Just check them out for yourself. First, “Patreaus has allowed himself to be used as a “political prop,” says Faiz. So follow the link–oh, scandal, in a speech Bush gave describing the new iraq strategy, he actually mentions the man he’s chosen to direct it–Petraeus–12 times! I wonder how often he uses the word “the”.

The same article includes Murtha’s accusations that Petraeus is in town to make “political statements.” He’s sure. Why? He’s “angered by Petraeus’ claim that al Qaeda, not sectarian civil war, is the greatest threat in Iraq,” we’re told. “[T]hese comments that General Petraeus made are absolutely inaccurate, according to the intelligence we have,” claims Murtha.

Oh? So explain the success in al Anbar, where Sunni’s are joining the coalition against al Qaeda. Nothing like a common enemy to build friendship, eh? Just look at this website!

Hmm, you can always follow the other link to Dana Milbank’s “sketch” (which really should be called a doodle) if you want to pretend there’s no distinction between the Sunni insurgents and the Islamists called al Qaeda in Iraq. If so, there’s no arguing with you anyway.

As for Korb’s piece, give it a read. He says Petraeus has a credibility problem. But you’ll see his entire case consists of two false assertions concerning a single commentary Petraeus wrote for the Washington Post on September 26, 2004, if you read it–th — the only useful link.

First, Korb says the piece was “misleading”, but in fact, Korb is misleading. Petraeus offers a fair assessment of the situation in Iraq at the time. He repeatedly qualifies his optimism, saying, in a typical example, “The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.”

Second, Korb attacks the timing of the piece, asserting outright that it either implicates Petraeus in manipulation of the 2004 elections or reveals that he is a stooge of his civilian bosses. But Petraeus explains the timing in the conclusion, which notes, “It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq’s [January] elections approach.”

Indeed, the Post published an article titled “Congress Is Told That Road to Iraq Elections May Be Violent” on Sep. 23, and another titled “Iraqi Leader Vows Election Won’t Be Delayed” on Sep. 24. Context is everything, no?

These people have made a pretty poor case for their paranoia and cynicism. How do they know what they claim? Make up your own mind. Go listen to the guy yourself.

If you disagree with John Kerry or John Murtha, you’re a chickenhawk. If you disagree with McCain or Petraeus, you’re a genius.

In the same vain as minorities are treated by liberals. If a black person says something they like, they are idolized and everyone who disagrees is a racist. If a black person says something they don’t like, they are a Republican shill, an Uncle Tom, and so on, and so forth.

Imagine if Alberto Gonzalez were the AG for Clinton, and Republicans attacked him like Democrats are attacking him now. The liberals would be calling racism from every rooftop across town. But reverse the political affiliation, and Gonzalez is just a stooge, a Yes Man, an unconstitutional war criminal, err, or whatever.

Liberals are a bunch of race-baiting, veteran-baiting hypocrites.

At least conservatives will straight up tell you that they don’t like gays or blacks or whatever. They don’t prop them up as tools and use them for what they are.

So I’m betting Petraeus will want to keep getting people killed. That is another thing Generals do.

Gotta love liberal contempt for the military.

I’ve not lumped you in to the “haters” group. I’ve said that a sinifigant number of posters here do wish death, damnation and other horrid misfortunes upon their political rivals as well as the newborn (Cheney) child. It’s demented.

Then there are the moderates that call Petraeus a traitor (”General Betray-us”).

The irrational hatred here is a fact present to any objective mind that has the ability to read the comments posted.

“I said “perhaps SOME of you compassionate types”, as I know that only about 1/3 of you cats here are haters.”

OK, this is a lot more realistic and an acceptable statement to me. I don’t know that the 33% is correct but it is your expressed feeling. Maybe you could do a study on that and make it a fact.
You say:
No generalizing on my part, but the spinning continues from your end my friend.

You persist:
“…my friend”

We are not friends, so here your sarcasm continues. Too bad.

“No generalizing on my part…you say”??? I suggest you take this thread to someone who can set you straight on that. You are even doing it again in the above quote and you are oblivious to what you are doing.
Look, was I not clear in my last post? Don’t lump me into some group and then by inference accuse me of spinning. I am an individual and speak for myself, not for “my side” as you put it. I did not spin anything in my post to you. I flat out addressed your post and its negative aspects. Look up the definition of spin! OK, done; here is the definition:

“to give (a news story or other information) a particular interpretation, esp. a favorable one.”

Is it clear now?

Sidenote:

I wish I could take a poll to see how many of you guys are “truthers” here.

This is how I feel about Republicans. With the tremendous number of scandles happening (and happened) recently I suspect that they might be hard to come by.

“BUSH: The best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that’s what we’re doing. We’ve got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Jamie, are those numbers right?

MCINTYRE: There’s a big dispute, Paula, about whether the Pentagon is overstating the number of Iraqis that are truly combat ready.

But the general who’s in charge of the training, very respected general, General Petraeus, insists that 100,000 is the right number out of 164,000 in Iraq.”

hence petraeus not being a reliable source.

[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/01/pzn.01.html]

I said “perhaps SOME of you compassionate types”, as I know that only about 1/3 of you cats here are haters.

No generalizing on my part, but the spinning continues from your end my friend.

Sidenote:

I wish I could take a poll to see how many of you guys are “truthers” here.

Tolliver – Merlin is a typically progressive elitist. They bash the DLC…. but generally loved Bill Clinton, the poster BOY for the DLC. (The welfare refrom biull couldn’t have happened without the DLC. The multiple personalities each deserve our compassion.

Just to set the record straight with you, I was always anti Clinton even though I voted for him. There was a lot I really had problems with during his Presidency.Just as I was not for Kerry, but voted for him, (An “anybody but Bush” voter.) I am simply very anti DLC ideology. As much as I like Al Gore his DLC background bothers me. And as to being elitist, well that is in the eye of the beholder. I think of myself as a populist but if you see me otherwise, so be it.

Do you mean, Jim Webb, who was oe of the 80 Senators to vote for war funding w/o a pre-determined surrender date?

Yes, VV, the same. No one is perfect, I do not agree with his vote but there are other things I don’t agree with either. I still respect him non the less and stand by my belief that he is one of the new breed of progressives.

You’re doing shtick, no?

No. My point is your use of “you guys” and your use of sarcasm toward “compassionate” people. Your assumption that hate will happen from everyone is demeaning to all of us that don’t live by hate and believe in compassion. It is this generalizing that is insulting. I am not “everyone” and if you don’t want to be called on your generalized nastiness, directed at me (included as everyone), don’t write posts like the one quoted here.

You also said:
…my friend.

I am not your friend. This is just more of your sarcasm. Your self righteousness here is just plain silly.

You also said:
The hate here doesn’t go by unnoticed Merlin, and no amount of spinning on your part can change that.

Spinning, you accuse? There is no spin here at all! I spoke for myself and from my feelings directly to you, and about you. I spoke for no one else or this blog. I excuse no one, myself included, for bad posts, or bad attitudes. This was a straightforward disapproval of what you did, and the way I saw you, because of your post. No bullshit involved. No spin. That others do things you disapprove of, does not give you the right to slam everyone free of charge. You are responsible for your words and if you don’t believe that, you are worse off than I thought in my first post to you. Do you think your self righteous sarcasm goes unnoticed around here? If so, think again! No avoidance of your responsibility to that will change anything.

That said, I do agree that there are some people that do express their anger in ways that I don’t like, and here, I agree with you. Death threats and bodily harm are two of them.

My advice to you is to single out people specifically for what they say. Give them, specifically, your unhappy rant and leave me and others out of the picture. Please stop your generalized “pissing” on everyone.

Do you mean, Jim Webb, who was oe of the 80 Senators to vote for war funding w/o a pre-determined surrender date?

What a mean and bitter person you must be. You are worse than a troll if you believe what you have written here. Trolls, as bad as they are at least have a purpose. You have none! You see only what you want to see and project hate on to others. Stop all your hate projecting on other people and wake up.

You’re doing shtick, no?

Since I’ve been dropping by on a regular basis for the last few weeks, people here have wished death upon Tony Snow, Bush and the VP, not to mention d@mning a newborn child. That [sadly] just skims the surface my friend.

The hate here doesn’t go by unnoticed Merlin, and no amount of spinning on your part can change that.