Petraeus is a *******

[ECW]

I've been calling him a "yes man" based on his testimony. Obviously someone else has a more explicit view of the general.

During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects. In at least four public hearings after Casey took office in 2004, the pair testified together:

Senate Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [6/23/05]

House Armed Services [9/29/05]

Senate Armed Services [9/29/05]

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — in the first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

The Washington Post reported this weekend that there is an internal military debate, described as “Armageddon,” brewing between Petraeus and Fallon because the two men have “profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

[T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

~link~ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/)

[BoogyMan]

ECW, you have been calling him a yes-man because you don't like what he had to say, which now seems to be reason, in your mind, to begin further character assassination of General Petraeus.

I am sure that after having posted several "thinkprgress" articles you will now no longer be "shooting the messenger" when someone else posts an article from a partisan site, right ECW?

Egads.....

[ECW]

ECW, you have been calling him a yes-man because you don't like what he had to say, which now seems to be reason, in your mind, to begin further character assassination of General Petraeus.

If you will take notice here, sonny, it is Petraeus' boss who refused to testify along side of him and called him what he did. I didn't twist the guy's arm to do so. The general did it all on his own without any prodding from me, Senator Reid, the Daily Kos, or MoveOn.org. If anyone assassinated the character of Petraeus it was Petraeus himself by his actions.

Your partisan rhetoric notwithstanding, my calling Petraeus a "yes man" stems from his parroting the Bush line 100%. I did not call him that until he testified and I listened to what he had to say. When I realized that he had marched in perfect lockstep with what Bush wanted and that Bush was using him as a shield since he no longer had any credibility on the issue of the war, he became the "yes man" you see before you. I didn't make Petraeus take that stand or say the words he said so your attempt to bash me for the conversion of Petraeus into a "yes man" isn't going to fly. He did it all on his own.

Instead of whining about my characterization, you should be busy defending his stands and his assertions like the one that came when he couldn't answer Senator Warner's question about whether if any of this was keeping America safer.

I am sure that after having posted several "thinkprgress" articles you will now no longer be "shooting the messenger" when someone else posts an article from a partisan site, right ECW?

Egads.....


Nice try in attempting to make this about me but it isn't. Next you'll be Shooting The Messenger with me about New York Times articles or MSNBC articles. If you had anything to REALLY say, you would have posted a competing version of this article from a different web site that would show where this article was wrong. That's what I do when I see someone posting something from an obviously biased source. You didn't do that. You took the partisan approach you always do and Shot The Messenger yourself.

Egads back at ya, sport.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, you have been calling him a yes-man because you don't like what he had to say, which now seems to be reason, in your mind, to begin further character assassination of General Petraeus.

If you will take notice here, sonny, it is Petraeus' boss who refused to testify along side of him and called him what he did. I didn't twist the guy's arm to do so. The general did it all on his own without any prodding from me, Senator Reid, the Daily Kos, or MoveOn.org. If anyone assassinated the character of Petraeus it was Petraeus himself by his actions.

Sonny, lol.

I didn't read anywhere in that "article" about the guy refusing to testify alongside Petraeus before congress ECW, and I certainly won't take a thinkprogress article at face value, it has none.

I did read some speculation that was being parrotted by thinkprogress as if it were true.

Hmmm.


Your partisan rhetoric notwithstanding, my calling Petraeus a "yes man" stems from his parroting the Bush line 100%. I did not call him that until he testified and I listened to what he had to say. When I realized that he had marched in perfect lockstep with what Bush wanted and that Bush was using him as a shield since he no longer had any credibility on the issue of the war, he became the "yes man" you see before you. I didn't make Petraeus take that stand or say the words he said so your attempt to bash me for the conversion of Petraeus into a "yes man" isn't going to fly. He did it all on his own.

Instead of whining about my characterization, you should be busy defending his stands and his assertions like the one that came when he couldn't answer Senator Warner's question about whether if any of this was keeping America safer.

I am sure that after having posted several "thinkprgress" articles you will now no longer be "shooting the messenger" when someone else posts an article from a partisan site, right ECW?

Egads.....


Nice try in attempting to make this about me but it isn't. Next you'll be Shooting The Messenger with me about New York Times articles or MSNBC articles. If you had anything to REALLY say, you would have posted a competing version of this article from a different web site that would show where this article was wrong. That's what I do when I see someone posting something from an obviously biased source. You didn't do that. You took the partisan approach you always do and Shot The Messenger yourself.

Egads back at ya, sport.


Hey, egads is my word, get your own. :)

It isn't about you, it is about the source. The messenger should be shot in this case ECW as they are making their assertions as if they were fact when no such solid ifnormation is available.

[ECW]

Nice try in attempting to make this about me but it isn't. Next you'll be Shooting The Messenger with me about New York Times articles or MSNBC articles. If you had anything to REALLY say, you would have posted a competing version of this article from a different web site that would show where this article was wrong. That's what I do when I see someone posting something from an obviously biased source. You didn't do that. You took the partisan approach you always do and Shot The Messenger yourself.

Egads back at ya, sport.


Hey, egads is my word, get your own. :)

It isn't about you, it is about the source. The messenger should be shot in this case ECW as they are making their assertions as if they were fact when no such solid ifnormation is available.


Here's the original source. (http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=39235) I sure like it when you step in it, Boogy, because you do it everytime. I'm not one of your rightwing flunkies who makes an assertion and then when called on it scurries away like a roach when the light goes on.

Now you have TWO sources. It wasn't enough in the Plame case and it won't enough for you here because you cannot refute what was said here but I don't mind. It's not you I'm posting for anyway. It's the people who come here and read what we post and come away realizing that I came with the proof while you came with...

nada.

[Pogo]

Politicization is the hallmark of the Bush presidency and anyone who refuses to play that game gets shitcanned.

Granted, this was a problem that existed before Bush took office but Bush has taken it to such an extreme that honest-to-god national security has been thrown out the window.

[ECW]

... in favor of partisan cheerleading like "yes man" General Petraeus just got finished doing in front of Congress. The telling point came when, after all the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" business, Senator Warner asked him if all of this made us any safer in America and Petraeus said:

"I don't know."





ooooooooh, busted! General Fallon had it right.

[BoogyMan]

I sure like it when you step in it, Boogy, because you do it everytime. I'm not one of your rightwing flunkies who makes an assertion and then when called on it scurries away like a roach when the light goes on.

Now you have TWO sources. It wasn't enough in the Plame case and it won't enough for you here because you cannot refute what was said here but I don't mind. It's not you I'm posting for anyway. It's the people who come here and read what we post and come away realizing that I came with the proof while you came with...

nada.


All you have here ECW is your desire for YET ANOTHER anonymously sourced allegation to be true. I can post articles claiming that aliens landed at Roswell but that doesn't mean it happened, and those articles would have something your sources do not, sources with names and faces.

There is no refutation required for anonymous allegations that cannot be proven ECW.

This is just precious. You came with ALLEGATIONS, anonymous ones at that. Nothing more.

:madlaugh:

[lily]

Oh.....shades of God talks to Bush. Two sources isn't good enough. Honestly Boogy..........nothing would be good enough to convince you. IPS...........You can't debate anything in the articles, so after shooting the messenger you turn your gun on who said it.


Bah........:blah:

[ViolaLee]

Boogy, maybe we should find sources that only we can see with special privilages from a university. You'd believe those, right?

I'll be looking forward to this testimony but Admiral Fallon.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

[BoogyMan]

Oh.....shades of God talks to Bush. Two sources isn't good enough. Honestly Boogy..........nothing would be good enough to convince you. IPS...........You can't debate anything in the articles, so after shooting the messenger you turn your gun on who said it.


Bah........:blah:


I will remember this comment, and hand it back to you when you question someone's sources based on anonymity Lily.

Two anonymous sources are just that, anonymous. Placing this commentary firmly into the hogwash category. :D

There is NOTHING in the articles to debate, the sources cannot be questioned therefore are impeachable.[hr]
Boogy, maybe we should find sources that only we can see with special privilages from a university. You'd believe those, right?


You can access Newsbank, you just don't want to pay for access. LOL

Also, since I fully cited those sources you can either call those papers and verify them or write to them.

[ViolaLee]

Boogy do you believe that Jim Webb is going to ask Carl Levin to get Admiral Fallon to testify? Or do you think they made that up too?

[BoogyMan]

Boogy do you believe that Jim Webb is going to ask Carl Levin to get Admiral Fallon to testify? Or do you think they made that up too?


That part of the article speaks to specific people Viola, try your obfuscation tactics on someone else.

[lily]

I will remember this comment, and hand it back to you when you question someone's sources based on anonymity Lily.

Two anonymous sources are just that, anonymous. Placing this commentary firmly into the hogwash category. :D

You do that Boogy........I don't. So bookmark this, remember it, it really doesn't matter. Please show me anywhere where I have ever questioned an anonymous source. I'm here to debate, not to make excuses.

[ViolaLee]

Boogy do you believe that Jim Webb is going to ask Carl Levin to get Admiral Fallon to testify? Or do you think they made that up too?


That part of the article speaks to specific people Viola, try your obfuscation tactics on someone else.
What obfuscation tactics? I'm trying to figure out which part of the article you don't believe. You are bashing the source, so obviously you think they aren't truthful. Do you believe some of it and not other parts? Do you pick and choose the parts you want to believe in like people do with the Bible?

