Patraeus Predictable

[BigRob]

Why does everyone on this "Political" Forum have to "shut up" if they don't fall into lockstep with the right? Here is a valid question.... Where is a Left-Wing Moderator the rest of us can piss and moan to when we don't like what the right has to say?

I take it by the lack of any evidence given that no one has any to validate the claim that he is somehow giving a false report.

You can claim whatever you want, but without any evidence to back it up, you only make yourself look stupid.

You can disagree with the right's positions, I disagree with plenty of them, but saying that the General is "general Betray-us" and not a credible source without any proof whatsoever is stupid.

 

[Reliant]

You can claim whatever you want, but without any evidence to back it up, you only make yourself look stupid.

You can disagree with the right's positions, I disagree with plenty of them, but saying that the General is "general Betray-us" and not a credible source without any proof whatsoever is stupid.

When telling someone they are stupid because they didn't offer proof that the report could be wrong, while offering absolutely no proof what-so-ever that the report is, in fact, truthful, could only be called a demonstration of imbecilic proportions.
You just love that Republican cool-aid, don't ya? Don't question anything, believe everything you're told (like a child), and march in lockstep with any right-wing propagandist presented. Good job!

 

[BigRob]

When telling someone they are stupid because they didn't offer proof that the report could be wrong, while offering absolutely no proof what-so-ever that the report is, in fact, truthful, could only be called a demonstration of imbecilic proportions.
You just love that Republican cool-aid, don't ya? Don't question anything, believe everything you're told (like a child), and march in lockstep with any right-wing propagandist presented. Good job!

So, still no proof I take it. Did you see his report, he gave alot of evidence and proof to back up what he said, just read the report, the evidence is there. To disprove his presentation, that burden is on you.

 

[Popeye]

I take it by the lack of any evidence given that no one has any to validate the claim that he is somehow giving a false report.

You can claim whatever you want, but without any evidence to back it up, you only make yourself look stupid.

You can disagree with the right's positions, I disagree with plenty of them, but saying that the General is "general Betray-us" and not a credible source without any proof whatsoever is stupid.

Well, thank you very much for your non-partisan assessment. Sort of reminds me of your Republican General. He's so very independent, I think he should be looked up to, as a model, of non-partisanship. Too bad, all he really is, is a knowing shill for the Republican war mongering Bush-Cheney regime.

 

[BigRob]

Well, thank you very much for your non-partisan assessment. Sort of reminds me of your Republican General. He's so very independent, I think he should be looked up to, as a model, of non-partisanship. Too bad, all he really is, is a knowing shill for the Republican war mongering Bush-Cheney regime.

You do realize that pretty much no democrats in Congress and the Senate agree with your assessment of the general.

If you want to offer some proof to disprove what he had to say by all means go ahead. Resorting to attacking his character instead is pretty sad.

If he came back saying what you wanted to hear, you would probably be praising his independent assessment, but since he didn't he is clearly a liar and part of the Bush lie machine.

 

[Popeye]

You do realize that pretty much no democrats in Congress and the Senate agree with your assessment of the general.

If you want to offer some proof to disprove what he had to say by all means go ahead. Resorting to attacking his character instead is pretty sad.

If he came back saying what you wanted to hear, you would probably be praising his independent assessment, but since he didn't he is clearly a liar and part of the Bush lie machine.

He's a shill, and you know it. Ever wonder why his first interview was on Fox News last night? He's a water-boy for the administration. C'mon use that degree of yours and see past that right-wing propaganda.

 

[BigRob]

He's a shill, and you know it. Ever wonder why his first interview was on Fox News last night? He's a water-boy for the administration. C'mon use that degree of yours and see past that right-wing propaganda.

I have been to Iraq, and for the most part agree with his assessment. The violence is declining, but the Iraqi political progress is not really there. If you have some new evidence please share, because all I have seen agrees with his statements.

Having an interview with Fox is not evidence for somehow being bias and part of the Bush "lie machine".

 

[BigRob]

All that the General really said was that the surge caused the violence to go down, which it did. He is not saying that Iraq is some success story because it certainly is not. He admitted that the Iraqi government is failing to really make any progress, which is basically true. His assessment was basically that the surge worked to curtail violence, which is mostly true. And he showed that violence is down and attacks are down in these areas.

I dont know why hearing that gets people so upset, he did not say Iraq is going great, he just said that the surge had some success.

 

[Popeye]

I have been to Iraq, and for the most part agree with his assessment. The violence is declining, but the Iraqi political progress is not really there. If you have some new evidence please share, because all I have seen agrees with his statements.

Having an interview with Fox is not evidence for somehow being bias and part of the Bush "lie machine".

That fact that you agree with his assessments is hardly a surprise. In fact, considering your political viewpoint, I would be shocked if you didn't. As for his interview with Fox News, it is indeed evidence of his bias and shows that he is most definitely a Republican general.

 

[Reliant]

So, still no proof I take it. Did you see his report, he gave alot of evidence and proof to back up what he said, just read the report, the evidence is there. To disprove his presentation, that burden is on you.

It's hard to overstate how wrong Petraeus has been in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.


