Moveon.org took out a pitiful ad that ran today criticizing General Petraeus. This ad does exactly what is wrong in this deabate. Instead of debating the issues they just want to bash people. I do not understand a group that cheers for failure and against Americans. They only want failure and want more American deaths so that it can prove their case. I think it is time for moveon.org to move on of the public stage.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
"The ad accuses the general of "Cooking the Books for the White House" and asserts "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts," citing optimistic statements the general has made about Iraq in the past. "
He's Bush's dog, rolling over on command.
You're going a little extreme again. I am happy to disagree with you once again.
Petraeus didn't lie in his report to Congress, though he and the ambassador did mislead. Petraeus spoke purely from the military point of view, and most experts agree that some limited progress has been made on the ground in Iraq. However, he avoided saying that the surge had failed to meet its ONLY goal which was for the Iraqi government to step up to their obligations which they failed to do. That's not Petraeus' fault of course. He can't make the Iraqi government do its job. The troops did their job. al-Maliki et al did not.
Oh as an aside: apparently al-Maliki has stopped being such a smart-mouth. He was on television today more or less begging the U.S. to remain in Iraq. Funny how his tune has changed. A few months ago he was telling us to get out because they didn't need us.
I think he is a little scared about his personal saftey if we leave
Please, check out the ad itself, in its entirety! I posted the link to the ad in my article, and cut-and-pasted their site's text WITH LINKS backing up their statements.
Gen. Petraeus is NOT simply giving a military assessment, as you well know; it is a military person making recommendations to the policymakers (and us) as to what our future policy should be. He is also part of a package that the Administration is pushing in front of it as a human policy shield.
The ad's headline was an (effective) attention-grabber. That's what headlines do. That's what advertising does. When considering the ad as a whole, it is obvious that they are not seriously accusing the General of treason. The substance is sound, and it is defensible in an important policy discussion.
One thing I know for sure: without political reconciliation and progress there will be no end to the violence. It will simply move around to where the troops are not and flow in behind them when they leave. Thus far Iraq shows no interest in ending this mess and fixing things. That's their choice. I just seriously question why our troops have to continue to die for their inaction. I say either do it or get off the pot, but our government needs to set a deadline and begin pulling out troops out if al-Maliki and his cohorts still refuse to act. We can't force them to act, but we can refuse to be there when they drag their feet if it involves more deaths of our troops.
You haven't debated any of their points, Publius. All you did was bash. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
The General knows what he is doing and he must of did something right to be so highly decorated. All you MoveOn.Org supporters, just move on to something that you have some knowledge of, cause you dont have any more knowledge of whats going on in Iraq thank I do. But the Gen. is actually there, so I will believe in what he says.
Get real. Even in the best of circumstances, without the president looking over his shoulder and his career and pension hanging in the balance, he still would have only been able to deliver a 50,000 foot high level assessment.
Do rush,orally , hannity , and other right wing crack pots have to go away also.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Just a reminder......................................
"Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center
There is nobody I've heard to date on any of the many sides of this debate (other than for a few brain-dead knee jerkers and no I don't place you in that camp) who will say with a straight face that they believe there is more than the very smallest chance of "winning" in Iraq in any meaningful way. Even the knee-jerkers will tell you there is no way to win without a political solution. Only Mr. Bush believes anything can be accomplished with absolutely no diplomacy. In that he stands alone.
So people are not saying he's lying.
ModernDay: Nobody is rooting for the failure of America and for more deaths of American soldiers except, perhaps, the Iraqi government. America has already failed to achieve what Mr. Bush said would be achieved and his airy delusions are dead. The best we can hope for in Iraq is sufficient stability to avoid an even wider and deeper civil war, or an all out conflagration of the entire region as one side or the other rushes in to help their own. This is Mr. Bush's legacy. Sometimes I wonder how many generations it will take to repair the harm this man has caused. 497 days.
The ad is demonstrating how a public official - yes, even military officials can be public officials - seems to be manipulating statistics that are contradicted by other reports from OTHER GENERALS. And, that he might be doing it to perpetuate a policy that we have a right to have a say on. Valid ad.
***
MDP: You mean that that was the plan until it became known and the backlash was too great. Yesterday, he said it was his, but it is also acknowledged that it was reviewed up the chain of command. We don't really whether there was input, whether the General just internalized what the WH wanted, or whether this is what he truly believes. (I tend to think the latter, because I think he does realize that - even after a year and a half of "surge", we're still going to be stuck with 100,000 troops there!)
****
Carolyn: Excellent post! Thanks.
No it was the plan because that is always done but the General did not like it. I quite frankly dont care what you think the General is thinking. I believe that we should believe him you dont get to his position by lying and decieving people. The far left has become an embaresment for the United States. They attack everyone who does not agree with them as evil. The hate clouds their judgement an it shows.
News hound –
I believe you are the one that is extreme. It is okay to criticize the report but to attack the Petraeus integrity of is unethical. There is nothing in Petraeus background to suggest he is a Bush Lackey.
You know FREEDOM OF SPEECH , something your bunch has been trying to destroy for 6+ years now.
BTW, the traitor/un-American/move-to-France line is SO 2003-04 - not even the partisan pit bulls (Rush, Sean, Bill, Savage, etc, etc, etc) have been using it. Perhaps, because a solid majority of AMERICANS believe that we need to be getting out of the mess that the Republican Admin got us into in Iraq. (Also, you should note that the ad came out AFTER Gen. Petraeus had been giving interviews last week about his coming report.)
Further, to put a general - who is a public official taking a public stand on an important public debate - on an untouchable pedestal is just wrong. He should be accorded respect just as all of us should; however, he knows that he has to deal with the slings and arrows of public criticism. It is one of those freedoms we (usually) fight for.
Parenthetically, the ad is also NOT "just because (they) don't agree with him." It is because they believe - again, legitimately believe - that his report was manipulating statistics to lead to a foreordained conclusion. Their ad showed their basis for disagreeing very clearly and honestly.
The issue is reflected in Sen. Warner's question to Gen. Patraeus. Is the current strategy making the U.S. safe? Patraeus couldn't answer. He said he didn't know, and essentially hadn't thought about it.
That's the issue, for anyone on the "left" to stay focused on - if that's not asking too much!
Why wasn't this Bush mouth piece sworn in. Why didn't Petraeus take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If Westmoreland...I mean, Saint Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in?
Petraeus is a bigger liar than Colin Powell. He ad verbatumed Bush to every crossed 't' and dotted 'i'. In fact, I suspect that it was Bush wearing a mask...but, I know it was just another Bush 'dummy'.
Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping. That's a flat out lie.
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. (New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07) And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front. (Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07)
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. (ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07) But, who gives a shit about Iraqis anyway.
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." In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press (Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi Civilians Killed In August," 9/1/07) and the Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi Civilian Deaths Climb Again," 9/1/07).
For the troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year. (Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07).
NBC, Wall Street Journal reported Petraeus claim of reduced violence without noting contrary evidence. Several media outlets covering Gen. David Petraeus' September 10 congressional testimony reported without challenge statistics Petraeus presented to support his claims that the U.S. troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. But Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports -- findings these media outlets did not report.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709120001?src=other
You have to love CNN.com. On one side of the main page is the headline under "Politics" - "Iraq hearing could bolster Bush policy." And on the other side is a poll where 63% of those voting said they did not agree with Petraeus' assessment of Iraq. So who is being bolstered by the hearings? Not the American people.
Remember this is the same General Petraeus,
who vouched for the lie that we had found the WMD biological labs way
back in 2003. He has floated to the top of the administration scum
pond precisely because he was practically the last military man of
rank who would parrot according to the administration's bidding. They
might as well have Tony Snow deliver the report to Congress.
Okay, Petraeus, you've delivered the goods like a good little Stepford trooper...now move along. The American public is not as stupid as the General and his Boss think they are:
If a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll is any indication, a majority of Americans weren't among that crowd. They had already discounted whatever he would say -- I doubt the ambassador even registered -- as "exaggerated" and "a rosier view" than reality dictated before his face and that chest full of ribbons hit the TV screens. ("Just 23 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents expected an honest depiction of conditions in Iraq.") This was simple good sense. What exactly could anyone outside of Washington have expected the general -- who had a hand in creating the President's "surge" strategy, is now in charge of the "surge" campaign, and for months has been delegated the official administration front man for what was, from day one, labeled a "progress report" -- to say? An instant online headline caught the mood of the Petraeus moment while his first round of testimony was still underway: "Gen. Petraeus Sees Iraq Progress." Ah, yes…
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174835/the_petraeus_moment
"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. (New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07) And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front. (Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07)"
Funny they wrote that before his actual report. He addressed the shot in the back of the head and he said there was no such thing used.
"Petraeus presented to support his claims that the U.S. troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. But Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports -- findings these media outlets did not report."
Because he was able to use five weeks of extra data, the most recent five weeks. When you surge you see causlaties go up before they go down.
U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".
Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.
The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.
The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."
By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.
Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Looks like Admiral Fallon and MoveOn.org are on the same page on Bush frontman, Petraeus.
Military.com, for instance:
http://vote.military.com/military/bio/userletter/?letter_id=1411258431&content_dir=congressorg