Tuesday, September 11, 2007

What Patreaus Doesn't Know

Is whether or not all this wonderful fucking progress he's claiming to have made in Iraq is doing a lick of good for our country.

Know what dude?

I don't fucking know either. But then I'm not giving the goddamn orders that result in the deaths of young soldiers.


WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, every time you assholes use the phrase "Multinational Force" I throw up in my mouth a little.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's fighting a war that he hasn't even decided is vital or even beneficial to the security of the United States. That's how lost we are in mission creep. That's the depth of the hole in which Petraeus has been ordered to keep digging.

While Sully was all gung-ho at the beginning of this fiasco, he's long since realized and publicly acknowledged that he was wrong to trust this administration to carry out their originally stated intentions. At this point he doesn't trust them at all.

- oddjob (who never trusted them in the first place, and has never wholly trusted any administration - probably a resutl of having become politically aware during the Watergate hearings)

8:15 PM  
Blogger litbrit said...

I wish that just once, one of Bush's lackeys would stand up and actually turn on the Prez, saying, "I know you want me to say XYZ, but here instead is the raw truth: we're fucked, and you're the serial rapist. Time to lock you up and start helping the victim for a change."

(And yeah, I second you on the multinational force thing. Gag.)

3:37 AM  
Blogger Sherry said...

i'm in total agreement with litbrit.

5:39 AM  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

the thing is litbrit my dear, there have been generals who stood up (like shiniseki, shaliskashvili, and several others) and were instantly cashiered. when legal counsel like goldsmith stand up against illegal policy they too are forced out of office.

as far as "multinational" goes, this is, has been, and is only an american operation and an american war. even those who made significant contributions of blood and treasure (like great britain) would not be involved in the slightest were it not for the american presence. multinational is a joke and a lie.

6:20 AM  
Anonymous amish451 said...

multinational farce

Perhaps they are now counting the Blackwater troops or; are the Albanians still there ...?

funny math ..it's only an assassination if the poor bastard was shot in the back of his head?

6:59 AM  
Blogger Rez Dog said...

Lincoln and Kennedy were shot in the back of the head. Garfield and McKinley were gut shot. Do they still count as assassinations?

8:25 AM  
Anonymous constant comment said...

Multi-national force: must be all those Austrian troops Bush was talking about...

9:06 AM  
Blogger BadTux said...

Imagine if anybody had asked General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1943, if our war against Nazi General was making the nation safer. He would have looked at you as if you were nuts and said "Of course."

The 29%'ers are going on about how it's not a general's job to determine policy, it's a general's job to execute policy, and thus it's fine that the General has no clue about whether the policy is making the nation safer or not. But the thing is, we're not talking about whether a General is determining policy or not. We're talking about whether the policy is making America safer or not. General Dwight D. Eisenhower wouldn't have had any trouble answering that question in 1943. General Douglas MacArthur wouldn't have had any trouble answering that question in 1943. The fact that General Petreaus has trouble answering that question in 2007, after over four years of war in Iraq, is telling indeed.

-Badtux the History Penguin

10:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home