Democrats Slime Petraeus

[MonsterMark]

Good read.

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/09/09/reid-petraeus-testimony-is-white-house-spin/

Elected Democrat officials must have soem kind of mind-reading gifts. They know what's in the report before they have even seen it.

SLIME ON LEFTIES!

 

[fossten]

Good read.

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/09/09/reid-petraeus-testimony-is-white-house-spin/

Elected Democrat officials must have soem kind of mind-reading gifts. They know what's in the report before they have even seen it.

SLIME ON LEFTIES!

The dirty secret is that they DO know what's in the report, because the report will reflect REALITY, which is that the surge is working. Knowing this and knowing that the Democrats have staked out the position of predicting and hoping that the United States will lose in Iraq, the Senate Majority Leader must try to LIE about the report in advance. I wonder how many of the sheeple will believe these LIES.

 

[Marcus]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the report is indeed being "written" by the White House:

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.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

Actually it's not being "written" at all, it's just going to be an oral testimony by Petraeus. But the point is, the talking points will most definitely be sorted out at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Furthermore, they've used phony statistics numerous times in the past to show "progress". The methods they're using now to count sectarian violence ignores mass bombings like the one that killed 500 Iraqis a few weeks ago because they consider mass bombings to not be sectarian-related. They even differentiate between people shot from the back of the head vs. shot in the front of the head. Back of the head is sectarian killling, front of the head, it's just crime. In other words, a thousand civilians could die in one month, but because of the Pentagon's narrow definition of sectarian violence, their deaths will not be counted, and they can claim that violence is down. What a load of horse sh!t.

 

[Calabrio]

Are you saying that Petraues will knowingly lie to the congress to give a grossly distorted assessment of the situation in Iraq?

Do you think he will mislead the congress and the public so that the President will have public pressure to engage in a failing policy.

That is what you are saying. If that is incorrect, now is a great opportunity for you to further clarify. Because the implication is that Petraeus has no honor and will lie and perpetuate some kind of bad policy.

 

[Marcus]

No more than Colin Powell did when he gave his presentation to the UN on Saddam's WMDs. I doubt Powell knew just how much BS he was being given either. I think he'll be forthright if asked the right questions though, because I do believe he's an honorable man. We'll see Monday.

 

[Joeychgo]

No more than Colin Powell did when he gave his presentation to the UN on Saddam's WMDs. I doubt Powell knew just how much BS he was being given either. I think he'll be forthright if asked the right questions though, because I do believe he's an honorable man. We'll see Monday.

I concurr. (I also think thats why Powell left)


I suspect the message is going to be that there isnt too much in the way of results yet, but that things appear to be moving positive and that it will take more time to show results. Im willing to give Petraues more time. I would like to see him get more troops as well.

 

[fossten]

No more than Colin Powell did when he gave his presentation to the UN on Saddam's WMDs. I doubt Powell knew just how much BS he was being given either. I think he'll be forthright if asked the right questions though, because I do believe he's an honorable man. [But]We'll see Monday.

Translation: "If Petraeus says the surge isn't working and we need to bail out of Iraq, he's an honorable man. If he says we're winning the war, he's a LIAR and a Bush puppet.

I know this because even though I know nothing about fighting a war, I'm qualified to determine ahead of time that we are losing the war because I read dailykos and democratunderground and I watch the news."

You are such a predictable shill.

Update: Tom Lantos, D-CA, just told Petraeus that he's a liar and he's been sent to Congress to convince the American people that we are winning the war, but he doesn't buy it. This is BEFORE Petraeus has even TESTIFIED. That's outrageous. How can he be qualified to tell if the General is telling the truth?

 

[Joeychgo]

Wtf is with those ding dongs in the back screaming and yelling? Idiots.

 

[fossten]

Wtf is with those ding dongs in the back screaming and yelling? Idiots.

They're liberals, Joey. They are from Code Pink, which contributes money to the Democrat Party.

 

[Joeychgo]

They're liberals, Joey. They are from Code Pink, which contributes money to the Democrat Party.

They are more then liberals. Being liberal isnt bad, being nuts however, is.

I hate to see that kind of thing, regarless of the 'side' they are on. Give the man a chance to speak. Disrupting the hearing will accomplish nothing positive.

 

[shagdrum]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the report is indeed being "written" by the White House:



Actually it's not being "written" at all, it's just going to be an oral testimony by Petraeus. But the point is, the talking points will most definitely be sorted out at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Furthermore, they've used phony statistics numerous times in the past to show "progress". The methods they're using now to count sectarian violence ignores mass bombings like the one that killed 500 Iraqis a few weeks ago because they consider mass bombings to not be sectarian-related. They even differentiate between people shot from the back of the head vs. shot in the front of the head. Back of the head is sectarian killling, front of the head, it's just crime. In other words, a thousand civilians could die in one month, but because of the Pentagon's narrow definition of sectarian violence, their deaths will not be counted, and they can claim that violence is down. What a load of horse sh!t.

your citing the LA Times and the NSN?!

