My point proved once again. Here Col is claiming gen Petraeus is telling the truth about Iraq and lying about Iraq all in one report. Why anyone would care what Col thinks is beyond me, he picked 1 answer out of an entire report and Q&A to prove Iraq is a disaster while ignoring the other 99% of the report and Q&A. To bother with this nonsense is pointless.

Col is the only Moron in the world who would expect Gen Petraeus to answer a question about the security of the US while he is busy fighting insurgents and terrorist. And here I thought that's what we had Homeland Security for. Are we wasting money on a Dept that is suppose to protect this country from internal danger while we ask a Gen fighting a war in Iraq about the security if this country? That's like asking the cashier of a fast food if the the whole chain is making money. Hello, he's part of the safety of this country, not the one with all the answers.

Once again, Col shows how desperate he and his (in denial) buddies, the Democrats, are to find anything wrong with the war in Iraq since things are going better than they expected. Shame they rely on our failure just to bash Bush.

Reply By: singrdave Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
“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?”


I am not "Calling him on the Carpet". What I am saying is that his statement shows that this war is NOT making America Safer and thus WHY should we continue killing and injuring our military in a war that is not protecting America? My issue is not with General Petraeus but with the mission his Commander-in-Chief sent him and the 169,000 brave military on in Iraq. We need to end our involvement in Iraq except to destroy terrorists like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah who OUR INVASION allowed to begin operating in Iraq. We need to destroy these same terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan with our military Force. We need to STOP over committing our military the way Bush has done for the past 4 years! I believe General Petraeus and the troops under his command are trying but they have been given the WRONG mission by Bush! WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT MISSION!!!!

The only issue I have with General Petraeus is his attempt to twist the death toll in Iraq to make it appear as if the violence is less when the opposite is true. The Total Iraqi death TOLL is UP this year over last year and this summer over last summer.

Nice tactical retreat. You should have used a different headline if that were the case, but no, you wanted to bleat a different version of what you call "truth." Glad there are people here willing to call you to task.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The only issue I have with General Petraeus is his attempt to twist the death toll in Iraq to make it appear as if the violence is less when the opposite is true. The Total Iraqi death TOLL is UP this year over last year and this summer over last summer.


Nice tactical retreat. You should have used a different headline if that were the case, but no, you wanted to bleat a different version of what you call "truth." Glad there are people here willing to call you to task.


My Title is CORRECT. The MAJOR issue was the fact that General Petraeus said "He did not know if the Iraq WAR has made America Safer" The secondary issue was the fact that the charts the general used excluded the some of the deaths to make it look as if the Surge has reduced the overall level of violence. The TOTAL Death rate is UP and that does not support his statement that the violence in Iraq has been reduced because of the Surge. Only in some areas while in other areas it is up. When you look at the overall total death rate in Iraq it is UP!!!!!

Those that as you put it, “Called me” as usual do not know what they are talking about. Just more SPIN to justify something the FACTS clearly show is not working!

CNN Just reported the KEY Iraqi that Bush was counting on in Anbar to continue fighting with al-Qaeda was just killed by a road side bomb. This is a MAJOR setback and demonstrates just how fragile the few areas of success are in Iraq.

Today Bush will tell us he has decided to accept the Petraeus recommendation and cut the troops in Iraq by 30,000. The facts are that is not a new policy choice it is a requirement because the Army can not continue the increased troop levels in Iraq. Two weeks ago the Joint Chiefs recommended that troop strength in Iraq be reduced to 80,000 not the 130,000 Bush will announce. The Bush choice will also require the 15 month tours that the Army COS says are too long and should be reduced. Bush is picking and choosing what military advice he accepts. On one hand we have Petraeus and on the other side the Joint Chiefs. Bush is destroying the U.S. Army and for a Commander-in-Chief to treat the Army as Bush has done is CRIMINAL!

you really need to read the story.

the group that he was a part of was expecting this and the spokesman sais it wouldnt change a thing.


WWW Link

since i know you wont read it this isnt for you but everyone else

It is a major blow to the council, but we are determined to strike back and continue our work," said Sheik Jubeir Rashid, a senior member of Abu Risha's group. "Such an attack was expected, but it will not deter us."

