<p>While I personally admire General Petraeus, I don’t believe that I have ever advocated accepting everything he says uncritically. What I have objected to, most strenuously, is the unfounded character assassination that has been attempted by some members of the Democratic party. [see post above]</p>
<p>If his data is wrong, let someone show it. I believe that his numbers have considerable support, and have been carefully vetted. There’s just no way that a 4 star General testifies before the House and Senate, on national television, without every t crossed and every i dotted. No way.</p>
<p>Webb et al may have a different opinion. But they are not on the ground, and have not spent three years in Iraq. The Dems made a big deal about listening to the commanders on the ground, and they were right. Why are they refusing to do so now?</p>
<p>“If his data is wrong, let someone show it. I believe that his numbers have considerable support, and have been carefully vetted. There’s just no way that a 4 star General testifies before the House and Senate, on national television, without every t crossed and every i dotted. No way.”</p>
<p>Well, he gave the explanation himself. He rejected all the previous data because it doesn’t include the last five weeks. All data presented previously indicates that he’s wrong. And that he knew it, which is why he needed the asterisk.</p>
<p>Not that it matters much. He has presided over one of the most massive and dramatic “ethnic cleansings” in modern history in Baghdad, with hundreds of thousands of people permanently displaced from their homes, and then he cites as evidence that “it’s working” the fact that those who have benefitted from the ethnic cleansing are less likely to kill each other (in the last five weeks). Well, duh!</p>
<p>I don’t think he requires character assassination from the outside. Read his 2004 article - he does that to himself. A.K.L.C.S. says his superior, and he’s the one who would know best. What his superior officer said has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting what he happens to say (which is already suspect), and everything to do with his character.</p>
<p>“While I personally admire General Petraeus…”</p>
<p>What did he do to earn your admiration that his superior officer doesn’t know about?</p>
<p>General Jones had shown charts of Baghdad last week showing the same recent declines in violence in certain neighborhoods, but also showing the near 100% ethnic cleansing that had occurred in the same neighborhoods. General AKLCS left that little tidbit out of his “report”. He also neglected to include the fact that every Sunni Sheik who works with the US military gets assassinated – I think we are up to six shieks now. I’m sure that General AKLCS meant to include that and simply forgot.</p>
<p>Or, maybe accepting his report requires “a willing suspension of disbelief”.</p>
Says who? Some anonymous “Pentagon source?” You accuse Petraeus and anyone else who has anything remotely positive (and remember, his report is NOT wholly positive) to say about Iraq of lying. But you’ll take hearsay comments as gospel truth? Where’s the logic in that? Is it just because that’s what your political inclinations tell you? Is there a Youtube of Fallon deriding Petraeus or a more junior officer who says he was there? That statement has no supporting evidence, but I’m sure you’ll throw it around from now until the end of time – if you just repeat it often enough that makes it true, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t take anything at face value. But I’m astute enough to think that if there was the most remote, far fetched, reliable data that contradicted the Petraeus report, it would be on the front page of the NY Times. The lack of any verifiable data that contradicts his very careful remarks leads me to believe that they are accurate.</p>
<p>Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their partys principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bushs first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. ONeill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. The Republicans in Congress lost their way, writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican. </p>
<p>I’ll believe the general when a day goes by without a suicide bomber killing at least 20 people, and when at least one or two American kids do not come home in body bags.</p>
<p>Then I will believe him. Until then, the facts speak much more loudly than anything the good general has to say.</p>
<p>“You accuse Petraeus and anyone else who has anything remotely positive (and remember, his report is NOT wholly positive) to say about Iraq of lying.”</p>
<p>Read what the AKLCS himself wrote in 2004, and then come to your own conclusions. </p>
<p>(“But I’m astute enough to think that if there was the most remote, far fetched, reliable data that contradicted the Petraeus report, it would be on the front page of the NY Times.”</p>
<p>Petraeus himself acknowledged the contrary data, and didn’t question its accuracy - he simply added a 5-week asterisk.)</p>
<p>I’ve told you, in detail, why I have come to the conclusion that he is a despicable liar. Now, could you please answer me as to what he has done to earn your admiration? People who preside over ethnic cleansing are not in my panoply of heroes.</p>
<p>From Sokkemom in post 14 I took a brief break from commenting .because of your past rudeness.</p>
<p>It is a fact, disputed by no one, that the comments made by Sokkermoms on 8/21 concerning Sen. Clinton were untrue. </p>
<p>It is a matter of opinion, and very much in dispute, as to whether it was rude to ask Sokkermom to please explain why she made these disingenuous comments. </p>
<p>It is also quite apparent that asking Sokkermom to please explain, has caused some controversy. A controversy that could be helpful if put to constructive use. </p>
