Biden: "Gen. Betrayus Flat Wrong On Iraq"

[Psychoblues]

When Will Lies About WAR Be Honestly Revealed For What They Are?


WASHINGTON - President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Petraeus and Crocker will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, which bring the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability. The officials also disputed suggestions that Petraeus and Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.

The testimony sets the stage for an announcement by Bush later in the week about he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness and growing congressional discomfort with the war.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20676775

The silence of Americans in the midst of this deafening screaming of the warmongers and war profiteers is beginning to disturb me.

 

[Bern80]

How exacltey would Biden know that Patreus is wrong? Because of some two day sight seeing trip he took in Anbar. "...in Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem" Give me a fucking break senator. Yeah I'm sure he put in some real work there.

And quit makeing up these ficticious groups to make your argument Psycho. Warmongers? who are these people exactley that are simply giddy at the killing going on? War profiteers? Let me guess. Haliburton. Are they suppossed to attempt to rebuild an infrastructre for free simply out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Notice, as I said, the Dems are attacking the general BEFORE he even presents any information to Congress. Before they even ask him any questions they are already proclaiming anything he has to say is "wrong" How convenient that is.

 

[Edward]

How exacltey would Biden know that Patreus is wrong? Because of some two day sight seeing trip he took in Anbar. "...in Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem" Give me a fucking break senator. Yeah I'm sure he put in some real work there.

Who does David Petraeus think he is? He needs to keep his nose out of U.S. policy and deal with the business of the day to day operation of the war. If Congress wants his input regarding what U.S. policy should be they will ask for it as a private citizen. Also, Rep. Murphy who served in Iraq and who is now a member of the House of Representatives agrees with Biden. So the only person the General speaks for is himself. He doesn't speak for the soldiers and no one voted for him. On the other hand Biden does speak for those soldiers in Iraq who do not agree with you, and it is his duty to say what they cannot say and to be where they cannot be. This is why Biden and others should drill Petraeus.

 

[Edward]

Notice, as I said, the Dems are attacking the general BEFORE he even presents any information to Congress. Before they even ask him any questions they are already proclaiming anything he has to say is "wrong" How convenient that is.

Biden would have already had conversations with the General and with the military and would know what his testimony would be as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He would also have access to the opinions of current and foreign military officials (i.e., former Secretary of the Navy and current Senator Jim Webb who serves on his Committee) as well as those with diverse education and experience in foreign relations. If you believe that Senators will go into the testimony part of the hearings not knowing what the answers to their questions will be then you are really ignorant. Any good attorney would tell you to "never ask a question you do not already know the answer to." This is just as true of Senators and Representatives especially those whose experience and education gives them the necessary skills to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate (i.e., lawyers serve on the Judiciary Committee). Biden has the experience and education needed to serve as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Petraeus may seem like he has more experience and first hand knowledge than the men and women who serve on the Foreign Relations committee but he does not. His experience is very limited to that of the military and therefore he does not have the general knowledge necessary to make U.S. foreign policy decisions. In essence he needs to keep his nose out of U.S. foreign policy and deal with the day to day operations of the war which Congress has assigned him to do. It is really convenient that you choose to ignore that they already know what he is going to say. If he doesn't stick with the facts than members of Congress would have every right to drill him. If he wants to cross the line between presenting Congress with the information they need to make a decision and formulating his own opinion about what Congress should do than he will find that they will expect more than 'I AM A GENERAL" as a response to their questions.

 

[dilloduck]

In essence he needs to keep his nose out of U.S. foreign policy and deal with the day to day operations of the war which Congress has assigned him to do.

Congress assigned Patraeus to Iraq ?

 

[CSM]

Notice, as I said, the Dems are attacking the general BEFORE he even presents any information to Congress. Before they even ask him any questions they are already proclaiming anything he has to say is "wrong" How convenient that is.

Of course, all the military folks that agree witht he Dems are credible; any military person that disagrees is not credible. That's the rules of the game as stated by the libs/Dems.

