Hardball: General Petraeus Doesn't Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer
By Logan Murphy Tuesday Sep 11, 2007 10:50am
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared in front of the Senate Armed Services committee to give testimony on the U.S. mission in Iraq and President Bush's surge and as Hardball host Chris Matthews put it, ran into a bi-partisan buzz saw. MSNBC's David Shuster runs down today's testimony, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel's passionate statements and an exchange between Petraeus and Senator John Warner (R-VA) which produced this stunning statement which sums up President Bush's catastrophic failures in Iraq from beginning to end:
Download | play 
Download | play
Warner: "Does that make America safer?"
Petraeus: "Sir, I-I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind, uh-what I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force Iraq."
As David Shuster points out near the end of the clip, President Bush will have a hard time combating this statement during his speech later this week, as he's expected to quote the general frequently. Four years into this pointless occupation, America should be outraged and disgusted that this is the best answer we can get from our leaders.
Login or Register to post comments.
Well, at least he gave one honest answer.
The bottom line on Iraq: it's the wrong stinkin' country, and always has been.
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Now, how long will we have to wait for someone in DC to admit that?
Bush will have absolutely no problem affirming that keeping our hands in the chipper-shredder called Iraq will make America safer. We've been in Iraq for four years because of his 'instincts' or 'vision' or the little voices in his head.
The usual cast of characters will agree: McCain, Lieberman, Cheney, the propaganda brigade at FOX Brainwashing ...
Outrage? What Outrage?
"Mistakes have been made"
oh yeah
This single question is at the core of the debate. Bush's entire defense for the War Against Iraq is argument that this war makes America safer.
How can we not know if the war is making us safer? This ignorance has a corollary, if we don't know if it is making us safer, then we don't know if the war is increasing the danger.
Hooo boy. It just gets better and better doesn't it? And somehow, despite the fact that Americans are overwhelmingly against the continued occupation, we are spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and the top commander in Iraq doesn't even know if it is doing any good!!!! The assclown in the big seat will say "I've listened to the commanders in the field and over the NEXT YEAR we'll be able to get back to where we were in Jan 2007." It's a con game. Americans know it. And I can only hope Americans will make these assholes PAY in Nov 2008!
He didn't say, "Suck this Jesus," did he?
What can you say about a country where a guy like GW Bush can outfox and outwit everyone?
Enduring FRISTWAR!
He gave an honest answer?
No. The White House handlers didn't prep him for the question.
Gee, where's Karl Rove when you need him.
It's people like Petraeus and Bush, and the rest of these war criminals that are making the entire world much more dangerous.
We've given them great power - and plenty of tools to use and abuse it. Maybe we need to start rethinking all that power in the US federal government. It's like an out of control beast.
That's my rant. Read on if you'd like:
"Leaders Don't Kill People...."
http://www.populistamerica.com/leaders_dont_kill_people
L.A. Confidential @ 9:
What do you say?
You say what I've been saying.
Lock the door, turn off the lights. Done. The American Experiment is over.
Liberal AND Proud @ 11:
That's true. Patreaus will get a case of red ass today from the White House and have to issue a "clarification" with due haste.
This country won't make its 300 birthday. It may not even reach 275.
The New World will become the Nice While It Lasted World.
a guy @ 14:
Bush will soon announce that he has the utmost faith in the job that General Westmoreland Petraeus is doing, and that he has his unconditional support.
Next week, we'll learn who is taking his place.
Where did that War Czar go?
How could starting a war anywhere possibly make a country safer? Gee, attacking Saudi Arabia wouldn't cause the least bit of trouble in the Muslim world would it Bill? One of the main reasons for the trouble in the middle east is because of American involvement in Saudi Arabia. Read Blowback for more info on past sins. Of course you could be like Rudy and just keep on repeating that they hate you because of your freedom.
Oh...and for the record...ONE MORE TIME...he is General BETRAYUS.
The Congress can censure me if they like. Write a resolution. Take a public hissy fit. I don't care.
Ya hear me. I know you're monitoring...so...BRING IT ON. You can hear me right? Right?..2..3..4...is this thing on?