The LA times an organization that has a committed bias against Bush, and America and has been known to distort the news to those ends.

After digging around on the NSN website, it is clear they have a political bias too. They refer to themselves as "progressive", ect. and seem to do nothing other then give lip service to vauge notions of national security. In fact, under their "policy perscriptions" is a rehash of basic Democrat talking points (vauge and lacking any substance). While I haven't found any distortion yet, I have only spent five minutes or so on their site. This level bias has been MORE then enough for you to discredit organizations that don't support your point of view (regardless of the content of what they report; whether it be accurate or not). This is a blatant, and irrational DOUBLE STANDARD on your part.

 

[MAC1]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the report is indeed being "written" by the White House:
Actually it's not being "written" at all, it's just going to be an oral testimony by Petraeus. But the point is, the talking points will most definitely be sorted out at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

According to General Petraeus there will be his oral report (in his own words) as testified before Congress today, and his written report in his own words. So once again the liberal Bush haters got it wrong. No doubt, however, getting it wrong once again will not deter the left-wing democrats and organizations from shamelessly accusing General Petraeus, a distinguished General and Hero, of being a traitor. They won't hesitate to impune his good name and distinguished reputation. After all, they have a political agenda and therefore must keep the attack machine going. And I have no doubt that You are researching the Internet looking for more liberal garbage to post.

Furthermore, they've used phony statistics numerous times in the past to show "progress". The methods they're using now to count sectarian violence ignores mass bombings like the one that killed 500 Iraqis a few weeks ago because they consider mass bombings to not be sectarian-related. They even differentiate between people shot from the back of the head vs. shot in the front of the head. Back of the head is sectarian killling, front of the head, it's just crime. In other words, a thousand civilians could die in one month, but because of the Pentagon's narrow definition of sectarian violence, their deaths will not be counted, and they can claim that violence is down. What a load of horse sh!t.

All this liberal crap is old and boring. We need to win the War period. Apparently you don't get it, Schumer don't get it, and the rest of the Left-Wing Libs don't get it.

 

[MonsterMark]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the report is indeed being "written"

....
Actually it's not being "written" at all, it's just going to be an oral testimony by Petraeus. But the point is, the talking points will most definitely be sorted out at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It must be a wonderful life to be antagonizingly wrong all the time. I'll have to don a tin foil hat and see what its like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq​

General David H. Petraeus Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq

10-11 September 2007

Mr. Chairmen, Ranking Members, Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to provide my assessment of the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.

At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.

[snip]

 

[MonsterMark]

Duncan Hunter videotape today at Petraeus hearing blasting the MoveOn.org thugs.

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZmMTk1ZGU3MWE3ZjEwYjE5Zjk4ZTEzYzQ3NTQxZDk=

This is why I like this guy for President.

 

[fossten]

Duncan Hunter videotape today at Petraeus hearing blasting the MoveOn.org thugs.

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZmMTk1ZGU3MWE3ZjEwYjE5Zjk4ZTEzYzQ3NTQxZDk=

This is why I like this guy for President.

I thought his appeal to Skelton for the committee to stipulate that Petraeus was starting from a position of integrity was a clever move. Put those hater traitors back on their heels from the get go.

Anybody else besides me think Lantos looks like Bram Stoker's Dracula? I kept waiting for him to say "Ah ah ahhh!"

 

[Joeychgo]

All this liberal crap is old and boring. We need to win the War period. Apparently you don't get it, Schumer don't get it, and the rest of the Left-Wing Libs don't get it.

Its not just them. The majority of the American people want this war over. Many republicans have also expressed the same sort of opinions against either the war or the current strategy..

Why? Simple.

• This isnt the war we originally committed to. We went to depose Saddam, not be in the middle of a civil war.
• The reasons we went to war proven to not be true and accurate
• We have not had any real measurable victories. Americans like to see a map that shows us advancing, and we havent had that

So stop blaming the "liberals". 71% disapprove of how GW has handled the war. That includes 44% of republicans.

 

[shagdrum]

Its not just them. The majority of the American people want this war over. Many republicans have also expressed the same sort of opinions against either the war or the current strategy..

Why? Simple.