 

[CSM]

Congress assigned Patraeus to Iraq ?

Why bother arguing with this particular poster? His track record on this board is dismal, to say the least.

 

[Edward]

Congress assigned Patraeus to Iraq ?

You can try to twist what I said but I did not say that Congress assigned Petraeus to Iraq. Instead, I said they assigned him to deal with the day to day operations of the war in Iraq which is what they did when they appointed him as Commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) on January 26, 2007 after he was nominated to that position by the President. This position does not have any constitutional or legal authority to determine U.S. policy. His authority is over the day to day operations of the war.

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting how bin laden has timed the release of his tapes. I wonder if he is trying to influence American politics while Patraeus is testifying before Congress. You think he might really want America to withdraw it's troops from Iraq so he can declare victory?

 

[Edward]

Why bother arguing with this particular poster? His track record on this board is dismal, to say the least.

Here you have people arguing that U.S. Senators should "give them a fucking break" because they aren't willing to take the word of one man or to accept everything he says as the gospel truth and instead take their responsibility to set U.S. policy seriously. Their duty as a Senate is to determine U.S. foreign policy and the Foreign Relations Committee has been doing that since 1816 along with the entire body of Senators since 1789. The military won't ever have the power to set U.S. policy and Generals do not get to have that power regardless of what you hope or wish for. Why? Because our military and our government is run by our representatives in Congress assembled.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here you have people arguing that U.S. Senators should "give them a fucking break" because they aren't willing to take the word of one man or to accept everything he says as the gospel truth and instead take their responsibility to set U.S. policy seriously. Their duty as a Senate is to determine U.S. foreign policy and the Foreign Relations Committee has been doing that since 1816 along with the entire body of Senators since 1789. The military won't ever have the power to set U.S. policy and Generals do not get to have that power regardless of what you hope or wish for. Why? Because our military and our government is run by our representatives in Congress assembled.

And of course they can this with absolutely no input from the people on the ground, in charge of "the day to day" activities of our forces? Ya thats an enlightened position. Last I checked CONGRESS ask him to brief them and answer questions. But ya lets all state before he ever does that he is wrong.

 

[Edward]

Interesting how bin laden has timed the release of his tapes. I wonder if he is trying to influence American politics while Patraeus is testifying before Congress. You think he might really want America to withdraw it's troops from Iraq so he can declare victory?

Indeed, it is interesting that when Bush needs him the most he is always there threatening us and then disappers when it isn't in Bush interests. It is also interesting how easy it was for us to capture our common enemy Saddam Hussein yet he is still free. But of course it must be that he wants us to withdraw from Iraq, and wanted Kerry to win when he threatened us before the 2004 election. It must be a coincidence that whenever he threatens us Bush gets something he wants. Never once have Democrats or those who disagree with Bush benefited from his appearance and what makes this really interesting is bin Laden's former relationship with the Bush family. Of course you won't visit what you will label a conspiracy website but here you go:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html

 

[CSM]

And of course they can this with absolutely no input from the people on the ground, in charge of "the day to day" activities of our forces? Ya thats an enlightened position. Last I checked CONGRESS ask him to brief them and answer questions. But ya lets all state before he ever does that he is wrong.

Here's an "inconvenient truth" relative to the discussion at hand. The good general's nomination was approved by a vote of 81-0; which I guess makes him a Congressional partisan hack!

I find it quite ironic that the generals who came out opposed to the strategy in Iraq are the darlings of the Dems/libs while those in favor of the current strategy should not be allowed to have any input. No hypocratic duality there!

 

[Edward]

And of course they can this with absolutely no input from the people on the ground, in charge of "the day to day" activities of our forces? Ya thats an enlightened position. Last I checked CONGRESS ask him to brief them and answer questions. But ya lets all state before he ever does that he is wrong.

Didn't I just say that so long as he sticks with presenting facts to Congress than he is within his rights but as soon as he stops stating the facts and begins to give his opinion regarding what U.S. policy should be he is stepping outside of his authority over the day to day operations of the war and is butting his nose in where he is not qualified to speak. Congress is stating that his "opinion is wrong." They are not stating that the facts he will give are incorrect or wrong and that is the distinction you fail to make. If he stays with the facts than he won't have any problem but if he chooses to give his opinion he is going to find that Congress is going to drill him. You are correct that Congress expects him to brief them and answer questions but they did not ask him for his "opinion" on U.S. policy. In this respect he is nothing more than a private citizen with an opinion. His responsibilities as a General do not extend to giving an opinion on U.S. policy. He shouldn't be given greater access or influence because he is a General than any other American with an opinion and that is what Biden and others are pointing out in saying that he is wrong in his opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Didn't I just say that so long as he sticks with presenting facts to Congress than he is within his rights but as soon as he stops stating the facts and begins to give his opinion regarding what U.S. policy should be he is stepping outside of his authority over the day to day operations of the war and is butting his nose in where he is not qualified to speak. Congress is stating that his "opinion is wrong." They are not stating that the facts he will give are incorrect or wrong and that is the distinction you fail to make. If he stays with the facts than he won't have any problem but if he chooses to give his opinion he is going to find that Congress is going to drill him. You are correct that Congress expects him to brief them and answer questions but they did not ask him for his "opinion" on U.S. policy. In this respect he is nothing more than a private citizen with an opinion. His responsibilities as a General do not extend to giving an opinion on U.S. policy. He shouldn't be given greater access or influence because he is a General than any other American with an opinion and that is what Biden and others are pointing out in saying that he is wrong in his opinion.

And your wrong, Congress HAS asked for his opinion, thats the ONLY reason to have him before them. Last I checked asking opinions of experts is a solid tool in coming to an informed decision. But I guess not in your delusional little world.

 

[Edward]

Here's an "inconvenient truth" relative to the discussion at hand. The good general's nomination was approved by a vote of 81-0; which I guess makes him a Congressional partisan hack!

I find it quite ironic that the generals who came out opposed to the strategy in Iraq are the darlings of the Dems/libs while those in favor of the current strategy should not be allowed to have any input. No hypocratic duality there!

No one is suggesting that Mr. Petraeus as a private citizen cannot have his own opinion and share his input with the American people but what is being suggested is that he does not as a General have the right to use his position to unduly influence our elected representatives. This is why Biden is saying he is wrong. It is you who is upset that Petraeus isn't being given undue deference and weight. No hypocrisy there! It seems to me that you expect Congress to simply say: "Yes, General Petraeus, you are right. Tell us your opinion on U.S. policy. Don't give us the facts but instead spin it so that it supports your personal opinion as a citizen of the United States instead of doing your duty as a General and giving us the facts that we will need to make a decision on behalf of all Americans including those who are not Generals." I forgot that they won't say that because they know that we do not live in a military dictatorship and that we live in a country where members of Congress make decisions in behalf of the American people and not just those who serve in the Armed Forces. You don't hear Patrick Murphy going around talking about his military service in Iraq as though he is some kind of expert on what U.S. policy should be because he knows that he was elected to represent more than just those who he served with in Iraq and led there. This is something you cannot grasp. So long as Petraeus sticks with giving Congress the facts and save his opinion for emails to his member of Congress or to the speaking tour he goes on after he is done serving he will be fine but if he begins to use his position as a General to advance his own personal opinion he is going to find that members of Congress will drill him. It is ultimately his choice though whether he wants to report the facts to Congress or if he wants to give his opinion.

 

[Edward]

And your wrong, Congress HAS asked for his opinion, thats the ONLY reason to have him before them. Last I checked asking opinions of experts is a solid tool in coming to an informed decision. But I guess not in your delusional little world.

