Gen. Petraeus’ speech
Everyone is afraid to confront the 800-pound gorilla in the room. But with a report by Gen. Petraeus that everyone, including every other high-ranking military officer, knows is false, and a president with approval ratings south of 30%, the American people need change...quickly. I agree we don’t want a repeat of the exit from Saigon, but with clear goals, that won’t happen.
This letter has not been edited.
For the love of all that's good, please don't use metaphors like that with this current administration! They will take you at your word, and soon we will have platoons of soldiers all over the gorilla country, and with no knowledge of the concept of "exit strategy," we won't get out of there anytime soon either.
Please remember: Bush needs small words, and smaller concepts.
Posted by shaupeen on September 20, 2007 02:36 PMUmm, which other "high-ranking military officer"s are you talking about?
I know of only one, Gen. Shinseki, and he was a flop of a Flag Officer anyway.
Posted by Ted in Vegas on September 20, 2007 02:52 PMGeneral Jones' report completely contradicts Petreus' report, for one.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 02:59 PMWhat the hell is it with these defeatists. Who is their mentor? Is it Tokyo Rose?
I highly doubt that Michael Neil knows any high-ranking officers who have actually been in Iraq lately. And I wish people like him would give direct quotes of those officers he vaguely refers to.
Believe it or not, Harry Truman’s approval rating was worse than Bush’s current rating.
Hey, Michael, don’t look at the approval ratings of your Democrats. It’s just over the single digit level.
September 20, 2007 02:59 PM
Please provide a source or a link to where we can go to see "General Jones'" remarks.
Posted by Mountain Cat on September 20, 2007 04:12 PMMountain Cat,
Thr reason the congressional ratings are so low is becasue Dem's don't just follow whatever their elected government says. These people were voted in to put an end to this war by cutting off funding and making a stand, but have done nothing. They fear of course if they cut off fundingthey will be to blame for the failures in Iraq by the neo con marketing mahine. So, no one approves of this congress, the dems are upset and of course the cons will never approve of a Dem run congress.
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 20, 2007 04:31 PMKC,
What is your point? Is your point that Democrats are hypocritical and say one thing to get elected but then do something else when the get into office? I totally agree.
Is your point that every Democrat that won, (thus gaining control of the Senate and the House) promised to cut off funding for Iraq and thus end the war? I believe a lot of blue dog Dems would not agree with that allegation.
Is your point that if the Dems did manage to cut off funding for the war after a majority voted to authorize it that the Republicans would then blame them for the disastrous results of our withdrawal? Disasters like ethnic cleansing, total disruption of world commodities and potentially war in the middle east? Of course the Republicans would blame the Democrats for these calamities.
And the Democrats would be to blame. That is how a Democracy works.
Posted by Nostra Damus on September 20, 2007 04:48 PMWe have reports and data from the National Intelligence Estimate, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Embassy, and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, all of which point to very little security progress and no political progress in Iraq.
Then we have Petraeus's testimony, for which no transcript has been released, other than the opening statement to congress. The statistics Petraeus uses have never been made available publicly, unlike the data from the five organizations above, and nobody has even satisfactorily explained how the statistics were measured.
Given that more American soldiers have died in Iraq in every month this year compared to the corresponding month of 06, and there are more civilian deaths in every month of this year compared to the same month in 06 (except August), I think it's pretty safe to say Petraeus is either a liar or an idiot.
Stats taken from http://icasualties.org/oif/.
Posted by Grog on September 20, 2007 04:51 PMND,
Yes I'm saying the Dem's are not living up to their promises to do something about this disaster Bush started.
Because I recall Bush stating he would do no nation building during his campaign, OOOPS. He also stated this would the the administration of accountability, OOOPS.
ND tell me what the Blue Dog dems (whatever that is) wanted, you seem to be an expert at their vision.
Also, no vote was given to authorize war (nice try though) the vote was given to authorize force as a scare tactic. War was never authorized. There has always been war in the middle East and ethnic problems, we just stirred the pot up. Of course the Cons will blame the Dems for everything, they already do. After all this is the administration of accountability. Bush and Bush alone is responsible for pushing and pushing this war until it happened. Iraq was no threat, I want to know where Osama is. I'm sure you know where he is right or why Bush doesn't find it necessary to capture him.