Tell me something, why would Jim Webb want Admiral Fallon to testify if there weren't something to this story?

[ECW]

There were a number of credited sources in the story. I remember the New York Times and The Washington Post being cited as well as the story being written by a noted historian, Gareth Porter, who is also a national security policy analyst. As a rule historians only use anonymous sources to protect sources from retribution for speaking out. The history of this administration is clear on people who speak out: a CIA agent was outed by this administration for partisan purposes when her husband spoke out on the war. Military folks learn from the lessons of the past.

I don't hear Fallon coming out and saying the story isn't true. It's been two news cycles, more than enough time for him to comment yet he hasn't. Curious, no, for a story that you allege isn't true? All because the sources were anonymous? If you cannot figure out why the sources preferred to remain anonymous, you forgot the history of what happened to General Shinseki or General Casey or General Abizaid when they spoke out and on the record with George Bush in the WH.

Republicans like you love to attack anonymous sources because they cannot fight back yet I seem to remember one of the biggest scandals of modern political history was developed from an anonymous source. I guess when you don't want something to be true, something that makes your hero boy "yes man" out to be an asskissing little chickenshit, you'll do anything to discredit the story. That's OK with me. We'll let less partisan posters (and lurkers) decide for themselves.

[ViolaLee]

I clicked on a link about the Patraeus report that was on this thread, below it, where the links to similar stories are...and it says:

The report goes to great lengths to paint a picture of progress in Iraq, but the truth is a far different story. As the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, the declining number of deaths in Iraq that Petraeus cites depends on a few accounting tricks: like not counting a death as an assassination if you're shot in the front of the head, and not counting deaths by car bombs.

So, what are we really doing in Iraq?

We're building and maintaining permanent military bases from which our military will ensure a near-monopoly of the world's second-largest oil reserve. All this... for a small cadre of corporate fatheads, including the top members of Bush, Inc. The American taxpayer will foot the bill for security in Iraq ($2 billion PER DAY!) to provide a stable working environment for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, not to mention the dozens of corporations feeding off the military spend teat.

This is who Patraeus is. He's a shill for Big Oil.

[BoogyMan]

There were a number of credited sources in the story. I remember the New York Times and The Washington Post being cited as well as the story being written by a noted historian, Gareth Porter, who is also a national security policy analyst. As a rule historians only use anonymous sources to protect sources from retribution for speaking out. The history of this administration is clear on people who speak out: a CIA agent was outed by this administration for partisan purposes when her husband spoke out on the war. Military folks learn from the lessons of the past.

Who were those "sources" ECW, lets call them up and verify the story. Oh, wait, they were the favorite of those driven not by the desire to report, but the desire to BE the story, they were anonymous.


I don't hear Fallon coming out and saying the story isn't true. It's been two news cycles, more than enough time for him to comment yet he hasn't. Curious, no, for a story that you allege isn't true? All because the sources were anonymous? If you cannot figure out why the sources preferred to remain anonymous, you forgot the history of what happened to General Shinseki or General Casey or General Abizaid when they spoke out and on the record with George Bush in the WH.

Fallon isn't coming out and saying the allegations are true either, is he ECW?


Republicans like you love to attack anonymous sources because they cannot fight back yet I seem to remember one of the biggest scandals of modern political history was developed from an anonymous source. I guess when you don't want something to be true, something that makes your hero boy "yes man" out to be an asskissing little chickenshit, you'll do anything to discredit the story. That's OK with me. We'll let less partisan posters (and lurkers) decide for themselves.


Talk about trying to go personal, egads.

Many on the left now seem desperate to keep trying to discredit Petraeus. Shame on you.

[ViolaLee]

I forgot to save the link and now there are others there instead...

[BoogyMan]

I clicked on a link about the Patraeus report that was on this thread, below it, where the links to similar stories are...and it says:

[quote]The report goes to great lengths to paint a picture of progress in Iraq, but the truth is a far different story. As the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, the declining number of deaths in Iraq that Petraeus cites depends on a few accounting tricks: like not counting a death as an assassination if you're shot in the front of the head, and not counting deaths by car bombs.

Petraeus denied that accusation in the testimony to congress Viola.


So, what are we really doing in Iraq?

We're building and maintaining permanent military bases from which our military will ensure a near-monopoly of the world's second-largest oil reserve. All this... for a small cadre of corporate fatheads, including the top members of Bush, Inc. The American taxpayer will foot the bill for security in Iraq ($2 billion PER DAY!) to provide a stable working environment for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, not to mention the dozens of corporations feeding off the military spend teat.

This is who Patraeus is. He's a shill for Big Oil.


Front where did you retrieve this jewel Viola? Hmmmmmm

[ECW]

Petraeus discredited himself by parroting the Bush line on Iraq. Bush has no more credibility and is trying to hide behind Petraeus' skirts. That makes Petraeus a "yes man." I don't need to do any more than point that out.

If the story is already out there, why would Fallon WANT to stick his neck out further to comfirm it but if it is not true, he would have already been calling up a favorite reporter to deny the story. Your "logic" that he would confirm the story is ludicrous given what he knows about the petty partisanship of the WH and the CIC. The fact that Fallon is keeping his head down while others, with nothing to lose, fight this battle makes much more sense. I can tell you have never been around the military that much.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, your "logic" is, well, special.

Petraeus presented his report and the radical left has chosen to vilify him for it. Your "logic" that he would come out and deny it is just as ludicrous I would imagine?

[ECW]

Nice dodge. We're talking about Fallon and his comments about Petraeus.

The report Petraeus presented was Stay The Course and nothing else. I'm glad he did it, though. It will make winning it all in 2008 so much easier.

Your logic isn't special. It's neocon, therefore, not logical at all.

(...and for someone who claims not to like partisan bickering and "tries" to see both sides, you sure are right in the middle of every partisan pissing contest we have here at DF, eh?)

[BoogyMan]

Yes, we ARE talking about Fallon ECW, stay with me. I used your own commentary to point out the fallacy of the position you took. :D

Petraeus is an honorable man who deserves some respect as his plans have made progress, and his reputation is impeccable despite the despicable attempts of MoveOn and the anonymously sourced hogwash presented by the folks at ThinkProgress.

[nevadamedic]

ECW, you have been calling him a yes-man because you don't like what he had to say, which now seems to be reason, in your mind, to begin further character assassination of General Petraeus.

I am sure that after having posted several "thinkprgress" articles you will now no longer be "shooting the messenger" when someone else posts an article from a partisan site, right ECW?

Egads.....


Just beause he hates President Bush there is no reason to attack a man with a distinguished service record. This man is a career soldier and Ambassador Crocker is a Career Ambassador eho have been doing this long before President Bush even got in politics.

[ViolaLee]

Ambassador Joseph Wilson was a distinguished career Ambassador with special recognition from Papa Bush, but that didn't stop the Baby Bush administration from attacking him, did it?

[ECW]

ECW, you have been calling him a yes-man because you don't like what he had to say, which now seems to be reason, in your mind, to begin further character assassination of General Petraeus.

I am sure that after having posted several "thinkprgress" articles you will now no longer be "shooting the messenger" when someone else posts an article from a partisan site, right ECW?

Egads.....


Just beause he hates President Bush there is no reason to attack a man with a distinguished service record. This man is a career soldier and Ambassador Crocker is a Career Ambassador eho have been doing this long before President Bush even got in politics.


Ah, newbie, like many of your neocon buddies, you confuse disapproval of your boy wonder and ne'er-do-wrong hero George Walker Bush with hatred. I'd explain it further to you but it really isn't worth the effort. As your neocon buddy Stoner is fond of saying, repeating the lie over and over again doesn't make it true even though you wish it to be.

Being a "yes man" or a flunky who could not find OBL while he was hiding in the same country he was ambassador to really isn't anything to crow about or put on the resume. Bush found two people who would sell their souls by hitching their wagons to the George Bush Express and try to sell a deeper involvement with a civil war to the American public. You may want to hold these two up and put them on a pedestal. I'll pass.

Yes, we ARE talking about Fallon ECW, stay with me. I used your own commentary to point out the fallacy of the position you took.

Petraeus is an honorable man who deserves some respect as his plans have made progress, and his reputation is impeccable despite the despicable attempts of MoveOn and the anonymously sourced hogwash presented by the folks at ThinkProgress.

You obviously failed to point out anything about anyone's logic. Fallon made critical comments about Petraeus that you chose not to believe. You Shoot The Messenger by blaming ThinkProgress when it was a historian from IPS that broke the stary. He obviously had sources in the military that did not want to sacrifice their careers for the sake of your request for transparency. I don't really blame them. We all have seen how your president treats anyone that doesn't agree 100% with him. There's a point you could dispute, if you think you can: the petulance and immaturity of your president with regards to tolerating dissent. These military folks know when and how to keep their heads down to keep from taking a bullet.

You were unable to refute the story so you cried about anonymous sources and tried to push the blame back on me for citing a story that used anonymous sources in the first place. Do you hold Woodward & Bernstein to the same criteria when they used Deep Throat to investigate the Watergate burglary? Wait, that was another Republican that was getting his ass handed to him so I bet you probably would whine about that case as well.