• This isnt the war we originally committed to. We went to depose Saddam, not be in the middle of a civil war.
• The reasons we went to war proven to not be true and accurate
• We have not had any real measurable victories. Americans like to see a map that shows us advancing, and we havent had that

So stop blaming the "liberals". 71% disapprove of how GW has handled the war. That includes 44% of republicans.

Could you please prove two things:

1: That the majority of Americans want us to pull out of Iraq. You can't say that just because most people disapprove of the way the war is being run that most people want us out of Iraq (that is called exageration). Most Americans still want us to win before we go, you have to prove otherwise.

2: That there is truely a "civil war" in Iraq, and not just in the anti-american media

The fact of the matter is you can't prove either point: you just blindly assume them to be true.

Also, not too sure about zFacts as a source...

 

[fossten]

Its not just them. The majority of the American people want this war over. Many republicans have also expressed the same sort of opinions against either the war or the current strategy..

Why? Simple.

• This isnt the war we originally committed to. We went to depose Saddam, not be in the middle of a civil war.
• The reasons we went to war proven to not be true and accurate
• We have not had any real measurable victories. Americans like to see a map that shows us advancing, and we havent had that

So stop blaming the "liberals". 71% disapprove of how GW has handled the war. That includes 44% of republicans.

Joey,

Do you want us to win or lose? Simple yes or no. If we stay, we'll win. We've NEVER lost a war that we didn't quit on. If we leave, we lose.

Your assessment of the temperature of the American people is INCORRECT. Most Americans do NOT want us to lose the war. And most Americans have very little or no personal stake in the war. So why would they be war-weary? That's simple too - because the media is badgering them with negative news day after day.

 

[fossten]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the report is indeed being "written" by the White House:...

The methods they're using now to count sectarian violence ignores mass bombings like the one that killed 500 Iraqis a few weeks ago because they consider mass bombings to not be sectarian-related. They even differentiate between people shot from the back of the head vs. shot in the front of the head. Back of the head is sectarian killling, front of the head, it's just crime. In other words, a thousand civilians could die in one month, but because of the Pentagon's narrow definition of sectarian violence, their deaths will not be counted, and they can claim that violence is down. What a load of horse sh!t.

I hate to break it to you, leftoid hypocrite, but you got that bullcrap information from the moveon.org ad, TommyB. That is almost a direct quotation. (Dare I even say plagiarism?) This ad was put out in ADVANCE of Petraeus' report and is nothing but obscene slander. You and your fellow fringe wackos aren't worthy to tie Petraeus' shoes. You see the fruit salad on the left side of the General's uniform? That means he's a bada$$ whose air you don't deserve to breathe.

And moveon.org got their data from Paul al-Krugman of the New York Times, who is a Bush-bashing EDITORIALIST, and Karen DeYoung of the oft-debunked and always Bush-hating Washington Post. There is no substantive data available to back up those ridiculous claims, only unconfirmed rumor by an unnamed "official." And if you would bother to read his report, you would see that everything moveon.org/you claim is bogus.

You are showing your moonbat a$$ to the world now.

 

[Joeychgo]

1: That the majority of Americans want us to pull out of Iraq. You can't say that just because most people disapprove of the way the war is being run that most people want us out of Iraq (that is called exageration). Most Americans still want us to win before we go, you have to prove otherwise.

Dont misquote me. I didnt say pull out of IRAQ.

2: That there is truely a "civil war" in Iraq, and not just in the anti-american media

Its been said by MANY people outside of the media, republican and democrat alike.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove either point: you just blindly assume them to be true.

DO your own research. The polls are out there all over the place. This is why its a hot topics for the Presidential election.

Do you want us to win or lose? Simple yes or no. If we stay, we'll win. We've NEVER lost a war that we didn't quit on. If we leave, we lose.

Dumb question I want us to win. I dont believe this President is able to do it. I think the war could have been won years ago and be over by now.

Your assessment of the temperature of the American people is INCORRECT. Most Americans do NOT want us to lose the war. And most Americans have very little or no personal stake in the war. So why would they be war-weary? That's simple too - because the media is badgering them with negative news day after day.

Again, misquoted. Can you guys just not read or by misquoting me tdo you hope to make me look like I dont have a clue? I said NOTHING about wanting to lose the war. You forget, im the idiot who thinks we should send ANOTHER 100k+ troops there.

