Petraeus: Partial Iraq troop exit possible in ’08

[leatherneck]

What about the line of questioning by Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), and Dick Lugar (R-Indiana), and John Warner (R-Virginia)? Two of those three (Hagel and Warner) have announced they will leave public office following their current terms in the Senate. Are they trying to "guarantee successes in the 08 elections" too?

 

Face it, it has nothing to do with ignoring "positive Iraqi war news". We have been hearing Administration-spun fantasies about how well things are going over there for nearly five years now. The American people have had enough of this nonsense and are increasingly frustrated that someone hasn't wrestled the keys away from this inept president.

 

 

So are you saying that Petraeus' report was part of the "Administration-spun fantasies"? Its a yes or no question.

[rockmom]

Look, I'm not pro war. I hate war. I would love to live in a truly peaceful world. We don't. On 9-12-2001 95% of the country was enraged to action. Watching people whose greatest crime was getting out of bed and getting to work on time, leap from 100 floors to avoid being incinerated had a way of focusing us.

 

Problem was, we weren't attacked by a nation we could bomb the crap out of and win a clear cut victory. Fact is, no nation had ever fought such a decentralized enemy. There was no way we were going to get this done perfectly, and no way we could remain idle.

I agree we couldn't remain idle. However, we could have planned better.

 

Listening to a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate, second guess and point out the obvious so they can sound like the smartest guy in the room serves no useful purpose.

 

A bunch of liberal politicians, spewing party talking points in an attempt to disrespect a four star general borders on treason IMO.

 

And your thoughts on those of us who disagree are the same, I suppose? You consider us treasonus....

[Fastbreak]

They’ve obviously been playing politics, and I find it reprehensible. They gave the vote to let General Petraeus make his report, and then condemned it before it was made.

If you were to read the transcript of Bid Laden's recent rambling videos... other than his invitation/threat for Americans to convert to Islam, many of his talking points and terminology sound as though they came directly from the Daily Kos or Move On.org.

 

Some democrats have invested so heavily in America's failure in Iraq, it would be disasterous to their careers if the U.S. actually turned this around and succeeded. Placing one's own political ambitions ahead of the success of our nation's military is treasonous IMO. To have our nation's number one enemy echoing the talking points and sentiments of some of our political leaders (or vice versa) is an indication that those views may not actually be in the best interest of our nation.

 

If Bin Laden is upset the U.S. is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, that tells me we're doing something right. For Democrats to insist that the American people be given a specific timeline for American troop withdrawl, is the same as telling our enemies what they can count on. This is absurd.

[Fastbreak]

I agree we couldn't remain idle. However, we could have planned better.

Sounds like most marriages... :lol:

 

The fact is, regardless of the adequacy of our planning, a vast majority of Americans were in favor of a hard response. No nation in history has had to wage a war against such a scattered ememy. Mistakes are inevitable. But now, as in a marriage, it's too late to get it anulled. Jesus and Lincoln tellus about what happens to a house divided against itself. We have to move together or fall apart from within... and something tells me that's exactly what Mr. Bin Laden is counting on.

 

It's all in how you view mistakes. I'm an entrepreneur, my business involves innovation, if I'm not making mistakes I'm not trying hard enough. Mistakes are an inescapable fact of life. The key to success is learning from your mistakes, adjusting your actions and moving forward.

 

And your thoughts on those of us who disagree are the same, I suppose? You consider us treasonus....

Disagree with what?

 

A report from a four star general a majority of Congress agreed to give a fair voice and are now denying before he can even deliver his findings?

 

I guess I could have been wrong about you all this time, but I actually thought better of you than that. You have every right to disagree, but I honestly had you pegged as someone who would at least listen first.

 

I have restricted my comments to politicians who place their careers ahead of our nation's security. If you choose to align yourself with them, it is certainly your right, but please do not attempt to extrapolate an indirect assault from me toward you.

[Hatz]

Look, I'm not pro war. I hate war. I would love to live in a truly peaceful world. We don't. On 9-12-2001 95% of the country was enraged to action. Watching people whose greatest crime was getting out of bed and getting to work on time, leap from 100 floors to avoid being incinerated had a way of focusing us.

