Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 10, 2007, 10:49:20 AM
-
Iraq 'surge' working, Petraeus tells Congress
NEW: U.S. forces can be at pre-surge levels by next summer, general says
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The troops "surge" in Iraq is improving the security situation in the country, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress on Monday.
Gen. David Petraeus arrives for testimony to Congress on Monday.
He said U.S. forces could be reduced to pre-surge levels by next summer.
Before Petraeus began to testify, the head of the House Armed Services Committee challenged Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to convince him that the war effort in Iraq is worth continuing.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, told Petraeus and Crocker that he was particularly curious whether reconciliation among warring Iraqi sects is imminent.
"I hope, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, that you can persuade us that there is substantial reason to believe that Iraq will turn around in the very near future," Skelton said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, warned Petraeus that he would face hostile skepticism from Democrats.
"The last week or so has been spent attacking your credibility, with major attacks here in the United States, some of them emanating from right here" in Congress, Hunter said.
Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, is expected to tell lawmakers the troop buildup in Iraq is producing results.
. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/iraq.petraeus/index.html
-
We had to watch it, so...I think he gave an honest report of what's going on, on the ground right now. This could and will change. He laid out when troops could be pulled out. If that scumbag Reid and the rest of the far left democratic hate machine step back and look at what he said..its a plan both sides can live with.
-
I'm shocked at the General's findings. ;D
-
We had to watch it, so...I think he gave an honest report of what's going on, on the ground right now. This could and will change. He laid out when troops could be pulled out. If that scumbag Reid and the rest of the far left democratic hate machine step back and look at what he said..its a plan both sides can live with.
I actually missed this speech.
The thing is, when he says the surge is working, does it mean there are less military personnel being killed?
Is the government now ready to take over it's country or close to it?
Are the Iraqi people beginning to see an upswing in their quality of life?
I have to google this and see what the Iraqi people think.
Britain is pulling out 500 of it's troops. This seems like a positive thing if the place is secure.
Sandra
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
Here's some of his findings:
"...there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished."
"Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight -- so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country...."
"In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill nearly four 7 1/2-ton dump trucks."
...Wait a moment?! That was from a 2004 opinion piece by Petraus. I guess he's just an optimistic guy to have the same opinion 3 years later.
Petraeus is a Bush yes-man. He always was. They should have put the man under oath before he gave his report to Congress. I don't trust anyone associated with the Bush White House.
-
Decker, you're buing into the bullshit. this guy is not lying..these are the facts currently. Tons of news outlets are reporting this. The guy was cautiously optimistic. I watched his whole speech. He was not gushing nor did he put mucvh faith in the Iraqi governmnet, but had some postive things to say about where their military is at. He also gave some kinda plan for a draw down.
The Dems, specifically the left better watch out what they say about this guy. They had better watch out how they treat the military. They piled on after Vietnam and it still hurts them today. The folks returning from Iraq today will be running America tommorrow.
-
Decker, you're buing into the bullshit. this guy is not lying..these are the facts currently. Tons of news outlets are reporting this. The guy was cautiously optimistic. I watched his whole speech. He was not gushing nor did he put mucvh faith in the Iraqi governmnet, but had some postive things to say about where their military is at. He also gave some kinda plan for a draw down.
The Dems, specifically the left better watch out what they say about this guy. They had better watch out how they treat the military. They piled on after Vietnam and it still hurts them today. The folks returning from Iraq today will be running America tommorrow.
We already know that the White House wrote Petraeus's report. The White House has been a machine of misinformation and outright lies re Iraq.
I don't think that a criticism of Petraeus as an indictment of our troops.
But Petraeus is a White House mouthpiece reading a script given to him by the Bush Administration. That's why he should have been under oath.
-
Decker, you're buing into the bullshit. this guy is not lying..these are the facts currently. Tons of news outlets are reporting this. The guy was cautiously optimistic. I watched his whole speech. He was not gushing nor did he put mucvh faith in the Iraqi governmnet, but had some postive things to say about where their military is at. He also gave some kinda plan for a draw down.
The Dems, specifically the left better watch out what they say about this guy. They had better watch out how they treat the military. They piled on after Vietnam and it still hurts them today. The folks returning from Iraq today will be running America tommorrow.
everyone piled on after vietnam..not just the dems...you had military men in the 80's and 90's writing books about how the military totally f**ked up in vietnam...sure, the folks in iraq may be running america but i'm not sure how many will be happy with the way bush ran this disaster...take a look at patrick murphy--he's an example of the folks who are returning from iraq and is against the war, tammy duckworth is another who considers the war a mistake ran for office.., paul hackett was another who was going to run for congress...he's another bush critic...
-
And while these people are outspoken there are tons who aren't who believ what we're doing regardless of Bush and his mistakes. Prove to me Petraeus is a mouth piece..prove it. Your saying a 4 Star General is outright lying to Congress..over or understating the surge or its affects, allowing an elected official or Office to sway or write a supposedly impartial report. Just because some leftist website produces this crap, doesn't mean its fact. Tons of people on his staff wrote that report, and if anything wasn't true or misleading, it would come out. The Left is attacking the Military. Petraeus has never had any political aspirations and was picked to do this job because he created COIN...center for counter insurgency, led the 101st in Iraq in 03 and understand the nature of the fight.
-
He said in his opening statements that the White House cleared the report.
Not having political aspirations doesn't exactly mean that he doesn't have political leanings... or career aspirations.
-
And while these people are outspoken there are tons who aren't who believ what we're doing regardless of Bush and his mistakes. Prove to me Petraeus is a mouth piece..prove it. Your saying a 4 Star General is outright lying to Congress..over or understating the surge or its affects, allowing an elected official or Office to sway or write a supposedly impartial report. Just because some leftist website produces this crap, doesn't mean its fact. Tons of people on his staff wrote that report, and if anything wasn't true or misleading, it would come out. The Left is attacking the Military. Petraeus has never had any political aspirations and was picked to do this job because he created COIN...center for counter insurgency, led the 101st in Iraq in 03 and understand the nature of the fight.
White House Will Write Petraeus Report
http://www.drudge.com/news/97551/white-house-write-petraeus-report
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2
Petraeus is singing the same upbeat "Iraq's doing great" song that he sang in 2004. Al Qaeda is dealt significant blows in Iraq...Iran is fighting Iraq and the US in a proxy war..."Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort,". All those topics are straight out of Bush and Co. propaganda 101.
And yes, I am flat-out calling him a bullshitter Bush yes-man. There has been no independent assessment that has concluded that violence has been reduced in Iraq b/c of the surge.
Oh wait, there has: Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals
GAO Draft at Odds With White House
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902434.html?hpid=topnews
Somebody's lying and I think I know who it is.
"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."
-
"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."
More from the GAO report.
-
At this point you'd be hard pressed to prove that the White House didn't write that report and I can't imagine anyone actually debating the point.
Spin baby, spin. In essence that's all that this disgraceful administration has left.
-
The Democrats are angry at Petraeus because they hate his message so much — that we have achieved some progress with the surge. This might be the first time ever that a messenger has been shot for bringing a message of good news. Petraeus did it in a sober and careful way, leaving little doubt in his testimony that he has a better command of the war — and a more realistic appreciation of all its devilish difficulties — than his congressional interlocutors.
For a man accused of being a partisan liar, Petraeus was resolutely nuanced. He noted that the “situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating.” Achieving our objectives will be neither “quick nor easy.” But he believes that achieving them is still possible, and a premature withdrawal “would likely have devastating consequences.” ......
-
We already know that the White House wrote Petraeus's report. The White House has been a machine of misinformation and outright lies re Iraq.
I don't think that a criticism of Petraeus as an indictment of our troops.
But Petraeus is a White House mouthpiece reading a script given to him by the Bush Administration. That's why he should have been under oath.
yeah I remember during his confirmation hearings how the Dems were totally against him........not....you left wing nutbags unamimously approve a guy and a year later call him a bush mouthpiece.....and you wonder why no one takes you serious....
-
yeah I remember during his confirmation hearings how the Dems were totally against him........not....you left wing nutbags unamimously approve a guy and a year later call him a bush mouthpiece.....and you wonder why no one takes you serious....
The Bush administration is masterful at marshalling its resources to control a complex political situation pre-emptively--so to speak.
They produced a guy like Petraeus and presented him as an objective authoritative voice on Iraq.
The democrats for the most part defer to military judgment. Whether that's so they don't appear weak on defense or b/c they believe it is in the best interest of the country to defer to military judgment re political questions, I don't know.
My problem with Petraeus was that in 2004 he viewed Iraq through rose-colored glasses in an editorial. Another problem was the leaked information that the White House was drafting his congressional testimony. Of course that was leaked after the fact of the democrats affirmation of the man.
Petraeus is today's Colin Powell.
-
The Bush administration is masterful at marshalling its resources to control a complex political situation pre-emptively--so to speak.
They produced a guy like Petraeus and presented him as an objective authoritative voice on Iraq.