Why are they war weary? Thats an easy question. This is the kind of war that good news is hard to come by. What would you HAVE the media say that is positive? "Today, we only lost 5 marines instead of our average daily loss of 8" Really - think about it. What would you report that is positive for today if you were a reporter specific to the fighting in IRAQ? (not politics or washington, but "on the ground" reporting)

 

[fossten]

Why are they war weary? Thats an easy question. This is the kind of war that good news is hard to come by. What would you HAVE the media say that is positive? "Today, we only lost 5 marines instead of our average daily loss of 8" Really - think about it. What would you report that is positive for today if you were a reporter specific to the fighting in IRAQ? (not politics or washington, but "on the ground" reporting)

You mean, like, "Today we lost 5 marines but killed 39 bad guys" or "Today electricity was restored to Baghdad after 2 years" or "Today nineteen schools and four hospitals were built in Iraq" or "Here's a profile of US Army courage during conflict with terrorists"

You have no sense of perspective because you, too, have been swamped by the DriveBy Media bilge.

Try going outside CNN and ABC news for a change. How about here:

https://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

 

[Joeychgo]

You mean - like these:


U.S. seizes 'Iran agent' in Iraq - or -

On Sunday the military said U.S.-led coalition forces arrested 30 suspected terrorists in raids throughout Iraq that targeted bombing networks and senior al Qaeda in Iraq leaders. Story

And just in case you decide to discount those - let me ask this - what about the 'fair and balanced' republican propaganda machine, Fox News? Why arent they pushing pro Iraq stories? I watch them all the time, along with CNN and MSNBC.

Lets look at a few FoxNews headlines...

• Iraq 'Victory' Sites Lowered
• AP Poll: Most See Iraq War As Failure
• U.S. Forces in Iraq Should Be Reduced Significantly
• 8 More U.S. Soldiers Die in Iraq
• Problems Beset Iraq Reconstruction

Reality is, there isnt much interesting that happens in IRAQ thats positive. Dont you think I would love to read about how we stomped the hell out of some insurgent group in IRAQ?

How about this - Show me a nice part of IRAQ. Show me a story about a nice neighborhood that has power and water and kids in school and I can walk down the street without being afraid of being kidnapped.

 

[fossten]

How about this - Show me a nice part of IRAQ. Show me a story about a nice neighborhood that has power and water and kids in school and I can walk down the street without being afraid of being kidnapped.

Did you NOT see Katie Couric's report from Iraq??? She walked in a market where people were buying vegetables and walking around in the streets in peace. JEEZ. Of course, she also said "I'm seeing what the military wants me to see." So no matter what the good news is, they'll always put a negative light on it.

And no matter how much evidence is thrust into your face, you'll ignore it. Keep living in denial. Talking to you is a waste of time.

 

[shagdrum]

Dont misquote me. I didnt say pull out of IRAQ.

I didn't misquote, because I didn't quote (no quotation marks). I paraphrased, and did so accurately according to the context of the debate.
You said:

"Its not just them.The majority of the American people want this war over".

You were responding to this quote by :

"All this liberal crap is old and boring. We need to win the War period(empasis added). Apparently you don't get it, Schumer don't get it, and the rest of the Left-Wing Libs don't get it."

There are only two options to end the war; victory or pre-maturely exiting (pulling out).According to the context of the argument, it is logical to conclude that you are implying that the majority of the American people want to end this war by "pulling out". The claims is (as I said earlier) an exageration of the polls that show that most Americans don't approve of the handling of the war. That doesn't mean they don't want victory (though the media spins it that way).

Its been said by MANY people outside of the media, republican and democrat alike.

And your point is...
Ohh, wait you still can't prove it. Many people used to believe that the Earth was flat, or that Hitler was right about a "final solution", didn't make it so. The fact of the matter is that the "civil war" in Iraq is made up largely by the media and played on by Al-Queda, and some are foolish enough to believe it.


A senior operative for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was caught in July told his US military interrogators that a prominent Al-Qaeda-led group in Iraq is just a front and that it's leader is fictitious and they hired an actor to be this guy on the Internet and so forth, and make videos and streaming, and so forth. Brigadier General Kevin Bergner told a news conference, "Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, which was purportedly set up last year, did not exist. The Islamic State of Iraq was established to try to put an Iraqi face on what is a foreign-driven network, Bergner said. The name Baghdadi means the person hails from the Iraqi capital. Bergner said the information came from an operative called Khalid al-Mashadani who was caught on July 4 and who he said was an intermediary to Osama bin Laden. He said Mashadani was believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda in Iraq network. 'In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al Qaeda in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq,' Bergner said."

 

[shagdrum]

You mean - like these:


Show me a story about a nice neighborhood that has power and water and kids in school and I can walk down the street without being afraid of being kidnapped.

You mean show you a neighborhood with an American standard of living? The fact of the matter is the standard of living in Iraq has gone up dramatically. You are just purposely setting the bar too high. If we could reach that standard, you would say "show me neighborhood that has a butler in every house, and a limo in every driveway". Stop trying to change the standard.