MoveOn.org's Attack Ad on Petraeus Strikes Republicans' Nerves

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296305,00.html

MoveOn.org's Attack Ad on Petraeus Strikes Republicans' Nerves
Monday, September 10, 2007

E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION Story tools
sponsored by

WASHINGTON — An strongly-worded advertisement targeting Gen. David Petraeus by the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org has touched the nerves of Bush administration officials and congressional Republicans.

The full-page ad in The New York Times was timed to appear on the day that Petraeus — the top U.S. military commander in Iraq — gives a seminal report to Congress alongside U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

The report, mandated in a troop funding bill earlier this year, is on military and political progress in Iraq since President Bush announced the plan to boost troop levels last January. The officials are expected to argue for maintaining the increased troop levels through the spring, a recommendation hotly contested by war opponents.

"I resent the comments of those who have sat comfortably in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the firefights and the roadside bombs, and tried their Washington best in recent days to impugn the general’s good name," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement delivered from the Senate floor on Monday.

Political Jockeying Begins on Capitol Hill Ahead of Petraeus Testimony Congressional Testimony Is Tough Road for War-Time Generals Al-Sadr Restructuring His Mahdi Army Militia Biden: Petraeus is Dead Wrong on Iraq Transcript: Sens. Feinstein, Graham on 'FOX News Sunday' Bush Officials Stand Up for Iraq War Policy Iraq Officials Warn Terror Violence Could Spread The ad features a large headline under a picture of the general that reads: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" It goes on to say, "Cooking the books for the White House: General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."

The ad points to statements from Petraeus such as, "We have achieved progress," regarding the troop surge this year, but says the war is failing, and criticizes the Defense Department for adopting reporting rules that MoveOn says show a rosier picture of Iraqi casualties than reality.

White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the ad Monday morning as a an attempt to smear the general before his testimony, and called it "boorish" and "childish."

Republican lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill also decried the ad as tasteless and partisan.

Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said a failure of Democrats to denounce the ad would mean they have decided re-election is more important than "moving our country forward" or being fair to Petraeus.

"Today, ostensibly on behalf of National Democrats, Democrat front group MoveOn.org is calling a unanimously confirmed United States General a liar and betrayer of the public trust. Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Senate Democrats to stand idly by while a respected General is maligned before he has even presented his report to Congress,said Ensign of Nevada.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said: “It’s repugnant, but unfortunately not surprising, to see MoveOn.org launch this despicable ad campaign against General Petraeus."

Kyl pointed out that Petraeus, a Vietnam veteran, was confirmed as head of Multinational Forces in Iraq unanimously in the Senate earlier this year — an 81-0 vote — and called on Democrats to either take up MoveOn's war stance or support the general they voted to confirm.

“We’re beginning to see real, measurable progress in Iraq since the increased troop levels earlier this year, and despite this fact, MoveOn.org has chosen to engage in slanderous and partisan personal attacks on the commander of our troops on the ground. Because MoveOn.org seems unable to contest the facts, it has instead chosen to attack the messenger because it doesn’t like the message," Kyl said.

Fellow Arizona Republican, Sen. John McCain, issued a statement calling the ad a "McCarthyite attack" and "despicable."

"This is a man who has devoted his life in service to our nation and has defended America in many battles over many years," said McCain, also a White House contender, calling on Democrats to join him in condemning the ad.

White House hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., issued a statement calling MoveOn.org a "left wing anti-military organization," and called on Democratic leaders to rein in the group.

"General Petraeus is an American soldier. His professional life is a reflection of adherence to duty, honor and country. For the Democrat leadership to allow this slur by their ‘Move On’ allies to stand would be a slap in the face of every member of the Armed Forces. I call on the leadership of the Democrat Party to denounce this advertisement and disassociate themselves from it," said Hunter, who is the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Asked whether there was willingness on Democrats' part to publicly condemn the group, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman sought to downplay the criticism of Petraeus — a target of attack by Reid last week — to focus more on whether the troop surge is achieving what it set out to do.

"The issue isn't General Petraeus," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told FOX News. "He is a good man and a fine soldier. The problem is that he was brought in to administer a war that had already been badly mismanaged by President Bush."

"Serious questions have been raised, and will continue to be raised, about the veracity of some of the statistics that will be cited by the White House and General Petraeus. As General Petraeus himself said during his confirmation hearing in January, the objective of the surge was to provide Iraq's national government time to reach political reconciliation, and by every independent assessment made so far, that simply hasn't happened," Manley said.

By late morning, MoveOn issued a statement defending the ad's accuracy.

"We stand by our ad — every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus' claims," said Eli Pariser, executive director MoveOn.org's political action committee.

Pariser's challenged lawmakers supporting the war to refute him and cited several news articles in defending the advertisement. He also noted a new Gallup poll out Monday that, he said, shows Americans expect "a biased report that reflects what the Bush administration wants the public to believe."

The poll, however, also shows that Americans trust Petraeus' recommendations more than others, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Bush and congressional Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-three percent of respondents trusted Petraeus either a great deal or a fair amount; 58 percent rated the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well; 16 percent rated the president in the same terms; and 12 percent rated congressional Democrats as trustworthy.

The Sept. 7-8 telephone poll of 1,028 U.S. adults showed that 53 percent of respondents believe the report will reflect what the Bush administration wants the public to believe, and 40 percent believe it will be "an independent and objective report on the current situation in Iraq." The poll had a 3 percent margin of error.


:rolleyes

The GOP was deathly silent during the smearvets campaign..in fact fox news whored that story for weeks on end..

poor little cry babies..


Now on that note I don't think Petreaus is being untruthful..

[ChumpDumper]

Stupid move by moveon.

[Yonivore]

...I don't think Petreaus is being untruthful..
Then I don't get your comparison between MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus and the Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth's attack on John Kerry.

Are you saying John Kerry was being truthful in the way General Petraeus is being truthful? That Kerry's bid for the presidency was as grave and weighty as the fate of 160,000 U.S. soldiers? And, if so, instead of rolling your eyes at Republican outrage (although I believe the outrage won't be confined to Republicans this time) why not attack MoveOn.org with the same ferocity with which the Swiftboat Vets were attacked?

