I agree that this one simple exchange may be looked back on years from now as the turning point of our occupation of Iraq. I have seen others argue that the General is in no position to make such an assessment, but since this question forms the foundation of the reason for us staying in an untennable situation, its hard to believe the President has never made this connection with his top General in Iraq.

The American people can be patient, but they are not complete idiots. If any given action isn't leading to the stated desired results, then any intelligence at all dictates that the actions cease because they've become counterproductive. This debate should be interesting as we watch more dissembling and conflation coming from those now exposed by the General they view as their policy's savior.

Patreus knew if this war is making America safer or not. He just didn't want to answer truthfully.

Jeese I ain't even a General and I can tell you the answer to that question...

NO! In fact it is making us less safe.

NO! In fact it is making us less safe.

Then why should any American continue to support an effort that isn't in the security interests of our nation? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

NO! In fact it is making us less safe.

Then why should any American continue to support an effort that isn't in the security interests of our nation? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

Posted by tonyroma



cause pulling out will make us less safe as well.

welcome to bush's catch 22.

I think that the Patreus report is backfiring on Bush. The opposition is stronger now than it was before. Most are trying to show some respect for Patreus but they are still basicly saying that his report is not connected to reality.
Congress should get some guts and do something real to stop this disaster.

I am boycotting Bush's address to the nation Thursday night. He is not going to say anything of interest or meaning. I know it already.

What happened to the thread about the 10 Iraqis captured into Peru trying to fly into LA on fake passports?

I'd like to hear Petraeus' explanation for how we are fighting them over there when they're in Peru.

Deciding to fight extremely mobile terrorists with a huge stationary army is the dumbest thing Bush ever did.
When we Whack-a-Mole them out of Iraq, where do you think they're going to go?

cause norm by arming the sunni insurgents against the al queda types drives the al queda types out into.... well peru.

Gee. who would have ever thought that our borders would be important things to have control of???
We should all give the US Chamber of Commerce a nice round of applause for their dedication at making our borders freely passable by not just cheap labor but hey...terrorists too.

Danni...

If this particular portion of the Petraeus testimony can be made into a "Duh" moment, I agree. The shame is no MSM newspaper led with this quote today. It is really obvious that the MSM is fully in bed with the Washington power structure no matter what party it comes from.

Our one true hope is that more and more people will use non-mainstream sources to vette and verify information before accepting everything they read or hear at face value.

The general is no less a tool of the White House and Pentagon than the lowliest PFC. Gen. Pet merely has more stars on his shoulders. He still will say whatever his political superiors tell him to say, with no fewer qualms than he'd have about sending a squad of soldiers to their deaths. herm

""It is really obvious that the MSM is fully in bed with the Washington power structure no matter what party it comes from.""

That really is the basis for what is wrong on so many issues. Americans need to realize that corporations run this country for their benefit not for the benefit of the citizens.

Hagel/Warner Warner/Hagel 2008 !! (I know..ain't gonna happen but...)

Hagel and Warner are such impressive men. Sad to see them retiring. As a poster suggested yesterday, they'd make great cabinet members for whomever is elected in 2008, or for any post their nation called upon them to serve. Outstanding Americans and just the kind of Senators the founding fathers envisioned.

Tony,

It is really obvious that the MSM is fully in bed with the Washington power structure no matter what party it comes from.

How long will it take for people to figure this out. The media is now Corporate entities and they strive for the buck. They will continue to feed the politicians what they want as long as the politicos don't mess with the media.

Once the government takes a hardline on the media watch out, the real information will flow like the red tide of the nile.

Did War Make U.S. Safer? Petraeus Doesn't Know

Of course it didn't make us safer. If it did those would be the first words out of Petraeus' mouth.

In fact the Iraq war did just the opposite. It centralized the al-Qaeda ideology and allowed Iraq to become the driving cause for al-Qaeda recruitment. Way to go Bush.

AU...

While Hagel stands on the right side of the Iraq War, he is far too conservative in most of his other politics. He is a man of deep principles and that should be respected by all Americans, particularly for his service in Vietnam as well as in Washington.

Is it just me, or did anyone else get the impression that Senator Warner was merely giving Petraeus a chance to answer in the affirmative when he stated, "I don't know"? I didn't feel that Warner was setting a trap in the least, but it elicited the most damning quote against continuing to listen to Bush's lies and prevarications about Iraq making us safer here in America!

cause pulling out will make us less safe as well.

welcome to bush's catch 22.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-09-12 03:40 PM

hmmm what if that is not true?

