Sen. Lantos (D-CA) calls Gen. Patraeus a liar on Senate floor

[Little-Acorn]

And that was BEFORE Petraeus even started giving his report.

Democrats are starting to get hysterical. There have been rumors for months that the "troop surge" is working - that is, Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq are being defeated, and that more and more Iraqis of all religious denominations are coming over to support the U.S. effort to stabilize the country and turn it over to its permanent residents.

This works directly against the Democrat agenda, which for six years has been to trash every move George Bush has made, call the President everything from a buffoon to a traitor with no evidence to prove their rants, and declare useless every initiative by the Bush administration, often before the initiative has even been tried. The leading Senate Democrat has even declared the war lost on the Senate floor.

Naturally, news that we are winning, destroys much of this agenda. So, rather than be happy to hear of American success, the Democrats are now denigrating and smearing the very man they had voted unanimously to put in place earlier. These smears may have hit rock bottom this morning, when Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) publicly told Gen. Petraeus at the start of the hearing, that he considered any statement to the effect that things are going better in Iraq, to be lies and that he wouldn't "buy it". He made that announcement before Petraeus had even begun to give his report.

It's hard to imagine a worse insult to an active three-star general in the U.S Armed Forces, except maybe to call him a traitor. Of course, MoveOn.org has called him exactly that, but no one listens to unelected leftist kooks. Leftist kooks like Lantos are a different matter, though.

How long can the Democrat party keep acting like political terrorists whose only mission is to obstruct, lie, and destroy, before they cease to be a viable party altogether, shunned by everyone except the leftist kooks?

----------------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-09-10T171133Z_01_L02535730_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

Petraeus hearing starts with Democratic criticism

Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:11pm ET
by Arshad Mohammed and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus appeared before the U.S. Congress on Monday to give testimony in which he was expected to argue against withdrawing the bulk of U.S. forces from Iraq for now.

Appearing with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Petraeus listened to deep skepticism from the Democrats who seized control of Congress last year largely because of the profound discontent with the war among American voters.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, began the hearing by telling Petraeus the Iraq war had left the United States unable to confront other challenges.

"The troops in Iraq are not available for other missions; to go into Afghanistan to pursue Osama bin Laden" whose al Qaeda militant group attacked the United States six years ago on Tuesday, Skelton said.

"The administration's myopic policies in Iraq have created a fiasco," added House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat. "The administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand... I don't buy it."

[retiredman]

take a civics class.

There is no senator lantos from california.

Fienstein and Boxer.

that's it.

[BoogyMan]

Well said Little-Acorn! I had to turn off the TV for a while to cool down, this has been a sad sorry day for the country. I truly admire Petraeus for sitting there as a dignified officer of the military and representative of what is actually going on in Iraq and took that vituprious prattle without batting an eye and without feeding Lantos his teeth.

[BoogyMan]

He is a representative from California manfrommaine, do you support the prattle that Lantos pulled out on Petraeus today?

[retiredman]

I am fully aware who he is.... I took civics and I know a great deal about Tom Lantos.

Do I approve of congressmen disrespecting flag officers? Absolutely not.

Does congress have any past history with generals spouting the administration party line [cough-Westmoreland-cough]???

[Little-Acorn]

There is no senator lantos from california.

Oops, sorry. I stand corrected, and I have changed it.

I guess I'm not surprised that the only thing the resident leftist kook can find wrong with my comments, is that I gave Lantos the wrong title. It must be disheartening to have so little of your own agenda that you can support when the time comes. At least you're no longer even trying to support it. That's progress.

[retiredman]

It is funny to see people who know little to nothing about my political philosophy call me a "resident leftist kook" simply because of my well reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I am a VERY moderate democrat on a whole host of domestic issues.... but what do YOU know? or care?

[glockmail]

And that was BEFORE Petraeus even started giving his report.... Welcome back home General. Such is where the Democrats are right now. Too bad we couldn't line 'em all up against the wall.

[stephanie]

I am glad the Democrats are acting like they are..

They were given a chance in 06 to prove they are capable to protect us and the country, and they've been blowing it ever since...

The American people needed this reminder...

See ya in 2008...:cheers2:

[BoogyMan]

I am fully aware who he is.... I took civics and I know a great deal about Tom Lantos.

Do I approve of congressmen disrespecting flag officers? Absolutely not.

Does congress have any past history with generals spouting the administration party line [cough-Westmoreland-cough]???

So you ARE calling Petraeus a liar then, right manfrommaine?

[glockmail]

It is funny to see people who know little to nothing about my political philosophy call me a "resident leftist kook" simply because of my well reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I am a VERY moderate democrat on a whole host of domestic issues.... but what do YOU know? or care?
We don't. You're just one more liberal asshole taking up space and spewing carbon.

[typomaniac]

What Lantos said is clear enough:

1. You're trying to convince us that XYZ is true.
2. I do not (now) believe that XYZ is true.

Those statements, even taken together, certainly do not amount to calling someone a liar.

The only liar here is the Little-Nut who wrote the headline. (And glock, who just does it out of pathology.)

[retiredman]

So you ARE calling Petraeus a liar then, right manfrommaine?

you really are as numb as a pounded thumb aren't you? Can you READ? Where is the world did I EVER call Petraeus a liar? I am really close to putting you on the ignore list just because you seem incapable of understanding english.

[BoogyMan]

you really are as numb as a pounded thumb aren't you? Can you READ? Where is the world did I EVER call Petraeus a liar? I am really close to putting you on the ignore list just because you seem incapable of understanding english.

Does the quote below ring any bells my cranio-rectally inverted adversary?


Does congress have any past history with generals spouting the administration party line [cough-Westmoreland-cough]???

[retiredman]

Does the quote below ring any bells my cranio-rectally inverted adversary?


sure. I wrote it. nowhere in that quote do I call Petraeus a liar. I merely point out that congress certainly has a reason to be skeptical.

Now.... do you wanna perhaps rethink your question?

[BoogyMan]

sure. I wrote it. nowhere in that quote do I call Petraeus a liar. I merely point out that congress certainly has a reason to be skeptical.

Now.... do you wanna perhaps rethink your question?

Are you capable of seeing how your commentary could possibly be a sideways shot at Petraeus. It sure sounded like that was your intent. :poke:

[glockmail]

Boogy you're expecting maineman to act with honor. Stop wasting your time. He might just come through with his threat to put you on ignore. *gasp*

[retiredman]

Are you capable of seeing how your commentary could possibly be a sideways shot at Petraeus. It sure sounded like that was your intent. :poke:

no..the question is: Are YOU capable of reading simple english and realizing that nowhere in my words did I ever call Petraeus a liar?

I believe that congress has a right to be skeptical. I do not suggest that Petraeus did or would lie.

YOu are wrong. and you are incapable of admitting it.

keep tapdancing....

[BoogyMan]

Anyone will a fully functioning set of frontal lobes would have been able to craft a sentance in such a way as to avoid such a misunderstanding manfrommaine.

Thanks for playing.

[retiredman]

Anyone will a fully functioning set of frontal lobes would have been able to craft a sentance in such a way as to avoid such a misunderstanding manfrommaine.

Thanks for playing.

I don't intend to dumb down my sentences to the My Weekly Reader level just so I avoid confusing you. I maintain that generals have spewed administration party line bullshit to congress in the past....congress has every right to be skeptical of such testimony in the future. NOWHERE do i EVER even remotely suggest that Petraeus is not truthful.....

I ain't playing.

and I am just about done with you

[glockmail]

I don't intend to dumb down my sentences to the My Weekly Reader level just so I avoid confusing you. I maintain that generals have spewed administration party line bullshit to congress in the past....congress has every right to be skeptical of such testimony in the future. NOWHERE do i EVER even remotely suggest that Petraeus is not truthful.....

I ain't playing.

and I am just about done with you So were you accusing Westmoreland of lying as well?

[Dilloduck]

no..the question is: Are YOU capable of reading simple english and realizing that nowhere in my words did I ever call Petraeus a liar?

I believe that congress has a right to be skeptical. I do not suggest that Petraeus did or would lie.

YOu are wrong. and you are incapable of admitting it.

keep tapdancing....

They should have excercised thier skepticism when they were voting on his approval.

[retiredman]

why should they have been skeptical of his ability to lead men in battle? that is a silly statement.

[Dilloduck]

why should they have been skeptical of his ability to lead men in battle? that is a silly statement.

If they were skeptical of his ability to return with an honest assesment they should have expressed it by voting at the appropriate time. Democrats can't plead insanity everytime they feel mistreated---or can they? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

they weren't confirming him for the job of congressional briefer.

and I have never suggested that there was anything about Petraeus that would make congress skeptical....I have suggested that there is something inherent in the act of any flag officer being being ordered by the president to carry the administration's water to capitol hill that invites skepticism.

