The Decider: ‘People Listen To Petraeus, Not To Me’
The Decider: ‘People Listen To Petraeus, Not To Me’
President Bush has repeatedly proclaimed that he calls the shots and has the final word on decisions regarding the war in Iraq.
On April 18, 2006, Bush rejected calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to step down, saying, “I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.” Watch it:
But even “the decider” apparently recognizes the American public is not interested in what he has to say.
On Wednesday, Bush hosted a group of columnists at the White House for a 90-minute interview session. Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke, who attended the meeting, said that Bush now “may be a lame duck” and appears to know that “his credibility is low.” At the meeting, Bush acknowledged:
People listen to Petraeus, not to me.
But Petraeus’ close ties to Bush have damaged his own credibility. A recent CBS poll found that, after Petraeus’ testimony, the percentage of Americans who believe escalation is working fell from 35 to 31.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
82 Responses to “The Decider: ‘People Listen To Petraeus, Not To Me’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Bush now “may be a lame duck†and appears to know that “his credibility is low.†- -Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mort Kondracke, Master of the Understatement.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:32 amPeople listen to Petraeus, not to me.
That’s like saying that people listen to Charlie McCarthy, not Edgar Bergen.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:36 amListening to George is like listening to an ‘adult’ in a Peanuts cartoon.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:43 amWell it hurts the ears when a 50+ year old cant make a single word sound correct.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:54 amOh dear…the Decider is about to pitch his “healthcare” plan. Why do I fear a Social Security redux? Lemme guess. Tax deduction for a healthcare savings account contribution, maybe?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:57 ambush is holding a press conference…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
September 20th, 2007 at 11:01 amSo, I see that ThinkProgress is continuing its campaign to smear a military veteran who has devoted 35 years of his life to serving his country….But, TP supports our military, right?
Well, unfortunately for TP, this alleged drop in the poll for Gen. Petraeus is illusory (as I explained the other day). The detailed breakdown of the poll and its methodology reveals that the poll taken before the Congressional testimony was 31 percent Republican - 32 percent Democrat breakdown. The latter survey taken after was 26 percent Republican and 34 percent Democrat. In short, the poll sample went from +1 Democrat to +8 Democrat — That’s a small but significant difference.
Thus, it should not be a surprise that there was a small shift toward the Democrat position.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:02 amThus, it should not be a surprise that there was a small shift toward the Democrat position.
Comment by Exley — September 20, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Exley, we went thru all this nonsense the other night. You weren’t convincing then, and you’re using the same set of numbers now. It’s too early in the day to go around and around w/ you.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:06 amExley, General Wesley Clark doesn’t believe Petraeus and Petraeus used to work under Clark. So you think Wesley Clark is trying to smear a military veteran or is he saying what he believes.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:07 amPress confrence on as we type….Just another day in bush bizarro world….Noticeing he is starting to look a little tight jawed….Wish it were possible for bush to have feeling’s about all the hundred’s of thousand’s he has killed and that he has now surpassed sadam’s record of distruction…..Sadly dry drunk’s and druggies don’t have such feeling’s, their only goal is feeding their habit and bushs is power….Blessings
September 20th, 2007 at 11:08 amTrip: That’s like saying that people listen to Charlie McCarthy, not Edgar Bergen. - - True, yet I see Bush as more of a Mortimer Snerd.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:10 amExley sez:
When that military veteran forfeits his integrity and consents to parrot the administration’s demonstrably false talking points, he forfeits any subsequent claim to respectability. Calling him on his lies isn’t “smearing” him, anyway.
Conflating the actions of one general-turned neocon mouthpiece with the entirity of the armed forces? That’s remarkably sloppy thinking, Exley…I expect better of you than this.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:11 amAw, loook! another troll, this one using statistics.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:11 amHow cute.