General Petraeus was confirmed 81-0 with 19 not voting. You can't get a Democratic lawmaker to call him a liar because they handed him the keys and said he was the right man for the job a mere 8 months ago. All of the current criticism pre-dates Petraeus and by all accounts, Iraq is becoming more secure and -- due to his leadership -- quickly becoming a major military victory.

Moveon.Org has taken the rhetoric that Democrats with faces and constituents have merely danced around (Schumer and his "in spite of the surge" nonsense -- Biden and his criticism of a report he had yet to hear) and made it explicit. In the advertisement in yesterday's New York Times, Moveon.Org brayed in its headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.”


http://pol.moveon.org/images/PetraeusNYTad.jpg (http://pol.moveon.org/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf).

Also take note of this quote from Friday’s Politico uttered by a courageously anonymous Democratic Senator: “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is the outside groups will do this for us.”

I KNOW, I KNOW. The modern liberal establishment just can’t understand anything that isn’t done purely for political gain. They can’t even imagine a man in David Petraeus' position being anything other than a lackey for the Bush White House, eagerly aiding the quest to bolster Halliburton’s stock price by any means necessary. A person who cares about something other than partisan politics, anything other than partisan politics, is a creature beyond their comprehension.

This is the price of leftists' politics of winnerism. Markos Moulitsas understands the limits of publicly practicing this kind of politics, having learned a hard lesson in this regard when he made his infamous “Screw Them” comment three years ago. But his duller fellow travelers have no idea how their countrymen will perceive them. The people at Moveon.Org don’t understand how noxious the suggestion is that Petraeus would willingly and eagerly sell out the 160,000 men and women who he leads. After all, if you’re a Daily Kos diarist or a MoveOn.org director, it’s all about politics. Everything is about politics, all the time.

Practically everytime this conversation comes up, someone on the left will invariably ask how Republicans are supposed to stand by this war effort and still prevail in 2008.

Guess what: They aren’t. 2008 may be a disaster for Republicans at the ballot box. But, the rank and file of the Republican party, expect Republicans to risk their comfortable offices in order to see the war in Iraq through to a satisfactory conclusion and to continue the war against the forces of Jihad. Let the political chips fall where they may.

The Democratic Party, through its conspiracy with Moveon.Org to slander the man leading 160,000 American troops in harm’s way, has shown its true colors. Characteristically idiotic, they’ve chosen to do so at a time when the country is watching.

[ChumpDumper]

I stole most of this from Hugh Hewitt.

[xrayzebra]

Birds of a feather flock together. Chump and GGA. Your
favorite Rep. from Ca. who called him a liar before he even
started his report. What a bunch of losers.

[ChumpDumper]

Birds of a feather flock together. Chump and GGA. Your
favorite Rep. from Ca. who called him a liar before he even
started his report. What a bunch of losers.I said it was a stupid move, you dumbass. Can't you understand English?

And show me where I said who my favorite congressman is.

[xrayzebra]

I said it was a stupid move, you dumbass. Can't you understand English?

And show me where I said who my favorite congressman is.

Your words do that. Each and everyday. We are wrong
they are right. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
that out.

[ChumpDumper]

I just said they are wrong, idiot.

With words.

Damn, you are being especially stupid today.

[xrayzebra]

I just said they are wrong, idiot.

With words.

Damn, you are being especially stupid today.

Talking to stupid people like you, stupid......
:elephant

[clambake]

it was a dumb move. period. but wait to see how these reports differ from other offices' reports, then ask yourself: "What happens to Generals that don't echo the positon of Pres. Bush?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Birds of a feather flock together. Chump and GGA. Your
favorite Rep. from Ca. who called him a liar before he even
started his report. What a bunch of losers.


I don't have a favorite ray.. isn't it time for your nap?
did you notice that i stated that i didn't think petreaus was being untruthful?

[ChumpDumper]

it was a dumb move. period. but wait to see how these reports differ from other offices' reports, then ask yourself: "What happens to Generals that don't echo the position of Pres. Bush?Petraeus is different. He's so popular that he takes the heat off of Bush.

[clambake]

Petraeus is different. He's so popular that he takes the heat off of Bush.
That's a good point, but, it doesn't support their previous assertion that AQ will take over if we leave, just after claiming that "it's because of the locals that AQ is failing".

I guess they'll never be expected to verify the truth in their report campared to other administrative reports.

[smeagol]

boutons should be agreeing with moveon.org right about now . . .

[ChumpDumper]

The AQ takeover scenario is just a bumper sticker for the administration. The actual possibilities for a post withdrawal Iraq are much more complex and daunting than that. Petraeus and Corker didn't get into those possibilities much in their opening statements, and I doubt anyone asked for specifics later.

[boutons_]

I'm really in smeagol's head, he's even thinking like me. :)

[smeagol]

I'm really in smeagol's head, he's even thinking like me. :)

For the most part no. :spin

[fyatuk]

:rolleyes

The GOP was deathly silent during the smearvets campaign..in fact fox news whored that story for weeks on end..

poor little cry babies..


Now on that note I don't think Petreaus is being untruthful..

Funny, I remember Bush condemning all advertisements but such groups, including the 'vets and asking Kerry to do the same. Kerry declined and demanded that Bush only condemn those groups targetting Kerry.

Both Dems and Reps are despicable crybabies. Bleh.

[Nbadan]

Petraeus has a serious credibility problem and it's about time someone called him on it...

13 May 2003
U.S. Troops Find Second Biological Weapons Trailer Near Mosul


(Defense Department Report) (520) Washington -- Troops from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division - - stationed in northern Iraq and headquartered in Mosul -- have foundwhat military authorities believe may be a second mobile biological weapons laboratory, says the division commander.

"The suspected mobile biological agent production lab found on 9 May in our area was found by one of our infantry units during operations at the al-Kindi Rocket and Missile Research and Development Center," Major General David Petraeus said May 13 during a briefing from Mosul. "Our own chemical section looked at the trailer and confirmed it as a trailer that was very close to identical to the first trailer that was found by Special Forces southeast of here last week."

