Comments (14)

Miki wrote on September 11, 2007 3:51 PM:

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable that he declined to take that softball question. That has to be the headline of the hearing.

Rachel wrote on September 11, 2007 4:01 PM:

I'd like to know what "victory" in Iraq would entail...we've changed the mission so many times, will anyone actually recognize when the US has reached "victory"????

Don wrote on September 11, 2007 4:12 PM:

The whole exchange made it even better. If you get a chance to see Warner's whole questioning - easily the best of all Senators - you should.

azbill wrote on September 11, 2007 4:15 PM:

I know, it won't do a thing but kill more Americans. Great job by the RepubliCONs.

J Parker wrote on September 11, 2007 4:22 PM:

Victory in Iraq?

Even the late Ray Charles could see that's not going to happen. America may be safer now, but until they go after the actual country that financially and continually supports terrorism and unrest in Iraq and around the world to this day, we will always be reacting with a knee jerk reaction to these attacks. The country of origin for exporting terrorism? Saudi Arabia.

But the good general is now dangling a bone of miniscule troop reduction and the Repaublicans are biting. I guess it will go down smoothly with the Kool-Aid they've been drinking. Why wasn't the general and ambassador forced to testify under oath anyways?

steve duncan wrote on September 11, 2007 4:39 PM:

Oh Christ, so he blurted out an honest answer to a hypothetical question. He'll get a phone call from Bush. He'll request a sit with some notable member of Congress or Brit Hume. He'll "clarify" his answer and say what he meant by his response was "Why yes, victory in Iraq will make us safer!" Should it be pointed out his clarification is opposite his initial response he'll demur and correct the questioner, "Why no, both responses mean the same thing, isn't that obvious?"

fuzz wrote on September 11, 2007 4:49 PM:

Oh, you know, "victory" is the opposite of "surrender".

I suspect victory may be when Iraq is enough like Texas that they vote to change the name of Baghdad to New Austin.

I suddenly have a craving for Whatafalafel.

Johann wrote on September 11, 2007 4:53 PM:

Victory is now defined as "Staying the Course" until January 2009. After that, it will no longer be the Republicans problem.

David Finley wrote on September 11, 2007 5:14 PM:

Warner did not ask if the US will be safer if "victory" is achieved. He asked if the US will be safer if they keep doing what they're now doing in Iraq.

drmadef wrote on September 11, 2007 7:10 PM:

OK I give up. I have been listening to the Petraus Report and the congressional acquiescence. I am now going to swing waaayyyy in the other direction of how to feel about the Iraq war and our military attitude towards the world. I say lets go all out and Win. Win everything. Beat everyone who gets in our way- Islam, Democrats, UN, the French, it doesn't matter anymore to me. I am on board with attacking Iran and anyone else. What the hell are we waiting for?. What can possibly go wrong with dominating every single Arab and whatever those Iranians call themselves? If you resist, we kill you. If you survive, you will comply with us.
Hey - this is just starting to flow out of me like some formerly passive, presently aggressive testophony. (I shouldn't be driving right now) I am just too lit up.
No, seriously, this mamby pamby I-need-to-be-careful-what-other-countries-think crap has just left my building. I should measure myself, I am sure that I am morphing outwards.
I will now exercise some pantomime caution about who's going to stop us.
The Russians? The Chinese? Sure they got nukes but that is the whole enchilada isn't it. No-one wants a nukeyaler war. So lets play cards, Feelin' Lucky? - Punk! We kick ass! Nine-One-One, Nine-One-One.
Now - Lets do inventory.
When we're done with Iran, then we own - from West to East - Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and all those other pip squeaks in between, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, not even worth mentioning. Pakistan? just one move and you go down too, raghead.
We basically own the entire freakin middle east!$$#, and the grand prize in the sand.
What the hell was wrong with my liberal ass brain!!!
We Will Own It All!!!
Ready, Load, Fire! - Fire Again! - Again! - Heeeerres Johnny!!!
Hey Republicans...I totally get it now. Finally!
See liberals, come on over, it's just that easy.

Tina wrote on September 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

In listening to the intonations of his voice and body language throughout most of today's testimony, that was the most honest thing he said all day. I think he feels too much respect for Warner to "stretch the truth" to him too.

Carl in East Montpelier wrote on September 11, 2007 8:08 PM:

It's not the place of a general to answer policy questions like that. His job is to focus on what's in front of him. It's the job of Congress and the President to decide what mission to send him on.

TomK wrote on September 11, 2007 10:07 PM:

No but Bush is the God's Warrior

Many questioned if Gen. Petraeus is yet another bogieman for Bush's holy war. Petraeus knows keenly he got his fourth star thanks to Bush, and the opportunity to show his stuff as top general in Iraq. But, from his "I don't know if Iraq victory will make US safer", response it is clear to me there is a limit to his salute to Bush. I believe he spoke the truth. All militaries conduct operations with a mission goal. But Gen. Petraeus knows from his heart that there is no such mission goal in Iraq, much to the frustration of Senators. He knows, deep inside, having been deep in enemy territory, that this is Bush holy war. If anything history of war shows, it is that there are no mission goals in holy wars. That's why they last for decades, even centuries. That's what drove Bush into Iraq, to do God's work, a holy invasion to last far beyond his presidency, burn deep into the history books.

America might thought Iraq was a security operation, but it got Bush holy war. I can imagine Gen. Petraeus, sipping wine in his bunker in Iraq 2 months ago, reflecting with a ironic smile: "Here I am, commander of a 21th century high-tech army 200,000 strong, fighting holy warlords and civil war in a 15th century land of sorrow, trying to convert this ancient people to the American Way. This is more than a holy war. This Bush stupid holy war. Hell we can't even convert the Canadians to the American Way! Will the American people elect another Christian fundamentalist of questionable brain power again??"

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 9:06 PM:

On yesterdays blog, I posted the below... As you can see he cleared up his "slip of the tongue" with a call from the WH.

-----
To Fool....I'm confused, you are making a comparison of TPM and its editor to GOP's and going Beltway. How are they? You only stated what what we all ready know!

The video was in reference to what he said and how he cleared up the question regarding Iraq and its relationship to our safety.

In my view, Petraeus was backtracking to cover his remark that he stated to Senator Warren, when Senator Bayh asked him about the statement. I watched the whole thing unravel!

Petraeus- was quick to tone, and over took the dialog from Senator Bayh. Petraeus NEEDED to cover his ass in order to protect Bush. Because Bush keeps repeating over and over that Iraq is the front of the "war on terror" and we all know what he is talking about.

Also, with out Petraeus faciliating Bush's argument to Congress, he will be out of $$$ for his buddies who have a large stake in contracts over there.

Keep in mind, that Bush has always and will always say that we want to fight them over there, because if we don't, we will be fighting them here!

So, yes Petraeus is just like Powel, and I only wish someone would remind Gen. Petraeus of what happened to the General who covered up Nixon and his war mongering.

So, General DO LIE in a way that seems creditable! Masters of WAR!
Posted by: 1oldlady
Date: September 11, 2007 7:03 PM