Petraeus: Delay Decision on Iraq Troop Cuts

[richiebaseball]

I just think it's ironic that the tables are now turned. I'm quite certain there are many that can't or won't realize that General Petraeus is quite possibly being "swiftboated". The term that's so endearing to those on the left and so unappealing to those on the right. The left can't see it because that would mean they really aren't much different than the right and the right can't see it because that would give some credence to the whole John Kerry thing.

And what's up with these moronic nicknames? Do people actually think they're clever? General Betray Us? Come on folks, unintelligent people think us this crap. Don't be just as unintelligent and follow-along. And that goes for Hitlary and all the others.

 

[bsnyder]

The NYT did an excellent piece on Sunday about Iraq, what's going well and what isn't.

What does this mean? That there are actually some things going well, at least in the NYT's report?

 

[DawnCt1]

That in order to believe what the General said, we have to ignore the conflicting information being reported by news outlets-CNN, NBC, the NYT and others. I don't watch Fox so I don't know what they're showing/telling about Iraq, but NBC has been doing some very interesting reporting from there. Katie Couric was just over there last week for CBS and I'm guessing she may have had some info that differed from the General's report as well. The NYT did an excellent piece on Sunday about Iraq, what's going well and what isn't.

It's what I've been saying from the start of this thread-if there is some OBJECTIVE information out there that confirms what the General reported-I want to see it. The General is reporting on the mission and as I said above, he's not going to brand it a failure. That's just not how they're trained to respond.

Brian Baird, D Washington state, who voted against the invasion returned from Iraq convinced that the surge is working. As the General said, "There's 165,000 different views on the ground." It is his job to evaluate it truthfully and objectively and I believe he did.

 

[richiebaseball]

Frankly, I wish she'd been more inquisitive before she voted for this war-but that can't be undone now...

No it can't but her motives for doing so should be examined. Personally I believe hers and many others were purely politically motivated.

In spite of some of his political views, I'm beginning to admire Dennis Kucinich more and more and it makes me wonder about a system like ours that gives someone like him so little support.

 

[Fitswimmer]

What does this mean? That there are actually some things going well, at least in the NYT's report?

You could probably get it at their site still if you're really interested. I would post it, but it was quite extensive. The article agreed that violence in the capital has gone down with the Surge, however, the whole point of the Surge was for that reduction to bring out governmental gains. That didn't happen-certainly not our soldier's fault, they did their part. Also, violence didn't slow too much overall and even increased in some other areas as troops were moved from those areas to the capital. Iraqi civilian deaths were not significantly reduced. The good news was that American troop deaths were reduced from the Spring, but were still higher than this same time last year.

The question is, since the Surge didn't bring about the necessary government stabilization that it was supposed to-how can it be labeled a success? Well, according to the President and the General-you change what the Surge was supposed to accomplish and say "just give it a few more months".

 

[Fitswimmer]

Brian Baird, D Washington state, who voted against the invasion returned from Iraq convinced that the surge is working. As the General said, "There's 165,000 different views on the ground." It is his job to evaluate it truthfully and objectively and I believe he did.

I read his same letter in the Seattle Times and I disagreed. Yes, our military moving into Baghdad has reduced the violence-but the governmental stability that the President used as the reason we needed the surge in the first place didn't materialize. I don't think it's our military's role to be in the center of a civil war, supporting a government that appears uninterested in meeting even HALF of the benchmarks set for it.

 

[eclectics]

No it can't but her motives for doing so should be examined. Personally I believe hers and many others were purely politically motivated.

In spite of some of his political views, I'm beginning to admire Dennis Kucinich more and more and it makes me wonder about a system like ours that gives someone like him so little support.

Both parties tend to throw their non-mainstream hopefuls to the wolves. If you march to a different drummer, but have no funds, forget it. It's all about the money (as usual). When everyone had a somewhat equal start, back in the days of unobscene campaign spending, the independent thinkers were able to get a little more notice. No more.

 

[eclectics]

You could probably get it at their site still if you're really interested. I would post it, but it was quite extensive. The article agreed that violence in the capital has gone down with the Surge, however, the whole point of the Surge was for that reduction to bring out governmental gains. That didn't happen-certainly not our soldier's fault, they did their part. Also, violence didn't slow too much overall and even increased in some other areas as troops were moved from those areas to the capital. Iraqi civilian deaths were not significantly reduced. The good news was that American troop deaths were reduced from the Spring, but were still higher than this same time last year.

The question is, since the Surge didn't bring about the necessary government stabilization that it was supposed to-how can it be labeled a success? Well, according to the President and the General-you change what the Surge was supposed to accomplish and say "just give it a few more months".

The Iraqi government is not doing it's job, whether by ineptitude or by design. Either way, it sets a scenario for a long haul commitment for us, if they refuse to get their act together or we continue to allow them to.

 

[bsnyder]

No it can't but her motives for doing so should be examined. Personally I believe hers and many others were purely politically motivated.

In spite of some of his political views, I'm beginning to admire Dennis Kucinich more and more and it makes me wonder about a system like ours that gives someone like him so little support.

I've always admired Dennis Kucinich's convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he stands for something.

I think our system gives him the support he deserves. He's a Congressman, and has enough of a consitutency to be elected a Congressman. His views are outside the mainstream of a huge majority of Americans though, and for that reason, he'd never get elected to an office that required a larger block of voters than what he already has. Unless he equivocated and pandered, like many politicians do.