Fact: After the initial phase of fighting, in the areas under his command, sectarian warfare ultimately escalated and his efforts for political agreements, while worthy, failed.

Fact: In his tour of duty commanding the training of the Iraqi military, his training results were a dismal failure, and all subsequent training programs have been to redo his failed efforts and undo the damage done during that tour of duty.

Fact: There have been major disappearances, losses and/or misplacement of large amounts of Iraqi weapons that were grossly mismanaged (at best) under his command. Almost certainly those weapons were ultimately sold on the Iraqi black market with some landing in the hands of criminals, insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists who used them to kill Americans and Iraqis.

Fact: The Army has recently expanded a major criminal investigation of the mismanagement, misuse and probable corruption that happened during the Petraeus watch, under the Petraeus command. Petraeus is undoubtedly 100 percent personally honest, but there are people close to him under investigation for weapons and resources under his command, which were stolen or lost, and he bears a substantial command responsibility for bad management and bad judgment.

Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.

It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote. Do you honestly believe this obviously partisan General would give anything but a glowing report given his malfeasance on the job? Of course not. This report will be no different.

 

[BigRob]

It's hard to overstate how wrong Petraeus has been in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.


Fact: After the initial phase of fighting, in the areas under his command, sectarian warfare ultimately escalated and his efforts for political agreements, while worthy, failed.

Fact: In his tour of duty commanding the training of the Iraqi military, his training results were a dismal failure, and all subsequent training programs have been to redo his failed efforts and undo the damage done during that tour of duty.

Fact: There have been major disappearances, losses and/or misplacement of large amounts of Iraqi weapons that were grossly mismanaged (at best) under his command. Almost certainly those weapons were ultimately sold on the Iraqi black market with some landing in the hands of criminals, insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists who used them to kill Americans and Iraqis.

Fact: The Army has recently expanded a major criminal investigation of the mismanagement, misuse and probable corruption that happened during the Petraeus watch, under the Petraeus command. Petraeus is undoubtedly 100 percent personally honest, but there are people close to him under investigation for weapons and resources under his command, which were stolen or lost, and he bears a substantial command responsibility for bad management and bad judgment.

Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.

It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote. Do you honestly believe this obviously partisan General would give anything but a glowing report given his malfeasance on the job? Of course not. This report will be no different.

Sectarian violence escalated everywhere immediately after the initial fighting stopped. The General told visiting Congressmen right after the war that there were not troops to guard these ammo dumps and that they would be overtaken, exactly as they were.

Iraq has been one mismanagement after another, I agree with you there, and I agree he should have stayed out of the 2004 election.

But, all he really has said was that the surge curbed violence, he admits that the Iraqi political process is failing. His report is not really "glowing", all it says is really that the surge helped to curtail violence, and that the readiness of the Iraqi army is getting better in taking the lead to fight the insurgency. There are still tons of problems, and he admits this. And I agree with him.

I just have a problem with people who most likely did not even hear or read his report, and just assume its some great report so he is bias or attack him personally. All he really has said was that the surge curtailed violence, but didnt really help the Iraqi political process.

 

[Reliant]

Sectarian violence escalated everywhere immediately after the initial fighting stopped. The General told visiting Congressmen right after the war that there were not troops to guard these ammo dumps and that they would be overtaken, exactly as they were.

Iraq has been one mismanagement after another, I agree with you there, and I agree he should have stayed out of the 2004 election.

But, all he really has said was that the surge curbed violence, he admits that the Iraqi political process is failing. His report is not really "glowing", all it says is really that the surge helped to curtail violence, and that the readiness of the Iraqi army is getting better in taking the lead to fight the insurgency. There are still tons of problems, and he admits this. And I agree with him.

I just have a problem with people who most likely did not even hear or read his report, and just assume its some great report so he is bias or attack him personally. All he really has said was that the surge curtailed violence, but didnt really help the Iraqi political process.

Absolutely correct big fella. Great report, great General, things are great.

 

[BigRob]

Absolutely correct big fella. Great report, great General, things are great.

But he did not even say things were great. He gave an honest assessment which was really not all that complimentary of the politcal accomplishments in Iraq. All he said was that the surge improved security, which I agree with. Outside of that, he did not really try to paint some rosy picture of everyone loves each other in Iraq.

 

[Reliant]

But he did not even say things were great. He gave an honest assessment which was really not all that complimentary of the politcal accomplishments in Iraq. All he said was that the surge improved security, which I agree with. Outside of that, he did not really try to paint some rosy picture of everyone loves each other in Iraq.

No, it's all great. Sunnis are making love to Shiites in the streets of Baghdad and Tikrit, the government is extremely stable, and no deaths have been reported in weeks. Good job General Petraeus. As long as you keep telling us the truth so we can make appropriate Policy, we should be out of Iraq by Christmas.

 

[BigRob]

No, it's all great. Sunnis are making love to Shiites in the streets of Baghdad and Tikrit, the government is extremely stable, and no deaths have been reported in weeks. Good job General Petraeus. As long as you keep telling us the truth so we can make appropriate Policy, we should be out of Iraq by Christmas.

Obviously you did not read the report.

Either that or your sarcasm does not come through over the net, and if that be the case, then I apologize.