McCain, Giuliani, Clinton and Gen. Petraeus

Republic Party knuckledraggers John McFinished and Rudy Julieannie need to quit crying about Hillary and ask their fellow Republic Party member (John Boehner) why he called our troop losses in Iraq a "small price to pay".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lUS4NQu9uo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F9%2F13%2F165050%2F161%3Fdetail%3Df

Petraeus did "cook the books".No one has challenged the statements in the body of the ad. The play on Petraeus name is perhaps extreme but Petraeus is part of the failure of America in Iraq. This is his third tour. We have been in Iraq for four and a half years. Some would say that our military and the civilian leaders have failed. For some reason, no one is being blamed for this disaster. "Bad fairies" no doubt.

How far the democratic party has drifted to the kook fringe in 16 years. Canidate Bill Clinton had his Sister Sojourn momemt by denouncing rap lyrics that promoted cop killing and got a lot of credit from moderate voters.

Canidate Snow White and the seven dwarfs could have done the same this week, but they are all afraid the kook fringe.

John E: Would you rather pay a bigger price for freedom later? If you look at history, the losses in Iraq are nothing. The US lost more soldiers in a single day in World War 2 than have died in the entire 4 years of the Iraq war. The losses really are insignificant if you look at it as a percentage of soldiers who have served there.

A recent poll by Defencetalk.com asked four questions re: Iraq. and received the following results:

1. Get out and let Iraqis worry about their country 1741 votes - 40.2%
2. Break it up into three countries 988 - 22.8%
3. Increase troops for faster and easier exit 878 - 22.2%
4. Get Iraqi neighbors involved 729 votes - 16.8%

Defence Talk is a respected saber-rattling info blog - visited by active and retired military as well as government contractors.

Gen. Petraeus is a member of the General Staff is he not?

The General Staff which after 4 and a half years still has not produced finis to a two bit, tin pot Arab power.

That is betrayal. Betrayal that is not exclusively theirs. It must be shared with cowardly, draft dodging presidents and vice presidents, defense secretaries, CIA, Homelame Security, and Justice Secretaries.

The incompetent Generals and the Chickenhawk civilian leaders must answer for how many dead Americans?

Dead for what?

In Rome they fell on their swords. In Japan they committed hari-kari. In the United States and England they get rich on book contracts. That is if they haven't already gotten filthy rich on defense contracts.

Vote for them again why don't you? Not that it makes any difference who you vote for cause a mendacious Supreme Court will put the sleaze of the oligarchy's choice in power.

It is a sad day when there are a significant number of people that feel the loss of 700,000+ lives in Iraq are nothing.

Does this give us freedom? Would a million lives give us freedom? How about 3 million? How much freedom did we gain or protect by the loss of 3 million Vietnamese? How else do you measure a war? Simply by saying it's done and not considering the price? We lost Iraqi lives in addition to the lives of our American soldiers. We also lost money that could have been spent on our own people, and money that could have gone towards humanitarian purposes.

This lack of concern over others is a symptom of a much greater problem...a profound level arrogance of many americans, where there is total disregard for the lives of others. The rest of the world sees this. Unless this changes, we will lose out in foreign relations, from a political and business/trade level.

This is not the first time a military general may be distorting facts, cooking the books, or just plain lying to us. One did that very thing in advancement of this war in the first place in front of the United Nations, the Congress, the American People. And congressmen and women voted for the war based on these distortions. Why wouldn't anyone question a military general? This is still a democracy and after four years of witness to this tragedy, we should all question anything and anyone we wish. I see nothing wrong, no flip flopping on the part of a senator who voted for the war based on false information to have changed his/her mind after all of the true facts are revealed.

[retired] Gen.Wesley Clark endorses Hillary....enough said.

Go Rudy!

Paulo

I have a job. It has taken me twenty years to work my way up to department head. I do what my boss tells me to do. So does the General. George W. Bush is every military person's boss in this country. Generals have too much to lose to go up against their boss. It was a mistake, one more made by George W. Bush, to ask his employee to testify before Congress. Is he looking for a scapegoat? If we have to flee Iraq in disgrace, will George W. Bush say, "Well I simply took the advice of my generals"? He calls himself the decider. He doesn't need testimony from anyone. It's all his decisions. It is wrong to ask people seeking public office to comment on this charade. Nobody running for the presidency of the U.S.A. has any say over what comments organizations such as move-on or the Defense of Freedom people have to say. So, they should not have to respond to it. Quit trying to tie people to extreemist groups and listen to what they, themselves, have to say.

