gen petraeus is a disgrace to our country

[Thorgrim]

here is all the proof, im going to give links I've used:
Religious leaders tell al-Sadr to keep militia intact - CNN.com
POLITICS-US: Iraq Still a Quagmire Say Experts
Tomgram: Ira Chernus, The General and the Trap
Iran helped end Iraq fighting - Iraq party adviser | Reuters
Bush bungles in Basra and Bucharest. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
Jonathan Steele: In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr | Comment is free | The Guardian

Tell me if there's anything that wasn't covered

[Thorgrim]

24 Steps to Liberty 2

last link is about debathification laws petraeus used as a big victory...that simply wasn't...i just checked all my responses, everything i've said has either been posted in my other iraq threads (look up my name) or have been posted in this thread...all backed up by links

it's fact

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm not saying give him a free pass, but there's a large gap between lying, and acting as a political hack.

Well, how far can a political hack twist the truth to suit his handlers before it becomes a lie?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm not saying give him a free pass, but there's a large gap between lying, and acting as a political hack.

Acting like a political hack in front of the people is one thing, doing it in Congress is quite another - its a violation of the constitution. It impedes the duty of Congress to appropriate the right funds, equipment and people to the operation and not to mention being a "political hack" to the Congress is an attempt to stop them from using their constitutional power to end the war.

[Thorgrim]

The Republicans AND Democrats have both been SLAMMING GenDP and AC...wow the Foreign Relations Committee is 100x better than the Armed Services...

[Thorgrim]

As Sen. Menendez pointed out, this is what we are paying for:

-43% of population lives in absolute poverty
-prior to war 19% of children suffered malnutrition; today 28%
-last year 75% elementary-aged kids went to school; now 30%
-prior to war 50% lacked access to clean water; now 70%
-only 50 of 142 primary health care centes are open to public

[Thorgrim]

YouTube Video

And that was the GOP...ouch...

Pakistan Answers - WMV

Hear you can see how much they are Bush's little minions, Petraeus KNOWS that AQs home and by far greater safe haven is the Pakistan/Afghanistan border...and it's the only place they could seriously launch a US attack from...

Of course, god forbid they don't want to make Iraq look like somewhere we are wasting resources when we're starving for forces in Afghanistan...so they twist and spin...just the worst of politicians

I am semi-ok with Crocker doing that, he's a hired hack, Petreaus is not supposed to sell his soul so easily and go to bat for the right wing of the GOP

[Scrum]

What a dog and pony show.

[six6ftr]

I think this whole proceeding is a waste of time. They could have just sent a memo! It's all Political Posturing by both sides.

[JaJae]

Since Petraeus has been put in charge of managing the war we have seen a consistent decline in American deaths and progress in Iraq has shot up to levels no one expected. Before his surge the naysayers were on a mission to discredit the idea saying we've tried surges in the past and this one would be no different. Well this one was.

In time's past a general and his strategy was judged by the results of their actions. However, Iraq has become so politicized that his results were not properly reported by the media or our politicians. The reason Petraeus has been so successful in Iraq is because he knows he has to fight the political war back at home as well as the military war in Iraq. If that means he has to go on that evil talk radio to get his message out, then so be it. I'll give him a pass.

I think we have to remember that this was the man the Democrats wanted in charge of Iraq because of his experience and integrity. When he wanted to surge all of a sudden they felt betrayed and attacked him politically. As soon as the positive results started coming in NY Times started giving discounted full page ads to smear him. This is the reality we live in and the media towards Petraeus has not been kind or fair.

Does this give him a pass for much of what he has done? No. But I don't think it's fair to be so hard on him without putting everything into perspective. The man is fighting both a political war here at home trying to garnish support for his Iraq strategy and he is trying to bring a victory in Iraq. As long as we have troops in Iraq I'd prefer a general who was willing to go the distance and ensure their safety as he has done to a degree no previous general was able to do. And if we're going to be making decisions on what to do regarding Iraq I think we need to hear both sides of the story. I'm sure there are plenty of users on this forum who would still argue until they were blue in the face that there has been no progress in Iraq. The Democrats are not willing to pass on the message. So if that means he has to buddy up with prominent Republicans who are constantly in the media to get his message out, so be it. As far as I'm aware he hasn't turned down any opportunities to speak with Obama and Hillary about the progress of Iraq and where we stand. McCain is willing to listen and he's willing to get his message out. To suggest that he's setting himself up politically with McCain is a bit premature.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Since Petraeus has been put in charge of managing the war we have seen a consistent decline in American deaths and progress in Iraq has shot up to levels no one expected. Before his surge the naysayers were on a mission to discredit the idea saying we've tried surges in the past and this one would be no different. Well this one was.

The only reason the surge "succeeded" was because we started paying them cash to stop killing us and each other.

It's all a smokescreen to keep this conflict going until it becomes someone elses problem.

[motivez]

You give him far too much credit for the reduction in American casualties.. much of your post is a rehashing of Republican talking points that credit the surge with things it's not responsible for.

Again, the reduction in violence has primarily been a result of the cease fire between al-Sadr and the other Shia militias and the Malaki government (political progress, not military, like I and others have been saying is the ONLY measure that matters for years now), the "Anbar Awakening," and the fact that we've started paying Sunni militias not to kill us..

Your tax dollars at work, funding Sunni militias that killed your neighbors children only months ago. Hooray?

I don't know about you, but I don't really like the idea of all of this money going into their organizations, it's quite likely it's being sent to other groups elsewhere in the world that are plotting to kill Americans, so next time we're attacked.. it's quite possible the attack will have been funded by taxpayer dollars.

