Wexler: ‘What is the definition of winning?’
Wexler: ‘What is the definition of winning?’
Last week, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) sent an e-mail to his constituents asking them to submit questions for him to ask Gen. David Petraeus. Today, he summarized the 5,000 submitted questions for Petreaues: “What is the definition of winning?” He also admonished Petraeus for refusing to define success:
And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what’s the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us, general, what is winning?
Watch it:
Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal wrote yesterday, “Petraeus and Crocker have no problems projecting out the potential implications of leaving Iraq — but they refuse to make projections of what staying will look like. That double standard is absurd. Is there a strategic plan for our presence in Iraq? If so what? The answer is pretty clearly no. They have no end game. There is no exit strategy.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
No Child Left Behind requires specific goals for schools to meet or to suffer consequences.
All Soldiers Left In Iraq has no such goals or consequences for the policy makers.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pmFor Crocker and Petreous, their careers will suffer if they tell the truth – so they lie. It is more important for these whores to continue the sham – to the detriment of our country – than to admit the quagmire they are currently experiencing. They will project out the bad part of leaving, but cannot comment on what it would take to win. Why bring the shiny little man down to the hearings if you’re going to let him lie to you?
April 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pmWhy is our politicians not learning? (sic, very sick)
April 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pmWhat was the answer?
April 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pmThe definition of winning? I’m sorry, Rep. Wexler, but that’s classified.
If Gen. Petreaues told him, then he’d have to shoot him.
Of course, Gen. Petreaues isn’t about to anyone what the “definition of winning” in Iraq is. Why, because any definition victory could be tested, i.e. used to establish accountability, and if there’s ANYTHING that the Bush administration abhors, it’s accountability.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pmAll of the major players in this 7 year debacle are going to land book and speech deals which will make them rich. If there were any fairness, they would be jailed. In our new Bush world, bad people get rewarded.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pmGo Wexler! Coincidentally, that is a question we have been unable to get any of our resident trolls to answer also.
Come to think about it. This place has become mysteriously troll-free. What’s up with that? Has national attention gone to TP’s head and made them realize that playing with the big boys with constant troll infestations doesn’t look good?
April 9th, 2008 at 6:39 pmRepubs can never answer this, because to those involved, winning means making huge amounts of money, and taking over Iraqi oil fields. That’s the real definition of winning to the Repub stakeholders. They can’t even come up with a phoney definition, because if they did, they’d be held to it. And they know that sort of “winning” will never happen. Winning should really mean, total democracy, all Iraqis happy, functional government, no more violence, all factions getting along, displaced Iraqis can come back home, other nearby countries content & wanting to take part as well. That’s what “winning” is. But the Bush admin. can’t give that definition, because we’d all expect to see it. And that will never happen. Therefore, the Bush admin. & McCain, & Bushies will continue to say we’re “winning”, but will never tell us what that eaxactly means. A bunch of smoke & mirrors liars. And McCain is` the biggest suck-up ever, trying to flip-flop his way into everyone’s hearts. What a sad man.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:39 pmStratRat Says:
All of the major players in this 7 year debacle are going to land book and speech deals which will make them rich. If there were any fairness, they would be jailed. In our new Bush world, bad people get rewarded.
Somehow I doubt that. Look what happened to Rove’s book deal. He couldn’t even get a million dollar advance and it was finally picked up by some right wing publisher. I don’t think there is going to be a big market on fantasy books written by Republicans when the Democrats take over. On the other hand, there will probably be a very large market for tell-all books by members of the Bush Crime Family who will throw each other under the bus to keep from taking responsibility for how they participated in the dismantling of our constitution and our country.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:42 pmwinning = not ever having to say you are sorry.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:43 pmPetraeus and Crocker have no problems projecting out the potential implications of leaving Iraq — but they refuse to make projections of what staying will look like.
Ooo! Ooo! I’ll bite on this one. Here are my predictions for what Iraq will look like if we follow the McCain 100-Year Plan:
2009 – President McCain signs 100-year status-of-forces agreement with President Noori al-Maliki. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad elected to second term as Iranian president, after which Tehran, Qom, Bashear, and Isfahan are struck by Israel nuclear weapons.
2010 – Overrun by 4 million refugees who have fled from Iran into Iraq, the Iraqi government collapses into three states – Kurdistan, The Shi’ite-dominated Islamic Republic of IraqIran, and the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Arab Jamahirya.
2015 – A locust-borne retrovirus migrates up the Arabian peninsula from Africa, decimating the agriculture of the fertile crescent as well as much of the Iraqi/Irani population. The only survivors are the refugee Iranians, whose genes were mutated by the atomic blasts and acquired a more advanced immune system.