Petraeus said he spoke with experts May 13, and they have a "reasonable degree of certainty that this is in fact a mobile biological agent production trailer."

Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030513-usia01.htm)

Of course those biological weapons labs Petraeus claims to have found were not biological weapons labs at all, and it appears that he probably knew that was the case before he went to the media to announce the "find".


On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

...

Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html)


And so now the man who told us that a weather balloon station was actually a biological weapons lab is supposed to be our "credible source" that is going to tell us whether or not the "surge" is working.

For the media to present this guy as having even an ounce of credibility is shameful. Petraeus is a liar. Period. There is a reason Bush choose Petraeus for this job, and if you think Bush chose Petraeus for his objectivity then you don't know who Bush is. Petraeus was chosen for this job because he is more than willing to lie to the public and present the case Bush wants him to present.

We can not fall for the lies that are going to be fed to us over the next week, it is our duty to call Petraeus on his bullshit. If Petraeus is not forced to explain why he told the media that biological weapons labs were found in Iraq then our Congress is not doing it's job.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry Dan, Petraeus was chosen because he was one of the few commanders who remembered what the others forgot or never learned about counterinsurgency. None of this preliminary, take-someone-else's word for it report about Iraqi RVs changes that. If this is the worst thing you can find about Petreaus, he is obviously the best commander we have had in this war.

[Gerryatrics]

:rolleyes

The GOP was deathly silent during the smearvets campaign..in fact fox news whored that story for weeks on end..

poor little cry babies..


So ads by a political group attacking active military personnel is exactly the same as ads by a group of military veterans attacking a Presidential candidate? You can't see any distinction there at all?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So ads by a political group attacking active military personnel is exactly the same as ads by a group of military veterans attacking a Presidential candidate? You can't see any distinction there at all?


How about no false and misleading ads against anyone? The smearvets were a disgrace that effectively gave Bush the election. So in theory the smearvets affected our foreign policy since 2004 by attacking Kerry. They could be responsible for hundreds of GI deaths because of their false and misleading ads. Pretty serious don't you think?

[WHOTTABITCH]

How about no false and misleading ads against anyone? The smearvets were a disgrace that effectively gave Bush the election. So in theory the smearvets affected our foreign policy since 2004 by attacking Kerry. They could be responsible for hundreds of GI deaths because of their false and misleading ads. Pretty serious don't you think?


are you calling the vets who served liars?

[George Gervin's Afro]

are you calling the vets who served liars?


Well I won't call anyone I don't personally know a liar. With that being said there were quite a few folks who were present during Kerry's time in Vietnam who refute the accusations of the smear vets. They certainly got put themselves in the middle of a big mess that affected a presidential election so they deserve to get what happens to them. I don't want to single out only republicans on this because many people on the left do the same thing ( see cindy sheehan).

[xrayzebra]

boutons should be agreeing with moveon.org right about now . . .

He doesn't agree with moveon, he takes his marching orders
from movon and daily kos. As does most of the other
dimm-o-craps.

[xrayzebra]

Depends on how you read it.


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Pretraus.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Depends on how you read it.


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Pretraus.jpg


One thing ray, bad news is bad for the entire country and not just for dems. You really need to get away from talk radio.. Good news that more troops means more security? no shit. of course you proudly say that good news is coming out of Iraq be cause of the surge..etc.. well I seem to rememebr for the last 3 years you have been defending the wrong strategy ...


By the way sionce the only solution for the Iraq mess is a political one any good news on that?

[xrayzebra]

GGA, Your full of it. I have the Congress to tell me what is
and what isn't wrong. After all they are experts on all matters,
whether it be health care, fighting wars or global warming. Just
read the following. The even know more than they General
they unanimously approved for the job in Iraq. Why they knew
everything would turn out great in Viet Nam, where the great
leader in the Senate, John Kerry, the wounded veteran served.



Surge a failure, Democrats tell general
Sep 11 02:10 PM US/Eastern
Anti-war Senate Democrats bluntly told Iraq commander General David Petraeus Tuesday his troop surge strategy was an abject failure in its prime objective -- forging an Iraqi political settlement.

Several Senate Republicans also expressed unease with US war policy, as the general and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker endured a roasting on a second day of high-stakes testimony to Congress.

Petraeus repeated his contention that the surge was working, and said US forces could gradually be reduced from their current 168,000 strength, to pre-surge levels of around 130,000 by mid 2008.

But committee chairman Senator Joseph Biden said: "we should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home."

Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate, asked: was Iraq closer to political reconciliation than before the surge began, and would continuing the operation stop the killing between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds?

"The answer to both those questions is no," Biden said.

Another long-shot Democratic presidential candidate Senator Christopher Dodd, was even more terse, pointing to slow Iraqi political reconciliation.

"What makes you possibly think that anything further like this is going to produce the results that anybody else has failed to do?"

The reception granted to President George W. Bush's top war advisors contrasted with the smooth ride they enjoyed before two House of Representatives panels Monday, opening a week critical to future US strategy.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rebuked Petraeus for past optimism. "I ask you to take off your rosy glasses."

"We are sending our troops where they are not wanted, with no end in sight, in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of the mother of all mistakes."

But despite their anger, Senate Democrats still look set to fail in their bid to fracture Republican support and force Bush to change course.

Republican Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of war strategy, also chastised Crocker and Petraeus for what he said was an overly upbeat survey.

"Where is this going to go?" Hagel asked.

"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate as we are now? For what?"

Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."

Republican Senator Richard Lugar warned Petraeus of the need for long-term planning for redeployment.

"Some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policy makers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals."

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow would not say whether Bush, expected to address Americans on television on Iraq this week, would follow the Petraeus recommendations.

"We are not going to play the game of what he is likely to do," Snow said.

Crocker offered a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq, repeating his contention that slow, upward progress was being made.

But his somber tone was in marked contrast to many of previous assessments of progress in the four-year war by the Bush administration.

