0
   

General Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:16 am
Quote:
Then, you would agree that the Dems (and Republicans!) in Congress bear much, much less responsibility for the WMD f*ckup that led to the Iraq war, then the Exec. branch - who had unparalleled access to the intel?

Cycloptichorn


Yes,I would agree that they dont bear as much responsibility,but I wouldnt say "much" less.
After all,the leaders of both houses and the members of the various armed services and intelligence committees had access to ALL the info.
The rest of congress had info to only that info that was not classified.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:19 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Then, you would agree that the Dems (and Republicans!) in Congress bear much, much less responsibility for the WMD f*ckup that led to the Iraq war, then the Exec. branch - who had unparalleled access to the intel?

Cycloptichorn


Yes,I would agree that they dont bear as much responsibility,but I wouldnt say "much" less.
After all,the leaders of both houses and the members of the various armed services and intelligence committees had access to ALL the info.
The rest of congress had info to only that info that was not classified.


Actually, according to your own post on the last page,

Quote:

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.


Does the 'anyone else' include the leaders of the Congress, and the Intel committees?

Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the House. Are you alleging that she has access to all the information that the POTUS has? Or not? I can't decide what your position is when you keep contradicting yourself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:21 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Then, you would agree that the Dems (and Republicans!) in Congress bear much, much less responsibility for the WMD f*ckup that led to the Iraq war, then the Exec. branch - who had unparalleled access to the intel?

Cycloptichorn


Yes,I would agree that they dont bear as much responsibility,but I wouldnt say "much" less.
After all,the leaders of both houses and the members of the various armed services and intelligence committees had access to ALL the info.
The rest of congress had info to only that info that was not classified.


Actually, according to your own post on the last page,

Quote:

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.


Does the 'anyone else' include the leaders of the Congress, and the Intel committees?

Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the House. Are you alleging that she has access to all the information that the POTUS has? Or not? I can't decide what your position is when you keep contradicting yourself.

Cycloptichorn


As Speaker of the House,she has access to all the same info that the POTUS has.
But,the junior congressman from Indiana does not have access to all of that info,unless he or she sits on an armed services or intelligence committee.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:31 am
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:44 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn


I believe I said that those without a "need to know" dont get the info that the POTUS gets.
If I didnt say that,then I apologize for not being clear about what I meant.

Looking back at my posts,I DID say...

Quote:
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.


Perhaps you didnt see that part.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:48 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn


I believe I said that those without a "need to know" dont get the info that the POTUS gets.
If I didnt say that,then I apologize for not being clear about what I meant.


No worries. Would you agree that there's no guarantee that the Congressmen and Senators on the Intel committee received the same intelligence information that the POTUS did? After all, he directs the intelligence agencies; he decides what they are going to tell the Congressmen.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn


I believe I said that those without a "need to know" dont get the info that the POTUS gets.
If I didnt say that,then I apologize for not being clear about what I meant.


No worries. Would you agree that there's no guarantee that the Congressmen and Senators on the Intel committee received the same intelligence information that the POTUS did? After all, he directs the intelligence agencies; he decides what they are going to tell the Congressmen.

Cycloptichorn


No,I woudnt agree to that.
The members of the committees get the same info,as do the leaders of both houses.
The rest of congress does NOT get the same info.

Those on the committees have a "need to know".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:56 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn


I believe I said that those without a "need to know" dont get the info that the POTUS gets.
If I didnt say that,then I apologize for not being clear about what I meant.


No worries. Would you agree that there's no guarantee that the Congressmen and Senators on the Intel committee received the same intelligence information that the POTUS did? After all, he directs the intelligence agencies; he decides what they are going to tell the Congressmen.

Cycloptichorn


No,I woudnt agree to that.
The members of the committees get the same info,as do the leaders of both houses.
The rest of congress does NOT get the same info.

Those on the committees have a "need to know".


A question: how do you know that they received the same information?

How do you know that they were given a FULL briefing? Who decided upon the content of their briefings?

You sure seem to take a lot on trust; especially as it is a proven fact that additional, separate groups inside the DOD and the Pentagon were created, under Feith and Wolfowitz, to 'go over' the intel community's recommendations - before they were presented to Congress.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 11:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you didn't mean this:

Quote:

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.