I think Gen. Clark will help Hillary with the male vote, in that he most likely will be seen as the next Sec. of Defense, which I predicted early in the spring. This will play well for the military vote as well.

Hillary called Gen. Petraeus a liar. How is that respectful? And this from a woman (I think) who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked her in the head.

And Hildy wants to be commander in chief? Commander of what? Based on her treatment of the general, if she's elected, the military will be quitting in droves. She can then have the Bezerkely-SF kooks
lead the nation's defense forces by throwing flower petals at Al Queda.

Clinton calls General Petraeus a liar ("suspend disbelief"), but trusts Norm Hsu.

Somebody please explain.

In related news, the LA Times, the Trib's sister newspaper, has a great article on con-man Norm Hsu and how his conduct raised red flags for everyone but the Clinton campaign.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hsu16sep16,0,5477864,full.story?coll=la-home-center

He treated her campaign staff to Las Vegas vacations. And nobody asked why he did this, or the origin of his money, or indeed who he was.

Bruce, you're a real head case.

Norm Hsu has nothing to do the the Iraq war and nothing to do with this argument about Petraeus and Clinton. Clinton did not call him a liar but indicated a disbelief in the numbers being given by him and if you believe other sources, which I do, the numbers were skewed in several instances so to be more positive. Petraeus had the number compiled for his congressional report. Clinton as well as anyone else has the right to question not only the numbers but the source as well. This is not an attack on the military or our troops but on statements designed to promote a positive image of job performances. Is thisis not allowed in your world Bruce, to question what you feel is wrong or do we to just accept what we are told because of a man in a uniform.

Hse made a lot of contributions and not just to Clinton. It is another example of some of what is wrong about accepting political money. Rest assured others have their Norm Hse's and a broad brush much be used when discussing political money. One side is no better than the other when accepting dollars. It would be a good discussion for another time. However as in your case, just off the subject. Are we to assume that as in most of your posts, you're just unable to give any justifiable argument to your rants so you think any noise is better than no nois.

It's wrong for McCain or anyone else to demand a person say something. What is that all about? Freedom of speech must mean something else to repubs.

Hillary said she respected that lying general and respected the murderous (according to Murtha) troops. Why can't you move on?

McCain and Giuliani may not want to link themselves so closely to Gen. Petraeus. The general told at least one outright lie to Congress. When questioned about whether or not it mattered if a person was shot in the front or back of the head in the counting of sectarian deaths, Petraeus said that it didn’t matter, that any killing by a sectarian motive was counted. However, National Public Radio reported on 9/13/2007 that deaths by a shot to the head ARE NOT counted by the military among sectarian killings, even if they are for sectarian reasons. Thus, the number of such deaths Petraeus reported is about 50% too low, making things in Iraq much worse than he wants us to think.

An important related question is "When will Congress start putting the people who lie to them in prison?"

Hillary called Gen. Petraeus a liar. How is that respectful? And this from a woman (I think) who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked her in the head.

Posted by: John D | September 16, 2007 1:41 AM

Show the link of her saying exactly that. Not a link from one of the paid liars that interpret the facts for you.
And this from a "man?' (I doubt) that wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him in the head. I have some magic beans, Johnny. Want to buy them?

Quote of the Day

"When the president asks to buy more time, the question is, more time for what?"

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid neo-losers!

http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/

Clinton calls General Petraeus a liar ("suspend disbelief"), but trusts Norm Hsu.

Somebody please explain.

Posted by: Bruce | September 16, 2007 9:25 AM

I'll explain it for you Bruce. Your an RNC shill. A dissembler. You spread misleading propaganda. In other words, a sham. You have ZERO credibility!!!

Giuliani is a fraud who believes he's entitled to be President because he was mayor of New York on Sept. 11th and ventured down to ground zero after the buildings collappsed.
Giuliani did nothing to protect NYC after the WTC was first attacked in Feb. 1993. He also left New York City with a record budget deficit of over $5 billion.
Hey Giuliani, tells us all about your divorces, adultery, and extra maritial affairs. I mean, you announced your divorce to your one wife at a press conference. Inquiry minds want to know more. While your're at it, tell us why most of your family doesn't support your bid for presidency.