Yes, big bro 43 and his current military stooge, poodle-boy2 Petraeus, have betrayed us, but the GOP, Clear Channel Radio and FOX news have no ethics-so
facts and reality don't stand much of a chance against attacking the messenger. Back in September of 2007 when MoveOn characterized Petraeus as being a betrayer the attack came. The top Republican on the House Armed Services committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., accused Democrats of trying to "degrade" Petraeus "in order to put the right spin on his testimony." The US MSM covered this tangential aspect of the war in Iraq and big bro 43 got extra time for his "stay the course" technique in Iraq which he relabeled as "the surge".
The most common definition of betrayal is to deliver or expose an entity to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. Petraeus is keeping our soldiers bogged down in inhuman urban guerrilla 4th generation warfare. The US military isn't designed for 4th generation warfare-and by the way, in the history of 4th generation warfare the super-power-in this case the US, has never beaten their foe. In the future can't you see Petraeus replacing Benedict Arnold as the person's whose picture is beside the word in the dictionary for betrayal?
Isn't contributing to the subversion of government a betrayal? Crocker mumbled that the Iraqi parliament would see big bro 43's plan to stick the US in the Iraq quagmire permanently, but our Congress wouldn't! Isn't that treasonous and a betrayal? Many US soldiers have sacrificed everything defending our way of life. In our government check and balances is of paramount importance, yet big bro 43 merrily disregards Congress and we are all just supposed to accept it.
CLINTON: Do you anticipate that the Iraqi governrment would submit such an agreement to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?
CROCKER: The Iraqi government has indicated it will bring the agreement to the Council of Representatives. At this point, it is not clear, at least to me,
whether that will be for a formal vote or whether they will repeat the process they used in November with the Declaration of Principles in which it was
simply read to the members of the Parliament.
CLINTON: Does the administration plan to submit this agreement to our Congress?
CROCKER: At this point, senator, we do not anticipate the agreements will have within them any elements would require the advice and consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement."
Big bro 43 trotted out his Press Secretary Dana Perino regarding the status of force agreement (SOFA) which would be negotiated with Iraq as an "executive
agreement." Perino said "An executive agreement like this isn't something that is subject to a yes-or-no by the United States Senate. Other countries, under
their constitutions, may have that type of rule, but we don't."
The article "Bush Backs Petraeus on Indefinite Suspension of Troop Pullout in Iraq" deals with big bro 43's plans to shape Iraq policy even after the fool with the 28% approval rating leaves and Democrats efforts to combat W as "One confrontation centers on Bush's effort to negotiate a long-term "strategic
framework" agreement with Iraq this summer without congressional approval. The U.N. mandate that provides a legal basis for foreign troops operating in Iraq is
set to expire at the end of the year, and the administration wants the framework and a related "status of forces" agreement to govern the U.S. engagement in the new year.
But lawmakers from both parties said Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office, and they maintained that an agreement with such enormous
consequences should be submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. At a rancorous Senate hearing, Republicans warned that they would join Democrats in fighting the pact.
"You are not going to get this done between now and the election," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice's chief adviser on Iraq. "It's not going to happen. . . . Look at reality." If the administration presses ahead, Voinovich and others said, it would hand
Democrats a presidential campaign issue on a platter, allowing them to claim that Bush seeks to tie the hands of the next president.
"You speak on behalf of this administration, whose views are not shared by two of the three potential next presidents," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.),
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "This is folly. This is a serious, serious mistake." Satterfield insisted that the framework pact would not commit the United States to permanent bases or specific troop levels, or even to defend Iraq. But the administration has only vaguely outlined what the commitment would be. A statement signed by Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December said the agreement would provide "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq "to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace." Satterfield's assurance that that language does not constitute a "binding guarantee" on the United States' part was ridiculed on both sides of the aisle."
Harry Reid outlines his plans against W as "Speaking after the president's speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Americans are paying
$5,000 per second for the war, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Iraq should use its own money for reconstruction. "The president has taken us
into a failed war," she said. "He's taken us deeply into debt. And . . . that debt is taking us into recession."
Pissing away our economy is spun by W as "We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