Whatever happened to the War Czar who was supposed to straighten all this out?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:11 amExley, General Wesley Clark doesn’t believe Petraeus and Petraeus used to work under Clark. So you think Wesley Clark is trying to smear a military veteran or is he saying what he believes.
Comment by Shayne — September 20, 2007 @ 11:07 am
September 20th, 2007 at 11:12 ampetrayus is a shill for bush and thus has no integrity.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:12 amProblem for both Bush and Petraus, nobody is listening anymore. Perhaps Bush should chart a new course for the propaganda?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:14 amExley, General Wesley Clark doesn’t believe Petraeus and Petraeus used to work under Clark. So you think Wesley Clark is trying to smear a military veteran or is he saying what he believes.
Comment by Shayne — September 20, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Clark and all the other brave Generals who resigned or retired to speak out and/or so they wouldn’t have to serve under the Codpiece-in-Chief are the real heroes. Petreaus is just another flunky who will bend over and spread at Dubya’s request to max out his retirement pay and get a good job at Halliburton.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:14 amSo, I see that ThinkProgress is continuing its campaign to smear a military veteran who has devoted 35 years of his life to serving his country… - - - John Kerry has served this country for 37 years and I’m quite sure you had no qualms about him being Swift-boated mercilessly. Man up, Exley.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:21 amExcuse me, did someone say something? Nope, must be my imagination.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:28 ambut u could care less about gleefully cheering the deaths of democratic soldiers now right jake?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:28 amNope, must be my imagination.
Comment by TheToonGuy — September 20, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Kind of a high-pitched, squeaking noise? I was wondering what that was too… appears to be nothing.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:30 amPeople listen to Petraeus, not to me.
That’s like saying that people listen to Charlie McCarthy, not Edgar Bergen.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 10:36 am
And with that reference, I thought this link might be appropriate. Check out the picture…and also draw mental lines from Bergen to behind the curtain to the actual “Decider.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:EdgarBergenandCharlieMcCarthyStageDoorCanteen1.jpg
It’s kinda funny how some people are trying to change their screen names to avoid the “Ignore List†. . . Fool me once, shame on you — fool me — you can’t get fooled again.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 20, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Kinda funny what an inflated sense of importance you have.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:31 amJake D. sez:
It’s real funny, because they then proceed to make you look like an even bigger fool than you usually appear as.
It’s a scream, watching you get punk’d, Shakey.
And yes, we can fool you as many times as we like, since you have everybody worth talking to on your infantile little list at this point, and you’re clearly desperate for more fresh meat that isn’t yet acquainted with your particularly vile form of hypocrisy.
Every time we dangle a post from a “new poster” in front of your face, you’ll jump for it like a smallmouth hitting a popper. And we’ll reel you in, every time. And we’ll laugh ourselves sick while we’re doing it.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:31 amConflating the actions of one general-turned neocon mouthpiece with the entirity of the armed forces? That’s remarkably sloppy thinking, Exley…I expect better of you than this.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
And I expect more from Exley also. His posts are on the other side, but normally they are not as inane as this one. Ex please, try to rise above the continous pull into the gutter. We have Beck, limbaugh, coulter, hannity, etc..available if we wanted to get dirty and stinky.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:33 amjake,
to talk with adults remember to un-check REALITY on that list of yours.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:33 amBecause he lies when the truth would serve him better.
He’s a habitual liar, a habit I pray no one falls into
September 20th, 2007 at 11:39 amHe’s the decider until he says he isn’t. Then it’s not his fault, it’s somebody else’s problem.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:42 amIf you don’t like it, impeach. Otherwise, he is correct in what he is saying.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 20, 2007 @ 11:39 am
We don’t impeach. Congress impeaches. We don’t have to remain quiet hen we don’t like what Bush says or does (free speech, y’all!!!), just like CONS who screamed bloody murder nonstop hen Clinton was in office.
