Patraeus answers question from Republican John Warner

dragonreborn23

dragonreborn23

Banned
"Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you've laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that this is making America safer?" asked Warner.

"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best, uh, course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq," Petraeus answered.

"Does that make America safer?" Warner pressed.

"Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind what I have focused on and riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force in Iraq."


Wow. He's never thought about it? That's pretty hard to believe considering he's more than willing to continue sacrificing our troops in Iraq for an indefinate period of time. What are they fighting and dying for, if not for a more secure and safe America?
 
Hmm... Interesting topic. Nice thread.

On my drive home yesterday I listened to Petraeus' report on NPR for about an hour and listened another half hour to some analysis last night.

Some say Petraes' report did little more than Parrot what the Bush administration wanted the Representatives to hear.

On the other hand, it is easy to understand that a General, a good one, reports to and is subordinate to the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (the President). I don't know, constitutionally speaking, if it is even wrong for the Executive to suggest or even order Patraeus what to say.

All good soldiers is a song by Bad Religion and is about what the qualities are of a good soldier, or in this case commander. Able to follow orders without thinking about the why behind them is vital. A soldier needs to be able to act without hesitation, without mercey, and most importantley without remorse. I think I heard that their lead singer/lyricist was a professor of poly sci or something. Anyway my point it that every commander will do what it takes to get their mission done, and no commander in the history of time has wanted less troops or wished for less support and manpower. He was there with an agenda and some people may say rightfully so. Either way they drilled him pretty well, they are good at that.

I disagree. I think that Petraeus' role in reporting to both houses of Congress was to give them unbiased, non-partisan, military/political facts so that they can make an educated and informed decision about what to do in Iraq.

That is what he OUGHT to have done IMO. Whether this has happened or whether he has just parroted Bush's agenda is up for debate. I definitely think he tried to be frank but he also sounded like he really wanted to stay there indefintly.
 
As much as I agree that it's not the job of a soldier to parrot political talking points given to him by his superiors, it's also not his job to determine policy. That's why he's a soldier, and not a politician. Even a general doesn't get to decide whether he's making America safer, either way.
 
[quote name='trq']As much as I agree that it's not the job of a soldier to parrot political talking points given to him by his superiors, it's also not his job to determine policy. That's why he's a soldier, and not a politician. Even a general doesn't get to decide whether he's making America safer, either way.[/quote]

If I understand you correctly, I think I got the exact opposite impression from Petraeus. I watched all 6-7 hours of his testimony on the first day, and he and Crocker appeared to be pretty clearly echoing the Bush policy. The thing that really solidified this for me, was the so called 'troop withdrawal' (as if we weren't planning on withdrawing the surge troops anyway). Patraeus testified that they were seeing progress and that the 'war' is winnable...and then he said lets bring 30,000 troops home??

If the surge was truly working like he claimed and he saw good things to come, there is no way in hell a military commander (who always want more troops in the first place), would say "The surge worked pretty well militarily. Let's go back to pre-surge levels." If it was working and he thought it would continue to improve he would have called for Bush to send more troops, not to remove them.
 
We want all military personnel to take orders from the democratically elected official in charge of the executive branch.

You don't want active Generals voicing their personal politics in an official setting - it's a bad precedent at the very least.
 
So none of you are disturbed at the fact that Democrats called him a liar? None of you? If they think he lied, bring him up on charges. I mean, it's not like it's a hard thing to do.

You just seem mad that it echoed an unpopular President, that's it. Well, I got news for you: NOBODY IN WASHINGTON IS POPULAR. Not one of them.

And you don't get to be a General without having some Political prowess people. It's just common sense. Generals aren't idiots. They know how to play Washington Hackey Sack just like the next person.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']On my drive home yesterday I listened to Petraeus' report on NPR for about an hour and listened another half hour to some analysis last night.

Some say Petraes' report did little more than Parrot what the Bush administration wanted the Representatives to hear. [/QUOTE]

You should not refer to it as the Petraeus report as it was written by the Bush Whitehouse, this was even admitted by him and the whitehouse.

Broly, Petraeus certainly went along with an incredibly dishonest moving of goalposts. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but then again neither do you.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']So none of you are disturbed at the fact that Democrats called him a liar? None of you? If they think he lied, bring him up on charges. I mean, it's not like it's a hard thing to do.
[/quote]

Which Democrats called him a liar? Unless you are of the Republican mind that: moveon.org = Democrats? The Republican questioners were all trying to give us the same kool aid that they were drinking. Each one held up a copy of the New York Times with the 'betray us' ad, and they tried (not so subtly) to imply that the Democrats = the 'betray us' ad.

Also, what is this notion that we aren't allowed to call into question someone who has served in the military? Since when did 4 stars = deity? Serving your country honorably for many years now means that your opinions are above reproach? That's a very dangerous game to be playing.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You should not refer to it as the Petraeus report as it was written by the Bush Whitehouse, this was even admitted by him and the whitehouse.

Broly, Petraeus certainly went along with an incredibly dishonest moving of goalposts. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but then again neither do you.[/quote]

First of all it was called the Petraeus report, not the Bush/Whitehouse report. If you called it the latter most people would not know what specifically you're talking about so you're wrong there.

Second of all if your reading comprehension skills are unable to understand my points that is your shortcomming not mine. But I will try to dumb it down for you a little bit anyway:

Some say Petraeus just parroted the Bush administration's agenda and this is okay because it is what a "good soldier" should do; obey his superior and follow orders.

Others say Petraeus should have given a more frank, and straight forward acct of the situation. I agree with this position.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']First of all it was called the Petraeus report, not the Bush/Whitehouse report. If you called it the latter most people would not know what specifically you're talking about so you're wrong there.

Second of all if your reading comprehension skills are unable to understand my points that is your shortcomming not mine. But I will try to dumb it down for you a little bit anyway:

Some say Petraeus just parroted the Bush administration's agenda and this is okay because it is what a "good soldier" should do; obey his superior and follow orders.

Others say Petraeus should have given a more frank, and straight forward acct of the situation. I agree with this position.[/QUOTE]


I was referring to Broly when I said I could not understand his point.

Also it was originally called the Petraeus report because it was supposed to come directly from Petraeus, this ended up not being the case. So you can call it whatever you wish either way it was a dishonest (and not unexpected) bait and switch (by them). How am I "wrong" simply for not being misleading?
 
[quote name='camoor']We want all military personnel to take orders from the democratically elected official in charge of the executive branch.

You don't want active Generals voicing their personal politics in an official setting - it's a bad precedent at the very least.[/QUOTE]
Except Bush has always said he's taking his cues on troop levels from the commanders in the field* so their opinions are vital.

*until they disagree with Bush and they are "retired".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top