Such a Surprise

[RetiredGySgt]

Since they announced before the General even spoke what they planned , this news is hardly surprising at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

 

[maineman]

Since the white house - IMHO - leaked the content days before the General even spoke, his testimony was hardly surprising at all.

 

[CSM]

Since the white house leaked the content days the General even spoke, his testimony was hardly surprising at all.

I keep hearing folks say the white house leaked the report days before the general testified. can anyone provide a link to the leak?

 

[maineman]

I keep hearing folks say the white house leaked the report days before the general testified. can anyone provide a link to the leak?

I have a meeting in a little while that I need to grab some stuff for, so I don't have a lot of time to dig around...but this one popped right up.... more than a month ago...and right from the mouth of Rush "OXYmoron" Limbaugh. Line seven opening paragraph.... now surely, the great Rushbo wouldn't make that stuff up now, would he?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081707/content/01125117.guest.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a meeting in a little while that I need to grab some stuff for, so I don't have a lot of time to dig around...but this one popped right up.... more than a month ago...and right from the mouth of Rush "OXYmoron" Limbaugh. Line seven opening paragraph.... now surely, the great Rushbo wouldn't make that stuff up now, would he?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081707/content/01125117.guest.html

Yes lets use your source. He also states that the report is required to be provided to Congress by "GASP" the President. Not the general and not the Ambassador. Yet what have the very people that wrote this law said? "GASP" that the President had the audacity to do what they ordered him to do.

 

[maineman]

I have not heard that spin... I think that everyone knew that the president would release a written version of Petraeus' testimony.... the issue is that he released bits of it piecemeal in an attempt to manage the news.... and here you are complaining about the democrats using the same tactic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have not heard that spin... I think that everyone knew that the president would release a written version of Petraeus' testimony.... the issue is that he released bits of it piecemeal in an attempt to manage the news.... and here you are complaining about the democrats using the same tactic.

No I am complaining that they are making false accusations and smear tactics and your pretending they are not. Saying " with all due respect" does not somehow change a charge of lying to not such a charge.

If some one tells you they do not believe you, using the previous leftoid posted "definition" of a lie, "any falsehood no matter intent" then it is calling someone a liar. And in this case it is plain the Congressman and the senators do in fact mean the General LIED to them on orders from the President, or you can assume they are calling him incompetent. Your pick. Either he is lying or mistaken, so either he is a liar or an incompetent boob according to the Democrats. Which do you think he is Maineman?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have not heard that spin... I think that everyone knew that the president would release a written version of Petraeus' testimony.... the issue is that he released bits of it piecemeal in an attempt to manage the news.... and here you are complaining about the democrats using the same tactic.

You haven't heard any democrat calim the President wrote the report and then ordered the general to not only deliver it but to put his name on it and say what ever the President wants him to say? ( ohh and last time I checked if someone orders you to tell something you do not believe, that qualifies as Lying).

 

[maineman]

You haven't heard any democrat calim the President wrote the report and then ordered the general to not only deliver it but to put his name on it and say what ever the President wants him to say? ( ohh and last time I checked if someone orders you to tell something you do not believe, that qualifies as Lying).

no...I haven't heard that...but that is not to say that there were not democrats who said it. And in regards to your last point.... I believe that presidents can tell their generals what to say and what tone to take when testifying before congress....and as long as the things they are told to say are not factually incorrect, then it is not "lying" but following a legal order.

Deliberately falsifying casualty figures, would be lying. Suggesting that things are going well and predicting that things will get better are opinions...and if the president asks a flag officer to take a certain tone and to express a certain opinion, they salute and do so.... or they resign.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no...I haven't heard that...but that is not to say that there were not democrats who said it. And in regards to your last point.... I believe that presidents can tell their generals what to say and what tone to take when testifying before congress....and as long as the things they are told to say are not factually incorrect, then it is not "lying" but following a legal order.

Deliberately falsifying casualty figures, would be lying. Suggesting that things are going well and predicting that things will get better are opinions...and if the president asks a flag officer to take a certain tone and to express a certain opinion, they salute and do so.... or they resign.

Absolute bullshit. So tell me Captain, when were you ever "ordered" to provide an estimate you did not believe? You just called this General a political hack, which he is not. I do not know which is worse, suggesting the General is a liar or a weak willed political hack. Both are insults.

 

[CSM]

I have a meeting in a little while that I need to grab some stuff for, so I don't have a lot of time to dig around...but this one popped right up.... more than a month ago...and right from the mouth of Rush "OXYmoron" Limbaugh. Line seven opening paragraph.... now surely, the great Rushbo wouldn't make that stuff up now, would he?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081707/content/01125117.guest.html

"So the Petraeus report is coming, and it's already been leaked that he's going to suggest that things are going so well that we can start a draw-down of troops, particularly from some of these areas, and by next summer we might have fewer people there than we do now."

That is the line to which you refer. That is does not say "the White House leaked".... I am looking for verification that the WHITE HOUSE leaked the report before the general presented it to the Congress.

Not trying to be a PIA here, just trying to ascertain that folks are not presenting their personal assumptions as "fact".

 

[maineman]

Absolute bullshit. So tell me Captain, when were you ever "ordered" to provide an estimate you did not believe? You just called this General a political hack, which he is not. I do not know which is worse, suggesting the General is a liar or a weak willed political hack. Both are insults.