I mean when has this Administration been right about anything yet?

And what if we don't just "pull out".

We need to Withdraw. That means do whatever we need to do to secure our troops and draw down our commitment there. That is where the real leadership will come it. I mean as soon as we get some leadership that is...

It will require us working with all the Leaders in all the Countries in the area and working with the UN and NATO to secure the borders.

It can be done. It won't be easy.

We need to Withdraw. That means do whatever we need to do to secure our troops and draw down our commitment there.


then what, secure our borders? impossible.

we have interests extensive interests, military, economic throughout the globe.

our leaving iraq will be seen as a defeat it will empower our enemies it will empower Iran.

dont think for a second that this wont happen.

that is why bush's adventure in iraq isnt a massive strategic failure, we cannot leave we cannot stay.

for no benefit to the US.

that is why bush's adventure in iraq isnt a massive strategic failure,


correction is such a massive...

"How long will it take for people to figure this out."

YEAH!

Unfortunately not until the Bush Cultists have the megaphone ripped from their clammy hands!

Until then its "Liberal Media" ad nauseam

And what if we don't just "pull out".

That's a question I asked a gal I was dating back in my early youth. I remember her saying something about ripping off my balls.

Those Catholic girls know how to turn a phrase.

Maybe that's why the Republicans want to stay.

It ain't their balls that are at risk.

The "silence" here is deafening from the usual suspects.

Scumsuckers.

All hail Imperator David Petraeus Mesopotamianus conqueror of Babylon.

NO! In fact it is making us less safe.

Then why should any American continue to support an effort that isn't in the security interests of our nation? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

Posted by tonyroma

Probably a majority of Republicans need to save face along with their little Decider !

who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Where are all the Bushlovers? Taddly? Ride_On? Incubus? Wisgod? Bowa? Your hero NEEDS you! Defend his minion, and hurry, please!

It was a stupid fucking question.


Patreus is limited to security in Iraq as his focus.


"I don't know." Was a reasonable answer at the time.

If soon-to-retire Republican war opponents Hagel and Warner are the last of their species with any integrity whatsoever, why aren't they just a little noisier in their protests?

Speak up, Chuck and John! I don't think the guy in the White House can hear you. herm

The reality is that unless we plan on staying in Iraq FOREVER, there will be massive bloodshed no matter what date we withdraw forces announced or unannounced. Those of you who support the Republican talking points are woefully misguided in your analysis of the situation. You can't stop the inevitable which is that the majority population (Shia) has hundreds of years of revenge on tap and the Sunni minority will fight to maintain what little is left of their control. Whether we leave in 1 year or 10 years makes no difference. They will fight the day after we leave.

It was a valid pertenant question JeffJ o in which You caqn not comprerhend. David P makes Policy in Iraq. If He does not think the Policy in Iraq isn't making America Safer He had better know the same way if He believes His policy in Iraq is making America safer He would know that tyoo. We went over this last night and quite frankly JeffJ I am shocked You can not understand this very idea.

Larry

Oh and JeffJ just to show You how woefully wrong You reaqlly are. Do You know what the title to David P is It is the Iraqs Multinational force COMMANDER Not some security detail person. Why You can not grasp this is beyond Me.

Larry

No one asked Petraeus for statistics, they asked him his personal feelings on the matter. If the head of our military effort cannot draw a line of connection between his efforts and whether they're making our homeland safer, then who's more qualified to do so? Doesn't Petraeus have family in this country? Don't act as though he isn't qualified to provide his own assessment removed from that of the White House.

Petraeus also has contacts in the Intelligence community and he would be in a good position to have knowledge of whether America is safer. His primary mission and focus is Iraq but he is a fucking General...he knows.

And since he did not say yes then the answer must be no...

Patreaus has Betrayed US!

No truth... we can leave...

It does not mean we become Fortress America...

We secure THEIR borders and move our troops to Afghanistan and finish that job. They will be close enough to rotate back into Iraq. Remember -we will never be able to fully withdraw from Iraq for ages anyway now. Bush has ensured that.

But we can begin.

We need to redirect our attention and energies to issues here at home though. We cannot continue to ignore the problems we have here. We cannot continue to sink our Treasure into the sands of Iraq at the expense and security of our homeland.

Patreus, Patreus, Patreus. It's the Iraqi Parliament that won't agree to the PSAs that is keeping our troops in Iraq. Bush to Malaki: "We ain't leavin without the oil, now hand it over."

The clear honest answer is NO.

"It was a stupid fucking question.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-09-12 04:50 PM"

Was it? Is that because of who was asked? If so, who should answer it? Or is it fucking stupid in the abstract, no matter who it's directed at?

It might have been a "stupid question" but it is THE moment that will be remembered from those hearings and some think it will be a turning point in the political battle over Iraq. Patreus admitted that the Iraq was is not making America safer by refusing to just say it was.
Most Americans are going to ask themselves, "if it isn't making us safer then why does Bush have us over there?" Then they are going to start remembering what we on the left have been saying all along. It's all about oil not national security.

It was a stupid fucking question.

No, it was a good and necessary question.

"I don't know." Was a reasonable answer at the time.

"I don't know" was a cop-out in lieu of the truth.

Truth being that the US, Iraq and the world are all less safe than they were before this war began.

Patreus is limited to security in Iraq as his focus.

Patreus, (as the WH luffs to point out) literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency tactics and so yes, he was brought in to speak to that point specifically. That sed, everybody and their monkey knows that Gen. Dave is trying to justify an unjustifiable war to congress by pitchin' the notions that A) The surge is working B) More time is needed. Therefore the question was well in order and it was the answer that was, if not unreasonable, then certainly disingenuous.

Patreus is just BushCo's way of saying..

"See, we listen to our generals"

It also makes it look like it's not really Bush's War.

Well.. to morons it does anyway.

Anybody other than Spud suspicious of the timing of Gen Dave's report here with all the 9/11 remembrances?

Funny how that worked out.

Spuds's not laffin'.

Just sayin'.

Be Well.

As Senator Obama said yesterday, holding the hearing on 9/11 perpetuates the notion that there is a connection between that date and the Iraq war. There is not.

Would staying in Iraq make us safer?

I don't know. Would staying in Germany make us safer? We still have troops in countries that no war has been fought in years, if not decades.
Why not pull those troops home, too?

Perhaps it is because Germany is a strategic location to have a base.

Why don't we bring home the troops out of the Japanese isles? Isn't the war over? Are we safer having them there? Why don't we withdraw from there, too?

Or is it because it is a strategic location.

When Bush said the axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, he set up base outside of the # 2.

The answer to the questions is yes and no. Depends on what has been prevented by our presence. If the presence of the US military in the Middle East has prevented a danger to the US, however miniscule, then YES, is has made us safer.

But, is it worth it?

I plant a tree. It grows apples. I see you come by and pick an apple. I cut the tree down. You get mad at me for taking down the tree. Why should you be angry. I worked to plant it, care for it, tender it.

Sometimes I think Bush looks at Iraq as his Tree. The one investing his belief in that tree is probably the most reluctant to cut it down. You feed it and make it grow. Sure, you prune it here and there - but uprooting it entirely leaves nothing but a hole in the ground. Sad. Real Sad.

If they read the NIE, the seed would have died.

I think Bush looks at Iraq as his Tree... and like a good doggy he is peeing all over it...

Petrous-
That hole in the ground, aside from being a country, would be Bush's legacy. His interests are clearly now separate from the interests of the US.

""The one investing his belief in that tree is probably the most reluctant to cut it down.""

I believe "some" Bush supporters did so because they relly did think he was leading the nation on a necessary war path.
I also believe that there are a great number of Bush supporters who never seriously considered his goals, policies, etc. but were motivated purely by an irrational hatred of liberals which dates all the way back to the Civil Rights era. The REpublican party, with the Southern Strategy, invented by Nixon, has benefited from the deep seated hatred for the Democrats even though many no longer realize that the basis for their hatred started with racism and the civil rights era. Most are not even racist today, most don't even remember those days but have been propagandized to hate liberals ever since those days.
American lives are being lost in Iraq today because of that irrational hatred which causes them to vote against their own best interests and against the best interests of the US.

because of that irrational hatred....

And that hatred is alive and well...

You Scumsucking Traitor!

-Tadpole

The clear honest answer is NO.

Posted by nutcase


Actually, the clear honest answer is "I don't know" and he did that.

We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Isn't that one of the excuses for Iraq? Petraeus better find out quickly if the US is safer or not.

Monte appears to get it:

Was it? Is that because of who was asked?


YES!

If so, who should answer it?


Bush.


Or is it fucking stupid in the abstract, no matter who it's directed at?


Of course not. It's very salient, in the abstract.

""Actually, the clear honest answer is "I don't know" and he did that.""

No, actually the clear honest answer is No, it isn't, never was, never will. But he didn't say that.
You have to be incredibly naive to believe that we are safer from Saudi Arabian terrorists who attacked us from Afghanistan and who are now in Pakistan because we invaded Iraq.
An invasion of Mexico would have made as much sense except Mexico doesn't have enough oil.

I think anyone who remembers Vietnam heard echoes of it when Petraeus gave his spiel. I'm just amazed that so many Americans seem to swallow it hook, line and sinker. What we are seeing is Vietnam with oil. Does anyone think for a moment that if there weren't any oil in Iraq the Americans would still be occupying it?

How many people here think that the Iraqi government will last one hour past the US retreat? Oh, that's right, the US never plans on leaving. I think it's time for a draft so Americans can really understand this war and the people who they're fighting.

Oh, and before I forget, I don't think this has made America safer (at the expense of every other nation on the planet). I think it's destabilized the entire planet and all on the whim of an overpriveleged President who decides everything based on his "gut."

It was a stupid fucking question.


Patreus is limited to security in Iraq as his focus.


"I don't know." Was a reasonable answer at the time.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-09-12 04:50 PM

Really ?

So Why Does Bush Always Say "We Got To Fight Them Over There So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here !"

So Why Fight Them all If You Don't Know If Fighting Them Is Making America Safer ?

Iraq has Nothing To Do with Shit Over Here But Making More Damn Terrorist And 3 Damn American Intel Report have Stated So !!

There Are Only Between 1,000-2,000 Al Queada In Iraq So We Have 165,000 Troops There With Tanks,APCs Planes, UAVs, Helo Gunships, Satellite Photo Recon.

-Sarge

"I don't know." Was a reasonable answer at the time.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-09-12 04:50 PM

Actually, the clear honest answer is "I don't know" and he did that.


Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-09-12 06:12 PM

Actually, what is missing from the article is that after consideration of the question, Petraeus came back and did answer the question. After considering the question, and addressing Warner directly, Petraeus said:

"I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq," he said. "Achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety."

1 year from now when nothing changes in iraq, it will be perfectly clear that petreaus failed this week to speak the truth.

truth hurts donut.

Just look at history. The 57,000 Americans killed in Vietnam surely made the U.S. safer. We haven't had a Viet Cong crash an airplane against a New York City skyscraper in ages. herm

Why is it that Bush and his admin are trying to say that we shouldn't focus on the future, but instead we should focus on the present because we don't know what will happen in the future if we stay.

That's pretty fucking odd considering that they seem to have a crystal ball when it comes to predicting what will happen if we leave Iraq.

"This little fact is not helpful to the very real need of the anti-war left to discredit Petraeus, whose report, to paraphrase Rep. Clyburn, was a real big problem for them."

Oops:

...fact is we opened TERROR UNIVERSITY when we invaded Iraq......

......and they are graduating more & more experienced and committed alumni.......

..........we lost the real battle, the one for the hearts & minds of the Muslim world when we invaded......

Righties:

Can you honestly, with straight faces, deny this:

If Petraeus TRULY believed that the war is making us safer, his answer to Warner's question would have been "Absolutely" , or "Yes indeed, Senator", or perhaps, "I believe that to the be the case".

He is MILITARY, and he can't answer that question in the affirmative?

Doesn't that tell you what his REAL answer would be (which he could never say, as you may be able to imagine.)

Tell the truth, at this on this one.

Petraeus was tasked by congressional directive to issue his report on the status of the surge. Which is why he was at the hearing in the first place.

His sphere of influence was limited to the operational tasks of the military in Iraq.

He couldn't possibly answer a question like "Is America Safer" which involves numerous variables completely outside his control.

It is for our representatives (the Presidnet and Congress) to decide, no doubt in part based on Petraeus' report, if America is safer or not and legislate appropriately.