The progress you have cited was not made as a result of the surge (and I'll bring the citations for that as well if you want to really get into it) and the case he makes for staying over a decade in Iraq like Petraeus has suggested isn't going to wash with the American public. The Iraqis haven't met most of the benchmarks that Bush, et. al., set for them as a result of this Surge and giving them six more months to waste more of our money and lives isn't going to change that. In fact, they are further away from meeting those goals than when the Surge started. His honor depended on that and it hasn't come to pass. Now he is advocating more of the same and it reminds me of the definition of what a crazy person is: someone who does that same thing over and over again and expects a different result. It is Petraeus' own actions that have brought him into disrespect more than anything anyone else has done.

Fallon was just confirming about Petraeus what some of us already knew: he is a partisan, ass kissing, little chickenshit who is advocating a permanent quagmire for us in Iraq. I didn't buy the president's sales job tonight or Petraeus' sales job to Congress over the last few days. Only the neocons applauded after that snow job. I just got out my snow shovel.

[Labrocca]

Umm...am I missing something here? Since when was it a fault to be a yes-man? It seems to me that the military prides itself on creating them.

And speaking of ass-kissing...that's what EVERY politician does to some degree...some more than others. Like a particular Congresswoman that got her party elected on the issue of accountability.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, when you can come back on the strength of proof, not on anonymously sourced comments I will glady consider the commentary. Until such a time it is little more than assertion.

[ECW]

ECW, when you can come back on the strength of proof, not on anonymously sourced comments I will glady consider the commentary. Until such a time it is little more than assertion.


You would "gladly" consider the commentary? Not from every partisan post I've seen you make here you won't be glad about it.

An assertion is a claim made where there is no proof to back it up. I cited two sources. You may not like the fact they are anonymous but that has never been part of the bargain on any forum I have posted on and YOU aren't going to be the one to change the definition just because you don't like what those sources said. Tough crap, Boogy. Either find a source where Fallon is saying he DIDN'T make the comments or take a hike. Your attempts to Shoot The Messenger are dismissed as the rantings of an unhappy neocon partisan whose hero has been besmirched.

Umm...am I missing something here? Since when was it a fault to be a yes-man? It seems to me that the military prides itself on creating them.


The military does create them... by the hundreds. It's part of the culture. Ask Boogy what his problem is. He's the one whining about my designation of Petraeus as a "yes man." It's not flattering in this case but it is accurate.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, when you can come back on the strength of proof, not on anonymously sourced comments I will glady consider the commentary. Until such a time it is little more than assertion.


You would "gladly" consider the commentary? Not from every partisan post I've seen you make here you won't be glad about it.

An assertion is a claim made where there is no proof to back it up. I cited two sources. You may not like the fact they are anonymous but that has never been part of the bargain on any forum I have posted on and YOU aren't going to be the one to change the definition just because you don't like what those sources said. Tough crap, Boogy. Either find a source where Fallon is saying he DIDN'T make the comments or take a hike. Your attempts to Shoot The Messenger are dismissed as the rantings of an unhappy neocon partisan whose hero has been besmirched.

Umm...am I missing something here? Since when was it a fault to be a yes-man? It seems to me that the military prides itself on creating them.


The military does create them... by the hundreds. It's part of the culture. Ask Boogy what his problem is. He's the one whining about my designation of Petraeus as a "yes man." It's not flattering in this case but it is accurate.


Proof is not anonymously sourced assertions ECW, sorry.

[Truth_and_Power]

Interesting article about petraeus that does not appear to suffer from anonymous sources:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece

Weird.. i googled it again and the page is actually down.. maybe it's a server crash. Hope this link works soon it was a good article.

4th result from this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=petraeus+iraq+mosul

[ViolaLee]

Report: Fallon Derided Petraeus At Meeting As "Ass-Kissing Little Chicken****"IPS News | September 12, 2007 at 05:28 PM

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/petraeus-fallon

http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=39235

The author of the article is *Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

[preservanation]

Super!
That changes everything!
Bah, what a reach.
So everyone who wrote anything about Hillary should be treated with the same reverence?

Keep attacking Petraeus, it's worked so well up to now.
Keep it up.
Maybe he ran a dog-fighting ring, as well.

[ECW]

Proof is not anonymously sourced assertions ECW, sorry.


Like I said, maybe not for you but Woodward & Bernstein would disagree especially if there is confirmation. And until you can come up with a story that claims that Fallon did NOT say it, I'm going with the historian that wrote the piece and not the neocon partisan who doesn't like it.

Here's another little nugget for you, courtesy of T&P's Google search:

It appears that your beloved General Petraeus was behind the bogus "biolab" story that Bush & Cheney used as a pretext for getting us into this war to begin with. Yeah, so much for that upstanding character you think I assassinated. Oh yeah, I just noticed that the author of this piece is anonymous so that can give you ANOTHER out for relying on its credibility.

13 May 2003
U.S. Troops Find Second Biological Weapons Trailer Near Mosul

(Defense Department Report) (520)
Washington -- Troops from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division - - stationed in northern Iraq and headquartered in Mosul -- have found what military authorities believe may be a second mobile biological weapons laboratory, says the division commander.

"The suspected mobile biological agent production lab found on 9 May in our area was found by one of our infantry units during operations at the al-Kindi Rocket and Missile Research and Development Center,"

Major General David Petraeus said May 13 during a briefing from Mosul. "Our own chemical section looked at the trailer and confirmed it as a trailer that was very close to identical to the first trailer that was found by Special Forces southeast of here last week."

Petraeus said he spoke with experts May 13, and they have a "reasonable degree of certainty that this is in fact a mobile biological agent production trailer."

SNIP...

The trailer found May 9 has been moved to Baghdad International Airport for security and for further examination by a team of experts coming from the United States, he said.

Petraeus also said that, based on a preliminary examination by his chemical experts, the lab had not been completed. "Several welds were not finished, and shipping plugs were still in place", he noted, adding that a water pump, forward air compressor, canvas cover and some of the piping had been looted.

The trailer found April 19 by U.S. troops outside the northern Iraqi city of Tall Kayf is also undergoing extensive testing and evaluation in Baghdad. At a special Pentagon briefing May 7, Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, said that it was seized at a Kurdish checkpoint in northern Iraq. It had been freshly painted in a military camouflage pattern and thoroughly washed with a caustic solution to hide the work conducted in the lab.

"The experts have been through it. And they have not found another plausible use for it," Cambone said. "So while some of the equipment on the trailer could have been for purposes other than biological weapons agent production, U.S. and U.K. tactical experts have concluded that the unit does not appear to perform any function beyond ... the production of biological agents.''

U.S. intelligence officials have said they believe Iraq had 18 mobile chemical and biological laboratories, but finding them will be a laborious process. Cambone said that, for example, U.S. troops found an Iraqi fighter jet that had been literally buried in the desert to hide it from coalition troops, an indication of Iraq's extensive efforts at deception.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

[ViolaLee]

Petraeus - Ass Kissing Little Chickenshit?
Inter Press Service news agency quotes Pentagon sources as saying that US General David Petraeus's direct superior, Admiral William Fallon, called Petraeus an "ass kissing little chickenshit" when the two first met in Baghdad last March.

Fallon, chief of the US military's Central Command is said to have made the remark, "...after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior."

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran.

http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/2007/09/petraeus-ass-kissing-little-chickenshit.html

OH! The Admiral wants to go after the real Al Qaeda.....what a novel idea!

[heyjude]

The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

[preservanation]

The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.

[BoogyMan]

Still referencing the anonymously sourced IPS info. LOL

[heyjude]

The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.


I didn't say that. Admiral Fallon did. I don't know Patraeus. Admiral Fallon does. Are you saying that Admiral Fallon is a liar? The man in charge of the war is a liar?

[BoogyMan]

The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.


I didn't say that. Admiral Fallon did. I don't know Patraeus. Admiral Fallon does. Are you saying that Admiral Fallon is a liar? The man in charge of the war is a liar?


We have an anonymously sourced article from IPS making the claim that Fallon feels that way about Petraeus, I would like to see it substantiated before it is treated as fact.

[TheStripey1]

ECW, your "logic" is, well, special.

Petraeus presented his report and the radical left has chosen to vilify him for it. Your "logic" that he would come out and deny it is just as ludicrous I would imagine?


psst, booogy... the topic is about Admiral Fallon calling General Petraeus "an asskissing little chickenshit"...

Have you forgotten that?

apparently...

poor boogy... has such a short attention span... have you tried Ginko?

:ecstatic:

maybe you should... couldn't hurt... and it just might improve your memory...[hr]
Ambassador Joseph Wilson was a distinguished career Ambassador with special recognition from Papa Bush, but that didn't stop the Baby Bush administration from attacking him, did it?


nope, it did not...

[hr]
Umm...am I missing something here? Since when was it a fault to be a yes-man? It seems to me that the military prides itself on creating them.

And speaking of ass-kissing...that's what EVERY politician does to some degree...some more than others. Like a particular Congresswoman that got her party elected on the issue of accountability.



Is this another attempt to take the topic down a different path than the TO dictates? I thought you said you weren't a republican anymore, labrocca... why are you using their "tactics for debate"?

Admiral Fallon called General Petraeus an asskissing little chickenshit.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any other member of the government... just Admiral Fallon and General Petraeus.