[Thorgrim]

Jim Webb told GenDP, and GenDP confirmed, that the "shift" took place BEFORE the surge, so the "awakening" had begun prior and was something never seen before, we were extremely lucky, and Iraqis did the heavy lifting for us, not to mention it would have been utterly impossible without them:
Switching before the surge
Us finally deciding to bribe large numbers of them with millions of dollars

"the surge" the "lucky draw" whatever you want to call it

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Jim Webb told GenDP, and GenDP confirmed, that the "shift" took place BEFORE the surge, so the "awakening" had begun prior and was something never seen before, we were extremely lucky, and Iraqis did the heavy lifting for us, not to mention it would have been utterly impossible without them:
Switching before the surge
Us finally deciding to bribe large numbers of them with millions of dollars

"the surge" the "lucky draw" whatever you want to call it

the Iraqis have been doing the heavy lifting for years, that has been the plan for years.

And it will be the Iraqis that civilise themselves, it will not be the American military, again nothing new.

[JaJae]

Long before we started to broker peace and calls to end violence by the insurgents, the surge was seeing strong results. It can be strongly argued that they called these cease fires because the surge was having such strong effects on them that they could no longer sustain themselves at the rate they were going. It is argumentative as to whether these two things could ever have happened had Petraeus not been the commander in Iraq and initiated the surge in the manner he did. And it is my opinion that neither of these things would have occurred had it not been for the successful surge led by Petraeus.

Now the plan appears to be keeping the violence down in order to set up a strong government. This is happening much slower than anyone would like, but in the long run there is less violence and more stability. And, we are finally seeing some semblances of progress on the political front. This shouldn't be understated as right wing talking points. This is the reality of what is happening in Iraq. Telling both sides of the story isn't rehashing the right wing talking points. Am I happy with the way Iraq is going right now? No. Do I think we are taking risks on the success of political action in Iraq that could bite us in the ass? Yes. Do I think it's a bad idea to come home now? Not at all. But I think it's important to give credit where credit is due and provide constructive criticism where it is due, but in order for it to be constructive you must be willing to look at both sides of the issue.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Long before we started to broker peace and calls to end violence by the insurgents, the surge was seeing strong results. It can be strongly argued that they called these cease fires because the surge was having such strong effects on them that they could no longer sustain themselves at the rate they were going. It is argumentative as to whether these two things could ever have happened had Petraeus not been the commander in Iraq and initiated the surge in the manner he did. And it is my opinion that neither of these things would have occurred had it not been for the successful surge led by Petraeus.

Now the plan appears to be keeping the violence down in order to set up a strong government. This is happening much slower than anyone would like, but in the long run there is less violence and more stability. And, we are finally seeing some semblances of progress on the political front. This shouldn't be understated as right wing talking points. This is the reality of what is happening in Iraq. Telling both sides of the story isn't rehashing the right wing talking points. Am I happy with the way Iraq is going right now? No. Do I think we are taking risks on the success of political action in Iraq that could bite us in the ass? Yes. Do I think it's a bad idea to come home now? Not at all. But I think it's important to give credit where credit is due and provide constructive criticism where it is due, but in order for it to be constructive you must be willing to look at both sides of the issue.

Temporary peace is not peace at all - they have been fighting each other long before we got there and will be fighting each other long after we leave. See what the Shia has been doing to the Sunni and vice versa - you think that will magically change with republican style government? They hate each other, there are long standing animosities that goes well beyond ideology. They don't view each other as brothers, so what makes you think they will function like one in a government that requires it?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by goldenponderbob

Petraeus isn't bipartisan, his constituency is contained within that five-sided monster that expanded our simple objective of defeating the Taliban in Afganistan back in October, 01', by whispering words of "Mid-East Miracles" and "Perpetual Peace Hero" into the ears of our Comander-In-Chief (kind of a revamped "war to end all wars" thing, I'd have bet.

Don't blame this on McCain. That General would be saying what he's bound to say regardless who the GOP nominated. And, don't blame the GOP, they are behaving exactly as they should, that is, they are following their misguided leader. Blame the folks who allowed the 04' referendum to hinge on Kerry's Vietnam record vs. Bush's National Guard record instead of the issue at hand. Bush won the popular vote and continued to do take advice from the Pentagon, what else would we expect him to do?

In 06' the war weary country finally turned control of the war over to Nancy & the democrats. Congress still has the power to kill the funding that fuels the war. She is not bound to follow the Commander-In-Chief or take advice from the Pentagon. Her party is in charge. They are free to disregard Petraeus' entire accessment; which is what we expect them to do; thats what we elected them to do. We shouldn't have to put with a "GOP War Plan after we took control of congress away from them.

Yet that is pretty much what's gong on.

Why am I not even hearing much from Cindy these days . . .Hmmmmmm?

It's the oil even the democrats know that. We can't let that part of the world go up in smoke. The whole world depends on a constant supply of oil so why are they not helping us at least financially.

[Thorgrim]

I just want to say its not only our lucky draw in Anbar...which was caused primarily by sunni on al qaeda hatred that was building for years and is well documented, and a desire to get more money...the surge had nothing to do with it

the only other success besides anbar was baghdad, and that was due to the fact that the shia won the battle in Jan 2007 so when the surge started everyone had already quit the heavy fighting...both sides had no reason to continue

[Thorgrim]

LOL there are a billion muslims and GeDP is going on about how they may have killed "over 1,000" non-iraqi islamists

Wow, 5 years, over a 1,000...out of hundreds of thousands

That's like the Iraqi insurgents saying they beat the US militarily