What everyone seems to forget - or wants to keep quietly "under the rug" - is the simple fact that even a 4 Star General follows orders.
No matter what the original report - or a dissenter's report, or many reports - said, a General has 2 choices.
He may, of course, PRIVATELY, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, suggest to the President that he would prefer to present something else - even go so far as to suggest that the ordered presentation lacks fact, proof, or even a hint of basic veracity and truth - which few, if any, even with 4 Stars are likely to do. BUT!
When he is told to give THIS REPORT, on orders from the Commander in Chief, he better snap to attention; reply, "Yes Sir"; salute properly; about face; and go out and GIVE THIS REPORT. OR . . . !
He can become - almost immediately - a "Retired General".
Petraeus is still an Active Duty 4 Star General.
You figure it out.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 20, 2007 07:00 PMmichael joins the village idiots.Meatball karl,Why did the clintons,kerry kennedy,gore.biden.durbin,murtha and the other lying liberals tell us that Saddam was a threat to us and already had W.M.D's or was tying to get them?Can you honestly answer that,And to make it tougher on you they were saying that when that incompetent clinton was in office.
Posted by Keith on September 20, 2007 07:03 PMKC,
Right you are, oops, sorry, I mean you are correct.
The right-wingers have always had to have a boogieman to keep the M.I C. in business, (as Ike warned us all in his farewell address.)
Even if they did catch Osama, the Murdoch-ruled press would bury the story behind O.J Simpson and his slow-moving bronco and his deflated balls until another Saddam could be concocted.
What fools these mortals be.
Rupert and the M.I C are well aware of our easily manipulated American masses.
Hell, it's worked for the last 50 years hasn't it?
Old Grouch
Unbelievable. How you must despise the military and believe they are nothing but lapdogs to the CIC.
In the oath they take for their commission as an officer, they first swear to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Any officer worth their salt given that choice you propose would resign immediately.
Do I have proof of this state of affairs in regards to General Petraeus? No. I don't.
However, I do believe in the integrity and the honor of our military. I guess that is how we differ. You don't have the same belief system I have.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 08:56 PMDon’t worry post 08:56, something tells me that Old Grouch doesn’t have any proof to back up his innuendoes either.
Posted by Uno on September 20, 2007 09:30 PMOkay, look, we all know that the current administration is full of lying s.o.b.s. My question is: CAN ANYONE ACCESS THE LETTER TITLED: "Armchair quaterbacking about the Iraq war"?
I have been trying to read it, but i keep getting error messages. Just wondering.
Thanks.
Posted by Sheila on September 20, 2007 09:58 PMOkay, look, we all know that the current administration is full of lying s.o.b.s. My question is: CAN ANYONE ACCESS THE LETTER TITLED: "Armchair quarterbacking about the war in Iraq"?
I have been trying to read it, but I keep getting error messages. Just wondering.
Thanks.
Posted by Sheila on September 20, 2007 09:59 PMSheila, care to expand on your claim of lies and lying sobs? And no, not those that Moveon.org, the DailyKOS, media matters and the like have exclaimed in their talking points.
Present one lie that have been proven to be a lie that came out of the administration, just one - pu-lease!
08:56 PM, anonymous,
Sonny, don't let your fevered imagination work so much overtime. You might burn out the few brain cells you have there. And, as we all know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste - assuming, that is, that there was something of a "mind" there in the first place.
It is just exactly the position of Constitutional establishment of a CIVILIAN - the President of the United States - as Commander in Chief, that insures the military its own distinct integrity; as well as also insuring that this Nation does not become some kind of Banana Republic, ruled over by whatever General manages to lead a coup every few months or so.
As you would know, if you had not, most probably, flunked your social studies courses.
That a General follows orders given by the Civilian Commander in Chief DOES NOT, in any way, shape, or form detract from the General's personal integrity. Nor does it impugn the military as such.
