Comments for Petraeus versus the President? »
Posted By jovial 10 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsIn part one of our interview with Gareth Porter, Porter explains his discovery that Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and other US military leaders have been applying pressure on Obama to change his plan for US withdrawal from Iraq. It appears however that Obama is standing firm on his campaign promise to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration. According to Porter, the military has already begun its public relations campaign to paint recent events in Iraq in their favor, meanwhile setting Obama up for the fall in the future.
Read Full Story at therealnews.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 160
-
-
89%
Goppy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He better. The Iraq war is one of the most tragic blunders in our nation's history.
Reply
Let me repeat.
THE IRAQ WAR IS ONE OF THE MOST TRAGIC BLUNDERS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
I believe if Obama backs down from his campaign pledge - it will say that "he went to Washington to Washington and Washington changed him."
The Iraq war is a stain on our nation - and it must be eradicated.
It is the very symbol of Presidential FRAUD and DUPLICITY ... of massive CYNICISM and IDEOLOGICAL PERVERSION.
We need to extricate ourselves ... to regain our Moral Standing ... and apply a salve our national conscience.
.-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
20%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"THE IRAQ WAR IS ONE OF THE MOST TRAGIC BLUNDERS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY"
Reply
You could not be more wrong, Goppy.
If Obama fully draws down American combat troops in 16 months, he will bring us to the brink and very likely into world war. He will succeed in opening southern Iraq to Iran, which will force the Kurds to go independent, which will in turn bring the Turks into northern Iraq to crush the Kurds and take the northern oilfields. The resulting warfare would have a very high probability of closing the Persian Gulf thereby pushing the world economy off a cliff. The resulting worldwide surge in economic nationalism would virtually guarantee widespread war.
The lack of strategic foresight that such moves speak to is beyond naive.
The underlying amorality of risking such a move is breathtaking. But, Goppy, I am sure it all will still serve to salve your grade school conception of "Moral Standing".-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't get do you? It is not whether the generals will obey the orders but whose head it falls on if they do and disaster looms. But liberals do not care what happens to the people of Iran. They only want to rant about how many deaths there have been over there.
Reply -
94%
Goppy10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
23%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
94%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
0%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I condemn torture and I rebuke all those who were involved and knew.
Reply
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."-
17%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial, quit trying to put words in my mouth. I never claimed to be bipartisan. I know you are trying to paint me into a corner. But, I have no reason to go into that corner. I did not condemn "every democrat I could think of". Again, you have tried to put words in my mouth. You come from a world that fervently hoped that this issue would somehow de-legitimize Bush and Cheney. Quite simply, it didn't and it doesn't.
Reply -
89%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice sidestep, but you didn't answer the question as it pertains to Bush and Cheney.You said this about 2 months ago according to jovial's wayback machine...
Reply
"Of course, I have not "tried to tear down our Democracy with illegal torture and massive theft. Nor has the current administration." Bush was President at that time. Continue explaining.-
17%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I repeat, "Of course, I have not "tried to tear down our Democracy with illegal torture and massive theft. Nor has the current administration."
Reply
If you really, in your heart, think that Bush and Cheney tried to tear down our Democracy in any way, Jovial, you are truly being silly in my estimation. Frankly, I think your sense of "moral outrage" is primarily political in its motivation.
Beyond that, I am at a loss as to what you are fishing for.-
90%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't like people claiming to be objective and bipartisan when they are saying something else when they are in a different forum. You said the administration was not guilty of torture in one forum, and now you're trying to justify it by saying Pelosi approved of it. Then you say you condemn it, but you stop short of condemning Bush and Cheney. You trot out every Democrat that you can think of and condemn only those people. It's hypocritical, but it's what i come to expect.
Reply
-
-
-
25%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If, in 2003, you were being scared out of your wits by someone talking of "Iraqi missiles pointed at our country", Jovial, you are sillier than I thought.