2020 – In a previously-unknown side effect of the locust-borne virus, millions of decomposing Iraqis suddenly are reanimated. These zombie Iraqis rise up against the mutant Iranians in Basra and Karbala’. Also, construction on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is finally completed after nearly a decade of cost overruns.
2025 – Iranian mutant-scientists invent the flying car. Kurdish zombies in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria join to form the independent nation of Zombiestan.
2030 – The entire nation of Armenia is eaten by Zombiestan, judged “a little stringy, but good.”
2040 – Kurdish and Arab zombies overthrow the governments of Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iceland. The new combined empire, Ur, rules over the Middle East with an iron fist.
2060 – Emporer Urrrrrrrrrr of the Urrrrrr dynasty loses the fist in a Baghdad snowbank, the Ur dynasty collapses. The preserved head of Thomas Friedman urges Americans to have patience.
2080 – Mongol hordes sack Beijing, Washington II (Denver — Washington DC is underwater), Moscow, and Ouagodougou (the capital of Africa). The preserved head of Thomas Friedman is installed as Supreme Ruler of Flatearthia For All Eternity.
2100 – The preserved head of Thomas Friedman is accidentally left in the back seat of a flying taxicab. The economy of Flatearthia collapses, and the civilized world dissolves into a massive conflagration of conflict. All of humanity is reduced to a population of seventeen.
2103 – The seventeen remaining humans get together and decide to repopulate the planet. They settle down in Baghdad, which is peaceful for the first time in 100 years.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:44 pmWexler: ‘What is the definition of winning?’
Crocker and Petraeus in a 2 part harmony : “Executive privilege prevents us from revealing that”……….
April 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pmWell, damn. Why did the video end before Betrayus gave his answer. Is it a secret?
April 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well, damn. Why did the video end before Betrayus gave his answer. Is it a secret?
____
No no – it’s a cliffhanger. If you want to find out what happened in Iraq, you have to wait until next season. Until then, we’ll be left with reruns.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmPlease tell us, general, what is winning?
Robert Wexler, I love the man’s righteous indignation. He should be mad and he made a great point, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items.
The General can’t give a good answer because there is none. All of this is based on a lie and scare tactics from the beginning. From the nightly news telling us we as a Nation are on High Alert. Scaring people to death thinking we were going to be attacked again.
There is no win here, just a major loss. The tragic part is all the lives that have been ruined here and in Iraq.
Thank you Robert Wexler for nevering backing down.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm‘What is the definition of winning? Well, that depends on what your definition of “is” is.’
April 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pmUnfortunately, Mr. Wexler, what we see now is “winning”, as far as the junta in control of our military and government are concerned.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pm#13 Toasterhead – your story is probably a more accurate prediction of the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately, the entire planet, than we have ever been given by the Boooosh Administration.
Thanks for the good laugh. I needed that (badly!)
April 9th, 2008 at 7:14 pmWexler was smart to have his constituent’s submit questions for these 2 “Punch and Judy” characters. If more members of the committee had done the same, it may have served to put these Bushbots on notice that the people back home in their district’s are paying attention and are sick and tired of this war–to say nothing of very angry that this war is still playing out.
Wexler is beautiful–I’ll never forget his interview with Colbert–I almost fell out of bed that night I laughed so hard. He is a good guy–he’s got a sense of humor.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:05 pmNo, but seriously: What was the answer? What did Petraeus say? Does anyone know?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:13 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well, damn. Why did the video end before Betrayus gave his answer. Is it a secret?
It’s on YouTube:
April 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pmhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=U9VPk-B3hD0
At the Naval War College two of the important things we learned were that there should be an exit strategy and clear cut objectives–I guess they don’t teach that at the Woodrow Wilson School.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pmI think Wexler would make an outstanding POTUS, IMHO.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:46 amVictory=total control over Iraqs oil spiget and mega$$$ to Big Oil.Also kill as many of those pesky brown people as possible.
Success is unimpeached Bush lifting off in a Marine helicopter on Jan. 20, 2009 and having a Republican successor.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:02 amDisgusting.
I asked YouTubers the same question. This is what I got:
April 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pmSorry, here the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji1jHXZi5cQ
April 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pmExcellent question. Even after hearing Petraeous’ response, I don’t know the answer…
April 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pmNeo-Con killer whales are blatantly and obviously drowning the calf! America is being choked to death
April 11th, 2008 at 6:16 amIf only Condi saved her dressessohbet instead of cleaning them. But in today’s twisted America, I don’t believe anything would happen if George Bush was cetcaught in bed with a dead girl AND a live boy. And it all procedes with a cheeky grin and a sickening smugness that is as arrogant as it is insultingBedava mp3 indir.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm