MoveOn gets down and dirity

[Technosoul]

The anit-war group MoveOn put out an ad

The MoveOn Flap: Rudy vs. Hillary - TIME

Calling Petraeus "Gen. Betray Us".

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton said that she has the highest respect of Gen. Petraeus who has served our country in the military for a long time. Although she (was not asked in that interview about the Ad) she made no remarks about the negitive Ad used by MoveOn.

Although she has the highest respect for him, she said that he was put into a situation in Iraq by President Bush to pursue objectives that are failing to materialize, and in a direction which is no longer favored by the American (majority) polulation. And that a new direction is needed at this time.

In spite of her comments many are outraged at the Ad which has resulted in Rudy being able to gain a little more advantage in the eleciton race.

[bishop]

the focus on the ad just highlights how retarded the american public has become. what people should be scrutinizing is whether/not the b.s. that petraeus spewed was actually correct.

instead, the tabloid-idiot mindset prevails, and we're talking about tangential topics. mindless outrage is how i see this...

[spudnicks]

What people should be scrutinizing is the fact that MoveOn gets adds on the cheap from big companies and happens to have them printed the very same day Petraeus is being drilled. I guess that a respected millitary commander is going to lie to further his career with an administration thats term is going to end in 2008 huh? I cant believe how ignorant you have to be to think that Petraeus would lie to the American people about the positive steps made in the Middle East. I guess most democrats want our soldiers to die to try to prove a point?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: spudnicks What people should be scrutinizing is the fact that MoveOn gets adds on the cheap from big companies and happens to have them printed the very same day Petraeus is being drilled. I guess that a respected millitary commander is going to lie to further his career with an administration thats term is going to end in 2008 huh? I cant believe how ignorant you have to be to think that Petraeus would lie to the American people about the positive steps made in the Middle East. I guess most democrats want our soldiers to die to try to prove a point?

The ad was pure slander.

Petraeus did point out that he made some small progress on some of the goals that Bush directed him to reach. And that is the truth.

Your remark about the Democrats is just like the remark of that Ad about Petraeus, another slander but pointed at a different target.

[bishop]

you must have a different definition of the word "progress"...

perhaps you could mention (coherently, i hope) what some of these "small tasks" are where progress was made. i'd like to see how well informed you are vs. how well you flow with the breeze.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: spudnicks What people should be scrutinizing is the fact that MoveOn gets adds on the cheap from big companies and happens to have them printed the very same day Petraeus is being drilled. I guess that a respected millitary commander is going to lie to further his career with an administration thats term is going to end in 2008 huh? I cant believe how ignorant you have to be to think that Petraeus would lie to the American people about the positive steps made in the Middle East. I guess most democrats want our soldiers to die to try to prove a point?

So there could be only one motivation for a Field General to lie?

Quote by: spudnicks I guess that a respected millitary commander is going to lie to further his career with an administration thats term is going to end in 2008 huh?

I think that's a little naive. I could think of many reasons somebody inclined to lying would faslify a report for reasons other than to forward their own career. ( i.e. Military contracts, lobbying positions, political ideology, back scratching, etc...)

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop you must have a different definition of the word "progress"... perhaps you could mention (coherently, i hope) what some of these "small tasks" are where progress was made. i'd like to see how well informed you are vs. how well you flow with the breeze.

My interpretation for progress would relate to how close one is to reaching the goals hoped for or so stated. Such goals might be called 'benchmarkers" in this case.

You and I also have different interpretations concerning other words. such as the word 'spam'.

spam - definition of spam by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

How well informed I am would depend upon whom you think should be in charge of informing people.

"flow with the breeze"? Do you mean political winds?

[bishop]

i asked you to mention what some of these "small tasks" are.. since you edited out that phrase from your earlier posts, though, don't assume that that renders my request null and void.

how about you provide a SPECIFIC example, or several specific examples, of what these "small tasks"/goals are. and you could also maybe make the case, with evidence, for why we should view this as "progress". i'd like to be able to debate more than hollow opinion with you, if you are up to the task.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop i asked you to mention what some of these "small tasks" are.. since you edited out that phrase from your earlier posts, though, don't assume that that renders my request null and void. how about you provide a SPECIFIC example, or several specific examples, of what these "small tasks"/goals are. and you could also maybe make the case, with evidence, for why we should view this as "progress". i'd like to be able to debate more than hollow opinion with you, if you are up to the task.

The surge created better security in parts of Bagdad. Violence has become less in some parts of Iraq. The Iraqi police force is being trained which might allow for some troop withdraws. Some progress was made in arresting known terrorists who were non-citizens.

This was my impression from many sources provided via news media.

[spudnicks]

Also dont forget the fact that it showed that we are still willing to fight this war and determined to win it no matter how hard the far left tries to help the terrorists win.

[bishop]

wouldn't expect you to provide any of those sources for your unspecific examples....

Quote by: technosoul The surge created better security in parts of Bagdad. <snip> The Iraqi police force is being trained which might allow for some troop withdraws.

it's just a temporary result of having so many u.s. troops in baghdad. this "better security" shouldn't be considered to have any permanence whatsoever.