Reply
When was the last time you heard Rush Limbaugh or Fox News say anything that i have said here. You haven't. So I'd suggest you be a little more careful about the brush you paint with.-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor jovial. What was permitted is not defined as torture. If you notice Obama didn't change anything. He signed a presidential order that on the surface says it but on closer inspection only applies to Gitmo where it these things never took place. Oh Great Obama does it again.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, Ill help you do something called "research", go to google, (www.google.com in case you are truly lost) enter waterboarding torture. You can have your pick of over 796,000 articles that talk about it. Be clueless is one thing continually proclaiming it for all to see is another.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that be the case, then they are much smarter and strategically wiser than I thought. I don't listen to Rush and I far prefer watching History or Discovery Channel to O'Reilly.
Reply
While I don't live in a vacuum, I prefer to think on my own.
-
-
95%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that's your argument, jim, then you admit Goppy's point that it was a huge strategic blunder to depose Saddam, who was able to keep all those competing forces in line. Right? After all, we wouldn't now be faced with two horrible choices, if we'd never gone in. Right?
Reply
You didn't happen to support "regime change" back in 2003--or earlier, did you?-
90%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Jim,
Reply
It appears Limbaugh and O'reilly from Foxnews have similar views to yours, or am I wrong. If I'm wrong please show me how your views differ.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410120004
-
-
6%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, Beau, it was not a strategic blunder at all. Saddam was not going to live forever and the vacuum, in our absence, that would have been created by his demise, would have produced the same strategic dynamic that leaving now will produce.
Reply
Back in 2003, we were faced with re-arming Saddam, allowing him to re-arm himself or taking him out. Re-arming him or allowing him to re-arm himself might have been preferable to the Realpolitikers here. However, I submit that would have been the height of moral vacancy coupled with strategic idiocy.
Beau, Realpolitik during the cold war was strategically necessary and, as such, had at least some moral underpinnings. You would have to go a very long way to convince me that it was anywhere near strategically appropriate in Iraq... and, it certainly was not morally appropriate.-
-
87%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Back in 2003, we the people, weren't given those three choices. We were being scared out of our wits that Iraq had missiles pointed at our country that could hit us at will within minutes. So spare me, we were there too. and all of us didn't listen to Limbaugh and Fox news.
Reply-
100%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The assertion was Iraq had obtained or was attempting to obtain the materials to create either a nuclear weapon or a 'dirty bomb" in violation of the treaty Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War."
Reply
Which have been proven patently false many times over. Using your lie'o'meter, the admin lied to us. -
-
-
20%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suggest you dig out history books of the world. Point out to us the times where there were no wars. An ideal world would have none. We do not live in an ideal world. There are always those who think that they have the right to take what does not belong to them. Just look at the conquerors in history. Look at what Islam conquered. The problem in the middle east is the terrorists believe that Sharia law must be in place where ever Islam has ever conquered. Some of them are talking about getting Spain back. Islam believes that they are to conquer the world. The devout only differ as to the means.
Reply
What is your answer to these type of problems? Roll over and play dead, fight them here, or fight them elsewhere?
-
-
-
100%
dunkirk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, party line over country again. Seems NONE of that would be a what-if, if some President didnt invade based on lies and manipulated intel. Kinda odd how you left that out. AND I do love the sky is falling scenario you;re painting considering the Iraq's dont want us there.
Reply -
-
0%
galletta612110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HERES WHAT YOUR COMMUNIST OBAMA HAS IN MIND !
Reply
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition. A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
“The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution.”
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
“Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
“The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”
“We expect a lot of flak over this,” the classified memo continues. “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/militar...
Reply
From the source of the story....
"Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang
NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece."-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp
Reply
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
-
100%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was Blair that said it and Bush backed up this nonsense to build up the case for the U.N. It was being broadcast over here as well as over there.
Reply
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/launchchemicalwa... -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, in 2003, we had another choice, which was to continue doing what we had been doing before that--enforcing the UN no-fly zones and containing Saddam. That's a different alternative to the ones you listed--we could have avoided re-arming him, allowing him to re-arm, or taking him out.
Reply
And now your argument seems to be, since Saddam would have died eventually, we needed to hasten it along in order to cause the situation we wanted to prevent, the one in which we now find ourselves. You have no idea how Saddam might have prepared for a transfer of power in the event of his demise--which was by no means anywhere close--but he did show us he always prepared for eventualities. (And in a much better way than our commander-in chief did.)
In any case, Saddam was nearing his 66th birthday when we attacked, and there's no evidence to suggest he was in failing health at the time.
Every time you're faced with justifying the decision to invade Iraq, you do the same thing so many on the right did in 2003--you shift rationales to suit the argument against you.
You said we were faced with one of only three choices, all of which would result in a power struggle there, when in fact we had others that wouldn't have involved the carnage we've inflicted. Now you say we're the only thing keeping counterforces Saddam had under control in check, though we actively gave those counterforces their opportunities to enter the country.
You say it was not morally appropriate to allow Saddam to live--he was brutal to his people. Then you defend our acts of torture there, and the "collateral damage" we've caused millions of civilians during the war we started.
(And before you tell me you didn't defend torture, you did defend the treatment of prisoners we took there that has been considered by our own government torture when used against our troops in the past.)
You've also said in previous discussions we've had that we needed to control Iraq's oil. But we're reaping no benefit from that at this point--that control is in the hands of western oil companies, and does not appear to have affected the market for oil favorably.
You often complain about left-wing realpolitik. What do you call brutally taking Saddam out and causing tremendous collateral damage while destroying Iraq's infrastructure in order to provide ourselves a favorable government there, if not realpolitik? What do you call pretending to take the moral high ground while going after control of Iraqi oil, if not realpolitik?
For that matter, what do you call the bargains we made with General Musharraf in Pakistan, the payments we make to warlords in Waziristan, and those we gave to Muslim clerics we'd ordinarily call enemies in Iraq to stave off violence against our troops if not realpolitik?
-
-
0%
crghss10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"put Saddam in power by suppplying him with chemical weapons & helped him overthrow the democratically elected pro American Shah as well."
Reply
Sorry but this is to funny. The government in Iraq was not democratically elected when Saddam removed the guy in front of him and took power. The Ba'athist took over in a coup and Saddam was second in command to Abdul Rahman Arif. After a few years Saddam removed him.
The chemicals sold to Iraq could have been used for a great many things including medicine.
-
-
100%
orndorffter10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You bet ya grandpa, Ito think Obama is making the right call. He wont back down, thet thought that Obama would be a puppet for them, so far his standing up and is none of their puppets.I have the faith every american should have that our President is and well do what he promised, This country needs some one who cares and that person is President Obama.I have no dault in my mind, Obama is going to put America and her people back where we were at one time. The great country America.
Reply -
100%
cowboygrandpa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial:
Reply
Thanks for the invite.
First of all, all we have accomplished by being in Iraq is the continued wasting of tax payer dollars for a lie.
This has cost us far to many innocent lives,in Iraq and here at home. We are taking funding away from where it will do the most good and putting in the hands of terrorists on both sides of the conflict.
No matter how long we stay we will not change what is going to happen. All we are doing is weakening ourselves; financially, morally, bodily, while splitting the people of this nation into two waring camps.
We entered the war on false premises and have continued to fight it knowing we are fighting based on a lie. Any wonder we are having so many problems.
I say get out, pull the troops back into a surrounding area where they will be a strike force ready to intervene if needed.
We better be watching Russia and Iran, as well as the other war like nations in the region. If we continue to waste our resources on Iraq we will not have the resources necessary for the real deal when it comes down.
Just my take on it. But Obama is making the right call.
