It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


McCain, Cheney 'reject' General Petraeus Analysis of Iraq

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by biggie smalls

I appreciate you're willingness to make distinctions, and that is why I didn't say that you specifically had done this. Many others here are perfectly willing to engage in that though.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I used to work for Petraeus. He does not read scripts for anybody, so you can dispel that notion altogether. He is very much a straight shooter.

Yeah you and every other military personnel worked for Petraeus. That tends to be the case with Generals. Everyone is working 'under their supervision.'

I also know of a man who was 'working for Petraeus.' He shot himself in the head after witnessing 2 years of civillian bloodshed without any acknowledgement from the government or Petraeus.

Petraeus is nothing special. He ignores the call for withdrawl from his own troops just like the President ignores the call for withdrawl from his own country.

I am not interested in favoritism or back-patting. Petraeus is acknowleding failure publicly after x+ years of denial.

Maybe we should take that to heart instead of claiming to know the man and further excuse this illegal blunder of a war.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by NewWorldOver

He wasn't a General when I worked for him. He was a lowly Brigade commander. I was close enough to be able to formulate an opinion of what kind of guy he is, and what his character is.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Regardless of the General's past history of denying Iraq's failure.

Do you trust this man's opinion? I sure do. He's in Iraq and has been in Iraq for years.

At this point I'm not so concerned with how complacent he's been with the current Administration. If he wants out, I say listen to the man.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by BlueRaja
What I'm talking about is people cherry picking stories, and changing their tune when they hear something they like. According to most around here, the military leadership are nothing more than a bunch of yes men, who aren't capable of independant thought of their own.

I don't see any changing of tune here, Blue. Just more military protectionism.

We've said from the start that Petraeus and people of his ilk are following agendas. It is their job to reach goals set by the agency... And we've sat back while this is confirmed to us from people within the military.

Nobody in here has declared Petraeus a champion for telling the truth. We have not changed our tune.

He has been denying the truth for years to the public people - that is his job. We have not changed that assertion.

Petraeus himself is admitting that Iraq is not making progress after having been forced to give his scripted report, yet we still have certain 'yes men' out there denying this.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Petraeus himself is admitting that Iraq is not making progress after having been forced to give his scripted report, yet we still have certain 'yes men' out there denying this.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Now you're putting words in his mouth. He never said that there hasn't been progress in Iraq. He said the Iraqis still have yet to meet some political benchmarks. There's a big difference in the meaning there.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Now you're putting words in his mouth. He never said that there hasn't been progress in Iraq.


PETRAEUS: "No one feels that there has been sufficient progress " ...

Seriously. Are we arguing semantics now? I mean, that is usually where we end up whenever we get into Iraq topics, Blue. Or any other thread concerning the military. Why is that? Hmm...

Petraeus admitted that there has not been sufficient progress. This is after having given a report that said otherwise.

I see no reason for obfuscation and denial. Not unless you are simply fighting a political point for the War in Iraq. Bingo.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:01 PM
This is quite a turn-around for Gen. Petraeus from his testimony with Ambassador Crocker on the Hill several months ago. I don't think it is the rhetoric around here that has changed.....

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by NewWorldOver

Would you care to include his whole statement(i.e. the words immediately following progress). He's talking about political progress, not military progress, which has been very successful in Al Anbar. The Marines don't have much mission there any more as it's so quiet, and are wanting to go to Afghanistan where there's work to be done.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:33 AM
So, progress is being made, but goals are not being met? If the goals set to measure progress are not being met, how can progress be claimed? This is nothing more than a prescription for indefinite military engagement in Iraq.

"We are not meeting our goals or our timetables, but we need to stay over there so our goals and timetables can be met." That is the kind of doublespeak that has become the hallmark of this administration.

To use a baseball analogy, this is like attempting to bunt with two strikes, fouling it off for a called third strike and you're out, and then claiming progress because you made contact with the ball.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Purduegrad05

Purduegrad, excellent posts! A couple of stars for ya!

Alternative news, 'McCrazy' (McCain) has FOUR TIMES now, in the last 48 hours, 'misspoke' when equating Al Quaida (sp?) with Iran...he is fomenting, methinks, misinformation. At the behest of the real Commander-in-Chief? Co-incidence that they BOTH show up suddenly in the Middle East at the SAME time???

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Yep---McCheney is nothing more than a carrier of the Bush torch. Same ideologies (or idiotologies), same servitude to the corporate / M.I.C. Elitist scum that have gutted America and have made us the most hated nation on the planet. McStain will carry on that tradition with flying colors, and these same Elitists (along with their puppets, the corrupted MSM) will see to it that he is forced down our throats for the next 4-8 years.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:37 AM
Good God!!! Have we turned back the hands of time completely now! This is an exact replay of Vietnam with the politicians thinking they can run a war better than the Generals......un freaking believable!! I am really starting to think we need to bring back public lynchings with these completely greedy evil manipulative elitist. They don't even try to hide anything anymore...what was Cheney's reaction recently?....when told that close to 80% of the country thinks Iraq was not for the good of the country....his reaction was " So"!!!!!

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

It is contemptible!

