Some of the GOP nailed him also, even re-asking an identical question-always a good way to get a straight response as "Warner repeated his unanswered question:
"Does that make America safer?"
Petraeus said, "I don't know, actually. ... I have not stepped back. ... I have tried to focus on what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the objectives of the policy for which his mission is desired."
So, Petraeus doesn't give a "flying expletive deleted" about our military and he can't make any projections and he wouldn't answer anything outside of the realm of the Iraqi theatre of "GWOT".
Answering the question that Petraeus wouldn't, the former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, had his "slog memo" in which he wondered if "GWOT" had made us safer. Rumsfeld said the US military was in the process of developing metrics as to whether they could kill enough terrorists, which the US was accomplishing at an arithmetic rate, to make up for the number of new terrorists that GWOT was spawning at an exponential rate.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Sept. 11 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20742066/
has this exhange. OLBERMANN "After all this time having been told let's just wait until we hear from the general, from General Petraeus, he had literally not finished speaking today and the president actually says, in effect, we heard from General Petraeus, everything is going well. I'll do what he says. That was the entirety of the debate?
RICHARD WOLFFE, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "NEWSWEEK" WOLFFE "Yes, it was, actually. You know, if I didn't know better I'd say the president was intent on staying the course. Only they don't use that phrase anymore.
Look, he's the decider as we all know. And he decided a long time ago that this is what he wanted to do. And General Petraeus may like to think he is shaping the policy and the president may say that. But you only haveto look at the sad experience of General Casey, Petraeus' predecessor, to figure out that when the president doesn't like what he hears from his generals, he kicks them out."
OLBERMANN replied "So at the end of two long days of testimony during which we learned that next summer, after five and a half years of war, we'll be in the exact same place we had been after four years of war. Is the overriding lesson that should be taken away from this is that the president intends to leave the hard decisions about getting the U.S. out of Iraq to his successor?
WOLFFE replied "Yeah, absolutely. Senior officials have told me that is clearly their strategy. They want to get this in a position where they can hand it on in some shape to the next president, whoever that is. Frankly, they think it's more likely to be Democrat than Republican.
But, yes, this is-this is all about passing it on. Now the president would like to think that the hard decision is staying put. The easy decision is to leave. But he is so invested in this war that he-it's really impossible for him to take an independent view."
All of this for what? That was exactly Hagel's question of the two clowns as the Republican Senator of Nebraska, asked "Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?
The president said, 'Let's buy time.' Buy time? For what?"
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the committee, told Petraeus that President George W. Bush's troop increase "must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is partial withdrawal, a gradual redeployment or some other option."
The big question is whether enough GOP politicians will follow through with actions that match their words. I can see these ghouls showing voters their remarks in the next election, even though they have no plan of cooperating with the Democrats in any of their myriad of options to get the troops home.
Standing against the Democrats quest to start a gradual re-deployment of our troops out of harm's way is bro 43 who intends to use a prime-time address on September 13th 2007 to try to brainwash red staters that his Iraq surge-which is really an escalation, won't lead to an open-ended military commitment. If W can do so and enough GOP brutish politicians can convince themselves not to abandon 43's incompetent, unethical "Operation Iraqi Freedom" scam, then the next series of efforts the Democrats attempt to get us out of the Iraq quagmire, will fail.
As it stands now how can the Democrats overcome the threat of a GOP filibuster or veto by the immoral W? They can't! The Democrats are intending to try compromise measures in hopes of luring Republican moderates to the side of decency. Lately many GOP politicians have been talking the talk, but will enough follow through on their words to sign on to bills to gradually free ourselves of the failed Iraqi theatre of GWOT?
"We're reaching out to the Republicans to allow them to fulfill their word," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said yesterday. "A number of them are quoted significantly saying that come September that there would have to be a change of the course in the war in Iraq."
Don't bet on the GOP to act ethically. Since the start the foxes have been guarding the hen house. Prior to 9/11 the top officials who had to recuse themselves from investigating Enron including the SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, and the Attorney General Ashcroft.
The most disgusting scenario is the likeliest one with this thoroughly corrupt administration--therefore logic would make you assume that underneath his chest full of medals Petraeus was wearing a communication device!
Related articles:
"The Ambassador's Message" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202264.html
"Republican National Committee :: Letter from RNC Chairman Mike Duncan On
The Pelosi-Murtha "Slow-Bleed" Strategy" at
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6793
"The Senate grills Petraeus and Crocker." at
http://www.slate.com/id/2173737/nav/tap3/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Sept. 11 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20742066/
"Does that make America safer?"