As an aside we better start focusing on securing the borders of this nation. And I am not speaking of only the Mexican border, we have many Rusians in this country illegally as well as Chinese,Pakistanis,... My point being we do not know who is here to harm us, or make a better living for themselves.-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There goes cowboygrandpa touting another liberal lie.
Reply
"First of all, all we have accomplished by being in Iraq is the continued wasting of tax payer dollars for a lie. "
Why did we go to war?
1. Hussein was refusing to allow the inspectors free reign.
2. The UN made mandate after mandate telling Hussein to comply.
3. One of the mandates said that member countries were asked to enforce the mandate.
4. There was credible intelligence that there were WMD's.
4a. The Kurds were gas attacked.
4b. Spy in the eye showed trucks pulling up to and leaving places that the inspectors were delayed from inspecting.
5. 22 other countries went in with our troops.
6. Over 500 WMD's were found along with tons of yellow cake. The WMD's were not in good repair for lack of maintenance so the liberals ignore them.
Why all the lies from the left about this?-
100%
Will131310 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and the yellowcake was known to have been there.. it was under IAEA seal BEFORE the first Gulf War.. and it was virtually harmless...
Reply
WMD's not in good repair.. when your gun doesn't fire and malfunctions.. don't you then just have a club.... certainly not a threat.. and that one is the one that got Rick Santorium.. voted out.. .. all except the right wing loony toons realized that one was just plain crazy.....
yes they were there.. but they were totally deteriorated.. chemical and biological agents have a very short shelf life... -
100%
cowboygrandpa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo:
Reply
You obviously missed Bushes own take of the mistake of Iraq. The lies that led us there. He truly regrets putting us there I believe. I think he sees the morass he has put this country into.
But hey don't let a little thing like the truth and logic get in your way. They haven't before why start now ??? LOL
I'm really tired of your left rants !!!! Now I could call you a right wing lunatic and all it does is inflame the rhetoric.
In fact I apologize for doing that in the past. It is not the right thing to do. I do not agree with your views and believe you are wrong. But to attack your beliefs is a show of weakness on my part. So please accept my apology for the attacks of your beliefs.
As for your reasons we attacked Iraq. Could we not be attacked for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction and being seen as having no regard for the sanctity of other nations rights to have weapons to defend themselves????
I mean because we did not like Sadam Husseins rules we have no right to go over and try and enforce ours.
You can say they wanted to destroy Israel, they wanted to take the world hostage with their oil. Blah Blah Blah .......
The bottom line is almost every nation in the world hates Israel, but Israel is protected by God. He will only allow what He will allow to happen. As far as the oil has not God put hooks into the mouthes of nations drawing us into war over where He said there would be wars and rumors of wars.
It just seems funny to me that Christians cannot see what is happening. We cannot stop it but we surely don't have to support it. Remember that in war innocents get killed, if you support the killing of innocents you have that blood on your hands as well.
How funny you will decry abortion as an act of murder, yet applaud the wholesale destruction of mothers,children, babies, dads, grandparents,pregnant women ...
I too am against abortion, war is abortion of mankind. We are aborting the innocent with guilty the aged with the unborn.
The last righteous war was WWII all the others since then have been for political and financial gain.
Go to war and see if you don't see the insanity differently.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Progressive10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for the invite, jovial. Seems to me the President is elected to set policy and military leaders are responsible for developing the strategy to implement that policy.
Reply
I'm certain Obama listens to recommendations from Gates and the Generals, but I'm also confident of his ability to make informed decisions as Commander-in-Chief.-
-
100%
Goppy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's one form of socialism.
Reply
A City Raises Taxes to build a baseball stadium. Thereby FORCING all citizens to participate whether they want to or not.
That's what George W. Bush did when he wanted to have a baseball stadium.
Another example.
A city wants private property ... so they declare citizens houses blighted and steal their homes from them.
That's also what George W. Bush did ... he needed land ... 200 acres ... to build the stadium that the people were going to build for him.
