Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Petraeus Drops Bombshell: Doesn't Know if Iraq War's Making America Safer

In his second day of testimony before Congress Tuesday, Gen. David Petraeus made perhaps the most incredible statement by a U.S. military commander since the war began in March 2003. Under intense questioning on the Hill over the war's progress or lack thereof, Petraeus buckled when asked by Republican Sen. John Warner (VA) whether the war has made the United States more secure:

Warner: "Are you able to say at this time, if we continue, what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?"

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

Warner: (sternly) "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 multi-national force in Iraq."

Holy shit! Did we just hear that correctly? What an unbelievably damning confession. Think about the magnitude of his statement. The General who commands the multi-national force in Iraq cannot say whether or not this immensely costly war is actually making us safer? That 4 1/2 years of battle, 3800 dead U.S. soldiers and $500 billion spent may have been for nothing? I'm astounded. Speechless. Give him credit at least for being honest. And for being focused on successfully doing the job he's paid to do. And also give him the most credit for not allowing our cowardly and delusional president to successfully hide behind his general, who he had hoped would do his selling of the war and, thus, his dirty-work.

Despite all this, and not to his credit, the General still believes we should continue fighting a war whose mission he himself is unsure of. That we should continue to keep sending our young men and women to die quite possibly for nothing. This is an absolute travesty, and an irresponsible, reprehensible use--or misuse--of our troops. After today's testimony, I wonder just how much more insane this military debacle can get.

One thing's certain: President Bush was probably cringing while listening to his General declare that our soldiers might very well be dying in vain. That kind of brutal honesty--a virtue foreign to Bush--surely won't help him with his smoke and mirrors speech to the nation Thursday evening. And it'll be interesting to see how the Busheviks attempt damage control over the next 24 hours. I suspect the spin-machine will be in high gear...


Anonymous said...

no shit Ostroy, you idiot. How can he say that America is safer when we are fighting a global enemy that has no country to protect?

For the General to state the America is definitely safer by beating the enemy in Iraq, it would be like stating that Iran would be peaceful if we didn't overthrow their government in 1959. Nobody can say it.

You can definitely argue that America is less safe with Saddam actively funneling money to suicide bombers while leveraging the criminal UN Oil For Food activity and harboring international terrorists like Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, and others. We do know for a fact that Saddam possessed and obtained the WMD that he used to kill thousands of Iraqi Shiites. We also know for a fact that there was absolutely no proof that Saddam had properly disposed of said WMD. We also know for a fact that Saddam had conventional weapons that he was not supposed to have under the agreements of the Operation Desert Storm ceasefire.

The General was being completely honest and non-partisan, unlike YOU when answering that question. You appear to prefer the days of Saddam in power.

Anonymous said...

The spin machine will not only be in high gear, Andy, but will probably be overheating as Bush tries to reassure everyone that the "surge" is working and that we'll be able to pull some 30,000 troops out of Iraq next summer. But as I said in response to your previous post, these troops which are scheduled to leave Iraq next year (provided that everything goes as expected and the creek don't rise) are just the "surge" troops themselves. In effect, after those troops leave, the same number of troops before this misbegotten project began will still be in Iraq. Watch for Bush to ignore this completely in his speech!

Sen. Warner was certainly right to ask the questions he did, and the responses he received clearly and unmistakably show that Bush's incursion into Iraq has NOT made us any safer than we were on 9/11/01.

Anonymous said...

We may not be safer than we were on 9/11/2001, but at least we are responding to the attacks, unlike during the Clinton-era.

Anonymous said...

"Responding to the attacks?" I seem to recall that the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center are sitting in a prison cell.

Anonymous said...

SEPTEMBER 26, 2004

Just prior to elections in
2004, there was
"Tangible progress," happy spin
As writing boldly thus

The General--Petraeus--noted
"Reasons for optimism"
Aplenty; his own op-ed quoted
Helped voters spill their jism.

Subsequent time, 2004
Until the present have
Proven interminable this war,
Yet knit-brows, somber, grave

Petraeus will report (again)
He is a "realist,"
"Reasons for optimism" then
Point out should not be missed!

--I.M. Small