In a move that will surprise no one, General Petraeus will advocate giving the surge more time:
The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.
General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan.
The precise timing of such reductions, which would leave about 130,000 troops in Iraq, could vary, depending on conditions in the country. But the general has also said that it is too soon to present recommendations on reducing American forces below that level because the situation in Iraq is in flux. He has suggested that he wait until March to outline proposals on that question.
At which point, there is no decision to be made, because troop strength levels will dictate our actions.
One last thing- I am officially sick and tired of reading and hearing about people calling Petraeus Gen. “Betray us.” This is substantively no different from the disgusting stab in the back bullshit we get from the Hewitts and the Weekly Standard assholes, and I am sick of it.
While Petraeus and the military have certainly opened themselves up to scrutiny by handing out exclusives to folks like Fox news, and having PR shops set up to “sell the surge,” or telling us he “can accept” purely political troop withdrawals (something he should not be doing- his job is to state whether we need the damned troops there or not), calling Petraeus a traitor or using rhetoric that implies treason is outrageous. I don’t think he is lying, I don’t think he will lie to the committee- I think that he is trying to win, and is more likely to focus on the positive aspects of the surge than the negative. That may bring his judgement into question in my book, but it does not make him a traitor.
I understand many of you are frustrated with this war, frustrated with this administration, and frustrated with the spineless Democrats. Taking it out on Petraeus and acting like the scum at the Free Republic who never miss a chance to call someone a traitor isn’t going to fix anything.
*** Update ***
This video, via Sullivan, is instructive. Their judgement- the Petraeus report is little more than a political document.
Dreggas
John,
While I agree the whole “betray-us” thing is a bit much, and Petraeus wasn’t selected to appease everyone but I can, kind of, see the point of the “betray-us” crowd. He was sold to everyone on the grounds that he’d somehow be a bit more independent.
Well as has been proven that was false advertising. I mean he’s going on Fox immediately following his testimony before Congress. He’s become nothing more than a mouth piece and despite more troops being thrown into iraq there is no progress, it’s the status quo. As for Anbar the only reason there’s any “success” there is because the tribes there hate foreigners period!
Petraeus has lost most if not all credibility. What’s sad about it is that the leaders of the military have a lot of people counting on them to shoot straight and be credible, that these men lose theirs is more damaging to morale than me saying this war is bullshit.
Jill
Petraeus’s superior, Adm. Fallon, wholeheartedly disagrees with Petraeus. Only 3 years ago Petraeus gave an assessment of the training of Iraqi security forces. None of what he said in that assessment was true or ever turned out to happen. He was betraying the truth then and he will be betraying the truth now. If not, then why is the data used to justify their “report” classified? Does anyone truly believe that if the data showed successes that it wouldn’t be plastered all over? This is BS and a betrayal of the troops who are giving their lives for a failed policy.
Jake
flux (flks)
n.
1.
a. A flow or flowing.
b. A continued flow; a flood. See Synonyms at flow.
2. The flowing in of the tide.
3. Medicine The discharge of large quantities of fluid material from the body, especially the discharge of watery feces from the intestines.
Uh-huh.
John, you’re so funny when you get this way and I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. You’ve been harsh on the man in other posts and even here you imply the man is a … let’s call him a cad and perhaps even a bounder but … what?
Is it just the implication that he is a traitor that bothers you? (Something I never got from that nick-name.) How about asshole? Can we call him asshole.
The Other Steve
Oh, my fucking god.
A guy gives an opinion which isn’t well founded in facts, and you go all whiney and pissy faced because he’s being called a “liar”? I’ll agree with the Betray-Us comments are childish. But giving an honest assessment of what we’re hearing is not bad.
The reason the guy is afraid to give an honest assessment is because of this fucked up attitude. Because we all have to be politically correct and not say what we really think because we might hurt someones feelings. You think Cleveland’s coach told his team “Great job guys, I know you were all trying to win.” Nope, pretty sure he said “Guys you fucked up on offense, and we lost.”
WHAAAAAA!!!!!!
Grow the fuck up.
HeavyJ
“I don’t think he is lying”
Exhibit A:
General Petraeus told The Australian during a face-to-face interview at his Baghdad headquarters there had been a 75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings in the capital between December last year and this month.
The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. “If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,” the official said. “If it went through the front, it’s criminal.”
Xanthippas
Jesus, yeah cause clever little word games are going to get us out of Iraq (I can see the blogger snickering to himself as he typed this out.)
Attacking Patraeus is a sucker’s game. The man is genuinely and sincerely trying to win the war in Iraq, and to do so he believes he needs more troops and more time. Anybody want to tell me how this makes him a traitor, or an asshole? Calling him such only makes commentators on the left look completely unhinged about the war.
And no, disagreeing with him, accusing him of spinning numbers, is NOT a justification for saying he’s “betraying” the troops (many of whom are perfectly happy to camp it out in Iraq for another five years so they can garner some kind of victory, in case you haven’t been paying attention.)
Also, attacking the numbers and his case for the war is NOT the same thing as calling him a traitor, or a liar, or a fool or whatever.
Understanding this requires accepting some nuance, which is something I thought liberals were good at.
Mr Furious
I hadn’t seen that until you mentioned it.
Punchy
Well, I’ve got a bunch of bridges to sell ya. If you really think he’s only accentuating the positives by blantantly lying in saying “deaths are down 75%”, then you’re obtuse.
Your dedication to the military is commendable. Your blindness to Our New Military (read: another arm of the GOP) is quite sad. Look no further than Adm. Fallon to see what the military believes. You dont see Fallon on Fox. You don’t see Fallon on Hewitt. You don’t see Fallon having the WH write his critiques.