The only difference is that GW got to keep every thing the City built for him.
.
That's the unique, Morally Vacant Twist that The Modern Republican has put on Socialism.
.
-
-
20%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There goes Goppy again. Using the idea that any difference of opinion is "FRAUD and DUPLICITY ... of massive CYNICISM and IDEOLOGICAL PERVERSION". Only the far left wing view is good and proper.
Reply
The left ignores the facts that there were 22 other nations going into Iraq with us and that we went in under the UN mandate that allowed and member country to enforce their mandates against Hussein. The far left always rants that we attacked for a lie. The reason we went in was that Hussein NEVER allowed the inspectors free reign. They disallow the fact that over 500 WMD's were found although in bad shape for no maintenance. They disallow the fact that Husein used WMD's on the Kurds. They disallow the fact that there were mass graves because of all the people the Hussein family and others killed.
Way to go Goppy. Keep hammering the far left wing cause. At least this time you did not lie ans say you are a Christian conservative. -
100%
Jeboba10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gates and Petraeus are bought and paid for by the corporate interests that want to see the war go on as well as the oil companies that have not yet secured the Iraqis oil fields for themselves.
Reply
If Gates, Petraeus, and whomever else bucks up against Obama, he should fire them immediately for insubordination.
We have had quite enough of the neocon bull$hit!-
100%
Goppy10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What kind of Christian are you? This goes to the point that those who claim to be Christian but disavow the creed that were developed to separate the Christian from the Christian in name only. What creeds do you adhere to if any? Many things you post seem to deny the creeds.
Reply-
100%
Goppy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm a Christian who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Reply
I'm NOT the kind of Christian YOU are ... who believes in Torture, War, Lying to Promote War, Supporting Efforts to keep kids from getting healthcare, bigotry, and ... most importantly ... spewing hate ... which is something you are known for on Propeller.
In fact, I seriously doubt you understand what Christianity is ... other than has it has been explained to you by Karl Rove ... who's an atheist, by the way.
.
-
-
0%
slate10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When I say ... "my fellow Christian Conservatives" ... I'm saying 'my good friends, fellow Christians ... who happen to be Conservatives'.
Reply
Do you include yourself when you start with that phrase and then continue to deride Conservatives and Christians Goopy?
-
-
-
-
0%
slate10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Crespy, I'm evidence that (Gates and Petraeus are bought and paid for by the corporate interests that want to see the war go on as well as the oil companies that have not yet secured the Iraqis oil fields for themselves.)?
Reply
I think you need to lay off whatever it is sending you over the point of no return!
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jovial10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Obama pulls the troops and things break down in Iraq, it will be his fault... pure and simple. Insofar as it will have political consequences for him, it will have been politicized. Pretty much everything a president does has political consequences. There is nothing new there.
Reply-
-
100%
orndorffter10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what in the he.. are you saying? are you wanting a nother Veit Nam?he'll have politcal consequences if he does not bring them home like he promised.Have you ever saw the look on a small child face or a widows face after being told ,: I' m sorry to inform you that your Husband and Father has been killed in the line of duty, He died a Hero? well have you.?
Reply-
0%
jimdoze10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I had friends who died in Vietnam. My father was active duty in the Pacific during WWII. I had a brother who was active duty patrolling the Straits of Hormuz... and actually walked around Kharg Island. I have a close nephew in Iraq. So, you probably don't want to go there, orn. Plus, I know for a fact the President George Bush personally met with many, if not most, of the families who lost someone in the line of active duty during his administration. My point is that you are way off the mark to inveigh that foreign policy should be made overwhelmingly on on the protection of the lives of active duty service personnel. Heavily and strongly considered, yes. Overwhelmingly, no. Neville Chamberlain, in just one example, resoundingly demonstrated in such matters that the life you think you've saved today can be multiplied by the thousands of lost lives later. And, if you don't think that is operative here, you have your head in the sand.
