i am calling you on this gene.


in your opening statement you state that he is cherry picking for the best report. ie he is lying.

in the last post you say he is telling the truth.


you have two chooses here and if you answer with anything else. we will all assume that everything he said was the truth.


1 he is a lier

2 he is telling the truth.


those are your only answers. as i said anything else and we all assume he is telling the truth and you are lying

Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"i am calling you on this gene.


in your opening statement you state that he is cherry picking for the best report. ie he is lying.

in the last post you say he is telling the truth. " This is my answer :


Petraeus is providing his opinion, after four years in Iraq, that he can not say America is MORE secure as a result of the Iraq War.

When Petraeus reported the military progress he excluded some types of deaths so as to lower the death toll and make it appear as if the Surge was REDUCING the death toll in Iraq. That is SPIN and was most likely concocted in the White House and pentagon because they want the most positive spin possible on the impact of the Surge. The truth is that TOTAL DEATHS in Iraq are UP not DOWN this summer compared with last summer. This Year compared with last year. SOME areas are LOWER but OVERALL the death count is UP!!!!! You can call that e LIE or SPIN or what ever you want. It does not show the SURGE IS LOWERING THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ. IN ADDITION, THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE INABILITY OF THE FACTIONS TO WORK TOGETHET IN CLEAR-- IT IS NOT HAPPENING.
The Bush policy was wrong from the outset in that Iraq in 2002 did not pose a danger to this country, NOT EVEN IF SADDAM HAD THE WMD BUSH CLAIMED HE HAD, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. Thus the strategic choice made by Bush to invade Iraq was WRONG! Then Bush compounded the first mistake by failing to send the number of troops needed to control Iraq when Saddam was removed from power. Then Bush dispanded the entire police, military and civilian government which was strike THREE. That is why we see the disaster we see in Iraq today. Three MAJOR Policy Choices made by Bush and the Idiots he surrounded himself with in his administration. The one person that had some real knowledge was Powell who Bush used and then fired. The problem goes back to the SOURCE - GWB.

Look at all the bold, capital letters, and underlines, but notice no facts just his usual opinions that he picks from a long list of news. 

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Look at all the bold, capital letters, and underlines, but notice no facts just his usual opinions that he picks from a long list of news.

I said it was the OPINION (another cap so you can read it) of General Petraeus that he could not say the Iraq war had MADE (More caps for your limited intellect) America safer. However since he is the most senior military officer and has spent four years in Iraq, I would accept his opinion over Bush who has NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

As to the death totals in 2006 compared with 2007, those are facts that have been reported.

AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG! Where I sighted OPINION I said so. Where I sighted Facts I said so!

First of all, it's "cited". 




Cap locks aren't for people with "limited intellect"', they are for people who like to scream their points, especially when they are commonly wrong and pointed out to be.  It's hilarious how you want to criticize my "intellect" with the grammar you use in this post.  LOL.




And this is coming from someone who has never been to Iraq, but has no problem telling everyone else about "facts" on the ground.  You are something else gene.

I notice how you ignore most of what Petraus has said, other than the DNC talking point that went out this morning.  What a coincidence.

who was that in an bar last weekend.


and when ever i repeat what the boots on the ground say. you tell us that they don't know what their talking about.


and as of now the general is telling the truth. which makes you a lier.

i told you if you answered with anything other than those two answers.

This is truly hilarious.

First of all, Gene, you have absolutely no sense of loyalty to your Army days. To sit behind your little keyboard and pronounce GEN Petraeus' report bogus days before the fact is shameful. You claim till you're blue in the face that you are a retired Army NG colonel, you led brigades, and served your nation with honor, yet you refuse to extend that honor or common courtesy to someone who not only outranks you but to whom you haven't even listened to yet. Some esprit de corps you have, Mister Abel. No one is asking you to swallow everything Petraeus said without scrutiny, but to pronounce his report full of falsehoods days before he ever delivered it... that's shameful and disgraceful. You have no loyalty to the organization from which you draw your pension.

Secondly, your constant accusations of cherry-picking are exactly what you did. I noticed that you didn't criticise any meat in the actual report -- does this mean that you actually agree with the report as delivered? Because I didn't hear about any criticism from you other than one simple question asked after the fact. You seem to have cherry picked this question from Petraeus' testimony, thou hypocrite.

Third, you claim that everything Petraeus said was negated by his "admission" that America is not safer because of the Iraq war. That's not his purview at all -- better ask that to someone who is in Homeland Security. The commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq has his hands full with Iraq, not the US. He wasn't sent over there -- with full, unanimous support of the Senate no less -- to protect America. He was sent there to fight a war and secure a country against a very dedicated insurgency. So please forgive him for not looking up from his job enough to check how America's doing. He's busy.

Lastly, that was a loaded question. I'm surprised that Petraeus even dignified it with a response.

And this is coming from someone who has never been to Iraq, but has no problem telling everyone else about "facts" on the ground. You are something else gene.


It was General Petraeus I was quoting and he has been in Iraq for four years!

Reply By: singrdave Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
This is truly hilarious.

“First of all, Gene, you have absolutely no sense of loyalty to your Army days. To sit behind your little keyboard and pronounce GEN Petraeus' report bogus days before the fact is shameful.”


What I said is that he excluded certain types of deaths to LOWER the totals. That is what he did in his statements to Congress. I also quoted his statement that said he could not say our invasion of Iraq and the death and injury of our troops has made America Safer. Then WHY did we sacrifice our young men and women in Iraq?

I have regard for our troops and do not believe they should be put in harms way unless it protects our country. That is NOT the situation in Iraq!

“You have no loyalty to the organization from which you draw your pension.”


My Loyalty is to our military. They are doing the job they were sent to do. The problem I have is their Commander-in-Chief sent them on a mission that was not justified because we were not in danger from Iraq and he did not provide the troops needed to accomplish the mission they were given. The result of those two actions by GWB is 3,700 dead, 27,000 injured FOR NO JUSTIFABLE REASON!

The commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq has his hands full with Iraq, not the US. He wasn't sent over there -- with full, unanimous support of the Senate a less -- to protect America.

Since we were and are not in any danger from Iraq, HOW were our military sent to Iraq to PROTECT US - FROM WHAT?

In 2002 Saddam had NO capability to attack this country and had NOTHING to do with 9/11. In 2007 Iraq has no ability to attack us except when our troops are occupying Iraq. You are FULL OF BS! Petraeus was not sent to Iraq to Protect the United States. He was sent in a despite attempt to fix what GWB broke when he invaded Iraq!

Aha! So you agree that it's not Petraeus' job to protect America? Then why are you calling him to the carpet for not knowing how America is safer? This is the "DAMMING" statement to which you call into question his entire testimony?

What I said is that he excluded certain types of deaths to LOWER the totals. That is what he did in his statements to Congress.

So he cherry picked the data...

...just like you did when you decided the only critical question was an offhanded, loaded rhetorical question posed by a political hack after the meat of Petraeus' testimony?

My Loyalty is to our military. They are doing the job they were sent to do.

Like testify before the very same Congress that unanimously sent him to do a job?

So now the inferior officer, the Clueless Old Liberal, is here to argue the unprovable negatives against everyone and everything Bush related?

Here's what I think we should all remember about the original author of the crap that is getting responses to here:

And for god's sakes people please stop feeding the troll.  Remember, if a bear farts in the woods and no one is there to smell it, there is no stink.  Such would be the case here if people just left the inferior officer's blog alone to rot on it's own already over burdened vine of half-truths and distortions.