 

Problem was, we weren't attacked by a nation we could bomb the crap out of and win a clear cut victory. Fact is, no nation had ever fought such a decentralized enemy. There was no way we were going to get this done perfectly, and no way we could remain idle.

 

Listening to a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate, second guess and point out the obvious so they can sound like the smartest guy in the room serves no useful purpose.

 

A bunch of liberal politicians, spewing party talking points in an attempt to disrespect a four star general borders on treason IMO.

 

 

John Warner, Sen of VA, is far from a liberal. Very far.

[H]

So are you saying that Petraeus' report was part of the "Administration-spun fantasies"? Its a yes or no question.

 

Yes I do. The Bush Administration trots out military leadership when it suits their purposes. Bush claims he listens to the military, but he really only listens when they're saying what he wants to hear. This has been the case throughout his presidency. It was true when he ignored recommendations from his Army Chief of Staff Shinseki to send in an invasion force of 400,000. It was true when Bush endorsed harsher interrogation methods over the objections of the military. It was true when the president ignored (and continues to ignore) warnings that our military is being stretched too thin by the prolonged occupation of Iraq. It was true when he ignored the Joint Chiefs of Staff last December when they told him the surge wouldn't work.

 

Petraeus has reported a marginal improvement in security, which is being attributed to the effectiveness of the surge. The objective of the surge, if you recall, was to provide "breathing room" for political reconciliation between Iraq's divided people. The surge may have provided some limited breathing room, but what have they done with it? The legislators went on vacation for a month and have met none of the benchmarks related to political progress that Bush agreed to as a condition of Congress going along with his surge strategy.

 

Here is a quote from Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the nation:

 

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

 

We've held up our end of the bargain. Has the Iraqi government? Yet, the president's "plan" calls for keeping the surge in place for nearly another full year and only then drawing down to the 130,000 troop level for an indefinite period. Sure sounds like an open-ended commitment to me...

[H]

If Bin Laden is upset the U.S. is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, that tells me we're doing something right.

 

If Bin Laden is breathing, that tells me our leadership has failed.

[Fastbreak]

If Bin Laden is breathing, that tells me our leadership has failed.

I really don't need to argue every little point with you, but if Bin Laden had pulled off even one successful attack upon the U.S. in the U.S. in the past six years, I might agree with you. As it is, he has been too busy keeping his head down. I personally would like to see him in the can somewhere, but I can't agree that it's an abject failure either.

[leatherneck]

Yes I do. The Bush Administration trots out military leadership when it suits their purposes. Bush claims he listens to the military, but he really only listens when they're saying what he wants to hear. This has been the case throughout his presidency. It was true when he ignored recommendations from his Army Chief of Staff Shinseki to send in an invasion force of 400,000. It was true when Bush endorsed harsher interrogation methods over the objections of the military. It was true when the president ignored (and continues to ignore) warnings that our military is being stretched too thin by the prolonged occupation of Iraq. It was true when he ignored the Joint Chiefs of Staff last December when they told him the surge wouldn't work.

 

Petraeus has reported a marginal improvement in security, which is being attributed to the effectiveness of the surge. The objective of the surge, if you recall, was to provide "breathing room" for political reconciliation between Iraq's divided people. The surge may have provided some limited breathing room, but what have they done with it? The legislators went on vacation for a month and have met none of the benchmarks related to political progress that Bush agreed to as a condition of Congress going along with his surge strategy.

 

Here is a quote from Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the nation:

 

 

 

We've held up our end of the bargain. Has the Iraqi government? Yet, the president's "plan" calls for keeping the surge in place for nearly another full year and only then drawing down to the 130,000 troop level for an indefinite period. Sure sounds like an open-ended commitment to me...

 

 

Wow. You are in effect calling Petraeus a liar and a shill for Bush. In light of Petraeus' record, your words speak volumes about you, and the rest of your post can be discounted as pure hatred driven spin.