Both parties tend to throw their non-mainstream hopefuls to the wolves. If you march to a different drummer, but have no funds, forget it. It's all about the money (as usual). When everyone had a somewhat equal start, back in the days of unobscene campaign spending, the independent thinkers were able to get a little more notice. No more.

The only way a "free thinker" gets any attention at all is if he has a block of "special interest" voters (Ralph Nadar) or a lot of personal cash (Ross Perot) It's never really been any different, throughout our electoral history.

 

[eclectics]

The only way a "free thinker" gets any attention at all is if he has a block of "special interest" voters (Ralph Nadar) or a lot of personal cash (Ross Perot) It's never really been any different, throughout our electoral history.

I don't know about that. I think a few slipped through. Adlai Stevenson comes to mind.

 

[LakeAriel]

No it can't but her motives for doing so should be examined. Personally I believe hers and many others were purely politically motivated.

In spite of some of his political views, I'm beginning to admire Dennis Kucinich more and more and it makes me wonder about a system like ours that gives someone like him so little support.

Sad isn't it? I voted for Kucinich in the last primary he ran but I know he hasn't a chance. He is a wonderful, bright man who doesn't look presidential..Sad fact.

 

[betz]

Where is Eros?

 

[DawnCt1]

No it can't but her motives for doing so should be examined. Personally I believe hers and many others were purely politically motivated.

In spite of some of his political views, I'm beginning to admire Dennis Kucinich more and more and it makes me wonder about a system like ours that gives someone like him so little support.

Could it have something to do with him visiting President Assad of Syria and going on Syrian TV bashing the US foreign policy?

 

[profdsny]

Did you hear Rudy commenting (I heard him being interviewed on the radio) about the shamful grilling Petraeus got? I agree with Rudy. It was also revealed that NYT's gave MoveOn.org a hefty discount for their ad so Rudy asked for the same (fair) treatment. I don't know if he got it.

The reality is is that MoveOn DID NOT get a special discount from the NY Times. More blather from Rude the dude.

From CNN:
Newly announced candidate Fred Thompson noted in a campaign speech in Jacksonville, Fla., that the Times gave the group "a discount to make sure it (the ad) gets the widest possible circulation."

There's just one problem. The $65,000 rate is the Times' normal rate for an advocacy ad from a non-profit group, according to newspaper spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

Mathis wouldn't disclose how much MoveOn.org paid for the ad, citing policy, and said the final cost of an advertisement in the paper depends on a number of variables. But, she said, the standard rate for a full-page, black-and-white advocacy ad would be $65,000.

The newspaper took issue with charges from some, repeated in the Post article, that the left-leaning MoveOn.org got a "family discount."


"We do not distinguish advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," the paper said in a statement. "In fact, the advertising department does not see the content of the ad before a rate is quoted."

 

[richiebaseball]

Could it have something to do with him visiting President Assad of Syria and going on Syrian TV bashing the US foreign policy?

There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Wake up. It's frickin broke.

There are a few here on the left that I have accused of being part of the problem and not the solution because of their partisan views and inability to see anything beyond the hill because they're leaning so far left. I see no reason not to apply that same logic to those of you leaning too far right.

 

[profdsny]

Could it have something to do with him visiting President Assad of Syria and going on Syrian TV bashing the US foreign policy?

"We must stand for strength through peace, for a sovereign and unified Iraq. President Assad is willing for Syria to play a significant role in assisting in the stabilization of Iraq," said Kucinich. "President Assad knows that an international peace keeping and security force must be organized and ready to deploy in order to facilitate the end of the occupation. He understands that the US cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq, but that at the present time the US occupation is fueling the insurgency. He is recommending a parallel political process involving an Iraqi national conference, the disarming of militias, and the building up of an Iraqi army which would eventually takeover from international peace keepers."

That pretty much sounds like Bush and Petraeus talking.
But, it seems he didn't "bash" US foreign policy as much as he bashed Bush. But, given that US foreign policy as ruled by the shrub pretty much put us in the condition we are perceived in around the world, he'd have had every right. Which, actually he does.

 

[peachgirl]

You missed the most important part of the quote however; Here it is;

Well, if you think that military personnel are going to allow their names to be used in the media when reporting not so positive events...think again. The story and report came from a reliable source, one can assume he checked his facts.

But, in all actuality, the truth of it doesn't matter.

No, the important part was to get you and Transparent to admit that the only time you want to call people names like traitor, un-american and shameful is when it's someone you disagree with politically.

When it's one of your own, you make excuses for them.

That's the point and you made it perfectly clear.

 

[LuvDuke]

There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Wake up. It's frickin broke.

There are a few here on the left that I have accused of being part of the problem and not the solution because of their partisan views and inability to see anything beyond the hill because they're leaning so far left. I see no reason not to apply that same logic to those of you leaning too far right.

Did you just say it was "frickin broke"? Hold the phone, I agree with you. And about Kucinich too.

 

[eclectics]

Could it have something to do with him visiting President Assad of Syria and going on Syrian TV bashing the US foreign policy?

Doubtful. I think most Americans would set the bar a bit higher on what would cause them to like or dislike a candidate.

P.S. If a policy stinks, I see nothing wrong with commenting on it, wherever you happen to be.

 

[DawnCt1]

Doubtful. I think most Americans would set the bar a bit higher on what would cause them to like or dislike a candidate.

P.S. If a policy stinks, I see nothing wrong with commenting on it, wherever you happen to be.

I think that many Americans would disagree with you on that assertion.