Comments on: [Update] Defeatists Preempt Petraeus as Liar…Again

By: “You will never stand as tall as free men and women!” « HELLO IRAQ

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:31:52 +0000

[...] [Update] Defeatists Preempt Petraeus as Liarâ€¦Again [...]

By: steve culpepper

steve culpepper — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:05:22 +0000

like all issues in the u.s.everything is politized, us agianst them. the general is a mouthpiece of the idiot and chief.

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:19:31 +0000

SSgtJ, Those individuals who are making the accusation should consider a myriad of issues. How do you know the intent of a man’s actions? Now, as we begin to consider these accusations, how do we prove them? Opinions are like a rectum, everybody has one. In many cases, the output is of equal value at both ends. You claim people believe that General Petraeus “misrepresented the facts.” Do you realize how serious this would be? First, even POTUS can not order him to shade the opinions, even just a little. This is BY LAW, both Military and Federal Law is construed as an unlawful order. To do so, would be construed as a violation of the “Code of Honor”, UCMJ and U.S. Code. Everything he says or does is recorded and must be accurate or it is a violation of Law. You would then need to find “material evidence”. Now this evidence must meet the standards of “The Military Laws of Evidence” AND “The Laws of Evidence of the United States Court”. Now, this is the reason why the General will give it his best shot.

It is important to realize a few things, we need to ask some serious questions. To those making the accusations, Do you know more than General Petraeus about the whole picture of the overall “battle space?” Until you do know with evidence, it might be best to be silent. -Grumpy

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:00:37 +0000

Grumpy, that is correct. A lie is an intent to deceive. Whether you intentionally misrepresent what I say, or offer ‘facts’ that you know are wrong, then it is a lie. Clearly, there are some who have accused General Petreaous of intentionally misrepresenting the facts in Iraq. Does that NOT count as an acusation of lying?

CF, nothing I said infers that the aclu upset me at all. Only that I don’t think very much of their political agenda. What would their track record regarding republicans or democrats have to do with ME? You have posted here enough to know that I am neither.

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:55:34 +0000

CF, SSgtJ, both of you, I would suggest one thing, be careful of the use of the label, “liar.” The term carries with it an intent to deceive for any reason. Then and only then should the term, even be considered. This means they know the facts and intentionally state otherwise, this is the standard of measurement.

Just something to consider.

Grumpy

By: Critical Facts

Critical Facts — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:20:42 +0000

SSgt:

I think our definitions of the word “liar” are somewhat different.

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:34:08 +0000

cf … “but that Dems are tired of hearing “truth” that contradicts everything they hear and see from all other sources.”

Sounds like you are calling some one a liar …

By: Critical Facts

Critical Facts — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:34:27 +0000

Sorry that you feel we cannot converse, SSgt. But then again, when you read my posts as somehow calling your fellow soldiers and relatives liars, when I have never done such a thing, then I can see we may indeed have difficulty conversing.

At any rate, throughout the ages, soldiers have always been considered pawns of their political leaders, so I don’t really understand your objection to the statement.

Moreover, what has the ACLU done to upset you so much. A quick review of the cases taken on by the ACLU should immediately reveal that they take cases that go against the stands of both republicans and democrats – which is one good sign that the aclu is fairly even handed when it picks and chooses which cases to take.

Now, how about that surge … ? Do you agree it is working?

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:02:40 +0000

Isn’t what Pelosi is doing, extortion or something? She is apparently threatening an Army Officer …

By: SSgtJ

SSgtJ — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:01:15 +0000

There you go again, CF. And to think, I once thought I could have a meaningfull discussion with you …

You NOW claim that General Petreaus is a ‘political pawn’ for the President! You know that the Critical Actual FACT’s PROVE that General Petreaus actually disagreed with the President, with Rumsfield and the way the war in Iraq was being conducted in 2006. Wasn’t he one of the high ranking officials who Ms Pelosie said disagreed with Rummy’s ‘continue the course’ program. This General was even confirmed 84-0 by democrates and republicans alike. Now you hate him because he works for President Bush. How sad.

CF, you are starting to sound like a political pawn hired by the aclu to discredit anything American.

I (for one) am getting very tired of YOU calling my SON a liar. Tired of YOU calling my Nephew a liar. Tired of YOU calling my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Maines liars.