THe Democrats attacking Petreus.

I'm really baffled by the left/democrats attacking General Pentreus like they are. Moveon.org put a pull page add in the NYT today, accusing Petreus of betraying the United States. Its really confusing because the democrats unanimously confirmed the General! Why would they do that, than turn around dand make him seem liek the worst general in history? Why doesn't the media ask any of them to explain that?

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Dronetek]

I know why. Because they disagree with him. He doesn't fit their agenda. And the left wing media isn't going to hold them accountable. Playing politics with other politicians is ALMOST excusable. Playing politics with someone who is THERE, and has THOUSANDS of lives in his hands is just plain wrong.

could someone explain this "left wing media" to me?

The problem with Bushes Generals in Iraq is that they are all going to please their commanding in Chief and boss.

Even if that means misleading the American public while lying for Bush.

Because if they don't their careers will be over, a long term careerer General is just like a politician.

Instead of siding with the American people and telling the truth no matter how ugly it may be.

reply to post by marg6043


Wrong.

I know plenty of military people (it's not just generals who want to "advance their career") who completely disagreed with Clinton on the whole Kosovo thing. Pleasing the Commander in Chief is not why Generals do what they do...at least not in a case like this. You people talk like they're robots...they're human, and if they don't think it's worth being there, do you really think they want to send more soldiers to their deaths? You'd be really surprised, but more often than not, "higher ups" in the military look out for their troops, but they also understand that what needs to be done, needs to be done.

As far as left wing media explaination, just look at Fox News, then think about them being PRO hillary/obama/edwards. Fox = Conservative; Everyone Else = Liberal. It's not rocket science. They all have an agenda.

Originally posted by scientist
could someone explain this "left wing media" to me?

Well, you know how Foxnews is obviously biased to the right? Other stations like CNN and MSNBC are obviously biased to the left.

As far as left wing media explaination, just look at Fox News, then think about them being PRO hillary/obama/edwards. Fox = Conservative; Everyone Else = Liberal. It's not rocket science. They all have an agenda.

Exactly, it always amazes me when I hear people rail against Fox, but totally deny that the other stations are completely biased in the other direction. I try to explain that the medias left wing bias is what created Foxnews in the first place, but they are so caught up in their own little world that its impossible to get through.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem with Bushes Generals in Iraq is that they are all going to please their commanding in Chief and boss.

HE WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED BY DEMOCRATS.


Keep reading this, than answer the question.

Jaruseleh

Is nice to Know many military people, but me well I spend 22 years with my Marine husband now retired and working for the Department of Defense.

So I guess I can pretty much talk about military personnel, don’t you think, I even worked among them.

My husband was a career Marine.

Dronetek

It does not matter if Democrats or Republicans appointed him, this about his job, and what is at stake.

Taking into consideration the Generals that had early retirement when they did not agree with Bushes policies and the conflict in Iraq.

Nevertheless, like the title of this thread said, Democrats attacking Petreus, so I should had know what is about, is about Thread attacking Democrats.

Enjoy your bashing and have a good day, BTW this thread should be in politics, not conspiracy here, just a good ole political bashing.

I was in the military as well, so yeah, I know how things go too. I do know that officers always want to please their higher ups, but I'm sorry, nobody WANTS to be in Iraq, from the lowliest grunt to the highest general, but they also understand that there's a mission to accomplish, and if you're the spouse of a marine, I'm sure you understand that they take EXTREME pride in accomplishing their mission.

Here's the problem: Everyone assumes the worst about Iraq, but no one knows what's been done over there other than the people who are there doing it. I don't think anyone claims things are peachy there right now, but progress IS being made. Maybe it's not moving as fast as everyone would like, but 11/18 goals is much better than 0 or 1 out of 18. Things are moving forward, and if we pull out, everything that was accomplished (and yes, a LOT has been accomplished despite what you read in the news) will have been for nothing. All the loss of life will have been for nothing. The last few years will have been for nothing. I guess what I'm getting at is that people that are shouting for us to pull out don't seem to care about the progress that has been made.

I would implore everyone to google search something along the lines of "Progress made in iraq" or "Good things in iraq" So you can see that there is much more happening there than killing, bombing, and destruction.

Petreus runs the risk of becoming another Westmoreland.... he could never bring himself to buck the white house.

This so-called progress report has been written by the white house for him and he has two choices, read it verbatium, or tell the truth. There have been enough reports released lately that totally contridict the white house line and they can't all be lying... can they now?