There have been plenty of times in my career when I was asked to implement an order that I vehemently disagreed with. The captain and I would have it out behind closed doors....I would suggest that his idea was crazy and that it would be detrimental to unit readiness and morale... I would suggest alternatives... the captain would listen, and then tell me that we were going with his option and not mine. I stood up, said "Aye aye, sir", walked out of his office and proceeded to implement his plan as if it were my idea and I fully supported it. Naval Leadership 101. The parable of the damned exec.

and if you could please quote me the sentence from my post where I called the general a quote political hack unquote, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[maineman]

"So the Petraeus report is coming, and it's already been leaked that he's going to suggest that things are going so well that we can start a draw-down of troops, particularly from some of these areas, and by next summer we might have fewer people there than we do now."

That is the line to which you refer. That is does not say "the White House leaked".... I am looking for verification that the WHITE HOUSE leaked the report before the general presented it to the Congress.

Not trying to be a PIA here, just trying to ascertain that folks are not presenting their personal assumptions as "fact".

and you won't find any such verification forthcoming from me! and perhaps I should go edit my post to add a IMHO to it.

 

[CSM]

and you won't find any such verification forthcoming from me! and perhaps I should go edit my post to add a IMHO to it.

It is apparent to me that the GAO report was indeed leaked and I can find many sources (Google is a wonderful thing!) that verify a draft copy of that report was provided to various news/media outlets. I can find no such verification that the same occured with the general's report. It could be that some are confusing the two. The point is important because I believe it has great impact on the question of the general's integrity.

 

[maineman]

It is apparent to me that the GAO report was indeed leaked and I can find many sources (Google is a wonderful thing!) that verify a draft copy of that report was provided to various news/media outlets. I can find no such verification that the same occured with the general's report. It could be that some are confusing the two. The point is important because I believe it has great impact on the question of the general's integrity.

fyi, I have absolutely no doubt that the general has extraordinary integrity.

 

[Larkinn]

No I am complaining that they are making false accusations and smear tactics and your pretending they are not. Saying " with all due respect" does not somehow change a charge of lying to not such a charge.

He specifically said THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOU.

If some one tells you they do not believe you, using the previous leftoid posted "definition" of a lie, "any falsehood no matter intent" then it is calling someone a liar.

And when was this "leftoid definition" posted exactly?

And in this case it is plain the Congressman and the senators do in fact mean the General LIED to them on orders from the President, or you can assume they are calling him incompetent. Your pick. Either he is lying or mistaken, so either he is a liar or an incompetent boob according to the Democrats. Which do you think he is Maineman?

You think whenever someone is wrong that means they are incompetent? What a very high standard you have...so I think that means pretty much the entire world is incompetent as nobody is right all the time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He specifically said THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOU.



And when was this "leftoid definition" posted exactly?



You think whenever someone is wrong that means they are incompetent? What a very high standard you have...so I think that means pretty much the entire world is incompetent as nobody is right all the time.

You can ask Maineman about the posted "definition" of a lie. He posted it awhile back. But wait, I forgot you are never around for those blunders, you never see them, hear of them or believe them even when one links to them.

Further MAineman made it clear that in his opinion the definition clearly did not include any need for one to be purposefully telling an untruth, just that any untruth no matter how it came about was in fact a lie. An example being " you see a red car outside, you tell your wife a red car is parked outside. Before she looks said car leaves. Your now a liar because in fact no red car is parked outside" Maineman argued this very point. and repeatedly provide his definitions from the internet as proof he was right.

( well to be honest, it might have been you. I can't remember which of you made the posts) Since your denying it, I am ASSUMING ( yes I know how bad that can be, so if not true, Maineman, I apologize in advance) it was Maineman.

And no I won't go find it and post it for you. It is here, feel free now to call me a liar cause your to ignorant to find it yourself. It is public record on this board.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When a Congressman publicly tells a General they do not believe a word they are saying, your argument is they did not call him a liar or say he was incompetent? Saying such about the PROFESSIONAL Judgement and opinion of a person giving testimony on their PROFESSION and JOB.

Remember before you answer, this comment was on EVERYTHING the General had to say on the topic, not just a single claim or a single position, EVERYTHING.

And no someone can be wrong on something with out being incompetent. Nice attempt to turn the point to something else. This Congressman dismissed EVERYTHING the General had to say BEFORE he even said it. But ya you stick with the claim he didn't insult the General cause he said " with all due respect" and then added later " I am not attacking you"


Here let me give you an example.

In regards all the following Larkinn I mean it with all due respect to you. And I am not attacking you personally, just your position, your intelligence and your opinion. There we go.

 

[maineman]

You can ask Maineman about the posted "definition" of a lie. He posted it awhile back. But wait, I forgot you are never around for those blunders, you never see them, hear of them or believe them even when one links to them.

Further MAineman made it clear that in his opinion the definition clearly did not include any need for one to be purposefully telling an untruth, just that any untruth no matter how it came about was in fact a lie. An example being " you see a red car outside, you tell your wife a red car is parked outside. Before she looks said car leaves. Your now a liar because in fact no red car is parked outside" Maineman argued this very point. and repeatedly provide his definitions from the internet as proof he was right.

( well to be honest, it might have been you. I can't remember which of you made the posts) Since your denying it, I am ASSUMING ( yes I know how bad that can be, so if not true, Maineman, I apologize in advance) it was Maineman.

And no I won't go find it and post it for you. It is here, feel free now to call me a liar cause your to ignorant to find it yourself. It is public record on this board.

I am curious...was this in context of Bush "lying" about Saddam's WMD's and connections to AQ?

 

[maineman]

and if you consider dictionary.com to be a leftoid source, then I suppose the definition of LIE from that website would be a leftoid definition. It is, by the way:

lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.