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

[Little-Acorn]

And that was BEFORE Petraeus even started giving his report.

Democrats are starting to get hysterical. There have been rumors for months that the "troop surge" is working - that is, Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq are being defeated, and that more and more Iraqis of all religious denominations are coming over to support the U.S. effort to stabilize the country and turn it over to its permanent residents.

This works directly against the Democrat agenda, which for six years has been to trash every move George Bush has made, call the President everything from a buffoon to a traitor with no evidence to prove their rants, and declare useless every initiative by the Bush administration, often before the initiative has even been tried. The leading Senate Democrat has even declared the war lost on the Senate floor.

Naturally, news that we are winning, destroys much of this agenda. So, rather than be happy to hear of American success, the Democrats are now denigrating and smearing the very man they had voted unanimously to put in place earlier. These smears may have hit rock bottom this morning, when Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) publicly told Gen. Petraeus at the start of the hearing, that he considered any statement to the effect that things are going better in Iraq, to be lies and that he wouldn't "buy it". He made that announcement before Petraeus had even begun to give his report.

It's hard to imagine a worse insult to an active three-star general in the U.S Armed Forces, except maybe to call him a traitor. Of course, MoveOn.org has called him exactly that, but no one listens to unelected leftist kooks. Leftist kooks like Lantos are a different matter, though.

How long can the Democrat party keep acting like political terrorists whose only mission is to obstruct, lie, and destroy, before they cease to be a viable party altogether, shunned by everyone except the leftist kooks?

----------------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

Petraeus hearing starts with Democratic criticism

Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:11pm ET
by Arshad Mohammed and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus appeared before the U.S. Congress on Monday to give testimony in which he was expected to argue against withdrawing the bulk of U.S. forces from Iraq for now.

Appearing with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Petraeus listened to deep skepticism from the Democrats who seized control of Congress last year largely because of the profound discontent with the war among American voters.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, began the hearing by telling Petraeus the Iraq war had left the United States unable to confront other challenges.

"The troops in Iraq are not available for other missions; to go into Afghanistan to pursue Osama bin Laden" whose al Qaeda militant group attacked the United States six years ago on Tuesday, Skelton said.

"The administration's myopic policies in Iraq have created a fiasco," added House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat. "The administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand... I don't buy it."

 

[Larkinn]

Fascinating how a Senator can be on the House Foreign Affairs committee. Also I find it interesting how you've interpreted "I don't buy it" to mean "you are a liar".

 

[maineman]

as stated on DP:

take a civics class.

There is no senator Lantos from California.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As expected, rather then address the issue, a Congressman announcing BEFORE any testimony is given that the person is going to NOT tell the truth, yu two went with " damn he is not a Senator" and " he didn't call him a liar".

Your right, he just said anything he said was going to be NOT true. And that before he even heard it he didn't believe anything he hadn't even heard yet. As to Senator or Congressman, guess what? They both are elected officials in the legislative Branch.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[CSM]

....
Your right, he just said anything he said was going to be NOT true. And that before he even heard it he didn't believe anything he hadn't even heard yet. As to Senator or Congressman, guess what? They both are elected officials in the legislative Branch.

Kind of shoots holes in the idea that Congress bases it's decisions on fact, doesn't it!

 

[maineman]

CSM:

I do not support congressmen bashing flag officers before they have said anything.....

but...you must admit... there is a well travelled path there where very senior officers cross that line between soldiering and politicking and preach the party line regardless of its connection to reality. William Westmoreland ring a bell? I can blame Lantos for these remarks. Can you blame congress for being a bit skeptical of yet another flag officer coming before them and telling them that we are winning in Iraq?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CSM:

I do not support congressmen bashing flag officers before they have said anything.....

but...you must admit... there is a well travelled path there where very senior officers cross that line between soldiering and politicking and preach the party line regardless of its connection to reality. William Westmoreland ring a bell? I can blame Lantos for these remarks. Can you blame congress for being a bit skeptical of yet another flag officer coming before them and telling them that we are winning in Iraq?

Before he has even given his report or answered any questions? Yes I can fault ANYONE that would try to tarnish someone BEFORE anything is known, and there is only one reason to do it, to play politics in case you don't get told what you want to hear.

Remind me again? Did he say we were outright winning? or did he say we were seeing progress, slow but sure?

 

[Dr Grump]

Before he has even given his report or answered any questions? Yes I can fault ANYONE that would try to tarnish someone BEFORE anything is known

Who says anything is NOT known. Plenty is known....

 

[Larkinn]

As expected, rather then address the issue, a Congressman announcing BEFORE any testimony is given that the person is going to NOT tell the truth, yu two went with " damn he is not a Senator" and " he didn't call him a liar".

No, he is announcing what the general is there to tell them, and that he doesn't believe it. Lying requires intent.

Your right, he just said anything he said was going to be NOT true. And that before he even heard it he didn't believe anything he hadn't even heard yet. As to Senator or Congressman, guess what? They both are elected officials in the legislative Branch.

Senators have a lot more power, and most of what Acorn posted was his own opinion. Considering he can't even get the difference between the House and the Senate right, why should I give credence to the other crap he posts?

 

[Larkinn]

Before he has even given his report or answered any questions? Yes I can fault ANYONE that would try to tarnish someone BEFORE anything is known, and there is only one reason to do it, to play politics in case you don't get told what you want to hear.

Nobody is tarnishing him. The rep was saying that the information being presented is incorrect.

 

[CSM]

CSM:

I do not support congressmen bashing flag officers before they have said anything.....

but...you must admit... there is a well travelled path there where very senior officers cross that line between soldiering and politicking and preach the party line regardless of its connection to reality. William Westmoreland ring a bell? I can blame Lantos for these remarks. Can you blame congress for being a bit skeptical of yet another flag officer coming before them and telling them that we are winning in Iraq?

And yet that same Congressman is NOT skeptical of those flag officers whom he happens to agree with. Can you blame those of us who are skeptical of Congress or their generals who would have us believe we cannot win in Iraq? The fact that some flag officers may be crossing that imaginary line does not mean that ALL flag officers do or will. Should we judge all flag officers (or even officers as a group) as untrustworthy because some have lied? Is there any doubt that even some members of Congress who have served in the military now have a political axe to grind and do so over considerations for what is best for this country?

Honestly, I suspect that Congress and the Dems in particular knew that the facts undermine their position that we are "losing" in Iraq (and the general would substantiate the position that the surge is indeed working). Thus, the "pre-emptive" strike on the general's integrity.

As each day goes by and this Congress shows it's true colors (Dems and Repubs alike), my disdain for politicians becomes greater. The louder they bray, the more disgusted I become!

 

[dilloduck]

And yet that same Congressman is NOT skeptical of those flag officers whom he happens to agree with. Can you blame those of us who are skeptical of Congress or their generals who would have us believe we cannot win in Iraq? The fact that some flag officers may be crossing that imaginary line does not mean that ALL flag officers do or will. Should we judge all flag officers (or even officers as a group) as untrustworthy because some have lied? Is there any doubt that even some members of Congress who have served in the military now have a political axe to grind and do so over considerations for what is best for this country?

Honestly, I suspect that Congress and the Dems in particular knew that the facts undermine their position that we are "losing" in Iraq (and the general would substantiate the position that the surge is indeed working). Thus, the "pre-emptive" strike on the general's integrity.

As each day goes by and this Congress shows it's true colors (Dems and Repubs alike), my disdain for politicians becomes greater. The louder they bray, the more disgusted I become!

Agreed---I was disgusted watching politicians using this general as a pivot point upon which to primp and prance for those who will decide if they get to keep their jobs.

 

[Alpha1]

CSM:

I do not support congressmen bashing flag officers before they have said anything.....

but...you must admit... there is a well travelled path there where very senior officers cross that line between soldiering and politicking and preach the party line regardless of its connection to reality. William Westmoreland ring a bell? I can blame Lantos for these remarks. Can you blame congress for being a bit skeptical of yet another flag officer coming before them and telling them that we are winning in Iraq?

HAHA...Any of these guys "ring a bell" ?

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Gen. Paul Eaton
Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold
Gen. Eric Shinseki
Gen. John Batiste

 

[Larkinn]

WASHINGTON - A congressional hearing that lawmakers called the most important of the year opened like a rock concert Monday, with crackling anticipation and screeching feedback from the acoustic speakers. Yet this show turned out to be David Petraeus, unplugged.
ADVERTISEMENT

Calm, measured, unflinching, the Iraq war commander walked lawmakers through the latest turns in the unpopular war, stopping well short of promising victory but asking the nation to give escalation a chance.

Even Democrats who despise the war policy were deferential in the face of the general's even-keeled demeanor and his shiny silver stars, four to a shoulder. "He's one of the best," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who ran proceedings in the ornate hearing room and ordered a succession of protesters ejected when they shouted their anger at the war.

In his Army green, under sparkling chandeliers, Petraeus presented statistics on conditions in Iraq that leaped off the page like fever charts on a hospital bed, indicating the patient was terribly ill but might be coming around. He declared "it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time."

At the moment of highest anticipation — when Petraeus was finally asked to speak, after lengthy opening statements from lawmakers — his microphone failed. In the awkward minutes that followed, two more protesters made a commotion and were removed from the room.

The hearing had to recess because of the technical glitch. "Test, test," someone said through the mike. The acoustic speakers cried foul. After 10 minutes, all was fixed and the show went on.

A protester who called Iraqis "beautiful people" and accused Petraeus of lying was quickly removed during his remarks. Other discordant voices were similarly silenced before he began. Before the general spoke, the anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was among those arrested for shouting in the room.

Democrats were careful to exempt the general from their contempt of President Bush's course.

"This is not a knock on you," California Democrat Rep. Tom Lantos told Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Iraq. But he said they had come to Congress to "restore credibility to a discredited policy."

"With all respect to you," he went on, "I don't buy it."

Petraeus stayed cool when Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida pronounced this year's troop increase a failure and said seven more U.S. soldiers had died in Iraq during the hearing. The U.S. military reported the deaths of nine soldiers Monday, including seven killed in a vehicle accident

"No one is more conscious of the loss of life than the commander of the forces," Petraeus said evenly. "That is something I take and feel very deeply and if I did not think that this was a hugely important endeavor and if I did not think that this was an endeavor at which I could succeed, I would not have testified as I did here today."

As soon as Petraeus finished his prepared remarks earlier, three more protesters shouted from the back and were ejected. One of them, a woman wearing a cardboard crown saying "Pull Out," screamed "No, no, no!" as security guards took her arms and tugged her out of the room. Yet another followed as Crocker began his remarks.

An exasperated Skelton said protesters who disrupted proceedings would be prosecuted.

"There will be no disturbances," he vowed, after half a dozen had already taken place.

There was tension, too, among the lawmakers. Republicans objected to an ad taken out by MoveOn.org that accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House," and they demanded that Democrats disassociate themselves from the sentiment.

"Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren't associated with," snapped Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

"Take it easy," muttered Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Generals command keen attention on Capitol Hill — even William Westmoreland, speaking to a joint session of Congress at the height of the tempest over Vietnam, was interrupted 19 times for applause in a half-hour speech in 1967.

President Lyndon Johnson attributed much of the anti-war sentiment to partisan objections to him and felt there was a positive story to be told about Vietnam.

Westmoreland stepped forward with his "light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel talks" to members of Congress and the press, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State. But as it turned out, he added, "the tunnel was very long."

Read the bolded part...I think a few of you owe an apology to Rep. Lantos.

 

[dilloduck]

WASHINGTON - A congressional hearing that lawmakers called the most important of the year opened like a rock concert Monday, with crackling anticipation and screeching feedback from the acoustic speakers. Yet this show turned out to be David Petraeus, unplugged.
ADVERTISEMENT

Calm, measured, unflinching, the Iraq war commander walked lawmakers through the latest turns in the unpopular war, stopping well short of promising victory but asking the nation to give escalation a chance.