The democrats for the most part defer to military judgment. Whether that's so they don't appear weak on defense or b/c they believe it is in the best interest of the country to defer to military judgment re political questions, I don't know.
My problem with Petraeus was that in 2004 he viewed Iraq through rose-colored glasses in an editorial. Another problem was the leaked information that the White House was drafting his congressional testimony. Of course that was leaked after the fact of the democrats affirmation of the man.
Petraeus is today's Colin Powell.
Deck, who would you put in charge of this situation, and how would you get us out of it?
-
Deck, who would you put in charge of this situation, and how would you get us out of it?
That's a tall order.
1. Impeach/Remove Bush/Cheney et al. and apologize to the Iraqi people,
2. Start a phased withdrawal immediately,
3. Establish a negotiation process with whatever government is standing and provide contingent financial support.
It is a very complex mess we are in thanks to Bush and his drive to war. It will take more than a paragraph to redress the harm this administration has done to this country and Iraq.
-
The Bush administration is masterful at marshalling its resources to control a complex political situation pre-emptively--so to speak.
They produced a guy like Petraeus and presented him as an objective authoritative voice on Iraq.
The democrats for the most part defer to military judgment. Whether that's so they don't appear weak on defense or b/c they believe it is in the best interest of the country to defer to military judgment re political questions, I don't know.
My problem with Petraeus was that in 2004 he viewed Iraq through rose-colored glasses in an editorial. Another problem was the leaked information that the White House was drafting his congressional testimony. Of course that was leaked after the fact of the democrats affirmation of the man.
Petraeus is today's Colin Powell.
at least you admit the Dems have no clue and just go along like patsies. I'm sure we will be in much better shape if they take charge.
-
at least you admit the Dems have no clue and just go along like patsies. I'm sure we will be in much better shape if they take charge.
They have little choice. The president and the republican party still rule the Iraq debate. The democrats do not have enough votes to bring the troops home.
The democrats tried to bring the troops home but:
Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html
If I were a democratic advisor with republican scruples I would point out that: Bush is vetoing war-funding thus abandoning the troops.
-
They have little choice. The president and the republican party still rule the Iraq debate. The democrats do not have enough votes to bring the troops home.
The democrats tried to bring the troops home but:
Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html
If I were a democratic advisor with republican scruples I would point out that: Bush is vetoing war-funding thus abandoning the troops.
even you aren't dumb enough to not realize that the Dems attached a withdrawl requirement and billions in pork spending to the troop funding in order to leave Bush no choice, thus giving sheeple like you an excuse to make crack head claims like "bush is denying troops money"....way to play along. You try to come off so intelligent but in the end you lack simple common sense. You need to move out of your mom's basement
-
They have little choice. The president and the republican party still rule the Iraq debate. The democrats do not have enough votes to bring the troops home.
The democrats tried to bring the troops home but:
Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html
If I were a democratic advisor with republican scruples I would point out that: Bush is vetoing war-funding thus abandoning the troops.
I have to ask Decker, I mean you are like really intelligent right? Don't the Dems have majority in the house and senate? So they do have the votes to change things, however when the chips are on the table they repeatedly refuse to vote their "true feelings"....I can't help but think that their true feeling is we need to finish the war but they realize if they stand up and tell you they will pull out you will continue to vote for them....they see your naivety and play you like a violin...a out of tune violin...
-
I have to ask Decker, I mean you are like really intelligent right? Don't the Dems have majority in the house and senate? So they do have the votes to change things, however when the chips are on the table they repeatedly refuse to vote their "true feelings"....I can't help but think that their true feeling is we need to finish the war but they realize if they stand up and tell you they will pull out you will continue to vote for them....they see your naivety and play you like a violin...a out of tune violin...
You're misstating the facts. The Democrats have a thin majority. They don't have enough votes to override a presidential veto and few if any republicans have the stones to cross party lines on these votes.
You are not basing your argument on fact. You employ every irrelevant propaganda ploy you can to make your emotionally-based point that democrats are gutless, 'do-anything, say-anything' cowards just interested in hanging on to power.
First you misstate the facts about congressional voting/presidential veto power then you engage in mindreading the motives of the democrats. That's not debate, that's propaganda.
-
even you aren't dumb enough to not realize that the Dems attached a withdrawl requirement and billions in pork spending to the troop funding in order to leave Bush no choice, thus giving sheeple like you an excuse to make crack head claims like "bush is denying troops money"....way to play along. You try to come off so intelligent but in the end you lack simple common sense. You need to move out of your mom's basement
What's your problem today? I suppose it would be too much to ask of your 'common sense' to grasp irony.