Your statements are inconsistent.

Cycloptichorn


I believe I said that those without a "need to know" dont get the info that the POTUS gets.
If I didnt say that,then I apologize for not being clear about what I meant.


No worries. Would you agree that there's no guarantee that the Congressmen and Senators on the Intel committee received the same intelligence information that the POTUS did? After all, he directs the intelligence agencies; he decides what they are going to tell the Congressmen.

Cycloptichorn


No,I woudnt agree to that.
The members of the committees get the same info,as do the leaders of both houses.
The rest of congress does NOT get the same info.

Those on the committees have a "need to know".


A question: how do you know that they received the same information?

How do you know that they were given a FULL briefing? Who decided upon the content of their briefings?

You sure seem to take a lot on trust; especially as it is a proven fact that additional, separate groups inside the DOD and the Pentagon were created, under Feith and Wolfowitz, to 'go over' the intel community's recommendations - before they were presented to Congress.

Cycloptichorn


By the same token,how do you know they didnt?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 01:14 pm
Oh, I don't know, maybe b/c there's every evidence that they had no idea that the intelligence was being filtered through Wolfowitz's office in the DoD?

Back on topic, though:

Quote:
UPDATE II: In comments, EJ reminds me of something I meant to include here but forgot. Over at Harper's, Ken Silverstein recently reported about "a program run by the Pentagon's Office of Public Affairs" which "seeks to bypass the mainstream press by working directly with a carefully culled list of military analysts, bloggers, and others who can be counted on to parrot the Bush Administration's line on national security issues". As Silverstein writes:

The Surrogates unit arranges regular conference calls during which senior Pentagon officials brief retired military officials, civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, and bloggers. A few moderates are invited to take part, but the list of participants skews far, far to the right. The Pentagon essentially feeds participants the talking points, bullet points, and stories it wants told.

The Bush administration has long used the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Rich Lowrys and Brit Humes and other ideologically loyal minions as their primary interviewers and vessels for message dissemination, and this is now clearly the U.S. military's media strategy as well. There is nothing in the Bush administration that is not politicized from top to bottom.

-- Glenn Greenwald


Going on Hugh Hewitt's show is part of the propaganda the Admin. is producing. They are bypassing anyone who will critically question their success in Iraq, trying to bolster support with their base on the war issue by essentially lying about the situation.

Greenwald points out:

Quote:
Along those lines, today's NYT article by Michael Gordon reports on a "secret" strategic document prepared by the top military command in Iraq that envisions a large U.S. occupying force in that country through at least 2009. The document purports to describe a fundamental shift in our strategy -- from the previously failed policy of Gen. Casey to the Grand New Successful One of Gen. Petraeus. But in identifying the reasons why Gen. Casey's strategy failed, this is what the Gordon writes:

The previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as General Petraeus's predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff of the Army, was aimed at prompting the Iraqis to take more responsibility for security by reducing American forces.

That approach faltered when the Iraqi security forces showed themselves unprepared to carry out their expanded duties, and sectarian killings soared.

But the military official in charge of the training of Iraqi forces during that time was Gen. Petraeus himself. And while they now claim (because it is politically necessary to do so) that the "old strategy" failed, Gen. Petraeus continuously assured Americans for years that we were making "huge progress," that the "bottom line" was that Iraqis are 'fighting for their country" and "increasingly leading that fight." And those statements, whether by design or unintended effect, misled Americans into believing that the situation in Iraq was far better than it was.


Petraeus was either lying or being completely deceived himself when he was making those statements. He has a long history of parroting the Bush cabinet line, instead of accurately reporting the situation in Iraq. There's no reason to believe he'll do anything else then that in a month or so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 01:39 pm
Is NPR on that list as well? Petraeus gave an interview with mush the same information.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 02:26 pm
McGentrix wrote:


Freudian slip, there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 02:39 pm
That's cute, but you didn't answer the question. Does NPR fit your list of conservative propaganda news outlets that won't critically question success in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 02:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:
That's cute, but you didn't answer the question. Does NPR fit your list of conservative propaganda news outlets that won't critically question success in Iraq?


While NPR has moved farther to the right lately, they are not a conservative news outlet, you are correct.

