Petreus Testimony to Congress on Live

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2007-09-10 02:29pm

I'm watching this and even though I have zero confidence they are telling me anything remotely like the truth I am amused by the use of the word "Kinetic" What the hell does it mean when Petreus and Ambassador Crocker talk about "Post kinetic" and "kinetic" environments. Is that Newspeak for "Combat"???

And who let the freaks dressed up with antiwar costumes and slogans into the chamber. They're surprised when these people tried to disrupt the report?

Iran is being slammed here. It's like Petreus and Crocker are pointing fingers at a map going "These are baaadddd people and we need to do something about them."

It's a little frustrating too that Al-Qaeda are the ones solely responsible for the violence in Iraq. Stop. It. No one believes that shit anymore douches.

Currently on TV.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 02:34pm

They're still playing their evil little shell game. Remember when the surge was only supposed to last a few months? Now there might be cuts in troop numbers sometime next summer! We just need more time! In 6 months they'll want us to wait for their big report in September, where they'll say they just need another 6 months! It's so fucking transparent.

If the Democrats in Congress don't get off their fucking asses and do something about this then we need to make sure every last motherrucking one of them has a hell of a primary battle on their hands come reelection.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2007-09-10 02:40pm

Fuckers. We were told in September we're going to know. What did Crocker casually just say "The surge only just hit its stride in June, We need more time." Fuckers. Every single one of them.

Hey, this representative Lantos of California- is he related to Bela Lugosi? That accent is hilarious.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-09-10 02:47pm

Flagg wrote:If the Democrats in Congress don't get off their fucking asses and do something about this then we need to make sure every last motherrucking one of them has a hell of a primary battle on their hands come reelection.

Brilliant strategy. Thanks for ensuing GOP control come 08.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 02:50pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:If the Democrats in Congress don't get off their fucking asses and do something about this then we need to make sure every last motherrucking one of them has a hell of a primary battle on their hands come reelection.
Brilliant strategy. Thanks for ensuing GOP control come 08.

Yeah, I'm sure people would suddenly start voting in war whores for no apparent reason. Moron.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-09-10 02:51pm

Flagg wrote:Yeah, I'm sure people would suddenly start voting in war whores for no apparent reason. Moron.

No, you're the moron. You think a PUNISHING primary season between Democrat candidates each trying to out-do each other in the anti-war arena is going to be good? They'll blow tons of money fighting each other, leaving little to be left over to face the GOP challenger.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-09-10 02:52pm

Lantos grew up in Nazi-occupied Hungary, which would explain his accent. I'm surprised he called out Betray Us, since Lantos was a Lieberman-style DLC war whore.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 02:53pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, I'm sure people would suddenly start voting in war whores for no apparent reason. Moron.
No, you're the moron. You think a PUNISHING primary season between Democrat candidates each trying to out-do each other in the anti-war arena is going to be good? They'll blow tons of money fighting each other, leaving little to be left over to face the GOP challenger.

Yeah, the pro war GOP challenger whose own base is so disgusted by GOP scandals that they will barely show up to the polls. Meanwhile you have a hell of a primary fight which energizes the Democratic cantidates base. Think about it in terms of what human beings would do, Shep. I know you have that ability.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-09-10 02:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, I'm sure people would suddenly start voting in war whores for no apparent reason. Moron.
No, you're the moron. You think a PUNISHING primary season between Democrat candidates each trying to out-do each other in the anti-war arena is going to be good? They'll blow tons of money fighting each other, leaving little to be left over to face the GOP challenger.

With so many GOP members of Congress being criminals and perverts, I doubt the Dems have anything to worry about from them. The thing that can and will cost them is if voters stay home in disgust because the cowards won't stop this war.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-09-10 03:00pm

Flagg wrote:Yeah, the pro war GOP challenger whose own base is so disgusted by GOP scandals that they will barely show up to the polls.

And you base this on? What?

Some GOP congressman from Idaho propositioning gay sex is going to have an effect on the GOP political scene outside of Idaho how? The Idaho GOP is screwed unless they jettison Craig; but he's going to have zero effect on the Virginia, Alabama, etc GOP; who will just say "Idahoans...." like that explains everything and go and vote for their local boy...

Meanwhile you have a hell of a primary fight which energizes the Democratic cantidates base. Think about it in terms of what human beings would do, Shep. I know you have that ability.

It costs money to fight a punishing primary season. And that's only to secure the party nomination. You still have the general election season to go; and if you've blown 70% of your campaign funds in Primary attack ads calling other democratic challengers cowardly scum for not voting to end the war; and your GOP challenger has a pile of money from a relatively easy primary season....

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 03:05pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, the pro war GOP challenger whose own base is so disgusted by GOP scandals that they will barely show up to the polls.
And you base this on? What?

Some GOP congressman from Idaho propositioning gay sex is going to have an effect on the GOP political scene outside of Idaho how? The Idaho GOP is screwed unless they jettison Craig; but he's going to have zero effect on the Virginia, Alabama, etc GOP; who will just say "Idahoans...." like that explains everything and go and vote for their local boy...

It's also corruption scandals. I also seem to recall a guy named Mark Foley from FL...

Meanwhile you have a hell of a primary fight which energizes the Democratic cantidates base. Think about it in terms of what human beings would do, Shep. I know you have that ability.
It costs money to fight a punishing primary season. And that's only to secure the party nomination. You still have the general election season to go; and if you've blown 70% of your campaign funds in Primary attack ads calling other democratic challengers cowardly scum for not voting to end the war; and your GOP challenger has a pile of money from a relatively easy primary season....

And? You think it matters how much money some GOP challenger who can't even get his base out in any great numbers has?

Post by **Edi** » 2007-09-10 03:10pm

Stravo wrote:Fuckers. We were told in September we're going to know. What did Crocker casually just say "The surge only just hit its stride in June, We need more time." Fuckers. Every single one of them.

Hey, this representative Lantos of California- is he related to Bela Lugosi? That accent is hilarious.

There was a military analyst from the Finnish Army General Staff on our news this evening and his take on the situation in Iraq is that US troops are going to be staying there for years and that in all probability you will perhaps see a move toward reducing the numbers to presurge levels in the next couple of years. The reasons he gave for that made sense too, given the current policy goals, the situation in there and the potential for increased Iranian and Syrian influence and opportunities for insurgents and terrorists should the US withdraw.

Anyone who expected General Penetrated-in-the-Ass and Ambassador Crock-o'Shit to say anything else must have been deluding themselves.

You probably won't see the last troops come home from Iraq before 2015.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-09-10 03:13pm

Flagg wrote:It's also corruption scandals. I also seem to recall a guy named Mark Foley from FL...

The democrats are having corruption problems too, as the recent New Jersey corruption case indicates....

And? You think it matters how much money some GOP challenger who can't even get his base out in any great numbers has?

You do realize that the only reason the Democrats were able to unseat the GOP in Congress was because of "Blue Dog" Democrats elected from traditional GOP strongholds?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 03:15pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:It's also corruption scandals. I also seem to recall a guy named Mark Foley from FL...
The democrats are having corruption problems too, as the recent New Jersey corruption case indicates....

And? You think it matters how much money some GOP challenger who can't even get his base out in any great numbers has?
You do realize that the only reason the Democrats were able to unseat the GOP in Congress was because of "Blue Dog" Democrats elected from traditional GOP strongholds?

And do you think we'd actually target people in districts that have any realistic chance of going GOP?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-09-10 03:16pm

They kept saying 'objectives' and 'mission objectives' on the radio durring the report, and yet I sure as fuck don't know what those objectives are? Besides some vague thing like 'Freedom for Iraq'.

That's the most frustrating thing about this bullshit.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 03:18pm

Edi wrote:
Stravo wrote:Fuckers. We were told in September we're going to know. What did Crocker casually just say "The surge only just hit its stride in June, We need more time." Fuckers. Every single one of them.

Hey, this representative Lantos of California- is he related to Bela Lugosi? That accent is hilarious.
There was a military analyst from the Finnish Army General Staff on our news this evening and his take on the situation in Iraq is that US troops are going to be staying there for years and that in all probability you will perhaps see a move toward reducing the numbers to presurge levels in the next couple of years. The reasons he gave for that made sense too, given the current policy goals, the situation in there and the potential for increased Iranian and Syrian influence and opportunities for insurgents and terrorists should the US withdraw.

Anyone who expected General Penetrated-in-the-Ass and Ambassador Crock-o'Shit to say anything else must have been deluding themselves.

You probably won't see the last troops come home from Iraq before 2015.

I don't think we'll ever fully withdraw unless we are run out like in Saigon. I doubt that any of the Democratic frontrunners save maybe Obama would make even a token attempt at a serious withdrawl.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2007-09-10 03:22pm

I could barely stomach watching this sack of shit recite the same POTUS bullshit and confident in this quagmire. Cocksuckers, everyone of them...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-09-10 03:40pm

Flagg wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Flagg wrote:It's also corruption scandals. I also seem to recall a guy named Mark Foley from FL...
The democrats are having corruption problems too, as the recent New Jersey corruption case indicates....