[hr]
ECW, when you can come back on the strength of proof, not on anonymously sourced comments I will glady consider the commentary. Until such a time it is little more than assertion.


who cares? got any sources of your own to refute the TO? any at all? anything but your assertion that it's not true?

:ecstatic:

[hr]


ECW, when you can come back on the strength of proof, not on anonymously sourced comments I will glady consider the commentary. Until such a time it is little more than assertion.


You would "gladly" consider the commentary? Not from every partisan post I've seen you make here you won't be glad about it.

An assertion is a claim made where there is no proof to back it up. I cited two sources. You may not like the fact they are anonymous but that has never been part of the bargain on any forum I have posted on and YOU aren't going to be the one to change the definition just because you don't like what those sources said. Tough crap, Boogy. Either find a source where Fallon is saying he DIDN'T make the comments or take a hike. Your attempts to Shoot The Messenger are dismissed as the rantings of an unhappy neocon partisan whose hero has been besmirched.

Umm...am I missing something here? Since when was it a fault to be a yes-man? It seems to me that the military prides itself on creating them.


The military does create them... by the hundreds. It's part of the culture. Ask Boogy what his problem is. He's the one whining about my designation of Petraeus as a "yes man." It's not flattering in this case but it is accurate.


Proof is not anonymously sourced assertions ECW, sorry.



beats no sources at all...
[hr]
Interesting article about petraeus that does not appear to suffer from anonymous sources:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece

Weird.. i googled it again and the page is actually down.. maybe it's a server crash. Hope this link works soon it was a good article.

4th result from this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=petraeus+iraq+mosul


I had no problem accessing it TaP... so, from your first source:


...snip

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

...snip

His efforts were deemed successful. When the 101st left in February 2004, it had lost only 60 troops in combat and accidents. General Petraeus had built up the local police by recruiting officers who had previously worked for Saddam Hussein's security apparatus.

Although Mosul remained quiet for some months after, the US suffered one of its worse setbacks of the war in November 2004 when insurgents captured most of the city. The 7,000 police recruited by General Petraeus either changed sides or went home. Thirty police stations were captured, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41m (£20m) worth of military equipment disappeared. Iraqi army units abandoned their bases.

...snip

The general's next job was to oversee the training of a new Iraqi army. As head of the Multinational Security Transition Command, General Petraeus claimed that his efforts were proving successful. In an article in The Washington Post in September 2004, he wrote: "Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being re-established." This optimism turned out be misleading; three years later the Iraqi army is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.
General Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command at the time that the Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was stolen. "It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Iraq's Finance Minister, Ali Allawi, said. "Huge amounts of money disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."

Mr Khadim is sceptical that the "surge" is working. Commenting on the US military alliance with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, he said: "They will take your money, but when the money runs out they will change sides again."




[/quote]
[hr]

The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.



where did HJ call petraeus a liar? Are you having reading comprehension problems? or do you just need stronger glasses?

Do you by chance have a source that refutes the claims made in ECW's TO? Or are you expecting us to just believe you because you agree with boogy? why? we don't believe him either.

:fight:

[hr]
Still referencing the anonymously sourced IPS info. LOL


where's your source that refutes it? Got any? Or is this all you can do? whine... want some brie to go with it?[hr]


The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.


I didn't say that. Admiral Fallon did. I don't know Patraeus. Admiral Fallon does. Are you saying that Admiral Fallon is a liar? The man in charge of the war is a liar?


:clapper:way to turn the tables, HJ... way to turn the tables! :clapper:

[hr]



The important part of ViolaLee's post is that Patraeus' immediate superior thinks he is an "ass kissing little chickenshit." The Admiral knows him and observes him. They are on the same side. And this is his opinion of Patraeus. This tells me that Patraeus will say and do anything Bush tells him to.

Keep calling him a liar.
The political ramifications of this tactic are already becoming evident.
The more the libs shed their masks, the more the American people will reject them at the ballot-box.


I didn't say that. Admiral Fallon did. I don't know Patraeus. Admiral Fallon does. Are you saying that Admiral Fallon is a liar? The man in charge of the war is a liar?


We have an anonymously sourced article from IPS making the claim that Fallon feels that way about Petraeus, I would like to see it substantiated before it is treated as fact.


http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/79/98/23049879.jpg

[lily]

Interesting article about petraeus that does not appear to suffer from anonymous sources:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece

Weird.. i googled it again and the page is actually down.. maybe it's a server crash. Hope this link works soon it was a good article.

4th result from this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=petraeus+iraq+mosul



How could this have escaped his confirmation hearing??

Although Mosul remained quiet for some months after, the US suffered one of its worse setbacks of the war in November 2004 when insurgents captured most of the city. The 7,000 police recruited by General Petraeus either changed sides or went home. Thirty police stations were captured, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41m (£20m) worth of military equipment disappeared. Iraqi army units abandoned their bases.

The general's next job was to oversee the training of a new Iraqi army. As head of the Multinational Security Transition Command, General Petraeus claimed that his efforts were proving successful. In an article in The Washington Post in September 2004, he wrote: "Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being re-established." This optimism turned out be misleading; three years later the Iraqi army is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.

General Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command at the time that the Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was stolen. "It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Iraq's Finance Minister, Ali Allawi, said. "Huge amounts of money disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."

No wonder Admiral Fallon called him "an asskissing little chickenshit"...

[Drocket]

How could this have escaped his confirmation hearing??

Because they are, sadly, still afraid of criticizing someone wearing a uniform because certain people (*cough*) will scream bloody murder if they do, no matter how much the person in the uniform deserves the criticism.

[Labrocca]

Patraeus...the new target of the left. I bet he doesn't make it another 6 months. Forget that these statements in and of themselves are meaningless. The point is that Patraeus is the clear target of a character assassination. It seems to be working so far for the left. I am not sure how you can stop this kind of thing except hope that Americans wise up to the antics and disavow it.

Who really cares what one person said about the general. How is it significant at all?

[lily]

Patraeus...the new target of the left. I bet he doesn't make it another 6 months. Forget that these statements in and of themselves are meaningless. The point is that Patraeus is the clear target of a character assassination. It seems to be working so far for the left. I am not sure how you can stop this kind of thing except hope that Americans wise up to the antics and disavow it.

So we see inconsistencies, things that don't add up, and are upset because it seems that someone that this country put so much faith in (Wait until September!) come out and be a total puppet, people are just suppose to sit down and shut up, because it might hurt someone's feelings?

Yep........it's always the left's fault. Every screw up, every lie, every mis-calculation, every......:drool:


Who really cares what one person said about the general. How is it significant at all?

Um.......because he's his boss?

[ViolaLee]

He's not just his boss. Admiral Fallon is CentCom commander. He is in charge of the whole Middle East. Admiral Fallon wants to go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan and wrap up Afghanistan. The places where the war on terror really is. Iraq is a civil war between Iraqis. The Iraq war has given Iran more power. The Iraqi government is Shia dominated, Iran's allies.

Al Qaeda is our enemy. Admiral Fallon knows that Al Qaeda is who we are supposed to be fighting.

General Petraeus is in charge of Iraq, under CentCom, which covers the whole Middle East. Petraeus is doing Bush and Cheney's bidding. Bush and Cheney are USING him to validate their war.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda becomes stronger and Bin Laden roams free.

But the private contractors are taking billions of government money, wasting it, losing it, squandering it, and they keep getting paid, without having to actually show anything for it.

And that's what the Iraq war is all about. It's all about stealing our national treasure. Our tax dollars and even worse, our young, brave men and women who fight and risk life and limb for our country. So the private contractors can get richer and richer.

4 1/2 years have gone by. Our US troops are paid $20,000 signing bonuses now and trained for combat in Iraq in THREE MONTHS. 4 1/2 years have gone by. And the Iraqis aren't sufficiently trained yet.

[ECW]

Our US troops are paid $20,000 signing bonuses now and trained for combat in Iraq in THREE MONTHS. 4 1/2 years have gone by. And the Iraqis aren't sufficiently trained yet.

It's just that the Iraqis are that much stupider than we are...

Yeah. That's it. Stupider. Right.

[ViolaLee]

Well, the truth is, all the smart ones, the whole middle class and the rich have left. The only ones left are the poor and the lazy and the not so smart.

I work with an Iraqi guy. He said that to me today.

My sister works for Con Ed in NY. One of her co-workers did a presentation on the work they did in Iraq building small power stations all over the country. 90% are working. 10% are always blown up and need to be repaired. But the US electric workers are getting ready to leave. They haven't been able to train any Iraqis to do the job when one of the stations goes down. Even if they did, check the usps website. Mail delivery is STOPPED completely in Iraq. No mail is going in. Only to AP - military addresses. You can't be an Iraqi and order supplies from another country. Even if they could, Germany is the only place to get the components for the power stations. And Germany is refusing to do business in Iraq.

So their pretty much fucked.

We can send in another 100,000 troops and it won't solve these problems.

And solving these problems, like getting the people electricity, jobs and clean water is the only way the country is going to survive.

[ECW]

Yep. The Surge is working. There's your proof. No mail delivery. No electricity. No clean water much less running water. Ethnic cleansing. No jobs. No civil society or infrastructure. But we are making "progress."

Labrocca, no one is out to assassinate Petraeus' character here because his actions speak for themselves. A guy who was in charge of a billion dollars that cannot be accounted for, no Iraqi troop progress, weaponry missing on a huge scale, and now fronting the president on a plan that has already been shown as not working.

Yeah, General Fallon called him an asskissing little chickenshit. I called him a "yes man." Truth is neither of those names fits him all that well. Only one name does.

Disaster.

[BoogyMan]

This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

The parroting of anonymous allegations, the assertions that the Whitehouse wrote his report, the claims that there would be no report, all are simple evidence of a scorched earth attempt by some on the left who are willing and eager to try and destroy the leader of American forces on the ground in Iraq who has a differing view of progress that they have.

I have to wonder if in past conflicts if such a poisonous dissent was out there picking our military leadership to pieces on the world stage based on dubious reports and a dishonest desire to present them as factual.

[Elrathin]

Petraeus aside Boogy, how long are you willing to pay for this war? Do you all think money grows on trees or that this war is free? How many more years given the amount we are spending should we logically stay in Iraq or for that matter can stay in Iraq before economic hardships set in?

If you say "Until it is over" is not a very logical nor smart move economically. There had to be some limit.

Also, when the benchmarks set are not being achieved, doesn't that demonstrate that the war is NOT going as planned and what should be the punishment for not achieving the benchmarks? If there is nothing done about not achieving them, then why have them at all? These are the questions I would like to see answered by the administration.

[BoogyMan]

El, I really think that neither you nor I will get a clear view from anything presented in the media today as to what it will take to pacify Iraq. There is no way to take Petraeus out of the discussion as he is the guy on the ground who knows what is going on and where progress is and is not being made.

I would agree that there should be some kind of action taken when a benchmark is not achieved, and no it might not all need be punitive, but some kind of recompense should be seen for inaction. Also, you have to be willing to admit that before political progress can be made cooler heads have to take part in the discussions between the factions in the country.

[preservanation]

I have to wonder if in past conflicts if such a poisonous dissent was out there picking our military leadership to pieces on the world stage based on dubious reports and a dishonest desire to present them as factual.
This is an added consequence of the lib's words and deed which seems to escape the left. Kucinich calling our efforts in Iraq illegal and immoral in Syria is just one example, but a very extreme one. Carter and Bill Clinton have done similar things.

For a party which is so, so, so concerned with our image around the world, they sure do their damndest to sully it.

Calling Petraeus a liar is just another example

[ECW]

This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

Petraeus' past is catching up with him. All of his previous misdeeds and actions are being exposed to the light of discussion now that he is Bush's front man. You have been unable to disprove any of the allegations aginst him so you resort to calling it disinformation in the hopes you can somehow discredit what you cannot disprove. It's an old partisan trick...

The parroting of anonymous allegations, the assertions that the Whitehouse wrote his report, the claims that there would be no report, all are simple evidence of a scorched earth attempt by some on the left who are willing and eager to try and destroy the leader of American forces on the ground in Iraq who has a differing view of progress that they have.

Like I said, nothing you have whined about have you disproven.

A differing view of progress? Did I hear you correctly? A differing view of progress? That's a new spin on the situation. When Petraeus' own words betray the fact that nothing has changed in four years and the Iraqis still haven't stood up to handle their own security, you call that a differing view of progress? That's like awarding a second place medal to the horse that finished last in a two horse race. I say he lost the race. You say he finished in second place. OK. If it makes you sleep better.

I have to wonder if in past conflicts if such a poisonous dissent was out there picking our military leadership to pieces on the world stage based on dubious reports and a dishonest desire to present them as factual.


"Dubious reports" that have been cited and proven time and time again here on this board. The fact that you refuse to accept them changes nothing. You were still whining about the LA Times report right up to the time that events proved you wrong and you still can't concede you were wrong about it.

El, I really think that neither you nor I will get a clear view from anything presented in the media today as to what it will take to pacify Iraq. There is no way to take Petraeus out of the discussion as he is the guy on the ground who knows what is going on and where progress is and is not being made.

He's the guy on the ground but I'm not sure he knows what's going on. After all, when a guy loses a billion dollars to waste, fraud, abuse and outright theft, you gotta start wondering if he's up for the job or that he's just got big petticoats to hide the reality that he's shilling for George.


I would agree that there should be some kind of action taken when a benchmark is not achieved, and no it might not all need be punitive, but some kind of recompense should be seen for inaction. Also, you have to be willing to admit that before political progress can be made cooler heads have to take part in the discussions between the factions in the country.

The simple fact is Bush said wait for September and the report from Petraeus. The country waited. Then, it turned out that Petraeus wasn't going to deliver a written report like the WH intimated but that he was going to report to the WH and they would write the report. Then it turns out that there was no written report, just testimony to Congress about progress on the war. Then it turns out that Petraeus, far from being this expert on the war and all it's facets that we have been led to believe, is the ultimate "yes man" who cannot even tell us whether all we have been doing in Iraq is making America safer when that is the reason we have been told over and over again is the whole reason we are there. Then reports come out that very few of the benchmarks are being met, fewer than were met than before the six months we were supposed to wait.

The "recompense" for inaction is wrapping up the war on a set date and handing it over to the Iraqis. Enough American lives have been lost. Enough American money has been spent (stolen). Enough American credibility has been lost.

When is enough enough?

[lily]

BoogyMan Wrote:
This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

You keep talking about this mysterious agenda that the radical left has, but I don't think I've ever heard what exactly it is and what Petraeus' report has to do with it........I also want to know where are all the Republicans speaking out that this waiting period and Petraeus has been an astounding success......other than of course Rudy who now has the honor of throwing the first mudsling ad of the loooooong presidential campaign......and oddly he didn't even stand up and say he agrees with the report......just that he demands that Hillary condemn the dumb add that the New York Times printed.

Now I know it's the fad to blame the Democrats for all the Republican woes.......I ask you again, where are the Republicans that agree with this report? All I see is defense of Patraeus' "honor". SOmething that has already been proven as dubious.

[preservanation]

You keep talking about this mysterious agenda that the radical left has,
The radical left has to keep their agenda mysterious.
If the American people knew what it really was, they would reject them out of hand.

[lily]

.......yet you claim to know all about it. Is there something you're not telling us?:evil:

[preservanation]

.......yet you claim to know all about it. Is there something you're not telling us?:evil:
C'mon lily, you know how I feel about modern liberalism being a front for socialism.
I sure hope I have made that clear over time:innocent:

[BoogyMan]

This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

Petraeus' past is catching up with him. All of his previous misdeeds and actions are being exposed to the light of discussion now that he is Bush's front man. You have been unable to disprove any of the allegations aginst him so you resort to calling it disinformation in the hopes you can somehow discredit what you cannot disprove. It's an old partisan trick...

ECW, what past? Oh, well. Speaking to those lurkers that you and Stripey seem to continuously preach to, notice who is standing on anonymously sourced and unproven allegations and who is standing for the honor of the man in charge of our forces on the ground in Iraq.


The parroting of anonymous allegations, the assertions that the Whitehouse wrote his report, the claims that there would be no report, all are simple evidence of a scorched earth attempt by some on the left who are willing and eager to try and destroy the leader of American forces on the ground in Iraq who has a differing view of progress that they have.

Like I said, nothing you have whined about have you disproven.

A differing view of progress? Did I hear you correctly? A differing view of progress? That's a new spin on the situation. When Petraeus' own words betray the fact that nothing has changed in four years and the Iraqis still haven't stood up to handle their own security, you call that a differing view of progress? That's like awarding a second place medal to the horse that finished last in a two horse race. I say he lost the race. You say he finished in second place. OK. If it makes you sleep better.

Umm, ok, reasoned and calm commentary is now to be equated with whining. Petraeus words showed that things are still tenuous ECW, but he also said progress was being made. Rational minds can see both sides.


I have to wonder if in past conflicts if such a poisonous dissent was out there picking our military leadership to pieces on the world stage based on dubious reports and a dishonest desire to present them as factual.


"Dubious reports" that have been cited and proven time and time again here on this board. The fact that you refuse to accept them changes nothing. You were still whining about the LA Times report right up to the time that events proved you wrong and you still can't concede you were wrong about it.

Yes, dubious reports cited from the same unproven anonymous allegations. Umm, exactly how did the events prove me wrong ECW, the L.A. Times claimed the Whitehouse was going to write Petraeus report, Petraeus claimed in his opening remarks before the house that the report was his.

I choose Petraeus over a partisan hit piece in the L.A. Times.


El, I really think that neither you nor I will get a clear view from anything presented in the media today as to what it will take to pacify Iraq. There is no way to take Petraeus out of the discussion as he is the guy on the ground who knows what is going on and where progress is and is not being made.

He's the guy on the ground but I'm not sure he knows what's going on. After all, when a guy loses a billion dollars to waste, fraud, abuse and outright theft, you gotta start wondering if he's up for the job or that he's just got big petticoats to hide the reality that he's shilling for George.

ECW, you have every right to think that, you cannot prove the assertion just like you cannot build a debate based on anonymous comments.



I would agree that there should be some kind of action taken when a benchmark is not achieved, and no it might not all need be punitive, but some kind of recompense should be seen for inaction. Also, you have to be willing to admit that before political progress can be made cooler heads have to take part in the discussions between the factions in the country.

The simple fact is Bush said wait for September and the report from Petraeus. The country waited. Then, it turned out that Petraeus wasn't going to deliver a written report like the WH intimated but that he was going to report to the WH and they would write the report. Then it turns out that there was no written report, just testimony to Congress about progress on the war. Then it turns out that Petraeus, far from being this expert on the war and all it's facets that we have been led to believe, is the ultimate "yes man" who cannot even tell us whether all we have been doing in Iraq is making America safer when that is the reason we have been told over and over again is the whole reason we are there. Then reports come out that very few of the benchmarks are being met, fewer than were met than before the six months we were supposed to wait.

You are willing to build this political house of cards on something that the left feels was "intimated?" Is that the best you have got ECW?

You claim he is not an expert on the war based on what?


The "recompense" for inaction is wrapping up the war on a set date and handing it over to the Iraqis. Enough American lives have been lost. Enough American money has been spent (stolen). Enough American credibility has been lost.

When is enough enough?


When it was first leaked that Petraeus might actually present something as being positive the left went nuts and went after the character of General Petraeus. Character assassination is now the rule of the day. It is sad really.[hr]
BoogyMan Wrote:
This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

You keep talking about this mysterious agenda that the radical left has, but I don't think I've ever heard what exactly it is and what Petraeus' report has to do with it........I also want to know where are all the Republicans speaking out that this waiting period and Petraeus has been an astounding success......other than of course Rudy who now has the honor of throwing the first mudsling ad of the loooooong presidential campaign......and oddly he didn't even stand up and say he agrees with the report......just that he demands that Hillary condemn the dumb add that the New York Times printed.

Now I know it's the fad to blame the Democrats for all the Republican woes.......I ask you again, where are the Republicans that agree with this report? All I see is defense of Patraeus' "honor". SOmething that has already been proven as dubious.


Lily, the radical left agenda is obvious, simply take a look at the character assassination attempts against Petraeus from the moment that it was considered possible that he might have something positive to say about Iraq.

I am not blaming all democrats, to frame it that way is not indicative of what I have said. You should notice that I specifically point to the radical left, otherwise known as MoveOn and groups of that Ilk.

I readily admit that there is dirt on the republican side of the aisle, but I am disheartened that you have joined those working to assassinate the character of General Petraeus.

[lily]

Boogyman wrote:
ECW Wrote:

BoogyMan Wrote:
El, I really think that neither you nor I will get a clear view from anything presented in the media today as to what it will take to pacify Iraq. There is no way to take Petraeus out of the discussion as he is the guy on the ground who knows what is going on and where progress is and is not being made.

He's the guy on the ground but I'm not sure he knows what's going on. After all, when a guy loses a billion dollars to waste, fraud, abuse and outright theft, you gotta start wondering if he's up for the job or that he's just got big petticoats to hide the reality that he's shilling for George.


ECW, you have every right to think that, you cannot prove the assertion just like you cannot build a debate based on anonymous comments.
Boogy....the waste and fraud was documented and discussed way back on post #32. You are so focused on not believing something that you say wasn't documented, but skip over things that were.

lily Wrote:

Quote:
BoogyMan Wrote:
This is par for the course with the new political atmosphere. Petraeus has to be destroyed for the agenda of the radical left to succeed and unfortunately many on the left are all too eager to help spread the disinformation.

You keep talking about this mysterious agenda that the radical left has, but I don't think I've ever heard what exactly it is and what Petraeus' report has to do with it........I also want to know where are all the Republicans speaking out that this waiting period and Petraeus has been an astounding success......other than of course Rudy who now has the honor of throwing the first mudsling ad of the loooooong presidential campaign......and oddly he didn't even stand up and say he agrees with the report......just that he demands that Hillary condemn the dumb add that the New York Times printed.

Now I know it's the fad to blame the Democrats for all the Republican woes.......I ask you again, where are the Republicans that agree with this report? All I see is defense of Patraeus' "honor". SOmething that has already been proven as dubious.


Lily, the radical left agenda is obvious, simply take a look at the character assassination attempts against Petraeus from the moment that it was considered possible that he might have something positive to say about Iraq.

I am not blaming all democrats, to frame it that way is not indicative of what I have said. You should notice that I specifically point to the radical left, otherwise known as MoveOn and groups of that Ilk.

I readily admit that there is dirt on the republican side of the aisle, but I am disheartened that you have joined those working to assassinate the character of General Petraeus.

Yeah, yeah, I know the left is evil the right is good.......I've read that for pages now. You still haven't answered my question.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy....the waste and fraud was documented and discussed way back on post #32. You are so focused on not believing something that you say wasn't documented, but skip over things that were.

I went back and looked at that post lily, the first link doesn't work and the second is some kind of assertion that Petraeus has presidential ambitions.

I don't see the relevance.


I am not blaming all democrats, to frame it that way is not indicative of what I have said. You should notice that I specifically point to the radical left, otherwise known as MoveOn and groups of that Ilk.

I readily admit that there is dirt on the republican side of the aisle, but I am disheartened that you have joined those working to assassinate the character of General Petraeus.

Yeah, yeah, I know the left is evil the right is good.......I've read that for pages now. You still haven't answered my question.


I guess that whole "I am not blaming all democrats" thing has evaded you? Wow.

[lily]

I went back and looked at that post lily, the first link doesn't work and the second is some kind of assertion that Petraeus has presidential ambitions.

I don't see the relevance.

I find it funny that you don't see incompetence as relevant........but anyway.......I C&Ped the article in post #43......but I know how you are so here's another source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm)



I guess that whole "I am not blaming all democrats" thing has evaded you? Wow.

Ok........I give up. I don't know how many more ways you can dodge answering the one question I've been asking for pages now.

[BoogyMan]

I went back and looked at that post lily, the first link doesn't work and the second is some kind of assertion that Petraeus has presidential ambitions.

I don't see the relevance.

I find it funny that you don't see incompetence as relevant........but anyway.......I C&Ped the article in post #43......but I know how you are so here's another source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm)


lily, since the article you posted claims that most of the problems with weapons distribution took place in 2004-2005, I would like to point out the Petraeus was not put in charge until January 26, 2007.

During that time your own article points out that Petraeus was in charge of security training.

I will go back and read post 43 since I know how you are. :D

[lily]

lily, since the article you posted claims that most of the problems with weapons distribution took place in 2004-2005, I would like to point out the Petraeus was not put in charge until January 26, 2007.

During that time your own article points out that Petraeus was in charge of security training.

Boogy.........he was not in charge of all US forces in Iraq when this happened...........but it happened under his watch.

I will go back and read post 43 since I know how you are. :D

You do that and then debate it with someone else. You should have read it pages ago, then you would have known what the discussion was about and not asked the silly question over and over, "what past" and accused people of whining when they kept answering your question .........I'm done.

I won't even wait around for an an answer to the my question that you seem to be avoiding while arguing for arument's sake. :bye:

[BoogyMan]

I accused people of whining? What a complete joke. I answered ECW's claim that I was whining with the following declarative: "
Umm, ok, reasoned and calm commentary is now to be equated with whining."

You should have read that thoroughly many posts ago, then you would have know what the discussion was about and not made the silly declaration that I accused people of whining.

.........I'm done.

[tony mitra]

Mr. Petraeus, from what I hear, is a military man.
The problem, from what I can see, is a political one.
Asking him for an assessment, or a solution is similar to asking a farmer to fix your electrical systems.

In democratic societies, civilians must make political assessments as well as decisions and the military must follow, and not the other way around.

Just my half cents worth.

[ECW]

Mr. Petraeus, from what I hear, is a military man.
The problem, from what I can see, is a political one.
Asking him for an assessment, or a solution is similar to asking a farmer to fix your electrical systems.

In democratic societies, civilians must make political assessments as well as decisions and the military must follow, and not the other way around.

Just my half cents worth.


When the biggest civilian (George Walker Bush) has no more credibility, he hides behind the skirts of the willing "yes man" military man he appoints to run the Surge. Then he comes out and states that he is listening to his general on the ground and will follow his recommendation. You are not alone, Tony Mitra, in realizing that this is backwards. It's the reason that this thread was started in the first place: General Fallon did not like the shilling for this Surge that Petraeus was up to and called him an asskissing little chickenshit based on his sycophantic behavior.

The question I have for Boogy is simple: if this story was not true, don't you think that General Fallon would have already come out and denied this story and been critical of the "lie" it told?

[preservanation]

The Dems failed to secure the defeat of Petraeus, the man they commissioned to secure victory in Iraq.
I am more convinced than ever that the Dems do not want to succeed in Iraq.
Dems are failing to secure failure and their efforts are obvious.
This is shocking, even for them.

[BoogyMan]

The question I have for Boogy is simple: if this story was not true, don't you think that General Fallon would have already come out and denied this story and been critical of the "lie" it told?


ECW, I didn't say it was a lie, I said you cannot prove that it is the truth and an unworthy source for debate. You like to post things from sources that agree with you just as I do, but this one is quoted from anonymous sources and cannot be proved, yet you wish to treat it as proof as it bolsters the ideology you are currently pushing.

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.

[Elrathin]

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.


Yet there are conservatives on this board that ask that Obama and Hillary answer all the allegations that they are presented with? Double standard or hypocrisy?

[BoogyMan]

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.


Yet there are conservatives on this board that ask that Obama and Hillary answer all the allegations that they are presented with? Double standard or hypocrisy?


I don't think I have engaged in that practice El, and to ask me to justify those actions is once again outside the scope of the discussion at hand.

[ECW]

The question I have for Boogy is simple: if this story was not true, don't you think that General Fallon would have already come out and denied this story and been critical of the "lie" it told?


ECW, I didn't say it was a lie, I said you cannot prove that it is the truth and an unworthy source for debate. You like to post things from sources that agree with you just as I do, but this one is quoted from anonymous sources and cannot be proved, yet you wish to treat it as proof as it bolsters the ideology you are currently pushing.

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.


It is exactly the perfect source for debate because of the controversy it provides. I don't post things because of the source. I post things because of what they say and the reaction it will cause. I've used a number of different places as sources and they vary in outlook.

This is a simple case. You want me to prove something that by it's very nature cannot be proven (just like Woodward & Bernstein could not prove Deep Throat because of his request for anonymity). A noted and published historian uses an anonymous source to write a story. He protected that source from official retribution by keeping his/her identity secret as is the usual practice when controversial things are brought out into the open. YOU decided that it was not valid based on YOUR standards but just looking around on Google searches I can see that your standards aren't standard. This story is everywhere. No one is refuting it. No one is alleging the source or the historian isn't truthful because everyone understands WHY the source remained anonymous. (As a sidebar, we have all seen what the WH thinks of whistle blowers and people who speak ill of administration favorites and how they will endeavor to ruin their careers. No wonder the source stayed secret.)

This is some heavy crap to be quoted calling your subordinate some very nasty stuff. Military decorum demands truthfulness. If this historian printed a lie, it would be very easy for the general to release a statement saying, "I never said that." The historian is discredited. The general has cleared the air and attempted to restore some sense of military discipline. That hasn't happened.

So the question to you still remains unanswered: if this story was not true, don't you think that General Fallon would have already come out and denied this story and been critical of the "lie" it told?

Simple enough to answer.

ON EDIT: "the ideology I am currently pushing"? Have you lost it? I am the same now as I was when I showed up here and the same as I will be when I leave. There is no "currently pushing" to it, pal.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, that ridiculous and simplistic question was answered, you just don't like the answer.

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.

When you have sources that can be validated for your current assertions, bring them in and I will gladly discuss it with you as fact, until then it is nothing more than assertion.

The ideology you are currently pushing is that anonymously sourced allegations are to be taken seriously, not gonna happen "pal."

[Pogo]

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.

Isn't that what aides are for?

If he let's the quote hang out there without denying it then is seems reasonable to conclude that he doesn't think very highly of Patraeus.

[ECW]

ECW, that ridiculous and simplistic question was answered, you just don't like the answer.

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.

I just wanted to make sure that this was your answer because it belies reason that the top guy is being quoted as disparaging his junior officer and he doesn't rush to his defense UNLESS it is true that he said it. Your desire not to accept an anonymous source if all fine and good if the person reporting the action was anonymous as well. THEN you would have cause for concern. But here only the source of the story is anonymous not the author and there is ample precedent for the usage of said sources.

But several major newspapers, including the Post and The New York Times, will permit unidentified sourcing in certain circumstances.

Following the New York Times' 2003 plagiarism scandal, the Post in February 2004 issued new guidelines regarding the use of confidential sources, as well as other stylistic changes. The updated policy requires that "at least one editor know the identity of every anonymous source quoted in the newspaper."

The revision aims to ensure that anonymous sourcing would be used judiciously. "We must be certain in our own minds that the benefit to readers is worth the cost in credibility," the new guideline states.

SNIP

Later that month, The New York Times also introduced rules designed to significantly limit the paper's use of unidentified sources in its articles. The Times' revision sought to improve reader trust and clarify how the paper justified citing anonymous sources.

The revision came several months before the Times published a critical self-review of its prewar reporting found to depend too heavily on unreliable anonymous Iraqi sources.

SNIP

The Washington press corps will cite "unnamed officials" more often than anywhere else as though it was "part of the territory of covering the federal government," Hanson said. Hanson underscored that the journalists who do not provide sources confidentiality will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage -- and will miss out on stories -- against other news organizations that do.

There have been "periodic spasms against using anonymous sources, but nobody really wants to get rid" of the practice, Feldstein said. On the other hand, he noted that the Post's legendary Watergate reporting removed some of the stigma around the "unnamed source," saying the practice can be crucial in revealing important government secrets or breaking other significant news.

This not even close to the scale of scandal that Watergate was but it is a scandal nonetheless. With all the partisan posturing you have done lately, I can understand perfectly why you have grabbed on to this Anonymous Source excuse not to talk about it. Any port in a shitstorm, I guess. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/standard.php)

When you have sources that can be validated for your current assertions, bring them in and I will gladly discuss it with you as fact, until then it is nothing more than assertion.

The ideology you are currently pushing is that anonymously sourced allegations are to be taken seriously, not gonna happen "pal."


Accepting anonymous sources in discussing a news story is a perfectly reasonable practice unless the source is saying something you don't like or don't want to hear as is the case here. I seriously doubt you will ever be "glad" to discuss anything like this because you have done nothing but whine and bring up neocon/GOP talking points up until now in order to poison the pot. I don't expect that to change.

I like how you try to change my ideology for me to suit your own partisan purposes kind of like how CheeseWars tried to change the meaning of the word "neoliberal" to suit his purposes. You really need to keep for yourself the dictionary you keep offering to others so you can look up the meaning of the word "ideology." Not even in a stretch of George Bush's imagination can the acceptance of anonymous sources be called an ideology, not even on a Karl Rove type of day. To quote someone I know who loves to use this phrase a lot: words have meaning, you know.

[BoogyMan]

ECW, that ridiculous and simplistic question was answered, you just don't like the answer.

You expect the top military man in the Middle East to come out and address every quote attributed to him in the media? How would he ever get and military work done? That is dissemblance, nothing more.

I just wanted to make sure that this was your answer because it belies reason that the top guy is being quoted as disparaging his junior officer and he doesn't rush to his defense UNLESS it is true that he said it. Your desire not to accept an anonymous source if all fine and good if the person reporting the action was anonymous as well. THEN you would have cause for concern. But here only the source of the story is anonymous not the author and there is ample precedent for the usage of said sources.

Try to quote an anonymous source in an organized debate and you would be laughed out of the room ECW. I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation. The argument you are making here doesn't make sense as my whole point is that someone can claim anything in writing per this practice and say that it is sourced anonymously.


Accepting anonymous sources in discussing a news story is a perfectly reasonable practice unless the source is saying something you don't like or don't want to hear as is the case here. I seriously doubt you will ever be "glad" to discuss anything like this because you have done nothing but whine and bring up neocon/GOP talking points up until now in order to poison the pot. I don't expect that to change.

Accepting anonymous sources simply gives you something to hide behind and toss rocks ECW, nothing more. If you expect me to accept it, source it without the anonymous allegations.


I like how you try to change my ideology for me to suit your own partisan purposes kind of like how CheeseWars tried to change the meaning of the word "neoliberal" to suit his purposes. You really need to keep for yourself the dictionary you keep offering to others so you can look up the meaning of the word "ideology." Not even in a stretch of George Bush's imagination can the acceptance of anonymous sources be called an ideology, not even on a Karl Rove type of day. To quote someone I know who loves to use this phrase a lot: words have meaning, you know.


I changed your ideology? Where? I pointed out that you were simply pushing the story because it fits your current ideology. I don't know why this is a problem for you. Do you now NOT support the anonymously sourced story? The usage of the term ideology, since you wish to play semantic games, is indicative of your current belief system.

Egads ECW.

[lily]

Try to quote an anonymous source in an organized debate and you would be laughed out of the room ECW. I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation. The argument you are making here doesn't make sense as my whole point is that someone can claim anything in writing per this practice and say that it is sourced anonymously.

I know I said I was done........and please don't feel the need to respond, Boogy......I just had to get this out of my system.

Ok, after all the links and research ECW did you're still going to dismiss anonymous sources just on the argument of "Because I said so"?

I suggest you do a search on the author of the article and while you are doing that ask yourself what reason he would have to lie and why he would ruin his reputation if he was lying.

[BoogyMan]

Try to quote an anonymous source in an organized debate and you would be laughed out of the room ECW. I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation. The argument you are making here doesn't make sense as my whole point is that someone can claim anything in writing per this practice and say that it is sourced anonymously.

I know I said I was done........and please don't feel the need to respond, Boogy......I just had to get this out of my system.

Ok, after all the links and research ECW did you're still going to dismiss anonymous sources just on the argument of "Because I said so"?

I suggest you do a search on the author of the article and while you are doing that ask yourself what reason he would have to lie and why he would ruin his reputation if he was lying.


I hope you get the chance to participate in an organized debate Lily, and I hope that you will try to bring in an anonymously sourced allegation. Get back to me when the laughing is over.

There is a great deal of consternation in journalistic circles right now over anonymous sources, and for this very reason.

You choose to accept them, I will not, and will challenge them. It is as simple as that.

[ECW]

Try to quote an anonymous source in an organized debate and you would be laughed out of the room ECW. I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation. The argument you are making here doesn't make sense as my whole point is that someone can claim anything in writing per this practice and say that it is sourced anonymously.

