Gen. Petraeus is now being called "General Betrayus" as he readies himself to present a misleading report...

Question

about the progress of bush's war in Iraq to Congress. Though disrespectful, is the nickname "General Betrayus" an appropriate one for the tool of the neocon war party that will testify before Congress soon?

Answer 1

Typical liberals can't listen to or articulate an issue, so they simply resort to name-calling, thinking that suffices in place of a coherent argument.

(Because most times they don't know why they hate someone, just that they've been told to by moveon.org and George Soros. Why do you think they started that childish name before he even said anything?).

Answer 2

It's truly sad that the democrats will go slow low as to trash the reputation of a great man like General Petraeus. The funny thing is these scumbags actually voted unanimously to have him give the Iraq report. He was considered by all to be neutral and deserving of the position. Now that he has revealed the real situation, in contradiction to what the liberal media spews 24/7, he is an unreliable Bush puppet that cooks the books.

Oh and the ignorance of Kate J is painful to read. She tries to criticize conservatives but look at who supports and endorses these types of groups like moveon.org etc. You will NEVER see a conservative come close to making even half of the comments made by these leftist nuts.

Answer 3

I did my thesis on Expected Utility Theories, however, I do not claim to be any kind of expert in this war.
I am curious though...the Senate did approve General Petraeus and now that he is posing his position on the current conditions that same group is now voicing their opposition to him. WHY? Is it because it doesn't fit in with THEIR agenda and what they want to claim to their electorate?
Don't fall for any one particular voice in this matter. Hear him out and think....does he have the media savy that these Senators do to "spin" the truth? I seriously doubt it.

You may be correct, and time will tell the evidence, but don't be too quick to believe any ONE media out take such as the NY Times. You're probably too intelligent for that anyway, but just in case you slipped (as I can do from time to time), read various reports before calling anyone a traitor.
Thanks

Answer 4

steveo 1. your question shows your intelligence.
2. what was misleading about the report?
it amazes me how liberals will attack heroes of this of country to stress their twisted view point. I understand why people don't like war I am not a fan of it myself but when I see people call our heroic vets names and lie about them i must say it borders on treason and seems to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I have debated liberals left and right and every time I see such disdain for this country. Disagreeing with President Bush is one thing I disagree with him on some issues but when they show such hate for their own country it sickens me. steve just tell me what was misleading about his report. Also remember most democrats voted for the war. And don't get in the usual he lied it doesn't fly, for several reasons Clinton himself said they had proof that Iraq had WMD's when he was president, Hillary also reiterated this.

Answer 5

I strongly disagree. It is a ridiculous attempt to discredit him without using facts, logic, or reason. It weakens our argument. Today could have been a healthy debate about the war and what we are going to do to bring troops home, and what we need to do afterward in Iraq. Instead, we are talking about an attack made on someone who has dedicated his life to serving his country, who constantly places his life on the line to do what his country is asking him to do. No, I don't approve of the war. But I do approve of the troops. This name-calling and slandering of Gen. Petraeus is the first step on the slippery-slope of blaming the troops for the war. It's not the troops fault. They are just doing their job to the best of their ability. God, this tactic made me sick and ashamed today. It sounds like something a Republican would stoop to to distract the public from the real issues.

Answer 6

Know this" world war 2. they called it Roosevelt war. Now you call this war Bush's war. I would like to see all you people get your wish.Then after another 9/11 attack and masses of people killed. Then who will you blame?The way I see it you can blame yourself and the people like you if your not killed to. Your kind of people are the best friends the terrorist have.

Answer 7

Is that the Democrat line now? Don't even listen because it won't support their view? I could understand if they at least gave a listen but they already had their minds made up regardless of the facts. If the surge works, it hurts the Democratic Party. THAT is the issue. Nothing else to them even comes close.

Answer 8

Well let's hear him out. I am not optimistic, but sometimes these guys will let us read between the lines.

Personally, when I hear "next summer" what I really hear is 9 months X 100 dead soldiers = 900 more wasted lives on this debacle.

That's why I'm pissed. The government is "saving face" while people lose their arms and legs.

Answer 9

I just saw the General Petraeus interview and listened to snippets earlier. There was no partisan crap or towing of the Republican partisan line.

You and the Democrats are a disgrace to this county. The Democrats even voted to have him take over the war. How dare you impune the integrity of someone who has EARNED the kind of respect the General has.

What have you done for your country? Other than sling mud?

Answer 10

He wrote the report, DOD did not and the President didn't. the General will present the facts as he sees them. When have you been to Iraq to see what is really happening or do you depend on moveon.org for what you think?