General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared in front of the Senate Armed Services committee to give testimony on the U.S. mission in Iraq and President Bush’s surge and as Hardball host Chris Matthews put it, ran into a bi-partisan buzz saw. MSNBC’s David Shuster runs down today’s testimony, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel’s passionate statements and an exchange between Petraeus and Senator John Warner (R-VA) which produced this stunning statement which sums up President Bush’s catastrophic failures in Iraq from beginning to end:
Download | Play 
Download | Play
Warner: “Does that make America safer?”
Petraeus: “Sir, I-I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind, uh-what I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force Iraq.”
As David Shuster points out near the end of the clip, President Bush will have a hard time combating this statement during his speech later this week, as he’s expected to quote the general frequently. Four years into this pointless occupation, America should be outraged and disgusted that this is the best answer we can get from our leaders.
5 Trackbacks To “Hardball: General Petraeus Doesn’t Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer“
Well, at least he gave one honest answer.
The bottom line on Iraq: it’s the wrong stinkin’ country, and always has been.
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Now, how long will we have to wait for someone in DC to admit that?
Bush will have absolutely no problem affirming that keeping our hands in the chipper-shredder called Iraq will make America safer. We’ve been in Iraq for four years because of his ‘instincts’ or ‘vision’ or the little voices in his head.
The usual cast of characters will agree: McCain, Lieberman, Cheney, the propaganda brigade at FOX Brainwashing …
Outrage? What Outrage?
“Mistakes have been made”
oh yeah
This single question is at the core of the debate. Bush’s entire defense for the War Against Iraq is argument that this war makes America safer.
How can we not know if the war is making us safer? This ignorance has a corollary, if we don’t know if it is making us safer, then we don’t know if the war is increasing the danger.
Hooo boy. It just gets better and better doesn’t it? And somehow, despite the fact that Americans are overwhelmingly against the continued occupation, we are spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and the top commander in Iraq doesn’t even know if it is doing any good!!!! The assclown in the big seat will say “I’ve listened to the commanders in the field and over the NEXT YEAR we’ll be able to get back to where we were in Jan 2007.” It’s a con game. Americans know it. And I can only hope Americans will make these assholes PAY in Nov 2008!
He didn’t say, “Suck this Jesus,” did he?
What can you say about a country where a guy like GW Bush can outfox and outwit everyone?
Enduring FRISTWAR!
He gave an honest answer?
No. The White House handlers didn’t prep him for the question.
Gee, where’s Karl Rove when you need him.
It’s people like Petraeus and Bush, and the rest of these war criminals that are making the entire world much more dangerous.
We’ve given them great power - and plenty of tools to use and abuse it. Maybe we need to start rethinking all that power in the US federal government. It’s like an out of control beast.
That’s my rant. Read on if you’d like:
“Leaders Don’t Kill People….”
http://www.populistamerica.com.....ill_people
L.A. Confidential @ 9:
What do you say?
You say what I’ve been saying.
Lock the door, turn off the lights. Done. The American Experiment is over.
Liberal AND Proud @ 11:
That’s true. Patreaus will get a case of red ass today from the White House and have to issue a “clarification” with due haste.
This country won’t make its 300 birthday. It may not even reach 275.
The New World will become the Nice While It Lasted World.
a guy @ 14:
Bush will soon announce that he has the utmost faith in the job that General Westmoreland Petraeus is doing, and that he has his unconditional support.
Next week, we’ll learn who is taking his place.
Where did that War Czar go?
How could starting a war anywhere possibly make a country safer? Gee, attacking Saudi Arabia wouldn’t cause the least bit of trouble in the Muslim world would it Bill? One of the main reasons for the trouble in the middle east is because of American involvement in Saudi Arabia. Read Blowback for more info on past sins. Of course you could be like Rudy and just keep on repeating that they hate you because of your freedom.
Oh…and for the record…ONE MORE TIME…he is General BETRAYUS.
The Congress can censure me if they like. Write a resolution. Take a public hissy fit. I don’t care.
