You ask, ‘Precisely how has General Petraeus or any other serving officer not fulfilled their Constitutional duties?’

I said, ‘Iraq is a disaster, the surge has failed. The General is sworn in to tell the truth, and does not admit the two truths I just stated. That is lying, and when under oath, a violation of the law- Constitutional law.’

Question answered.

You: ‘What did you seriously expect, violence to drop to zero in a few months? Is the problem that violence is not being reduced quickly enough, or what? If violence has gone down, then what, precisely, as failed?’

Me: ‘The surge was ‘the answer’. It has not been. It has merely staunched a wound or two, while others open or are being sliced. Anyone who was around in Vietnam knows this merry-go-round. Victory is near! BS!’

Q and A.

You: ‘What, exactly, was a lie? ‘

Me: ‘See paragraph 1- when you knowingly do not level with people- it’s a lie. Period. The problem is folk like you accept these evasions as part of the game. He lied. Bush lied. The Congress is a bunch of dimwits, and the electorate- folk like you, yawn, as more Americans burn.’

Q and A.

You may not like the answer, but it is a strawman to type, ‘you didn’t answer any of my direct questions which indicates to me that you can’t.’

I did, you evaded. Thus, you illustrate my point: ‘One must face reality, and deal w it. That the electorate refuses- in the war, global warming, healthcare, etc. shows that we, in our own collective way, are as deluded as the wacky Muslims who believe mass murder will get them rewards in the afterlife.’

Thanks, I guess.

http://www.petehamill.com/bushpresidency.html

The surge was ‘the answer’. It has not been. It has merely staunched a wound or two, while others open or are being sliced. Anyone who was around in Vietnam knows this merry-go-round. Victory is near! BS!

See paragraph 1- when you knowingly do not level with people- it’s a lie. Period. The problem is folk like you accept these evasions as part of the game. He lied. Bush lied. The Congress is a bunch of dimwits, and the electorate- folk like you, yawn, as more Americans burn.

My ‘conclusions’ are facts- how many attacks still go on daily? The Iraqis have failed in every attempt to work with each other. These are not debatable points. One must face reality, and deal w it. That the electorate refuses- in the war, global warming, healthcare, etc. shows that we, in our own collective way, are as deluded as the wacky Muslims who believe mass murder will get them rewards in the afterlife.

McMartworld triumphs again in so narcotizing the public that resistance is not even futile, but not an option!

A general is sworn to the military to uphold the Constitution, not provide cover for a President that has started a war w no purpose, and flouted laws both domestic and abroad for it.

Precisely how has General Petraeus or any other serving officer not fulfilled their Constitutional duties?

Petraeus has gotten the outrageous violence of early 07 down to the merely intolerable violence of 06.

What did you seriously expect, violence to drop to zero in a few months? Is the problem that violence is not being reduced quickly enough, or what? If violence has gone down, then what, precisely, as failed?

If you watched the hearings, all Petraeus did was another Bushco dog and pony show- evasions and half-truths. Put aside the politics, and face the reality.

What, exactly, was a lie? When you accuse someone of lying, you are attributing intent to them. Petraeus is working with a set of metrics developed by the CMF-I staff that are largely classified. His conclusions disagree with yours. How does that prove intent to deceive? Why is he not merely wrong? Of course, no one can prove even that definitively given the vagarities of Iraq.

The assumption – which is what it really is – that Petreaus is lying means that most of his staff and advisers at CMF-I are liars too since the General doesn’t collect and analyze the information himself and the data is available throughout the HQ. Since we haven’t had any leaks from CMF-I about Petraeus forcing them to “cook the books” I guess we have to assume that those hundreds of officers are either part of the BUSHCO deception machine or are too cowardly to speak out. Perhaps you can inform us which it is?

I did answer yr point, as quoted above. Only the hole in his behind was missing. It was a puppet show. If you agre to be the public face for distortions, you deserve all the scorn you get.

Be a man, General, and tell it like it is. Shaun Mullen has a post about the diff facets of the war that was far more accurate than what Petraeus said.

As for cover, let’s see, by not stating that the surge has failed to bring about its goals, by waffling and equivocating. C’mon, by even asking such q’s you are again allowing these bastrads to distort reality, talk down to the public, and with reactions like yours, there’s only more of the same in the chute.

Hold these bastards to higher standards- and I don’t care whether D, R, or I. Or FBI, AG, Army, or what have you.

Lying when lives are on the line is unacceptable. If you accept it, though, then you are part of the problem. It’s not the damn media, but the people who swallow this BS whole.

The only way we can win, and all sides know it, is with a national effort like in WW2. There is no will to do that, and Bushco is anathema to such belt0tightening.

The only reasonable solution is to get out ASAP. In 20 years, people will look back and say, ‘Why didn’t they just pull out when WMDs were not found?’

Things are always complicated when the simplest solutions are overlooked. This is a version of Occam’s Razor that few ever follow.

As for reasonable people- it’s reasonable to disagree whether or not to go into Iraq if WMDs were not present, but after nearly 5 years, nothing accomplished, 1000s of Am’s dead, a million or so Iraqis dead, and no end in sight, and with Vietnam’s utter waste (and while WW1 and 2 were justifiable, Vietnam was nothing but utter waste) still in memory of most over thirty-five, it simply is not reasonable to do the same thing, bang your head against the same sort of wall, with even less resolve and firepower, and expect different results.

