[Update] Defeatists Preempt Petraeus as Liar…Again
April 3rd, 2008 by Admin
[Minor update: I emailed Gen. Petraeus to get the "from the horse's mouth" answer to how long he's been in Iraq in total since 2003. I got his reply today and updated the last paragraph with the actual number and included a few more of my own comments.]
Well, it's that time of year again – the required 6-month Iraq report. It's become standard practice for the defeatists in the Democratic Party to discount the war reports before they've even been given. So, with General Petreaus scheduled to testify next week before Congress on progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq, Nancy Peloser is already warning him not to "put a shine on recent events” in the country.
I find it interesting how they cherry pick what they want to believe from Iraq's top general. During last September's testimony, Gen. Petreaus testified that political progress in Iraq was lacking. Immediately, the defeatist appeasers jumped all over that little tidbit of information and ignored everything else in the testimony. Moveon.org even went so far as to air ads saying "Petraeus is a traitor" and bastardizing his name by calling him "General Betray Us". You'll remember the Senate voted to condemn the ad (except for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama). They don't want to hear good news.
“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.
By the way, what happened in Basra is that US and Iraqi forces SHUT DOWN the Sadr militia and forced him to – again – retreat defeated. When are we just going to put a bullet through this man's forehead? Interestingly, the Democrats don't want to be reminded of the success in Basra and instead focus on Al Sadr's successes in create havoc in the city. Doesn't anyone else see this?
I will be traveling to DC on Monday ahead of Gen. Petraeus to speak with my Congressmen and ask them to listen to his report with an open mind and remember that they are listening to an honorable man speak honestly about what he sees on a daily basis in Iraq. I will be joined by over 400 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans – veterans who actually have firsthand experiences on the ground. Does Peloser even even realize that Gen. Petraeus has been in Iraq longer than he's been home the past five years? He's spent more time in Iraq the past five years than she's spent in DC.
Who are we to believe: Speaker Peloser who's been in Iraq less than 48 hours total or a brave American Warrior who sees reality firsthand and has logged over 3.5 years in country since 2003!? Her whole purpose in making these public statements is to convince the American people that no matter what he says, he can't be trusted. If it sounds good, he's lying. There's NO WAY our Soldiers can possibly be successful. Our Soldiers have screwed up everything in Iraq and the situation there is their fault. If General Petraeus says anything contrary to that, it's a lie. That is what Peloser is telling America. Peloser is saying, "tell us how bad it is; to hell with actual progress. I want to hear about Al Sadr's minor victories, not US and Iraqi military major ones."
It literally makes me sick to my stomach. I need a Big Red!!
Posted in Military Perspective
OK, April Fool's Prankster! Youy are more or less forgiven.
ROFLMAO!!
Anyway, I too will be in DC with Vets For Freedom. If you want to hook up, I will be wearing my blue "Snooper" hat.
Email me.
Will Nancy Pelosi join the ranks of the likes of 'Tokyo Rose, Eva Pauker, Mata Hari, Mary Surratt, Mrs. Greenhow, Code Pink females, et al.?
I'm willing to donate LARGE sums of money to the "Nancy for Mayor of Basra" campaign.
LOL, Leta!
Anyhow, and the Dems want us to take them seriously on military/national defense issues? I don't think so…
General Petraeus has more experience in his field than Nancy Pelosi can ever know. She and others just don't want to hear good news. Seems like they rejoice when something goes wrong about Iraq. They seem to salivate which I find is a betrayal of this country!
Donna~
It's because they view Iraq going poorly, or being perceived that way, benefits them POLITICALLY. They would rather have what is best of our interests NOT happen, just to gain political advantage.
The economy is in a recession, or headed in that direction; the world view of America is in the toilet; Afghanistan is once again a leading exporter of opium; and Iraq … well, Iraq is Iraq.
Why should not the citizens of America feel the way they do?
