General Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq

I would suggest that as the Head Honcho of operations in Iraq, he is in a far better position to know the facts and conditions on the ground far better then any pundit stationed in an office in the US.

As a General in the Armed forces, he has established himself as an honorable, intelligent man that believes in not sacrificing his men in needless combat, or unnecessary heroics.

Let me ask you Blatham, do you skip over Cyc's obvious disdain for anyone in the military or administration that may disagree with his rather warped view on the events in Iraq, or do you agree with them?

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

As I said earlier, true and obvious. But not very helpful.

What rule or citizen-behavior or press policy would you have follow from this? That whatever a President or a Pentagon official or politician says ought to be always taken at face value as the full and unvarnished truth of things? If Hillary Clinton becomes the next President, which seems entirely possible if not likely now, what level of credibility will you be willing to advance her when she describes her version of the truth of things in Iraq or elsewhere?

blatham wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

As I said earlier, true and obvious. But not very helpful.

What rule or citizen-behavior or press policy would you have follow from this? That whatever a President or a Pentagon official or politician says ought to be always taken at face value as the full and unvarnished truth of things? If Hillary Clinton becomes the next President, which seems entirely possible if not likely now, what level of credibility will you be willing to advance her when she describes her version of the truth of things in Iraq or elsewhere?

If,and I must repeat IF,she were to become President,then my opinion of her as CinC will be the same as it is now towards Bush regarding the war.

Since she would be getting the unvarnished,full report of what is happening in Iraq,I would believe her over anyone in Congress.
As the President,she would have access to reports and intelligence that congress does not and should not have.
Congress has more leaks then a seive,and no President will give congress the full report on any subject.

But,you dont seem to be willing to give Bush the same credit that you think Hillary would deserve as President,regarding the war.
Why is that?

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Good catch, cyclo.

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

They do,but it has been sanitized and cleaned first.
They dont get names and places about where the info comes from,and not everyone in Congress gets the info.
Only those with a "need to know" get the info.


I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Frankly, I don't believe you. But even if you would demonstrate such absolute trust in that case, I'd think you a bloody dangerous fool. Why on earth would you suppose that election to the presidency will inevitably and magically turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership?

"Credit" or credibility arises out of prior behavior, not out of position held. Bush had little credibility for me from the period when he began his run for the nomination because it was clearly evident even then that he was ill-prepared to hold such an office. He could have, of course, gained credibility through demonstration of honesty, intellectual curiosity/humility, and demonstrations of competence/leadership. But in each of these categories he has proved far less suitable than I had even feared. That's why he has for me almost zero credibility or respect from me now. You'll note, perhaps, that the majority of americans have come to a similar conclusion, finally.

What I am saying is that being elected POTUS gives that person access to info and reports that you or I or anyone else does not get.
That gives them a better handle on things and allows them to make better decisions about policy.

mysteryman wrote:

What I am saying is that being elected POTUS gives that person access to info and reports that you or I or anyone else does not get.
That gives them a better handle on things and allows them to make better decisions about policy.

You would certainly hope that it would give them a better handle on things, and give them the opportunity to make good decisions.

I'm not convinced that's always been the case (in general, and in specific).

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

They do,but it has been sanitized and cleaned first.
They dont get names and places about where the info comes from,and not everyone in Congress gets the info.
Only those with a "need to know" get the info.


I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Blatham said...

Quote:

Frankly, I don't believe you. But even if you would demonstrate such absolute trust in that case, I'd think you a bloody dangerous fool. Why on earth would you suppose that election to the presidency will inevitably and magically turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership?

"Credit" or credibility arises out of prior behavior, not out of position held. Bush had little credibility for me from the period when he began his run for the nomination because it was clearly evident even then that he was ill-prepared to hold such an office. He could have, of course, gained credibility through demonstration of honesty, intellectual curiosity/humility, and demonstrations of competence/leadership. But in each of these categories he has proved far less suitable than I had even feared. That's why he has for me almost zero credibility or respect from me now. You'll note, perhaps, that the majority of americans have come to a similar conclusion, finally.

I have never said and never will say that being elected POTUS gives one instant credibility or will "turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership".

What I am saying is that being elected POTUS gives that person access to info and reports that you or I or anyone else does not get.
That gives them a better handle on things and allows them to make better decisions about policy.

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

They do,but it has been sanitized and cleaned first.
They dont get names and places about where the info comes from,and not everyone in Congress gets the info.
Only those with a "need to know" get the info.


I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Blatham said...

Quote:

Frankly, I don't believe you. But even if you would demonstrate such absolute trust in that case, I'd think you a bloody dangerous fool. Why on earth would you suppose that election to the presidency will inevitably and magically turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership?

"Credit" or credibility arises out of prior behavior, not out of position held. Bush had little credibility for me from the period when he began his run for the nomination because it was clearly evident even then that he was ill-prepared to hold such an office. He could have, of course, gained credibility through demonstration of honesty, intellectual curiosity/humility, and demonstrations of competence/leadership. But in each of these categories he has proved far less suitable than I had even feared. That's why he has for me almost zero credibility or respect from me now. You'll note, perhaps, that the majority of americans have come to a similar conclusion, finally.

I have never said and never will say that being elected POTUS gives one instant credibility or will "turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership".

What I am saying is that being elected POTUS gives that person access to info and reports that you or I or anyone else does not get.
That gives them a better handle on things and allows them to make better decisions about policy.

So, you agree that the WH had access to info about WMD in Iraq that the Senators and Congressmen simply didn't have.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

blatham said...

Quote:

think that is true and obvious but not as helpful as we might hope. By the same sort of reasoning (access to priviledged briefings, for example) Nancy Pelosi will be in a far better position than you to know facts and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

But using the standard you just laid down,she is still not as qualified as the President or the generals in the field to know facts and conditions on the ground.

Neither her nor any other member of congress gets the same report that the executive branch (the President) gets.

They do,but it has been sanitized and cleaned first.
They dont get names and places about where the info comes from,and not everyone in Congress gets the info.
Only those with a "need to know" get the info.


I don't think you said this regarding whether Bush lied us into the war. You and the rest of the right were saying that congress had exactly the same info as did the president.

Blatham said...

Quote:

Frankly, I don't believe you. But even if you would demonstrate such absolute trust in that case, I'd think you a bloody dangerous fool. Why on earth would you suppose that election to the presidency will inevitably and magically turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership?

"Credit" or credibility arises out of prior behavior, not out of position held. Bush had little credibility for me from the period when he began his run for the nomination because it was clearly evident even then that he was ill-prepared to hold such an office. He could have, of course, gained credibility through demonstration of honesty, intellectual curiosity/humility, and demonstrations of competence/leadership. But in each of these categories he has proved far less suitable than I had even feared. That's why he has for me almost zero credibility or respect from me now. You'll note, perhaps, that the majority of americans have come to a similar conclusion, finally.

I have never said and never will say that being elected POTUS gives one instant credibility or will "turn any elected person into a paradigm of honesty, morality and competent leadership".

What I am saying is that being elected POTUS gives that person access to info and reports that you or I or anyone else does not get.
That gives them a better handle on things and allows them to make better decisions about policy.

So, you agree that the WH had access to info about WMD in Iraq that the Senators and Congressmen simply didn't have.

Cycloptichorn

They had access to info that they didnt share with every member of congress,I agree with that.
But,that does not mean that they didnt share the info they had with those that had a "need to know".

Not every member of congress has that need.