And, no, being POTUS doesn’t make Bush automatically “correct”.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am“So, I see that ThinkProgress is continuing its campaign to smear a military veteran who has devoted 35 years of his life to serving his country”
Comment by Exley — September 20, 2007 @ 11:02 am
What is it with the word “smear” being the label du jour for wingnuts to fling around randomly? And usually incorrectly? Did you all get a memo or something?
Other words wingnuts like to sprinkle through their rants — “slander” and “treason” (or “traitor”). And they are generally applied with a salt shaker as meaningless labels, without any justification to back them up. And they’re usually used when a VALID point can’t be made.
People are generally taken more seriously when they rely more on rational debate and less on meaningless invective.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:46 amActually, he’s only devoted about 34 years to the military, with another year devoted to being a PR flack to Bush’s failed escalation policy.
Also, maybe someone can explain why we should listen to Petraeus at all considering that:
a.) He was the HMFIC of all those weapons that were stolen;
b.) He was the genius behind the counterinsurgency manual used the past few years (the one that didn’t seem to work all that well);
c.) He spent more time in August ‘07 trying to sell a failed policy to the media and lawmakers rather than actually trying to lead military operations.
Whatever credibility the guy had he lost the moment he didn’t resign with the other generals of integrity.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:47 amYes, he is the president of the United States, and he took this oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I suppose the weasel words for him were “to the best of my ability”.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:49 amWhatever credibility the guy had he lost the moment he didn’t resign with the other generals of integrity.
Comment by MarkD — September 20, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Was he also in charge of the alledged 180,000 Blackwater mercs over there? Oh wait, they answer to no one… my bad.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amExley: “So, I see that ThinkProgress is continuing its campaign to smear a military veteran who has devoted 35 years of his life to serving his country….But, TP supports our military, right?”
This from someone who chuckled while big fat white republicans put purple bandaids on their faces and accused John Kerry of shooting himself for medals. Exley, you and your tribe have absolutely NO standing to even complain about something like this.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:51 amI suppose the weasel words for him were “to the best of my abilityâ€.
Comment by Georgette Orwell — September 20, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Mebbe he’s tellin’ the truth. Mebbe he has done everything to the best of his ability… **ssssshudder….**…
September 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am#18, Upside99
“Clark … resigned or retired to speak out and/or so [he] wouldn’t have to serve under the Codpiece-in-Chief are the real heroes.”
Actually, Clark resigned from the military (actually, he was forced to retire) in May 2000, more than six months before the 2000 election and nine months BEFORE Bush was inaugurated.
Try to keep your facts straight…Okay? Good.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:31 pm…but, but, but I thought he was the decider.
∞Ω
September 20th, 2007 at 12:32 pm“Try to keep your facts straight…Okay? Good.”
Comment by Exley
That’s hilarious, coming from you.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pmExley: “Try to keep your facts straight…Okay? Good.”
You keep YOUR facts straight. You and your party have no business complaining that anyone didn’t give Patraeus respect. You were the ones who slimed Max Cleland. You guys were the ones who tried to destroy the reputation of a war veteran for political gain. Just shut the hell up about anything that’s been said about Patraeus.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm#8 “you’re using the same set of numbers now.”
Um, well, yeah….Because we are discussing is the same poll.
I am not sure I understand your point.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:54 pm#42,
Hmmmm….And exactly how was Max Cleland “slimed?”
September 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm‘Hmmmm….And exactly how was Max Cleland “slimed?‒
I mean, I already know what you are going to attempt to say…It’ll just amuse me to see your attempt at spin. So, go ahead…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pmExley: “Hmmmm….And exactly how was Max Cleland “slimed?â€â€™”
My first thought when someone like you plays dumb and asks such a question is to just say “f*ck you, a-hole”
You know exactly how Cleland was slimed. Republicans in league with Karl Rove ran television ads which featured a picture of Max Cleland morphing into pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Now, you explain to all of us how this is “spin.”
September 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pmExley, ignoring the facts isn’t an argument.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHe meant to say, “Petraus has some credibility left, I have none.”