Even Democrats who despise the war policy were deferential in the face of the general's even-keeled demeanor and his shiny silver stars, four to a shoulder. "He's one of the best," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who ran proceedings in the ornate hearing room and ordered a succession of protesters ejected when they shouted their anger at the war.

In his Army green, under sparkling chandeliers, Petraeus presented statistics on conditions in Iraq that leaped off the page like fever charts on a hospital bed, indicating the patient was terribly ill but might be coming around. He declared "it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time."

At the moment of highest anticipation — when Petraeus was finally asked to speak, after lengthy opening statements from lawmakers — his microphone failed. In the awkward minutes that followed, two more protesters made a commotion and were removed from the room.

The hearing had to recess because of the technical glitch. "Test, test," someone said through the mike. The acoustic speakers cried foul. After 10 minutes, all was fixed and the show went on.

A protester who called Iraqis "beautiful people" and accused Petraeus of lying was quickly removed during his remarks. Other discordant voices were similarly silenced before he began. Before the general spoke, the anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was among those arrested for shouting in the room.

Democrats were careful to exempt the general from their contempt of President Bush's course.

"This is not a knock on you," California Democrat Rep. Tom Lantos told Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Iraq. But he said they had come to Congress to "restore credibility to a discredited policy."

"With all respect to you," he went on, "I don't buy it."

Petraeus stayed cool when Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida pronounced this year's troop increase a failure and said seven more U.S. soldiers had died in Iraq during the hearing. The U.S. military reported the deaths of nine soldiers Monday, including seven killed in a vehicle accident

"No one is more conscious of the loss of life than the commander of the forces," Petraeus said evenly. "That is something I take and feel very deeply and if I did not think that this was a hugely important endeavor and if I did not think that this was an endeavor at which I could succeed, I would not have testified as I did here today."

As soon as Petraeus finished his prepared remarks earlier, three more protesters shouted from the back and were ejected. One of them, a woman wearing a cardboard crown saying "Pull Out," screamed "No, no, no!" as security guards took her arms and tugged her out of the room. Yet another followed as Crocker began his remarks.

An exasperated Skelton said protesters who disrupted proceedings would be prosecuted.

"There will be no disturbances," he vowed, after half a dozen had already taken place.

There was tension, too, among the lawmakers. Republicans objected to an ad taken out by MoveOn.org that accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House," and they demanded that Democrats disassociate themselves from the sentiment.

"Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren't associated with," snapped Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

"Take it easy," muttered Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Generals command keen attention on Capitol Hill — even William Westmoreland, speaking to a joint session of Congress at the height of the tempest over Vietnam, was interrupted 19 times for applause in a half-hour speech in 1967.

President Lyndon Johnson attributed much of the anti-war sentiment to partisan objections to him and felt there was a positive story to be told about Vietnam.

Westmoreland stepped forward with his "light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel talks" to members of Congress and the press, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State. But as it turned out, he added, "the tunnel was very long."

Read the bolded part...I think a few of you owe an apology to Rep. Lantos.

I'm really sorry the dickhead was misquoted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"With all respect to you," he went on, "I don't buy it."

Ya , so in the future when I call you a liar as long as I preface it with " with all due respect to you.." you won't think I called you a liar?

 

[maineman]

don't you think that there is a well travelled path of senior generals blending soldiering and politicking for congress to be skeptical?

William Westmoreland?

 

[dilloduck]

Ya , so in the future when I call you a liar as long as I preface it with " with all due respect to you.." you won't think I called you a liar?

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

don't you think that there is a well travelled path of senior generals blending soldiering and politicking for congress to be skeptical?

William Westmoreland?

The best you can come up with is a General from 40 years ago that made the mistake of saying the truth just before the Viet Cong wiped them selves out? You are aware I hope that while he was wrong about attrition, the North Vietnamese made him right by willfully ordering their Troops and insurgents in South Vietnam to attack across the board, wiping out almost to a man the entire internal resistance force in South Vietnam? And the result? Our politicians caved in. Just like they want to in Iraq.