Gen. Patreus does not know if success in Iraq will make America safer

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
All these replies and nobody even bothered to quote Petraeus's response. What a surprise.

"Sir I don?t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in my own mind. What I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq."

It's not Petraeus's job to focus on whether America is safer. It's his job to focus on what he is doing in Iraq. Seeing as Warner is practically senile though it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Exactly. Not GEN Patreus job to defend America. Maybe in some nebulous general sense, because he took an oath when he was commissioned in the Army to do so, but that isn't his specific job as commander in Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is grossly oversimplifying things.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Gen Patreus has been assigned as the front man for Bush's policy in Iraq. Sen Warner this afternoon asked if success in Iraq will make America safer. Patreus said he doesn't know!

Be honest now, if he said yes would you believe him?

Really, there is no response he could give to that question that would not be met without some negative comment one way or another.

We are in Iraq because we came to remove a threat and now have to make sure we don't leave one behind. Its not another Vietnam, how the Democrats would love to have something to take over top spot for their big blunder - Iraq will not be it.

You're right, it will be Iraq & Iran :(
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.
So you do understand, but you don't care. As long as someone can slime Petraeus by using a rhetorical device it's perfectly OK in your book. Figures. You give quite an apt demonstration of the level of class somethe anti-war peeps have, which is none at all.

Thanks for the demo. :roll:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
His job is Iraq, not the American political future or security as a politican may define it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
On the news last night this was discussed. Apparently the general said it, then said it was a question above his pay grade status, and then said finally that we would be in greater danger. So his final position makes this thread a non issue, right? Of course the news could be wrong though again I know what I heard.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Last night on the news they said the general said this then said it was a question above his pay scale and then that we would be less safe.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the news last night this was discussed. Apparently the general said it, then said it was a question above his pay grade status, and then said finally that we would be in greater danger. So his final position makes this thread a non issue, right? Of course the news could be wrong though again I know what I heard.
He amended his statement after the White House got to him. He made no comments about pay grade during the original questioning by Sen Warner.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.

Should generals be generals, or should they dwell on (and possibly make decisions on) the larger political picture?

Ask Bush about how Iraq is going and he will defer to his "generals". Ask the generals and it's not their job to know??

Yeah, wake up and smell the roses people!!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Ask Bush about how Iraq is going and he will defer to his "generals". Ask the generals and it's not their job to know??

Yeah, wake up and smell the roses people!!


It is not their job to know the big picture outside of their theatre of operations.

Outside Iraq (re the US), it becomes the politicians and Homeland Insecurity.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
Well at least he was being honest.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.
Yeah they should say "Ill Conceived" as it made our War on Terror that much more difficult.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.

Oh yeah, the WMD. And where are they? There is a great difference in using a pretext to justify something and having real justification. What you speak of are those responsible for lies.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
The general did not use above pay grade in his first answer. That was later according to the news.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
Except the general didn't just say "I don't know." Taking what was said in its entirety and in context he said precisely what he should have said. It's not his mission right now to be focused on the bigger picture. His task is taming Iraq and he made it explicitly clear that is exactly what he is doing:

"What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq."

And he's doing a damn fine job at it too.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Except the general didn't just say "I don't know." Taking what was said in its entirety and in context he said precisely what he should have said. It's not his mission right now to be focused on the bigger picture. His task is taming Iraq and he made it explicitly clear that is exactly what he is doing:

"What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq."

Exactly!
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. "You may not like this, but it's how we justified war." That's all well and good, but simply using something as a justification for action does not make it true. Let's say I accuse you of raping my sister and use it as a justification to physically assault you. You may not have raped my sister... in fact, come to think of it, I don't even have a sister... but I used that as a justification to attack you, so like it or not, I'm attacking you. Nothing illegal about that right?

The point is, if the justification is demonstrably false (and the WMDs have been thoroughly and completely discredited over the last four and a half years), that leaves you without justification. A war without justification is illegal, ergo people calling this an illegal war. So really, the responsible people in this nation are the ones who realize that Bush & Co royally screwed the pooch by unjustly invading a sovereign nation.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
Except the general didn't just say "I don't know." Taking what was said in its entirety and in context he said precisely what he should have said. It's not his mission right now to be focused on the bigger picture. His task is taming Iraq and he made it explicitly clear that is exactly what he is doing:

"What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq."

And he's doing a damn fine job at it too.

I don't see how claiming to be focused on and being riveted on accomplishing a mission that ultimately may not make us any safer is a good response. Though I agree it appears he is accomplishing what his mission parameters were. But taken in it's entirety the paraphrase would read "I don't know (because I haven't thought about it) if what I'm doing makes us any safer, but I'm damned sure going to accomplish it!"
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
Except the general didn't just say "I don't know." Taking what was said in its entirety and in context he said precisely what he should have said. It's not his mission right now to be focused on the bigger picture. His task is taming Iraq and he made it explicitly clear that is exactly what he is doing:

"What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq."

And he's doing a damn fine job at it too.

I don't see how claiming to be focused on and being riveted on accomplishing a mission that ultimately may not make us any safer is a good response. Though I agree it appears he is accomplishing what his mission parameters were. But taken in it's entirety the paraphrase would read "I don't know (because I haven't thought about it) if what I'm doing makes us any safer, but I'm damned sure going to accomplish it!"
It's not within his purview to comment on whether america is safer or not. He has not been tasked with that greater consideration, he has been tasked to accomplish a specific subset of tasks that function within that framework. It's his boss's job to determine whether America is safer and comment on that issue. The question was a pure setup, a bogus question, and Warner had no business asking it of Petraeus in the first place. Maybe he thought he was being clever or sly but it merely came off as moronic and misplaced.

But I suppose it's the best that can be expected of some over-the-hill geezer who's in the process of segueing into senility.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The entire relevant exchange with Sen. Warner and Patraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.
---------------------------------------------

I think Patraeus could have responded to the question in many ways, but the two that make the most sense to me are: what he believes, and what the empirical result will be.

As to his belief, he could have stated he believed that a stable Iraq would be beneficial to the security of the United States, while a chaotic Iraq could provide a terrorist haven, as well as a black mark on the US for having created such a cesspool, and thus make the US less safe. And frankly, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Or he could have stated that 'safety' is not some measurable metric, but that pursuing the current strategy is the right and necessary thing to do.

I think "i don't know" leaves a lot of people cold. It's not very encouraging to hear, even if true.
Except the general didn't just say "I don't know." Taking what was said in its entirety and in context he said precisely what he should have said. It's not his mission right now to be focused on the bigger picture. His task is taming Iraq and he made it explicitly clear that is exactly what he is doing:

"What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq."

And he's doing a damn fine job at it too.

I don't see how claiming to be focused on and being riveted on accomplishing a mission that ultimately may not make us any safer is a good response. Though I agree it appears he is accomplishing what his mission parameters were. But taken in it's entirety the paraphrase would read "I don't know (because I haven't thought about it) if what I'm doing makes us any safer, but I'm damned sure going to accomplish it!"
It's not within his purview to comment on whether america is safer or not. He has not been tasked with that greater consideration, he has been tasked to accomplish a specific subset of tasks that function within that framework. It's his boss's job to determine whether America is safer and comment on that issue. The question was a pure setup, a bogus question, and Warner had no business asking it of Petraeus in the first place. Maybe he thought he was being clever or sly but it merely came off as moronic and misplaced.

But I suppose it's the best that can be expected of some over-the-hill geezer who's in the process of segueing into senility.

Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
I already lauded a Republican (Hagel) who asked Petraeus some tough questions that actually specifically had to do with Iraq and Petraeus's mission there. Hagel was very good; excellent even. His questions were far superior to some of the talking point idiocy and obvious fringe pandering that came out of the mouths of a few Dimocrats.

So despite your mighty swing with that attempted snarky comment, you got nuttin' but air, dude. :)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
It is perfectly reasonable to ask a person who has been on the ground and in possession of all the facts that can be had and has some intelligence his opinion on this.

He may say he doesn't know, but to say he doesn't know because he doesn't think about it isn't credible. Of course he's thought about it. He isn't that stupid.

No matter. He can't know. There was no significant threat to the US before the war, nothing suggests what we are doing is making things better (or worse for that matter, at least for the moment).

The only person who "knows" is Bush and that's because he's a bit crazy.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
I already lauded a Republican (Hagel) who asked Petraeus some tough questions that actually specifically had to do with Iraq and Petraeus's mission there. Hagel was very good; excellent even. His questions were far superior to some of the talking point idiocy and obvious fringe pandering that came out of the mouths of a few Dimocrats.

So despite your mighty swing with that attempted snarky comment, you got nuttin' but air, dude. :)

:thumbsup:

"To question your government is not unpatriotic ? to not question your government is unpatriotic."

"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

"There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq"

"One thing we cannot continue to do, the American people won't allow it, the Congress won't, is to continue to put our men and women in the middle of a civil war. Our policies should be worthy of the sacrifices our men and women make. It is not today. It is not a workable policy. So that means we're going to have to shift."

"There's no question that this administration, certainly almost everyone at the top from the president and the vice president on down--I think Colin Powell was the only one that pushed back. This administration wanted to go to war with Saddam. They were not prepared. They got us into a lot of trouble. They have done great damage to our standing in the world, to our military, to our own interests, to our influence."

An honest Republican

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: