News Report:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIPNF82&show_article=1
Transcript:
Petraeus (//%22http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM43_general_petraeus_testimony_10_september2007.pdf%22)
Crocker (//%22http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM43_070910_crocker_testimony.pdf%22)
Super Summary:
1) The surge averted a full scale civil war, its military objectives are being met in large part.
2) Iran has set up paramilitary forces in Iraq and is supplying them to undermine the Iraqi government and fight a proxy war with the US. Compared the force to Hezbollah.
3) Security is improving but is far from where it is wanted
4) Iraq's military/police are making strides and are about 70% effective - with some support. They are incapable of handling the security situation by themselves.
5) A complete withdrawal would likely lead to regional powers protecting their interests inside Iraq by allying with in country sects, resulting in a multinational proxy war within a civil war (think Lebanese civil war).
6) The legislature has agreed on principle to a power brokering deal. The details of which are likely to be as slow as the details after our constitution was drafted.
7) Many Iraqi groups, including AL Sadar, have concluded that the current course of action is counter productive to any Iraqi's goals. Levels of coordinated violence are expected to continue decreasing.
8) Corruption in official posts is an ongoing problem.
9) The population and government of Iraq grow tired of foreign occupation but most grudgingly accept its necessity.
10) Reconstruction is continue at a pace that security allows - read slow. Nearly twice the funds are allocated to be spent this year than last, concentrating on basic necessities like power, water, and sewage. Such infrastructure remains a prime target of insurgents.
11) Oil production has returned to pre-war levels in spite of attacks. Exports have been opened over land to Turkey for the first time (a more secure route).
12) Other economic sectors are growing at 6%, hindered by security concerns. Especially agriculture and manufacturing as products are difficult to transport on open roads. Iraqi company's are beginning to see foreign investment. Unemployment remains high.
13) Political relations with most neighbors have normalized. Saudi Arabia is constructing a new embassy in Iraq.
- - -
The general stressed the need for a prolonged mission and a transition to a training/withdrawal operation only when the situation warranted. He did not speculate as to needs past the middle of next year. Overall the situation is improving but far from what he would like it to be.
The ambassador stressed the challenges presented by tearing down a "culture of fear and dictatorship [or similar]" where the state essentially approved all institutions and actions and tried to rebuild it with an open society. He repeatedly referenced US history and noted that much debate, time and even violence resolved our core founding issues. He categorized the legislative goals as a means to an end, so progress is as important as the objective (presumably talking in parliament > shooting in the streets).
- - -
Overall they gave the impression of SLOW and painful progress. "There will not be a turning point, unless it is realized in hind site" and things will not be quick nor easy - Crocker. Likewise the general said the security situation is improving but acknowledged that without continued cooperation and growing support it would not succeed.
Seemed like a bleak and honest assessment to me, even with the promise it provided. Kind of a "we are making progress slowly" coupled with "the alternative sucks" kind of thing. Lets hope the progress picks up for our soldiers sake, our financial sake, and for the Iraqi's sake.
- - - - -
There was some protesters that tried to disrupt the meeting, as discussed here:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6709
- - -
as a side note, please don't comment blind. At least read a news report before you form an opinion based on what I said or what you decided before you read anything on what was actually said.
Pretty much what everyone already knew. Be patient, give them time.
Of course, the "be patient" line has been used for the past 4 1/2 years.
There's a time for impatience, too.
It was interesting to me this morning as I was watching a History Channel show about the B-17 and the missions they flew over Germany in WWII.
One of the points of discussion was how high the casualty rate was for a B-17 pilot and crew. There was a 25% kill rate for B-17's because we did pin-point daylight bombing raids all over Germany. Churchill actually remarked that it was foolish of the US tactically to do daylight bombings...
Just made me wonder, in our 24 hour a day new cycle society, if we could have even won WWII if it were being waged today? In reality, WWII was much bloodier and took a much greater toll on our forces than the attempt at the pacification and unification of Iraq.
Has the media, and their steady diet of "death from the battlefield" reports rendered us impotent? Or are we just now discovering (at least since televised war in Vietnam)that death is a part of this whole war thing?
After we beat Germany but still faced a bloody campaign with Japan, people were tired. Everybody had sacrificed so much for over four years and they were feeling spent. At that moment in time, the War Department took a calculated risk and released pictures of dead Marines on south Pacific beaches. Enlistment went up, war bond sales went through the roof, and Americans refocused on Japan.
It's not the coverage that is different, it's the war.
CL, that statement is just wrong.
The WAR DEPARTMENT took a risk and picture photographs to release at a strategic time. That is about as different of coverage as you can get from Al-Jazeera, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, the BBC, the AP, Reuters, the Times of London, the NY Times, and about 1,000 other news outlets having wires in every second of every day and available instantly to the world on the internet.
Pretending that a handful of military released photographs a month+ after the fact is comparable to today's 24/7 coverage is extremely obtuse.
I stand by my previous statement. In World War II, all Americans were asked to sacrifice, to fight an enemy bent on global domination. Iraq does not present that kind of global threat. Not even our President believes that, as evidenced by his failed attempt to fight a war on the cheap, undermanned and underfunded. And never forget that he told us that the best way to show our patriotism was to go shopping. pancakes! Add to that, a lazy, dysfunctional, Iraqi government that decided to go on vacation for 1/3 of the surge, and you get a pretty clear picture that no "Green Zone Fog" can obscure.
You can blame the media if you want to, but I have a feeling that these half-*ssed efforts have a lot to do with why most Americans feel that the Iraq War is a failure.
(http://www.pollster.com/blogs/1ReviewofWarOpinion.png)
It's not the media coverage that makes this war unpopular, it's the incompetence at the top.
One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.
looking into the mirror of ancient Babylon.......
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.
I disagree. Most of the coverage is meant to inform. There are certainly exceptions, but I try not to get my "news" from propaganda outlets, e.g., FoxNews and Al-Jazeera. But yes, I read many stories about A-holes blowing themselves up in civilian markets; about combatants shifting from "surge" areas into previously "quiet" areas; about body counts that are rising, not declining; about a national police force that is nothing more than uniformed, factionalized, murderous bands of militia; and about an Interior Minsiter who would rather watch cartoons than talk to a US Congressman. I read that stuff, and yes, I draw conclusions. I make judgments. I decide where I stand. Feel free to tell me about the "good news"...I'll listen. But, don't hand me a bag of doo-doo and tell me it's lavender.