"There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory, any turning point would likely only be recognized in retrospect," Crocker said.

"I think in the past we set some expectations that have not been met. I am trying not to do that."

Crocker's remarks provoked a "Code Pink" anti-war protestor to yell "Diplomats for peace not occupation" before she was hustled out of the hearing.

Then, a white-haired man stood up and barked "So now you are laying the ground to get us into bombing Iran," before police pounced.

Petraeus also said he would be "hard pressed" next March to recommend an extension of the military surge in Iraq if there is no let-up in current levels of bloodshed on the ground.

And he said the surge would effectively end by mid next year with withdrawals starting with reductions of marines this month and 4,000 more troops in December.

Military officials had previously acknowledged that continuing the surge after mid-2008 would be difficult because of the lack of available forces to keep troop levels so high.


Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[George Gervin's Afro]

GGA, Your full of it. I have the Congress to tell me what is
and what isn't wrong. After all they are experts on all matters,
whether it be health care, fighting wars or global warming. Just
read the following. The even know more than they General
they unanimously approved for the job in Iraq. Why they knew
everything would turn out great in Viet Nam, where the great
leader in the Senate, John Kerry, the wounded veteran served.



Surge a failure, Democrats tell general
Sep 11 02:10 PM US/Eastern
Anti-war Senate Democrats bluntly told Iraq commander General David Petraeus Tuesday his troop surge strategy was an abject failure in its prime objective -- forging an Iraqi political settlement.

Several Senate Republicans also expressed unease with US war policy, as the general and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker endured a roasting on a second day of high-stakes testimony to Congress.

Petraeus repeated his contention that the surge was working, and said US forces could gradually be reduced from their current 168,000 strength, to pre-surge levels of around 130,000 by mid 2008.

But committee chairman Senator Joseph Biden said: "we should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home."

Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate, asked: was Iraq closer to political reconciliation than before the surge began, and would continuing the operation stop the killing between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds?

"The answer to both those questions is no," Biden said.

Another long-shot Democratic presidential candidate Senator Christopher Dodd, was even more terse, pointing to slow Iraqi political reconciliation.

"What makes you possibly think that anything further like this is going to produce the results that anybody else has failed to do?"

The reception granted to President George W. Bush's top war advisors contrasted with the smooth ride they enjoyed before two House of Representatives panels Monday, opening a week critical to future US strategy.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rebuked Petraeus for past optimism. "I ask you to take off your rosy glasses."

"We are sending our troops where they are not wanted, with no end in sight, in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of the mother of all mistakes."

But despite their anger, Senate Democrats still look set to fail in their bid to fracture Republican support and force Bush to change course.

Republican Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of war strategy, also chastised Crocker and Petraeus for what he said was an overly upbeat survey.

"Where is this going to go?" Hagel asked.

"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate as we are now? For what?"

Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."

Republican Senator Richard Lugar warned Petraeus of the need for long-term planning for redeployment.

"Some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policy makers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals."

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow would not say whether Bush, expected to address Americans on television on Iraq this week, would follow the Petraeus recommendations.

"We are not going to play the game of what he is likely to do," Snow said.

Crocker offered a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq, repeating his contention that slow, upward progress was being made.

But his somber tone was in marked contrast to many of previous assessments of progress in the four-year war by the Bush administration.

"There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory, any turning point would likely only be recognized in retrospect," Crocker said.

"I think in the past we set some expectations that have not been met. I am trying not to do that."

Crocker's remarks provoked a "Code Pink" anti-war protestor to yell "Diplomats for peace not occupation" before she was hustled out of the hearing.

Then, a white-haired man stood up and barked "So now you are laying the ground to get us into bombing Iran," before police pounced.

Petraeus also said he would be "hard pressed" next March to recommend an extension of the military surge in Iraq if there is no let-up in current levels of bloodshed on the ground.

And he said the surge would effectively end by mid next year with withdrawals starting with reductions of marines this month and 4,000 more troops in December.

Military officials had previously acknowledged that continuing the surge after mid-2008 would be difficult because of the lack of available forces to keep troop levels so high.


Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

Ray did the surge solve the political problem? I think we can all acknowledge that putting more boots on the ground allowed for us to hold our ground. But the only solution for Iraq is a political one..so I will ask again did the surge solve the political problem?

[Yonivore]

Ray did the surge solve the political problem? I think we can all acknowledge that putting more boots on the ground allowed for us to hold our ground. But the only solution for Iraq is a political one..so I will ask again did the surge solve the political problem?
The political problem can only be resolved if the country is secure...so, yes, in a manner of speaking, the surge did work toward a resolution of the political problem.

Let's see where we are next Spring, shall we?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The political problem can only be resolved if the country is secure...so, yes, in a manner of speaking, the surge did work toward a resolution of the political problem.

Let's see where we are next Spring, shall we?


let's hope these folks can take care of their own country sometime soon..

[ChumpDumper]

The political problem can only be resolved if the country is secure...so, yes, in a manner of speaking, the surge did work toward a resolution of the political problem.

Let's see where we are next Spring, shall we?Didn't you say let's see where we are in September?

Why are you moving the goalposts again?

[xrayzebra]

Ray did the surge solve the political problem? I think we can all acknowledge that putting more boots on the ground allowed for us to hold our ground. But the only solution for Iraq is a political one..so I will ask again did the surge solve the political problem?


GGA, how many years has our country existed? And have
we solved all our political problems?

And if you think all our political problems are solved, God
help you.

[xrayzebra]

Didn't you say let's see where we are in September?

Why are you moving the goalposts again?

Chump who is moving the goal post? I accuse you!

[ChumpDumper]

Chump who is moving the goal post?Yoni.
I accuse you!What is victory in Iraq?

[Yonivore]

let's hope these folks can take care of their own country sometime soon..
I agree.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni.What is victory in Iraq?


ahhh the 64,000.00 question

[Yonivore]

ahhh the 64,000.00 question
A secure country, a recovering economy, holding free and fair elections and the absence an al Qaeda presence.

General Petraeus's report shows it is more secure than before the surge began, that sectarian violence is diminishing, that al Qaeda has been significantly degraded and that the environment is more favorable for political progres than it was at the same time last year.

Need my address for the money order?

[xrayzebra]

Yoni.What is victory in Iraq?


GGA has the answer:

let's hope these folks can take care of their own country sometime soon..

[boutons_]

"General Petraeus's report shows it is more secure than before the surge began"

dubya's lap-dog's report is being ripped and exposed already, by independent observers who don't cherry pick and hype. Even Repug Senators aren't satisfied with Petraeus' fluff and puff job.

That ripping and exposing will continue, as will dubya's "playing" for time until 20 Jan 09.

[Nbadan]

The following was original published in the Op-ED section of The Washington Post on September 26 2004 by David Petraeus...

Battling for Iraq
By David H. Petraeus Sunday, September 26, 2004


BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Nonetheless, 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. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.

Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf. Their readiness to enter and clear the Imam Ali shrine was undoubtedly a key factor in enabling Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to persuade members of the Mahdi militia to lay down their arms and leave the shrine.

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.

Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.

Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions -- generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area -- are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently. Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.

Iraq's borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized training for Iraq's border enforcement elements began earlier this month in Jordan.

Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines, explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.

Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.

Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.

Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial. The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations. And two days after the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force protection walls at another location -- where they were greeted by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html)

[Yonivore]

The following was original published in the Op-ED section of The Washington Post on September 26 2004 by David Petraeus...
Your point?

[boutons_]

"September 26, 2004" "tangible progress."

6 weeks before the presidential election, an active duty General publishes a puff piece in a national paper of record. He was obviously doing dubya/Rove's election/campaign bidding. dubya was re-elected by the smallest margin ever for an incumbent Pres.

If Petraeus wants to play politics along with General-ing (and reaching General rank is due primarily to YEARS of playing Army politics 24x7), then Petraeus can't complain about getting attacked for his politicking, for his hyping the un-hypeable, for sucking dubya's ass to the detriment of his troops.

[Ocotillo]

I agree with MoveOn here. Petraeus decided to step in the political arena by writing an opinion piece prior to the '04 election and now granting an exclusive to the RNC's infomercial otherwise known as Fox News. The general's "report" which was written by the White House is a PR piece to counter the unfavorable reports that have been coming out. Since Bush has no credibility beyond the 30% dead enders who support him and his war and still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 he has to trot out a guy in uniform. Conservatives love a man in uniform because it's win/win for them. If you challenge or disagree with the general's testimony, the right wing machine charges into high gear as Fox Noise is doing here and mariginalizes the party doing the criticizing. If you remain silent, their message goes unchallenged.

He is being the "good soldier" just like another respected General who's career is now tarnished by his presentation before the U.N.

MoveOn will be proved right by time.

[Nbadan]

The Patraeus revelations keep coming...

REPORT: Petraeus Spent At Least 17 Days In August Flacking For Bush’s Escalation



The Washington Post reported this weekend that the White House political office and Gen. David Petraeus’ unit have been “hard-wired” together, working jointly to “map out ways of selling the surge.”

The White House has used Petraeus as a PR flack over and over again to sustain its failing Iraq strategy. Last month, Petraeus kicked his political activities into overdrive. He hosted over 38 congressional members inside the Green Zone, and he gave numerous radio, print and TV interviews.

ThinkProgress has compiled a report of Gen. Petraeus’ public activities in August which show that the top general in Iraq spent at least half the month flacking for Bush’s escalation.

There is a calendar (AT LINK) of Petraeus’ busy PR operations last month. The red dates are those which we know from media reports that Petraeus was either hosting “dog and pony shows” for members of Congress or giving media interviews. You can scroll over each of the red dates for more details. Please let us know if there’s something we missed.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/10/petraeus-august

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.com/working/070910/sherffius21.jpg

[PixelPusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpD46yLPvc

Sen. Warner: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?

Gen. Petraeus: (pause) "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

Sen. Warner: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Gen. Petraeus: "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.
------------

That pretty much sums up the hearings.

[Nbadan]

That pretty much sums up the hearings.

Touche'....but I don't see what anyone else expected from Petraeus, he has too much invested in the surge working to admit that any possible gains may or may not make a difference on the eventual outcome in Iraq, much less if it makes us any safer....

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjpD46yLPvc

Sen. Warner: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?

Gen. Petraeus: (pause) "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

Sen. Warner: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Gen. Petraeus: "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.
------------

That pretty much sums up the hearings.
That's right. Take an expert at warfare and ask him to declare something he has not spent his time with. The general is tasked with the intricacies on the battlefield. Not those of the intelligence networks. If you listened to any of the exchanges at length, you would see that Petaeus was very good in his statements overall.

Is that the best you have?

[boutons_]

"Take an expert at warfare"

He's an American citizen with family and friends in America.

He's supposed to be one of the smartest, best people in the Army.
(right up there in the 99 percentile with our very own brilliant WC http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

But WC thinks Pet is being unfairly picked on to be asked the question which is about the MAIN reason a country goes to war for?

A basic question that as been asked in polls of Americans for years? Americans have answers,
but "the best" Pet has is "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind." ? GMAFB

Pet knows damn well America is NOT safer as result of dubya fraudulent war that de-stabilized Iraq,

exhausts the the Army mentally, physiically, and materially,

prevents the Army from being able to respond to real threats elsewhere.

"I don't know, actually" Pet is a fucking liar.

[PixelPusher]

That's right. Take an expert at warfare and ask him to declare something he has not spent his time with. The general is tasked with the intricacies on the battlefield. Not those of the intelligence networks. If you listened to any of the exchanges at length, you would see that Petaeus was very good in his statements overall.

Is that the best you have?
You're right, it's not Petraeus's job to comment on overall policy, just mission specifics...which is exactly why a thoroughly discredited Bush Administration is hiding behind the good/honorable/competent General to begin with.

That's why the entire sham of these hearings were summed up in that little exchange.

[xrayzebra]

An editorial from the Wall Street Journal.

Petraeus Takes the Beltway
Political progress--in Iraq and the U.S--follows military success.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

So the two men best qualified to give an honest and comprehensive account of events in Iraq have marched through Congress to say--and show--that the surge is working and America's goals are still within reach. Yet it's a sign of the U.S. political debate that their evidence of progress seemed to make the headlines in none of our leading news sources yesterday.

Instead, the "news" seems to be that General David Petraeus has recommended that some 5,000 U.S. troops can rotate out of Iraq by the end of this year, and that U.S. forces might be able to return to pre-surge levels by next July if progress continues. That's no small matter, but it obscures the larger message of the testimony by the General and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. To wit: The U.S. is gaining ground in Iraq--often in the least expected of ways.

Consider some excerpts from Mr. Crocker's testimony. The Iraqi government puts its cell phone spectrum up for auction: It nets a better-than-expected sum of nearly $4 billion. At a recent conference in Dubai, "hundreds of Iraqi businessmen met an equal number of foreign investors newly interested in acquiring shares of business in Iraq." Iraqi oil is now flowing out of the country via Turkish pipelines, and the International Monetary Fund predicts economic growth for Iraq of 6% this year.

In the vicinity of Abu Ghraib, 1,700 men--many of them former Sunni insurgents--have joined the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Security Forces. The Iraqi government is quietly offering jobs or retirement packages to thousands of former soldiers, many of them one-time members of the Baath Party. Significantly, it is doing so without taking the politically sensitive steps of declaring a general amnesty or enacting legislation on de-Baathification.

As Mr. Crocker notes, these developments "are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far from Baghdad." It's a point that seems to have been missed by Democrats on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, as well as by such Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar. Their collective view seems to be that Iraq is a lost cause because the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to achieve "national reconciliation," on the grounds that a series of legislative benchmarks have still not been met.

We don't know anyone who opposes "national reconciliation," though perhaps only on Capitol Hill would it be measured by the quantity of legislation passed rather than the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis. (In the U.S., these measures tend to be inversely correlated.) Yet "reconciliation" isn't something that precedes basic security. It follows from it.

In his testimony, General Petraeus noted that violent civilian deaths have declined by 45% in Iraq and 70% in Baghdad. Car and suicide bombings are down by nearly 50% since March, another astonishing turnabout. Here, too, the good news comes from the least expected of places: Anbar province, where Sunni tribal leaders and many former insurgents have realized their best interests lie with the U.S. and a democratic Iraqi government in which they have a say, and not with al Qaeda. Critics claim this realization has nothing to do with the surge, but surely the tribal sheikhs would not risk fighting al Qaeda unless they believed the U.S. and Iraqi government had shown the will to stay and prevail.

Progress in Anbar would also have been harder had Mr. Maliki not agreed to allow the arming of Sunni tribal leaders, despite the danger that could pose to Shiite power. Mr. Maliki has also shown political courage by allowing the U.S. to go after the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who only last year helped the prime minister get his job. Mr. Sadr recently agreed to a unilateral ceasefire after some of his men attacked Shiite worshippers in Karbala. Like al Qaeda in Iraq, he too may have overplayed his hand, and one reason for the surge to continue is to give General Petraeus time to further degrade Mahdi elements. This will leave the Iraqi Security Force in a stronger position to keep order after the surge.

One element that's still missing is the non-interference of Iraq's neighbors in its affairs. With Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich paying court this week in Damascus, it was especially useful to hear General Petraeus describe Syria's role in Iraq as "malign" and provide specific details of Iran's killing of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi government leaders. Our own sources say Iranian-backed forces are now responsible for 70% of U.S. casualties. The problem of Iran in Iraq is worth another editorial, but as the surge continues President Bush is going to have to get far more serious about proving to Tehran that there really are "consequences" for killing Americans. So far Mr. Bush has shown the opposite.

As for U.S. politics, the lesson of the last few months is that the way to gain ground on Capitol Hill is not with the promise of troop withdrawals. As our experience in Vietnam showed, such withdrawals quickly become a Congressional addiction. All Americans want fewer troops in Iraq; most Americans also want that drawdown to be honorable and victorious. The way to stop, or slow, the calls for too-rapid withdrawal is to succeed in making further military and political progress in Iraq.

The success of the surge so far has bought Mr. Bush more time and support to press the initiative in Baghdad and the larger Middle East. He owes it to General Petraeus and U.S. troops to exploit this opening on every front--including Syria and Iran.

S

[Wild Cobra]

You're right, it's not Petraeus's job to comment on overall policy, just mission specifics...which is exactly why a thoroughly discredited Bush Administration is hiding behind the good/honorable/competent General to begin with.

That's why the entire sham of these hearings were summed up in that little exchange.
In your opinion, right? With what certainty? If you are stating it as fact, then I suggest you go and testify.

[Nbadan]

Love how the wing-nut pundits are wrapping themselves around Petraeus's medals
while condeming Democrats for being political hacks....makes me want to puke...

[Ocotillo]

Hmmmmmmmmmm (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/)

CentCom Chief Fallon: Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t,’ ‘I Hate People Like That’

During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects. In at least four public hearings after Casey took office in 2004, the pair testified together:

Senate Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [9/29/05]

Senate Armed Services [9/29/05]

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — in the first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

The Washington Post reported this weekend that there is an internal military debate, described as “Armageddon,” brewing between Petraeus and Fallon because the two men have “profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

WEBB: [T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

[ChumpDumper]

Crocker was on CNN today FWIW.

[PixelPusher]

In your opinion, right? With what certainty? If you are stating it as fact, then I suggest you go and testify.
Testify about what? WTF are you talking about?

Yes, WC, I'm certain that General Petraeus refused to offer an opinion on the efficacy of the Iraq War as a whole when Senator Warner asked him, and stuck to his narrowly prescribed assertion about the troop surge. I'm certain because I heard the testimony on the radio, and saw it again on that youtube link.

[clambake]

the surge is great, if you think performing plastic surgery on a dead guy is a fruitful endeavour.

it will fillup more boxes, though.

[Wild Cobra]

I pity those of you who live with that defeatist attitude.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I pity those of you who live with that defeatist attitude.


It's called being realistic.. you should try it..

[Wild Cobra]

It's called being realistic.. you should try it..
I am realistic, rather than an emotional driven woosie liberal.

[PixelPusher]

I pity those of you who live with that defeatist attitude.
I pity those who value "saving face" more than getting it right.

[Wild Cobra]

I pity those who value "saving face" more than getting it right.
So, you are already declaring a loss.

I feel otherwise. Fucking quitters.

[PixelPusher]

So, you are already declaring a loss.

I feel otherwise. Fucking quitters.
Saddam's regime was defeated years ago. The "War on Terror" will continue regardless of how Iraq turns out. How many more soldiers/Iraqis have to die before your pride, er..."honor" is sastisfied that we should withdraw and try engaging the ME differently?

[Holt's Cat]

This is fucking insane. It's a mistake, we know it's a mistake, yet we must throw away more lives because we cannot bring ourselves to admit it was a mistake.

You know what, sign up and go fight the good fight. Stop expecting the poor to fight the fight you wish to continue.

[Holt's Cat]

So it's no longer the "War On Terror" it's the "War For Honor (or How I learned to stop worrying and fellate George W Bush)".

Since when are the political fortunes of a president in the national interest?

[Holt's Cat]

You know what we need? We need another fat bimbo to blow Bill Clinton. Now that is a national emergency.

[Wild Cobra]

Saddam's regime was defeated years ago. The "War on Terror" will continue regardless of how Iraq turns out. How many more soldiers/Iraqis have to die before your pride, er..."honor" is sastisfied that we should withdraw and try engaging the ME differently?
How many more people have to die? Many more, of course.

I wish people would look at the death statistics from other things and try to correct those problems. How many traffic accidents are avoidable, but people drive recklessly and tailgate. I'd like to see some actions taken here at home that reduce deaths. Will that ever happen? Why not spend your efforts close to home. Report reckless driving. You may save someone’s life that way!

War is hell, and the purpose is to kill people and break things. We have no problem recruiting soldiers today, so why must people stand in their way? They know what they are getting into. People like you are attempting to hinder their freedoms! They are putting their lives on the line, not yours.

[ChumpDumper]

How many traffic accidents are avoidable, but people drive recklessly and tailgate.How many military deaths are avoidable, but leaders make huge mistakes and compound them with more mistakes?
People like you are attempting to hinder their freedoms! By keeping them alive?
They are putting their lives on the line, not yours.I regret that so many have been needlessly wasted.

[Holt's Cat]

Many more have to die because Bush cannot admit he sold a bill of goods to the American people. Bush should seek to preserve his honor by admitting that the reasons given for the invasion were wrong.

[PixelPusher]

Many more have to die because Bush cannot admit he sold a bill of goods to the American people. Bush should seek to preserve his honor by admitting that the reasons given for the invasion were wrong.
You damn pussies just don't understand what honor is all about (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/21232/1/Colbert-Word-Honor.wmv)

[Holt's Cat]

How many more people have to die? Many more, of course.



"Of course"? That's absurd. What is the perpetual war for now? Because we have to fight for "freedom"? Freedom from what? The only group I see trying to take away my freedom isn't based in the Middle East. They are based in Washington DC and you'd be well served to figure it out.

[Wild Cobra]

The only group I see trying to take away my freedom isn't based in the Middle East. They are based in Washington DC and you'd be well served to figure it out.
Read the constitution and use a "Blacks Law" dictionary or equivalent to define some of the terms. Use a century old, or older dictionary to look up the non legal terms. Understand the language of the time, and you will see that the constitution is not being violated, but rather being supported by our president when it comes to this war on terror.

That's all I'll say about that topic on this thread. Want a constitutional discussion, start a new thread.

[Holt's Cat]

When did Congress declare war on Iraq? I can't imagine that the definition of war has changed that much since 1787.

[Holt's Cat]

Undoubtedly what the Framers intended was...


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve the legacy of future president George Walker Bush of Connecticut do declare this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Wild Cobra]

Must I repeat my self asshole:


That's all I'll say about that topic on this thread. Want a constitutional discussion, start a new thread.

[Holt's Cat]

Ah yes, remove the Constitution when it's inconvenient. Sounds familiar.

[Yonivore]

When did Congress declare war on Iraq? I can't imagine that the definition of war has changed that much since 1787.
When they passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq," in 2002.

But, I believe many constitutional experts will concede a state of war had continued to exist with Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein surrendered, signed a cease-fire agreement and proceeded to then violate every single thing to which he had just agreed.

Tell you what, you find for me, in the constitution where a declaration of war has to contain the words "declaration" or "war." Declaring a war is an act of -- and under the purview of -- Congress and if they pass legislation that accomplishes the feat, such as the AUMF in Iraq, then that's a declaration of war.

[xrayzebra]

I pity those who value "saving face" more than getting it right.

It's called saving our country. And we got it right. It is
you and others like you who have it wrong.

[clambake]

It's called saving our country. And we got it right. It is
you and others like you who have it wrong.
we have to destroy our country to save Iraq?

why do you hate america, ray?

[George Gervin's Afro]

we have to destroy our country to save Iraq?

why do you hate america, ray?


I'm still trying to figure out how we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

Next time you want to use the NYT in something to back up your
claim, you might want to consider their impartiality. Seems they
like to help their friends out in substantial ways, money wise.

logo
Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
MoveOn.org Gets Discount Rate for ‘Betray Us’ Advocacy Ad
By Terry Trippany
Created 2007-09-11 09:12

Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus [1]. This figure raised the suspicions of attentive blogger Confederate Yankee [2] whose intuition appears to be correct. (h/t Michelle Malkin [3]) While looking up the current New York Times rate book [4] he discovered that MoveOn.org received a $102,000 discount on the standard political advocacy rate that is advertised at $167,157.