Of course it would. Common sense presupposes common experience and I doubt that you and I have had any common experiences.
For god's sake you criticize me the way Otto criticizes Archie in 'A Fish Called Wanda':
MM69: "You try to come off so intelligent..." (I'm sorry if you are intimidated by education and grammatical english)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole.
Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?
Otto: You are the vulgarian, you fuck.
See, he misses irony just like you.
-
LOL...That movie is classic...Kevin Kline is a piss...
-
You're misstating the facts. The Democrats have a thin majority. They don't have enough votes to override a presidential veto and few if any republicans have the stones to cross party lines on these votes.
You are not basing your argument on fact. You employ every irrelevant propaganda ploy you can to make your emotionally-based point that democrats are gutless, 'do-anything, say-anything' cowards just interested in hanging on to power.
First you misstate the facts about congressional voting/presidential veto power then you engage in mindreading the motives of the democrats. That's not debate, that's propaganda.
I'm not about to engage in an argument about this, but if you believe that a democratic president would end this war you are going to be as dissapointed as I was when I thought republicans would take care of gay marriage and immigration....ain't happening son
-
I'm not about to engage in an argument about this, but if you believe that a democratic president would end this war you are going to be as dissapointed as I was when I thought republicans would take care of gay marriage and immigration....ain't happening son
If the president were Kucinich or Richards then the war would end abruptly. I believe that Edwards is coming around to that conclusion himself. The rest are Bush clones. They want to use that SuperBase the US has built in the Iraqi Greenzone for years to come.
-
If the president were Kucinich or Richards then the war would end abruptly. I believe that Edwards is coming around to that conclusion himself. The rest are Bush clones. They want to use that SuperBase the US has built in the Iraqi Greenzone for years to come.
Thank god (yes I said god) people realize what quacks Kucinich and Richards are....Doesn't is speak volumes to you that the only 2 people you thikn would end the war of the support of 1-2% of the US? hmmmmm
-
Thank god (yes I said god) people realize what quacks Kucinich and Richards are....Doesn't is speak volumes to you that the only 2 people you thikn would end the war of the support of 1-2% of the US? hmmmmm
No it doesn't speak volumes to me b/c the president had near unanimous support for the Patriot Act and for invading Iraq (granted this consensus was built on the Bush Adm lies and manipulation of data) and in those instances the consensus was dead wrong.
Ron Paul wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
The reason that there is violence in Iraq, which is bleeding over its borders, is b/c of the US's illegal presence in the country.
We are fighting Iraqis: either Shia or Sunni depending on the context.
-
Didn't think this needed a thread of it's own, so I thought I'd put this article from the NYPost here:
TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief
September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."
"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."
-
Didn't think this needed a thread of it's own, so I thought I'd put this article from the NYPost here:
TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief
September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."
"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."
Not surprising.
-
Not surprising.
Yes, the liberal NY Times which:
supported the Afghanistan invasion,
supported the 2003 Iraq invasion,
gave a national stage to the White House conduit of WMD misinformation named Judith Miller,
Sat on the FISA story until after the 2004 election
Supported Nafta, [A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.]
Praised in its review of the Ann Coulter book "Slander",
Perpetuated the Clinton WhiteWater Hoax
In fact, Perpetuated any Bullshit Clinton "scandal" that the republicans could manufacture
During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
________________________ ________________________ _____________
-
Yes, the liberal NY Times which:
supported the Afghanistan invasion,
supported the 2003 Iraq invasion,
gave a national stage to the White House conduit of WMD misinformation named Judith Miller,
Sat on the FISA story until after the 2004 election
Supported Nafta, [A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.]
Praised in its review of the Ann Coulter book "Slander",
Perpetuated the Clinton WhiteWater Hoax
In fact, Perpetuated any Bullshit Clinton "scandal" that the republicans could manufacture
During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
________________________ ________________________ _____________
And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad. Why?
-
And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad. Why?
there could be many reasons - first the random quotes given over the phone could be wrong. They could have negotioted a lower price with the promise of future business.
The person selling the space could have offered the lower price in order to fill the order.
etc..
NY Times is running a business and they can sell their product for whatever price they want
-
Interesting that people are more interested in the price of an ad rather than the veracity of the ad's claims.
-
And then they gave lefties a hefty discount for a "betray us" ad. Why?
I don't know if that's even the case.
But as Straw Man pointed out, you don't know the facts. You just assume facts fixed to your prejudice.