Reply With Quote
WHAT? Who is this traitor? Does he not love our troops? Why is he sympathizing with the terrorists!?!
Oh wait. That's what board Repubs would be saying if a Dem said this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_207513.html
General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.
In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.
"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
Will Cheney go on the attack against Gen. Patraeus? I doubt it.
WHAT? Who is this traitor? Does he not love our troops? Why is he sympathizing with the terrorists!?!
Oh wait. That's what board Repubs would be saying if a Dem said this.
Petraeus was a pretty strong defender of the previous commander in chief's policies, and now, it seems, this one. Pretty sure he's not allowed to publicly refute the President's policies - and, obviously, it MUST be that way.
Also, in his statement, it sounds like he made sure, from the beginning, no one was tortured in Iraq, at least (maybe only in his area).
so the the chairman JCS. just being good soldiers,obeying the lead of the CiC
No No No NO sir! Ya'll cannot throw this at the right after you guys tried to decimate Gen. Betrayus.WHAT? Who is this traitor? Does he not love our troops? Why is he sympathizing with the terrorists!?!
Oh wait. That's what board Repubs would be saying if a Dem said this.
.... And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
I want to know if Gen Patraeus ordered the Code Red.
It's a prison not a torture chamber but the dumbass radicals made this into a political issue so it's pretty easy for the general to say "close it" He does not want to put his troops in anymore danger than they already are.
Where does he want to put them?
how about in a prison.
Joe, don't you know better than quoting the Huffington Post?
They are almost as bad as Common Dreams! They change the quote from the start:
Interview:
Huffington Post:RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention.
Although changing "it" to "us" is a small change, it is a change, and misrepresentation of the truth. They also leave out the question. Now they do put brackets around it, but still... doesn't that bother anyone else?I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention.
Transcript:
Transcript: RFE/RL Interviews U.S. Central Command Chief, General David Petraeus
Video:
RFE/RL Talks With U.S. General David Petraeus
They're already in one.
No .
What do the lib s think Gitmo is? If they want to remove them from a prison, what do they want to do with them? It was the liberal press that made GITMO a bad name. Maybe they did some 'harsh interrogation techniques" in the past, but now, it's nothing more than a tropical paradise prison.
How does it misrepresent the truth?
He says it helps the US mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall struggle against violent extremists.
Somehow, you think that doesn't help "us" -- meaning the people involved in that struggle like Petraeus.
Explain how it is a misrepresentation to say that Petraeus thinks that people like Petraeus are helped by these actions.
So why are you so determined to keep it open?
If it's just a prison -- prisons close and prisoners are transferred all the time.
Has an acceptable place yet been found? Please, where? Should we build a new one when where the are is just fine?
How about one that doesn't give then the extra rights granted to citizens in federal and state law?
There's a town in Montana that has an two year old, empty 400-bed prison. The city council already approved their being housed there.
Which extra rights? Be specific.How about one that doesn't give then the extra rights granted to citizens in federal and state law?
That place does not meet the security requirements. May as well rebuild it from scratch.
Besides, the reason they want to use it is because they made a bad choice in building the Harding Detention Center.
It's a detention facility, not a high level prison! You should really check your pitiful sources.
From Hard-luck Montana town pushes to house Gitmo detainees:
You don't know? I'm not going to take the time. It's simple. At GITMO, they are shielded from some many laws that follow the cons ution. In CONUS, they wouldn't be.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-27-2009 at 11:16 AM.
I didn't... don't look at me. Heck, I even worked for him... technically. Way way WAYYYYY down the chain.
From your own linked article:
You don't know? I'm not going to take the time. It's simple. At GITMO, they are shielded from some many laws that follow the cons ution. In CONUS, they wouldn't be.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Honestly, WC, give me a break. They changed "it" to "us" and it's a misrepresentation?
Tell me how Petraeus saying that closing GTMO would have a positive affect on the war (it) is significantly different from saying it would have a positive affect on the United States (us).
Do you think that Petraeus meant that it would be beneficial to the war on terror, but it ULTIMATELY would end up harming the United States even moreso than its minimal benefits?
If so, he surely is a master at subliminal messaging.
That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.
Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno?I mean, after all, what rights do they have?
I'm just kidding manI didn't... don't look at me. Heck, I even worked for him... technically. Way way WAYYYYY down the chain.
I don't really have a problem with the closing and the prisoners being moved to U.S. jails.
That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.
Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno?
They aren't American citizens and they weren't arrested. What rights do you want to give them?
LOL...
LOL...
OK, someone said that.. Mighty fine fence they have there...
No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
