Me thinks thou doth protest too much! Just like OJ, who insisted he would find the "real killers"
If it's not true, why are they so worried about it?
Perhaps the independant Iraq reports are really true and Paetraeus' report is nothing but propaganda?
2007-09-15 05:31:55 · 15 answers · asked by Rosebee 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The ad allows the Republicans to divert attention from the Paetraeus / Crocker Reports. Yet, I think that they are getting little traction from it as the Dem's are not saying anything about the ad. As a member of Move on .Org I decry the ad as ill timed and thoughtless.
I think that the White House should not have said that they were going to write the Report because it looked from the start like Patraeus was just a mouth piece for George Bush. I believe that the truth in Iraq is that we should not have gone there in the first place. But we are there now and we so destroyed the country Militarily and Politically that we can't just leave. But we are not training our troops in the things that they must know to aid the Iraqi People. The Report is telling in what it doesn't say . It is still not safe for the troops to move around the country on their own and the occupation authority has been unable to supply basic needs to the people even with the surge. We have taken two steps forward and 1 back.
What I'm saying is that Gen. Paetraeus' report was propaganda to sell the President position but it held seeds of truth that, as with all propaganda must be found by careful sifting.
2007-09-15 05:55:20 · answer #1 · answered by redgriffin728 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you hinting that it is a subversive tactic to take the attention off of the discrepancies between the reports? I suspect General Petraeus is talking only about the areas that the extra troops have been placed during the surge instead of the status of the whole country. I have heard that the entire south of Iraq has been lost since the 40,000 Brits have left. We don't hear about that. The general and ambassador were asked about this in the hearings and neither answered the question. Bagdhad and Anbar seem to be what the reports from the general consist of.
2007-09-15 13:02:43 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was an outrages and unfounded accusation since he just took over. Something does not have to be true to prejudice people. Did you hear that OJ got arrested for armed robbery?
2007-09-15 12:47:20 · answer #3 · answered by Dani 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a report floating around that Admiral Fallon allegedly called our 'honourable general' an '*ss-kising piece of chickensh*t'.
And not one word of denial from Fallon.
And not one word of 'outrage and indignation' from the right.
Why?
Maybe because it is true?
Isn't saying something like that worse than anything Moveon.org or any Democrat ever said?
But by showing 'outrage and indignation' at this, Conservatives might have to attack another military man.
And Fox News has not told them to do that.
2007-09-15 13:27:04 · answer #4 · answered by Tokoloshimani 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a rallying point.
It's not a matter of what they believe, it's a matter of material that they can use to spin support and try to take down Hillary.
The new thing that "everyone knows" will now be that moveon.org controlls the Democratic party because of something Hillary DIDN'T do (namely denounce an organization she has no responsibility for).
When the swift boaters slandered war hero John Kerry, did the GOP express outrage? Did they call for Bush to condemn the swift boaters?
No, because it's ok to slander the military if it's "your side" doing it.
2007-09-15 12:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Look what the REP have to put up with the Dem's this is just another example of how they think>Support the Illeglas & Not the Military & There leaders >
2007-09-15 12:44:27 · answer #6 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it underscores the left side of the democratic party and how much they "support the troops".The independant iraq reports were set up by bush.You have no validity or logic to your thought process.
2007-09-15 12:56:49 · answer #7 · answered by killa d 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The same reason people were upset when Jerry Falwell called a certain female comedian "Ellen De Generate". It's name-calling, and it's childish no matter WHAT group does it.
2007-09-15 12:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because paetreus was unanaminously voted into his postion by both democrats and republicans, and you guys called him a liar and smeared his reputation before he even gave his address. you really thinkwe should just let that go. were not threatened by it, just outraged that you slander such a hero!!! how about you go into harms way for morons like you who sit at home and neglect all the freedoms that are given to you by people like the general.
2007-09-15 13:24:53 · answer #9 · answered by Go Blue 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You don't spit on your protectors.
Period.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is condoning spitting on the troops again and are denying the freedoms that they have been given by their Military.
While I don't agree with the swift boat campaign. John Kerry slandered his fellow soldiers in front of Congress to further his political agenda, not in effort to reveal the truth.
John Kerry was is an always will be a traitor to the US military in my mind. He doesn't deserve to hold political office.
2007-09-15 12:40:34 · answer #10 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