Rather, it performs the action of putting the "buck" right back where it belongs in the first place, on the Commander in Chief who issues the orders. Old Harry Truman said it: "The buck STOPS here.", "Here" being on the shoulders of the President.
Unfortunately, this President is far too much given over to the habit of passing the buck around, and around, and around, and . . . ; never being willing to shoulder the responsibility himself, if he can avoid it. He's done this all through his administration; and there is no reason to think he changed his ways now.
There is no challenge to the personal integrity of General Petraeus in recognizing the fact that, whatever the contents of the Report, he followed Bush's orders in presenting it to the Congress and public. As a matter of simple fact, if General Petraeus had not done so, there are any number of other military officers, waiting in the wings at the Pentagon, and elsewhere, who would have done so. And, so what? Following orders happens to be basic to any military organization. It is not different in the United States, EXCEPT for the fact that there are times when those orders come from the Civilian Commander in Chief, rather than from some military dictator, who happens to sit in the CEO office of the country.
Grow up, sonny. And learn a bit about reality, both in life and in politics.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 21, 2007 08:53 AMK Cheney:you said:
"Thr reason the congressional ratings are so low is becasue Dem's don't just follow whatever their elected government says."
If I understand this ( and it is so poorly written, that I am not sure I do);
Aren't the Dem's ( your word) who are in congress part of the elected government? So if they are not doing what they themselves said, they lied to begin with........right??????
And you think, their ratings would be higher if the did do what they themselves said they should do?????.... Well, Duh!!!!!!?
Now, I suppose you meant they are not doing what the Executive Branch ( the Bush Administration) wants. OK, if that is true and the majority do not like the the Bush administration's policies, then their popularity should be higher, Am I wrong.
Your circular reasoning is difficult to follow to establish what you mean, or is that the point???
AF ( confused)
Posted by on September 21, 2007 09:12 AM"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
So, Old Grouch would have you believe, that if the CIC told a line officer in charge of the war in Iraq to testify in front of Congress and tell a deliberate falsehood, the officer would salute, say "YES SIR" and do it.
He claims that is the way the world works and that to believe differently is just not reality.
Well, I don't and millions of other officers, soldiers, sailors, marines and other military agree with me. It is a fact that the Military serves first and foremost the constitution of the United States. If they didn't, we would be a banana republic that suffered the whims of petty dictators and autocrats.
To believe that General Petraeus would do something like Old Grouch suggests must mean that he lives in an ugly, mean and depressing world where honor, integrity and the belief in our system of government is an anathema to him and his ilk.
I pity you.
Posted by Nostra Damus on September 21, 2007 09:28 AMSeptember 20, 2007 08:56 PM
You can always tell when you have made good points against Old Grouch when they come back with such luminary comments like calling you “sonny” and by impugning your intelligence.
For some reason, Grouchy Pants had to use a few hundred words to simply say that he thinks Gen. Petraeus does not have a brain of his own.
But what’s new? Many on the left think that the military consists of numb-skulled robots. It would be interesting to compare the education level of Old Grouch to that of General David Petraeus. It would also be interesting to compare what each of them has done in service to their country.
Sheila,
I tried to open "The armchair quarterback" and got the message NOT FOUND, so your not alone. As far as General Petraeus is
concerned: Who chose him to lead the troops and what might the chooser's motives have been?
September 20, 2007 02:59 PM,
Are you ignoring my request or do you not have an answer? Who is General Jones and where can I see his comments?
Stan Broyles,
The Senate chose General Petraeus by a vote of 81-0 in January 2007. Now the same Democrats who voted him in and who had said that Bush did not listen to his generals are now claiming he is a puppet of the Bush administration and are not willing to listen to Petreaus themselves. They are so transparent!
Mountain Cat,
When one remains anonymous, without even a screen name, how should he/she be addressed? You mistake anonymity for "making a point".
