"Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us."
I listened to some of General Petraeus's report which was supposed to be unbiased-- a true and exact accounting of what has happened, what will happen in Iraq. They say he's a good man. Both parties say that. They say we should listen carefully to him and believe whatever he says as he is unbiased and a soldier who knows.
Does anybody believe if he hadn't said we have to keep fighting in Iraq, that the surge was working, that he'd still be in any position to even give his report? No matter how good he might be, and I don't know about that, he is where he is because he agrees with Cheney/Bush. Without that, he'd have been fired like any general who didn't agree.
Listening to some of Petraeus's testimony made me have no faith in anything he said. I suppose the highlight was when he said that because bin Laden and Ahmadinejad said Iraq is the center of the war against terror, it meant it was. I wish I remembered the name of the representative who rebutted that statement. Paraphrased, he said-- and you would trust bin Laden and Ahmadinejad to tell you where the center of the war on terror was? They have lied to us about everything. Why would you trust them to define this? Petraeus didn't answer. What could he have said?
Anybody who attacks General Petraeus is accused of being unpatriotic. I heard a good comment on that one too. In 2003, if someone had challenged Powell's credibility, who was also supposed to be above reproach, maybe we would not have gotten into Iraq to start.
I don't know if Patraeus is a good man or a man who has sold out to get power but whatever he is, I considered his figures to be only aimed at one thing-- justify a war effort that has gone wrong from the start and ignoring anything that didn't fit his plan.
He said that by March we will have the numbers involved in the surge back out-- implying that equals success. In March, military experts have said we will have to draw down our numbers (back to what they were before the surge) because the military as it is currently composed cannot sustain this current effort. Remember this is a military that many say is still not fully equipped all these years into a chosen war.
To measure the recent supposed successes, Petraeus doesn't appear to count the millions of Iraqis who are now refugees, doesn't count car bombing deaths, nor victims who were shot in the back of the head or was that front of the head? Whatever it was, the basis of it is, that he is defending a war and using whatever manipulation of statistics that suit his desired conclusion.
When I watched General Petraeus testify, I saw dead looking eyes. Did this man believe anything he was saying? Had he been primed by the Bush administration to say what they wanted? Does he know he sold out a long time ago to achieve his own success? I am pretty sure the people who favor this war will have seen him as heroic and use what he said to justify why they are right.
People who saw what I did will be afraid-- very afraid of what comes next which could just be Iran as who in our government has the courage to stand against this bunch? Most Americans never had the desire to be permanent occupiers of unwilling foreign peoples.
I do believe a strong military is important, that there have been great military leaders, men who know how to fight a war. Any of those, who disagreed with Bush, were forced into retirement. Bush talks about let the military run it. Who believes they have ever had that chance?
This has been about politics from the start. The American people would not have backed a war the size this administration wants; and so they have lied and hidden facts, and I have no reason to believe anything has changed. This hasn't been a country willing to sacrifice anything for the war effort, but a certain percentage love some kind of vicarious war that they don't know how we got into or what we hope to accomplish but we darnwelldohavetowin-- whatever win means today.
In 2001, on this date, we were attacked by a terrorist extremist group that only had to gather a relatively few men to pull off a horrendous attack. Today I am not sure who or where our enemies are, but it doesn't look good. Colin Powell recently said the real risk to us is not those who can blow up our buildings or even kill us but what we do to ourselves. Now, that's a scary thought!
Update: just in case not everyone reads comments (and there have been some excellent ones this time), this is a link from Winston that I hope everybody does read who wants to really think about this. Not only what the Bush side (and Petraeus is on the Bush side never mistake that) is doing as well as what the right wing is spreading around to their people-- Nashville is Talking-- is America safer?. The things Senator Biden is saying have been in other clips but it's pretty concise here. Biden was just there-- not that the right believes anything from anyone who might suggest their emperor has no clothes!
22 comments:
Amen! I think it's pretty obvious over these past almost 8 years....you don't agree with Bushy and SAY what he wants....hey, you're history! IT's that simple.
I thought most of the questions asked by the Congressmen were good questions. But I thought Tom Lantos statement before the thing got started where he basically called Petraeus a liar was very unprofessional, but most Congressional hearings are not really about listening to the people that are testifying they are more about getting the Congressmen on TV and having them make speeches.
Funny how Lantos was all for the first Gulf War, but he had connections to the Kuwaiti Royal family and made a bunch of money off of them. But this is all about politics and the Dems trying to take back the White House.
just out of curiosity, ingineer, do you ever realize how the republicans are trying to hold onto power by playing the fear card over and over and the big daddy can take care of you but nobody else can?
I wish someone would ask what success in Iraq would look like. What exactly is the goal these days? How will we know when we have met the goal if they are not articulated? I think the objectives seem strange and elusive because the real reasons we are still there are never spoken out loud. That's why none of this ever makes sense.
Incidentally Rain yes I do realize that. I don't discount the political angle of either side and I don't like many things the current administration has done. But for my money there are no Democrat presidential candidates that seem willing to make tough decisions unless the polls tell them to. And the dems showed during Clinton how they respond to terrorists and that is (1) they don't want to look like tough guys and then they run away (Somalia) and (2) they treat them like regular criminals (African Embassy Bombings and attack on USS Cole) instead of sending FBI agents to find evidence to issue subpoenas we should have used the military to deal with a military attack on a military vessel. When all the whiners in this country realize that we are in a world wide battle against Muslim extremists to determine the future of our planet then we can seriously prosecute this war.
and what exactly did Bush do about the cole bombing which happened right before our elections? Suppose clinton had attacked some country that wasn't related to the attack but would be good for the election. What exactly did you want him to do? Bomb Iraq for it? I can hear the republicans now as they did whenever he bombed any location bin Laden was supposed to be-- wag the dog, they cried and you probably too.
Given Clinton's time in office was all but up, wasn't it as much up to Bush to deal with?
I have written about all those points you raised and obviously it didn't do any good. We don't see the world at all the same. You obviously think one of the republican candidates could deal with terrorism effectively. Not sure which one you have in mind but you can blog about it in your own blog. I will write about presidential candidates again here but frankly on the republican side, i see no one I'd trust any more than I did bush. The results of your votes for bush are obvious which means you will vote to keep us on the same path to fighting terrorism in some country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but you will believe it's right because of your right wing talk shows and fox tv.
Bush did nothing until after 9/11, even though he was warned repeatedly right after he got in office, and then he didn't try to get bin Laden in Afghanistan maybe because he preferred he be out there. Maybe he, like recently some of the republican candidates don't see him (who happens to be an avowed terrorist and has admitted his attacks on us) as important in any of it. And yet you think republicans are the ones who are effective against terrorists. amazing. They are good at spewing out hot air. I'll agree with that, not sure it'll do much for getting the ones who actually do attack us.
I think robin andrea hit the nail on the head with wondering what success in Iraq would look like. I really don't think those in control have any firm idea of when or what has to happen in order to consider our "job" there finished. This seems to be another example, like most of this war has been, of incomplete planning.
Will we ever learn from history? These people have been fighting among themselves for centuries and we think that we can waltz in, over power the powers that be (sure, that was easy) and they will change to our way of thinking? Maybe we really need to re-think what we are looking for in political candidates as to their ideas on world order. Some recent ones sure seem to have been flawed.
The war in Iraq will be a success when we can not tell the difference between Bagdad and Larmie, Wyoming. Jesus will wear a white cowboy hat and rule the world. There will nolonger be Jews, Christians or Muslims. We will all be the same. Winning doesn't sound attractive to me.
We are closer to agreeing on Iraq than disagreeing.
You are correct Dick the war in Iraq seems to be one bumbling mis-step after another. It all started with thinking that it was going to be like victory in France and there was going to be big love fest after we toppled Sadam.
Clinton dealt with all the attacks the same way, like a law enforcement problem. The first World Trade bombing, the embassy bombings, The Cole just happened to be the last one before he left. He made it clear in Somalia that he didn't want to the military to portray a tough guy image. That is why they went in with those dreaded Humvees you always complain about, instead of the armored vehicles and gunship support that the commanders on the ground requested.
My thoughts on the presidential election have nothing to do with TV or Radio, it is more of the left in this country that take their marching orders from the New York Times or CNN.
I want to see Bin Ladin's head on a pike, but that will mean sending troops into Pakistan. Are you ready for that? It may mean a real war with significant numbers of casualties, the kind that Dan Rather predicted in the first Gulf War. But it may also happen with troops just going into the Northwest Territories and not going into the main part of Pakistan that is controlled by the government. It depends how the government reacts there. If they see it as incursion onto their territory or if they decide that it really wont affect the country as a whole and turn the other cheek since an all out fight against us would be suicide.
well put down law enforcement all you want as a solution to catching terrorists but all of the ones we have caught anywhere except in Iraq or Afghanistan have been due to the cops. The problem with thinking you can find a military solution to terrorism is it's a criminal problem. There is no country to attack-- other than the Taliban who sheltered bin Laden as Pakistan is today. And btw the Taliban are regrouping and that's not over either. They all want us out of their nations and they will all fight to the death to get us out.
If you don't like the idea of going into Pakistan after bin Laden, how can you favor Bush having the power to attack Iran, who does not have bin Laden? How do we fight there as well as in Iraq when we are stretched thin now and borrowing to do what we are currently doing.
Somalia is something Clinton inherited from Bush Sr. and I think it's so far past the issue that it's not certain to me why the right wing is still talking about it? Do you wish we had 100,000 troops in there too? What exactly does the right want in all this? Certainly not safety for the United States as Petraeus said today that he can't say anything we are doing in Iraq will make us safer.
What gets me with Iraq is first we went in to find WMD. Then it was take out Saddam. Then it was a democratic Iraq but it better not be under Sadr. Now what is it? What robin said is right. We have no defined victory there. And you are right too, parapluie. Do we really believe we can make the world into our shape and are we so terrific that we think we are the only way it should be anywhere?
Everyone says that this cannot be dealt with by the military. They can kill people and break things. They can temporarily make everybody play nice as long as they stay in a given region but the solutions to Iraq have to be with Iraqis and we may not be thrilled with who and how they resolve that.
Police work, which includes FBI, CIA and other espionage agencies is more effective for what we are facing.
As for fear that CNN would dominate the news, I personally watch MSNBC because I find it more fiery. CNN bores me when I turn it on. I don't think they are running anything anywhere near as much as fox is influencing the right wing.
I am not putting down law enforcement but their job is here in the US, not issuing subpoenas to people in Africa or Asia who will never appear in court. And remember the CIA could not talk to the FBI before 9/11 remember the Church Amendment that good old Democrat who didn't want our anti-terror forces to be able to share international information with domestic police.
I think the entire law enforcement and intelligence community needs to work together to try and stop terrorism but it is a difficult task and not one that law enforcement is not used to. They are used to reacting to a crime and then going after the bad guys. They can't very easily arrest people for crimes they are about to commit. But terrorists need to be caught before they attack and this requires an entirely different mindset than our police are used to.
As for all terror suspects not being apprehended by the military I am pretty sure it was not the FBI that launched the missile from the Predator drone into the car full of Al Quaida guys in Yemen shortly after 9/11. No subpoenas issued to them just swift and sure military style justice. And all those high value targets that were in the secret CIA prisons. Where did they all come from?
I do favor going into Pakistan. I don't believe they are the friend that they have made themselves out to be. But the anti-war whiners in this country will scream like stuck pigs if we have to fight a big war to get Bin Ladin.
I still bring up Somalia because it pisses me off. The commander on the ground requested armored vehicles and air support for the mission and the Clinton White House said "No they did not want to be perceived as powerful bullies." And many good men lost their lives and bodies of American soldiers were drug through the streets a couple of months into the first Democrat president since the Iran hostage days of Jimmy Carter. You didn't see that kind of crap when Reagan was in office. I didn't want to see 100,000 troops in there. We had enough to do the job that we were tasked with but they were sitting ducks the way the mission went down.
Like I said I agree with most of what you and others have said in here about Iraq. It has been a mess.
I have seen some good stuff on MSNBC but I watched Olberman for the first time in a long time the other night and the vitriol that was coming out of his mouth made me so mad I wanted to throw something through the TV.
Parapluie I somewhat agree with you. Some day we will all look alike. When I see the mixed race friends my son has, I realize that eventually we are all going to be light brown and then maybe we won't have such a problem with racism. But I am sure we will find something to fight about.
Just before coming here I was reading:
http://tinyurl.com/24t78c
We need desperately to have someone we can believe, but this Petraeus is not it. He is simply a brain-washed pawn of the Bush administration who has a vested interest in justifying and prolonging his own job.
I feel totally betrayed by the government and by both political parties. Bush's stupidity and incompetence are assuring that Bin Laden's objectives are met. Jointly, they are keeping us terrified, and I believe that is the first objective if terrorism.
Thanks for another well-phrased post on a very touchy and volatile subject.
On somalia get over it. You care so much about it because there were films and then a movie made about it. There are those dying now too, suffering terribly. Clinton made a mistake that cost what a few lives? and damaged some American's, who were watching, fragile egos which is what gets whipped up constantly by the Bush drumbeats. Yes, the losses in Somalia were sad, tragic but how many lives has Bush cost with his mistake and if Petraeus gets his way this will go on for 10 more years!
Winston put a good link into his comment and worth others checking out http://tinyurl.com/24t78c
Espionage work has to happen in our country and every country. If you thought, which I doubt, that the military could catch homegrown terrorists and you want a military state over here, then you are not even a conservative but a fascists and on your way to a dictatorship. I doubt you want that. When people do bad things here, they are caught by the police doing good police work. Not many of us want our military patrolling our streets... as for who is in the secret prisons and Guantanamo, who knows. The bush administration won't give them trials or let anybody even in their families know as much as they can avoid it. It could be anybody. Some were innocent victims of tribal vendettas and they sometimes have already been sent home.
The military is to fight traditional wars and they are very good at that. Terrorism is guerrilla warfare and it's not so easy to fight. No country, no enemy standing in front of you. It could be the Bush people thought like you that good espionage wasn't a key to this as they fired a lot of interpreters who weren't certifiably heterosexual. Kicked them out of the military too. I mean who needs to read the language or understand what that side is saying? Right!!!!!!!
Your Pogo comment hit the nail right on the head!
ingineer 66,
Genes do not mix like paint colors, there will never be a world peopled with only brown skin and brown eyes. But homogenious humans is not what we are needing for peace. All peoples must realize that we all have human needs to have a group identities different from other groups and we can't be God making others all in our image.
Let me just say on Somalia, I have been pissed about it since 1993, long before any books were written or movies made. You shouldn't assume things about me when you don't know.
I don't think you are really reading my posts. I do want the FBI and police handling domestic work, I believe very strongly in the protections provided in the Constitution for US Citizens but in a foreign country a military style attack should have been dealt with militarily not like it was someone robbing a bank here in the US.
A mob killed those soldiers and there is no way to have been angry about it before the films were out there as they were on our news almost immediately and I remember seeing them well. Nobody in the US was anything but anguished about it but the issue was that who did you want to bomb for it? When it's mob action, which country would you destroy?
And if the right is so displeased about terrorism, why did Iraq ever get attacked when it had nothing to do with 9/11 and Petraeus said as much in the recent hearings. He also said what we are doing there may not be making us one bit safer and coming from him that's a lot of concession. Others are saying it's making the rest of the world far more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks as more and more pick up that ball.
It sounds like you are saying that you believe that the attack on Iraq related to 9/11. Does that mean you have swallowed the swill the right wing has put out?
The issue is you cannot attack just somebody because you are angry. It has to be the right people. Would you have destroyed the whole nation of Somalia? Who exactly did you want to attack after that event? They got to the soldiers as quickly as they could but it was a tragic event that nobody foresaw. Clinton inherited Somalia but at least he didn't repeat it-- which won't have made it any easier on the families of those killed so brutally. It won't on the soldiers' families today either.
Using the military to bomb just anybody when something bad happens is equivalent to what some of the right are saying now that if we get attacked again, they want to nuke Tehran and/or Mecca. It won't matter if the people there had anything to do with the attack. Just get them... whoever them happens to be. That doesn't sound like the nation I have loved. Revenge might seem sweet but when it's misplaced, it just ends up making the situation worse.
Democrats favor espionage but the issue is not allowing the government to do it without oversight and you will see more how that feels if Hillary is president. Then you will want oversight as the rest of us do about Bush who we trust as little or less than you right wingers do hillary
I was trying to not post anymore on this issue but you keep pushing my buttons as obviously I am doing the same to you.
I did not want to bomb the people in Somalia. I wanted our troops that were there to have the weapons that they felt they needed to complete the mission that they were tasked with doing. And the new Clinton White House said "No".
What do you mean Clinton didn't repeat it. Have you forgotten about Bosnia? But there we mostly just bombed people from the air or with cruise missiles. The troops really didn't go out to fight much from the bases.
I know that Sadam and Iraq were not directly involved in 9/11 and I have never suggested that they were. GW wanted to topple Sadam because he tried to kill Bush 41 and W wanted pay back. That and a few other reasons like he was a madman intent on possessing a nuclear weapon and had killed thousands of his own people.
so it's okay for bush to send our men into Iraq not fully equipped but wasn't with Clinton? I think your double standard shows up in everything you say.
Our people went to Iraq without proper armor, and they say even today their equipment is not what it should be-- 4 years into a war. How can you overlook that? Also with Iraq, we knew what we were going in for, it was a war of choice, but in Somalia it wasn't supposed to be a war zone and it was Bush Sr. who sent us there.
Clinton lost none of our men in Bosnia. None. I would say that each country has to put its own troops first. When we send our soldiers into combat, we owe them something-- not that Jr. thinks he does. He owes them Burger Kings but not decent armor. Some set of values. In Bosnia, also we went in as part of a UN effort to stop ethnic cleansing. Why did we go to Iraq? Oh yeah all those people he killed many years before-- some when we considered him on our side. Oh yeah and we are there for the nuclear weapons he didn't have and nobody has proven he was trying to have. First it was WMD which he didn't have, then the phony story on the yellow cake. You do believe what the right wing says.
I suggest you start regularly watching MSNBC for awhile, I have a feeling you will get different news. I wonder if Fox even covers most of this stuff given Murdock's control; and yes, Olbermann is angry. So are the rest of us who are infuriated at what bush had done and some Americans still defend. We are paying a high cost for this man's arrogance and ignorance and yet there are some who are all for him continuing his merry way and further igniting the world into WWIII and not just in terrorist acts.
Post a Comment