Left-wing media is a right wing catch phrase and has less meaning than a brand slogan. Most if not all the media is owned by a few large corporations who by necessity have a vested interest in the status quo and the status quo is not liberal by any means.

reply to post by Jaruseleh


The problem is that the mission was accomplished by the military standards.

What Iraq is now is not the fault of the military but the agendas of the ones behind the military actions in that nation and the region..

Now Iraq is caca due to corporate greed, deceptions, disregard for the desires of the Iraqi population and the pushing of a government that is not what the population of that nation wants Petreus will say what is good for the ears of the politicians he serves, to the American people that the politicians wants to sell this war too, and from a military stand point is not much he can do, after the actual mission was accomplished, our military is not trained on the affairs of nations rebuilding and never had to deal with a cultural mess as the one only found in the middle east.

If you will note that interviews (by NPR and other sources) with Iraqi's living in Baghdad and other areas asking whether the so-called surge is working, get a resounding NO... but hey what do they know?

reply to post by marg6043



Let me ask you this quesion: Which do you think would have been better? The U.S. hammering Iraq with Shock and Awe, then leaving having declared victory, OR The U.S. hammering Iraq with Shock and Awe, then sticking around to help rebuild/stablize the country?

Most people's answer would be "we shouldn't have done it in the first place", but hindsight is 20/20 and almost EVERYONE wanted us to do it, so don't use that as an argument. There was overwhelming support for it in the beginning. Given that, which of the 2 options above do you think would have been the better course of action?


[edit on 10-9-2007 by Jaruseleh]

There was overwhelming support because we were bull hooeyed into it:

with hints of connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11,

and with threat of non-existent WMD.

We were told we would be welcomed as liberators and all that nonsense when any 5th grader with access to a history book could have told you what was going to happen.

I am not a johnny come lately to this, I was out protesting not so curious george's splendid little war right from the start and had insults and eggs thrown at me for it as well.

reply to post by grover


You didn't answer the question. The fact is that whether or not you agree with WHY we went there, we did it. Once again, given that, which would have been the better choice for us? Blow 'em up and leave? Or blow 'em up and help rebuild?

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
reply to post by grover

 

You didn't answer the question. The fact is that whether or not you agree with WHY we went there, we did it. Once again, given that, which would have been the better choice for us? Blow 'em up and leave? Or blow 'em up and help rebuild?

Neither was an option to being with. We bungled the whole thing right from the very beginning. We should have never gone in in the first place but failing that we should have never attempted an occupation, we should have set up a government asap and left.... but you see that was never our plan.

Look how quickly we set up a government in Afghanistan; that should have been the model.

After 9/11 we needed to go into Afghanistan and we did a good job of it, pretty much.

But we blew all international good will and assistance we might have been able to garner by the way we went about Iraq.... bush minor was going to have his war come hell or high water, that was obvious then, just as it is obvious now that there was and is no intention of leaving, or else we would not be building those massive bases or that huge embassy.

In the long run it will be the Iraqi's who will force us out. Just like they did the British in the 20's and 30's.

well, why bother setting up a government that would immediately fail if we leave? Might as well just hammer 'em and leave 'em. However, if we'd have done that, Iraq most definately would have turned into a breeding ground for terrorism (more so than now), and the world would hate us even more than they do now.

So you see, we really had no choice but to occupy...Attacking them in the first place had a lot more to do than just WMD's...they were firing at us in no fly zones, attacking allies (Israel...but whether we should even be allies with them is an entirely different thread. lol), disobeying the U.N., etc...and this had been going on for 12 years since the first Gulf War, and the U.N. did NOTHING to stop it. Contrary to popular belief, we DID give them numerous chances, including a state of the union address by Bush saying quite clearly "THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE". So it's not like we were just dead set on attacking them...we offered a peaceful solution many times before attacking.

I'm getting off topic, though...agree or disagree with WHY we attacked, we had no choice but to occupy, and try to straighten things out.

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
...they were firing at us in no fly zones, attacking allies

If all things being equal except that the US had been defeated by Iraq and no-fly zones had been established in the north and the south, the president would be amiss in not trying to re-establish national soverignity over our own air space.

Besides that Iraq did comply, they let inspectors back in (it is a myth that they were kicked out, they left of their own accord just prior to Clinton's bombings after being warned to leave) and Iraq did supply the UN with a massive report on their weapons and what they had done with them in Nov. 02.

Bush wanted this war, he ignored the report and called it false (it was more accurate than the phony sell Powell presented before the UN) and refused to give the inspectors time to do anything at all.

All the way across the board we were the aggressors, and in all reality the Iraqi's have every right in the world to oppose in what ever manner they can our occupation. We would be doing the same if we were occupied.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by grover]