AFP: Iraqi forces take lead in only 8 percent of Baghdad: US general

the percentage of neighborhoods that have moved to what the military terms the "retain" phase of the security operation, in which Iraqi forces are in the lead and US troops are on standby, has remained stubbornly small. "This is dynamic, and 8.2 percent is where we stand today," said Fil, who commands the US-led Multi-National Division in Baghdad. That compared to seven percent in June. "These numbers will change as we go through the fall and winter here," he assured reporters here in a video conference from Baghdad. But the general acknowledged that the Iraqi security forces currently are insufficient "to truly protect the city."

and as far as setting the conditions where the establishment would allow our troops to come home... not much progress there either.

GAO report says Iraqis failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
[url=http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/196[url]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/200...curity Network

the iraqis have failed to meet 11 out of 18 of these benchmarks, and have only truly met 3 of them.


the overall number of attacks increased during the surge, roughly 40% of iraqis are unemployed, over a million iraqis have been displaced, water is still not safe to drink resulting in epidemics (70% don't have adequate water), electricity supply only meets 50% of demand, 28% of iraqi children are malnourished, etc...

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop wouldn't expect you to provide any of those sources for your unspecific examples.... it's just a temporary result of having so many u.s. troops in baghdad. this "better security" shouldn't be considered to have any permanence whatsoever. AFP: Iraqi forces take lead in only 8 percent of Baghdad: US general and as far as setting the conditions where the establishment would allow our troops to come home... not much progress there either. GAO report says Iraqis failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks - On Deadline - USATODAY.com [url=http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/196[url] http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/200...curity Network the iraqis have failed to meet 11 out of 18 of these benchmarks, and have only truly met 3 of them. the overall number of attacks increased during the surge, roughly 40% of iraqis are unemployed, over a million iraqis have been displaced, water is still not safe to drink resulting in epidemics (70% don't have adequate water), electricity supply only meets 50% of demand, 28% of iraqi children are malnourished, etc...

You might have missunderstood me. When you asked about the progress being reported about in that report ( from the Gen. close to the action) I thought you were asking if I was aware of what Bush would view as progress in Iraq. Or what was related in that report.

I personally agree with your "report" over the one under debate. It appeared to me as if the General was trying to "put the best light as possible" on the Bush agenda, which he was commanded to try to carry out.

But to say he betrayed our nation is uncalled for, he did not aid the enemy as far as I know (on purpose). Unless one is under the impression that Bush is the enemy of the people in the USA.

In any case, it was not what I personally would call progress, not by a long shot or even a 'short shot'.

[bishop]

interesting... so now, these points about "progress" were never yours to begin with. i guess you never said this (i don't see how i could have misunderstood this comment of yours):

Quote by: technosoul Petraeus did point out that he made some small progress on some of the goals that Bush directed him to reach. And that is the truth. <snip> This was my impression from many sources provided via news media.

funny how the story changes.. now when faced with facts, you have a hard time proving your case.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop interesting... so now, these points about "progress" were never yours to begin with. i guess you never said this (i don't see how i could have misunderstood this comment of yours): funny how the story changes.. now when faced with facts, you have a hard time proving your case.

My statement is clear. I do not have to defend what his report said about progress as if it was my report. He did truely make his points and he alone must defend what he claims.

[bishop]

reading what you wrote, you seem to believe what he said to have been the truth...

i'm just trying to see how you'll react when faced with actual facts - in a debate revolving moreso on fact than pure conjecture (as is your preferred style apparently).

but alas, i get the feeling like i'm still wasting my time. the real point here is that moveon's ad, while harsh, wasn't too off-base. petraeus's report was pure b.s. and inconsistent with reality in iraq. moreover, it was used by both parties to hush & rush another spending bill that will fund this debacle for the next several months. there was no debate after the report, only a quick and quiet vote to flush more money down the toilet and toss more bodies into the fire.

and in that sense, petraeus DID betray us by not telling the truth, as did all of the politicians who support this seemingly endless war.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop reading what you wrote, you seem to believe what he said to have been the truth... i'm just trying to see how you'll react when faced with actual facts - in a debate revolving moreso on fact than pure conjecture (as is your preferred style apparently). but alas, i get the feeling like i'm still wasting my time. the real point here is that moveon's ad, while harsh, wasn't too off-base. petraeus's report was pure b.s. and inconsistent with reality in iraq. moreover, it was used by both parties to hush & rush another spending bill that will fund this debacle for the next several months. there was no debate after the report, only a quick and quiet vote to flush more money down the toilet and toss more bodies into the fire. and in that sense, petraeus DID betray us by not telling the truth, as did all of the politicians who support this seemingly endless war.

Well, your are getting the hang of artistic writing, not dong that bad at it I might add.

Without knowing it you did a Bush Impersonation. You state that my remarks are based on conjecture and not real facts. That is why Bush used Gen. Petraeus to attack Congress and Amrican opinon, basically saying that we should not conjecture about the progress in Iraq until the we hear the facts from the man who is in Iraq and knows what is happening on a first hand bases. So on one hand you say conjecture is wrong and facts are right, then turn right around and claim the reverse - all in one breath. hmm? Point being sometimes the so called facts are a lie and the conjectures speak to the true reality. Is that no so?