September 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pmTwo Benedict Arnolds fighting it out for the decider award. But nobody is listening.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pmMantastic: “he understands the duties and responsibilities of the POTUS (as laid out in the Constitution) better than you do.”
Really? Do you think he understands the concept of “separation of powers?”
September 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pmOkay, Ripper seems to have bailed…Okay the, his irrelevant and inapposite examples aside, I will ask this:
If anyone can point to a sustained effort by the Republican party leadersip and their political allies to attack the honesty, decency, and patriotism of a high-ranking member of the military serving in a combat zone that is comparable to the current such sleaze campaign by the Democratic party and its allies (such as ThinkProgress) against Gen. Petraeus, I will cease my criticism of the smear campaign againt Gen. Petraeus.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pmGen. Petraeus = Bush scapegoat
September 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pmSorry, Exley, you’re not going to be given a free ride to move the goalposts on this one. Your party smeared war veterans who didn’t agree with Bush - veterans who had distinguished themselves in battle. Your party passed out purple bandaids to mock Kerry’s Purple Hearts. Your party implied that triple amputee from war wounds Max Cleland was a supporter of Osama bin Laden.
Again, you have no legitimate standing to complain about any attacks on Patraeus’ character.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#46, Ah, Ripper, you’re back….Took you long enough. And yet sadly, even with all that time, you came up with nothing in support of your dubious claim.
Let us leave aside the rather obvious fact (which nevertheless seems to have escaped you) that unlike Gen. Petraeus, Max Cleland in 2002 was not a currently serving member of the U.S. military during wartime. He was a candidate in a political campaign.
Secondly, it is clear you have never seen the commercial which you inaccurately describe. The ad never shows Cleland’s face “morphing” into Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Huseein.
Indeed, the ad does not even show Bin Laden or Saddam on screen at the same time as a photo of Cleland.
Here is the commercial that Ripper so inaccurately described:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
So, as we see, Ripper was wrong (or lied)….Got anything else, Ripper?
September 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pmToo much confliction in the recent reports to say the Gen. Petraeus is giving us the unvarnished truth. By Bush stating that we should listen to the General as the authority instead of him, he is attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the Gen.
3 of 18 benchmarks met. No constitution ratified. Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Arming the same groups we were fighting. 190,000 weapons we supplied are missing (Petraeus owns this one).
The General created the “Surge”, of course he wants it to work and will paint the best possible picture for this. The picture is skewed.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pmExley, are you saying it was perfectly ok to have slanderous lies thrown about against Cleland and Kerry but are now offended by an attack on Gen. Petraeus? And only because he’s active duty?
Thin and shallow. May I remind you that we are not at war. It’s not wartime. There has never been any declaration of war. Your continual use of this shows an ignorant bias against the facts.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pmSo, I see that ThinkProgress is continuing its campaign to smear a military veteran who has devoted 35 years of his life to serving his country….But, TP supports our military, right?
Well, unfortunately for TP, this alleged drop in the poll for Gen. Petraeus is illusory (as I explained the other day). The detailed breakdown of the poll and its methodology reveals that the poll taken before the Congressional testimony was 31 percent Republican - 32 percent Democrat breakdown. The latter survey taken after was 26 percent Republican and 34 percent Democrat. In short, the poll sample went from +1 Democrat to +8 Democrat — That’s a small but significant difference.
Thus, it should not be a surprise that there was a small shift toward the Democrat position.
Comment by Exley — September 20, 2007 @ 11:02 am
So you’d prefer that random sampling be not at all random AND you’re complaining about skewed polls? Where to start…..
September 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAs for the Purple Heart Band-Aids, I will acknowledge that I was uncomfortable with them and thought it could be seen as belittling the importance of the award. They were not handed out by the party but by an activist. I understand their argument that they were not mocking Kerry’s Purple Heart, but rather his decision to throw his Purple Heart away in disdain when it was politically palatable to do and then turned around and ran on them even though he had earlier renounced them. It was a valid point, but a clumsy and offensive way of calling Kerry out on his opportunism and hypocrisy.