For a newspaper that pretends to be objective purveyors of news this discount seems a bit steep for the deep pocketed liberal advocacy group. In fact the amount MoveOn paid is less than any rate listed in the New York Times schedule.

There’s not much to say about the character of the New York Times that hasn’t been said already. For a paper that has been paying its investors back with lead weighted returns I’d be a little irritated if I had a stake in a venture that puts the subjective political agenda of the editorial staff above the fiduciary duty of the corporation to its investors. Especially considering that MoveOn.org could easily afford the going rate and likely would have run the ad without such a lavish discount. But then again advocacy as a business plan is exactly what the newspaper is about.

When trying to explain [5] how the New York Times Co. managed to shave 50% off the bottom line between 2002 and 2006 some analysts felt that editorial content was not the problem. They looked at other indicators such as poor cost control.

They were wrong in my eyes. The arrogance of the people running the New York Times Co. is a reflection of the paper and its approach to journalism. I’d consider this an example of how editorial persuasion reflects much of the back room operations at the newspaper if not the company as a whole.

Yesterday the New York Times Co. reached a simultaneous low while its crown jewel newspaper reached a new low by running a personal attack ad against a war hero. Their stock reflected their standing in the world of character by ending the day with a five year low of $20.72 [6]. What a perfectly deserving reflection of the quality of the product coming out of the nation’s biggest clearing house for advocacy journalism.

Terry Trippany is the editor at Webloggin [7] and hopes everyone remembers those who were senselessly murdered on September 11, 2001 by visiting this link here [8].
Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2007/09/11/moveon-org-gets-discount-rate-betray-us-advocacy-ad

[Holt's Cat]

I'm still trying to figure out how we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq.

Because the Hussein regime had WMDs and al Qaeda was supported by said regime with training camps there. Oh, wait....

[clambake]

they had a coupon

[Holt's Cat]

When they passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq," in 2002.

But, I believe many constitutional experts will concede a state of war had continued to exist with Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein surrendered, signed a cease-fire agreement and proceeded to then violate every single thing to which he had just agreed.

Tell you what, you find for me, in the constitution where a declaration of war has to contain the words "declaration" or "war." Declaring a war is an act of -- and under the purview of -- Congress and if they pass legislation that accomplishes the feat, such as the AUMF in Iraq, then that's a declaration of war.

Congress did not declare war. It has shirked its duty under the Constitution. But I guess we shouldn't let the Constitution get in the way of our freedom.

[Yonivore]

Congress did not declare war. It has shirked its duty under the Constitution. But I guess we shouldn't let the Constitution get in the way of our freedom.
If the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq isn't a declaration of war against Iraq, what is it?

I know Saddam Hussein and his patrons at the U.N. all considered it an act of war.

Was the first Gulf War also illegitimate, in your eyes?

[Holt's Cat]

Sure, it was an act of war, but that doesn't legitimize it per the Constitution.

Also, since when are you for the UN taking control of US foreign and military policy?

[Yonivore]

Sure, it was an act of war, but that doesn't legitimize it per the Constitution.
Why not? Congress can declare war. Congress can pass legislation. Where does it say Congress can't pass legislation that, in effect, declares war?


Also, since when are you for the UN taking control of US foreign and military policy?
I'm not. I'm just pointing out those, against whom we "declared" war, and his buddies at the U.N., recogized a declaration when they saw it. Why can't you?

[Holt's Cat]

So it passed legislation saying it was up to the President to declare war. That is shirking its duty and transferring power to the Executive.

[clambake]

Why not? Congress can declare war. Congress can pass legislation. Where does it say Congress can't pass legislation that, in effect, declares war?


I'm not. I'm just pointing out those, against whom we "declared" war, and his buddies at the U.N., recogized a declaration when they saw it. Why can't you?
why even argue this? you got the miserable failure you wanted.

[1369]

I'm still trying to figure out how we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq.

One opinion from a Marine just home from Iraq (http://badgerjake.blogspot.com/)


Last September 11th was my first while in the Marine Corps. It was an important day for me because it was one of the primary motivating factors for my joining the military. This September 11th marks my first since having served in Iraq. How has the day changed for me? Well, it has in many ways. For the first time I feel that I can say that I knew someone killed by September 11th. No, Howey and Windsor were not killed in the WTC or at the Pentagon, but those attacks claimed their lives, even if it was five and a half years afterwards. For the first time I can attest firsthand to the evils of al Qaeda. I will not enter into debate on whether AQ was in Iraq when we invaded. I don't care anymore. But I do know that they are now. I know the atrocities that they are committing to the people of that country and I know that they are attacking US servicemen everyday there. I know that six years ago nearly 20 men, convinced and driven by a warped ideology, took over a plane and sacrificed their own lives to kill Americans. Guess what? Those same people came after us in Iraq. We were hit with nearly 10 suicide bombers while we were there, just our unit. Who can say what damage those men would have done if there target had not been available in Iraq, and instead was only available in the form of innocent civilians on American soil? We absorbed the horror of ideological Islam in Iraq so that it would not hit our family and friends at home.

[clambake]

he knows more than Paetreus?

[ChumpDumper]

That assessment is a little simplistic. The invasion of Iraq created enough terrorists to attack us there and here. It only took 19 of them to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

We'll have to see what impact the assassination of Abdul Sattar Rishawi has on the Sunnis that he helped to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[DarkReign]

http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/555/2204slim-pickens-dr-strangelove-bomb-ride.jpg

(google image search, no idea of the sites biases)

[Wild Cobra]

they had a coupon
Yep, it's called liberal bias.

Would the same size and priced ad get the same discount it it were opposite politically? I can safely say NO!

[Wild Cobra]

If the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq isn't a declaration of war against Iraq, what is it?

They want to see something that says:

"This is a Declaration of WAR"

Nothing else will suffice for them.

[clambake]

Yep, it's called liberal bias.

Would the same size and priced ad get the same discount it it were opposite politically? I can safely say NO!
Just tune in to fox news. why waste money on print?

[ChumpDumper]

A declaration of war as defined by the Constitution of the United States would be dandy.

Why can't we use that anymore?