And? You think it matters how much money some GOP challenger who can't even get his base out in any great numbers has? :lol:
You do realize that the only reason the Democrats were able to unseat the GOP in Congress was because of "Blue Dog" Democrats elected from traditional GOP strongholds?
And do you think we'd actually target people in districts that have any realistic chance of going GOP?

Well, you *did* say this:

If the Democrats in Congress don't get off their fucking asses and do something about this then we need to make sure every last motherrucking one of them has a hell of a primary battle on their hands come reelection.

I agree with you that Democrats who ran as anti war need to be called out on the bullshit.
OTOH, in districts such as mine (IN-08), that'd probably be political suicide right now.
I say 'right now' because just when I think Georgie the Wonder Chimp has hit bottom, he goes deeper.
Maybe by 2008 even this area will be ready for a stridently antiwar Democrat.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-10 03:45pm

Well, I can continue to post lists of those who vote for Iraq war continuation, but as I noted in the last big bullshit 'crossover', most were 'Blue Dogs' and 'Conservative Democrats'. These weren't people running on the basis of opposing Bush and his nonsense.

On the actual Petraeus.. Wow. What bullshit. 'Sectarian violence is down 55%'. Except of course the Iraqi government says it increased 20%. 'No one would have expected this improvement in Anbar' is worse. Here's Petraeus rebutting himself in his confirmation:

You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhaps six months ago, or certainly before that.

And after this, he's going to be on Fox News. So much for credibility.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 04:39pm

Glocksman wrote:
Flagg wrote: Well, you *did* say this:
If the Democrats in Congress don't get off their fucking asses and do something about this then we need to make sure every last motherrucking one of them has a hell of a primary battle on their hands come reelection.
Yeah, I should have clarified that I meant the ones who campaigned on it, as well as political reality having to enter in to it.

I agree with you that Democrats who ran as anti war need to be called out on the bullshit.
OTOH, in districts such as mine (IN-08), that'd probably be political suicide right now.
I say 'right now' because just when I think Georgie the Wonder Chimp has hit bottom, he goes deeper.
Maybe by 2008 even this area will be ready for a stridently antiwar Democrat.

I mean I was willing to forgive that shit back in April because they had already promised not to fuck with funding at the time. And really, they can't do anything with the slim majority they have in the Senate unless they become toal hypocrits and use the nuclear option against the GOP. But they can sure as hell start pushing for impeachment and make the GOP Senate minority literally filibuster every single time.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 04:43pm

SirNitram wrote:Well, I can continue to post lists of those who vote for Iraq war continuation, but as I noted in the last big bullshit 'crossover', most were 'Blue Dogs' and 'Conservative Democrats'. These weren't people running on the basis of opposing Bush and his nonsense.

On the actual Petraeus.. Wow. What bullshit. 'Sectarian violence is down 55%'. Except of course the Iraqi government says it increased 20%. 'No one would have expected this improvement in Anbar' is worse. Here's Petraeus rebutting himself in his confirmation:

You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhaps six months ago, or certainly before that.
And after this, he's going to be on Fox News. So much for credibility.

They don't count carbombins as sectarian violence. If a body is found with a gunshot to the front or side of the head as opposed to the back of the head, then it's not counted as sectarian violence. Rival Shiite sects killing eachother and rival Sunni sects killing eachother is not counted as sectarian violence. They are lying, and lying gleefully.

Post by **weemadando** » 2007-09-10 04:47pm

Just remember. Its only six more months and then its no longer the current administrations problem. And at that point they can start the spin to show that it was the new administrations fault that everything went wrong all along.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2007-09-10 04:56pm

weemadando wrote:Just remember. Its only six more months and then its no longer the current administrations problem. And at that point they can start the spin to show that it was the new administrations fault that everything went wrong all along.

That only applys if a Democrat is lected as President. If its a Republican again, blam shall be shifted to the Democractic Congress, who we all know was in power for the term of the Iraq war.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-09-10 05:58pm

Is there a copy of this online that I could possibly watch? Thanks.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-10 06:02pm

weemadando wrote:Just remember. Its only six more months and then its no longer the current administrations problem. And at that point they can start the spin to show that it was the new administrations fault that everything went wrong all along.

Umm, no. It's 14 months until the election, and another 2.5 after that until the new President takes office.