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

[maineman]

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

you honestly believe that Westmoreland did not spin the facts about body counts and put a happy face on Vietnam?

 

[dilloduck]

you honestly believe that Westmoreland did not spin the facts about body counts and put a happy face on Vietnam?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Army Gen. David Petraeus as the next commander of U.S. forces in Iraq even though he supports a boost in American troops that many senators oppose.

Widely regarded as one the army's brightest commanders, Petraeus, who was confirmed on a vote of 81-0, told senators earlier this week that the situation in Iraq was "dire" but not hopeless.

Petraeus, who has already completed two Iraq tours, will be charged with implementing President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to halt spiraling insurgent attacks and sectarian violence.

A key Senate committee has approved a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's strategy. A full Senate vote on that measure and another proposal criticizing the plan could come as soon as next week.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and critic of Bush's strategy, said Petraeus must keep a promise to report on whether it was working. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and defender of Bush's plan, said Petraeus represented "our best chance for success" in Iraq


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2522267420070126

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you honestly believe that Westmoreland did not spin the facts about body counts and put a happy face on Vietnam?

You got anything more recent then 1967?

 

[maineman]

so dildo...what did your cut and paste have to do with my statement about Westmoreland?

Are you incapable of expressing yourself?

 

[maineman]

You got anything more recent then 1967?

do you always answer a question with a question?

How about DoD folks lying their asses off about how great the patriot missiles were against Saddam?

 

[Larkinn]

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

What part of "This is NOT a knock on you" don't you get?

He did NOT call Petraeus a liar. Claiming he did is wilfully misrepresenting his statements.

Petraeus was approved by an 81-0 vote. Please don't try to tell me the Dems were tricked again. If the Dems had no intention of listening to the guy, why did they vote to approve him?

What makes you think they didn't listen to him?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

do you always answer a question with a question?

How about DoD folks lying their asses off about how great the patriot missiles were against Saddam?

So you have no General that "lied" to Congress or the American people except maybe Westmoreland in 1967. Ya thats a good reason to assume the Current general is lying. You got me on that one, ya sure did.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

He needs to take his dumb ass back to Hugary where he came from!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dilloduck]

so dildo...what did your cut and paste have to do with my statement about Westmoreland?

Are you incapable of expressing yourself?

If you read it you will find that it didn't have a damn thing to do with Westmoreland. It had to do with democrats voting for Petraeus before they voted against him. Unanimously in fact. Why do democrats continue to support things and suddenly do an about face and whine? I can't wait until everyone realizes that Lantos would absolutely love to invade Iran to protect Israel.

 

[maineman]

If you read it you will find that it didn't have a damn thing to do with Westmoreland. It had to do with democrats voting for Petraeus before they voted against him. Unanimously in fact. Why do democrats continue to support things and suddenly do an about face and whine? I can't wait until everyone realizes that Lantos would absolutely love to invade Iran to protect Israel.

we have never voted "against" Petraeus. democrats have expressed skepticism with the policies of the general's boss. Why do the parrots of the right continue to miscast democrat's dissent with Bush as being dissent with "the troops"? Petraeus is a great field commander. He was confirmed, unanimously, to command our troops in the field. Unfortunately for him, he is also required to carry the Bush administration's party line back to congress. But hey.... he knew that, once he put on stars, that he would have to do politicking as well as soldiering to keep getting more of those stars. This is just a tough time for generals to be performing their political role, but it goes with the job - along with more perks than you could ever imagine.

 

[CSM]

we have never voted "against" Petraeus. democrats have expressed skepticism with the policies of the general's boss. Why do the parrots of the right continue to miscast democrat's dissent with Bush as being dissent with "the troops"? Petraeus is a great field commander. He was confirmed, unanimously, to command our troops in the field. Unfortunately for him, he is also required to carry the Bush administration's party line back to congress. But hey.... he knew that, once he put on stars, that he would have to do politicking as well as soldiering to keep getting more of those stars. This is just a tough time for generals to be performing their political role, but it goes with the job - along with more perks than you could ever imagine.

Obviously there are parallels. Some Dems voted for the war and then began to criticize our actions regarding Iraq. The general's nomination was approved 81-0 and now many Democrats are critical of him ("required to carry the administration's party line back to Congress" is a mild criticism of the general's integrity, is it not?) even though it was Congress who made the stipulation that he report to them.

Could not the argument be made that, with near unanimous approval of Congress, the general is a a Congressional patsy? I am willing to bet that if the general's statement supported the left, he would indeed be the darling of the libs and the right would be screaming exactly that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

we have never voted "against" Petraeus. democrats have expressed skepticism with the policies of the general's boss. Why do the parrots of the right continue to miscast democrat's dissent with Bush as being dissent with "the troops"? Petraeus is a great field commander. He was confirmed, unanimously, to command our troops in the field. Unfortunately for him, he is also required to carry the Bush administration's party line back to congress. But hey.... he knew that, once he put on stars, that he would have to do politicking as well as soldiering to keep getting more of those stars. This is just a tough time for generals to be performing their political role, but it goes with the job - along with more perks than you could ever imagine.

Spinning like a top.

 

[maineman]

Spinning like a top.

exactly. that is precisely what generals are required to do. but as I said, he knew that long before he put on his first star...and by putting it on, he tacitly agreed that he would play that game.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's always a hoot to see these left-wingnuts twist themselves into pretzel shapes, invoking Kerry-like "nuances" to try to pretend they said something other than what they said. It's another tactic to try to shift the discussion from the vileness of their elected officials such as Lantos, to relatively harmless subjects such as "whether I really meant that or not". No wonder nobody listens to them any more.

Back to the subject:
What goes around is now starting to come around. The Democrats have invested their entire party in an agenda of bashing Bush for anything and everything he does, no matter whether good (judicial appointments, tax cuts, sticking with the war against terrorists and the countries that support them) or bad (govt spending, signing CFR, having the wrong facial expression when told about the 9/11 attacks).

Now that the enemy in Iraq is starting to lose, all the Dems' screeching insistence that Bush can't do anything right, is in danger of being shown for the lies they always were. And the Dems can't tolerate such a thing: Their entire agenda depends on people NOT finding out how hollow and disingenuous they are. One crack in the dam will result in a flood that will destroy them, and they know it.

Hence the kind of hysterical denial that Lantos displayed, thrown up earlier and earlier until they are spewing it out before reports even come out. Such frantic pre-denial is common on boards like this one, of course, from people like Mainman who have no responsibilities to protect, dignity to shield, or factual basis to respect. Understandably, it only shows up later in elected officials who still have some shreds of a reputation they haven't yet thrown away (well, some of them, I don't include Shiela Jackson Lee or Ted Kennedy here). But show up it will, sooner or later... and now appears to be the time when their desperate denials, accusations, and smears penetrate their facade of decency.

It hasn't been comfortable to be a Democrat for a while now. Too much is unravelling, too many promises are being shown as unfulfilled, too much truth has been coming out about the utter failure of their agenda and philosophy. Unfortunately for those who keep sticking to the party, it will only get worse.

 

[jillian]

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

Shhhhhhhhh... they don't want to hear that!

 

[Larkinn]

It's always a hoot to see these left-wingnuts twist themselves into pretzel shapes, invoking Kerry-like "nuances" to try to pretend they said something other than what they said. It's another tactic to try to shift the discussion from the vileness of their elected officials such as Lantos, to relatively harmless subjects such as "whether I really meant that or not". No wonder nobody listens to them any more.

Back to the subject:
What goes around is now starting to come around. The Democrats have invested their entire party in an agenda of bashing Bush for anything and everything he does, no matter whether good (judicial appointments, tax cuts, sticking with the war against terrorists and the countries that support them) or bad (govt spending, signing CFR, having the wrong facial expression when told about the 9/11 attacks).

Now that the enemy in Iraq is starting to lose, all the Dems' screeching insistence that Bush can't do anything right, is in danger of being shown for the lies they always were. And the Dems can't tolerate such a thing: Their entire agenda depends on people NOT finding out how hollow and disingenuous they are. One crack in the dam will result in a flood that will destroy them, and they know it.

Hence the kind of hysterical denial that Lantos displayed, thrown up earlier and earlier until they are spewing it out before reports even come out. Such frantic pre-denial is common on boards like this one, of course, from people like Mainman who have no responsibilities to protect, dignity to shield, or factual basis to respect. Understandably, it only shows up later in elected officials who still have some shreds of a reputation they haven't yet thrown away (well, some of them, I don't include Shiela Jackson Lee or Ted Kennedy here). But show up it will, sooner or later... and now appears to be the time when their desperate denials, accusations, and smears penetrate their facade of decency.

It hasn't been comfortable to be a Democrat for a while now. Too much is unravelling, too many promises are being shown as unfulfilled, too much truth has been coming out about the utter failure of their agenda and philosophy. Unfortunately for those who keep sticking to the party, it will only get worse.

Are you seriously continuing with the absurd fiction that Lantos called Petraeus a liar? He obviously didn't. Its been pretty much proved otherwise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you seriously continuing with the absurd fiction that Lantos called Petraeus a liar? He obviously didn't. Its been pretty much proved otherwise.

Proven like you proved Bush Lied about Iraq?

 

[dilloduck]

Obviously there are parallels. Some Dems voted for the war and then began to criticize our actions regarding Iraq. The general's nomination was approved 81-0 and now many Democrats are critical of him ("required to carry the administration's party line back to Congress" is a mild criticism of the general's integrity, is it not?) even though it was Congress who made the stipulation that he report to them.

Could not the argument be made that, with near unanimous approval of Congress, the general is a a Congressional patsy? I am willing to bet that if the general's statement supported the left, he would indeed be the darling of the libs and the right would be screaming exactly that.

That about says it all.

 

[Larkinn]

Proven like you proved Bush Lied about Iraq?

What the hell?

Please quote me where I've said that its been proven that Bush lied about Iraq, or I've tried to prove that. And stop making stupid shit up.

 

[trobinett]

Originally Posted by CSM

Obviously there are parallels. Some Dems voted for the war and then began to criticize our actions regarding Iraq. The general's nomination was approved 81-0 and now many Democrats are critical of him ("required to carry the administration's party line back to Congress" is a mild criticism of the general's integrity, is it not?) even though it was Congress who made the stipulation that he report to them.

Could not the argument be made that, with near unanimous approval of Congress, the general is a a Congressional patsy? I am willing to bet that if the general's statement supported the left, he would indeed be the darling of the libs and the right would be screaming exactly that.

Get a fucking grip, the left just doesn't "get it".

The Democrats vote one way, and then feel no revolution in taking a quick exit out the back door when things don't go the way they thought.

Like, the Tooth Fairy didn't arrive on time, or some such nonsense.

Never seen such a bunch of panty waists, and one's that would desert their "county" after the least little heat.

I'm embarrassed to call them countrymen............