Nostra Damus,
NO! I DO NOT ASSUME anything about the matter. I do point out that, at times in reality, there is a very limited amount of choice available. One of these is, of course, to refuse to obey the order, any order. That would be a matter for the individual. The consequences of that particular choice, however, are also presented, in the context of this particular special situation. YOU are doing the assuming, sir. YOU are assuming that everyone has as little ability to distinguish between emotional feelings about behavior, and the available options of behavior in special circumstances, that you exhibit in your posting. Not all of us are blindered in that fashion.
What both you and "Mountain Cat" are also assuming is a feeling towards the military that, while it may be found in many, is not necessarily found everywhere, and in everyone. That, sir, is YOUR problem, and HIS, not mine; and not one you can palm off on me just because you are too intellectually lazy to make individual distinctions.
When I have a more or less general position, sir, I also generally state it. When I deal with a particular, I also try to make that clear enough to anyone of basic intelligence as well. Perhaps MY fault there is to assume that YOU, and others, have that basic intelligence, since you are posting in an open forum, which is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. Am I wrong?
As to General Petraeus's PERSONAL motives, I make NO comments. Rather, I do think that it is worth noting the reality, which reality includes the possibility of the responsibility for something "wrong", or duplicitious, belonging elsewhere than with the General.
That is, if one is positing something "wrong", or duplicitous, about the report to begin with. There is a great deal more to politics, in all aspects, than just emotionally taking "sides" on the basis of imagined slurs.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 21, 2007 11:46 AMMachina - You and many others seem to think Bush "goes thru" Generals looking for one to agree with him.
The reality is each General has an assignment term and so far, each General has rotated out at the end of said term, or there abouts.
Posted by KW on September 21, 2007 12:13 PMMnt. Cat,
The Senate confirmed President Bush's nomination. Such confirmations are not unusual.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 21, 2007 01:57 PMOld Grouch
So what are you saying? Is General Petraeus testifying to what he believes in Iraq to congress or is he just "Bush's mouthpiece" and spouting whatever the administration tells him to say?
I certainly understand the pressures, the negotiations and the compromises between two or more powerful individuals who may have different objectives. Slight changes in language, tenor or order of delivery may have significant influences on the interpretations of a given testimony.
But, that is not what you claimed in your post of 8:53. You stated, ". . . that a General follows orders given by the Civilian Commander in Chief DOES NOT, in any way, shape, or form detract from the General's personal integrity. Nor does it impugn the military as such." You imply that Petraeus' testimony was not his (even though at the outset of his testimony he unequivically stated it was) and that lying about the "status of Iraq" does not impugn his integrity.
If a 4 star general did not tell congress what he actually believed, then he should lose his stars. If he was just parroting the administration's positions, he should also lose his stars.
So, what do you believe? He was either telling what he believes, or he should lose his job. What is it?
Posted by Nostra Damus on September 21, 2007 03:05 PM
Nstra Damus,
I am not implying anything. I have given an example of some possible alternatives to all the fuss and furor about PERSONALLY considering everything in the light of what one feels about something.
The General read a report.
Someone dissenting from the report, or otherwise considering the report to be "false" in some way, appears to have attacked the PERSONAL integrity of the General.
Consider the possible alternatives, before going off on an emotional binge about the matter.
One of which possible alternatives is, simply, that the idea of "falsity" in the report might be, itself, wrong, invalid, or itself nothing more than a personal emotional reaction.
Another of the possible alternatives is that of, simply, following orders. Which, in REAL LIFE, is a part of the complex area of politics.
There are other alternatives as well.
But, in any case, all the emotional hyperbole - immaginative defenses, and imaginative counter attacks - is purely a matter of the PERSONAL thought of anyone responding.
Demanding that others respond to something that exists only on the level of PERSONAL response is not constructive, whether the response demanded is positive or negative.
And following up on answers to such a "straw-man" form of argument with insults concerning the PERSON of the respondant - as is done in the reams of presentation here - is nothing more than an exhibit of temperment, which does nothing to actually deal with the matter in question.
And, while such responses may well show what you - or others - feel, or believe, concerning the matter, that demonstration does not establish anything more than YOUR OWN FEELINGS.
For mysefl, I have no PERSONAL response, either way; NOR is there anything PERSONAL "implied" by way of the presentation of alternatives.