Ya hear me. I know you’re monitoring…so…BRING IT ON. You can hear me right? Right?..2..3..4…is this thing on?
Petraeus: “Sir, I-I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind, uh-what I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force Iraq.”
And what is that mission?
WMDs? None. Mission Accomplished
Get Saddam? Done. Mission Accomplished
Bring Democracy? Elections held. CHECK. DONE. Mission Accomplished.
I believe that covers all of GWB’s talking points.
Can we go home now?
Multi-national force? Who is that exactly? Everybody left, and the Brits are just about out?
Does he mean the mercenaries the U.S. brought in? I didn’t know they had their own country? Halliburton? Hmmm…we give them the equivalent of the GNP of a small country, so they may qualify on that basis.
Daily Kos has a new diary up. Two of the seven NCOs that wrote the NYT OP-ED criticizing the war have been killed in Iraq. Vehicle accident.
Strawberry @ 21:
How unfortunate. Such bad “luck”.
The U.S. Generals that RESIGNED months ago tried to WARN us.
The ones that actually testified UNDER OATH.
The Bankrupting of our U.S. Treasury, our States, the outsourcing of our JOBS, NAFTA and the allowing of China and other foreign multi-national corporations to own our national debt is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue.
Bush, Cheney, the aligned Republicans and Democrats that support
this pre-mediated policy are the REAL ENEMIES to our Republic.
For an intelligent honest discussion:
Dennis Kucinch will be on the Ed Shultz Show for the entire three hour show.
The Smiths Go To Washington @ 23:
No worries. The Chinese have committed to providing low cost big screen tvs, so we can continue to monitor the stories of the lost white girls.
All is good now. So…no worries.
We’ll doubtless hear about al-Qaeda in Iraq, how they take their orders from Osama bin Workin’-on-the-Railroad, how we can win as long as we have the will to succeed, and other tautological favorites. Throw in another, ‘I knew America would forget …’ for good measure.
Since this is a speech and not a Q&A, Bush can simply ignore the pink dinosaur in the corner. The media can go on about the pink dinosaur all they want, but I doubt we’re going to see a Q&A with Bush any time soon. Just watch the waving flag … you are getting very sleepy …
Of course it’s made America safer! You haven’t seen another attack on American soil, have you? We’re whistling to keep the dinosaurs off the White House lawn! And it’s working, see? Not a dinosaur in sight!
Just as long as the speech doesn’t begin with, “Less than an hour ago, our forces launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran …”
Ok! Let’s pretend that today is the day the dems find a spine. nah! nevermind!
Shadowgm @ 25:
Bush tomorrow night…
“we need to push on. Gen. Betrayus has told us that there is success going on in Iraq, and I bellieve him. I have seen the intelligence. The surge has worked, and we are making Iraq safer. I agree with his assessment, and concur with his decision to reduce troop levels by next summer by 30,000. However, we must be ever vigilant to the fact that we are in a war, and things can change. We must be alert and able to react in times of crisis. This has been a difficult war, but our hard work is paying off. It is only a question of time. Perhaps, two or three more Friedman’s and Iraq will be essentially stable. We owe it to the Iraqi people to help them finish the job.”
More Indicators that the Busheviks are Precipitating Their “Gulf of Tonkin” Incident to Justify Nuking Iran: British Troops Sent to Iranian Border as U.S. Builds Military Base Next to Iran. The White House is Lighting the Fuse, Just Waiting for the Powder Keg to Explode.
with the army broken, we will probably be forced to use blackwater the outsourced army.
did anyone ask betrayus about blackwater?