Petraeus: “Sir, I-I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind, uh-what I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force Iraq.”
And what is that mission?
WMDs? None. Mission Accomplished
Get Saddam? Done. Mission Accomplished
Bring Democracy? Elections held. CHECK. DONE. Mission Accomplished.
I believe that covers all of GWB's talking points.
Can we go home now?
Multi-national force? Who is that exactly? Everybody left, and the Brits are just about out?
Does he mean the mercenaries the U.S. brought in? I didn't know they had their own country? Halliburton? Hmmm...we give them the equivalent of the GNP of a small country, so they may qualify on that basis.
Daily Kos has a new diary up. Two of the seven NCOs that wrote the NYT OP-ED criticizing the war have been killed in Iraq. Vehicle accident.
Strawberry @ 21:
How unfortunate. Such bad "luck".
The U.S. Generals that RESIGNED months ago tried to WARN us.
The ones that actually testified UNDER OATH.
The Bankrupting of our U.S. Treasury, our States, the outsourcing of our JOBS, NAFTA and the allowing of China and other foreign multi-national corporations to own our national debt is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue.
Bush, Cheney, the aligned Republicans and Democrats that support
this pre-mediated policy are the REAL ENEMIES to our Republic.
For an intelligent honest discussion:
Dennis Kucinch will be on the Ed Shultz Show for the entire three hour show.
The Smiths Go To Washington @ 23:
No worries. The Chinese have committed to providing low cost big screen tvs, so we can continue to monitor the stories of the lost white girls.
All is good now. So...no worries.
We'll doubtless hear about al-Qaeda in Iraq, how they take their orders from Osama bin Workin'-on-the-Railroad, how we can win as long as we have the will to succeed, and other tautological favorites. Throw in another, 'I knew America would forget ...' for good measure.
Since this is a speech and not a Q&A, Bush can simply ignore the pink dinosaur in the corner. The media can go on about the pink dinosaur all they want, but I doubt we're going to see a Q&A with Bush any time soon. Just watch the waving flag ... you are getting very sleepy ...
Of course it's made America safer! You haven't seen another attack on American soil, have you? We're whistling to keep the dinosaurs off the White House lawn! And it's working, see? Not a dinosaur in sight!
Just as long as the speech doesn't begin with, "Less than an hour ago, our forces launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran ..."
Ok! Let's pretend that today is the day the dems find a spine. nah! nevermind!
Shadowgm @ 25:
Bush tomorrow night...
"we need to push on. Gen. Betrayus has told us that there is success going on in Iraq, and I bellieve him. I have seen the intelligence. The surge has worked, and we are making Iraq safer. I agree with his assessment, and concur with his decision to reduce troop levels by next summer by 30,000. However, we must be ever vigilant to the fact that we are in a war, and things can change. We must be alert and able to react in times of crisis. This has been a difficult war, but our hard work is paying off. It is only a question of time. Perhaps, two or three more Friedman's and Iraq will be essentially stable. We owe it to the Iraqi people to help them finish the job."
More Indicators that the Busheviks are Precipitating Their "Gulf of Tonkin" Incident to Justify Nuking Iran: British Troops Sent to Iranian Border as U.S. Builds Military Base Next to Iran. The White House is Lighting the Fuse, Just Waiting for the Powder Keg to Explode.
with the army broken, we will probably be forced to use blackwater the outsourced army.
did anyone ask betrayus about blackwater?
I have an idea. What if we turn the TPM's against the current administration. I would urge congress to insist that not enough was being done in Iraq and that if America really wants to fix Iraq and the region, that we re-invade Iraq. Not the Swat team attack the first time around, mind you, but a full on WWII style invasion with 1-2 million troops and an army of engineers and construction workers. First Bush or some other leader delivers an FDR type speech about sacrifice and what a priviledge it is, then we start a draft, when we have 500K new troops we reinvade and remove Maliki, put a dusk to dawn curfew in effect for all non-essential workers, and do this sucker right. This "war" was a fiasco from day one. You don't ignore 30 years of military experience that culminates in the Powell Doctrine, use overwellming force. If they had done this from the start the Iraqiis would never had had a chance to loot their own infrastructure. So Mr. Bush if you are serious about this "war on terror" and Iraq, then you need to repeal your tax breaks, establish laws to forbid profiteering, tax gasolne to the tune of 2 dollors a gallon, tax windfall profits from the oil industry, install the draft, and ask us to do something beside "go shopping".
Personally, I think the general wanted a shot at it and wants to believe he can make it happen. It's not his job to have every answer and whether or not the mission in Iraq is making America safer isn't his domain. His job is to lead an army and win. It's up to our security agencies to determine if what the president has ordered the army to do is being effective. Petraeus as to follow orders as well.
I think accepting the job was a stupid thing to do on his part because Iraq is obviously a lost cause and the more I could distance myself from it the better off I'd be but I guess he figured it was worth the risk on the off chance he might be successful.
Frankly, I think he should be cut some slack and responsibility of this whole fiasco needs to remain with the president. The Iraq invasion and it's on-going aftermath is his baby. He owns it. Petraeus shouldn't have decided to be a jr. partner. That's the biggest thing he did wrong.
It's also possible that he's actually been successful in the regard that Bush isn't ending this war no matter what and if Petraeus had declined Bush may have put somebody much less competent in charge and things could be worse. I know, "worse" is hard to imagine but things are never so bad they can't get worse.
Liberal AND Proud @ 27:
Here is the Dem response...
"We are pleased that the President agrees that the time to begin to bring home the troops is near."
MY rebuttal..."dropping pants...bending over and spreading my asshcheeks"...PPPFFFFFFFFFFFT
at this point bush has no option but to keep this war going untill or if a democrats elected preznit, after all hows he going to fill up his depleated coffers giveing speaches to the brain dead repukes oh he can make a buck or two if we leave now but that would be cut and run and the repigs dont pay much for speaches from a looser who was preznit! bush wants the big bucks!
How exactly would it make us safer by attacking a country that couldn't attack us?
Iraq is a country that TWICE would not defend itself, yet somehow reich-wingers "think" that Iraq was a threat. You f**cking morans [sic].
CafeenMan @ 30:
The General wants to be the Head of the Joint Chiefs. He figures if he plays his cards right, sucks the President's ass, and sells his soul...he'll get that nice fat promotion he wants. You think you get your stars by being a leader? It's like any other career...20% talent...80% brownnosing.
Liberal AND Proud @ 11:
I hope he's having an apoplectic fit in Texas.
JudyLou @ 36:
Don't threaten me with a good time!!! LOL!
with his family.
Liberal AND Proud @ 35:
I absolutely agree. The whole time I was in (10 years) I felt that army leadership was doing darwin in reverse. Bad leaders picked their own replacements who were almost always worse. My guess is that they wanted to remember as being a better leader.
I'm not a Petraeus fan. I don't read about him and don't care about him. I just think that a lot of people are being unduly harsh on him when Iraq isn't his fault. If he's a bad leader he could make things over there worse than somebody better but blaming Petraeus for the situation in Iraq and whether or not the mission makes America safer is like opening pandora's box and then hiring a guy to get it closed and blaming him for not being able to do it when it's your fault for opening it in the first place.
This question should be pointed directly at Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, not Petraeus.
Even though he's a general, Petraeus is still just a soldier isn't he? He follows orders. He may have a personal opinion which differs, like so many others serving in the armed forces, but he still has to do his duty. He'll have to live with his own actions.
CafeenMan @ 39:
I don't disagree. But...there are lots of fall guys in the Bush cabal. You're reputation may get a little tarnished, but the pay is often very good.
This war was over the moment Gen. Petraeus said, "I don't know!"
That was the Petraeus report...
Mug @ 42:
This war will end 24 hours after the draft is reinstituted.
Liberal AND Proud @ 27:
Well, that may be it as written, but it will come out like this...
Al Qaida. Terra, Terrorists. The children. Saddam. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iran. Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iran. Prevail. We will prevail. We know where they are. They are hiding. Osama Bin Laden is on the run. Al Qaida. You see they want to hurt us. The Children. Mushroom cloud. Evildoers. I know, I'm the decider. I hear the voices. That also makes me th Listener. I listen. Then I decide. I make the tough decisions. I make the decisions that no one else will make. Al Qaida wants to kill your children. They hate us, because we go shopping and buy stuff. Shopping. We love shopping. They hate our freedoms. Iran's nuclear program. Mushroom cloud. Al Qaida. Saddam Hussien was a bad man. Terrorists. Terrorists want to kill us. I hear the voices. I know what they are saying. Al Qaida.
Interpreter of Maladies @ 40:
This is known as the Nuremburg Defense.
Tony Snowjob is spreading his cancer in the presser on MSNBC.
What a f**king spinmeister. Someone called him on the fact that the troops were gonna have to come home anyway therefore this isn't a victory for bush and he says that is not true. He also said about (Iraq) that you are assuming this is the same country as last year. Huh? It's apparently his last presser and is giving it all hes got.
What happened to Tweety?
He seems genuinely angry about the war.
I thought he was going to bite that woman from townhall.com the other night.
Did anyone in the hearing ask Petraeus about
the "Six nuclear weapons flying from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana?
Are their Five or Six?
We are counting on the true patriots in the U.S. Military to refuse to execute unlawful orders.
Our Country is not only loosing our soldiers.
We are loosing our precious dollar.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International__Business/Euro_hi...
In the following article, it notes that UK banks are also in serious trouble between 9/11 and 9/19
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/09/cndebt...
Just What is the Shadow Government Billionaire Club up to?
And, despite being asked the question by a REPUBLICAN...it took a clueless Democrat to provide his the opportunity to COVER HIS ASS so Bush wouldn't have his head after watching spittle bearing Matthews have an orgasm over that comment in response to Warner!!! Of course he clarified that at his first opportunity...
Weaseldog @ 45:
And the point is...and WeaselDog is correct...is that military leaders are not supposed to be "amoral". It is within their right to disobey an order which runs counter to ethics, morality, etc.
That is why the Nuremberg defendants were convicted. They could have said NO. There are LOTS of stories, known and unknown, of people who "conscienciously objected" and disobeyed or ignored orders...and were killed for it.
Tony Snowjob is giving his final press briefing on CSPAN-3, but unless you have a really
strong stomach, I suggest you not watch, for he is as usual BSing about how wonderfully
well the surge is going.. Go Away Tony, and do it quick.
Actually, I would presume that a field general wouldn't have an opinion about a national security matter like this. He's thinking about how to deploy his units, under what rules of engagement, to get his very limited job done. Is it interesting that he doesn't have any idea whether this is "making us safer"? No. What is he, the secretary of state? The president? The NSA director?
Of course he has no special idea about the big question. It's irrelevant what the field commander in Iraq thinks about that. Why not ask him, "What do you think of warrantless wiretapping?"
But this is being played up as if Warner's stupid question really got to the heart of it all. Warner will fold and salute the flag like the rest of the big, brave rebels in the Republican caucus.
Weaseldog @ 45:
Not necessarily. The war in and of itself is a crime but if you prosecute one soldier you have to prosecute them all. This war was sanctioned by the president, congress and the american people. The general would have to participate in specific crimes or at least have knowledge of them and not do anything about them. Or maybe not. I'm not a legal scholar. My point is that I don't think they can prosecute the generals for bush declaring an illegal war.
John Warner never asked that question he asked of Petraeus of the President or any of the President's minions. The Gen is not creating policy but only carrying it out in the realm of military action.
So where was Warner and the Republicans when they were the majority in control. Well the majority at the least. Because in control is misleading.
After 4 years of continued failed policy and strategy of the White House. Their answer is to ask for more guns, bullets and bombs that somehow will bring democracy to Iraq. From a political party that was able to tell the Katrina victims in essence, "your on your own". That individual concealed weapons carrying and a totally unrestrained free market driven by greedy CEO's will resolve everything on its own without the help of societal Government.
Yet 4 years of failure and the nerve to want to continue the failure is beyond reality. How many people perpetuate and reward failure to people in their lives. Policy & strategy change should have came 3 years ago when a stalling momentum presented itself. But when this failure was ongoing for a time our President insisted on "staying a course" while he basked in his own little bubble of glory. As Americans were killed and Iraqi's slaughtered. The President just basked in his self pronounced glory. Calling himself the war President.
Jim H @ 51:
The winners in a war write the history. Our country is a rogue nation now. We have bombed civilian targets and civilian populations KNOWINGLY.
Those acts are war crimes.
Liberal AND Proud @ 54:
The mindless war mongers in this country may not LIKE those facts, and they may call me unpatriotic for mentioning them...but they remain...FACTS.
Liberal AND Proud @ 55:
The moment you feel that you need to become your enemy in order to defeat your enemy, you have turned away from the values that made you different then your enemy.
Why this is not front pages news. This is only the most awaited testimony for the last 6 moths.
"Does that (Iraq occupation) make America safer?”
Petraeus: “Sir, I-I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out ....,"
WTF: Has "somebody" sort this out
Rantler
Like CafeenMan above, I wouldn't have thought that it's Petraeus' place to be considering whether America is safer or not as a result of Iraq. Surely he should be focussed on doing the best job he can with the mission he's been given, rather than questioning the validity of that mission. Not that I have any experience of how these things are meant to work in the military, but I'd think that question should really be put to Gates and Bush.
This exchange between Warner and Petraeus was also highlighted during the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. Judy Woodruff introduced the exchange saying "Warner then asked one fundamental question." I predict this exchange will be remembered as a key moment in the Iraq War in the same way that the Welch-McCarthy exchange was a key moment during the McCarthyism period.
Photo Caption: The lies I'm telling are ONLY this big!
CafeenMan @ 52:
Legally I agree. But at Nuremburg, they did just as you describe and Hitler's Generals who were just following orders in a war that was the will of the people, swung from a rope.
Our treaties and the US Constitution make a case for prosecuting the White House principles and the generals involved. But we don't use those documents anymore.
VIDEO: General Petraeus Doesn't Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer
Petraeus: "Sir, I-I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind, uh-what I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force Iraq."
Isaac @ 59:
Or perhaps it could read..."This is the amount of progress we have made with the
Surge in Iraq since it commenced in late Jan. 07."
Toby @ 57:
What oath do you think that Petraeus swore when he became a military officer? Did he swear to do everything that George Bush told him to do, without question?
Though I can buy your argument for soldiers at the lower ranks, I do not believe that at the highest levels of command, that officers should be amoral, unthinking automatons that follow orders without question. At Nuremburg it was decided that Generals who do this and follow illegal orders, are guilty of war crimes and that the punishment for those war crimes should be execution.
Dr. Matt @ 34:
They wouldn't defend their "country" because they don't view it as such. "Iraq" was created by a drunken Churchill who, like Busholini, didn't understand tribal culture.
Top marks to the neo-cons who have succesfully diverted the debate away from actually pulling out of Iraq by having this surge and then letting people debate wether or not the surge is working, bravo!, hey guess what Bush is going to pull 30k troops out by next summer, ...so there will be the same amount of troops in Iraq pre surge ....whooo
Doggiebobo @ 61:
"I'm THISCLOSE to my next promotion. I just need more time".
"We've secured about THISMUCH of Iraq. The surge is working."
"I was THISCLOSE to retirement, then the President called."
"No. The armor on the humvees should be THIS thick".
"No. The President's skull is only THIS thick".
"I have about THISMUCH integrity left".
look for the respin on this statement to begin at any moment now that someone in MSM has picked up on it. there will definately be a "what the general meant to say" moment. maybe snow job will do it at the daily briefing. it certainly will not be mentions by the boy king. he thinks we are "kicking ass" becasue he landed on a desert ait base with unarmed soldier all around him. who knew the effects of drug abuse lasted so long.
What I haven't seen or heard in the responses to the General's 'report' is that his reply to this question was the only area that resembles the truth. My take is that the man knows that he 'sold his soul' the moment he took the job...he knew that when those that had the job before tried to tell the truth they soon found themselves in 'early retirement'...but he still didn't want to go all the way with the administration and gloss over the role Iraq truly plays in this, so-called, 'War On Terror'. I mean how easy would it have been for him to say, "Senator, to the extent that Iraq has become a, or perhaps the, center of the 'War on Terror', and assuming that the War on Terror is designed to 'make us more safe' then any progress should, therefore, 'make us more safe'...my report today is one of 'progress'." But instead he avoided that answer and, I think, said a lot - between the lines. What a true man of honor would have done is taken that key opportunity to say, 'Folks, let me be be clear...this thing is and has been a mess from the beginning. We never should have taken our eye off the ball of Afghanistan, our troops should never have been put in this situation and the sooner we can bring this crap to a close and get our people the hell out of there, the better.'
He knows that this 'surge' can't be maintained and he, and everybody else, knew it before we started. That's why they didn't run three hundred thousand in there in the first place. They're just playing a stalling game in order to allow this President and Vice President to 'skate' and the Republican Party to still be a factor in November. The problem with that is more and more of the Repugs recognize that their political career is over if they don't make an effort to distance themselves from bush/co between now and November...and if we allow them to get away with it, shame on us. I say 'Just Say NO to Republicans!'
Everyone knows that the Petraeous Report can't be trusted, that it's just another sales job for the Bush admin. And this is just to shore up support for the core conservative GOP. Yet who are these core conservative GOP people?
They are your evangelical churh goers, your pastors, attendees of mega churches. They will continue to support this war, because to them this is the prelude to Armageddon. This is the crusade of the 21st century.
I heard a well regarded pastor in my community last sunday, preaching about the steady decline of Christianity post 911, and the rise of evil powers, Islam, and how, we as Christian, must rise up to our duty to become soldiers of God, in this fight. How we must support Bush admin, regardless of its failings, for he stands up to Islam. Weird surmon to me, and yet he is dead certain about it.
Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
RRrrrrrmmmm wrong size hat.
- JJ
Weaseldog @ 45:
Don't you think the situation in Iraq is *slightly* more nebulous than anything the Nazi's were doing? I'm talking about the situation in Iraq right NOW-- not the reasons we got in there. I can't see sure how trying to secure Iraq is blatantly immoral. Perhaps misguided, but it's not black and white. So I think it's outside of Petraeus' scope to answer whether the Iraq mission is making America safer. That's a question for Bush and Congress to answer to.
Almost two years ago, Bush told us that his job wasn't to win in Iraq, but to maintain it and hand it off to the next President.
Who told Bush that this was his job?
If Bush is just following orders, and Petraeus is just following orders, then who is giving them and who's interests do they serve?
Weaseldog @ 74:
MIB - The MEN IN BANKS!
- JJ
Interpreter of Maladies @ 73:
There was a time when Germany was trying to stabilize France.
If you believe that our mission really is about making Iraq a wonderful democracy and a peaceful nation, then I can see how this argument may fly. But when we look at how we're building walls to imprison neighborhoods in Baghdad, it really looks like we're trying to remake Iraq into another Palestine and keep the population away from the oil.
What we're actually doing, doesn't fit well with what we say we are doing. If we're trying to turn Iraq into a slave state, then we're on track for the mission.
I believed in 2002 that our plan for Iraq was to sow chaos, so that we could slaughter anyone we wanted and take control of the oil fields. We used this formula in South America, and for so long as we were willing to keep the slaughter going, it worked.
It is an odd contradiction, that chaotic systems are fundamentally easier to predict and manage than linear systems. when linear systems break, the results are often completely unexpected. Chaotic systems tend to react with a sort of order that can be statistically managed. In fluid dynamics, linear flows tend to induce drag. They build orders of structure that sap energy.
If Iraq became a peaceful state, then its laws would begin to take hold. The oil industry would have more paperwork, taxes etc... It become subject to environmental laws, regulations, safety codes, etc... Expenses for Halliburton would rise.
Also, the need for extraordinary funding to account for the violence would end.
Chaos = Profit.
Peace = Expenses
JJ @ 75:
Within the Carlyle Group, War is defined as URBAN RENEWAL. They get paid to blow things up and paid to rebuild things. The money is made in the game no matter who wins or looses (He says OUR MISSION/OBJECTIVES IN IRAQ - THIS IS WHAT HE IS REFERRING TO in the video - The Carlyle Group is the project money manager of the URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT - IRAQ. KAOS is required within the financial markets to fascilitate MOVEMENT. The most money is made within the MOVEMENT. Without KAOS there is no profit. There are many other reasons why this so called URBAN RENEWAL project is going on, one is the control of OIL Distribution and EURO/USD for OIL exchange.
There is no money in peace, love and health.
These qualities are very bad for the economy.
- JJ
What's Petraeus doing with his hands?
There they go again, describing the size of Clinton's penis.
DirtyDawg @ 70:
I agree with almost everything you've said. The tragedy is...this is playing politics, and it is playing politics with lives. You're point about not putting in 300 thousand troops instead of 30 thousand is that a CONSCIOUS decision was made about how many of the 30 thousand would die, and what was ACCEPTABLE. Now, I know that casualties and deaths are calculated in any campaign, that is what war gaming and strategy learning at West Point are all about. However, this was an UNNECESSARY war. And that is what allll the hullabaloo is about.
Whether or not we should have invaded, WAS the discussion at the BEGINNING. The demagoguery of the right wing got us into a war we did not need to fight, and which has been proven to be UNJUSTIFIED.
But, now we are where we are. My view. We get out. Whatever group takes over...we then DEAL with...DIPLOMATICALLY. Let's be straight here. We made deals with Saddam, we made deals with the Taliban. We make deals with despots, dictators and charlatans ALL over the world. It is in our national interest to do so. It is NOT in our national interest to invade countries unprovoked.
We had the opportunity to use the Kurds to get Bin Laden. Bin Laden knew this. THAT is why he had the leader of the Kurds killed the week before 9/11. We'll find someone else. THAT is how you do it. You work with proxies. You PLAY THE GAME.
George Bush is a BULLY. He knows NOTHING about geopolitics, politics in general or any idea how to negotiate, deal, etc. He's a FAILED businessman for lord's sake. The man is a MORON. That is why ALLL his policies have failed miserably...even in Texas.
Pull the troops out over the next year. Start to build alliances where we need to. Start to pull allies, whether we like them or not, to our side. Once you build those alliances you can CONTROL them. The Bush cabal SHOULD know this, and I think the old man does. The problem is...his son is an IDIOT.
He wants to keep us there to get props from mouth-breathers like Rush Limpbaugh but admits he doesn't know if we are safer. Daddy party cultism always on the march. Private Betray Us should be ashamed of himself
[...] Crooks and Liars [...]
JJ @ 77:
Can you say "shadow-government"? That is the true masters of this country. I agree it's the MIB(men in banks) that are part of it. Let's see, could it be a little exclusive club called the Federal Reserve Bank? Bilderberg Group comes to mind also.
Betrayus, as well as cheney, bush and all the other christofascists and judeofascists in the administration who got us into this ieological war against Islam do know the answer to the question posed by Senator Warner - "Does that make America safer?"
It is a resounding NO, but they simply don't give a shit, as this was a war about killing Muslims, gaining oil, and personally, getting filthy rich.
Strawberry @ 21:
Sorry to hear that - guess they couldn't fit all 7 into one vehicle. Wonder how the other 5 are going to earn their pine box limo trip home?
[...] General Petraeus Doesn’t Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer But at least Rep. (R) Chris Shays knowswe’re there for the oil. We can’t afford to have all that oil controlled by an unfriendly country. [...]
Jerry @ 82:
Rothchild summed it up quite well.
“Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws.”
Baron M.A.Rothchild
- JJ
About - JJ
One part of my life as a younger man, I served 7 years as a International Foreign Exchange Money Broker. The financial markets have no borders nor boundaries, currencies are products and countries are merely fragmented holding pens for units (people). Corporations are tiny little spokes which along with ever single entity on earth are spokes connected to a very large HUB where few decide its direction.
I could make all your hair stand up straight if I wanted to with stories from within the circle.I left this world because what i witnessed and also my own actions were not pleasing me and contradicted everything about being human. Even though within this circle they the MIB's simply think they are just doing what is normal.
Survival of the fittest. My question was, at what price to all others below us. (earth)
In God we trust! ;)
- JJ
From now on, I will refer to General Petraeus as the "Surgin' General." :)
"Four years into this pointless occupation, America should be outraged and disgusted that this is the best answer we can get from our leaders."
Actually, I think Americans should be somewhat pleased that they finally got an almost straight answer of enormous import. They should be outraged at the implications in the answer.
Bill in Chicago @ 1:
What a great insinuation. Care to give any sort of incontrovertible proof that everything else he said was dishonest? You and MoveOn.org have moved past sane skepticism into loonylandia.
Petraeus is an honest broker. Using his testimony against Bush is more than fair game, it's warranted. You can disagree with his hearing testimony. But to question the man's honesty in such a knee jerk response shows that you're not anti-war, you're anti-military.
Petraeus is a stand up guy and honorable. Your accusation only dishonors your own self.
CafeenMan @ 39:
Thank you for the sanity. The C&L comments have really become increasingly shrill since my last visit, and reading your comment was a breath of fresh air.
Bush has served up a shit sandwich to the country and the military. Insofar as Petraeus wanting more time, its because he hopes he'll be able to pick out more shit before we have to eat it. While he and our men and women in Iraq are picking out the shit, more is being shoveled into it. (OK, maybe it's a shit falafel.) The question is, is it being shoveled in at a faster rate than it is being picked out? Under the escalation (surge is a spin word) it seems like we are getting a very slight edge. But the surge is impossible to maintain, and both the Iraqi government and our own has dithered instead of taking advantage of the breathing space.
Making alliances with the Sunnis in Anbar is secondary to the main mission of political reconciliation. At best it is supportive, at worst it is a preparation for the worst case scenario of all out civil war dragging neighboring countries into a regional war. While a strong Sunni militia might mean a bloody civil war, it might also prevent sectarian genocide. Turning the Sunni sheiks against AQIM (Al Qaida in Mesopotamia) is tertiary (an makes for good PR), but really it was just a matter of time before the Iraqi Sunnis got sick and tired of AQIM. Arming the Sunnis is really to counterbalance the Iranians arming the Shiite militias.
I'm sure none of this makes any sense to the less intelligent out there that need their knees to do their thinking (if you agree jerk your knee twice, if you disagree jerk it once). The bottom line is that we need to get out completely by next summer, not just return to pre-escalation levels. Give Petraeus everything he wants, so long as we're out by next Labor Day.
The take the billions we would be spending in Iraq and put it into renewable energy. Renewable energy isn't just a Save-the-Planet Greeny Issue. It's a National Security Issue.
Dr. Acula @ 66:
You've been studying your history, I see! Excellent point that gets totally overlooked. It's not 100%, but clearly, the average Iraqi's conception of Iraq and his part in it are very different from how most of us view nationhood and nationality. The average Iraqi's main allegiance is to something other than his "nation" or an idea of his nation, such as it is.
And the question was..."Does that make America safer"...
And the good general was flummoxed, couldn't say either way... that "I don't really know", was probably the only real unfiltered truthful statement he made....
OK Gen-rul, can't answer that? fine, I'll take a stab at it for ya...
NO!.........We're not safer here in America today and won't be as a result of this surge shit.....There, it really wasn't that hard to figure out Gen-rul........................JD
Christ, who does know if "the surge" has made us safer?
One of the few honest remarks by Petraeus.
ysbaddaden @ 8:
Oh, puh-leeze!! Leave the Hollywood hype out of this! Petraeus' utterances are far more damaging to our nation AND the world.
Has anyone else taken issue with Petraeus' constant use of the term "multinational"?! How disgusting that he continues this fallacy! We want OUR children home NOW!!!! Take our babies OUT of harm's way, and send humanitarian aid to the Iraqis we've displaced or wounded.
[...] Petreaus, when asked by Senator Warner if America was safer as a result of the Iraq occupation, would not and could not say yes. If not, then why are our kids [...]
[...] up his “rosy scenario” testimony to Congress earlier in the week. While admitting that he didn’t know if the war on Iraq had made America any safer he neglected to point out that his “rosy scenario” testimony painting parts of the [...]
Login or Register to post comments.