Why are we, THE PEOPLE, not standing up and fighting to take back our democracy and our Constitution? I know, I know...there are pockets here and there, and they are considered to be rebellious and therefore a 'danger' to I said before, it all smacks of Germany in the 1930s...

BTW, when I say 'fighting' I am not advocating armed rebellion. I would prefer a pacifist style resistance, along with using the law to our fullest extent. WHY haven't Cheney and Bush been impeached yet? They have both committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors'! What are we afraid of? Our system is being attacked, a rot from within, but we still own this country, unless we allow robber-barons to walk all over us and take it away.

I want to wipe the smugness right off of Cheney's fat, bald face. [adding, by seeing him in shackles and an orange jumpsuit, in front of a judge...]

From the movie 'Network'...I'm mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:39 AM
Of course not.... they have a vested interest in convincing people that it has worked.

It seems that is the Republican strategy for this upcoming election.... convince the electorate that the "surge" is working... and it is probably going to blow up in their faces because of the economy.

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

I thought you might appreciate some news on General Petraeus.

Pelosi warns Petraeus on Iraq testimony

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday “not to put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Its clear Petraeus does not want to be continually used as a pawn by the Bush Administration. As much as he may have been wrong in the past, he says Iraq is essentially a failure, so I believe him (not that I needed his word for it).

I'd be very surprised to hear glorification of the Basra situation. The Mahdi Army and the Sadrists are on a ceasefire, courtesy of government payoffs, which does not mean they're done fighting. As soon as the US and Iraqi military step off the streets, blood wil spill.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying “the terms were probably dictated from Iran.”

Pelosi is a warmonger like the rest of them. She is even worse than Bush at times because at least he's upfront with his bullcrap. She hides behind her democratic turncoat. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Iran is not involved, sorry. And if they are, can you blame them? We're occupying the country right next to them and in the mean time STEALING their oil. The Iran/Iraq oil field has convenient access for the US oil companies to rob Iran's natural resources.

There's no coincidence here, we are there for oil.

“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when it fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.

Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Crocker, the U.S. ambassador, will make their return to Capitol Hill on April 8 and 9 to deliver their assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

Exactly, Sadr and the Mahdis make the final say in Iraq these days. They are the ones with the true power. I don't see any progress being made unless these groups come to an agreement, and that will not happen with the US' help.

General, tell the truth and the bureaucrats will rip you apart. Lie and the American people will.

Who do you want to anger?

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:31 PM

Originally posted by johnsky
Do they really still believe that the "Say a lie enough times and people believe it" stuff still works?

The country can see past that now!
And he's still denying it... omg, this is rich.

Here's 2/3rds of the United States who are opposed to the war.
Cheney replies with "SO?"

Here's General Petraeus, THE Commander in Iraq, as in, Petraeus, the guy who knows more about what's going on in Iraq than anyone in office!!!!
And Cheney tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about! That the war is going swimmingly?!

Get Cheney out of there NOW, he's way too incompetent to be allowed anywhere near the upper government echelons. Remove him before he drools on something! He's going to get more people killed.

This war has ended up like vietnam all over agan, on so many levels.

I puked a little bit in my mouth when I read Cheney actually said this..
"President obviously has the biggest burden"

see the transcript below..


posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by NewWorldOver

I used to work for Petraeus. He does not read scripts for anybody, so you can dispel that notion altogether. He is very much a straight shooter.

I think people don't realize that military commanders can be marginalized by the commander in chief. Most haven't had first-hand experience with command and control types, so they have never seen a situation where someone's opinion becomes separated from reality and given over to the leadership. Military history books are full of commanders who could not escape the reputation the press-core (the political machine's minions) were given to attribute to them.

And of course, since the press is fair and balanced (we know this because the administration and the press say so) whatever editorializing is carried out by the them becomes public gospel. Military leaders in the public eye are, in most instances, tools to keep the inquisitive distracted, or outraged. Powell was victimized too, but that's not to say that he and Patreus may not have brought it on themselves. But that is a debate for another time I suppose.

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by JanusFIN

General Petraeus, and a many others like him, as well as Fallon, have been telling Bush since BEFORE the war began that the policy would end in chaos. Why are we expected to believe Bush and Cheney? Why don't they just stop coming out and speaking to the nation? They're idiots to think that people are buying this crap. Their refusal to hear a view opposing their war is an OBVIOUS example of their contempt for basic human rights, our Constitution, international laws and treaties that have kept us from TOTAL war FOR 50 freakin' years. And now where are we. What has happened to America. When did we lose the yearning for civility and freedom we rode on for 226 years? Why doesn't that sacrifice mean anything anymore? We are we?

I guess on this path, we will never know our potential.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Cheney, like the Decider, lives in his own bubble-world reality where he sees only what he wants to see, no matter what the facts may really be. And now it appears McInsane, the next war-monger in chief being groomed for the oval office, is poised to carry on that tradition.

Oh! I just had a TERRIBLE thought.

If they can diebold McInsane into the White House, who would be likely to be tapped by TPTB as his vp?

Would cheney appoint himself once again? It wouldn't matter that the people don't vote for long as they have diebold.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in