This is a repeat of Ollie North. (if you are old enough to remember his statements to Congress in the Iran-contra scandle).

Gen Petraus was selected not so much for his skills in that kind of war, but because he follows the orders of his Commander and Chief. He is well trained to do that. As was Gates and Rice and anyone else being used by Bush. Because of his abilites in the field of P.R. (aka B.S.).

But for you to try to link me to Bush and his army of fibbers is to fib your self. I am not one of them and never have been.

I did not change my mind because you confronted me with actural facts, I already know all that stuff before you posted your remarks.
Your remarks more of less are the same ones made by Hillary Clinton.
Which I have already posted links to here in there in my messages.

You are perhaps missunderstanding me on purpose just because I do not support Ron Paul.

Why why attack me? I am not a canidate nor am I holding public office.
I am just another nobody.

[bishop]

i attack you because you make arguments that you can't sustain in a debate - and then you revert back to some incoherent babble rather owning up to what you actually said.

[spudnicks]

"Gen Petraus was selected not so much for his skills in that kind of war, but because he follows the orders of his Commander and Chief. He is well trained to do that. As was Gates and Rice and anyone else being used by Bush. Because of his abilites in the field of P.R. (aka B.S.)."

Petraus was almsot unanimously voted as a competant leader of the Iraq compaign. Only now that he has delieverd good news do the democrats critisize his performance. Ironic how the same people that put him where he is are now calling his a member of the "Bush army of fibbers".

P.S. Sorry I havent figured out how to use the qoutes thinger yet.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: spudnicks "Gen Petraus was selected not so much for his skills in that kind of war, but because he follows the orders of his Commander and Chief. He is well trained to do that. As was Gates and Rice and anyone else being used by Bush. Because of his abilites in the field of P.R. (aka B.S.)." Petraus was almsot unanimously voted as a competant leader of the Iraq compaign. Only now that he has delieverd good news do the democrats critisize his performance. Ironic how the same people that put him where he is are now calling his a member of the "Bush army of fibbers". P.S. Sorry I havent figured out how to use the qoutes thinger yet.

Needless to say I did not approve of him and it was I who used the "army of fibbers" title. Bush picked him and he is a General and so how could anyone in Congress or whatever say he is not qualifed?

What is happening in Iraq is one thing. What is happening here in these election debates is another thing.

Here is the plan being pushed by the Ron Paul supporters and by the Republiicans.

First President Bush and his staff told some assorted lies that got us into a war in Iraq. The Democrats were suckered into believing those lies and voted to support the war because of that deception. Now that the facts and the realities became known about the lie the Democrats no longer believe the lie and want out of the war. And then the Republicans used that to claim that the Democrats lied because they once supported the objectives of the lie and now do not because they now know the truth. The "voting record" shows they voted for the war which does not conform to what they now think.

The objective of this plot to influence debates during this election is to create the illusion that the Democrats are as guilty of lieing as the Republican party under Bush and his V.P. To sow the seeds of doubt that the Democrats cannot be trusted any more then the Republicans.

When in fact the Republicans are guilty of creating the lie and the supportive deceptions. The Democrats are only guilty of getting suckered into believing the deceptions so they would support the Bush Lie. Big Difference.

But if you can see logically, you would see that the Repbulicans are creating another deception only this time about the truthfullness of the Democrats. So that voters are suckered into believing this new lie.

Then the R.P. supporters point out that R.P. did not vote yea for the war, and therefore is the only canidate to trust based on his voting record and his current views. Wrong deduction: Ron Paul did not vote for the war because he thought Bush told a fib, or because he did not believe in the deceptive "facts" Bush used to create that lie about Saddam. He voted no to the war only because of his view's about the Consitution. As he thought such a war was unconsitutional, not because he did not believe the lies that Saddam had a nuclear bomb lab that would make Iraq nuclear ready within a month.

Bye the way as a side note, I never learned how to use the "out of context" quote option ether, but if you post following the last (Quote) it will seperate all your post form theirs automatically.

[The Decider]

Quote by: spudnicks Petraus was almsot unanimously voted as a competant leader of the Iraq compaign. Only now that he has delieverd good news do the democrats critisize his performance. Ironic how the same people that put him where he is are now calling his a member of the "Bush army of fibbers".

Confirming someone before a job and evaluating performance after the job begins are two different things, spudnicks. Nobody knew at the time of confirmation that Bush would hide behind Petraeus as the sole arbiter of US foreign policy in Iraq. Look how Bush treated generals that didn't tow the line on Iraq policy--General Eric Shinseki for one. Shinseki, you may remember, advised the president to send hundreds of thousands of US troops for the occupation. He was ridiculed and ignored. Now we're supposed to believe that Bush "listens to his generals?" Bush cherry picks the generals he listens to--always has.

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size - Global Policy Forum - UN Security Council