But even that one-day stunt against a political candidate does not compare to the sustained, multimedia, multimillion dollar, weeks-long effort to attack the patriotism, decency, and honor of a man who is currently leading our troops in a war that is being waged against Gen. Petraeus.
So, sorry, Ripper: 1) You were 100% incorrect about the Cleland ad (I’ll expect your withdrawal of your erroneous contention); 2) The Kerry Purple Heart banadge Aid stunt, while childish and offensive and clumsy, is in no way comparable to the sustained campaign against an active member of the combat zone military command during wartime.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pmHere’s a different set of polling questions by CBS.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
All taken between 9/14 and 9/16 so it’s after the Gen. gave his opinions.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pmHiB,
See postings #58 and 59.
Secondly, I find it amusing that you claim we are not at war when 90% of what I read on this site is that Bush lied us into a “war;” that the “war” is immoral; that we need to end the “war.”
I would submit there are nearly 200,000 military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan that would disagree that there is no war going on.
Third, your incorrect assertion that there must be an explict declaration of war for a state of war to exist has no basis in history or constitutional law and commentary.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pmOkay, Ripper, now that your assertions have been debunked (Still waiting for you to withdraw your erroneous description of the Chamblis ad), I again invite you (and others) to point to a sustained effort by the Republican party leadersip and their political allies to attack the honesty, decency, and patriotism of a high-ranking member of the military serving in a combat zone that is comparable to the current such sleaze campaign by the Democratic party and its allies (such as ThinkProgress) against Gen. Petraeus.
Annnnnd…GO!
September 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI just read the Moveon ad about the General. They took a page right out of Fox News and asked a loaded question.
I have 3 questions for you Exley.
Why aren’t car bomb deaths counted in the General’s assessment?
Why is being shot in the front of the head different than being shot in the back of the head?
Do you believe there is a civil war currently going on in Iraq?
These points are some of what Moveon is questioning the General about. Along with his inconsistencies with the other recent reports that have been completed. The GAO’s and the Jones report are two of them that show a very different picture than the General’s.
All are fair questions they brought up and without an answer from the General it can be infered he is being less than truthful. In a time of such hightened tension and conflict this can be construed as not having the soldiers and the countries best interest.
I look forward to your answers.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pmExley,
from Senator Jean Schmidt:
He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.
You’re so welcome.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pmInteresting…my previous post seems to have fallen victim to the spam filter. I’ll try again.
Comment by Exley — September 20, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Exley, I already refuted your specious bullsh!t way back in post #12, which you subsequently proceeded to studiously ignore.
You don’t get to whine about people “bailing” on you when you engage in the same behavior…and you don’t get to characterize the refutation of talking points spewed by this corrupt administration’s latest mouthpiece as the “smearing” of a great military leader.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pmExley,
September 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmI don’t normally do this, but I need to echo TripMaster Monkey’s original question.
How is taking to task a General’s lies and misinformation considered “smearing”?
Please point precisely where the smear took place, and compare it to the Murtha smears a couple years back
Exley, are you a cut and runner? At #64 I have 3 questions waiting to be answered.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pmExley, the Chamblis ad compares Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden. Everyone knows it did including Max Cleland, who complained about it.
And, the swiftboat liars didn’t spend “one day” smearing Kerry. They spent months.
So here’s my suggestion to you: hold your breath until I apologize.
Now, do I have to search for the many, many republican smears which have been leveled at various military officers who have had the courage to question Bush’s Iraq war. They’ve been called losers, out of touch, no longer relevant, etc. etc.
