Take a look at a sporting event, let's say football. Ideally, your team would win the game 100 to zero. But in reality, it don't work that way. Teams have to adjust during the game to get a win. And a win could be 10 - 9. Yes, not as they planned, but a win none the less.
Thank god we have people in place right now that really do have our countries safety in mind. If Logansdunce had his way, the terrorists would have the full run of the good ole USA.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on September 11, 2007 04:05:07 PM new
I agree with bear also.
Ld's statements only prove how little the radical left supports our military or our troops - very, very little.
They SAY they do, but each and everytime anything is mentioned that involves believing our military we get that SAME ANTI-America/UN-America GARBAGE from their own mouths.
That's the TRUTH of how so many like ld and his ilk REALLY feel about our military and their top leaders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 12, 2007 11:20:10 AM newWhat Logansdunce don't get is everything doesn't go as exactly planned. You have to make adjustments as you go.
Tell that to Bush and the silly general who keep repeating the same "stay the course" slogan year after year.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 12, 2007 11:23:51 AM newLd's statements only prove how little the radical left supports our military or our troops - very, very little.
Linda stop drinking your kool-aid and wake up. There are many in the Republican party that do not agree with the war and have been grilling General Betray Us. You can keep dreaming that it is only the Democrats that are against the war, but like most things you are wrong - NO SURPRISE THERE.
WASHINGTON - Facing the senior U.S. commander and top U.S. diplomat in Iraq on a second day of testimony before Congress, several Senate Republicans expressed deep skepticism, frustration and unease with the current American path and little enthusiasm for leaving troops in the war-torn country indefinitely.
Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker spent more than 10 hours Tuesday testifying and answering at times pointed questions from senators on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee about the military, political and diplomatic status of Iraq -- a topic that President Bush also will address in a prime-time speech Thursday.
The president is expected to tell the nation how he plans to proceed in Iraq, and whether he will adopt Petraeus and Crocker's recommendation to reduce troop levels to pre-"surge" levels by next summer.
GOP lawmakers -- including some of the party's most respected voices on foreign policy -- demonstrated at the hearings that they are not quietly following the White House script. In some instances, their criticism was almost as scathing as that of the most hostile Democrats.
For much of the past year, administration officials have had to scramble to persuade drifting Republicans to continue backing the president's policies in Iraq. With the Senate poised to begin debating amendments as early as next week calling for the quick withdrawal of troops, those lawmakers are more important than ever.
"It is not enough for the administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or the next report," warned Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, as he ticked off the sectarian and tribal divisions likely to stymie progress. "We need to see a strategy for how our troops and other resources in Iraq might be employed to fundamentally change the equation."
Lugar compared U.S. efforts in Iraq to a farmer planting crops on a flood plain without considering the probability that the waters may rise. "Our global advantage is being diminished by the weight of our burden in Iraq," he said.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who faces a difficult re-election bid next year due primarily to the war in Iraq, urged Petraeus to withdraw troops faster than he had recommended.
"Americans want to see light at the end of tunnel," Coleman told him.
"Can we get a longer-term vision? Can we get a longer-term plan? Can we say that, yeah, we can be down to half our troops in three years; we can get to five years; we can be turning over our bases in some other paradigm?" Coleman asked. "But I think we need something a little more than, say, give us more time to come back again in the fall."
Unity 'hasn't happened'
And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a former secretary of the Navy, sharply dismissed Crocker's talk of reaching a national reconciliation in Iraq.
"That's what's been said at this table for a long time, sir," Warner said. "And ... it hasn't happened."
Warner, one of the Senate's most influential policymakers when it comes to the military, urged Petraeus to tell the president if he disagrees with him on his strategy.
"I hope in the recesses of your heart," Warner said, "that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans."
Finally, Warner concluded with a question: "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 said the strategy is the best course for achieving U.S. objectives in Iraq.
"Does that make America safer?" pushed Warner.
Said Petraeus, "Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in my own mind."
Despite the tough questioning by Republicans, it is far from clear whether they and the Democrats will be able to find consensus and craft a bipartisan amendment instructing Bush to begin withdrawing troops more quickly. Democratic leaders said after meeting with Bush on Tuesday afternoon that they doubt they will be able to corral enough Republican votes to force a change of course.
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) was one of the early Republicans to break with the president and begin pushing for a change in mission in Iraq combined with a reduction in force patterned after a proposal by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. That study last winter called for withdrawal of most U.S. troops by next spring.
But Smith said in an interview he is not optimistic that there will be enough support to override Bush's plans.
"I think the general has been incredibly effective in his testimony to Congress and I think positions have hardened," Smith said. "That's my gut feeling."
Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he knows the American people would like to see a bipartisan solution to Iraq but said the Democrats "seemed pretty shrill."
"Whether that will happen or not ..." said Lott, shrugging his shoulders and not completing the sentence.
Eager to send message
Still, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he is working with other senators to try to craft language that would clarify the mission and send a message to the key leaders and factions in the region.
"That would be very, very good if we could do that," Voinovich said, calling for a reduction in troops as well as in money spent. "Many people have concluded we have given an enormous sum of money, $600billion, and we have unmet needs in our country."
At times, the questions put to Petraeus and Crocker had a plaintive tone to them.
"I have to ask this question: Where is this going?" asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a decorated Vietnam veteran who has been a critic of the Iraq war.
"Where is this going to go? Because the question that is going to continue to be asked, and you all know it and you have to live with it ... is it worth it, the continued investment of American blood and treasure?" he asked. "Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now?"
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 12, 2007 03:41:29 PM new
Funny how ld continues focusing on TWO or THREE republicans who MIGHT be siding with the liberals, because they're up for re-election. LOL
But then he continually IGNORES the rest of his own articles. They DONT have ENOUGH republicans in agreement with your side, ld.
edite to add:
PLUS for some strange reason, ld NEVER posts the dems/liberals who have recently traveled to Iraq themselves and come back [b]reporting that they'll NOW be SUPPORTING the surge.
funny things what he avoids mentioning. LOL
WAKE UP and read your articles IN FULL>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 12, 2007 04:08 PM ]
I'll put it in a more simple way....so ld can grasp the truth.
There are MORE dems/liberals who are SUPPORTING the surge than the three republicans who don't.
Easier for ld to grasp? Probably not. lol
"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 14, 2007 10:54:21 AM newld can grasp the truth
Unlike you. For years you have been saying things are all rosy in Iraq.
Recently you have said it is the Democrats that are against the war without failing to mention the Republicans that are against it.
There are MORE dems/liberals who are SUPPORTING the surge than the three republicans who don't.
At least now, you are finally admitting to the fact there are Republicans who disagree with Bush and his handling of Iraq. There are Republicans that are against the war as well.
Only when you have been proven wrong do you come around and admit the truth.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Are YOU a Bunghole?