I have an idea. What if we turn the TPM’s against the current administration. I would urge congress to insist that not enough was being done in Iraq and that if America really wants to fix Iraq and the region, that we re-invade Iraq. Not the Swat team attack the first time around, mind you, but a full on WWII style invasion with 1-2 million troops and an army of engineers and construction workers. First Bush or some other leader delivers an FDR type speech about sacrifice and what a priviledge it is, then we start a draft, when we have 500K new troops we reinvade and remove Maliki, put a dusk to dawn curfew in effect for all non-essential workers, and do this sucker right. This “war” was a fiasco from day one. You don’t ignore 30 years of military experience that culminates in the Powell Doctrine, use overwellming force. If they had done this from the start the Iraqiis would never had had a chance to loot their own infrastructure. So Mr. Bush if you are serious about this “war on terror” and Iraq, then you need to repeal your tax breaks, establish laws to forbid profiteering, tax gasolne to the tune of 2 dollors a gallon, tax windfall profits from the oil industry, install the draft, and ask us to do something beside “go shopping”.
Personally, I think the general wanted a shot at it and wants to believe he can make it happen. It’s not his job to have every answer and whether or not the mission in Iraq is making America safer isn’t his domain. His job is to lead an army and win. It’s up to our security agencies to determine if what the president has ordered the army to do is being effective. Petraeus as to follow orders as well.
I think accepting the job was a stupid thing to do on his part because Iraq is obviously a lost cause and the more I could distance myself from it the better off I’d be but I guess he figured it was worth the risk on the off chance he might be successful.
Frankly, I think he should be cut some slack and responsibility of this whole fiasco needs to remain with the president. The Iraq invasion and it’s on-going aftermath is his baby. He owns it. Petraeus shouldn’t have decided to be a jr. partner. That’s the biggest thing he did wrong.
It’s also possible that he’s actually been successful in the regard that Bush isn’t ending this war no matter what and if Petraeus had declined Bush may have put somebody much less competent in charge and things could be worse. I know, “worse” is hard to imagine but things are never so bad they can’t get worse.
Liberal AND Proud @ 27:
Here is the Dem response…
“We are pleased that the President agrees that the time to begin to bring home the troops is near.”
MY rebuttal…”dropping pants…bending over and spreading my asshcheeks”…PPPFFFFFFFFFFFT
at this point bush has no option but to keep this war going untill or if a democrats elected preznit, after all hows he going to fill up his depleated coffers giveing speaches to the brain dead repukes oh he can make a buck or two if we leave now but that would be cut and run and the repigs dont pay much for speaches from a looser who was preznit! bush wants the big bucks!
How exactly would it make us safer by attacking a country that couldn’t attack us?
Iraq is a country that TWICE would not defend itself, yet somehow reich-wingers “think” that Iraq was a threat. You f**cking morans [sic].
CafeenMan @ 30:
The General wants to be the Head of the Joint Chiefs. He figures if he plays his cards right, sucks the President’s ass, and sells his soul…he’ll get that nice fat promotion he wants. You think you get your stars by being a leader? It’s like any other career…20% talent…80% brownnosing.
Liberal AND Proud @ 11:
I hope he’s having an apoplectic fit in Texas.
JudyLou @ 36:
Don’t threaten me with a good time!!! LOL!
with his family.
Liberal AND Proud @ 35:
I absolutely agree. The whole time I was in (10 years) I felt that army leadership was doing darwin in reverse. Bad leaders picked their own replacements who were almost always worse. My guess is that they wanted to remember as being a better leader.
I’m not a Petraeus fan. I don’t read about him and don’t care about him. I just think that a lot of people are being unduly harsh on him when Iraq isn’t his fault. If he’s a bad leader he could make things over there worse than somebody better but blaming Petraeus for the situation in Iraq and whether or not the mission makes America safer is like opening pandora’s box and then hiring a guy to get it closed and blaming him for not being able to do it when it’s your fault for opening it in the first place.
This question should be pointed directly at Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, not Petraeus.
Even though he’s a general, Petraeus is still just a soldier isn’t he? He follows orders. He may have a personal opinion which differs, like so many others serving in the armed forces, but he still has to do his duty. He’ll have to live with his own actions.
CafeenMan @ 39:
I don’t disagree. But…there are lots of fall guys in the Bush cabal. You’re reputation may get a little tarnished, but the pay is often very good.
This war was over the moment Gen. Petraeus said, “I don’t know!”
That was the Petraeus report…