Petraeus Says He CAN NOT Say Iraq War Has Made U.S. Safer!

your the idiot


the general said that if he didn't think it was worth the price he wouldn't have recommended that we stay in iraq.


i suppose you missed that part.

On this day of all days you should choke on your words, I really mean that gene. You have no honor, no morals and above all not a single ounce of class, no wonder you never got that star, an officer you might have been, but a gentleman? NEVER!

Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Bush must be beside himself after learning of the General's statement today. Think of it- Our most senior military commander in Iraq does not know if the sacrifice of the military he now commands has been made in vane. If their sacrifice has not made America safer then for what did they die and be injured? What a FOOL we have as President!




your the idiot


the general said that if he didn't think it was worth the price he wouldn't have recommended that we stay in Iraq.


i suppose you missed that part.


BETTER LISTEN TO WHAT THE GENERAL SAID. He was responding to the question from Senator (R) Warner if the Iraq war has made America Safer. The General said he could not say that. To make such an assessment by the commanding general in Iraq about the War is unbelievable. [B]YOU ARE THE IDIOT ALONG WITH GWB!!!!!!!

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
“On this day of all days you should choke on your words, I really mean that gene. You have no honor, no morals and above all not a single ounce of class, no wonder you never got that star, an officer you might have been, but a gentleman? NEVER!”

I call it like it is!!!!!


That is what should be said about the decision to invade Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. This was another admission that General Petraeus made when asked if Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. HE SAID NOTHING!!! You need to take you indignation out toward the IDIOT that sent our military to attack a country that was NO DANGER to our country and had NOTHING to do with 9/11! To have killed over 3,700 of our brave military and injured over 27,000 more with the result of not making our county safer is unbelievable. Anyone that can justify such a policy does not deserve the benefits that our great country provides Americans! They do not deserve to be Americans!

so your saying that if we did nothing we would be safer than if we did what we did.

on 9/11 where was the attack.

since 9/11 where are the attacks.


also we did nothing for 8 years how many attacks did we take during that time here and abroad.

Danielost said - so your saying that if we did nothing we would be safer than if we did what we did.

on 9/11 where was the attack.

since 9/11 where are the attacks.


also we did nothing for 8 years how many attacks did we take during that time here and abroad.

The argument could be made that the administration has merely made it easier for Islamists to impose their sick revenge on US citizens by sending prospective victims over there.

To Ismalist terrorist the whole Iraq situation must be like ordering pizza - sit back and wait for the fresh meat to come to you!

Most people will now be looking at Coalition casualty figures and thinking "that's as many people as were lost on 9/11".

Imagine the difference it must make to the terrorists that now it's not unarmed and unprepared civilians they are killing, but the best and brightest the US has to offer. What do you think that's doing for their morale?

but you see the only problem is Ben laden wants our troops out of Iraq.

tell me why. and i don't care if it was an American that wrote the speech Ben laden read which means that he knew what he was saying or should have known.


so if the enemy wants you out of a battle field. that usually means that they are losing.

it also proves that the democrats, gene, and al quida are allies.

I don't believe it is within Gen. Petraeus' scope of expertise or experience to answer that question, which is what he acknowledged, quite appropriately, to Sen. Warner. Not being willing or able to answer that loaded, rhetorical question is not the same thing as saying "America is not safer," which is what Gene would like you to believe. As for being "beside himself," I doubt the President skipped a beat, knowing that such judgments are not the purview of field generals, something Gene also knows perfectly well, which makes this article all the more pathetic.

Without having yet read the full text, I'd say Gen. Petraeus' report was pretty damn favorable if Gene had to dig this hard for a headline, bogus as it is.

You fit in very well with the rest of your public school cronies... you can't seem to see facts and teach them as they are either.  Nice picking through the whole thing to find the bit you could take out of context to vomit all over us.

danielost said - but you see the only problem is Ben laden wants our troops out of Iraq.

You are assuming that bin laden is actually in command and that Islamism is a centralised political apparatus. According to my own, admittedly limited, understanding this is not the case.

We're talking about a diffuse rage here, a self perpetuating vendetta. From what I know about Middle Eastern character and politics, this isn't political, this is personal.

Bin Laden might have let the dog off the leash but I doubt he has any overarching responsibility or control over what's going on now.

it doesn't matter if bin laden or Ben laden or what ever is in command he is still the spokesman(demon) for al quida.(assuming that was Ben laden in the tape.


al quida in Iraq is running from us. we have finally did what we should have done in the first place. we have taken one of the strong hold and have not let them back in. Patton said once that he didn't like to pay for the same real estate twice. of course that could have only been in the movie. but it still makes sense. how many times have we payed for the real estate in Iraq.

I agree with the 'clear and hold' strategy. I'm just not sure that the US (as a country) has the wherewithal to sustain that level of commitment.

Combine economic and financial jitters with a rising body count and it might, once again, mean a political rather than military defeat.


You only have to look at current U.S allies, however, and you have to wonder not only if 'clear and hold' will work in Iraq, but if it's being utilised in the right country.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in my mind, are greater threats to US security than Iraq ever was: even greater than Iran.

And therein, i think, lays the real problem with Iraq. There has never been any widespread conviction that we should be there in the first place. What the coalition now needs to win is the bloody-mindedness to stay the course, all the while knowing we were wrong.

It takes a particularly cruel civilisation to possess such a mindset. One would think a democracy incapable of such sustained will in the face of its own morality.

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
“On this day of all days you should choke on your words, I really mean that gene. You have no honor, no morals and above all not a single ounce of class, no wonder you never got that star, an officer you might have been, but a gentleman? NEVER!”

I call it like it is!!!!!


That is what should be said about the decision to invade Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. This was another admission that General Petraeus made when asked if Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. HE SAID NOTHING!!! You need to take you indignation out toward the IDIOT that sent our military to attack a country that was NO DANGER to our country and had NOTHING to do with 9/11! To have killed over 3,700 of our brave military and injured over 27,000 more with the result of not making our county safer is unbelievable. Anyone that can justify such a policy does not deserve the benefits that our great country provides Americans! They do not deserve to be Americans!


What Petraeus said is that he could NOT SAY we were safer for invading Iraq. That means all the dead and injured Americans are in vain. If we are at the SAME place security wise now then before 3,700 Americans Died to make us safer and we are NOT SAFER per the U.S. Commander then we sacrificed all those lives for NOTHING! We injured over 27,000 More with NO RETURN. We spent 1/2 Trillion Dollars with NO RETURN! IF you support killing and injuring American military with NO BENEFIT to our country you are a TRATOR!

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
I don't believe it is within Gen. Petraeus' scope of expertise or experience to answer that question, which is what he acknowledged, quite appropriately, to Sen. Warner. Not being willing or able to answer that loaded, rhetorical question is not the same thing as saying "America is not safer," which is what Gene would like you to believe. As for being "beside himself," I doubt the President skipped a beat, knowing that such judgments are not the purview of field generals, something Gene also knows perfectly well, which makes this article all the more pathetic.

Without having yet read the full text, I'd say Gen. Petraeus' report was pretty damn favorable if Gene had to dig this hard for a headline, bogus as it is.


I listened to his statements several times. He said that he could not say the United States was safer for invading Iraq. That is a DAMMING statement from the most senior Military Officer in Iraq who has been in country for FOUR YEARS! Crocker said that the government of Iraq was DISFUNCTIONAL. He also said he believed ONLY a federal government where the regions were in charge was possible. That is the opposite of the Bush policy of the so called "Unity Government of Maliki. Northing that was said changes the fact that the political issues have not been resolved and Crocker said he does not believe the unity Government in Baghdad will work. The Overall death rate is worse this year then last year and we are to believe that shows we are making military progress. We have improved the military situation in the areas were we sent more troops but the overall situation is worse then last year. The BIG Bush plan to withdraw 30,000 troops in NOT NEW-- IT is what the Joint Staff said would be required because we do not have the troop levels to maintain the Surge. That is NOT a Change in our policy. Bush is a STUBBORN IDIOT that will just KILL and INJURE more Americans until he leaves office and turns the mess HE CREATED over to the next President!

i am calling you on this gene.


in your opening statement you state that he is cherry picking for the best report. ie he is lying.

in the last post you say he is telling the truth.


you have two chooses here and if you answer with anything else. we will all assume that everything he said was the truth.


1 he is a lier

2 he is telling the truth.


those are your only answers. as i said anything else and we all assume he is telling the truth and you are lying

Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"i am calling you on this gene.


in your opening statement you state that he is cherry picking for the best report. ie he is lying.

in the last post you say he is telling the truth. " This is my answer :


Petraeus is providing his opinion, after four years in Iraq, that he can not say America is MORE secure as a result of the Iraq War.

When Petraeus reported the military progress he excluded some types of deaths so as to lower the death toll and make it appear as if the Surge was REDUCING the death toll in Iraq. That is SPIN and was most likely concocted in the White House and pentagon because they want the most positive spin possible on the impact of the Surge. The truth is that TOTAL DEATHS in Iraq are UP not DOWN this summer compared with last summer. This Year compared with last year. SOME areas are LOWER but OVERALL the death count is UP!!!!! You can call that e LIE or SPIN or what ever you want. It does not show the SURGE IS LOWERING THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ. IN ADDITION, THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND THE INABILITY OF THE FACTIONS TO WORK TOGETHET IN CLEAR-- IT IS NOT HAPPENING.
The Bush policy was wrong from the outset in that Iraq in 2002 did not pose a danger to this country, NOT EVEN IF SADDAM HAD THE WMD BUSH CLAIMED HE HAD, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. Thus the strategic choice made by Bush to invade Iraq was WRONG! Then Bush compounded the first mistake by failing to send the number of troops needed to control Iraq when Saddam was removed from power. Then Bush dispanded the entire police, military and civilian government which was strike THREE. That is why we see the disaster we see in Iraq today. Three MAJOR Policy Choices made by Bush and the Idiots he surrounded himself with in his administration. The one person that had some real knowledge was Powell who Bush used and then fired. The problem goes back to the SOURCE - GWB.

Look at all the bold, capital letters, and underlines, but notice no facts just his usual opinions that he picks from a long list of news. 

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Look at all the bold, capital letters, and underlines, but notice no facts just his usual opinions that he picks from a long list of news.

I said it was the OPINION (another cap so you can read it) of General Petraeus that he could not say the Iraq war had MADE (More caps for your limited intellect) America safer. However since he is the most senior military officer and has spent four years in Iraq, I would accept his opinion over Bush who has NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

As to the death totals in 2006 compared with 2007, those are facts that have been reported.

AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG! Where I sighted OPINION I said so. Where I sighted Facts I said so!

First of all, it's "cited". 




Cap locks aren't for people with "limited intellect"', they are for people who like to scream their points, especially when they are commonly wrong and pointed out to be.  It's hilarious how you want to criticize my "intellect" with the grammar you use in this post.  LOL.




And this is coming from someone who has never been to Iraq, but has no problem telling everyone else about "facts" on the ground.  You are something else gene.

I notice how you ignore most of what Petraus has said, other than the DNC talking point that went out this morning.  What a coincidence.

who was that in an bar last weekend.


and when ever i repeat what the boots on the ground say. you tell us that they don't know what their talking about.


and as of now the general is telling the truth. which makes you a lier.

i told you if you answered with anything other than those two answers.

This is truly hilarious.

First of all, Gene, you have absolutely no sense of loyalty to your Army days. To sit behind your little keyboard and pronounce GEN Petraeus' report bogus days before the fact is shameful. You claim till you're blue in the face that you are a retired Army NG colonel, you led brigades, and served your nation with honor, yet you refuse to extend that honor or common courtesy to someone who not only outranks you but to whom you haven't even listened to yet. Some esprit de corps you have, Mister Abel. No one is asking you to swallow everything Petraeus said without scrutiny, but to pronounce his report full of falsehoods days before he ever delivered it... that's shameful and disgraceful. You have no loyalty to the organization from which you draw your pension.

Secondly, your constant accusations of cherry-picking are exactly what you did. I noticed that you didn't criticise any meat in the actual report -- does this mean that you actually agree with the report as delivered? Because I didn't hear about any criticism from you other than one simple question asked after the fact. You seem to have cherry picked this question from Petraeus' testimony, thou hypocrite.

Third, you claim that everything Petraeus said was negated by his "admission" that America is not safer because of the Iraq war. That's not his purview at all -- better ask that to someone who is in Homeland Security. The commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq has his hands full with Iraq, not the US. He wasn't sent over there -- with full, unanimous support of the Senate no less -- to protect America. He was sent there to fight a war and secure a country against a very dedicated insurgency. So please forgive him for not looking up from his job enough to check how America's doing. He's busy.

Lastly, that was a loaded question. I'm surprised that Petraeus even dignified it with a response.

And this is coming from someone who has never been to Iraq, but has no problem telling everyone else about "facts" on the ground. You are something else gene.


It was General Petraeus I was quoting and he has been in Iraq for four years!

Reply By: singrdave Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
This is truly hilarious.

“First of all, Gene, you have absolutely no sense of loyalty to your Army days. To sit behind your little keyboard and pronounce GEN Petraeus' report bogus days before the fact is shameful.”


What I said is that he excluded certain types of deaths to LOWER the totals. That is what he did in his statements to Congress. I also quoted his statement that said he could not say our invasion of Iraq and the death and injury of our troops has made America Safer. Then WHY did we sacrifice our young men and women in Iraq?

I have regard for our troops and do not believe they should be put in harms way unless it protects our country. That is NOT the situation in Iraq!

“You have no loyalty to the organization from which you draw your pension.”


My Loyalty is to our military. They are doing the job they were sent to do. The problem I have is their Commander-in-Chief sent them on a mission that was not justified because we were not in danger from Iraq and he did not provide the troops needed to accomplish the mission they were given. The result of those two actions by GWB is 3,700 dead, 27,000 injured FOR NO JUSTIFABLE REASON!