Giuliani, McCain slam Hillary's 'venom' in Iraq hearings

[no name 1]

Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.

Ah, but he didn't say we could win...read his testimony. He believes that there's a possibility in further success with the reduction of violence in Iraq which is a far cry from the larger conflicts. As one Congressman pointed out to the General, (paraphrased) 'You've acknowledged the competition for resources and power among the different sects as something you hope to convert into non-violent forms'. In other words, the General is not some geopolitical god who can sculpt Iraq into a unified country of peace if the people don't want it and certainly not from the end of a gun barrel. All he can do, militarily is continue to squash violent factions. Gary, can you not see the futility in that? He's counting on political change to coincide with his successful military strategy and that isn't happening. Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

[GaryC 7]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.

Ah, but he didn't say we could win...read his testimony. He believes that there's a possibility in further success with the reduction of violence in Iraq which is a far cry from the larger conflicts. As one Congressman pointed out to the General, (paraphrased) 'You've acknowledged the competition for resources and power among the different sects as something you hope to convert into non-violent forms'. In other words, the General is not some geopolitical god who can sculpt Iraq into a unified country of peace if the people don't want it and certainly not from the end of a gun barrel. All he can do, militarily is continue to squash violent factions. Gary, can you not see the futility in that? He's counting on political change to coincide with his successful military strategy and that isn't happening. Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

So what was the point of the Generals testimony then? He is in charge of the military end of things, not the political end. They brought him up to give an assessment of the military progress in Iraq. All this was just an excuse for the dems to appease their left base at the generals expense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.

Ah, but he didn't say we could win...read his testimony. He believes that there's a possibility in further success with the reduction of violence in Iraq which is a far cry from the larger conflicts. As one Congressman pointed out to the General, (paraphrased) 'You've acknowledged the competition for resources and power among the different sects as something you hope to convert into non-violent forms'. In other words, the General is not some geopolitical god who can sculpt Iraq into a unified country of peace if the people don't want it and certainly not from the end of a gun barrel. All he can do, militarily is continue to squash violent factions. Gary, can you not see the futility in that? He's counting on political change to coincide with his successful military strategy and that isn't happening. Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

So what was the point of the Generals testimony then? He is in charge of the military end of things, not the political end. They brought him up to give an assessment of the military progress in Iraq. All this was just an excuse for the dems to appease their left base at the generals expense.

Well.... Steven is right to point out that the politicians do have to look at the 'whole' picture to decide if a policy is working. The military objectives are only part of that...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.

Ah, but he didn't say we could win...read his testimony. He believes that there's a possibility in further success with the reduction of violence in Iraq which is a far cry from the larger conflicts. As one Congressman pointed out to the General, (paraphrased) 'You've acknowledged the competition for resources and power among the different sects as something you hope to convert into non-violent forms'. In other words, the General is not some geopolitical god who can sculpt Iraq into a unified country of peace if the people don't want it and certainly not from the end of a gun barrel. All he can do, militarily is continue to squash violent factions. Gary, can you not see the futility in that? He's counting on political change to coincide with his successful military strategy and that isn't happening. Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

So what was the point of the Generals testimony then? He is in charge of the military end of things, not the political end. They brought him up to give an assessment of the military progress in Iraq. All this was just an excuse for the dems to appease their left base at the generals expense.

His testimony was relevant, but again, military engagement is only one piece of the puzzle in solving the conflict in Iraq. Gary, I have no doubt in the capability of our military. The issue has to do with the will of the Iraqi people and their current government. The cold hard reality is that in terms of that huge piece of the puzzle, there is no military answer for it. Do you agree or disagree?

[GaryC 7]

So all of you and the Senators know more about what is going on in Iraq than the General in charge? Hardly. Face it, the real reason for the attacks by the dems is because they have been shouting out about how we can't win or how we already have lost. Any good news must be put down out of their own political survival. Things may not be rosey in Iraq but it is improving. But in order to cover their own butts the dems must make it look as bad as they can. That is the real bottom line here.

Ah, but he didn't say we could win...read his testimony. He believes that there's a possibility in further success with the reduction of violence in Iraq which is a far cry from the larger conflicts. As one Congressman pointed out to the General, (paraphrased) 'You've acknowledged the competition for resources and power among the different sects as something you hope to convert into non-violent forms'. In other words, the General is not some geopolitical god who can sculpt Iraq into a unified country of peace if the people don't want it and certainly not from the end of a gun barrel. All he can do, militarily is continue to squash violent factions. Gary, can you not see the futility in that? He's counting on political change to coincide with his successful military strategy and that isn't happening. Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

So what was the point of the Generals testimony then? He is in charge of the military end of things, not the political end. They brought him up to give an assessment of the military progress in Iraq. All this was just an excuse for the dems to appease their left base at the generals expense.

His testimony was relevant, but again, military engagement is only one piece of the puzzle in solving the conflict in Iraq. Gary, I have no doubt in the capability of our military. The issue has to do with the will of the Iraqi people and their current government. The cold hard reality is that in terms of that huge piece of the puzzle, there is no military answer for it. Do you agree or disagree?

Thats not the point here. Hillary and the rest of the dems all made speeches before asking questions of the General about how the are not going to believe him. If they didn't want his opinion or they had already made up their minds on how things were going then why have him there at all? It seems to me they just wanted a forum to appeal to their base is all.

[no name 1]

They brought him up to give an assessment of the military progress in Iraq. All this was just an excuse for the dems to appease their left base at the generals expense.

And for the Reps to kiss his butt, therefore appeasing their right.

"Well, thank heavens Barack Obama was not president over the last year, because had Barack Obama been president over the last year, Osama bin Laden would have been declaring victory in Iraq," the former Massachusetts governor (Romney) said in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel.

---

"What Hillary Clinton did here, accusing General Petraeus of a willing suspension of disbelief when -- you can disagree with General Petraeus, but you can do it without this kind of name-calling," said the former New York mayor.

Edited September 13, 2007 by devilette

[garya505 2]

I thought her questioning was pathetic. She went way beyond what I would expect from someone wanting to be the President of the United States.