Reply-
100%
willottica10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a thoughtful and wise leader
Reply
A thoughtful and wise leader, especially one in charge of the military, where the chain of command is of utmost importance, should not be publicly challenging his superior officer. If he wants to disagree, he should do so behind closed doors, as strenuously as he wants to, but not in a public forum. -
0%
DaneL10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dumbkirk
Reply
Here is a link showing he met with families of killed soldiers. There are many more.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=112503=... -
-
100%
orndorffter10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You just get your head out of the sand. My Big BROTHER died in Veit Nam fighting a war that we had no right being in, you try and pull the BS on me, but buddy I have been around and you dont know what your takling about, and you never answered my question. Have you seen it. well when they walked up to our house in their uniforms we knew, I have seen that look and still see it everytime I look into the mirrior. watching your mother fall to peices right befor your eyes knowing that hes gone we well never see him again.I beleive that you want war, if war is what you suport then war it is, because every chance I get I am going to remind you of all the mothers fathers wifes sisters and brothers who have lost their loved one for a fight we had no right to be in. the pain never heals you remember the last smile before they left,you look over and see an empty set at the supper table, you run across something that was specail to them. shall I go on? You just think about some of the things that you say, knowing that there are people that dont even know who you are and read what you have to say, many are mothers and wife sons and daughters who have lost their loved one. I wonder what they think of you..
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
100%
pcknowledge10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This Iraq war was completly unneccessary. Saddam was of no threat to us, & a stabilizing force in Iraq & that entire ME region. Iraqis who were unhappy under Saddam's rule were free to leave Iraq, and the ones who were unhappy did leave & settle elsewhere. Had Saddam died, he would have been replaced by one of his sons who would have kept the stability going. There is no way to introduce democracy there, as their government simply doesn't function that way. We are wasting our highly valuable military, time & money there. Granted, Iraq has oil but what the hell oil was cheaper before Bush began the Iraq war so the Iraqis were selling it at fair market value anyways.
Reply
Now, because of the war Bush began in Iraq, Iraq & the region surrounding Iraq is in a volatile state of chaos. Obama's plan is to bring our troops home, but ground realities may be that when he does bring them home, more chaos will ensue & there won't be a Saddam keeping things as orderly as possible in that part of the world.
Obama is stuck with a war not of his calling; a war that will never see any type of desirable ending, at least not in our lifetime.
And, after all, yrs ago our government helped put Saddam in power by suppplying him with chemical weapons & helped him overthrow the democratically elected pro American Shah as well. Can't remember which President was involved, do remember D(R)umsfeld shaking hands w/Saddam back then. -
-
-
100%
cushi10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe he will, but I know they are already trying to wear him down and he's only been in office two weeks! He is a strong man, but he's not a man of steel, so let's keep him encouraged with our voices of support for his decision and not allow the talking heads to drown us out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
94%
engineer10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
0%
THOMNH6210 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you libs are so smart what do you think we should do with N Korea, now that they have a long range war head that could strike the coast of California. What should we do with them, and where do you stand on a nuclear Iran. If you think Iraq was such a disaster what do we do when Iran nukes Israel or N Korea threatens the south.
Reply-
100%
crespi10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mass murderer Ted Bundy was given hours and hours of airtime on national television being interviewed by James Dobson.
Reply
Saddam was executed without being able to say ONE WORD to the international press concerning what he knew about the CIA's and Poppy Bush's dirty activities in the region.
That didn't seem fishy to anyone?
-
-
-
100%
frctm510 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no definition of victory that requires our troops to stay there indefinitely. However, I do believe that a hasty withdrawal would be a mistake as well. But I think we might be making a false assumption here. Given the fact that any withdrawal would be a phased one, we could measure the impact while it was in progress and halt or reverse it if necessary. Its not an either or situation and both sides are projecting the outcome.