Can you honestly, with straight faces, deny this:

If Petraeus TRULY believed that the war is making us safer

Petraeus was tasked with making Bagdad safer.

Any questions?

(you should really learn how to pick your battles)

Petraeus was tasked with making Bagdad safer.

If you can't defend something, make shit up.

Everyone knows the answer: Hell no!!!!

Now that we have thoroughly probed and cross-examined one of Bush's leading stooges, does anyone on the DR feel any safer? Any more informed? In any way vindicated? herm

Petraeus was tasked with making Bagdad safer.

Patraeus is in a difficult Position (bent over?)

He is sworn to Defend the Constitution of the United States yet he is under orders from th President of the United States. But, as a General he has intimate knowledge of whether his job is making the United States more or less Secure.

The fact that he cannot definitively say YES means that he believes it is NO but cannot say so because of orders from the President.

Tough job...But, in the interest of National Security he had an opportunity to speak out and give his honest opinion.

He made his choice. It is obvious that he speaks for the President not himself.

Petreaus has Betrayed US.

He has endorsed the Presidents Policy. He has just endorsed the Policy of shoving this problem on the next President. It will now be up to the next Administration to make the hard decisions of Funding the Withdrawal.

Let's hope we don't get fooled again but as we all should know by now...

Power corrupts.

When the Democrats take the WH, how soon will ALL the troops be home? I guarantee you that the troops will still be there.

How many presidents did we go through with Vietnam?

Petraeus was tasked by congressional directive to issue his report on the status of the surge. Which is why he was at the hearing in the first place.

Wrong. Petraeus is the top General in Iraq. He is in charge of all military operations. He is REQUIRED by congress to appear at the hearing.

His sphere of influence was limited to the operational tasks of the military in Iraq.

And who better to comment on the progress or lack therof?

He couldn't possibly answer a question like "Is America Safer" which involves numerous variables completely outside his control.

The question was "Do you feel that the Iraq war is making America safer?" If Petraeus felt that he was in no position to answer such a question, I'm sure he would have said so. What he said was "I don't know."

It is for our representatives (the Presidnet and Congress) to decide, no doubt in part based on Petraeus' report, if America is safer or not and legislate appropriately.

Either we are safer or we are not. If the top general in Iraq cannot even claim that we are safer, then how can the "deciderer" or congress form an opinion. I distinctly remember hearing Bush claim that decisions will be based on the commanders on the ground and not POLITICIANS IN DC.

Which one is it?


Posted by Bowa

He's fighting a war that he hasn't even decided is vital or even beneficial to the security of the United States.

Posted by tonyroma

When Generals decide political policy they are called dictators. The US military carries out the orders of the US government, not the other way around. What is wrong with you people? Don't you know how this country is suppose to work? Didn't any of you study government in school?

When Generals decide political policy they are called dictators. The US military carries out the orders of the US government, not the other way around. What is wrong with you people? Don't you know how this country is suppose to work? Didn't any of you study government in school?

Where did you get that he was deciding "policy"? You've made a quantum leap from him being asked if his efforts that in your words are carried out by orders of the US Govt are making us safer to him deciding on the policy to be implemented. Nowhere in Tony's post did he suggest that Petraeus is making or shaping policy. He was simply asked if we are safer because of our occupation in Iraq.

Can you honestly, with straight faces, deny this:

If Petraeus TRULY believed that the war is making us safer

Petraeus was tasked with making Bagdad safer.

Any questions?

(you should really learn how to pick your battles)

Posted by LastAmerican


That is patheticm and ther's NO question about that.

Why are we there? Purely to make Baghdad safer? How f-ing stupid. You guys won't ever acknowledge reality, will you?

If he had said "yes", you guys would have had a collective orgasm.

What a joke.

Petraeus was tasked with making Bagdad safer.

If you can't defend something, make shit up.

Posted by YAV


LOL!!!

If you can't argue a valid point, then say stupid shit like this.

Too funny Yav...

That is patheticm and ther's NO question about that.

Why are we there? Purely to make Baghdad safer? How f-ing stupid. You guys won't ever acknowledge reality, will you?

If he had said "yes", you guys would have had a collective orgasm.

What a joke.


Posted by midiman



Classic!

When you lose an argument, start in one a completely different one.

*start in on a completely different one

Classic!

When you lose an argument, start in one a completely different one.

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-09-13 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


*start in on a completely different one



HAHAHAHA Good grief man are you for real? I'll tell you what ... keep defending this, and please do explain how a military leader who BELIEVED that our efforts there are making the US safer would have said I don't know.

LOL!!!

Bicker all you like.

I am boycotting Bush's address to the nation Thursday night. He is not going to say anything of interest or meaning. I know it already.

Posted by sitdown


We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

I am so loving watching the Dems rush around like chickens...

After criticizing and putting our guys in Iraq in danger, it's fun to watch them made out to be complete fools!

We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

Posted by LastAmerican



It's cute when they become giddy in their little world of bumpersticker ideology.

I'll watch the little twit tonight, though, to hear how many words he mispronounces, and to find out the latest version of why we are Iraq, since we can't be sure it's for the purpose of making us safer here at home.

We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-09-13 06:25 PM

Hey Dickhead? Ask someone that lost someone in Iraq/Afghanistan just how good victory feels.

"It is for our representatives (the Presidnet and Congress) to decide, no doubt in part based on Petraeus' report, if America is safer or not and legislate appropriately.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-13 08:21 AM"

Bowa - either we are safer, or we aren't. It is not for the "Presidnet" or anyone else to "decide" whether we are ot not. The "Presidnet" may have an obligation or duty to give his opinion on that, but it is not for him to "decide."

(In case you still don't get it, think about the difference in these two things: A parent can "decide" whether his or her child can go to the fair on Saturday, but the parent cannot "decide" whether it is raining. Get it?)

We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-09-13 06:25 PM

Hey Dickhead? Ask someone that lost someone in Iraq/Afghanistan just how good victory feels.

Posted by itsme



Listen slime. Don't pretend that you can identify with the patriotic families that have lost someone in Iraq.

Your sincerity is fake! Go look in a mirror and see if you can face yourself and say that shit!

In case you missed my point.

We are winning in Iraq and it's really bad for the Democrats. The Democrats can't win the Whitehouse if we win in Iraq.

Is that a pathetic position to be in? Or What!!!

I am boycotting Bush's address to the nation Thursday night. He is not going to say anything of interest or meaning. I know it already.

Posted by sitdown


We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

I am so loving watching the Dems rush around like chickens...

After criticizing and putting our guys in Iraq in danger, it's fun to watch them made out to be complete fools!

We are winning in Iraq. MF please.

You are the epitome of whats wrong with america.

I noticed that the Liberal Dirt Bag Drudge was afraid to mention the NYTimes picture of Gen. Petraeus. I guess Drudge has to be careful of "Move On . Scum". NOTE: New York Times stock at 10 year low. I wonder why!

our leaving iraq will be seen as a defeat it will empower our enemies it will empower Iran.

so what? we can still take Iran down as fast as we did Iraq.......we just can't stay

"We are winning in Iraq and you can't stand it!

I am so loving watching the Dems rush around like chickens...

After criticizing and putting our guys in Iraq in danger, it's fun to watch them made out to be complete fools!

Posted by LastAmerican"

Exactly how do you define winning? When will you have "won?" I'm serious. What conditions do you think the mission will be accomplished? I ask because when I look at Iraq all I see is Vietnam 2 - this time stupider and more pointless.

So tell us, LastAmerican, how long do you think it will take before the last American can leave Iraq? According to the Iraqis you guys can leave any time now.

How long will it take? How many presidents did we go through during Vietnam?

How long will it take? How many presidents did we go through during Vietnam?

Another thing we didn't learn.

***** I noticed that the Liberal Dirt Bag Drudge was afraid to mention the NYTimes picture of Gen. Petraeus. OZZIE ****

......I thought Drudge was a Conservative Dirt Bag....is somebody being smeared here ??...

At least General Dave had the integrity to not lie outright to the Congress and the rest of the country when asked the "safer" question.

The answer there is clearly no.
He clearly couldn't give that answer.
But at least he didn't out and out lie when asked.
Kudos fer that thinks Spud.

Of course, his original reply became news as we've all seen and that meant General Dave needed a do-over of the question.

Here's wot he came up with...

"I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq," he said. "Achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety."

Can't "not safer"
Can't say "Oil"
He's in a bind there.

Between Iraq and a hard place.

Aint we all?

Be Well.