Patraeus is a WH/GOP hack with shiny medals that makes him The All-Knowing Savant Whom You CANNOT Question.
Jill
Petraeus was a failure at training the Iraqi police and military and he lied about those failures. Isn’t past performance a good indication of the future?
Leah
John, I’m a Move-On member, and I voted against the ad campaign they’ve moved on, and decided not to contribute to making the ad a possibility.
On the other hand, the right is now demanding that Democrats sever their ties with Move-On, or otherwise attack the organization, or else…and you know what the or else is…
We are now at the point in the new beltway consensus that no one is allowed to actually question Petraeus. And it’s not the same as Democrats being persistently portrayed as actual traitors, and as responsible, somehow, for our multiple failures in Iraq by bloggers and journalists who are given access to the White House on a regular basis.
These traitor-hounds are part and parcel of the administration’s and the Republican Party’s insistence on creating a Weimer-like “stab-in-the-back” on Iraq. I know you know this, you have documented it brilliantly here.
I myself have been very disappointed in Petraeus; he is entirely more political than I had expected.
Again, I have a similar response as yours to short-cuts like “betray us,” nor do I think they are particular effective, but in this case it’s important to remember that no one is calling the General a traitor, or wishing America will experience a defeat…and yet, is he not complicit in aiding the President in a half-assed tactical shift that is meant to keep us in Iraq for years and years, and meanwhile, what thought is being given to a genuinely strategic change in how we deal with the Middle East?
If you heard Lindsey Graham this weekend on one of the Sunday gasbag shows proclaim that victory is it hand, but is about to be snatched away by politicians in Washington on behalf of failure and defeat, you would have heard the difference.
And the notion that anyone on the Right has earned the right to call out Democrats for being insufficiently respectful of those with whom they disagree…it’s not the same…
jnfr
Petraeus can talk tactics all he likes, but it’s Bush who has made the political decision to keep our military stuck in Iraq.
Bush likes to hide behind his military leaders and try to use them as political puppets. I don’t like the Petraeus is letting himself be used that way; I think it’s inappropriate. But let’s never forget that it’s Bush/Cheney’s political misjudgment that started this war and refuses to end it. Petraeus is a prop, nothing more.
Zifnab
Fixed.
Right. No one is saying Petraeus wants to turn our armies over to the British Redcoats a la Benedict Arnold. However, he – like his Republican handlers – will once again sell out the US Army for an attempted boost in poll numbers. The tag name “Betray-Us” sounds harsh, but it rhymes, and General “Bends-Over-And-Takes-It-From-The-Prez” was already taken by Casey back in ’05.
If you don’t like it, we – as the spitting, pitchfork wielding, plebian liberal community – apologize. We wish he wasn’t a giant sell-out too.
Pb
Magical September: wait until March. Betrayed? Well, doesn’t that presume that he was ever on our “side” to begin with? Lied to? No doubt. His statements have been about as credible as this statement was:
whippoorwill
The “The Betray-us remark is certainly sophmoric and politically dumb. But when you step into the middle of a political knifefight and take sides, and yes I think Petraeus has done just that, then even a respectable General is not immune from vicious rhetoric. We are, after all, debating about people who are about to die, or not.
Cassidy
read: people who don’t agree with me.
Cassidy
I’ve said it before and will say it again, the military is largely apolitical and cares very little about the political opinions of the civilian world, left or right. Trying to force a square peg into your round conspiracy theories only makes you look ignorant.
itf
Should General Petraeus be off-limits for criticism? Of course not. But John’s point is that we demean ourselves and our arguments by relying on childish name-calling. Surely, if we have a point to make about Petraeus’ untrustworthiness on the subject of the surge, we can make that point without sounding like third-graders on the playground.
Perhaps somewhere there are people who find a lame pun more persuasive than a fact-based argument. I would hope that that place is not here.
The Other Steve
He’s not lying… He’s just being creative with the truth.
But he means well.
Jill
Cassidy…if you are correct then why is the data classified? Why isn’t Petraeus’s superior, Adm. Fallon, who disagrees with Petraeus being trotted out. Why won’t there be an actual “report”, written and documented, by Petraeus?
Cassidy
Truth is subjective.
There is no doubt in my mind that many of the “facts” are provable that the surge was/ has been effective. The real question though, is were they effective in achieving the specific goals as outlined. The answer there has allready been determined.
Tom Hilton
What Dreggas said. I’m not a fan of the grade-school-level name-altering thing (“Betray-us”, “Hitlery”), but I think Petraeus has made it pretty clear where his loyalties lie.
Jill
“Lie” being the operative word.
cleek
can anyone tell me why i’m supposed to think Petraeus is especially respectable and honorable ?
i ask because his supposed honor and respectability is clearly being used as a way to deflect criticism, and i want to know if it has any basis at all outside of wingnut talking points.
The Other Steve
They’re going to parrot what the President says, as it’s their job to follow orders not make policy. Yes, we all know that, dumbass.
Jill
He shouldn’t be respected. He failed at training the Iraqi police and security forces. He lied about his failure at said training back in Sept. ’04. He is either incompetent or stupid.
Punchy
So, are you calling me ignorant to believe that Fox News isn’t a parrot of the Republican party? Do you believe that Fox News is independant and non-partisan?
If not, why would those two ONLY appear on that network? Oh, please explain.
Cassidy
I don’t disagree with any of these assertions. But one man is not the military.