Reply
The IDF has matured and the awakening councils have quelled violence in the Sunni community. The secular parties in Iraq won in the peaceful election where nearly all parties participated. I did not support going to war in Iraq, but I think it would be equally tragic if we squandered the gains that were made there. It would render the losses of our troops meaningless. I respect General Petreaus because he is not a cowboy but a thoughtful and wise leader. He understood the central importance of respecting the Iraqi people and their culture in waging a counter insurgency. That is why he insisted that the troops go out on community patrols and work in close cooperation with the Iraqi people. It exposed them to greater danger but it earned the respect of the Iraqis themselves. However, I would ask the general to commit to a time frame and make his case for it. -
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
100%
willottica10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Build defenses against such a long-range warhead.
Reply
It shouldn't be too hard. Long-range means time to see it coming. And if we can't shoot a missile out of the sky, then our defense capabilities are pretty useless, aren't they?
If Iran nukes Israel, then nuke'em back. But not until then. Nukes are supposed to be a deterrent force. The deterrent being that no-one would be stupid enough to use them.
-
-
-
10%
Skeptic10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gen. David Petraeus will, as the good soldier he is, continue to follow the orders of his Commander in Chief and continue to give him his best advice. HST fired MacCarthur, a fate that Petraeuaus will avoid, if possible. Obama has already proven his incompetence and inability to pick advisors - one can only hope he is willing to take the advice of a General who has proven he knows his business.
Reply -
-
-
80%
slate10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seeing how they've just had another election by the people of Iraq and a drastic reduction in violence and death, it does appear that it indeed may be time to come home and leave Iraq to her own destiny and be there if called for future assistance if asked for.
Reply
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose you believe we should start WWIII to neutralize all threats against us? Let's invade N. Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia and China too if necessary, right?
Reply
We're not omnipotent. We don't have the money nor the manpower to do that. -
-
50%
Jeboba10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're confusing your countries, leaders, and conflicts. There was no Shah of Iraq. That's the Shah of Iran you're thinking of. The Shah of Iran was installed by the U.S. by overthrowing a man the Iranian people democratically elected and loved. They hated "our" Shah.
Reply
The U.S. is the dirtiest country in the world. We play everyone against the other...installing our stooges to do our dirty work. In fact, Saddam was supported by us and called a friend because he went to war with Iran after they threw out "our" Shah and took our people hostage while bringing back from exile a religious nutcase to set their country back into the middle ages! -
50%
crghss10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is such a pile of bull. We've already signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)stating we're leave before 2011. 16 months or 24 months what's the difference? Petraeus is currently drawing up plans to move troops to Afghanistan. So where this B.S. is coming from who knows or cares.
Reply -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh be serious, crghss. You know we armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict during the '80s, in order to destabilize them both.
Reply
For that matter, we trained many who became the foundation for al-Qaeda to fight Russian forces in Afghanistan during the same period, but that's a whole other issue. -
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More lies by a liberal.
Reply
"Initially Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on August 7, 1978.[3][not in citation given] The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989."
"Al Qaeda (The Base) is an international Sunni Islamist extremist movement founded in 1988."
Your history is wrong. Al Qaeda started hen the Soviet troops were being withdrawn. So we did not arm them. Try again on that one.
"In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons."
Again the liberal lie. The US only supported Iraq. Think about the fact that not long before Iran had taken our embassy and kept the people there as prisoners for a long time. Why doe the left make up these things?-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you're responding to me, you need to go back and read my comment more carefully.
Reply
Here's what I said: "...we armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict during the '80s, in order to destabilize them both."
And: "...we trained many who became the foundation for al-Qaeda to fight Russian forces in Afghanistan..."
Are you disputing the fact that we worked with Osama bin-Laden in Afghanistan? Or that we armed both Iraq and Iran when they were fighting?
And when will you start to address individuals as individuals and stop your foolish painting everyone who disagrees with you as "the left"?
Stop being such a divisive partisan, and start talking about ocncrete issues in a serious way.