You’re simply full of crap, man. Again, you have absolutely no standing to criticize anyone for questioning the veracity of a military officer.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pmBetrayus is a liar, and ambitious lickspittle who would leave no lie untold to further his political ambition - a bottom-of-the-barrel general, who was put in command only after all officers of integrity had been exhausted. An insult to him is an insult to no one else, and the weak-minded conflation of the move-on ad with an affront to our enlisted people is just par-for-the-course yellow rhetoric, employed by a gang of desperate losers.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI find it interesting that the right get’s upset about the word play but ignores the content of the ad.
Exley, is there or is there not a civil war going on in Iraq? Why aren’t deaths by car bombs counted and why is there a difference between getting shot in the front of the head or the back of the head? Still dead.
All valid questions raised in the Moveon ad that does leave doubt on the Generals’ loyalty and ability to give us truthful answers.
Will you answer these questions? I will continue to ask on all threads until you acknowledge them.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHmm…over an hour since the repost of my refutation of Exley’s garbage…and Exley has remained just as suspiciously mute in response as he was in response to the origin posting of the refutation, over four hours ago.
It would seem that Exley has “bailed”…again.
Imagine that…
Exley, your silence speaks volumes.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pmExley had been a good opponent but he’s fallen way short on this. He may be dealing with everyday life and has left this blog. Or he has excepted defeat for now.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pmExley had been a good opponent but he’s fallen way short on this. He may be dealing with everyday life and has left this blog. Or he has excepted defeat for now.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 20, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Or he cut out early to get a head start on happy hour, which he has been known to do. :-)
September 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pmOkay, I’m back…DRxJ, I only WISH I was at Happy Hour. Sometimes at the office I actually have to work and go to meetings and such instead of talking to you fine people….
Okay, a lot of messages addressed to me here…I will answer as many as quickly as I can:
1) Ripper…The proof is in the video I supplied of the Chamblis commercial. It quite clearly shows that you were and continue to be wrong. The ad does not show Cleland “morphing” into Bin Laden or Saddam, nor does it compare Cleland with OBL…The fact that you would repeat these falsehoods in the face of the video being right here for all to see is baffling.
I did not ask you to apolozie. I asked that you admit you were wrong when you described the commericial. Now that I have posted the video, everyone sees you were wrong. Your credibility will be well served if you simply acknowledged it.
2) HiB (and TripMaster) , “These points are some of what Moveon is questioning the General about.” And that is fine…It is perfectly acceptable and even honroable to question the general and ask him to explain his testimony and statistics.
What is NOT acceptable and what is dishonorable to use a term like “betray” to smear this man’s honor, decency, and integrity. As they say, dissent is patriotic. However, slander, libel, and name-calling or not. Question Petraeus and ask him to explain his statistics all you want. Calling him a traitor is beyond the pale….Even liberals like Tom Harkin and Elizabeth Edwards said the MoveOn.org ad was reprehensible.
3) Still waiting for anyone to point to a sustained effort by the Republican party leadersip and their political allies to attack the honesty, decency, and patriotism of a high-ranking member of the military serving in a combat zone that is comparable to the current such sleaze campaign by the Democratic party and its allies (such as ThinkProgress) against Gen. Petraeus.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pmExley, you didn’t answer my questions at all. As for your question I don’t have any example. I do know that Gen. Shali and Gen. Clark had distasteful remarks made by republicans on the floor during bosnia. I don’t have the links so take it for what it is.
Why do you think this ad is a Democratic attack. You did see the most recent vote in the Senate rebuking the ad didn’t you?
Funny how the content isn’t discussed by the chest thumping gets louder.
Now, please answer my 3 questions.
Why aren’t car bomb deaths counted in the General’s assessment?
Why is being shot in the front of the head different than being shot in the back of the head?
Do you believe there is a civil war currently going on in Iraq?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pmHmmmm…Been awhile since anyone has commented. Got the feeling TP is having some technical problems.
Okay, well, on that note, DRxJ, NOW it is Happy Hour time…Later, all.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:51 pmExley, you’re not accessing the commercial that morphed from Cleland to Osama. You’re linking to the one that was used after Democrats complained. I saw the morphing commercial with my own eyes twice - once when they replayed in on CNN and once when they made fun of it on The Daily Show.
Hey, I didn’t see you or anybody expressing outrage when the conservative New York Post, an unwaivering Bush supporter, referred to the Iraq Study Group as “surrender monkeys.” I heard no outrage when Robertson referred to Wesley Clark as a “baby killer.” You guys didn’t pop a vein when that religious fanatic in Ohio called Murtha a coward. There was no outrage when disgraced traitor Duke Cunningham called John Kerry a “coward and a traitor.” You guys even sat there and stared into space while people accused a sitting president of being a “rapist and murderer.”
So take your phony situational outrage and cram it!
September 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pmOne more thing on this subject, Exley. Who do you think shows less respect for the troops? Moveon questioning the veracity of a highly political general or the Repub House leader Boener saying that thousands of troop deaths would be a “small price to pay” for a long stay in Iraq?
September 20th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI agree Col. Exley has selective patriotism dissorder. It makes his arguments fall flat.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:04 pmAnother question that Exley will not answer I believe.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI don’t listen to either one of ‘em. Both are full of crap.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:11 pmHiB,
The despicable slander on Gen. Petraeus was made by a staunch ally of the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership regularly meets and strategizes with MoveOn.org. When the Democratic leadership was called on to condemn the ad, they demurred, fearing the loss of campaign dollars. I do applaud the Democrats today who did show a sense of decency and honor and voted to condemn the reprehensible ad. You will note, however, that no one in the Democratic Senate leadership or Democratic senators running for president voted to condemn the ad. They were to afraid of offending their masters at MoveOn.org.
But I am happy to see that Democrats like Tester and Webb and 23 others do have a sense of decency and some political courage.
Now, as to your three questions. While I am not sure they are completely on-topic, you have always been a good person with whom to discuss these things, so I will say:
1) Is it true that car bomb deaths are not counted in Petraeus’s assessment? And for that matter, exactly which are of his assessments are we talking about? I know I have read some accounts — mostly from bloggers that car bomb deaths don’t count — but I am not sure what that means? Doesn’t count towards what? And if it is even true….I simply don’t have enough information on that particular topic to give an answer…I would seriously appreciate any type of links or articles (from CREDIBLE sources on this issue);
2) I know therewas a report by anti-war reporter Kim Sengupta that the US military counts victims of gunshots to the back of the head as victims of sectarian violence and victims of gunshot wounds to the front as crime victims…..Honestly, I am going to need more than Kim Sengupta’s word before I agree that this is an accurate portrayal of US military policy.
3) As for Iraq being in a civil war–This is actually the easiest and hardest question to answer. My answer is, “No, but.” No, I do not think Iraq is in the midst of a full-scale civil war. I know there is civil and sectarian violence and that the country is divided in large part. But I also don’t see large military forces arrayed against eachother. Plus, much of the violence in Iraq is being stoked by outside agitators from Al Qaeda and Iran.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:38 pmRipper, I am sure you believed you saw such a commercial. But you did not. It simply did not and does not exist. The commercial that I posted is the ad in question. Over time, the ad has become so distorted in the minds of Democrats that they have come to believe that it showed Cleland’s face morphing into Bin Laden’s or Saddam’s. But as we see, that is not the case. The ad did not even show a picture of Bin Laden, Saddam, and Cleland on the screen at the same time.
I think you put your finger on what might be the source of your incorrect memory. “I saw the morphing commercial with my own eyes twice - once when they replayed in on CNN and once when they made fun of it on The Daily Show.”
Sounds to me like you might remember seeing a Daily Show parody of the commercial. But as I have shown, the real ad was not as you described. You are more than welcome to put up a video of the commercial you claim to have seen if you can find it. I, however, sincerely doubt you will be able to do so since the ad never existed.