I'd like you to contrast the questions/tone in the NPR piece to the Hewitt one, and see if you can tell me the difference between the two of them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:00 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Then, you would agree that the Dems (and Republicans!) in Congress bear much, much less responsibility for the WMD f*ckup that led to the Iraq war, then the Exec. branch - who had unparalleled access to the intel?

Cycloptichorn


Yes,I would agree that they don't bear as much responsibility,but I wouldn't say "much" less.
After all,the leaders of both houses and the members of the various armed services and intelligence committees had access to ALL the info.
The rest of congress had info to only that info that was not classified.


I might want to point out here that Congress does not have access to ALL or the same intelligence information the President does.

Quote:
By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

The President is also in a position to easily manipulate intelligence information and select what may be seen by Congress and what may not.

When Bush stated that Congress saw the same intelligence information he saw , technically, he was telling the truth. But his meaning was a lie. He saw a lot of intel that he didn't want Congress to see and it was withheld from them.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:17 pm
I just want to say that NPR is as balanced as possible without snickering and sighing over the doings of this administration.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 07:18 am
WINNING IN IRAQ

July 26, 2007 -- TO a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.

The herd animals on Capitol Hill - from both parties - just can't wait to go over the cliff on Iraq. And even when the media mention one or two of the successes achieved by our troops, the reports are grudging.

Yet what's happening on the ground, right now, in Baghdad and in Iraq's most-troubled provinces, contributes directly to your security. In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees."

Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?

Gen. David Petraeus and his deputies sharply prioritized the threats we face in Iraq: Al Qaeda is No. 1, and Iran's Shia proxies are No. 2. Our troops hunt them relentlessly. And we don't face our enemies alone: Iraq's security forces have begun to pick up their share of the fight.

A trusted source in Baghdad confirmed several key developments that've gone largely unreported. Here's what's been happening while "journalists" focused on John Edwards' haircuts:

* Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.

* Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization - which made brief headlines - but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.

Oh, and it emerged that the Iraqi "head" of the terrorists was just a front - in the words of one Army officer, Omar al Baghdadi was "a Wizard of Oz-like creation designed to give an impression that al Qaeda has Iraqis in its senior ranks."

* Al Qaeda has been pushed right across Anbar, from the once Wild West to the province's eastern fringes. The terrorists are still dug in elsewhere, from the Diyala River Valley to a few Baghdad neighborhoods - but, to quote that senior officer again, "our forces have been taking out their leaders faster than they can find qualified replacements."

Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?

But let's be fair: Congressional Republicans, terrified of losing their power and glory and precious perks, haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq, as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.

* It isn't only al Qaeda taking serious hits. After briefly showing the flag, Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. Mookie's No. 2 even moved his family to Iran. Why? Though he's been weak in the past, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now green-lighting Iraqi operations against the Jaish al Mahdi, the Mookster's "Mahdi Army."

With its descent into criminality and terror, the Mahdi Army, too, has been losing support among Iraqis - in this case, among Shias.

And Iraq's security forces increasingly carry the fight to the militia:

* The Iraqi Police Tactical Support Unit in Nasiriyah came under attack by Mahdi Army elements accustomed to intimidating their enemies. Supported by a brave (and tiny) U.S. advisory team, the police commandos fought them off. Instead of a walkover, the militia thugs hit a wall - and got hammered by airstrikes, for good measure. Then the Iraqi police counter-attacked. The Mahdi Army force begged for negotiations.

* In Mosul, Iraqi army and police units stuck to their guns through a series of tough combat engagements, with the result that massive arms caches were seized from the terrorists and insurgents. In Kirkuk, Iraqi police reacted promptly to last week's gruesome car-bombing - in time to stop two other car bombs from reaching their intended targets.

* In Baghdad, the surge isn't only about American successes - Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.

What were you, the American people, told about all this? Well, The New Republic published a pack of out-of-the-ballpark lies concocted by a scammer claiming to be a grunt in Baghdad. Our soldiers, he wrote, spent their time playing games with babies' skulls, running over dogs for fun and mocking disfigured women in their mess hall.

Anyone who knows our troops or has visited Iraq could instantly spot the absurdities in this smear and the soldiers in the unit denied that any of it happened - but The New Republic (which refuses to produce its source) isn't exactly staffed by military veterans.

The editors wanted to believe evil about our men and women in uniform, and ended up doing evil to our troops. (Those editors ought to be sentenced to spend August in Baghdad with the infantrymen they defamed, cleaning out military port-a-johns in the 130-degree heat.)

Is success suddenly guaranteed in Iraq? Of course not. The situation's still a bloody mess. But it's also more encouraging than it's been since the summer of 2003, when the downward slide began.

Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders.

Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:26 am
Quote:
Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad.


Yea, maybe in the heavily fortified green zone surrounded with troops and everyone equiped with mask and bullet proof vest.

Maybe the reason people don't get excited about the limited progress this surge has brought to Iraq is twofold. One is that we can't sustain the level of troops in the area long enough to bring about lasting results or we risk leaving ourselves exposed to other dangers with most of our resources tied up in Iraq. And two is that we have been hearing about progress for years and yet still there is never ending varying degrees of violence spread through out Iraq. If at the time it comes to vote for president and we are still in Iraq with the same violence; I imagine it will be hard to explain away with words meaning "progress is just around the corner." Example:

Quote:
Iraq's usual laundry list of daily violence accompanied the bombings that disrupted the soccer celebrations.

Quote:
Police reported the discovery of 18 unidentified corpses throughout Baghdad. Three Iraqis were killed and two were wounded by a homemade bomb hidden in a car in the Shaab district. Gunmen in the volatile Doura neighborhood opened fire on a busload of Iranian religious pilgrims, injuring six. A mortar shell injured two officers at the Khadraa police station in west Baghdad.

North of the capital, police officials in the Diyala province said gunmen kidnapped four young men who belong to a Turkmen political party in the town of Saadiyah; their severed heads were found four hours after the abduction. Other decapitations were reported in the provincial capital of Baqouba.

In the city of Kirkuk, also north of Baghdad, gunmen shot dead two farmers near a downtown technical institute. In a separate incident, kidnappers seized the son of a prominent Sunni Arab tribal leader.

Also Wednesday, Iraq's largest Sunni Arab bloc announced it was suspending its membership in the Shiite-led coalition government over unmet Sunni demands, such as the release of some detainees and the disbanding of militias.

Members of the Iraqi Accord Front issued an ultimatum to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, saying they would quit his fragile government permanently unless he meets their requests within a week. The Sunni group has five Cabinet ministers and 44 members of the 275-person Iraqi legislature. The Iraqi Accord Front had just resumed participation last week after a five-week boycott.


source

The daily Iraqi violence report is compiled by McClatchy Newspapers Special Correspondents in Baghdad from police, military and medical reports. This is not a comprehensive list of all violence in Iraq, much of which goes unreported. It's posted without editing as transmitted to McClatchy's Washington Bureau.


Four civilians were killed in an IED explosion in Bayaa neighborhood south Baghdad around 1,00 pm.

An Iraqi soldier was killed and five others wounded in a car bomb and IED explosion targeted their patrol in Jamia'a neighborhood west Baghdad around 2,00 pm.

Salahuddin

Five policemen including two officers were killed while chasing gunmen in Al Dhuba'i west of Tikrit city today morning.

Babil

Five Iraqi policemen were killed and 2 others wounded in an IED explosion targeted their patrol on Hilla - Diwaniyah street south of Baghdad around 11,30 am.


source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:32 am
What fools like Ralph Peters don't realize, is that the things he points out aren't signs of winning.

The Insurgents in Iraq can literally wait as long as they want. Years. There's no real time limit, as they for the most part don't have to spend billions of dollars a month to maintain their Guerrilla war. In fact, it's practically free.

Until the base conditions there change - some sort of reconciliation between the warring factions, with political components thrown in the mix for stability.

I also think the fact that they stopped reporting the civilian casualties in Baghdad, isn't proof that the surge has lessened said casualties.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:38 am
Also,

Quote:


What were you, the American people, told about all this? Well, The New Republic published a pack of out-of-the-ballpark lies concocted by a scammer claiming to be a grunt in Baghdad. Our soldiers, he wrote, spent their time playing games with babies' skulls, running over dogs for fun and mocking disfigured women in their mess hall.


http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank

Quote:
My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for The New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp


Peters, and yourself, might want to do a little research before posting things.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 10:27:14