[outlawcoach]

Wow. You are in effect calling Petraeus a liar and a shill for Bush. In light of Petraeus' record, your words speak volumes about you, and the rest of your post can be discounted as pure hatred driven spin.

Harry Reid said plainly that he didnt believe Patraeus and Hillary also questioned his truthfulness, although the language was different. I was disappointed that a few senators, when asked, didnt speak out against the ad calling General Patreaus "General betray us." It is beside the point what political party you belong to, I thought this was in very bad taste. Politicians in the public eye are open for attacks like this, but a 4 star general testifying before Congress when asked should be afforded some respect. Not believing what he says is one thing, but to imply that he is lying to betray his country is inexcusable. Who would know better than Patreaus what is actually going on in Iraq. Democrat or republican, what do you all think of this?

[shooter]

Defending the security and freedom of the United States is and ought to be an open ended commitment.

[H]

Wow. You are in effect calling Petraeus a liar and a shill for Bush. In light of Petraeus' record, your words speak volumes about you, and the rest of your post can be discounted as pure hatred driven spin.

 

Read my post again. It is a bit more nuanced than that. I never said Petraeus is a liar. I said Bush puts his Generals out in front of the media when their story supports his agenda and hides them from view when they tell him things that don't fit his version of reality. You can call it "hatred-driven spin" if you like, but every single statement in my post is true. Maybe you don't like that part.

[H]

Defending the security and freedom of the United States is and ought to be an open ended commitment.

 

I found interesting the part of Petraeus' Congressional testimony when he was asked if our presence in Iraq was making the United States safer and he answered, "I don't know". The number of people who buy this load of bull that Iraq has or ever had anything to do with the security and freedom of the United States is dwindling every day. Apparently, not even the top U.S. commander in Iraq believes it.

[leatherneck]

Read my post again. It is a bit more nuanced than that. I never said Petraeus is a liar. I said Bush puts his Generals out in front of the media when their story supports his agenda and hides them from view when they tell him things that don't fit his version of reality. You can call it "hatred-driven spin" if you like, but every single statement in my post is true. Maybe you don't like that part.

 

Not really. You can try to say it as cute and pretty as you want to, but you either think Petraeus is telling the truth or you don't. I asked you if you felt Petraeus' report was part of the "Administration spun fantasies" and you said it was. Just what is the fantasy of his report? If its true, its not fantasy. If its fantasy, its not true. If its not true, he was lying in his report and hence, he is a liar.

 

And it wasn't just Bush who put him "out there". You seem, in your rush to criticize Bush, to forget that it was the Democrats in Congress that demanded the September report (he testified to Congress, did he not?). Well, they got it. But because some people don't like what he's saying, now he's "betray us" or in your words, he's a part of an "Adminstration spun fantasy". I'm sorry, but I won't use cute or pretty words, but that's sickening.

 

Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and probably never have. You are probably part of that element that felt he stole the election and have never given him a fair chance from the get go. And you won't give him or any of his initiatives.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for not sending troops into Darfur to stop the civil war going on there and the senseless slaughter of innocent people. Yet you think Bush is wrong for keeping troops in Iraq to avoid that exact same thing from happening there.

 

You probably think Bush is at fault when gas prices go up above $3 a gallon, yet criticize him for justifying our need to take actions in the middle east to protect our interests in oil there.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for advocating logging in our national forests, but blame Bush for not being tough enough on global warming, when the lack of logging has contributed to the global warming.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for supporting fair trade agreements because of the loss of jobs overseas and the trade imbalance, yet every day financially benefit by being able to buy products made much more affordable because of those fair trade agreements.

 

Yeah, I get it. Some one is spinning a fantasy all right, but its not the Administration in its justification of the war. Rather, its his critics who will spin every positive result, every positive development to attack the man. Just admit it, you didn't want Petraeus to say positive things in his report; you were hoping deep in your heart that the surge wouldn't work. And that's why when his report didn't come out as you hoped, you've now labelled it a fantasy.

[HHSballer19]

Listening to a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate, second guess and point out the obvious so they can sound like the smartest guy in the room serves no useful purpose.

 

Well said and so true. These type of people kill me.