The big difference between Iraq and WWII was that real, obvious progress was being made in the European and Pacific theaters.
(Plus the fact the Japanese and Germans actually attacked us made Americans more willing to aggressively pursue the war. There was no such link with Iraq on 9/11.)
The tide-turning Midway Island battle in the Pacific was barely six months after Pearl Harbor. D-Day was 2 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor, and the Germans were already in retreat on one major front in early 1943 after the battle of Stalingrad. Americans stuck with it because progress was being made.
Nearly 4 1/2 years after invading, progress in Iraq isn't apparent.
The other big difference is goals. The goal in WWII was to defeat Japan and Germany. In Iraq, the goals are ever-changing. First, it was to get rid of WMDs that weren't there. Then it was to allow the Iraqis to hold elections. Then it was to train a national police force to stabilize the country. Now it's to prop up the government so that it can stabilize the country and reconcile the warring sects. Of course, incompetence by Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al, are responsible for a lot of quagmire.
This is how goofy it's gotten in Iraq. After de-Baathing the country, the U.S. is now supporting the pro-Saddam Sunni elements. The U.S. is training policemen who are undoubtedly using their weapons and badges as members of sectarian death squads. With all the talk about the fight against Muslim extremists, Iraq has turned into an Islamic republic that's lousy with nutjobs. It's gotten so bad with al-Maliki that prominent U.S. officials have been talking openly about ousting him and replacing him with a "strongman" leader -- essentially replacing him with someone like Saddam Hussein.
It's madness.
F.B. spends a lot of time bloviating about local tax vampires and the alleged "Tulsa Premium." He ought to be a lot more outraged about the "Iraq Premium." After a half-trillion dollars, wouldn't you expect a helluva lot more in return? Who would think this is cost-effective? Mr. Magoo?
So it's not difficult to see why people have turned against this war.
But no, we'll still have a few people begging for "six more months," despite the players' abysmal history.
Hey, I was making no reference to either the merits of the war, its leadership, or its effectiveness. I'm not even talking about the effect of the coverage. I was simply responding to the outrageous comment that the media coverage of the Iraq war and WWII was the same. That coverage dictated and released by the military on a monthly basis is somehow the same as free LIVE media coverage around the clock.
If you truly believe the media coverage is the same, then there is no point discussing it with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.
I disagree. Most of the coverage is meant to inform. There are certainly exceptions, but I try not to get my "news" from propaganda outlets, e.g., FoxNews and Al-Jazeera. But yes, I read many stories about A-holes blowing themselves up in civilian markets; about combatants shifting from "surge" areas into previously "quiet" areas; about body counts that are rising, not declining; about a national police force that is nothing more than uniformed, factionalized, murderous bands of militia; and about an Interior Minsiter who would rather watch cartoons than talk to a US Congressman. I read that stuff, and yes, I draw conclusions. I make judgments. I decide where I stand. Feel free to tell me about the "good news"...I'll listen. But, don't hand me a bag of doo-doo and tell me it's lavender.
Ah yes, much more reliable sources like MSNBC, home of Keith Olbermann. He's not biased against the war or anything...
FWIW, Bill O'Reilly has been a very harsh critic of the war.
Well Rwarn, only six more months would be some improvement but I think what people anticipate is that this will go over into the next administration.
I heard an interesting item last night. In every war there are foreigners that put their lives at risk to help us. In past wars we have granted those people entry to the U.S. But now the Bush administration is not granting our friends in Iraq entry to the United States even though they have put their lives in jeopardy to help our troops.
A couple more points...
1) Germany never attacked us, if you want to sharp shoot on minor points...
2) You fault the Bush administration for being static and for changing strategies. They can not win no matter what so they have opted to simply ignore many critics. This is NOT a good thing, but given the tendency to fault them no matter what course they take, they no longer care.
Shifting goals and strategies is absolutely essential to achieving the desired outcome: a peaceful Iraq and a denial of victory to Islamic extremists. For your WWII analysis...your analysis would have us continue to press for the recapture of Manila instead of Island hopping - faulting the admirals for changing goals. Or continuing attacks on Austria and Italy even after they dropped out of the Axis alliance... because changing allies is goofy. Likewise, you would fault the casualties of precision daytime raids on Germany and then fault them for inaccuracy if they shifted to nighttime raids.
There is plenty of reasons to criticize the war and the administration, by stretching everything out and grabbing for every straw you cheapen the real problems and faults presented.
rwarn.... good points and they highlight another important difference between WWII and Iraq. In WWII we knew who our enemies were, and for the most part, they engaged in warfare on a level that we understood. This is not to ignore the atrocities against the Jews in Germany or even the use of kamikaze pilots by the Japanese which were both shocking in their brutality, but at least on the battle field the war was waged between 2 military forces that had some "rules of engagement".... and yes, we knew at the end of the day, or battle, who the winner was and the loser was... and the military leadership on both sides accepted it. The enemy we face today is not bound by any such "rules of engagement". their weapons and tactics shock and disgust on levels that make it hard to not focus on the short term cost vs. the long term goal. Which by the way, I will agree that the long term goal is foggy at best.
quote:
The big difference between Iraq and WWII was that real, obvious progress was being made in the European and Pacific theaters.
Real, tangible progress is being made in Iraq. Saddam is out of power which garners many benefits unto itself. Anbar province has been pacified and is under local control. The Kurds are now living without the threat of genocidal extinction....there are many others.
Progress was simple to point to in WWII as it was on a global scale with many, many players. Progress in Iraq may evidence itself in more subtle and varying ways. We will never have an Omaha beach moment in Iraq, and to expect such is unrealistic.
quote:
(Plus the fact the Japanese and Germans actually attacked us made Americans more willing to aggressively pursue the war. There was no such link with Iraq on 9/11.)
Point already made that Germany never attacked the US.
quote:
The tide-turning Midway Island battle in the Pacific was barely six months after Pearl Harbor. D-Day was 2 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor, and the Germans were already in retreat on one major front in early 1943 after the battle of Stalingrad. Americans stuck with it because progress was being made.
Though Stalingrad was a significant battle, the war didn't end for almost another year and a half. That's quite a long period of time. Probably too long for our soundbite society.
And are you trying to tell us that the war with Japan was essentially over 6 months after Pearl Harbor? Pfffttt...
quote:
Nearly 4 1/2 years after invading, progress in Iraq isn't apparent.
But progress isn't non-existent (e.g. Anbar province) nor peace ultimately unreachable either.
quote:
The other big difference is goals. The goal in WWII was to defeat Japan and Germany. In Iraq, the goals are ever-changing. First, it was to get rid of WMDs that weren't there. Then it was to allow the Iraqis to hold elections. Then it was to train a national police force to stabilize the country. Now it's to prop up the government so that it can stabilize the country and reconcile the warring sects. Of course, incompetence by Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al, are responsible for a lot of quagmire.
None of those "reasons" were ever proffered as the end game goal of liberating Iraq. The end game is, and always has been, the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq no longer under the rule of Saddam. I don't think any other goal has ever been stated.
quote:
F.B. spends a lot of time bloviating about local tax vampires and the alleged "Tulsa Premium." He ought to be a lot more outraged about the "Iraq Premium." After a half-trillion dollars, wouldn't you expect a helluva lot more in return? Who would think this is cost-effective? Mr. Magoo?
How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars? If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay? How about 100 billion? Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?
quote:
So it's not difficult to see why people have turned against this war.
It's very easy when you're bound and determined to look for the worst.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hey, I was making no reference to either the merits of the war, its leadership, or its effectiveness. I'm not even talking about the effect of the coverage. I was simply responding to the outrageous comment that the media coverage of the Iraq war and WWII was the same. That coverage dictated and released by the military on a monthly basis is somehow the same as free LIVE media coverage around the clock.
If you truly believe the media coverage is the same, then there is no point discussing it with you.
I didn't say that the media coverage was the same. IP contrasted daylight bombing raids in WWII with the war in Iraq. Many consider both to be strategic blunders, but he theorized that it was the media coverage that was preventing a "win" in Iraq.
I simply pointed out that all wars, even World War II, have sharp, painful, coverage, because all wars
are painful. The difference in the wars is not that they were better at hiding mistakes from the media in World War II. Americans are smart, independent, thinkers and they don't cotton being led around by the nose...not from the media, not from their President. They see things as they are: Iraq is a mistake, WWII was a necessity.
Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth. Anbar was "pacified" before the surge. The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out. Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".
The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam. They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer. Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?
Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention. They were the result of internal strategic decisions and political comprises. And that is the only thing that is going to save them. We started the fight, but they are the ones that will need to finish it. We need to get out of the way and pray for the best.
iplaw wrote:
How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars? If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay? How about 100 billion? Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?
<end clip>
Considering that there has been neither in Iraq, I don't know why you're dealing with hypotheticals.
This price tag is $500 billion and counting. By the time we're done (if ever ... just wait six more months ... AGAIN), it will likely be $1 trillion and higher, if you factor in replacing military hardware that wears out faster, much more health care spending on troops, etc.
Considering that we've gotten very little for our investment in blood and money, I think every American has the right to raise hell about it.
If you want to see a microscopic silver lining in this giant mess, fine. Baghdad Bob was an optimist, too.
quote:
Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth. Anbar was "pacified" before the surge. The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out. Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".
But your comment was a complaint about a lack of progress, and that's clearly progress. Looks like Al-Sadr may be preparing to do the same thing in Sadr city.
quote:
The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam. They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer. Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?
The Kurds have stated that they are NOT interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer. They abandoned that when the chose to participate in the Iraqi government as a recognized minority.
quote:
Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention.
How do you figure?
You realize that the Kurds were removed from all authority, their lands forcibly resettled, and their rebellions ended with wholesale slaughter under Saddam? Certainly their choice to participate in a government that will not slaughter them with chemical weapons is an improvement brought by the US invasion.
Also, I hope you realize that Anbar province is the location of Fulljah. To say that the terrorist/insurgent heaven there was not influenced by the US is folly. We kicked the insurgents hard and stuck with it, providing the locals an alternative to their rule. They determined that our way was better than the zealots. Without a strong US presence, certainly they would have relied on others for governance.
Go read the ambassadors statement. I think he says it well when he talks about the challenges that exist. Its unfortunate that our initial plan did not foresee any of these problems so we could ACT on them instead of react to them. Certainly an instance where poor planning on the front side has lead to insane costs and burdens on the back.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
iplaw wrote:
How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars? If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay? How about 100 billion? Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?
<end clip>
Considering that there has been neither in Iraq, I don't know why you're dealing with hypotheticals.
This price tag is $500 billion and counting. By the time we're done (if ever ... just wait six more months ... AGAIN), it will likely be $1 trillion and higher, if you factor in replacing military hardware that wears out faster, much more health care spending on troops, etc.
Considering that we've gotten very little for our investment in blood and money, I think every American has the right to raise hell about it.
If you want to see a microscopic silver lining in this giant mess, fine. Baghdad Bob was an optimist, too.
The calculus of war does not include variables for price or blood. You either believe that it was the right thing to do or not. If it was the right thing to do, you do what's right despite the cost. If it was the wrong thing to do, then the point is moot.
Would taking out Hitler have been the wrong thing to do if we would have had 2 million deaths as opposed to 400K? Of course not. Either the cause is just or unjust.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hey, I was making no reference to either the merits of the war, its leadership, or its effectiveness. I'm not even talking about the effect of the coverage. I was simply responding to the outrageous comment that the media coverage of the Iraq war and WWII was the same. That coverage dictated and released by the military on a monthly basis is somehow the same as free LIVE media coverage around the clock.
If you truly believe the media coverage is the same, then there is no point discussing it with you.
I didn't say that the media coverage was the same. IP contrasted daylight bombing raids in WWII with the war in Iraq. Many consider both to be strategic blunders, but he theorized that it was the media coverage that was preventing a "win" in Iraq.
I simply pointed out that all wars, even World War II, have sharp, painful, coverage, because all wars are painful. The difference in the wars is not that they were better at hiding mistakes from the media in World War II. Americans are smart, independent, thinkers and they don't cotton being led around by the nose...not from the media, not from their President. They see things as they are: Iraq is a mistake, WWII was a necessity.
Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." This was declared as a global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq. Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.
Once the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda operatives were fleeing everywhere, Iraq was suspected as one place who would roll out the red carpet.
In WWII, as with WWI the mainland U.S. was never attacked. Hawaii was not even a state yet. The war was about protecting foreign interests and preventing the Germans and Japanese from attacking and invading the U.S. mainland by taking the battle closer to their own turf. Pretty much the same philosophy we are using now:
Go after governments who harbor terrorists, find terrorists and terrorist cells, destroy them, and disrupt their sources of funding and recruiting before they wind up within our own borders.
Please point out to me why WWII was
any more of a necessity than the global war on terrorism- not why you think the WOT is less significant than WWII in terms of American homeland security and foreign interests.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth. Anbar was "pacified" before the surge. The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out. Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".
But your comment was a complaint about a lack of progress, and that's clearly progress. Looks like Al-Sadr may be preparing to do the same thing in Sadr city.
quote:
The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam. They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer. Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?
The Kurds have stated that they are NOT interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer. They abandoned that when the chose to participate in the Iraqi government as a recognized minority.
quote:
Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention.
How do you figure?
My comment was not about the lack of progress, it was about failure. As in, our President has failed this country and theirs. Hopeful signs of peace and reconciliation are happening in Kurdistan and Anbar province, but not because of the surge.
The Anbar tribal leaders were expelling Al Qaeda fighters
prior to the surge; they started over a year ago. That was a decision they arrived at on their own, and it was because those Al Qaeda a-holes were indiscriminately slaughtering civilians. The sheiks got fed up. And there is no surge in Kurdistan; if I'm not mistaken, there aren't even any US troops in Kurdistan. So this hopeful sign also has little to do with the actions of US troops on the ground.
I want successes, but I don't think that the US can
force them. I could argue that the US, by our very presence, is enabling these factions to dream their ambitious little dreams. And when we go away, they may decide not to kill each other after all. They may decide to work it out.
Or, maybe you're right, as you have said many times before, and we are holding off a genocidal slaughter. Perhaps that is inevitable, no matter how many years we remain.
Neither one of us knows for sure what will happen over there. But, in either case, it seems to me that we are standing in the way of Iraqi self-determination; even if their choice is suicide, it's still their choice. And we are taking shots from all sides (except the Kurds). Is there ANY indication that
we (the US) are succeeding in getting these guys to settle down and work things out?
I think that we aren't helping very much, and that we can't even sustain the effort that we have in it right now. So, I think we should leave.
<Conan wrote:
Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." This was declared as a global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq. Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.
<end clip>
Every credible report said that al-Qaida had NO link to Saddam Hussein. If there was a link, it was incredibly trivial, on a par with bid Laden making a phone call to the palace and Saddam not even bothering to pick up the receiver.
That's because Saddam didn't want al-Qaida in his country. That's because al-Qaida would be a destabilizing force in Iraq. An unstable Iraq would be a bad thing, as the U.S. found out far too late.
And to call Iraq the No. 1 threat to U.S. interests? Bigger than China? Bigger than North Korea? Please.
You're going to have to come up with a more credible argument than that, Conan.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You realize that the Kurds were removed from all authority, their lands forcibly resettled, and their rebellions ended with wholesale slaughter under Saddam? Certainly their choice to participate in a government that will not slaughter them with chemical weapons is an improvement brought by the US invasion.
You are a war behind. They gained de facto independence in 1991. They'd still have it today whether we invaded in 2003 or not.
quote:
Also, I hope you realize that Anbar province is the location of Fulljah. To say that the terrorist/insurgent heaven there was not influenced by the US is folly. We kicked the insurgents hard and stuck with it, providing the locals an alternative to their rule. They determined that our way was better than the zealots. Without a strong US presence, certainly they would have relied on others for governance.
You realize that Anbar province also included Ramadi, and we have had to send Marines there, too, because Al Qaeda and other militant groups fled there after Fallujah. It's was whack-a-mole. The Al Qaeda guys have now fled to places where we are not surging, and our strategy is now to rearm and resupply the very same tribal resistence that was shooting at us a year ago in hopes that they will now fight Al Qaeda and not ally with them again, as they have done two times previously. Maybe this time they will, the Al Qaeda jerks have killed 8,000 civilians in the area. If it were me, I'd stay mad at 'em, but who the h*ck knows?
Yes, we can kick
anybody hard if we want to. But who? Tribal resistence? Al Qaeda? Other Sunni militants and disgruntled, professional ex-soldiers? Al Sadr? Other Shiite militias? What about the Shiite murder squads in cop uniforms? If your answer is, "We need to kick all their *sses.", then, I don't disagree with you. But, we'd need a couple hundred thousand more Marines and soldiers (and all the retrained sailors and airmen we could muster). And, that won't happen. Short of that, it's a bloody mess and I don't think we need to be in the middle of it.
quote:
Go read the ambassadors statement. I think he says it well when he talks about the challenges that exist. Its unfortunate that our initial plan did not foresee any of these problems so we could ACT on them instead of react to them. Certainly an instance where poor planning on the front side has lead to insane costs and burdens on the back.
We don't have the presence to do more than react. Even with the surge, the ones that really want to fight have found new places to operate. There have even been a couple of market bombings in peaceful Kurdistan recently.
When we draw down, which is inevetible, things may very well heat up again in Anbar. Woody Allen once said, "90% of success is just showing up." That may be funny, but it's no way to fight a war. But that's exactly the strategy that we have pursued. We've put too few men out there, we haven't provided adequate protection, and we haven't given them a game plan for success.
Where the h*ck is Osama, anyway?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Conan wrote:
Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." This was declared as a global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq. Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.
<end clip>
Every credible report said that al-Qaida had NO link to Saddam Hussein. If there was a link, it was incredibly trivial, on a par with bid Laden making a phone call to the palace and Saddam not even bothering to pick up the receiver.
That's because Saddam didn't want al-Qaida in his country. That's because al-Qaida would be a destabilizing force in Iraq. An unstable Iraq would be a bad thing, as the U.S. found out far too late.
And to call Iraq the No. 1 threat to U.S. interests? Bigger than China? Bigger than North Korea? Please.
You're going to have to come up with a more credible argument than that, Conan.
China and NK weren't playing a shell game with UN weapons inspectors, RW. Hussein was percieved as a much larger threat by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, the CIA, Congress, and the Senate. There was intelligence for years prior to Bush II that there was WMD in Iraq. Okay, so we got there and figure out one of either two things: Hussein was all bluff and bluster or he managed to get WMD's out of the country.
The alternative would have been to allow him to remain in power and assume he had no WMD's until he used them somewhere in the Arab world or Europe to attack U.S. interests, or God forbid, use them on U.S. soil.
Al-Qaeda wouldn't need a link with Hussein to recruit or operate training camps in Iraq, and there was credible evidence that Hussein HAD supported various terror groups over the years with weapons and/or money. This is the war on terrorism, not the war on Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda seems to be getting most of the focus due to being responsible for 9/11 and they are still stirring the proverbial **** bucket in the ME.
1) their defacto independence was always secured with US Warplanes. Not to mention defacto independence left them without a voice in Baghdad and vulnerable to whatever threats Saddam wanted to send their way. The gassing of the kurds took place while they had their defacto independence. "Defacto" meaning "not really."
Now they have a functioning government, their own security forces, governmental revenue, and a say in politics. That's a step better than independence by virtue of neglect of the central government.
2) We were running a whack-a-mole strategy and it went as you indicated. Currently we are trying to whack the mole, set up a an internal security force, then move off to whack another mole. It is called a strategy shift, as I described with island hopping.
Am I to understand your strategy shift would be to go "crap, our first try is not working... leave!" I assume not. One must try different things to succeed.
3) Basically what I am hearing you say over and over is "we cant win, lets quit." That's it in a nut shell. "All we can do is whack a mole." "The ones that want to fight will." "There is always another bad guy we have to fight."
Yes, there almost always is another bully in the playground, another murdered on the street, or another terrorist trying to kill you. That doesn't mean you simply give up and go home.
This is entirely frustrating in that I do not support the vast majority of what the president has done. I believe this war was ill prepared. I believe our previous strategies did not garner the yields we needed. Yet the argument "we tried, we failed, we quit" does not fly with me just yet.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) their defacto independence was always secured with US Warplanes.
And that's all that was needed.
quote:
Not to mention defacto independence left them without a voice in Baghdad and vulnerable to whatever threats Saddam wanted to send their way. The gassing of the kurds took place while they had their defacto independence. "Defacto" meaning "not really."
No, Halabja was in 1988.
quote:
Now they have a functioning government, their own security forces, governmental revenue, and a say in politics. That's a step better than independence by virtue of neglect of the central government.
I think they had that before.
quote:
2) We were running a whack-a-mole strategy and it went as you indicated. Currently we are trying to whack the mole, set up a an internal security force, then move off to whack another mole. It is called a strategy shift, as I described with island hopping.
Am I to understand your strategy shift would be to go "crap, our first try is not working... leave!" I assume not. One must try different things to succeed.
First try? We've been at it for four years and we've tried many strategies.
quote:
3) Basically what I am hearing you say over and over is "we cant win, lets quit." That's it in a nut shell. "All we can do is whack a mole." "The ones that want to fight will." "There is always another bad guy we have to fight."
No, what I'm saying is that it's not our fight to win or lose. It's theirs. I don't care what you call it, call it the Pottery Barn rule for creeps, "We broke it...let's get out of here". I'm not saying it's a nice thing to do, or the honorable thing. Our cred is already gone, it went out the window when we went after Saddam instead of Osama. But standing in the line of fire for another 10 years is not going to rebuild it. So, of the options I can see, it's the only one that is going to allow us to regroup and get Al Qaeda. That's something we can do.
quote:
Yes, there almost always is another bully in the playground, another murdered on the street, or another terrorist trying to kill you. That doesn't mean you simply give up and go home.
You don't have to stand there and keep getting pummeled, either. It's like watching Raging Bull. You feel for the guy, but you know he's a freakin' mess.
quote:
This is entirely frustrating in that I do not support the vast majority of what the president has done. I believe this war was ill prepared. I believe our previous strategies did not garner the yields we needed. Yet the argument "we tried, we failed, we quit" does not fly with me just yet.
Who's quitting? You think this is the last time we are going to have to deal with problems in the Middle East? I don't. There's still oil there and there ar two countries with a billion plus populations that want it...and they can walk there. There's still Osama, radical Islam, and despots. We're not ready for any of that; militarily or diplomatically.
Conan wrote:
There was intelligence for years prior to Bush II that there was WMD in Iraq. Okay, so we got there and figure out one of either two things: Hussein was all bluff and bluster or he managed to get WMD's out of the country.
The alternative would have been to allow him to remain in power and assume he had no WMD's until he used them somewhere in the Arab world or Europe to attack U.S. interests, or God forbid, use them on U.S. soil.
<end clip>
Try bluff and bluster. McClatchy News Service reported *before* the war that the existence of WMDs was very unlikely. Of course, this prescient reporting was ignored.
And this notion that Saddam would have used the WMDs -- which, again, were nonexistent -- on U.S. soil is pure fantasyland.
1. You are correct, he did not gas them. He sent the Republican Guard to kill them manually when they attempted independence in 1991. That's when we established the no fly zones... my history was off. Thanks for the correction.
2. The Kurds lacked any central governmental authority, tax powers, and had no representation with the central government. They are clearly better off without a large central power that wants them to die (except Turkey).
3. Saying "we are not quitting, its just not our fight so we are going home" is an exercise in semantics. While I agree that the fight is now one between factions seeking power, different religious cults, and a side war between the US and terrorists as well as insurgents... we are the ones that destroyed the status quo.
Right or wrong, we did it. It would be profoundly unfair to the average Iraqi who wants nothing more than to have a job and a family to come home to without getting blown up on the way. It sucks that the job falls on us, but no one else will do it. Not only have we created a responsibility for ourselves, but the future security and economic condition of the region largely depends on our actions.
As you said, we will have to deal with future problems in the Middle East... so why pretend they will go away if we pull our troops out? Both choices suck, I agree. But one is certain failure and one presents a possibility of success. I haven't given up on success yet.
For that matter CL, I'm not sure when I would. I'm not saying that I will not, just that I do not know what conditions or prerequisites I require to demand that we leave Iraq to its own devices. I'm fairly certain a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia would erupt with sides shifting constantly within Iraq (Al Quida, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraqi Governmental Forces and Militias... sunni, Shia, Kurd) and the population stuck in the middle. If the Kurds then declared independence Turkey would certainly step in... at which point Armenia might step up to defend the ethnic Armenian Kurdish minority in Turkey and try to reclaim territory Turkey stole during the Armenia genocide (which Armenians are a little touchy on still). In which case Azerbaijan (Turkish Ally) would reclaim territory territory Armenia stole from them in the conflict during the 1990's. As a protectorate of Armenia, Russia might intervene in that one which would be along their border. Turkey is a NATO country, so Russia would have to tread very carefully. And during all of this Israel is sitting by with their finger on the button...
Just so much tension in the region, I'm afraid of what could happen if we allowed a power vacuum. I'm not paranoid and do not believe the above scenario is likely, but certainly it would not be good. And what would our other allies think of US help in the future if we just walk out like that? What precedent does that set for the future.
But maybe you're right. Maybe we just leave and let them all kill each other and figure it out. I'd be a huge fan of that strategy if we hadn't already interjected ourselves in destabilizing the region.
/total ramble.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Conan wrote:
There was intelligence for years prior to Bush II that there was WMD in Iraq. Okay, so we got there and figure out one of either two things: Hussein was all bluff and bluster or he managed to get WMD's out of the country.
The alternative would have been to allow him to remain in power and assume he had no WMD's until he used them somewhere in the Arab world or Europe to attack U.S. interests, or God forbid, use them on U.S. soil.
<end clip>
Try bluff and bluster. McClatchy News Service reported *before* the war that the existence of WMDs was very unlikely. Of course, this prescient reporting was ignored.
And this notion that Saddam would have used the WMDs -- which, again, were nonexistent -- on U.S. soil is pure fantasyland.
Wow, McClatchy News Service. I guess they must have had a better inside scoop than the international intelligence community.
It's not a matter of Hussein not having WMD's, it's that he apparently didn't have them anymore. There was no way of knowing that for certain without invading.
Bush was in a no-win situation. Either we sit back, WMD's wind up in the hands of asshat terrorists, and Bush is an idiot for not acting on long-standing intel. The alternative was to go in and risk not finding anything and Bush gets egg on his face.
The so-called "long-standing intel" wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you think. There was considerable debate in the intel community about whether Saddam had WMDs at all. Reports since the invasion have revealed this. McClatchy's reporting before the invasion at the very *least* revealed ambiguity on the facts in Iraq and a whole hell of a lot of dubious speculation by the U.S. government.
Of course, politicians aren't rewarded for ambiguity, which is why they seldom go there.
Invading a country because it *might* have WMDs -- especially when plenty of evidence existed to the contrary -- is abominably stupid. If you go to war, you'd better be damned certain on your rationale. You literally have lives on the line.
Just to throw this out there...German Uboats attacked American shipping pryor to US declaration of war.
The lend lease gig kind of forced it.
The intelligence community debates ALL ASPECTS of every intelligence issue. That is their nature and their job. They debated on an attack on pearl harbor and got that one wrong. They debated on the likely reaction of the Soviets to US Support in Afghanistan and got that right, and the Cuban Missile Crisis before that.
In both instances some said the soviet would react with a nuclear strike. If they had, someone somewhere could be shouting "the US government was warned this would happen." Absolutely, they are warned of all contingents. But they still have to chose one and risk the others.
To revisit a 7 year old debate: Saddam had WMDs, Saddam broke the peace treaty and refused further inspections. The intelligence community was split as to the extent of his existing weapons programs - but as far as I am aware none were confident in his compliance. So knowing he had them and knowing he would not show us what happened to them the safest conclusion was that he STILL had them.
Its akin to my 7 year old claiming he brushed his teeth and then not letting me see his clean teeth. I'm not going to believe him.
The real disagreement was not whether Iraq had WMDs left over, but what to do about it. An entirely different debate involving human rights issues, respect for international law (his and ours), and sovereignty issues in a dictatorship (is the country the peoples or the leaders? If the peoples, can an outsider decide they want to overthrow a dictator for them?). Not to mention the politics involved in re terrorism, enforcement of will, and the Middle East in general.
Bah. All indications still suggest the best evidence from France, the (former) KGB, the CIA, NSA, and the UN indicated he had weapons, they were unaccounted for and he was not cooperating. In my view he forced a beat down upon himself and now he's dead. Apparently to protect the illusion that he had WMDs, good job a**hole.
I'm going to throw you a bone rwarn. If I were President at the time, I would have kept Saddam on a tight leash and not risked a war.
It's hard for me to personally say that Bush made a mistake. I think far too many people are trusting that the media "knows" everything.
America was still licking it's wounds from the largest attack ever on our soil, we had a loose-cannon dictator who previously had tried to build up WMD capabilities, was playing shell games with UN inspectors, a thoroughly confused intelligence committee, and a terrorist group in the market for WMD's to cause more harm.
It's hard for me to fault why he chose to go to war. It's not the decision I would have been willing to make, but with much more information than you or I are privy to, it might have looked like the most prudent course of action to President Bush and his advisors at the time.
Frankly, Conan, I'm not convinced Bush 100 percent altruistic motives in mind with the Iraq motivation. I'm not sure what all of those motives were.
But it was apparent even to me and my wife, especially, that something about the rationale for Iraq invasion wasn't quite right.
To be sure, some people got snowed or fooled.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Frankly, Conan, I'm not convinced Bush 100 percent altruistic motives in mind with the Iraq motivation. I'm not sure what all of those motives were.
Oooh.
20 questions:
1. Is it mineral?
2. Is it viscous?
3. Is it dark brown?
4. Is it bigger than an oil barrel?
Why not say the War is about oil? It may be a bitter pill for the public to swallow, but it least it's
actual national security concern. It certainly makes more sense than the rationale du jour, "Buying time for the Iraqis to waste", or whatever.
But, I guess if you called it an oil war, the public might actually start conserving energy. Surely, the President isn't that jaded. Cheney, maybe, but not the President.
The war for oil argument has always been extremely weak in my opinion. Any war in the middle east is going to RAISE oil prices. Bickering with Iran and Venezuela is going to RAISE oil prices. If it was actually a war for oil wouldn't we have most out military presence in the oil fields and leave oil deprived Baghdad to its fate?
If we are in this war for oil, we are doing a worse job than if we are really trying to set up a government. Clearly oil is one of our primary interests in the region, but I do not believe it is driving policy. Perhaps it should, because the current course is universally agreed to be ugly.
There are plenty of oil reserves in other places around the world. "War for oil" is a kindergarten concept.
What would the rationale be if Gore and Lieberman had been in office under the same circumstances. Lieberman is trying to protect the diamond merchants in Israel? Remember, Gore was VP to the man who insisted right up to the invasion of Iraq that: "...without a doubt Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction the day I left office."
Petraeus quit.
NBC tweet:
Quote#BREAKING: Andrea Mitchell (@MitchellReports) confirms David Petraeus resigns as CIA director
QuoteCIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation, cites extra-marital affair
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2012, 02:09:20 PM
Petraeus quit.
NBC tweet:
"CIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation,
cites extra-marital affair"
It's Washington D.C. for crying out loud. You can drive around with a rotting body in your trunk. Who cares?
Must have been an underage boy.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 02:40:42 PM
"CIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation, cites extra-marital affair"
It's Washington D.C. for crying out loud. You can drive around with a rotting body in your trunk. Who cares?
Might've been with a rotting body...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 02:40:42 PM
"CIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation, cites extra-marital affair"
It's Washington D.C. for crying out loud. You can drive around with a rotting body in your trunk. Who cares?
That was nearly Guido like in its tone. ;D
Has he blamed it on an internet video yet?
CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Extramarital Affair
http://kwgs.com/post/cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-citing-extramarital-affair (http://kwgs.com/post/cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-citing-extramarital-affair)
QuoteThe director of the Central Intelligence Agency David Petraeus submitted his resignation today, citing an extramarital affair.
"After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair," Petraeus said in a message sent to CIA staff. "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation."
Petraeus retired from the Army as a celebrated four-star general, who had led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He retired in September 2011 to become the CIA chief.
President Obama accepted his resignation saying that "by any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation."
The president added that Petraeus and his wife, Holly, were in his "thoughts and prayers" during "this difficult time."
The president appointed Petraeus' deputy, Michael Morell, as acting director.
This is a breaking news story. We'll update as soon as we have more.
Update at 4:19 p.m. ET. One Of The 'Greatest Military Heroes':
In a statement, Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) said Petraeus will "stand in the ranks of America's greatest military heroes."
He added: "His inspirational leadership and his genius were directly responsible – after years of failure – for the success of the surge in Iraq."
Update at 4:05 p.m. ET. 'Regret The Resignation':
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that she "regret(s) the resignation."
"I wish President Obama had not accepted this resignation, but I understand and respect the decision," Feinstein said.
Mark Knoller of CBS News reports that because of the news, Petraeus will not testify next week at the committee's "closed hearing on the events in Benghazi."
Update at 3:38 p.m. ET. A Surprise:
The New York Times reports that the resignation came as a surprise to the National Security community. Petraeus was expected to stay on the president's team through his second team.
The Times provides some background:
"Over the last several years, Mr. Petraeus had become one of the most recognizable military officials, serving as the public face of the war effort in Congress and on television.
"Under President George W. Bush, Mr. Petraeus was credited for helping to develop and put in place the 'surge' in troops in Iraq that helped wind down the war in that country. Mr. Petraeus was moved to Afghanistan in 2010 after Mr. Obama fired General Stanley H. McChrystal over comments he made to a magazine reporter."
Update at 3:21 p.m. ET. 'Thoughts And Prayers':
In a statement, President Obama said his "thoughts and prayers" were with Petraeus and his wife Holly, "who has done so much to help military families through her own work."
Obama said that Petraeus has "provided extraordinary service" to the country.
"By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end," Obama said. "As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he has continued to serve with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication, and patriotism. By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger."
Update at 3:15 p.m. ET. A 37-Year Military Career:
Petraeus had a 37-year career. Here's a bit more of his biography from the CIA website:
"He last served as Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force and Commander, US Forces–Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011. His other four-star commands include assignments as the 10th Commander, United States Central Command, and as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq during the surge.
"Prior to those assignments, Director Petraeus commanded the US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth during which time he oversaw development of the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual; the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq—and, simultaneously, the NATO Training Mission-Iraq—both of which he established; and the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)—including while the 101st participated in the fight to Baghdad and subsequent stability operation during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Update at 3:10 p.m. ET. Thankful:
James R. Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, said in a statement that Petraeus' resignation "represents the loss of one of our nation's most respected public servants."
Clapper added: "I'm particularly thankful for Dave's unwavering support and personal commitment to my efforts to lead the Intelligence Community and integrate our intelligence enterprise."
Update at 3:07 Extramarital Affair:
In a statement sent to press, Petraeus says he resigned for personal reasons.
"After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair," he said. "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation."
QuoteMark Knoller of CBS News reports that because of the news, Petraeus will not testify next week at the committee's "closed hearing on the events in Benghazi."
You realize the crazies are going to run with a new conspiracy theory that Petraeus was silenced...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
You realize the crazies are going to run with a new conspiracy theory that Petraeus was silenced...
Totally
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
You realize the crazies are going to run with a new conspiracy theory that Petraeus was silenced...
Reminds me of Clinton's Arkansas years where people kept turning up dead.
Ooops!
If it was a conspiracy, they would have taken him out with a drone strike.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8460/8024018515_ae3deb0461.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
You realize the crazies are going to run with a new conspiracy theory that Petraeus was silenced...
BAM
That's so sad. He was a great man and an outstanding public servent. If I were the president, I wouldn't' have accepted his resignation. Loosing him is a tragedy.
I remember when President Clinton resigned for having an. . .never mind!
Apparently this is her.
http://www.paulabroadwell.com/ (http://www.paulabroadwell.com/)
(http://uscentrist.org/news/irony/2012/january/paula-broadwell/image)
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2012, 04:42:03 PM
I remember when President Clinton resigned for having an. . .never mind!