Petraeus said, "I don't know, actually. ... I have not stepped back. ... I have tried to focus on what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the objectives of the policy for which his mission is desired."
So, Petraeus doesn't give a "flying expletive deleted" about our military and he can't make any projections and he wouldn't answer anything outside of the realm of the Iraqi theatre of "GWOT".
Answering the question that Petraeus wouldn't, the former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, had his "slog memo" in which he wondered if "GWOT" had made us safer. Rumsfeld said the US military was in the process of developing metrics as to whether they could kill enough terrorists, which the US was accomplishing at an arithmetic rate, to make up for the number of new terrorists that GWOT was spawning at an exponential rate.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Sept. 11 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20742066/
has this exhange. OLBERMANN "After all this time having been told let's just wait until we hear from the general, from General Petraeus, he had literally not finished speaking today and the president actually says, in effect, we heard from General Petraeus, everything is going well. I'll do what he says. That was the entirety of the debate?
Look, he's the decider as we all know. And he decided a long time ago that this is what he wanted to do. And General Petraeus may like to think he is shaping the policy and the president may say that. But you only haveto look at the sad experience of General Casey, Petraeus' predecessor, to figure out that when the president doesn't like what he hears from his generals, he kicks them out."
OLBERMANN replied "So at the end of two long days of testimony during which we learned that next summer, after five and a half years of war, we'll be in the exact same place we had been after four years of war. Is the overriding lesson that should be taken away from this is that the president intends to leave the hard decisions about getting the U.S. out of Iraq to his successor?
WOLFFE replied "Yeah, absolutely. Senior officials have told me that is clearly their strategy. They want to get this in a position where they can hand it on in some shape to the next president, whoever that is. Frankly, they think it's more likely to be Democrat than Republican.
But, yes, this is-this is all about passing it on. Now the president would like to think that the hard decision is staying put. The easy decision is to leave. But he is so invested in this war that he-it's really impossible for him to take an independent view."
All of this for what? That was exactly Hagel's question of the two clowns as the Republican Senator of Nebraska, asked "Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?
The president said, 'Let's buy time.' Buy time? For what?"
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the committee, told Petraeus that President George W. Bush's troop increase "must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is partial withdrawal, a gradual redeployment or some other option."
The big question is whether enough GOP politicians will follow through with actions that match their words. I can see these ghouls showing voters their remarks in the next election, even though they have no plan of cooperating with the Democrats in any of their myriad of options to get the troops home.
Standing against the Democrats quest to start a gradual re-deployment of our troops out of harm's way is bro 43 who intends to use a prime-time address on September 13th 2007 to try to brainwash red staters that his Iraq surge-which is really an escalation, won't lead to an open-ended military commitment. If W can do so and enough GOP brutish politicians can convince themselves not to abandon 43's incompetent, unethical "Operation Iraqi Freedom" scam, then the next series of efforts the Democrats attempt to get us out of the Iraq quagmire, will fail.
As it stands now how can the Democrats overcome the threat of a GOP filibuster or veto by the immoral W? They can't! The Democrats are intending to try compromise measures in hopes of luring Republican moderates to the side of decency. Lately many GOP politicians have been talking the talk, but will enough follow through on their words to sign on to bills to gradually free ourselves of the failed Iraqi theatre of GWOT?
"We're reaching out to the Republicans to allow them to fulfill their word," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said yesterday. "A number of them are quoted significantly saying that come September that there would have to be a change of the course in the war in Iraq."
Don't bet on the GOP to act ethically. Since the start the foxes have been guarding the hen house. Prior to 9/11 the top officials who had to recuse themselves from investigating Enron including the SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, and the Attorney General Ashcroft.
The most disgusting scenario is the likeliest one with this thoroughly corrupt administration--therefore logic would make you assume that underneath his chest full of medals Petraeus was wearing a communication device!
Related articles:
"The Ambassador's Message" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202264.html
"Republican National Committee :: Letter from RNC Chairman Mike Duncan On
The Pelosi-Murtha "Slow-Bleed" Strategy" at
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6793
"The Senate grills Petraeus and Crocker." at
http://www.slate.com/id/2173737/nav/tap3/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Sept. 11 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20742066/
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