-
-
-
100%
Jeboba10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't change the subject just because the discussion isn't going in your favor! Iran isn't going to nuke anyone you idiot! They may be religious nutbags but they're not stupid. They need our money for their oil. In the final analysis, it's all about money!
Reply -
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Always the lies about Bush. Is that all liberals can do? Everything is Bush's fault. Anybody that has a different point of view is a liar, evil, etc. Do you ever think that by saying those kind of things that you are saying what you are?
Reply-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
100%
hibridge10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do the Iraqi people want .. for the US to leave or stay? Or doesn't that matter at all? While we're debating whether the US should continue what it started there or leave as soon as propitious .. has anybody asked the Iraqi people what their thoughts are on the subject? It is, after all, their country.
Reply-
100%
orndorffter10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Iraqi people said they did not want us there, they have come very close to our soliders, but they have said they dont want us to run their country, and dont want us there. You can't blme them because as you said it is there country, why do you think the reporter did what he did with the shoe to Bush.
Reply
-
-
HMMaceComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
100%
Natureboy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama is standing firm on his campaign promise to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration."
Reply
Nobody reads the fine print these days. Obama said that he would leave a residual force, and his advisors said that force may be as many as 50,000 troops - which would make his withdrawal not a withdrawal in fact but a fifty percent reduction. -
43%
4thchance10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a new stance,
Reply
We should withdraw or military from all countries and bring ever soldier home. Let's just let all these countries figure things out on their own and fend for themselves. Besides, we may be needing all our soldiers here at home soon.-
-
0%
4thchance10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds good to me...our country is going broke, I guess these countries need to start taking care of themselves until we get back on our feet again. In today's world, it's every man/country for themselves anyway. Much of the aid we give does not end up where it's suppose to go anyway. Plus, many of the countries we help don't show much appreciation for what we do for them. The entire world hates us, so why should we continue to help them. Let's help AMERICANS FIRST!
Reply
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
100%
Justice4All10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"According to Porter, the military has already begun its public relations campaign to paint recent events in Iraq in their favor, meanwhile setting Obama up for the fall in the future."
Reply
I think that last line sums it up. Iraq is a huge mess. All that's left is CYA, find someone to blame. This way they can blame Obama.
It would be funny if Obama gave them everything they wanted. Who would they blame when they failed? -
-
-
0%
Calypso56110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is quite apparent to me, as viewing some of these posts, that some of you would rather have the muslims take over OUR country, and we would be fighting them in our OWN backyards. As far as I can see, if hussein closes gitmo these dogs will be loose, and some of them that have already been released are back in the lead of their terrorist networks. As far as hussein changing the oath of the military from the Constitution to something HE made up!!! WOW!!! This man MUST think he's God. I hope these fine men and women that give their ALL to protect us, say NO to his methods of madness. Hussein is a scary man, and he is going to 'change' this country to a socialist nation where HE is in control of everything, including ALL of our lives and the choices we are able to make or not make. This man needs to be impeached NOW!!!
Reply
-
-
-
100%
gogertyl10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is time we got out of Iraq, Pres Obama is right to ask for withdrawal, after dealing with the secrecy and lies from the previous Administration, we need to start to bail out of that situation,especially since we are facing tough economic times in this country. The General needs to be cognizant of these facts,General Eisenhower stated at one time that Professional Soldiers are so afraid of not being in the mix that they create more drama than necessary, I am beginning to believe that, There is a fear of an underemployed commander, what I am going to do now. Send those poor military personnel home so they can start to help re-build our own country. ASAP Pmg
Reply-
0%
Hhussk10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama stated he would listen to his advisors. All the advisors are telling him that it would be a mistake to remove troops on his timetable.
Reply
Obama has no experience with the military or foreign affairs, and probably should spend a little more time listening to the advisors with the actual data related to Iraq, than the soundbytes repeated in the media. -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
soniyashrmaComment removed: Hard Banned
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.