The other question is...if the issue at hand is whether the USA should continue our involvement in Iraq, why are we waiting for a general to tell us if its time to leave or not? I ask this given the fact that our mission there was to go look for WMD and nukes which we never found. So not only did we never produce the proof that our invasion was valid (the WMD existing..and the threat justify the amount of force), but what is our mission now? when did it change from the dangerous WMD?. We all know we are no longer looking for WMD and nukes anymore.
2007-09-10 05:34:21 · 15 answers · asked by ron j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It seems the mission changes to suit the needs of those who want us over there. If bad things are happening, its a reason to stay, if good things are happening its a reason to stay. If we found WMD suddenly it would be a reason to stay, if we never found WMD it would be a reason to stay. Did you ever doubt the Petraeus report would say we need to stay?
2007-09-10 05:36:46 · update #1
Yes!~!
2007-09-10 05:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by Hunter 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The problem is, people are confusing the White House report to Congress, with General Petraeus's report to the White House.
Congress didn't order General Petraeus to submit a report to them.
Congress ordered the White House to submit a report in September.
As to General Petraeus's testimony to Congress today.
I believe he will tell Congress what he thinks, not what the White House thinks.
Which is, the surge is working militarily, but the political situation has not changed as much as he hoped it would.
But then, I wonder, what this current Congress would have thought about the founders of the US, taking 13 years just to draft the US Constitution.
Would they have complained that they took a ( gasp !! ) vacation every year , during that 13 years?
And then you have people like Senator ( play General ) Joe Biden, who says General Petraeus is flat out wrong, before he actually hears what General Petraeus has to say.
2007-09-10 05:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
customary Petraeus's stronger, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the correct Command (CENTCOM) instructed Petraeus that he seen him to be "an *ss-ok*ssing little chickensh*t" and further, "I hate human beings like that", the components say. That assertion reportedly got here after Petraeus began the assembly by making comments that Fallon interpreted as attempting to ingratiate himself with a magnificent.
2016-10-10 07:40:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is biased. when have you seen a sitting military criticize the commander in chief -- NEVER. None of these military generals spoke a thing when Rumsfeld was defense secretary and when there were serious problems in iraq. throughout they have been painting a rosy picture. when they retire then they start speaking against the president and war. a military general is actually NOT EVEN AUTHORIZED to criticize the president or war.
2007-09-10 12:19:32 · answer #4 · answered by Math 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No....For two reasons.First Rummy got rid of all the dissenting generals before he left the department of defense.Second is the photo op of Bush stopping in Iraq last week!Do you really think it was just for the photo op?Or perhaps it was to make sure he,the general and ambassador were all on the same page?
2007-09-10 05:50:05 · answer #5 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great, A well respected General who was called forth by BOTH sides of the aisle to run the war and now the Dems are trying to discredit him since he doesn't follow them in lock step 100%.
They are not a far stretch from calling the military Babykillers and spiting on them again.
I hope someday that the people of the US would wake up and see how treacherous and traitorous the words of the current Democratic party truely are.
Hopefully before the big attacks start coming and Americans are killed in the millions.
2007-09-10 05:44:13 · answer #6 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Did you ever stop to think that he might not have a political agenda at all, that he might be a good leader is thinking about what would be best for his troops? Pulling out and just letting Iraq fall apart or become a Muslim theocracy would do more to harm the moral of our soldiers than anything. They want to be able to say they accomplished SOMETHING.
2007-09-10 05:41:44 · answer #7 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not a chance.
The only problem is, we have to make an orderly withdrawal and not leave billions of dollars of equipment and weapons over there - at least not any more than our 'contracted employees' have already managed to hand over to our enemy.
2007-09-10 05:37:15 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, in fact, I'm almost ready for the smoke to be blown up my a_s....just need another cup of coffee.
2007-09-10 05:37:48 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The General's job is to give the report as he sees it. His job is not a political one, but a military one.
2007-09-10 05:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by Bego?a R 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
He will say what his boss wants him to say or he will be fired. Simple as that.
2007-09-10 05:49:36 · answer #11 · answered by beren 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