THe Democrats attacking Petreus.

The "General Betray Us" ad was perhaps the biggest political blunder in recent memory. At least since I voted for it before I voted against it.

That almost singlehandedly made it impossible for the Democrats to score any points surrounding his testimony, and insured a Bush win on the issue.

It also made the Democratic presidential candidates look bad, because they were the only politicians that were unable to denounce the ad because they're scared to death of MoveOn.org. Even Nancy Pelosi denounced it, but Hillary and Obama didn't. Of course John "Breck Girl" Edwards sent out his wife to denounce it, but hasn't done so himself.




[edit on 9/15/2007 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 9/15/2007 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 9/15/2007 by djohnsto77]

Well, well, well, like I stated before in my previous post, Petreus is nothing more than a Career Politician in Uniform with visions of becoming a presidential candidate by 2012.

Soooooo much for Petreus true self.

reply to post by djohnsto77


I think that you are wrong about that because other than the people who actually saw the ad; or have heard the media talking about it, really know anything about it. And, even then I really think most people, including liberals (like me) and Democrats don't give a rats ass about Move On or any of the other groups like it left or right. Most people want the troops out yesterday and their minds are made up. The fact that Petreus followed the bush line did him more harm than anything. Most people (except for his die hard fans) just tune bush minor and anything he claims out these days as so much noise.

As for the Democrats the reason people like myself vote for them isn't because we like them anymore, jellyfish have more backbone. We vote for them to vote against the Republicans, and for a lack of a viable alternative.

All the Move On ad did is give the right wing talk radio blah blah blahs something to talk about.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well, well, well, like I stated before in my previous post, Petreus is nothing more than a Career Politician in Uniform with visions of becoming a presidential candidate by 2012.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

He's been a career military officer his entire life, I can't imagine where you got this idea from. Is it just your own bias and hate speaking?

There are 2 types of generals; political generals and military generals. Westmoreland was a political general and he lied through his teeth to congress and the people about Vietnam, telling them what his boss (LBJ) wanted.

Patton was despite all his grandstanding, a military general. I seriously doubt you would have seen him giving Westmoreland. or Powell or Peterus' performance. He was the type to call a spade a spade.

reply to post by djohnsto77

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser and spokesman at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, says that Gen Petraeus discussed with him his long term ambition to be president when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-5.

www.opednews.com...

President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition

news.independent.co.uk...

Well until Petreus himself deny the issue as been a lie I guess I will be betting on Petreus for president in the near future, occurs unless Iraq mess happen to affect him and his ambitions.

I wonder how many of the Dems who are launching political attacks on Petraeus voted for the war in the first place ?
The hypercritical nature of most of the Dems and those Republicans who have turned there backs on the war is astonishing.

reply to post by xpert11


Well do not be so hasty I was one of those that fell for the lies of my (at the time was the best president in the world for going after the bad guys in Afghanistan.) however I even sat glue to my TV applauding US troops when they stormed into Baghdad and (liberated the Iraqis).

Yes now I hate this war and the profiteers of this war with passion for what they are doing to our military, the Iraqi people and our nation.

So, yes we all felt for the lies.

Originally posted by xpert11
I wonder how many of the Dems who are launching political attacks on Petraeus voted for the war in the first place ?

Don't forget just voting to confirm him.

He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate -- no one voted against him. But now some key Democrats don't want to even give him time to his job before criticizing him and calling him a failure.

Marg6043 I was against the war even before the WMD fiasco so I don't hesitate to call those politicians out who have done back flips.
Djohnsto77 good point about the not opposing Petreus. IMO the Dems supported his appointment knowing full well that they would use him as a political target later on. Nothing is above politics in the US. The political objectives of the Surge on wont be met on the home front because of how much the anti war crowd want the troops home.

Why do you think that voting to confirm someone means that as a result you have to approve of what he does afterwards? Thats nonsense.

Originally posted by grover
Why do you think that voting to confirm someone means that as a result you have to approve of what he does afterwards? Thats nonsense.

Well lets see here.
The first thing to bear in mind is that IF Petreus is the puppet he is accused of being the dems supported the appointment of such a person. In fact it would reflect badly on everyone around IF the allegations are even faintly true.
Serious allegations require serious proof and not just political mud slinging.

Military leaders need to be able to do there job without political interface this is critical.

This administration has politicized EVERYTHING though.

Congress may be tough on Petreus... but after 6 years of a rubber stamp congress for the bush administration, we have forgotten THAT is what congress is supposed to do.... grilling administration figures and putting their feet to the fire. Its called oversight... its not pretty but if congress had been doing its job over the past 6 years of Republican rule, the bush administration would not have gotten away with as much as it has and possibly we would not be in this mess called Iraq.

There used to be a time believe it or not when parties, both Republican and Democratic not only supported their respected presidents, but stood up to them as well when need be.

Its not a Democrat/Republican thing... they are not supposed to play nice, to play pussy foot with the administration... they are supposed to keep it on its toes and keep it constitutional.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by grover]

To quote myself.... this is the crux of the matter in a nutshell that is being ignored.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Grover don't you see the difference between rubber stamping an appointment and playing political games ?
The dems would have done there homework on this guy and they would have known if he has a backbone , his nature in general and his career. With the troop surge throwing the anti war crowd into a spin the dems chose to play political games for there own gain. If the dems allegations were true the only sensible thing to do would have been to oppose Petreus appointment.

reply to post by xpert11


From what I saw and read it was the Senate Republicans like Warner and Hegel who were grilling him the hardest.

Besides that is it really their job to determine whether the man has backbone or not, or whether he can do the job?

If all things were equal except this was an appointment by a Democratic president, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing.

Originally posted by grover
From what I saw and read it was the Senate Republicans like Warner and Hegel who were grilling him the hardest.

Well its nice to know that at least a couple of people were asking the questions at the right time.

Besides that is it really their job to determine whether the man has backbone or not, or whether he can do the job?

Well with the Bush admin track record of appointing yes men and the allegations that the Dems have made you would have to say that the Dems had a big part in the oversight of his appointment.

If all things were equal except this was an appointment by a Democratic president, the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing.

While that is true but you cant use that logic to defend the dems. I cant stand up in a court of law and say that it was OK for me to commit murder because someone else was going to do it or because someone else had done it.

If you read back through what I have written in this thread it should be obvious that I am not defending the Democrats, I am defending the process.

Neither party does it properly but at least the Democrats are trying which is more than the Republicans in the past six years.

I think that Petreus played both the Republicans and the Democrats very well during the hearings, we must understand that he is after all a politician, he understand both sides enough to make them feel like they both could get what they wanted from him.

Petreus is commander in Iraq, therefore most probably a war criminal. Only a full blown criminal investigation can deliver him from that stench.