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007
“This is a MAJOR setback and demonstrates just how fragile the few areas of success are in Iraq.


you really need to read the story.

The group that he was a part of was expecting this and the spokesman said it wouldn’t change a thing.”

What it shows is that the violence in Iraq is NOT getting better and the basic reasons for the killing are not changing by our occupation or the Surge!

Time will tell what the impact of this killing will be in Anbar.

Did you read this from your article : "The death of the charismatic young sheik dealt a blow to American efforts to recruit tribal leaders to fight the terror network."

tell you what green gene i eill listen to the spokesman before i will listen to a reporter with an agenda.


a reporter is supposed to report the real news not only that will help his/her/their adenda

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007
tell you what green gene i eill listen to the spokesman before i will listen to a reporter with an agenda.


a reporter is supposed to report the real news not only that will help his/her/their adenda


What Agenda? The man was killed that we have been working with in Anbar. I pointed out this from your posting: "The death of the charismatic young sheik dealt a blow to American efforts to recruit tribal leaders to fight the terror network."

Here is what I think Petraues (and Bush), should be saying: The American forces are up against Al Quaeda, the Sunni-Shiite split, the hundred or more anti-US splinter groups joining the fight daily, the Iraqui on the street who is disillusioned, the man, any man, who has a gun and feels his country is under illegal occupation and is tired of erratic water and electricity supplies. The Iranian IED's and possibly more from Syria. Then there is Maliki's government that is trying its best but is cursed by a country that has corrupt police, soldiers and in-fighting that cannot be controlled because the situation is too complicated by past malaise and historical divisions.

Bush speaks to the nation tonight. What does he want? Affirmation that the surge is working? Is he so naive that ants never stop coming when they're angry? Is he so naive that he can hope Petraues is winning when he's losing?

A surge is a massive influx of able-bodied troopers trying to calm a phalanx of so many known and unknown enemies. I hope the surge is working but I would venture that thousands of others are working against the surge already.

This is not an unpatriotic message. I'm a South African and worry about the fact that the leader of the strongest nation in the World is misled by forces that are too great to overcome.

But you yourself said that the President should act on the intelligence presented to him. The intelligence said that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had re-started its WMD program and a clear threat to the USA. On top of that Iraq was supporting terrorist in a direct challenge to the Bush doctrine that said that any nation state that helped, supported, funded, harbored terrorist in any way would be treated as the terrorist. He was just doing what you said he should have done to prevent 9/11.



Yes, the General was mimicking the president who also said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It seems that only you have heard anyone in the Bush Administration claim a connection between Iraq and AQ and 9/11. What other voices do you hear that the rest of us don’t?

you continue to make things up using bits and pieces from what people said and stringing them together. That is called telling a lie.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007
That is what should be said about the decision to invade Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.


But you yourself said that the President should act on the intelligence presented to him. The intelligence said that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had re-started its WMD program and a clear threat to the USA. That is NOT what Tenet told Bush—Read his book!

NO - just having WMD does not justify invading Iraq. The CIA told Bush that they did not believe Saddam would use any WMD outside of Iraq. Also if every country that had WMD needed to be invaded we would be at war with 20 countries ion this world. There was NO reason to invade Iraq-- NOT WMD, NOT any danger that Saddam posed and they were not responsible for 9/11.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007
That is what should be said about the decision to invade Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.


But you yourself said that the President should act on the intelligence presented to him. The intelligence said that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had re-started its WMD program and a clear threat to the USA. That is NOT what Tenet told Bush—Read his book!

NO - just having WMD does not justify invading Iraq. The CIA told Bush that they did not believe Saddam would use any WMD outside of Iraq. Also if every country that had WMD needed to be invaded we would be at war with 20 countries ion this world. There was NO reason to invade Iraq-- NOT WMD, NOT any danger that Saddam posed and they were not responsible for 9/11.

the man was killed but he was a leader of the group that we are working with.

if bush was killed today would this stop us NO. except maybe in your head.

i almost said mind but then i remembered you don't have one.

READ WHAT YOU POSTED:

"The death of the charismatic young sheik dealt a blow to American efforts to recruit tribal leaders to fight the terror network."