hokie4redskins Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Sadly, there are so-called "Americans" dismayed by this. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm 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: Click link for rest......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I have been posting articles for the last four months detailing the same thing.. the truth if you actually want to see it: we are winning the war on the ground. but the defeaticrats outright state to the media: "it doesn't matter what Petraeus says".. the Majority Leader Clyburn (D) stated that the fact there is good and positive news out of Iraq "makes the democrats job harder"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 When our troops start coming home and the Iraqis can begin policing themselves, I'll consider us "winning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 the Majority Leader Clyburn (D) stated that the fact there is good and positive news out of Iraq "makes the democrats job harder"... Clyburn's not the Majority Leader, and do you have a link for that quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Two threads on the same thing, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Clyburn's not the Majority Leader, and do you have a link for that quote? Go read the other thread. He said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Two threads on the same thing, really? Not the same thing. One thread was about the comments of a democrat. THis is detailing what is hapening on the ground and the fact that it is under reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Go read the other thread. He said it. Yeah, he said some other stuff too that AFC didn't bother to quote, but we have since found out there was more to what was said than what was presented. Not the same thing. One thread was about the comments of a democrat. THis is detailing what is hapening on the ground and the fact that it is under reported. Have you read the other thread? They are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Perhaps the reason no one belives it is because we have been told we are winning for years. "Bring em on" "The Insurgerncy is in it's last throwns: "We will be greated as liberators" The same people that are saying it now, said it then. I truly don't know if we are winning or not. What I do know, is I have been lied to over and over again about the status of the war by the same people that are now telling me we are winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Perhaps the reason no one belives it is because we have been told we are winning for years."Bring em on" "The Insurgerncy is in it's last throwns: "We will be greated as liberators" How can you not post this classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I am exceedingly psyched to hear the good news coming out of Iraq. However, due to the way that politicians (from both conservative and liberal persuasions) seem to be having more and more of an effect of directing the attention of the major media outlets on someone's talking points for the month -- I've become exceedingly skeptical of nearly any information I receive. Whether the news is we're winning or we're losing -- my now tainted inclination is to believe the opposite. It's getting very difficult to trust anyone these days. REGARDLESS, the latest news out of Iraq is welcome news to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Have you read the other thread? They are the same. Well, for someone clamoring about how useless this thread is, you're sure spending a lot of time in it. This article had not been posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Yeah, he said some other stuff too that AFC didn't bother to quote, but we have since found out there was more to what was said than what was presented. you just figured that out? :laugh: example: original quote- "we are winning the primary election even though we are losing the war in Iraq" quoted by AFC "we are winning the war in Iraq" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 And here's the kicker.... 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. This is something most people dont get about warfare. In times of peace the number of good military leaders goes down and they are replaced by bureaucrats because the best bureaucrats rise to the top. In times of war the first generals put in charge of actual military operations often fail and are replaced until the best military leaders are found. It's a process that is repeated throughout military history. WWII provides plenty of examples of this. CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks is a prime example. Promoted in a time of peace, he was a fine artillery officer but he was ill prepared for the fluid nature of warfare against al Qaeda in Tora Bora. He did what any good artillery office would do, he bombed the hell out of them. Too bad he did not think like a cavalry (armor and mobile infantry) officer or a special forces officer or he might have thought to encircle them before he began his assault. The people that blame Bush for the failure of Tora Bora don't understand that the general in charge calls the shots and the president has to trust that they know what they are doing. Also, to be fair to the military leaders, another leson that history provides is that even good leaders need time to adjust and learn how best to fight the war in front of them because each war is different and the only way to learn is to fight. We're learning in Iraq. Let's not make a stupid mistake and run away now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Go read the other thread. He said it. Well, I watched the actual interview. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html He never said progress 'makes the Democrat's job harder.' And he's not the Majority Leader. Those are both VERY misleading statements about who Clyburn is and what he said. What he DID say was a glowing progress report would make it difficult for those who wish to set a timetable for withdrawal. The guy is the Majority Whip. It's his job to get people within his own party to follow the leadership, and if the leadership wants a timetable, he's got to push for that. However, RIGHT AFTER his "it would be a problem for us" quote (which is the actual quote, btw) he goes on to say "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we to going to get in a position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." He then goes on to say that despite that, the Democrats are not going to 'roll over' just because Bush says things are going well, but he considers Patraeus a trustworthy source. Feel free to view the interview if you think I'm embellishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Well, I watched the actual interview.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html He never said progress 'makes the Democrat's job harder.' And he's not the Majority Leader. Those are both VERY misleading statements about who Clyburn is and what he said. What he DID say was a glowing progress report would make it difficult for those who wish to set a timetable for withdrawal. The guy is the Majority Whip. It's his job to get people within his own party to follow the leadership, and if the leadership wants a timetable, he's got to push for that. However, RIGHT AFTER his "it would be a problem for us" quote (which is the actual quote, btw) he goes on to say "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we to going to get in a position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." He then goes on to say that despite that, the Democrats are not going to 'roll over' just because Bush says things are going well, but he considers Patraeus a trustworthy source. Feel free to view the interview if you think I'm embellishing. Personally, I feel the way the AFC laid this out was downright cowardly. If you can't man up and present something for how it really is. Then I don't know. It must mean that you didn't learn anything from your training. I'm sure they didn't teach you how to mislead and tremble behind stuff like you pulled today in two threads. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Personally, I feel the way the AFC laid this out was downright cowardly. If you can't man up and present something for how it really is. Then I don't know. You mean like the media should be doing? Ok, gotcha. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 You mean like the media should be doing? Ok, gotcha. :thumbsup: Two wrongs make a right....gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Two wrongs make a right....gotcha. I think she is suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the media and those dirty dems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I think she is suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the media and those dirty dems! I understand, just funny how some are against it when they preceive bias and convenient editing when one group does it, but then defend it when their own group does it. pathetic IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Perhaps the reason no one belives it is because we have been told we are winning for years."Bring em on" "The Insurgerncy is in it's last throwns: "We will be greated as liberators" The same people that are saying it now, said it then. I truly don't know if we are winning or not. What I do know, is I have been lied to over and over again about the status of the war by the same people that are now telling me we are winning. This nailed it. Why should anyone trust this administration anymore? Even when they try to appeal to "real" evidence to corroborate their claims, a few months of scrutiny reveal it to be exaggerated, twisted, misrepresented, or just straight-up falsified. The exercise then repeats, over and over. Each time time it recurs, someone pops up to say, "See! Now we're winning!" -- only to slink away, embarrassed, when the purported evidence falls apart yet again. Has Bush's War finally yielded a glimmer of good news? Maybe. Maybe not. If they keep hailing every possible report as a "positive development," these blind squirrels will eventually stumble upon a nut or two. But you can't blame planet Earth for regarding anything they say as a hopelessly twisted version of a much more depressing reality. At this point, believing in the Bush administration is a symptom of battered spouse syndrome. It just isn't rational. Had the White House Idiots been honest in the past about the Iraq disaster, maybe they'd have earned enough credibility to keep the faith of the American public. But there's no reason to believe them now -- just as there was no reason to believe them about the Nigerian Yellowcake, Saddam's WMDs, the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, being greeted as liberators, "Mission Accomplished," the insurgency in its final throes, etc., etc. If the White House wants to point the finger at anyone for being "disappointed" in the latest supposed good news from Iraq, they can gather in the Oval Office and point at each other. They've earned every skeptical look they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Two wrongs make a right....gotcha. How is reporting the truth considered "wrong" by your standards? Or are you just pulling cliches out of your ass? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 How is reporting the truth considered "wrong" by your standards? Or are you just pulling cliches out of your ass? :whoknows: Its not the reporting truths that upset me, its reporting those truths that are convenient for your position while ignoring those things which undermine your beliefs that ticks me off. Which is what you were aparently upset about but then you defend AFC's posting which did the exact thing you were upset about. HMmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Personally, I feel the way the AFC laid this out was downright cowardly. If you can't man up and present something for how it really is. Then I don't know. It must mean that you didn't learn anything from your training. I'm sure they didn't teach you how to mislead and tremble behind stuff like you pulled today in two threads. Pathetic. AFC's posting tendencies should be well known to all of us by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 AFC's posting tendencies should be well known to all of us by now. you mean misquote, no link, and run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.