But we are not in an organized debate. We are here. At DF. Don't accept anonymous sources. I really don't care. I just pointed out to you that they are accepted in the news world and the supposed high standards you think you have set will come back to bite you when you least expect them to. Hang on to whatever straws you can with Yes Man Petraeus. There aren't many and they are slim. When his own boss thinks he is a suck up of the first degree and the other items that have been posted here in relation to his character and past performance indicate he is as partisan as you are, your ship is sinking at the dock.

Accepting anonymous sources simply gives you something to hide behind and toss rocks ECW, nothing more. If you expect me to accept it, source it without the anonymous allegations.

I don't need anonymous sources to throw rocks and I certainly have never needed anything to hide behind to come after neocons and their partisans and I certainly never expected you to accept anything that was ever said that is the least bit critical of your boy George or any of the Flying Monkeys under his control. I just found it enormously entertaining and revealing that your holy savior of the Quagmire in Iraq is thought of so poorly by his commander, without a doubt the kiss of death to a military career. No wonder he is thinking of getting into politics.

I changed your ideology? Where? I pointed out that you were simply pushing the story because it fits your current ideology. I don't know why this is a problem for you. Do you now NOT support the anonymously sourced story? The usage of the term ideology, since you wish to play semantic games, is indicative of your current belief system.

Egads ECW.


But that is not what you originally said. You said that it was my ideology to accept anonymous sources, an assertion I disputed because that does not fit the definition of what an ideology is.

I AM pushing the story because of my Liberal ideology and my ideology includes accepting current journalistic practices which includes allowing anonymous sources when they are "crucial in revealing important government secrets or breaking other significant news." This qualifies whether you like it or not.

[Pogo]

I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation...

I wasn't aware that ECW was presenting said material as proof. This seems to me to be a red herring you're introducing for the purpose of diverting attention away from the possibility that the allegation is true.

[lily]

I hope you get the chance to participate in an organized debate Lily, and I hope that you will try to bring in an anonymously sourced allegation. Get back to me when the laughing is over.

How condescending of you.


There is a great deal of consternation in journalistic circles right now over anonymous sources, and for this very reason.

Odd.......Ecw brought tons of links that say just the opposite.

[BoogyMan]

Try to quote an anonymous source in an organized debate and you would be laughed out of the room ECW. I refuse to accept anonymously sourced documents as proof of an allegation. The argument you are making here doesn't make sense as my whole point is that someone can claim anything in writing per this practice and say that it is sourced anonymously.

But we are not in an organized debate. We are here. At DF. Don't accept anonymous sources. I really don't care. I just pointed out to you that they are accepted in the news world and the supposed high standards you think you have set will come back to bite you when you least expect them to. Hang on to whatever straws you can with Yes Man Petraeus. There aren't many and they are slim. When his own boss thinks he is a suck up of the first degree and the other items that have been posted here in relation to his character and past performance indicate he is as partisan as you are, your ship is sinking at the dock.

No straws here ECW.


Accepting anonymous sources simply gives you something to hide behind and toss rocks ECW, nothing more. If you expect me to accept it, source it without the anonymous allegations.

I don't need anonymous sources to throw rocks and I certainly have never needed anything to hide behind to come after neocons and their partisans and I certainly never expected you to accept anything that was ever said that is the least bit critical of your boy George or any of the Flying Monkeys under his control. I just found it enormously entertaining and revealing that your holy savior of the Quagmire in Iraq is thought of so poorly by his commander, without a doubt the kiss of death to a military career. No wonder he is thinking of getting into politics.

I think you should read my commentary about Bush's immigration policies, it proves you dead wrong about my position on Bush.

I find it interesting that you didn't care to trash the character of Petraeus until he was preparing to testify to congress.

Death of his military career? The man is the commander of the entire force in Iraq ECW, I wasn't aware his career was in the tank, I certainly wont accept an anonymously sourced article telling me it is.


I changed your ideology? Where? I pointed out that you were simply pushing the story because it fits your current ideology. I don't know why this is a problem for you. Do you now NOT support the anonymously sourced story? The usage of the term ideology, since you wish to play semantic games, is indicative of your current belief system.

Egads ECW.


But that is not what you originally said. You said that it was my ideology to accept anonymous sources, an assertion I disputed because that does not fit the definition of what an ideology is.

I AM pushing the story because of my Liberal ideology and my ideology includes accepting current journalistic practices which includes allowing anonymous sources when they are "crucial in revealing important government secrets or breaking other significant news." This qualifies whether you like it or not.


No ECW, I said "ECW, I didn't say it was a lie, I said you cannot prove that it is the truth and an unworthy source for debate. You like to post things from sources that agree with you just as I do, but this one is quoted from anonymous sources and cannot be proved, yet you wish to treat it as proof as it bolsters the ideology you are currently pushing." It would appear that your forgetter is working in overdrive tonight.

It obviously qualifies for you ECW, I won't accept it.[hr]



I hope you get the chance to participate in an organized debate Lily, and I hope that you will try to bring in an anonymously sourced allegation. Get back to me when the laughing is over.

How condescending of you.

Lily, it wasn't intended to be condescending. It is true. I have suffered that consequence in a University level debating event. If you felt I was being condescending please accept my public apology as that was not my intent.


There is a great deal of consternation in journalistic circles right now over anonymous sources, and for this very reason.

Odd.......Ecw brought tons of links that say just the opposite.


ECW quoted newspaper sources that from past debates you know I already take issue with, not just due to their dubious sourcing practices either.

[lily]

I think you should read my commentary about Bush's immigration policies, it
proves you dead wrong about my position on Bush.

You do know that this is the standard Right's answer when they are trying to
sound non-partisan, don't you?


Lily, it wasn't intended to be condescending. It is true. I have
suffered that consequence in a University level debating event. If you felt
I was being condescending please accept my public apology as that was not my
intent.

Thank you.

ECW quoted newspaper sources that from past debates you know I
already take issue with, not just due to their dubious sourcing practices
either.

Boogy....do you know how silly you sound right about now? You are now
rejecting ECW's sources on journalism eithics by a very credible source.....all the while not posting any sources what so ever to prove your point.

Now I will definately bow out of this conversation, before I have to send it to Fools for saying how I really feel.

[BoogyMan]

Lily, I am quite sure that I feel the exact same way towards those trashing the reputation of General Petraeus on the merits of an anonymous accusation. :D

[ECW]

Accepting anonymous sources simply gives you something to hide behind and toss rocks ECW, nothing more. If you expect me to accept it, source it without the anonymous allegations.

I don't need anonymous sources to throw rocks and I certainly have never needed anything to hide behind to come after neocons and their partisans and I certainly never expected you to accept anything that was ever said that is the least bit critical of your boy George or any of the Flying Monkeys under his control. I just found it enormously entertaining and revealing that your holy savior of the Quagmire in Iraq is thought of so poorly by his commander, without a doubt the kiss of death to a military career. No wonder he is thinking of getting into politics.

I think you should read my commentary about Bush's immigration policies, it proves you dead wrong about my position on Bush.

I find it interesting that you didn't care to trash the character of Petraeus until he was preparing to testify to congress.

Death of his military career? The man is the commander of the entire force in Iraq ECW, I wasn't aware his career was in the tank, I certainly wont accept an anonymously sourced article telling me it is.

Go back and look to see whether I jumped into your immigration debate when it was happening. I don't know anything about your immigration stands and I don't care because this is about Petraeus. From what I can see you are a neocon Bush supporter from the word "Go" because you have wound up on the other side of the AISLE on every subject that I have posted in except the favorite beverage question (the only time we have agreed on something substantial). Jumping to Bush's defense 99 times out of 100 qualifies you as a Bush partisan.

Guess why I didn't bother to start hammering Petraeus until he testified before Congress? I was waiting to see whether his overtly partisan view of the war had changed since he became the Spokesman for the Surge. It hadn't. With it readily apparent that Bush was using Petraeus' petticoats to hide behind in order to further continue the War on his own terms without compromise, it was time to bring out the skeletons in his closet. With neocons, there are ALWAYS skeletons in the closet and that is being borne out as we speak.

I remember you whining about his reputation BEFORE he testified before Congress and that he was not being given a chance to be heard. Well, we all know now that was just more neocon positioning to try and soften what he was going to say in hopes that the American people would swallow the Bush lineofshit if it had the face of David Petraeus splashed on it. He had his chance to be heard. Everyone heard what he said. They all realized that he was just parroting Bush when he cawed, "Six more months! Six more months! Just give us six more months to show the Surge is successful" or words to that extent.

He was hoping that we would forget that he already had six months. He was hoping that we would forget that the 3500 troops that he said could come home now because the Surge is working WERE SUPPOSED TO COME HOME ANYWAY BECAUSE THEIR TOURS WERE UP. He said that in six more months another 30,000 would come home as part of a drawdown but hoped we wouldn't remember that this would BRING US RIGHT BACK TO THE TROOP LEVELS WE STARTED FROM.

This sort of disingenuous BS is why his once stellar neocon reputation is in tatters with the public. They see him as a Bush clone, repeating what Bush wants him to say so Bush can dump the mess on the next president and walk away from it the same way he has walked away from every other