Something most people don’t take into account, is that very little ground level decisions are made based on personal ideology. The decision making formula is very simple:
1) I have a mission to complete.
2) What do I need to do to be successful in said mission?
3) Failure is not an option, so what are my contigeny plans, etc.
Generally speaking, the ideology behind any military deployment is immaterial, be it Clinton sending troops to Somalia, or Bush invading Iraq.
Think back to the idiot who wrote the book and blamed liberals for his unsuccessful mission. That’s about the most retarded damn thing I’ve ever heard. No one gets prepped for a mission and then says “Okay guys, if this and this happens, how are the liberals (or conservatives) going to react?”.
The Other Steve
So there is no doubt, even though you have not seen methodology, or numbers?
You just blindly accept what you are told?
The Soviet’s would have loved you.
Elvis Elvisberg
I agree with itf. This is sophomoric and, worse, counterproductive. The shouting heads will cover this crap instead of the actual substantive debate. That debate is over whether Petraeus’s double super secret methodology and numbers are more reliable than every single other organization who’s taken a look at the issue. (Hint: the answer is a common two-letter word ending in “o.”)
David Brooks compared liberal bloggers to Osama bin Laden the other day, so, what can you do, it’s a rough world out there. It’s annoying, but hey, could’ve been worse, someone could have called me a “bastard brat of a Scottish peddler” or something.
As to the merits, Gen. Petraeus can join the club with Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and the American public– good people who cast their lots with this president, blinded themselves to important facts, failed to ask tough questions, and came out with their reputations sullied.
That’s a motto for today’s GOP, right there.
Cassidy
I wasn’t aware that FOX News was part of the military. Man did I get screwed when I picked my MOS.
Coulda fooled me.
Punchy
And with that gem, I have stopped caring what Cassidy says from here on out.
I bet facts are subjective too. And gravity.
Jill
The only reason to stay in Iraq is if it is vital to our national security…and it is not.
wasabi gasp
Smearing General Petraeus with the “Betray-us” thing is lame, childish, and of a level of disrespect that should never be flung at any honorable patriot, let alone a general. And, beside being immature, it’s also premature. How about waiting at least until General Petraeus speaks to General Hume about General Bush’s successful surge, before all you lefty insurgents begin to chop off heads.
The Other Steve
I think the point that seems to be lost on dumbasses like Cassidy, and those who want to attack Petraeus, is that the policy decisions aren’t up to the Generals.
They are the responsibility of the civilian command.
George Bush, being a fucking coward, is trying to hide behind the Generals. But it’s not right or proper to take his bait and attack the Generals. Instead we need to put the burden back where it belongs, on the President.
That’s the root of this whole thing.
Cassidy
I think you missed the point of what I said, but instead of calling you a “dumbass”, I will kindly explain what I meant.
Gen. Petraeus will present facts that the surge is working. Those facts, in and of themselves, will be able to be proven as accurate. But, those same facts are skirting the issue and going to be presented outside of the necessary context: is the surge working towards the goals as outlined earlier. That answer is a resounding “no”.
That’s the motto for the world. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Jake
I rarely see the former here without the latter and that is one of the many differences between the sane and insane portions of Blogistan. Try it for yourself. Pull a post from Freep that refers to Sen. Clinton as Hitlery. Substitute Sen. Clinton for Hitlery and see if the post sounds more fact-based or even coherent. Or read some of the offerings from some of the lunatics who post here but never use sobriquets or bad language. Do they sound less unhinged?
The Other Steve
Actually the only reason to stay in Iraq, is so that the President doesn’t have to admit he fucked up.
That’s what is so amazing about all of this. We long stopped arguing about how to win. Now we’re arguing about who we’re going to blame for fucking up.
Cassidy
Facts and truth are two different things. Gravity can be proven. Cute though.
Jill
Is there a difference if our troops die for facts or truth?
Punchy
Now you’re being a complete jackass. Let’s review:
Cassidy:
Reality:
So, they’re not politcal, eh? Yet their biggest mouthpiece, their biggest figurehead (according to the media) only traffics in Republican-based media.
News flash–when your leader only grants interviews to those of one political party, you’re demonstrating BLATANT political partisanship. But keep defending him if it makes you happy. It makes us all laugh. Which is healthy.
whippoorwill
I don’t disagree with the above statement as a general rule. However, in this particular case, while I don’t approve of name calling of Generals, and yes cleek, he is a respectable soldier, I am not outraged by it.
Cassidy
Reality:
You can twist it around in your head all you like, but the facts betray you, Punchy.
Sure, but it’s not really applicable to this scenario. That’s why truth is subjective. Truth is as accurate as the person who believes it.
Cassidy
Example: The above quote is truth to some. Just like the “liberal media” is truth to some. Regardless of the facts, they are firmly believed as “truth”.
Punchy
How? Please link me to the data that the military uses to support its “75% killing reduction” meme. I’d gladly crunch those numbers myself, to prove they’re accurate.
I’ll be waiting.
cleek
sadly, i’m afraid we can’t just redefine words to suit our agenda.
The Other Steve
So you have no doubt that the facts are accurate, even though you have not seen them or the methodology.
This is the same thing you said before you restated it, dumbass.
The Other Steve
This goes back to my old saying. It’s not a lie, if you really really really believe it is true.
Cassidy
There is only one God and his name is Allah.
Is that truth? Prove it.
No dumbass, that isn’t what I said. I said I have no doubt that the facts presented will be able to be proven, in their singular sense. But they will not accurately reflect the spirit of the inquiry and how it regards to the political development of Iraq. Man you can be really thick sometimes.
Punchy
I’ll just let Webster himself demonstrate what an idiot you are:
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: ‘trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /’trü[th]z, ‘trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful — more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
You just keep wordsmithing, if it keeps you sane.
scarshapedstar
Horseshit, John. If Petraeus actually thinks we can “win” then he’s as braindead as Bush (after his pathetic dialogue with Katie Couric, I’m gonna go ahead and say that this is the case) and ought to be stuffed into the next C-5 to accompany the coffins on their way to Arlington. At this point, “victory” is getting out of that shithole with as many live soldiers as possible, and Petraeus seems to have no interest in that.
He’s betrayed them. He’s betrayed us. I don’t care if it’s because he’s too stupid to realize that every day the inch of progress is swallowed up by the mile of disaster. I don’t care about how he’s honor-bound to act on the illegal whims of that remorseless sack of shit squatting in the Oval Office. Until I hear him say, “Well, maybe the next thing we ought to do is outlaw all these rape- and murder-happy rednecks who responded to ads in Soldier of Fortune” I see him as just another useful idiot playing the 3-card monte with our money, our soldiers’ lives, and our future as a nation.
Fuck that.
Cassidy
I hate to break this to you, but your cite doesn’t prove me wrong. But it does show the limits of your vocabulary. You might want to go ask your HS English Teacher (whatever period it is you have her) and ask her if words can have multiple meanings.
Pb
truth: Conformity to fact or actuality.
fact: verifiable truth; reality.
reality: The quality or state of being actual or true.
cassidy: full of it, likes pie.
petraeus: see cassidy.
The Other Steve
According to you, it is. Because truth is subjective. Morality is relative.
You keep restating this, but you keep getting it wrong. Given your other observations of blind trust, I don’t know if this is on purpose or just because you are a dumbass.
The word I think you are looking for is Falsifiability. Facts are falsifiable, they are not proven.
The Other Steve
You mean what the dictionary says, and what you say?
I’ll ask her advice.
jenniebee
If he didn’t want to be called Gen. Betray-us he shouldn’t have chosen to be born with a name that only differs phonetically from “Betrayus” in the opening plosive consonant. Choices. have. consequences. Your apologia, trying to excuse him from his appalling lack of planning on this matter is only enabling this kind of poor decision making. Let this one go and we’ll be up to our eyeballs in I. P. Freely and Hugh Jass.
Somewhere, a line needs to be drawn.
Zifnab
Well, I think John was going after the cutsy moniker of “Betray Us” when we should be using his proper, given, Christian name. Back before Shavio, John got rather miffed at people referring to Bush as “Dear Leader” for similar reasons. Name calling didn’t really add any substance to the debate, it just added a great deal of venom.
That said, we live in a nation that has proven time and again to only respond to cutsy jingles and slogans. So MoveOn’s “Betray Us” ad embraces the same Rovian tactics everyone here has grown to loathe and disrespect. Unfortunately, it’ll probably still get more mileage than a reality-based discussion of facts, because “Petreaus is conflating car bombings and sectarian killings to produce a statistic of 75% less casaulties that has no baring in reality” is a lot harder to put on a bumper sticker than “Petreaus Betrayed Us”.
Zifnab
lol. PotD.
Punchy
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts
the body of true statements and propositions3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: ‘i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one’s own, private; akin to Latin suus one’s own — more at SUICIDE
1 usually offensive : a person affected with idiocy
2 :
/Sigh
The Other Steve
Fineman has a good take on all this
The Other Steve
Zifnab is right. The reason people use negative ads, is because they work very well.
Remember, Senator Kerry shot himself in the foot to get out of Vietnam.
Tsulagi
Exactly.
Pretty much a “yep.” However, don’t know, but my guess would be the administration if not being the decider, has a lot of input on the general’s non-congressional appearances and PR shops selling The Surge.
Yeah, that “can accept” thing bugged me too. Another thing it tells you is Gates is out of the loop. If I was a SecDef with standing, if a general publicly pondered whether he could or could not accept such an imposition, his ass would immediately be in my office being told how things work.
But then, it’s the times we live in. Just as the 28%er serious adults hate that separation of church and state thingy, they just know Jesus also weeps over the separation of politics and the military. They’re really smart like that.
Bubblegum Tate
Har! That’s awesome.
Seriously, though, it is sad that Petraeus has decided to offer himself and his credibility up to serve as a deflector shield for this shitpile administration.
Tax Analyst
Petreaus? Another in the long line of once-respected folks who have attached their credibility to support a failed military adventure that was actively promoted by lies and misinformation. Does anyone think he could have been “anointed” to his current position if he wasn’t going to buy into Bush’s idiocy? Has anyone noticed what has happened to the military careers of those who have dared to challenge any of the administration’s contentions in the fiasco? Think “Shineski”. Is Petreaus dishonest? I don’t know…but I DO know that his career is now invested in this “surge”…and I do believe that point colors his perceptions and affects what he presents and how he presents it. He does us little good and a likely a good deal of harm…and himself no honor if this happens to be the case.
ThymeZone
This is the understatement of the century, certainly.
But anyway, the real problem here is that the game is rigged. Not that Betrayus is playing the game, that’s his job to some extent. It’s that the game is rigged ….
Rigged to make it appear as though the civilian authority has no choice but to take memoranda from the Pentagon and follow their advice. Rigged to completely disempower the civilian authority. Leaving the rigger, namely BushCheney, to basically pull the puppet strings and let the process carry out the inevitable which just happens to be the policies and actions wanted by BushCheney … while at the same time appearing to absolve BushCheney from responsibility. After all they are only doing what the “generals in the field” have reasonably asked for.
It’s a Trompe L’oiel Government. It’s basically like everything else these fuckheads have done for six years, which is, whatever they want, disregarding law, the Constitution, established convention, protocol, and cooperation between branches of government. All of that is in the trash bin, and their theater plays out in predictable fashion. They care about nothing but their own agenda, they don’t care about the processes or the people or even the fate of their own party. The brake on this must be (because no other choice exists) the break of the GOP away from this madness as members figure out that their party is headed for 25 years of exile if they don’t. Until they make that break, this is it. This is what you get.
Zifnab
So, you’re saying that the problem with the current government is that it is too French? I can run with that.
Perry Como
I have a prediction about Petreaus’ testimony for all you moonbats. If he says things are going well, that means we need to stay in Iraq. If he says things are not going well, that means we need to stay in Iraq so we can make things go well. No matter what, we need to stay in Iraq. Suck it, libtards.
ThymeZone
Uh …. in your case, please substitute “smoke and mirrors” for “Trompe L’oeil.” It’s more trailer parque than my term, but I forgot where I was for a moment :)
Jake
Clap harder or Tinkerbell takes a dirt nap.
AkaDad
Petraeus isn’t lying, he’s just using Fuzzy Math.™
Cassidy
I don’t follow Islam, but that’s hardly the point. A practitioner of Islam will say that is the truth. A Christian will say otherwise. Point is that truth is not always a fact based standard, especially when you’re dealing with political truth. Truth is subjective.
Not really. I think you’re missing the part where I beleive the report to Congress will be mostly crap. You’ve confused my position with that of someone who beleives the surge is actually working. It has nothing to do with blind belief. People are simple creatures. Petreaus will present facts, of that I have absolutely no doubt. Will those “facts” reflect the context of the inquiry and the justifications of the surge? I highly doubt it.
It’s the same as the “facts” regarding global warming, cigarettes, or guns. Every side has “facts”. It’s whether those facts are being presented in an honest context that is the question.
He’s a General. Don’t kid yourself into thinking he won’t live a good life after this, regardless of the outcome.
ThymeZone
Another gem for the Cassidy Archives of Totally Made Up Bullshit.
Keep ’em comin, really. So many people here just hang on your every fucking word.
If you ever accidentally say one thing that doesn’t sound like you overheard it on a bus bench, I’ll personally pay you fifty dollars.
Of course, to get the money, you’ll have to reveal your actual identity. And then everyone will know who has been writing this crap material for the last few months.
Cassidy
You just keep proving me right every time you crank up the shrill machine.
The Other Steve
Yet the example you gave isn’t a Truth, but rather an Opinion.
Someone get me some Dramamine. Cassidy is spinning pretty hard here.
ThymeZone
Im sending you a new shovel, I think yours is getting worn out.
Cassidy
Depends on who you ask. A practiconer of Islam will say it’s the truth.
Cassidy
Well, you do have a pretty thick skull.
mrmobi
Well, agreed, sort of, John. However, if you’re going to get all dainty and proper on us you’ll have to do a much better job in your posts about Cindy Sheehan. Oh, goodness, I’ve dropped my napkin. Heavens!
Also, if you are referring to the MoveOn.org ad, for the record, it doesn’t call him a traitor, and the ad is also full of many of the same facts you have stated here.
I like to think that if I were a Democrat in Congress, I would bravely support legislation that set a specific timetable for withdrawal which, if it was not met, would mandate de-funding of the Executive Branch. I think I’ve realized that I probably wouldn’t, and would hate myself, but would rationalize it by telling myself that I could effect more change by staying in office than by committing political suicide.
So you are right on, TZ. This is what we’ve got, until some Republicans grow a spine and a big brass pair of balls. Clearly, the democrats have no need of those.
In other news, Chuck Hagel, one of the only Republicans who possesses both a spine a large set of cojones, is retiring. Looks to me like there’s about as much chance of stopping this war as there is of stopping the next one, in Iran. Wheeeeeeeee!
Cassidy
The best part of this conversation is that, while we basically agree on the same thing, just because I refuse to accept your simplistic conspiracy theories, and juvenile declarations regarding the military, I’m being attacked.
Yeah, this isn’t a group think sewer.
John Cole
And while I am cranky today (it is Monday), let me also state I am growing weary of the Cassidy pile-ons.
Many of you seem to willfully conflate what he actually believes with what he perceives others may believe (or with what he thinks they are trying to say or accomplish), or while he tries to argue not his positions, but shed light on why he thinks others may have those positions.
Pro-tip: The best way to tell when someone thinks something is when they say “I think…” or some variation.
ThymeZone
Dude, when Im around some guy swinging a shovel, I have the good sense to wear a helmet. Obviously, this is advice you’ve ignored in the past.
What time are you expected back in the day room?
Wilfred
I agree with Cassidy. At the end of the day, it’s up to people to decide for themselves, and it’s not as if there isn’t an enormous amount of resources available on what’s happening in Iraq. One example is how Petraeus kept pointing to the turnaround in Anbar Province. To his credit, he scrupulously avoided saying that the success there was due to the surge (it isn’t) but including it in his list of successes suggests correlation; the accompanying chart showed al Anbar as almost 1/3 of Iraq, btw.
Critical thinking is the duty of the citizen, if he or she doesn’t attempt it, that’s Petraeus’ fault.
Tax Analyst
Cassidy, I never doubted that…it’s not really something I’m too concerned about. It’s merely my take on why he’s going to remain “on board” for this “surge” crap no matter what is actually happening in Iraq. The surge may be having some effect in the time and place it’s occurring, but in the larger picture it’s just stalling out the clock and it’s hard for me to picture a fairly bright fellow like Petreaus not recognizing that. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever if Iraq cannot put together a workable agreement to govern the state. Considering the POV’s of the various secular factions I just don’t see that happening any time soon…probably not until they all get tired of killing and maiming each other. And that, my friend could be a long, long fucking time…much longer than our military can afford or handle having 100k + troops bogged down in that miserable morass…and infinitely longer than the American public will stand for it.
Zifnab
Isn’t Hagel one of the Spectercrats? Or does he actually vote his own talk?
Wilfred
oops, meant to say NOT Petraeus’ fault.
ThymeZone
Well, you can always stop writing cassidy posts. Just saying.
Meanwhile .. “People are simple creatures ….”
Yeah, uh, can you give me an example of what you think is an apporpriate response to that kind of treacle?
You’re the professor, and I’m just some dumb shit out here who can’t spot a bullshit artist because, you know, three years at BJ isn’t long enough to figure that out?
Or, did I miss something? Really, can you write more and more about this? I really am in a learning mood today.
Mr Furious
LOL! He got you there TZ!
Punchy
Ah, a classic. If your daughter is fugly, she’ll never find a husband, never have a family. If she’s smoking hot, she’ll be nailed by every running back on JV. Either way, you’re screwed as a parent. Better off wishing you’d never invaded that vagina.
ThymeZone
Um, sure. Sure he did.
I guess that proves he’s right, “people are simple creatures.”
My bad, the thing was so profound, I just got knocked off track there for a minute.
The Other Steve
LOL! What a dumbass.
Face
Can I get this translated to English?
The Other Steve
It’d probably help if Cassidy wasn’t a troll.
mrmobi
Hey you guys, this is OT, but I was reading something over at the Smirking Chimp (I apologize for being so very disrespectful to dear leader!) about those 5, no, 6 nuclear weapons attached to the wings of a B-52 and flown to Louisiana. This guy was a TV reporter in LA in the late 70s.
He says he did a story about a rumor that nuclear weapons were being stored at Seal Beach Naval Station south of Los Angeles. He went out with a news team to look at the site and here is his conclusion:
Emphasis mine.
So, I guess this “accident” was a Sicilian message to Iran, minus the dead fish. Nice to know we’re willing to risk the lives of the people in the states the B52 flew over to make a point.
The Other Steve
Yeah, he’s saying Cassidy doesn’t mean what he says, and doesn’t say what he means.
mrmobi
Yes.
John is cranky.
mrmobi
You are correct, Zif. But Hagel is willing to at least call a failure a failure, if not vote those convictions. Actually, Specter is pretty much willing to do the same, but is quite a bit more treacherous. Both are despised by the sociopath in the White House.
Face
Cassidy, are you current military? If so, are you scheduled to go back?
Wondering if that’s what drives your judgement that Patraeus will be 100% honest.
Tax Analyst
Oh-oh…you’re gonna make Cranky John Cole even more crankier (sic) with that type of shit.
But wait…What DOES that mean, anyway? Let’s try for a moment to deconstruct John’s statement.
From Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary:
“Conflate” Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow — more at BLOW
1 a : to bring together : FUSE b : CONFUSE
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
“Willfully”1 : obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2 : done deliberately : INTENTIONAL ”
So…several of you (not me, though)stand accused of deliberately and obstinately and possibly perversely fusing or combining what said Mr. Cassidy (I’m assuming male gender here) believes OTHERS believe he believes into what he ACTUALLY believes (???). Whew…that covers the first part, right? Then when he takes on a stance that might be considered argumentative and tries to clarify why he thinks others think he thinks like that, even though he might not really actually think like that he get attacked further by others who still think that Cassidy thinks like that, even though I think he has denied that these thoughts were ever actually part of his thought process, although by merely mentioning them again he unwittingly serves to support their unfair and erroneous suppositions as to what he actually thinks.
There, is that better?
OH…those of you who thought “Conflate” was a Kellogg’s Breakfast Cereal were WAY off base…that’s “CoRnflakes”.
ThymeZone
First he says that a woman lawmaker looks like Sean Hannity in a dress, and then he cautions us to go easy on Cassidy, the well known (and very inept) troll.
Okay, school is getting back underway, maybe he’s practicing up to mindfuck the new semester’s students?
I dunno. I just dunno. Three years of this, and being “piled on” a few dozen times, and the damn guy has never come to my rescue. I guess I just don’t root for WV often enough or something.
Wilfred
From the indispensable Marc Lynch:
Nobody gives a fuck what Iraqis think, of course, but still. 9 more American soldiers dead today. Waist deep in the Big Euphrates, and the general says ‘push on’.
Tax Analyst
He probably figures you can take care of yourself.
Maybe it’s because sometimes, and I must stress ONLY sometimes, Cassidy ALMOST seems to make sense…at least for a while. And he seems to be “Active Duty – Military”, so I think JC rather reflexively wants to cut him some slack…not sure I disagree, but only up to a very narrow point.
Besides, three years ago he might have nodding his head in agreement when you were being “piled on” to…lol…
The Other Steve
Look, whatever else you guys have to say about Cassidy.
At least we know that he argues in good faith.
Jake
True, he (?) does. He’s said a few things with which I agree absolutely.
And sometimes he’s sounds like the drunk who really wants to fight someone but isn’t sure why or who.
How about Patriotus?
Smart. Strong.
chopper
the hobo around the corner thinks that coke and pepsi are the same thing. is that the truth? of course not.
‘god exists’ is not truth. because the existence of god is rooted in faith, which is anathema to fact.
Zifnab
Hahahahahaha. Lolz. Roflmao. *giggle-ator* *snort*
But seriously, he’s a great American.
tBone
## Parser failed at linenumber 0, lineposition 0. Reason is: John Cole hates the English language. ##
Anyway, maybe Cassidy should spend more time talking about what he believes and less time talking about what he thinks all of us believe.
Cassidy
A perfect example of what I’m trying to say. Thank you.
Punchy
He also argues using truth, although it’s rarely factual. Or so he says.
Cassidy
Yes, I am active duty. I am a Combat Medic and served in OIF 3. At the moment, I’m not scheduled to go back, but I’m not holding my breath, waiting for the election.
But, you’ve mistaken what I’ve said. I don’t beleive Petreaus will be 100% honest. I believe in all possible sense of surety that his facts will be provable and support his conclusion. But, as with any testimony that is part of an agenda, I don’t believe any report to Congress will be presented with any honesty. The facts will be presented out of the context that is driving the report.
Political belief is faith based as well.
My political beliefs don’t matter. I vote based on them, etc. That’s not the point of the debate. It would be a very boring post if John decided to write about my beliefs, as well as pointless. I don’t make public policy, nor am I in a position to do so (or want to be). I do my duty as a citizen and vote.
My whole point to this thing, is it isn’t as black and white as a lot of you are making it out to be. Petreaus will tell the truth…his version of the truth. And he will back it up with facts. Cherry picked, for sure, but still factual. Facts do not equal truth, because any one of us can rig data to support our conclusion.
Zifnab
Uh, you do realize this is a political blog concerning political discourse, right?
Lies, damned lies, statistics. We’ve heard it all before. But when a salesman hands you piss and tells you its honey, all the “facts” in the word don’t make the salesman any less of a wanker. Petreaus’s report consists of “facts” so heavily distorted by preening and jury-rigging that they are, for all intensive purposes, the same as lieing. Just the same as if I told you cigarettes won’t give you lung cancer (given a certain small portion of the population in the right atmospheric conditions on a given day of the week).
The direction that the bullet enters your brain determines whether or not you’ve been a victim of sectarian killing. The religious beliefs of the guy driving the truck bomb determines whether or not you count as a civil war casualty. All this number parsing is designed to make it look like several hundred people a month aren’t actually dying. Why? So we can keep boots on the ground a little longer, in an elaborate game plan designed to blame Democrats in ’08 for an inevitable withdrawal.
Cassidy
I’m not disagreeing with you. As I said, facts, no matter how correct, can be rigged. There is no doubt in my mind that Petreaus will present factual data. Of course its factual. he isn’t going to commit perjury! The trick is that he’s the only one who knows the filter.
To be perfectly honest, I”m not exactly sure why the pile-on happenned, as I’ve largely agreed with the basic premise here. Add to that, several comments where you can find my personal opinions about the surge, Iraq, etc.
My only disagreement at the beginning was the wrong statement that the military is an arm of the GOP. The military is an arm of the government, regardless of who is in charge.
If you want to talk about my personal beleifs, feel free to ask. I have nothing to hide. But we’d be way OT.
Tax Analyst
Tax Analyst
…and with that I must be-leaving…my work day is over, so I’m heading home.
Cassidy
You’ll find that the large majority of assumptions regarding beliefs came from Punchy, TZ, and TOS.
whippoorwill
I think you should run for office Cassidy, you got the rap down pat. I don’t mean that in a “piling on sort of way”.
My point would be, when speaking of war and peace, the only truth is ‘all the facts on the table’ and that’s all it is and no more. By Cherry picking facts to make your truth it means your knowingly leaving out some facts which are needed to have the truth which can only exist in the presence of all the facts.. On the other hand …yabba daa yabba da yabba da yabbado
tBone
Toilet paper should hang from the top of the roll – yes or no?
Cassidy
I agree, but that’s not how people with an agenda work. That’s why I keep saying truth is subjective. Truth is based on belief which can be easily manipulated.
From the bottom.
tBone
In this, at leaast, we have found common ground.
I was going to ask if salt should go in the shaker with one hole and pepper in the one with multiple holes, but maybe we should quit while we’re ahead.
chopper
depends on the belief. plenty of political beliefs are rooted in truth. many aren’t.
Cassidy
That’s something we’d disagree on. I’ve yet to see a political system that isn’t rooted in some sort of faith (not to be read as religion). But that’s my opinion. We all believe that our mindset would be what’s best. Very rarely has those conclusions been tried enough to be considered fact.
The Other Steve
Isn’t Faith defined by what you believe in? And isn’t truth what you believe in?
So Faith = Truth.
chopper
just because an overall political system is rooted in some kind of faith doesn’t mean all political beliefs are also. as i said, there are plenty of political beliefs that are rooted in fact.
ThymeZone
Um, no. I’ve made no assumptions about your beliefs and if I have stated any, which I doubt, they are hereby withdrawn. By observation, the only thing I could say about your beliefs is that you don’t have many, and that your posts aren’t based on your beliefs (as mine, when topical, are) but instead are based on your opinions of others’ beliefs, which is called trolling.
There are several ways to go about this. You can take a strong, unambiguous position and defend it. Generally, that’s what I do, and whether you agree with my positions or not, that’s what I do. Or you can stand by the side of the road and constantly throw rocks at others’ opinions, and refer to other posters in general as “people of your ilk” and other expressions common to troll assholes. The latter is what you appear to do, and if you think my opinion on that is wrong, feel free to take a poll, ask for an upperdown vote, on whether others here see you that way. Let the chips fall where they may.