I remember when Laura got drunk again and beat up her husband. Then they blamed the evidence on a pretzel.
(http://www.bartcop.com/bush-bruise-pretzel.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2012, 04:43:10 PM
Apparently this is her.
http://www.paulabroadwell.com/ (http://www.paulabroadwell.com/)
(http://uscentrist.org/news/irony/2012/january/paula-broadwell/image)
Looks like Bill Maher in a dress.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2012, 04:47:19 PM
Looks like Bill Maher in a dress.
Creepy fantasy you've got there.
Petraeus was hitting Zorg.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8h86bp3dM1qcel1q.jpg)
I have a better understanding of the title of her book now.
(http://0.static.wix.com/media/466dc1_74314685e8ff2af6ce8e743fb92de468.jpg_512)
So now, according to the Israeli news, NY Times and Politico, it turns out that they've known about this since early this summer, and she had made comments about the Libyan attack on our consulate at the University of Denver indicating that the administration may have been holding a couple of Libyan Militia members at the facility and the reason for the attack was actually to liberate them. If this is the case, then there is big trouble brewing. It would mean that Petraeus, The President, and the Secretary of State all lied about their knowledge of the attack, it would also have ment that Petraeus would have likely been expected to purger himself before congress this week if he testified. The worst part, is that it means we allowed our ambassador and three others to be murdered as part of a cover-up.
"In a speech last month at the University of Denver, Broadwell said that the CIA at one point was holding prisoners at an annex near the consulate, and that the assault may have been an effort to free those prisoners. "I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually—had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So, that's still being vetted," she said, according to a video of the Denver event posted online and first reported by the Israeli media outlet Arutz Sheva."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161964#.UKD-N-Oe89-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/broadwell-spoke-of-access-to-classified-info-149263.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/us-officials-say-petraeuss-affair-known-in-summer.html?_r=0
The whole thing is unraveling.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 12, 2012, 07:58:02 AM
So now, according to the Israeli news, NY Times and Politico, it turns out that they've known about this since early this summer, and she had made comments about the Libyan attack on our consulate at the University of Denver indicating that the administration may have been holding a couple of Libyan Militia members at the facility and the reason for the attack was actually to liberate them. If this is the case, then there is big trouble brewing. It would mean that Petraeus, The President, and the Secretary of State all lied about their knowledge of the attack, it would also have ment that Petraeus would have likely been expected to purger himself before congress this week if he testified. The worst part, is that it means we allowed our ambassador and three others to be murdered as part of a cover-up.
"In a speech last month at the University of Denver, Broadwell said that the CIA at one point was holding prisoners at an annex near the consulate, and that the assault may have been an effort to free those prisoners. "I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually—had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So, that's still being vetted," she said, according to a video of the Denver event posted online and first reported by the Israeli media outlet Arutz Sheva."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161964#.UKD-N-Oe89-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/broadwell-spoke-of-access-to-classified-info-149263.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/us-officials-say-petraeuss-affair-known-in-summer.html?_r=0
The whole thing is unraveling.
Trying to re-establish your powers of clairvoyancy maybe?
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Hoss on November 12, 2012, 08:17:10 AM
Trying to re-establish your powers of clairvoyancy maybe?
Good luck with that.
Don't be an angry person.
No need to troll. If you disagree with the news, then simply provide an intelligent rebuttal.
This stuff is happening right now, and both Republicans and Democrats are investigating it.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 12, 2012, 08:59:41 AM
This stuff is happening right now, and both Republicans and Democrats are investigating it.
Petraeus worked for both republican and democrat presidents. His problems are not partisan.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 12, 2012, 08:59:41 AM
Don't be an angry person.
No need to troll. If you disagree with the news, then simply provide an intelligent rebuttal.
This stuff is happening right now, and both Republicans and Democrats are investigating it.
Where was that being angry? Once again, your clairvoyancy sucks.
Per the New Yorker, Cantor knew of this months ago. I'm guessing there are some deals being made behind closed doors as we speak.
"We'll cover yours if you cover ours."
A PETRAEUS PUZZLE: WERE POLITICS INVOLVED?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-were-politics-involved.html (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell-were-politics-involved.html)
FBI agent 'sent topless pictures of himself to Petraeus whistleblower after becoming obsessed with her' - and now he's been BANNED from investigation
Can't we just have a government sex scandal without it becoming extra creepy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232130/FBI-banned-agent-investigation-Petraeus-affair-concerns-grew-obsessed-woman-center-case-sent-shirtless-photos-himself.html
Petraeus investigation ensnares commander of U.S., NATO troops in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/scandal-probe-ensnares-commander-of-us-nato-troops-in-afghanistan/2012/11/13/a2a27232-2d7d-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html
Now Broadwell's father is making outrageous statements. He better lawyer-up.
"This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out," Broadwell's dad, Paul Krantz, told the Daily News outside his home in Bismarck, N.D.
"There is a lot more that is going to come out," said Krantz, claiming he was not allowed to elaborate. "You wait and see. There's a lot more here than meets the eye."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ap-source-target-emails-petraeus-paramour-state-department-military-liaison-article-1.1200299#ixzz2C74PJ9Ei
Quote from: Gaspar on November 13, 2012, 08:32:05 AM
FBI agent 'sent topless pictures of himself to Petraeus whistleblower after becoming obsessed with her' - and now he's been BANNED from investigation
Can't we just have a government sex scandal without it becoming extra creepy?
Foursomes' arent creepy, they're "inclusive" ;D
New details about how the Federal Bureau of Investigation handled the case suggest that even as the bureau delved into Mr. Petraeus's personal life, the agency had to address conduct by its own agent—who allegedly sent shirtless photos of himself to a woman involved in the case prior to the investigation.
New video game out..."Call of Booty".....
Quote from: patric on November 13, 2012, 03:34:32 PM
the agency had to address conduct by its own agent—who allegedly sent shirtless photos of himself to a woman involved in the case prior to the investigation.
And disclosed it to Eric Cantor before telling his own boss, oddly enough, in an attempt to influence the election. The "whistleblower" told this particular FBI agent because they were having a fling, apparently. Cantor, surprisingly, was bright enough to realize that the only place the information should go is right back to the FBI. :P