Sen. Lantos (D-CA) calls Gen. Patraeus a liar on Senate Floor

[jillian]

Originally Posted by CSM


Get a fucking grip, the left just doesn't "get it".

The Democrats vote one way, and then feel no revolution in taking a quick exit out the back door when things don't go the way they thought.

Like, the Tooth Fairy didn't arrive on time, or some such nonsense.

Never seen such a bunch of panty waists, and one's that would desert their "county" after the least little heat.

I'm embarrassed to call them countrymen............

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... ng, trob...

A reasonable human response is to change course, and opinions, when the appropriate evidence presents itself. Remember the old adage, insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result.

 

[dilloduck]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... ng, trob...

A reasonable human response is to change course, and opinions, when the appropriate evidence presents itself. Remember the old adage, insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result.

IF that evidence ever presents itself I would agree. The problem for Dems is that Petraeus WOULDN'T lie. There are several old adages most of which have adages that reflect the opposite viewpoint. It's also insane to try to fix something that finally seems to be working. Just admit you hate Bushs' choice to carry the war into Iraq as a part of the larger war on terrorism and a zillion other reasons.

 

[jillian]

IF that evidence ever presents itself I would agree. The problem for Dems is that Petraeus WOULDN'T lie. There are several old adages most of which have adages that reflect the opposite viewpoint. It's also insane to try to fix something that finally seems to be working. Just admit you hate Bushs' choice to carry the war into Iraq as a part of the larger war on terrorism and a zillion other reasons.

There is a difference between lying about the facts and deflecting by saying "we need more time". Besides, we know his report got filtered through the white house. We also know that the admin is basically waiting out the end of his term so he can leave his mess to the next president... and then he can blame what happens after on a dem... even though it's his mess.

The war in Iraq isn't part of any larger war on terrorism. Thinking it is ... is fantasy.

 

[CSM]

There is a difference between lying about the facts and deflecting by saying "we need more time". Besides, we know his report got filtered through the white house. Really? Got proof of that? The general says it did not get filtered throught the White House...it's now part of the Congressional record. Are YOU calling the general a liar now? We also know that the admin is basically waiting out the end of his term so he can leave his mess to the next president... and then he can blame what happens after on a dem... even though it's his mess.

The war in Iraq isn't part of any larger war on terrorism. Thinking it is ... is fantasy.

Talk about "lying about the facts"! Where is the "fact" in your assertion that the general's report was filtered throught the White House????

 

[Edward]

Oops, sorry. I stand corrected, and I have changed it.

I guess I'm not surprised that the only thing the leftist kooks can find wrong with my comments, is that I gave Lantos the wrong title. It must be disheartening to have so little of your own agenda that you can support when the time comes. At least you're no longer even trying to support it. That's progress.

The problem is that you did give him the wrong title which means that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Had you actually heard or read what he said you would not have made this mistake. That you couldn't even get his title and position correct strongly suggests that what you have said in regards to what he said isn't reliable. Simply put, if we can't even believe you on a simple fact of his title than how the hell can we believe you about what he said. It is obvious you don't even know who the hell this guy is.

 

[CSM]

The problem is that you did give him the wrong title which means that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Had you actually heard or read what he said you would not have made this mistake. That you couldn't even get his title and position correct strongly suggests that what you have said in regards to what he said isn't reliable. Simply put, if we can't even believe you on a simple fact of his title than how the hell can we believe you about what he said. It is obvious you don't even know who the hell this guy is.

Since you cannot seem to punctuate correctly how can we assume YOU know what the hell you are talking about? It's obvious you don't know how to write English.

 

[Edward]

Petraeus was approved by an 81-0 vote. Please don't try to tell me the Dems were tricked again. If the Dems had no intention of listening to the guy, why did they vote to approve him?

I recall him testifying before Congress and there were Democrats present so I think it safe for us to conclude that Democrats did listen to him, but if you mean by "listening to the guy" that they did not in the end agree with him than you are correct that they did chose not to agree with him because he is incorrect in his assessment of the facts which are as available to him as they are to members of Congress and since he is no more an expert than they are I think it safe to say that Congress will make it's own decisions. As for why they appointed him. That is quite obvious, Democrats unlike Republicans do not simply appoint people who agree with them. He was qualified to be appointed so he was appointed. The fact that Democrats do not now agree with him and will be likely to disagree with him in the future doesn't mean they aren't listening to him. So I suggest you try again. The only people not listening to people is the President and Republicans in Congress along with those who voted for them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I recall him testifying before Congress and there were Democrats present so I think it safe for us to conclude that Democrats did listen to him, but if you mean by "listening to the guy" that they did not in the end agree with him than you are correct that they did chose not to agree with him because he is incorrect in his assessment of the facts which are as available to him as they are to members of Congress and since he is no more an expert than they are I think it safe to say that Congress will make it's own decisions. As for why they appointed him. That is quite obvious, Democrats unlike Republicans do not simply appoint people who agree with them. He was qualified to be appointed so he was appointed. The fact that Democrats do not now agree with him and will be likely to disagree with him in the future doesn't mean they aren't listening to him. So I suggest you try again. The only people not listening to people is the President and Republicans in Congress along with those who voted for them.

Pretending that a 4 star General in charge of the Iraq war has no more knowledge or insight on the conditions and factors effecting the US and Military in Iraq than your average Senator or Congressman is retarded to say the least. It is ignorant. But then one does expect ignorance from you don't they?

 

[Edward]

If you read it you will find that it didn't have a damn thing to do with Westmoreland. It had to do with democrats voting for Petraeus before they voted against him. Unanimously in fact. Why do democrats continue to support things and suddenly do an about face and whine? I can't wait until everyone realizes that Lantos would absolutely love to invade Iran to protect Israel.

You are an idiot. There was no reason to oppose the appointment of a highly qualified and decorated General simply because he disagrees with you. That is something Republicans do and not Democrats. Had Democrats chose not to appoint him than I would be deeply concerned since it would show an unwillingness to appoint qualified people simply because they disagreed with them. That Democrats put aside their disagreement and looked at him, his experience and his qualifications should be commended. They knew when they appointed him that they probably wouldn't always agree with him but they appointed him anyways because that is what they should do. I suggest you try getting a brain.

 

[CSM]

You are an idiot. There was no reason to oppose the appointment of a highly qualified and decorated General simply because he disagrees with you. That is something Republicans do and not Democrats. Had Democrats chose not to appoint him than I would be deeply concerned since it would show an unwillingness to appoint qualified people simply because they disagreed with them. That Democrats put aside their disagreement and looked at him, his experience and his qualifications should be commended. They knew when they appointed him that they probably wouldn't always agree with him but they appointed him anyways because that is what they should do. I suggest you try getting a brain.

Yipes!!! You really are from another world, aren't you!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yipes!!! You really are from another world, aren't you!

I mean damn, in one post he asserts that the general is no more knowledgeable or qualified to tell Congress anything then Joe Blow off the street and THEN he explains how he IS knowledgeable and qualified and does have special skills and information.....

 

[Edward]

Pretending that a 4 star General in charge of the Iraq war has no more knowledge or insight on the conditions and factors effecting the US and Military in Iraq than your average Senator or Congressman is retarded to say the least. It is ignorant. But then one does expect ignorance from you don't they?

That is exactly what I am saying and it is true. If they do not than he has failed to do his duty and should be fired as should anyone else who fails to properly report to Congress. Those who questioned Petraeus were members of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee which means they are in fact experts in the field of foreign relations and the armed services. To even suggest that someone who spent the majority of his career as a non-general officer and who was only recently appointed to the rank of a general officer has more experience and knowledge than someone who served on the Foreign Relations Committee as long if not longer than he has been a general is truly ignorant. Let's not forget that they were thinking about Iraq before he was even appointed. But of course you are truly one ignorant person who cannot quite grasp this. Let's not forget that Senator Webb was SECNAV, and that those on these committees have the combined experience and education necessary to make informed decisions. Let's not forget that they have access to more people than he does in their capacity as members of Congress. The advice and direction they receive from people as qualified, it not more qualified than Petraeus cannot be ignored. But of course, you would have us believe that the combined experience of members of Congress is less than that of Petraeus. If that is true than why do we allo Congress to appoint him. How could they have the skills necessary to appoint someone who knows more than they do. Oh my, oh me, shame on them. The only problem with what you are saying is that their experience does exceed his. They were on the Committee that appointed him to his current position which means that in his current capacity they have more experience (i.e., they have been involved in this area longer than he has).

 

[Edward]

I mean damn, in one post he asserts that the general is no more knowledgeable or qualified to tell Congress anything then Joe Blow off the street and THEN he explains how he IS knowledgeable and qualified and does have special skills and information.....

I sure did but I never said he had "special skills or information." Again, I state as clearly as I can for your retarded ass. THERE IS NO MERITORACY IN THIS COUNTRY. They appointed him because he like anyone else has qualifications to serve and they could just as easily have appointed any member of the Senate Armed Services committee (except they were serving as members of Congress) to the same position. It is you who seeks to impose this false idea that being "qualified to speak" equals being qualified to serve. Any person is able with the same information to make the same decision and is as qualified to form an opinion based on the same information as David Petraeus (i.e., members of Congress are just as qualified to make a decision based on the same information he has access to). So, I in the same post (this one) say: "the general is no more knowledgable or qualified to GIVE HIS OPINION to Congress than Joe Blow off the street" and that he is "KNOWLEDEABLE AND QUALIFIED" to serve in this capacity but I also state that "he does not have any special skills or information." It is you who thinks my statements contradict themselves when they are in fact quite consistent.

 

[CSM]

Here ya go:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=harmed_services

You can even get their "qualifications" and background. Poor old Edward is in for a big surprise!

 

[Edward]

What the hell?

Please quote me where I've said that its been proven that Bush lied about Iraq, or I've tried to prove that. And stop making stupid shit up.

What? Do you really think he will stop making things up? I'm sorry to have to tell you this but retards like to make things up and he isn't likely to stop simply because you ask him to do so.

 

[CSM]

What? Do you really think he will stop making things up? I'm sorry to have to tell you this but retards like to make things up and he isn't likely to stop simply because you ask him to do so.

something about pots and kettles comes to mind here.

 

[Edward]

If you read it you will find that it didn't have a damn thing to do with Westmoreland. It had to do with democrats voting for Petraeus before they voted against him. Unanimously in fact. Why do democrats continue to support things and suddenly do an about face and whine? I can't wait until everyone realizes that Lantos would absolutely love to invade Iran to protect Israel.

When the hell did Democrats vote against Petraeus. As far as I am aware he is still serving in the office that Congress appointed him to.

 

[dilloduck]

When the hell did Democrats vote against Petraeus. As far as I am aware he is still serving in the office that Congress appointed him to.

Don't get literal on me-----in essence they "voted" down every damn thing he said because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. If he had said the surge wasn't working he would have been a hero.