Petraeus was called a liar by moveon.org, dick turban, and harry reid, saying he is a Bush lacky and cooking the statistics even though there is no proof and Petraeus denies any such thing.
2007-09-10 18:29:02 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Were there any privates from the ground who testified today?
No because if you ask those soldiers they have a much different view than a General who serves at the pleasure of the President!!!
How many Generals has Bush gone through now?????
When the lowest ranking soldier can freely testify his or her opinion before the Congress, then I'll listen!!!
2007-09-10 18:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I would hardly say that those people you have mentioned are a full spectrum of democrats or even independents. Calling a general a liar is as much as calling a politician a liar. Just because you call them a liar isn't supporting your troops. So we are to blindly believe what generals tell us? In that case would be calling Bush a liar be not supporting our troops since he is the comander in chief of the armed services? The benchmarks were set to varying degrees, with a pass or fail grade aplied to them. The Iraqis have had our troops to protect them for long enough. Why is it so hard for them to get their troop levels up to par? Why are we asking our troops to secure a foriegn government that refuses to get their act together, train, arm, and field an army that can stand on its own and provide security from both domestic and foriegn threats to its national security? I don't think thats asking very much of the Iraqi government, do you? My father served in Vietnam, my older brother served in the first gulf policing action, I served during the late 90's and now my younger brother is serving in the Navy. Have you encouraged your children to join the military? Then come back and ask all these questions. Iraq no longer has any easy answers to it. The military is just about to a breaking point. The hardware our troops use is beyond that point. As it stands right now we can not answer to other emergencies if one were to happen. Truth be told we are stuck in Iraq for anytime in the forseable future because Iran would love to fill the power vacum that would be caused if we left. Iraq is a bad situation all the way around and there are no solutions to something that is politics both here and there.
2007-09-11 00:24:57 · answer #2 · answered by Triple 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank you Kirk! The polls and the Democrat senators have disavowed the troops and the President and brought this hearing about to discredit General Patraeus. It was all hype to lower the troops morale, and to try to show the American people how wrong this war is going. People seem to forget one thing and that is our troops, God Bless them volunteered for this duty. Wouldn't we hear more negative comments from them if the Democrats were right? Moveon.org tries to disguise itself as something good which we KNOW it is nothing but twisted truths and lies. Patraeus stood calm and maintained a very professional demeanor, which is more than I can say for the ones harassing him. Those senators looked like fools!
2007-09-10 23:48:44 · answer #3 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Now, you really like to generalize a lot. First off, those are 3 sources, they don't represent all democrats in the slightest. Second, Petraeus doesn't represent all the troops. He's the leader of a large number of the troops. Just like Bush is the leader of all the troops. We don't have to support them to support the troops. We can, and do, hate these guys because of lies they may or may not have told, and that does not reflect on our opinions of the people on the ground.
2007-09-10 18:37:22 · answer #4 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They only say they support the troops, but in reality despise the military. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote on many occasions(Before she became president, and he was first boy) how they despised the military, and Bill's record as president bore that out. Al Gore did his best to cancel the many thousands of Florida (and other states as well) overseas military votes cast in 2000. The only victory that liberals care about is at the ballot box. They will walk over anything, and anybody to this end.....including the military. Liberals believe that all they have to do is say they support the troops, and we will believe them. That's how little regard the liberal elite in this country have for the "commoners"
Remember, move on.org is a front group for a self described self hating Jewish socialist, George Soros. Other front groups for this man include ACORN, and ACT. Both of these last two have recently been fined for election fraud in 2004.
Remember, Patreus was tasked by the Democrat led congress in June 2007 to give this report, but since the report doesn't fit their mold(as in we have to leave now) they all want to discredit it. The funny thing is, I bet that Hillary will stay some what silent on this.
Something that moveon.org and others fail to realize, is that if we are still in Iraq when the new president takes over, that we will stay until the job is done. Liberals only want us to leave if it can be done while President Bush is in office, so they can blame him. Even if Hillary is elected(I doubt it ) she will not pull our troops out until we have secured victory.
2007-09-10 18:57:36 · answer #5 · answered by Kirk 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Liberals who spew such nonsense do not support the troops no matter how they try to rationalize....
They dispise Bush and will repeat any lie that they feel will discredit him and in the process they disrespect the very people who are on the front lines of keeping their hate speech free.... in their own mind, the lie becomes the truth...
How pathetic .... how out of touch with the majority of Americans.... How seditious their poisen....
They should be ashamed....but they aren't, nor will they ever be....
2007-09-10 22:07:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
General officers are appointed by the President and are thus political appointees -- not troops.
I support the troops. I give to the USO, I send packages to deployed military, I help sew quilts for the families of fallen heroes (http://www.marinecomfortquilts.us). I also hire vets.
I also think that Petraeus, who, again, is not the troops, is not being completely honest with the American people when it comes to the surge, and I think he has put the political needs of the man who appointed him above the men he leads the citizens he serves. Then again, that's kinda what he's supposed to do, isn't it?
2007-09-10 18:48:20 · answer #7 · answered by franson 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Every time Liberal Democrats open there mouth and spread nothing but lies it always back fires in there face! Stunts like this one are the reason more and more people are starting to see what Liberal Democrats stand for and are turning away from them . The Democrat party is Americas Cancer .They do much more harm to America then Terrorist do .
2007-09-11 04:41:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why not? Rupubs claim to to support the troops when they choose a deserter over a decorated veteran...
This lib's support for the troops came in the form of giving 8 years of my life serving in the military... How about yours, hero?
2007-09-10 19:41:38 · answer #9 · answered by Fretless 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is the best evidence you can find that there is bias in our media. If the media was not bias they'd present the very question you ask for the people to decide. Only one media outlet is doing that - and the "left" wants it governed by a fairness doctrine...go figure.
2007-09-10 18:37:28 · answer #10 · answered by netjr 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