Petraeus isn't an expert on foreign relations instead his career has been in the military and he is no more an expert on foreign relations because of his service than any other member of the military who disagrees with him is an expert. The only reason you refer to him as an expert is because he agrees with you but I doubt very much that you would give the same credence to the generals and others who have come out against the war and the surge. In fact, it seems to me that you seek to undermine them as experts while lifting him up as an expert because he agrees with you. Also, we do not ask experts for their opinions in order to come to an informed decision instead we ask them for the FACTS so we can come to an informed decision. Asking people for their opinions (including experts) isn't conducive to coming to an informed decision instead it is conducive to coming to a decision based on the opinions of someone else. Ironically, every member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee are experts on foreign relations and armed services matters so it is doubtful that they need someone to tell them their opinions when they can settle for the straight facts that helped Petraeus to form his opinion (i.e., they can arrive at their own opinion based on the same information he as a private citizen used to arrive at his opinion). You wouldn't expect Biden and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee to rely on what members of their Committees say because of their previous service in the military (as is the case with former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb). The fact that they have had that experience doesn't make them qualified to speak to what U.S. policy should be. It means that Jim Webb at one point in his life served as the Secretary of the Navy and that Petraeus is currently serving as Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. This doesn't give either a specific advantage for their opinion. If Jim Webb wants to provide members of the Senate with some facts than they will give those facts equal weight with any facts Mr. Petraeus or any other person who sends them correspondence. If Jim Webb gives his opinion he can be expected to be drilled by members of Congress regardless of his service as SECNAV just like Petraeus can be expected to be drilled if he gives his opinion.

 

[CSM]

No one is suggesting that Mr. Petraeus as a private citizen cannot have his own opinion and share his input with the American people but what is being suggested is that he does not as a General have the right to use his position to unduly influence our elected representatives. This is why Biden is saying he is wrong. It is you who is upset that Petraeus isn't being given undue deference and weight. No hypocrisy there! It seems to me that you expect Congress to simply say: "Yes, General Petraeus, you are right. Tell us your opinion on U.S. policy. Don't give us the facts but instead spin it so that it supports your personal opinion as a citizen of the United States instead of doing your duty as a General and giving us the facts that we will need to make a decision on behalf of all Americans including those who are not Generals." I forgot that they won't say that because they know that we do not live in a military dictatorship and that we live in a country where members of Congress make decisions in behalf of the American people and not just those who serve in the Armed Forces. You don't hear Patrick Murphy going around talking about his military service in Iraq as though he is some kind of expert on what U.S. policy should be because he knows that he was elected to represent more than just those who he served with in Iraq and led there. This is something you cannot grasp. So long as Petraeus sticks with giving Congress the facts and save his opinion for emails to his member of Congress or to the speaking tour he goes on after he is done serving he will be fine but if he begins to use his position as a General to advance his own personal opinion he is going to find that members of Congress will drill him. It is ultimately his choice though whether he wants to report the facts to Congress or if he wants to give his opinion.

The bottom line is that the general's opinion on matters affecting the militazry situation in Iraq are indeed within his perview! Changes in troop strength are not simply a political matter though you and others would have us believe that. Something you cannot seem to grasp is that the general's opinion on military matters does indeed carry weight whether YOU like it or not. It is apparent that the Dems FEAR what the general has to say for exactly that reason; thus the pre-emptive attempt to discredit the general.

 

[mattskramer]

The bottom line is that the general's opinion on matters affecting the militazry situation in Iraq are indeed within his perview! Changes in troop strength are not simply a political matter though you and others would have us believe that. Something you cannot seem to grasp is that the general's opinion on military matters does indeed carry weight whether YOU like it or not. It is apparent that the Dems FEAR what the general has to say for exactly that reason; thus the pre-emptive attempt to discredit the general.

This is so predictable. If a report arrives that says that the surge is working, Republicans will cheer and give it more weight and exaggerate the positive points and minimize whatever negatives there are. The Democrats will pick the report apart and ask more questions about places in Iraq that may not be improving. They will criticize the general and provide comments from other military people who would give different opinions.

If the report turns out to be bad, the Republicans will minimize the report’s significance while interpreting it in their own way. The Democrats will exaggerate the negative comments and use it as evidence that there needs to be a change in strategy. This is all so predictable. The same was basically done with a previous report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289050,00.html