Add to that that Vietnam was a civil war between two parties in an old nation and this is a civil war between 3-7 parties in a nation that never was, and to stay is just to throw bodies into the fire.

That is NOT reasonable, that is psychotic.

I think Petraeus has become part of Bush’s political strategy. Doesn’t mean Petraeus is doing Bush’s bidding. Does mean IMO that Petraeus, simply by expressing viewpoints that he has come by independently , and by virtue of his military cachet, is potentially of political use to the Bush Administration. It isn’t for nothing that Bush has invoked Petraeus’s name probably hundreds of times.

Petraeus’s revised answer certainly seems a recognition of the politics afoot, but the more you look at the revision the less helpful it seems, besides betraying (?!) a bit more interest in the politics then he strictly ought to have. His first answer seems an ordinary citizen’s, his second a general’s.

And what specific remarks of his would you consider “giving cover” to Bush? He strikes me as someone who is putting a positive (but not dishonest) spin on the stats because he wants more time to try to deliver a win for America, not because he’s a partisan who wants to deliver a win for Bush. Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not that’s possible anyway, and whether or not it’s worth the cost if it is possible, and whether or not it’s the best course of action given other concerns in the world, etc.

A general is sworn to the military to uphold the Constitution, not provide cover for a President that has started a war w no purpose, and flouted laws both domestic and abroad for it.

By any reasonable measure, the surge has failed. It was Obama and the Wisc Sen who said what everyone w a brain knows: Petraeus has gotten the outrageous violence of early 07 down to the merely intolerable violence of 06. This is like saying things are good when we have nuclear winter, just because there are no more nukes that can explode.

If you watched the hearings, all Petraeus did was another Bushco dog and pony show- evasions and half-truths. Put aside the politics, and face the reality. If yuo are not willing to call a spade a spade then you have no reason to complain. Petraeus and the others who have testified in the past- be it on the war, the firing of US attorneys, etc., lie becaue Congress lacks the balls to indict them for their contempt, at minimum, and the electorate does not give a damn.

I laugh when I hear that Bush and Congress have hit historic approval lows, because the idiots who approve are hopeless , and the vast majority of disapprovers will simply whine, and still pull levers for the D’s and R’s.

Whether it’s Hillary or an R as Prez, this war will go on. If you want it ended, dump the two major parties, or take a shot w Obama.

If you cannot do that, don’t even pretend to care about civics, for that dog dun woofed.

It says much that anyone, under oath before Congress to tell the truth, should be lauded for that.

It’s like celebrating a 20 year old for going to the bathroom without his mommy.

One should not celebrate the minimal accomplishment, but the above average- no, the spectacular.

That such low expectations are held by the public is why politicians and military puppets like Petraeus pander down to that level. Again, if one wants to know why public discourse and political life is in such trouble, look at the lowest common denominator electorate- not the lackeys that electorate elects!

His mention of “very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq” raises questions that did not get addressed of what those interests are, the degree to which they’re under his purview, and why he thinks these interests are being properly served. I think that once these issues get outside the military sphere, his views on them should be accorded the same weight as those of any intelligent observer, no more no less.

But Petraeus’s words are being accorded the treatment of the Delphic Oracle, which I think is really not fair to him as well as not appropriate in terms of the discussion of political process that should inform our Iraq policy.

TRYING TO ACHIEVE THOSE INTERESTS is what we’ve been doing for 6 years. The reason for the hearings was to assess whether the latest tactics are working.

If anything, the clarification is a move to vagueness and away from answering Warner’s question at all.
Stating goals and interests in no way evaluates success. Basically, the clarification is just a more diplomatic way of saying “I don’t know”,

“It is in my personal interests to win the lottery” says nothing about my chances of doing so or the wisdom of investing lots of money in lottery tickets..

There is nothing in the clarification to actually clarify anything, unless ESP is employed.

I personally view the military’s role re: the Executive and Congress as one that gives analysis and draws up possible plans, but defers on the ultimate direction picked. Thus the question is appropriate (although he could have just answered that it wasn’t in his purview at all) and one like CS asked which is “If you were in charge, would you pull out of Iraq and fight the GWOT differently” might not be because the hypothetical implies he has direct control over what happens instead of just being a consultant.

Petraeus understands how politicized the stakes are here, and that opponents will pounce on any misstep. He’s a very PR-savvy general in addition to being a smart strategic thinker. But he’s also a human being and it’s very possible – even likely – that his initial response to Sen. Warner’s question revealed the true level of uncertainty going on inside his head.

We should celebrate his honesty in that response. It makes him a more compelling witness, even if he recognized the political damage he’d done and tried to undo it. The more important point, however, is that our civilian leadership needs to ask the hard questions going forward: is continuing on this project really helpful for our national security? Or are we just kicking the can down the road in vague hopes that some White Swan will save us? Is it worth it spend hundreds of billions more dollars and expends hundreds more American lives continuing with this policy, especially given other exigencies around the world? If anything, his statement is an opening to the more serious discussion we should be having right now. Is it time to cut our losses and redeploy? Or should we persist in this strategy until next summer, knowing that we’ll have to answer the same question again, albeit with new challenges (Kirkuk? Basra?) that will possibly get much worse in the next few months?

1) I dont’ know if our strategy in Iraq will make America safer

and

2) I do know that our strategy in Iraq will make America safer

Are contradictions. Adding a subclause to #2 to clarify does not remove the contradiction.