I don’t think you can do the A game that I described above, which is to just take a stand and then defend it. But you are free to prove me wrong, you can start right here and show us how good you are at it. I’ll give you props whether I agree with your position or not. But as soon as you refer to me or another poster as a member of the “people of your ilk” group, the game is over and you lose.
People of your ilk will surely get my drift, eh?
ThymeZone
Whose? Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary.
Whose politics is based on belief despite evidence to the contrary, generally speaking? Be very specific and use facts to support your assertion.
Cassidy
Yeah…right. That doesn’t sound like picking a position and then screaming at the top of your lungs how right you are, while insulting anyone who dares to disagree. But then again, truth is subjective, so I’ll let you have yours.
ThymeZone
Declaring that I’m right is “screaming at the top of my lungs?” This is a written medium.
I insult people who insult me. It’s called responding in kind, and anyone who doesn’t like it can go fuck himself, including you.
But of course, your post entirely ignored the point. You don’t have what it takes to simply take a position and defend it. If you did, you could exhibit a style of argument that was based on that model. Instead, all you can do is what you always do … criticize somebody else for doing what you won’t.
What exactly is your reason for being here? To tell “people of our ilk” (your description) how superior you are to them? Or to make political arguments?
Can you actually make a political argument? Why don’t you demonstrate that sometime? Then you can show how your way is better than mine.
Truth is subjective? Well, how convenient for you. You appear to think that licenses you to just make it up.
Cassidy
Yeah, yeah, and someone forgot a comma somewhere.
Sure. put that one to your up or down vote. Insulting is the only tactic you know. All that other stuff is a bunch of crap and you’re dishonest about it.
No I didn’t. I just don’t feel like playing “HS debate club”. I have better things to do than argue with a fundamentalist.
I like finding naive college kids who are trying out momy and daddy’s opinions in the real world.
ThymeZone
Actually, it’s the only tactic you know. I don’t use the term “people of your ilk” like you do. I call you an asshole, but I don’t lump you in with all assholes. That would be an unnecessary slam on the good assholes out there.
My ten thousand posts are out there for the world to see. If you think you are better at this than I am, good for you, the work is out there and people can judge for themselves.
Meanwhile, are you going to take an actual position on something and then stand up for it? Are you actually capable of doing that?
Pick a topic, make an assertion, and back it up. You do know how to do that, right?
Heh. So, you’re trolling for college kids?
How many posts do you have to make to get your “A” from professor Cole, did you say?
Zifnab
Deep thoughts. But I guess you’re a military man who’s stared death in the eye, which means that when you say “Let’s piss a few hundred billion more down the toilet for Glorious General Petreaus Who Never Lies,” us poor dumb ex-college students should shut up and toe the line. Or something.
You know, for a medic, you really are rather daft. I thought you had to be smart to make it as a doctor.
ThymeZone
Well, in defense of medics, they are not doctors. But more to the point, I don’t believe a word that “cassidy” posts about himself. Not one word. I don’t like to believe that a guy goes into the military and then comes back and talks about his countrymen as if they were all a bunch of inferior dolts.
I mean, the guy might be Timothy McVeigh, but then he got executed for acting out his disdain for his fellow Americans. I suppose cassidy could be another McVeigh, he talks like one. But I make no assumptions about who or what he or she is, because nothing he she it has posted in that regard has the ring of truth to it at all.
Why would someone put on a uniform to defend a country full of people who are all a bunch of stupid fools?
If our troops are like cassidy, I might have rethink my policy of supporting them to the hilt.
demimondian
From the not-quite-accurately-aligned-with-reality department, Cassidy brings us
Um, yeah. How many of us here *have* college kids?
TenguPhule
If its good enough for the AG, its good enough for Betray-us. What is Congress going to do to him, hold him in contempt?
The General lied and will keep lying and piling up the dead bodies for his next climb up the financial ladder.
TenguPhule
Allah is Arabic for ‘God’.
Would you like your crow before or after you take your foot out of your mouth Cass?
Wrong. What one believes or not has nothing to do with it. Cass is intentionally trying to confuse truth with opinion. The two are not identical. Trying to play Schrodinger’s cat is a sad attempt at trolling, Cass.
rachel
I teach college kids. Does that count?
Cassidy
Bullshit. Truth is belief. Belief is only as strong as the person who holds it. What one believes to be true is considered a falsehood by others. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
I am so sorry you have to put up with that.
My statement was directed at TZ. It was a joke. College kids…simple opinions…stay with me guys.
I know you are, but what am I…I’m rubber, your glue…blah, blah, blah.
I’d be content with just shutting up and listening to those who have actually been out in the real world.
I’ve said before that I don’t do it for you or the rest of the American people. You really don’t matter to me all that much. It’s my job to defend the people, country, etc., but I’m no more altruistic about that than I am about drinking water.
chopper
truth may be a belief, but that doesn’t mean that belief is truth. just because i may believe that 2+2=5 doesn’t make it true.
Cassidy
Exactly. Truth is subjective.
mrmobi
My daughter has completed her edjamication and has grajitated. She will soon be attending gradual school.
Tax Analyst
Um…no college kids…but I was in college (albeit very briefly) back in 1969-1970. But I just couldn’t stand any more education at that point, so I went to work in the family business.
TenguPhule
Wrong. Belief != Truth.
But I’d love to see you try that one in any legal setting. The judge will just love it.
If Cass would only follow this advice, we’d all be happier.