CF,
I think what CJ is saying is that most people tend to not hear what they don't want to. They focus on bad news and don't bother about any progress in the country. The CIA took 40 years to change Thailand from growing opium to rice, "the stan" might even take longer but that is no reason to stop. Read what CJ said about Iraq. To save to economy, tax cuts are needed, stuff like that, but the dems seem to like higher taxes for some reason.
Anyway, CJ, great post as always.
CF~
What, pray tell, does your comment have to do with CJ pointing out that the Democrats don't want to wait and actually LISTEN to what Gen. Petraeus has to say about Iraq before they start shooting off at the mouth about how he shouldn't be trying to "put a shine" on events there? Why not just wait to hear what he has to say, with an OPEN mind, something the Dems CLAIM is important?
I am so proud of all of you going to The Hill next week! I will be with you in spirit!
3.5 years – Talk about sacrifice for our country!
It sounds like Nancy the Worthless was in Syria longer than she was in Iraq. Maybe she will vacation in Iran this summer.
Hopefully she will not return to the House if Cindy beats her in the election this year. But then incompetency needs company, and where would the Demos be without this "leader"and Harry the Courageous".
jensad
Not wanting to get into a political fray, I just want the truth. Not whether the surge is working or not, but how far along the Iraqi's are in political progress. If I hear one more McCain ad touting the surge as "working", I'll wonder what his real priorities are. The surge doesn't have as much to do with our troops doing their jobs, but with the Iraqi's doing theirs. Then what to do if they don't. I know its like trying to build an airplane while flying, but I recently started working a second job to help make ends meet and I'm tired for the lack of leadership on this thing. For as much about the previous posts complain about the lack of leadership on the Democratic side, which I will readily agree with, I don't see anything on the Republican side as well. Just my two cents from former US Army, 20th Engineers.
David
Well said CJ, as usual.
David … the surge had more to it than just the political bench marks. The people can actually go to the market in Al Anbar Province now. The reconstruction efforts can actually go forward a little faster now. How many years did it take our own new government to finalize a constitution and govern … oh, gosh, we are still working on that here over 200 years later … making laws everyday that we hope will help heal the wounds of past sins, ease the suffering of the formerly oppressed, help the needy, make opportunities to those who want to succeed … based on our progress here, then I guess they might be making pretty good political progress in Iraq after all. Maybe they could make more progress even faster if the dems would quit telling Iran we are going to give Iraq to them …
It's not the leadership, it is the sabbotage …
I will be in DC as well, and hopefully we wil have as much success this time like we did in Sept. Keep an eye for me, i will be the Arkansas Captain running around!!
LETA ,
YOU MEANT PELOSI FOR
DOG CATCHER ……..IN BERKELEY.
SSgtJ,
Very well put. I guess I would add that if their soldiers were handling security and paying for it, I 'd say "Take all the time you want", but they're not. As CJ has suggested in an earlier post, we don't want the US troops to become "hired guns" and I agree. Let's just wait and see what the good General has to say and go from there.
CJ, I will be rooting for you in DC.
SSgt J, thanks for your service.
David
It's not that Dems cannot handle the truth, as the cartoon suggests, but that Dems are tired of hearing "truth" that contradicts everything they hear and see from all other sources.
Take the recent Basra offensive, for example. We will undoubtedly hear that because it was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki, this proves the success with the surge (John McCain had the audacity to suggest such recently). In reality, however, Iraqi lawmakers recently traveled to the Iran to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades to persuade al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations.
And then, of course, there is the thousand or so troops from the Iraqi military who refused to fight the al-Sadr troops and simply threw don their weapons. More evidence of success? Doubtful.
Bottom line, the surge is little more than a pinky holding back a rapidly cracking dam holding millions of gallons of water, and everyone knows it. Yet, we must now listen to a political pawn of the Bush administration (an administration, btw, that has gotten everything wrong about Iraq from the beginning) tell us all to sit back and relax because all is rosy and cherry in Iraq, or if not now, then such is assuredly soon to be the case.