[Dilloduck]

they weren't confirming him for the job of congressional briefer.

and I have never suggested that there was anything about Petraeus that would make congress skeptical....I have suggested that there is something inherent in the act of any flag officer being being ordered by the president to carry the administration's water to capitol hill that invites skepticism.

Bullshit--read what Levin said about him at the confirmation hearings. Trying to portray the democrats recent actions as innocent skepticism is hillarious.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and critic of Bush's strategy, said Petraeus must keep a promise to report on whether it was working.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2522267420070126

[glockmail]

they weren't confirming him for the job of congressional briefer.

and I have never suggested that there was anything about Petraeus that would make congress skeptical....I have suggested that there is something inherent in the act of any flag officer being being ordered by the president to carry the administration's water to capitol hill that invites skepticism.

I'm confused. What side of your ass are you arguing from here?

[Dilloduck]

I'm confused. What side of your ass are you arguing from here?

It's merely another attempt by democrats to avoid taking responsibilty. I voted for--then I voted against. I trusted him--then I didn't. bla bla bla

[waterrescuedude2000]

Lantos needs to go back to Hungary were he came from. Fuck that anti american stinko left wing kook jackass.

[BoogyMan]

I don't intend to dumb down my sentences to the My Weekly Reader level just so I avoid confusing you. I maintain that generals have spewed administration party line bullshit to congress in the past....congress has every right to be skeptical of such testimony in the future. NOWHERE do i EVER even remotely suggest that Petraeus is not truthful.....

I ain't playing.

and I am just about done with you

I guess writing is not a strong suit for you, it honestly seemed as if you were taking a cheap shot at Petraeus. Oh well. Please be done with me, PLEASE??? :lol:

[Little-Acorn]

It's always a hoot to see these leftist wingnuts twist themselves into pretzel shapes, invoking Kerry-like "nuances" to try to pretend they said something other than what they said. No wonder nobody listens to them any more.

Back to the subject:
What goes around is now starting to come around. The Democrats have invested their entire party in an agenda of bashing Bush for anything and everything he does, no matter whether good (judicial appointments, tax cuts, sticking with the war against terrorists and the countries that support them) or bad (govt spending, signing CFR, having the wrong facial expression when told about the 9/11 attacks).

Now that the enemy in Iraq is starting to lose, all the Dems' screeching insistence that Bush can't do anything right, is in danger of being shown for the lies they always were. And the Dems can't tolerate such a thing: Their entire agenda depends on people NOT finding out how hollow and disingenuous they are. One crack in the dam will result in a flood that will destroy them, and they know it.

Hence the kind of hysterical denial that Lantos displayed, thrown up earlier and earlier until they are spewing it out before reports even come out. Such frantic pre-denial is common on boards like this one, of course, from people like Mainman who have no responsibilities to protect, dignity to shield, or factual basis to respect. Understandably, it only shows up later in elected officials who still have some shreds of a reputation they haven't yet thrown away (well, some of them, I don't include Shiela Jackson Lee or Ted Kennedy here). But show up it will, sooner or later... and now appears to be the time when their desperate denials, accusations, and smears penetrate their facade of decency.

It hasn't been comfortable to be a Democrat for a while now. Too much is unravelling, too many promises are being shown as unfulfilled, too much truth has been coming out about the utter failure of their agenda and philosophy. Unfortunately for those who keep sticking to the party, it will only get worse.

[Sitarro]

I guess writing is not a strong suit for you, it honestly seemed as if you were taking a cheap shot at Petraeus. Oh well. Please be done with me, PLEASE??? :lol:

I heard he wrote the book called....... " Fifty ways to cook Navy beans and have them taste exactly the same each time".:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Oh and of course he was taking a cheap shot at General Petraeus.

[typomaniac]

It's always a hoot to see these leftist wingnuts twist themselves into pretzel shapes, invoking Kerry-like "nuances" to try to pretend they said something other than what they said. No wonder nobody listens to them any more.
And it's always a "hoot" to see your butt buddies get busted in airport bathrooms. :pee:

[avatar4321]

And it's always a "hoot" to see your butt buddies get busted in airport bathrooms. :pee:

do you know more than one person this has happened to?

Didnt think so.

[typomaniac]

do you know more than one person this has happened to?

Didnt think so.

I would guess that it HAS happened to more than one person. What does it matter whether I know any of them personally? :confused: