Answered By: sha sha Sharonna - 9/15/2007 |
|
Answered By: John C - 9/15/2007 |
|
Think about this, people who are complaining that the military isn't working are people that 90?on't have any military experience, only know what little bit about the military from watching old world war 2 movies, and stuff on History channel, or playing pc war games. How can these people make comment on real military works?
Answered By: GIOSTORMUSN - 9/15/2007 |
|
There is no doubt that the General is an honest and intelligent man. He has given his report to congress as ordered and they basically call him a liar. So if one of these Democrats actually do take office as president, where will they get their military advice from? No doubt they would want a special investigator who is also a draft dodger to provide them with military facts.
Answered By: sfc_ollie - 9/15/2007 |
|
..."any" man in the Military of the United States of America who has attained the rank of "4" Star General and served this Country as General Petraeus has is not a liar... if you need an example of a liar review the testimony of William Jefferson Clinton during his hearings before Congress in 1998.
Answered By: SirWilliam - 9/15/2007 |
|
No Brainer, who would you follow into some deep ####?
A Military officer or some airhead with a great doo clutching a microphone?
Answered By: vladoviking - 9/15/2007 |
|
There are quite a few Generals who don't agree with Patraeus.
In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.
Publicizing his book, "The Battle for Peace," in a recent "Meet the Press" appearance, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption." Another Marine, retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Finally, Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.
Now, on CNN, Maj. Gen. John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Washington Post reported that Batiste, commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq during 2004-2005, turned down a third star and a tour in Iraq as the second-ranking U.S. military officer there. He retired rather than continue to work for Rumsfeld.
Answered By: Middleclassandnotquiet - 9/15/2007 |
|
DEFINITELY the good General Petraeus. And this makes one thing VERY CLEAR about Hillary's candidacy: since she did not refute the MoveOn.Org add smearing the general's name, what kind of commander-in-chief would she make if she would not even believe her own generals who are NON political in their evaluations of combat situations?
Answered By: Mike - 9/15/2007 |
|
'If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.'
Answered By: zackadoo - 9/15/2007 |
|
Sadly this correlates to Vietnam.
A year before the withdrawal the president and government knew it had to be done. If they had acted at that time many lives would have been saved. Instead they toughed it out and played out the debacle on the world TV screens.
Bush is just repeating history!!!!
Answered By: Oracle - 9/15/2007 |
|
This is a hard question //
But I don"t trust any of Them
It s a no brainier to NOT to trust the media ,and bush the rest ?
Answered By: rose g - 9/15/2007 |
|
General Petraeus by far but I also think he looks threw the eyes of a military leader who does not like to fail.
Answered By: Lexi - 9/15/2007 |
|
I'd believe General Petraeus over the American hating self-loating lefties of the NY Times and other leftist newspapers and television media anyday.
Hope US servicemen/woman read this blog. They will know
majority of US citizens support them and their leader.
Answered By: Bill - 9/15/2007 |
|
The general is a great guy doing his job. he is honest and couragous if you like a butt kissing yes man !!!!!!!
However
ballocks.. the war in iraq is lost and has been for some time. if GW BUSH keeps up this luniucy the GREAT US of A will go down in bankupt flames. this all because of a junior style dictator named Bush. As he is used at the end of his puppet masters strings.
the soldiers are great people doing a very tough job in a battle they are looseing rapidly.. just a little longer are the famous last words of all the indesissive leaders who have no idea how to win a war they have no idea how to fight,
i love americans and thier country as i love my UK and our soldier who fight G W BUSH's folly.. if you believe what BUSH's government and his plan has to say then you must be in the 28.7?ho still follow is meandering train of thought and deception through this plan with no vision or ending.
this is fast becoming the USA's afganistan as it was for the USSR
Answered By: Calum A - 9/15/2007 |
|
I would believe Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), who told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little c*********t."
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...
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.
Answered By: Richard V - 9/15/2007 |
|
Who do you believe, General Petraeus or his commanding officer, the director of Middle East operations?
Who do you believe, General Petraeus, recently-installed to run this surge, or the government reports that have come out saying the Iraqi government has failed? Petraeus admits this is true.
Also, General Petraeus wrote an article in 2004 saying the Iraqi insurgency was almost over. He was dead wrong.
Answered By: MrPotatoHead - 9/15/2007 |
|
Yes, but look at General Westmoreland during Vietnam. We had to artificially increase the body count to show the folks back home that we were making progress. I have been skeptical of what I hear from Generals ever since then. I do support the troops because my child is serving in Iraq.
Answered By: jake - 9/15/2007 |
|
General Petraeus was merely acting as the mouthpiece of an utterly discredited President who has dragged America's name to the lowest point it has ever been and d**n near destroyed it's economy in the process.
What I find most alarming is that there are still a few gullible people prepared to back Bush despite the damage he's done.
I am not saying America should simply pull out, they've caused untold damage, killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and created a political vacuum into which religious fanatics and assorted maniacs of all kinds have eagerly moved determined to make life even more unbearable for the ordinary Iraqi's that the "Coalition" has already done.
If they leave now there will be a bloodbath and Iraq is likely to be completely destroyed. The least they can do is try and rebuild Iraq and create a semblance of normality before they run away.
Answered By: tomsp10 - 9/15/2007 |
|
Possibly neither are right trust me mate Iraq isnt working and I know my mates have been killed out there and its got nothing to do with the "left wing media"
iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until it was invaded now its full of it
lets hope America dosent pull out now otherwise many ppls valliant efforts dont go down the s**thole becasue of voting in the american houses
PS try to work out im not agianst the troops or Patriots etc before you rate my answer
Answered By: skippy12345 - 9/15/2007 |
|
Well, since you put it that way--
A series of INDEPENDANT studies and reports--by other generals and high ranking officers--all contradict Petraeus.
So does Admiral Fallon--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Petraeus lied--and betrayed the best interests of the men and women serving under him. But the cons don't whant to hear that--because they don't give a rat's a-- about the troops, or this country--only about "killing muzzies."--and of course, worshipping their little tin god in the White House.
moveon.org didn't go far enough--Petraeus should be cort-martialed for lying to Congress.
Answered By: crabby_blindguy - 9/15/2007 |
|
They will do anything to belittle the good General. This is why anyone who pays attention has to believe him over the media.
It's amazing to see jerks seriously MISquoting retired Generals and, of all people, Admirals! You would think they would know Admirals work in the NAVY.
What is worse is the extent to which the mis quote and literally lie about the facts. They take a mildly diagreeable comment about other things add a few lies and bingo, total crap.
Saying an Admiral disagrees with something is totally appropriate. But with the outrageous BS spin they add it's plain abuse. These extremists are the problem with Y/A.
Answered By: gulp! - 9/15/2007 |
|
I do beleive that Petraeus is an egotistical, thinks he is, trying to make a name for himself on the corpses of his dead comrades. The surge is woking ? Ha! Ha! Take a look at the casualty figures for August they are on the up not the down. As to winning this campain, No Way. Read your history books. No occupying force has ever won. So go home and leave them to sort out the mess YOU have made. We in the rest of the world don`t have to beleive all the B/s that comes out of the American Administation. Have you ever given thought to paying for all the damage and distuction you cause with your bombs and shells!
Answered By: Terry M - 9/15/2007 |
|