Move over dot nut has put a full page ad in a major paper accusing the honorable General David Petraeus of "Cooking the books for the White House."
And do you know what this means? The only news they'll believe is bad news. Think about that for a second...
The fruit bat contingent throws its lot in with the Dem leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Clyburn) saying that if the country wins the democrats lose. When you throw your lot in with a defeatist agenda like that, it's no wonder these folks cheer our country's defeat.
An excerpt:Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Today in testimony offered in response to a direct question about the above claim, Petraeus said about the claims, "They are false, yes."
What's move over dot nut talking about? A WaPo article last week which included this observation which countered the claim. Why didn't the following make the move over dot nut ad?
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
Here's Petraeus' violence-o-meter:
Monday, September 10, 2007
General Betray Us? Fruit Bats Lose it... With Update: Petraeus Says Ad is False
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Here's the ad. You decide.
Cooking the books for the White House
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”
Washington Post, “Battling for Iraq,” by David H. Petraeus. 9/26/04
And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”
The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan. 8/31/07
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
GAO report, 9/4/07
NIE report, 8/23/07
Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07
Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count.
“Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07
The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.
“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l
According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07
Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07
We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07
Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”
McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07
The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.
We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops.
The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07
The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman. 9/7/07.
But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
The Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence.
Still false, though, huh, "Lew"
By The way...that's not the ad copy.l
Isn't it funny that all the so-called
"leaders" of this country, who "know" everything about what is or is not going on over in Iraq, such as Kennedrunk, Reid, Schumer, Biden, Kuchinich, and all the rest, are the ones to put down Gen. Petraeus yesterday, before the general gave his testimony, are the ones who have not been to Iraq. Nor do they have any intention of going there ,because: a. they might find out they really do not know what they are pontificating about, and b. they are afraid to go there.
They are cowards, all. My grandson is in his 3rd week of basic training at Ft. Benning, Ga. He is in an infantry unit (his choice) and says he cannot wait to get over to Iraq. At 18 he is a lot more courageous than our so-called "leaders".
hey, scottiebill, please tell your son that he has my family's profound thanks for his service!
Whoops, grandson!
The grand imitator speaks out of his posterior sphincter orifice.
Has he forgotten Democrat Brian Barid, Katie Couric and several other Demcrats who have admitted there is progress to be seen there? Even if they reluctantly admit it, they still admitted it.
Odd how those who keep crying we cannot question their patriotism, how much they Suport The Troops and the rest of their meaningless drivel, so readily denigrate a man of General Petraeus's caliber.
Odder still is the "fair assessment" some Democrats were giving a report they had not read yet, as it had not even been presented to them yet, yet were reading prepared statements condemning the report.
Scottie, your grandson has my sincerest thanks and appreciation. Tell him to be safe and listen to his Sergeants if he deploys there.
Grand imitator, if you feel the Iraqis are not stepping up to the plate, feel free to explain why the suicide bombings outside of Police and Military recruitment centers kill 30 and more each time they happen. Seems to me that the Iraqis are at least trying, which is more than I can say for Code Pinkos and the rest of the moonbat left.
If you think I seem a bit touchy on this, you are right. My VFW post just lost a member to a Suicide bomber in Iraq. His Dad, also a member, isn't too keen on any cut and run attitudes right now.
More of the same. Stay the course. Drag your feet. Doing better but not quite there yet. This will take a while. This is hard work. War is hell. Things go wrong. They believe in their sovereignty. Light at the end of the tunnel, Turning the corner. Mistakes were made. We have confidence. We hope to move some troops home soon. We can do this. We just need more time. The insurgents are in their last throes. We have made progress. You can shop in Baghdad. We are not making excuses. Our troops are giving their all. You would be proud of our men and women fighting in Iraq.
Excuse me!
Saddam tried the Military Solution for decades.
He too, formed an Iraqi army to repress insurgents, block Al Qeada from taking over, hold onto power, preserve a secular state, force peace between Sunni and Shia and keep order.
The mass graves; filled then too.
In essence what Patreas said is that as long as Geoge Bush is president we will stay in Iraq and pound sand - no matter the cost in lives and US treasure. George Bush has never admitted to any of his failures and always left the clean up to others. The next president will have to extricate our country from the quagmire. When we do finally leave Iraq, the event will be even more vivid a military/ political failure than when we left Viet Nam. For exactly the same reasons. It was doomed at the onset because we had no business meddleing in the internal affairs of another nation. Just because we didn't like Saddam Hussein, it was not ethically justifiable to attack the country.
There, he said it: The United States is no better than Saddam. Thanks for clarifying, Kloin.
George Will has been one of very few conservatives who have kept their wits about them these past few years. That's more than I can say for myself in the fevered days after 9/11. He is fundamentally right about one fundamental question. It's worth repeating so that the hysterics and Weimarites on the "right" finally get it into their heads. George puts it baldly enough for them to understand:
The surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus's standards of success.
This is simply indisputable, unarguable, a fact. Crocker's testimony confirmed it. The entire point of the surge was to facilitate compromise at the center in Baghdad. It has failed.
And so we are now given a fallback argument: that we can manage the disintegration of Iraq better by staying than by leaving; that when the surge ends, its fragile achievement of some local security will somehow endure despite the admitted uselessness and sectarianism of local police; that we have to stay because of the genocide leaving would cause. Will asks two basic questions:
Is there an Iraq? Are there Iraqis?
There is no Iraq. Alas, there are Iraqis. The Sunni Arabs and the Shiite Arabs both want to control a unified country, especially the Sunnis. So partition is not something they are interested in. In the most recent poll, 98 percent of Sunnis wanted Iraq in one piece and to be in control of it.
So the civil war will continue, and probably intensify once the surge levels fall back to the 2006 military presence. I've been trying to weigh the pros and cons of this and I don't apologize for being conflicted. It gives me no pleasure to admit there will be no democracy and there is no Iraq. If that really is true, and if I'm also right to suspect malevolence in the White House, the argument for cutting off funding immediately is stronger than I once thought. For sober conservative reasons, of course. Bush will not listen to reason. He will only listen to a funding cut-off.
SEN. JOHN WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
Post a Comment