General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
Cooking the Books for the Bush White House - Again!
Move-On.Org ad in the New York Times
posted by Vigilante at 9/10/2007 09:52:00 AM
Monday, September 10, 2007
Contributors
Eternal Vigilance!
Unfinished Business!
Previous Posts
- I Went to Hear Barack Obama Speak in my Home Town ...
- Now Here's Another Problem with the March on Washi...
- Stop the War?
- Republican of the Week: John Dean
- My "Secret Plan" to End Bush's Occupation of Iraq
- Bush Has a "Secret Plan" for Iraq
- The Surge in U.S. Casualties
- My Labor Day Weekend Message
- Congressman Jim Leach
- George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
17 Moderated Comments:
I don't get it.
Didn't I hear Biden on Meet the Press say that he would have to keep voting to fund the occupation troops? Isn't it Congress' responsibility to control the purse strings? If the President is told by Congress what we can and cannot afford, isn't it his responsibility to withdraw troops if they can't be adequately funded? What is Biden taking on here? Bush's burden? Or what?
What am I missing here?
DB, you heard right. Biden, represents Delaware, a corporate tax haven, so many of the corporations that are profiting from Bush's war for oil and conquest have their headquarters there. I think Biden is one of the best Senators money can buy, and has bought.
I don't freaking believe it. House Democrats were on edge over any possible affront to Gen. David Petraeus during his Iraq War testimony. So much so that when former CIA officer Ray McGovern made the vocal suggestion -- during a technical delay to fix a microphone -- that the witness be sworn in, McGovern was forced to leave the hearing room. In this first-person account, McGovern notes that Petraeus then gave his pro-escalation testimony without ever swearing to tell the whole truth.
Six years Democrats had to do with GOP rulings not to swear in witnesses, and now with a majority, they get cowed bu uniforms & brass and cave into sheeple they are. I don't believe it. I won't accept it.
Bingo tomcat! Biden is so sold-out he's been twisting in knots trying to sound like he's in opposition to the President while continuing Bush's war. It's been surreal. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats behaving this way.
Jeepers creepers, what a surprise. NOT ~!~
What part of you people are brainwashed victims do you not understand ?
It`s the Congress Stupid.
They ARE the 'bad' guys.
There is no two party system ~!
Yes, they are pimping for special interest. That is what they are and all they are. Betray us is a punk, for special interest.
Guess what ?
Don`t expect any different.
Because it ain`t gonna happen.
IT IS OUR SYSTEM OPERATING THE WAY OUR SYSTEM OPERATES, AND HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE THE LATE 1940`S.
So, now what ?
The system is not going to do any thing other than what it is doing.
TEAR IT UP AND START OVER WITH A BETTER SYSTEM, OR ?
We are going to kill everyone, and then kill ourselves.
That is the future. Period. Chaos.
The present system is NOT reformable.
Move-On's Eli Pariser has set the record straight on Gen Petraeus' Potemkin's White House version of Iraq. He reminds us that Petraeus is not our first distinguished star-spangled general to betray the interests of the American people. Remember General/Secretary of State Colin Powell? What is he saying today? He's saying his speech before the U.N. was the lowest point in his career.
It comes to me, that Bush no longer enjoys the mantel of war-time president. He no longer aspires to cut the figure of a Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman. It's too much for him. He earlier tried to turn over the war on terror to a War Commissar, but there were no takers among the best talented retired generals. Now he's turned it over to Petraeus. Petraeus is calling the shots. Bush wants it to look like it's out of his hands. The decider is the ranking brass, not the White House. If the Brass wants to cross the Straits Hormuz like MacArthur wanted to cross the Yalu, Bush's response will be to say, "have at it". Civilian superiority over the military is history.
WARNER:
I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?
PETRAEUS:
Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.
WARNER:
Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS:
Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
The Warner-Petraeus exchange posted above by I.P. is very illuminating. The General is saying that it's out of his purview, above his paygrade, outside of his vision as to what he is doing, how long we are staying in Iraq, etc. is contributing to our national security. All he feels competent to speak on is the military mission he has been assigned by his superiors who should be able to relate Iraq to our national security.
The only problem is at the top, in the White House, there is no there, there. And this goes to Messenger's point, also above, that Bush has abdicated his function of exercising civilian authority and leadership. There's nothing Bush can do or say at this point to recover confidence or credibility. All he can do is hide behind the uniforms in the Pentagon. One has to wonder how long he can get away with this.
Bush is, basically, a traitor. The Move-On ad doesn't go nearly far enough. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are war criminals.
Have yourself a great weekend, Steve.
What does , Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), (Petraeus's superior) think of Gen. David Petraeus and Bush's "Surge"?
Petraeus for President 2012:
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.
Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05. "I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said,
"No, that would be too soon."
A new David Petraeus flavor is now offered on my menu in the Kool-Aide Cafeteria.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unexamined truths:
Petraeus war plan is doubted
The number of Iraqi Army and police battalions considered ready to conduct combat operations without help from the United States has declined from 15 at the beginning of the year to 12 this month, according to data that Petraeus provided to Congress last week. . . At the same time, Pentagon assessments show that the number of Iraqi battalions considered "not ready" increased from 13 in November 2006 to 43 this past summer.
. . . . many American military officials now acknowledge that when Iraqi forces took the lead in 2006 in a series of operations known as Together Forward I and II, the strategy failed, in part because of abuses committed by largely Shia Muslim Iraqi troops against minority Sunnis and their inability to hold area cleared of insurgents.
According to the new counterinsurgency field manual, FM 3-24, which General Betrayus wrote, the proper "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 U.S. and allied security forces. During his confirmation hearings, Petraeus carefully predicted that the present numbers will rise to 85,000. But the General signed on to Bushurge and defends it.
The worst thing about the MoveOn.org ad attacking Army Gen. David H. Petraeus is that it appears to have inspired a worldwide perception that it is acceptable to question the credibility of uniformed leaders -- for example, the uprisings in Myanmar against the ruling junta and in Pakistan against Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Post a Comment
<< Home