As for Boehner, oh please….Come on….You can’t seriously be trying to compare the deliberative posting of a well-thought out, carefully put-together newspaper advertisement by MoveOn.org that likely took days if not weeks to write and format with the immediate albeit clumsy answering of a multi-part and even more clumsy question — that mentioned both money and “blood” asked on live TV….That is pretty weak, Ripper. I will give credit to some TP posters here who have said that it is pretty obvious that Boehner’s “small price” language was pertaining to the interviewer’s referencing of billions of dollars and not the blood of the soldiers.
Not even close, Ripper. One is a deliberate, well-thought out and planned attack. The other was a clumsey answer to a clumsier question during a live TV interview.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pmFirst, I’m not wrong about the Cleland ad. Secondly, I am perplexed that you even think it’s improper somehow for a private political organization to question the testimony of Patraeus. After all, we learned through FOI requests in the 70’s that General Westmorland lied through his teeth when testifying to the Senate about progress in Viet Nam. And Westmorland wasn’t even particularly political compared to Patraeus, who took time out of his duty to write a blatant political op-ed before the 2004 election supporting Bush and republicans by claiming that there was good progress being made in Iraq and the war would be over soon. Patraeus inserted himself into the political process and he’s as much fair game as anyone. Not to mention the fact that he outed his own mendacity before congress by claiming that nobody had vetted his report when Bush said he saw it and liked it a full week before the testimony.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pmExley: “Not even close, Ripper. One is a deliberate, well-thought out and planned attack. The other was a clumsey answer to a clumsier question during a live TV interview.”
The Swiftboat organization was a deliberate, well-thought out and planned attack on a war hero and you loved it.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:06 pm>The Swiftboat organization was a deliberate,
> well-thought out and planned attack on a war
>hero and you loved it.
But Jack, Exley asked for examples of attacks on HIGH RANKING military people.. apprently in his book only high ranking soldiers deserve not to be slandered.
And he’s delusional about iraq not being in a civil war. I can promise you, he’s going to come up with some arbitrary definition of the word that makes him right. What exactly constitutes a civil war is a matter of debate, but I promise you that in his mind, a civil war is something that can only occur after we leave.
No statistical evidence of a drop in violence. The violence has only moved.
I’m still waiting to hear his explanation of how we determine which terrorists in iraq are ok to arm and make deals with.
Apparently, in Exleys mind, its ok to for us to arm people who were fighting side by side with al-queda a few months ago. I’m just curious as to how one knows whose in Al-Queda in Iraq and whose just “fighting side by side with them”… do they keep a list of members somewhere? is there an application they have to fill out? Has anyone ever mapped out a formal command structure?
The fact we’re now arming and bribing Saddams former goons, who constitute over 50 percent of the insurgency, to go after 5 percent of the insurgency, doesnt strike him as short sighted at all… especially since that 50 percent remains hostile to the central government.
I’d love to find out how exactly one gets inducted into the mythical “Al-Queda in iraq”, and how we determine whose in it or not. Any formal organization is going to have control over whose a member of that group, and yet exley, like most al-queda obsessed flaghumpers, cannot show us any methodolgy by which al-queda in iraq decides whose cool enough to be in their group and whose not. He can’t understand the concept of an “idealogical franchise”. He doesnt understand that these days, anyone who wants to hate america and be cool says “im in al-queda”. He thinks that prospective Jihadis fill out applications, fax them to afghanistan, and wait enxiously to see if they have been accepted in the group. He thinks Al-Queda has a recruiting hut in every village in Iraq.
Also, I’m wondering if he considers it “Victory” if Iraqis democratically choose to become an islamic republic, ally themselves with Iran, and support Hamas and Hezbollah with their tax dollars.
How did “freedom” in palestine turn out Exley? Are you glad Hamas is running the government there?
September 21st, 2007 at 5:22 am