Petraeus, Moves the Iraqi Goalposts AGAIN?

[disrupter]

Iraq is a series of moving goalposts.

WMDs? no?

Democracy? no?

Surge = Political Progress? no?

But Petraeus says:
In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter's buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives "in large measure."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AsPmfw_302PqHu0gurpmyBSs0NUE

THESE ARE WORDS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE SURGE HAS NOT BEEN MET.

HE IS LYING.

WHERE IS THE POLITICAL PROGRESS?



JUST SAY NO TO MOVING THE GOALPOST ONE MORE TIME.

[radioguy]

This is the first of what I'm sure will be many liberal meltdowns over the fact that America has turned the tide in Iraq and is making progress.

When America wins, the democrats lose.

[Linkster]

Do you happen to have any thoughts of your own maybe?

[radioguy]

Do you happen to have any thoughts of your own maybe?

Yes I do.

I have observed that when America makes any progress in the war on terror, the democrats don't see it as a positive thing. When America suffers a set back in the war, or there are any allegations of wrong doing by our troops, the democrats are all over the media making sure that every person in the world knows it.

When America wins, the democrats lose.

Oh, and by the way. AMERICA IS WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ!

[Linkster]

Are we talking about the "war on terror" or the war in Iraq? Two completely different things - pick one and we'll discuss it

[radioguy]

Are we talking about the "war on terror" or the war in Iraq? Two completely different things - pick one and we'll discuss it

I was commenting on the war currently taking place in Iraq. I said we are winning that war in my opinion, but do admit that is debatable. Based on the military success being achieved by the current troop surge, I believe we definitely have the upper hand and momentum is in our favor.

As for the over all war on terrorism, I don't see it as a "war" in the conventional sense, and in my opinion can never be "won" in terms of finalization. The war on terrorism, is fought on many fronts and will be an ongoing thing long after I'm dead and buried. I will say that we are currently "winning" the war on terrorism, based on the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States in the 6 years since 9/11.

[disrupter]

Hey radio,

how about taking a look at the 911 pentagon video?
oops, no jumbo jet there!

Hmmm, could a novice pilot skim the ground at 400 mph with air turbulence?
oops, even an experienced pilot couldn't.

If you want to find terrorists you don't have to look any further than your own back yard,

namely the NSA.

We have home grown, us taxpayer funded terrorists.
They probably farmed much or all of 911 over to israelis who were caught red-handed blowing up a van & driving a truckload of explosives across the Washington bridge on 911.

had enough bullshit & static.
time to get cold & real.

No more political manipulation by the Washington elite, who mass murder their own & then pretend it is 'foreign' or 'islamic' terrorists.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

This is the first of what I'm sure will be many liberal meltdowns over the fact that America has turned the tide in Iraq and is making progress.

You must be related to Jennifer, she's deaf, dumb and blind too.

"Turn the tide?" That's a good one! :lmao2:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

This is the lesson learned in the last 7 years. You can't trust a damned word coming from the lips of the current President. Has that man bothered to keep any of his promises?
************************************************** **


Editorial
Empty Calories
Published: September 11, 2007

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge had created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it.

The headline out of General Petraeus’s testimony was a prediction that the United States should be able to reduce its forces from 160,000 to 130,000 by next summer. That sounds like a big number, but it would only bring American troops to the level that were in Iraq when Mr. Bush announced his “surge” last January. And it’s the rough equivalent of dropping an object and taking credit for gravity. The military does not have the troops to sustain these high levels without further weakening the overstretched Army and denying soldiers their 15 months of home leave before going back to war.

The general claimed a significant and steady decline in killings and deaths in the past three months, but even he admitted that the number of attacks is still too high. Recent independent studies are much more skeptical about the decrease in violence. The main success General Petraeus cited was in the previously all-but-lost Anbar Province where local sheiks, having decided that they hate Al Qaeda more than they hate the United States, have joined forces with American troops to combat insurgents. That development — which may be ephemeral — was not a goal of the surge and surprised American officials. To claim it as a success of the troop buildup is, to be generous, disingenuous.

The chief objective of the surge was to reduce violence enough that political leaders in Iraq could learn to work together, build a viable government and take decisions to improve Iraqi society, including sharing oil resources. Congress set benchmarks that Mr. Bush accepted. But after independent investigators last week said that Baghdad had failed to meet most of those markers, Mr. Crocker dismissed them. The biggest achievement he had to trumpet was a communiqué in which Iraqi leaders promised to talk more.

General Petraeus admitted success in Iraq would be neither quick nor easy. Mr. Crocker claimed that success is attainable, but made no guarantee. With that much wiggle room in the prognosis, one would think American leaders would start looking at serious alternative strategies — like the early, prudent withdrawal of troops that we favor. The American people deserve more than what the general and the diplomat offered them yesterday.

For that matter, they deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.

[Linkster]

I was commenting on the war currently taking place in Iraq. I said we are winning that war in my opinion, but do admit that is debatable. Based on the military success being achieved by the current troop surge, I believe we definitely have the upper hand and momentum is in our favor.

As for the over all war on terrorism, I don't see it as a "war" in the conventional sense, and in my opinion can never be "won" in terms of finalization. The war on terrorism, is fought on many fronts and will be an ongoing thing long after I'm dead and buried. I will say that we are currently "winning" the war on terrorism, based on the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States in the 6 years since 9/11.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the war in Iraq - I dont ever see a winning of that war - of course if you go in and set an initial "goal" as the winning point - but then change it every time you are unable to achieve something - really doesnt achieve anything. As an example, the US initially said that the point of the war was to bring "democracy" to Iraq - well - that is something they had 35 years ago - and had for some time prior to that - and all it took was the US financing and supporting Saddam to topple that democracy - yet now we see the US paying off certain Sunni tribal chiefs to set up local governments in opposition to the goals of a democracy under one government - I guess the goals have been changed on that

The war on terrorism is a great facade - similar to the war on drugs - its a "concept" not a win/lose type of battle - unfortunately it requires events to occur to either prove or disprove the functionality of the "war" - yet I still believe that most people haven't grasped the concept that in reality the terrorists organizations have already accomplished what they set out to do - instill fear, cause economic slowdowns and get a propaganda tool for stablizing their own base (the Iraq war is perfect for them)
Ages back when we started having airline hijackings around the world (Im showing my age here since this was 40 years ago) we responded as a country and through the leaders at the time, by simply saying that we will never negotiate with terrorists or let their "fear producing capability" affect us.
Today, not only do we have a leader that has played that fear to the hilt - it was revealed yesterdaay that we are negotiating with terrorist supporters in Iraq trying to get them to come to "our side" to slow down the insurgency attacks - all of these sunni tribal chiefs that we are giving "supplementals - another word for bribes) to are the ones that have been attacking the troops over the last 4 years - so our policy has become paying off the terrorists (defined by Bush on many occasions as the insurgency in Iraq) to not attack us but instead go after other factions - in other words - negotiating with terrorists

[Jesse Hemingway]

Swear Him In"
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 10 September 2007

That's all I said in the unusual silence on Monday afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus's microphone before he spoke before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

It had dawned on me when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Missouri) invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea my suggestion would be enough to get me thrown out of he hearing.

I had experienced a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) reminded chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and how Specter insisted that would not be necessary.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107K.shtml

[disrupter]

According to some, it is because he is delivering a report & not testifying?

So in other words you could have ANYONE deliver the report & Petraeus is just doing it to make it look like it comes from him.

He is Bush's ventriloquist dummy, spouting Bush's report & not his own.

Spokesmodel, Petraeus.
The Vanna White of DC.

What excuse there is for Alsquirto Gonzales not swearing in is . . . . ?
A free pass to lie?
Goodness knows that is what he did.

[Linkster]

disrupter - he's not delivering the report - thats the presidents job on the 15th of this month - this is considered testimony although it is a really good question as to why they didnt put him under oath

[disrupter]

either way it doesn't pass the smell test.

[Americanadian]

I was commenting on the war currently taking place in Iraq. I said we are winning that war in my opinion, but do admit that is debatable. Based on the military success being achieved by the current troop surge, I believe we definitely have the upper hand and momentum is in our favor.

As for the over all war on terrorism, I don't see it as a "war" in the conventional sense, and in my opinion can never be "won" in terms of finalization. The war on terrorism, is fought on many fronts and will be an ongoing thing long after I'm dead and buried. I will say that we are currently "winning" the war on terrorism, based on the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States in the 6 years since 9/11.

Hey...there's a war in Iraq? Gee...I swear I heard Gdub declare "Mission Accomplished" quite some time ago. Oh...do you mean the "Occupation" in Iraq?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Moveon.org made some good points:


Yesterday, General David Petraeus misled the country.

He used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The general said we're making major progress1—and we have to stay the course. Sadly, independent assessments show that things in Iraq have gone from bad to worse (see below for more on how Petraeus stretched the truth).

Some of you have emailed to say it reminds you of the day four and a half years ago when President Bush sent General Colin Powell to the U.N. to make a trumped-up case for war.

Powell's WMDs helped justify the invasion of Iraq, and Petraeus' version of "progress"—if it goes unchallenged—will justify keeping troops there for years.

Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping.2 That just isn't true:

Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.3 And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.4

* Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. 5

*The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."6 In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press7 and the Los Angeles Times.8

* For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.9

* Petraeus claimed that he compiled his report without conferring with the White House. But the Washington Post recently reported that Petraeus or his staff joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit.10

We would all like to see life improving in Iraq. But it's not—it's getting worse. And if US forces stay in Iraq both Americans and Iraqis will pay a terrible price.

Today is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The wounds of 9/11 are still fresh for many of us. After 9/11, President Bush used fear, lies and trumped-up intelligence to stampede us into Iraq. Now, America is bogged down in an unwinnable civil war, and Al Qaeda has regained enough strength to once again menace the United States.11

It would be a tragic irony if, six years later, the administration used skewed intelligence to head off the growing momentum for an exit strategy from Iraq.

Please write a letter reminding America and Congress not to fall, ever again, for White House lies—we need a timeline to bring our troops home.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=84&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=3

Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims. Click here to see the ad—and the evidence to back it up:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html?id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=4

The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill—it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing—but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight.

SOURCES
1. Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=5

2. Ibid.

3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=6

4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=7

5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504

6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=8
7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/

8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=9
9. http://www.iCasualties.org

10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=10
11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-8526499-4Yqzo9&t=11

[disrupter]

Petraeus's successes are based on handing over cash to known ethnic cleansers, & gangsters, just adding fuel to the coming civil war.

So when it erupts it will erupt even more violently & explosively.

This is just absurd.

By not even keeping track of the weapons we hand over to the Iraqi police & army they end up on the black market, sold to anyone & everyone, just more fodder for a more even violent uncontrolled civil war.

Unaccountability, Irresponsibility are the bywords of the NeoConmen's Iraq Fiasco.

But don't worry, Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater & the ex-patriot big oil companies will make out like the bandits they are,

all at the price of American & Iraqi, blood & treasure.

Just wicked.