<p>This controversy has presented us with an opportunity (and shown the need for) to discuss among ourselves how we can ask another poster to explain or verify something they have posted. The goal of our discussion would be to come up with a way for someone to be able to ask a poster to explain or verify something they have posted, and to be able to ask the question without the person being ask taking umbrage. If we could come up with a satisfactory way to ask this question we would also prevent the person asking for the explanation from being accused of being rude. </p>
<p>It makes sense to start our discussion by Sokkermom explaining how her false statement came to be made, and how I could have asked her for an explanation in a way that would not have offended her. With this information we would all have a much better understanding of the circumstances from Sokkermoms point of view and hopefully we can come up with a way that will allow us to police ourselves and in a way that no one feelings are hurt.</p>
<p>Sokkermom, I hope you are willing to participate, and help in an effort to improve CC and make it a more informative and enjoyable place for all of us.</p>
<p>I have no idea what alleged untruth I spoke, nor do I wish to engage in this personal dialogue. </p>
<p>You can make cc as enjoyable as you wish. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to participate. With all due respect, I choose not to take your bait tommybill. Sorry. :o</p>
<p>Tommybill, you’ve been a member for what, 5 months? Your opinion has the same value as any other on this board, but it does strike me as funny that you think you can dictate the terms of other poster’s participation.</p>
<p>Subjective. It’s all subjective. It simply cannot be proven or disproven, because his numbers are the result of unverifiable guesswork. </p>
<p>These are the facts: the # of dead Iraqi citizens is double this time last year. The # of violent attacks in Iraq is the same now as it was before the surge. The GAO, UN, Associated Press, and CIA all concur.</p>
<p>Petraeus’ contention is that: even though more Iraqis are dying, the security situation is better because fewer of them are dying from one specific cause-- sectarian violence. </p>
<p>Even if one suspends disbelief long enough to something as counter-intuitive as “more dead bodies and more displaced people = better security”, there’s a huge horse pill to come. To believe that they are counting sectarian deaths accurately, you have to believe this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That human motivation can be measured with such mathematical precision that it’s possible to make a meaningful distinction between a killing that’s PURELY sectarian and one that is only 99.99999…% sectarian. </p></li>
<li><p>That the people making this determination are so skilled in mental telepathy that they can make this determination without even knowing who the killer is. The method is based entirely on what the GAO called “crystal ball gazing”.</p></li>
<li><p>That something that is 99.9999+ % “A” and the rest “B” is an example of B, not A. Ridiculous.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Petraeus you’ll note was very careful not to tell Congress what the methodology was, evading their questions with statements like: “it’s not that complicated.” Only after he was safe from their questions did the administration reveal that it was all unverifiable guesswork.</p>
<p>The actual candidate speeches start about 58 minutes into the video and go in the following order:</p>
<p>Obama
Richardson
Clinton
Dodd
Edwards
Biden</p>
<p>They are short, abbreviated versions of their regular stump speeches, heavy on the rousing, red-meat portions – but fairly representative for a quick compare and contrast of the various candidates’ styles. Kind of a candidates’ sampler pack that is still much better than the two or three sentences in the typical media article.</p>
<p>This one is the companion piece: 30 minutes of video of each candidate working the crowd, shaking hands, and talking with voters after the speeches:</p>
<p>A week ago today, Gen. David H. Petraeus started his rounds on Capitol Hill, reporting that security in Iraq was improving to the point that a small number of troops could begin coming home by year’s end.</p>
<p>But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces.</p>
<p>“With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties,” according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.</p>
<p>How many CC readers remember Dick Nixon, Murry Chotiner and their smear of Helen Gahagan Douglas, with the infamous pink lady flyer? </p>
<p>If you do remember, go to this link. Then tell me what you think the Republican political operatives who support Romneys opponents, and are the heirs of the Nixon/Chotiner politics of smear, will do with this pink flyer? </p>
<p>While I am by no means a Romney supporter (nor would be until at least one of My 5 Sons enlists), I don’t see the “smear”. This was a public domain document, and Mitt’s position would be that he supports equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, but does not consider marriage among those rights.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a position not all that different from those of the Democratic candidates.</p>
<p>And, a “Betrayal of Trust” ad that directly responds to Rudy Giuliani. This one goes national on CNN, kind of a little thank-you from MoveOn.org to Rudy for his full-page NYTIMES ad attacking moveon.org:</p>
<p>I’m sure that Rudy hopes that they play it on more than just CNN. Being on the hit list from an organization like MoveOn is one of the best endorsements that he can get. This goes for the primary as well as the general election.</p>