Pelosi shows her care for the troops by wanting them home and out of harm's way. It amazes me that she is continually ridiculed for that stance!
There you go again, CF. And to think, I once thought I could have a meaningfull discussion with you …
You NOW claim that General Petreaus is a 'political pawn' for the President! You know that the Critical Actual FACT's PROVE that General Petreaus actually disagreed with the President, with Rumsfield and the way the war in Iraq was being conducted in 2006. Wasn't he one of the high ranking officials who Ms Pelosie said disagreed with Rummy's 'continue the course' program. This General was even confirmed 84-0 by democrates and republicans alike. Now you hate him because he works for President Bush. How sad.
CF, you are starting to sound like a political pawn hired by the aclu to discredit anything American.
I (for one) am getting very tired of YOU calling my SON a liar. Tired of YOU calling my Nephew a liar. Tired of YOU calling my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Maines liars.
Isn't what Pelosi is doing, extortion or something? She is apparently threatening an Army Officer …
Sorry that you feel we cannot converse, SSgt. But then again, when you read my posts as somehow calling your fellow soldiers and relatives liars, when I have never done such a thing, then I can see we may indeed have difficulty conversing.
At any rate, throughout the ages, soldiers have always been considered pawns of their political leaders, so I don't really understand your objection to the statement.
Moreover, what has the ACLU done to upset you so much. A quick review of the cases taken on by the ACLU should immediately reveal that they take cases that go against the stands of both republicans and democrats – which is one good sign that the aclu is fairly even handed when it picks and chooses which cases to take.
Now, how about that surge … ? Do you agree it is working?
cf … "but that Dems are tired of hearing "truth" that contradicts everything they hear and see from all other sources."
Sounds like you are calling some one a liar …
SSgt:
I think our definitions of the word "liar" are somewhat different.
CF, SSgtJ, both of you, I would suggest one thing, be careful of the use of the label, "liar." The term carries with it an intent to deceive for any reason. Then and only then should the term, even be considered. This means they know the facts and intentionally state otherwise, this is the standard of measurement.
Just something to consider.
Grumpy
Grumpy, that is correct. A lie is an intent to deceive. Whether you intentionally misrepresent what I say, or offer 'facts' that you know are wrong, then it is a lie. Clearly, there are some who have accused General Petreaous of intentionally misrepresenting the facts in Iraq. Does that NOT count as an acusation of lying?
CF, nothing I said infers that the aclu upset me at all. Only that I don't think very much of their political agenda. What would their track record regarding republicans or democrats have to do with ME? You have posted here enough to know that I am neither.
SSgtJ, Those individuals who are making the accusation should consider a myriad of issues. How do you know the intent of a man's actions? Now, as we begin to consider these accusations, how do we prove them? Opinions are like a rectum, everybody has one. In many cases, the output is of equal value at both ends. You claim people believe that General Petraeus "misrepresented the facts." Do you realize how serious this would be? First, even POTUS can not order him to shade the opinions, even just a little. This is BY LAW, both Military and Federal Law is construed as an unlawful order. To do so, would be construed as a violation of the "Code of Honor", UCMJ and U.S. Code. Everything he says or does is recorded and must be accurate or it is a violation of Law. You would then need to find "material evidence". Now this evidence must meet the standards of "The Military Laws of Evidence" AND "The Laws of Evidence of the United States Court". Now, this is the reason why the General will give it his best shot.
It is important to realize a few things, we need to ask some serious questions. To those making the accusations, Do you know more than General Petraeus about the whole picture of the overall "battle space?" Until you do know with evidence, it might be best to be silent. -Grumpy
like all issues in the u.s.everything is politized, us agianst them. the general is a mouthpiece of the idiot and chief.
[...] [Update] Defeatists Preempt Petraeus as Liar…Again [...]