Do democrat misleaders continue to misunderestimate President Bush visa-a-vis, successful reports from Iraq?

Question

from generals, especially the report by Gereral Petraus!

Pelagius...I liken your answers to my

questions as a fresh breath of outer

space!

Bryan, I was specific about the

misleaders, not all dems!

Answer 1

You are left in the right about the uncorrectitude of the misunderestimating of uncontinous anti-misleaders.
'If the bugle give an uncertain sound, then who will follow?'

Answer 2

I'm not certain that 'misunderestimate' is a word, but I do know that 'successful' is a word that has an actual meaning. It means that the results of an action have proven to be positive. The 'action' as far as the 'war' part of the Iraqi adventure went was a 'success'. We whipped the bejaysus out of a poorly led third world military. The occupation of Iraq is a different story...basically there is no good news....no victory....no positive outcome....no hope that anything is going to ever change. The general stated that things were 'better'...better than total collapes maybe, but that's damning with faint praise. Iraq is kept 'alive' only by CPR and a feeding tube...this is a country that's essentially brain dead.....very similar to George Bush. Give it up....it's over.

Answer 3

I do believe your focus is too broad. This definitely applies to many liberal extremists in the party, but the party make-up, attitudes and opinions are more diverse. There are many moderates in the party who do not engage in, nor actually condone this type of behavior. The problem is that the public face of the party has been usurped by the extremists and it casts the false impression that all are following their lead.

In my opinion it is not necessarily good to trust everything we are told about the war by the administration. This is because they have vested interests in continuing the conflict. However, I also realize that they are not outright lying about the situation either. There are many good things happening in Iraq, but I also question how long we can maintain this level of troop strength and funding without more effective leadership being exhibited by the Iraqi ruling council.

Edit: Just a misunderstanding of the phrasing used. No finger pointing or offense intended.

Answer 4

Your widely used genuine-wing conversing factor is: "Democrats have been given an analogous intelligence and reached an analogous end, so blaming Bush for deceptive united states of america is merely political." Then there is using expenditures with regard to the prospect posed by way of Saddam that seems to be from invoice Clinton, John Kerry or another Democrat. the tip is that if Bush became mendacity, they might desire to have been mendacity too. there's a pretend assumption underlying this argument, quite that Dems won an analogous intel as Bush (they did no longer), yet putting that aside, listed below are 2 clarification why that's a straw guy: (a) the priority isn't whether human beings believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there became any evidence that he had WMD (there became), it somewhat is the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence to hand, brooking no dissent and disregarding doubters interior and outdoors the government as cowardly or treasonous. that's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "deceptive the widely used public" refers to--the understanding exaggeration of the case for conflict (whether by way of cherry-picking intel or utilising defunct intel or by way of conversing approximately ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). There we've been, greater beneficial than a decade after the 1st gulf conflict, 2 years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. and then without warning, he became the biggest danger to united states of america--a danger that required a great invasion. a bigger danger than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin weighted down. a extensive, on the spot danger. It merely defied concept. (b) besides to the terror-mongering defined above, the opposition that Bush 'misled' the widely used public isn't merely approximately Saddam's WMD, yet with regard to the way the administration stormed forward with their plans and invaded Iraq interior the way they did, on the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the international, all jointly as demonizing dissent and smearing their critics. In the two (a) and (b), the crux of the priority is proportionality. whether or no longer invoice Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam became a danger, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic movements (preemptively invading a sovereign united states of america) have been decidedly out of share to the point and immediacy of the prospect. it somewhat is the actual undertaking.

Answer 5

"Successful" reports from Iraq aren't truthful. Haven't you been following the news?

It turns out that Petraus cited improved conditions in an area of Iraq that wasn't subject to the surge anyway. How do you say the surge is working when the area where the surge occurred isn't improving? The improvements that did occur in the non-surge area, according to the generals, was a fall in deaths due to ethnic cleansing being almost complete. If you call that success, I've got a falling dollar to sell you for stellar returns!

Answer 6

democrat traitors had already decided to ignore anything the General was going to say, half of them had their pathetic speeches prepared ahead of time. They want the US to lose because a? they are traitors and b) they let their hatred of the president stand ahead of whats best for the nation, that shows democrats should just be taken in a boat and sank in the atlantic.

Answer 7

Oh, you mean the "Yes" man and brown noser that Petraus is?

Why is it that everyone else (Including official NUMBERS of dead) coming out of Iraq tell a different story? Because Petraus is lying for Bush. Nothing more than that.

Answer 8

The bottom Democratic line is that they need Iraq to fail in order to win in 08'.

Nothing else matters, and thats a fact.

Answer 9

Petreus' report is just about the only positive one. Democrats are weighing all the evidence, not just the cherry picked facts. Here's a summary of the report compiled this fall by the Government Accountability Office which shows that only 3 of 18 benchmarks were satisfied. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/05/gao_report_card_on_iraq_benchmarks/

"President cites shaky facts as he makes a case for high troop levels" http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070914235749259

Answer 10

to the other answerer's of this question, It seems to me that your consider his report like a buffet, you pick what you want and refuse the rest.