Paul Labels Petraeus Hearings 'Politicking'

[Taco John]

Paul: U.S. Has 'Dug a Hole' for Itself in Iraq
GOP Hopeful Says 'Bad Policy' a Major Reason for 9/11 Attacks

By NITYA VENKATARAMAN
Sept. 11, 2007

While several of his 2008 rivals spent the sixth anniversary of 9/11 in congressional panels debating the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Republican presidential candidate, declared at a policy forum that the United States has "dug a hole for [itself]" in Iraq.

Paul described Iraq as a "preemptive war" saying it was a "planned invasion and occupation" of a "country that was no threat to us whatsoever."

Part of the reasoning behind invading Iraq, Paul said, was "to have another excuse to keep the military industrial complex going."


Paul Labels Petraeus Hearings 'Politicking'

What might seem like bold rhetoric from the fiery Texas Republican on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was actually nothing new for Paul: His assertions at the Johns Hopkins University discussion were consistent with his presidential platform and congressional career, both of which draw heavily from libertarian and constitutionalist ideals.

Of the Petraeus report and the congressional hearings, Paul told ABC News, "I think it's a lot of politicking" and "grandstanding of both parties."

Paul said the general's testimony, which will be used by President Bush to outline the future strategy in Iraq, missed its mark by not addressing what he deems "the real issues in Iraq" -- policy and financing.

"If we as Republicans want to change things, we have to deal with the authority the president was given -- we have to remove that -- and we have to remove the financing, which we could do," Paul said. "But this tinkering around with how many soldiers are there and whether there's progress or not -- I think it's kind of missing the whole point."

Paul's Take on 9/11

Though considerably lesser known among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Paul's swell of grass-roots and Web-savvy supporters, strict anti-abortion rights philosophy and challenges to party dogma surrounding the war fuel fire and debate in the conservative spectrum.

Paul's remarks on the 9/11 attacks during a May debate in South Carolina were revisited during Tuesday's event. The congressman made national headlines when he linked the 9/11 attacks to previous U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said during the debate hosted by Fox News and the South Carolina GOP.

Paul suggested at the time that "we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani pounced on Paul's comments, calling them "extraordinary" and demanded a retraction.

Paul shot back, "If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem."

On Tuesday, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Paul was asked to clarify who was to blame for 9/11. Paul said "bad policy is a major participant in it" but added the "ultimate moral responsibility falls on the people who committed the ultimate crime."

Throughout his remarks, Paul reiterated his support of "nonintevention over moral superiority" but argued that he was far from an isolationist, drawing on the founding fathers and Constitution for support in his belief that the United States should embrace opportunities for free trade but should "stay out of internal affairs [of other countries], stay out of entangling alliances."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3586588&page=1

[defenseman]

I do have a question for Mr. Paul? Will he stop iran from getting a nuke, yes or no. Second, if iran does get a nuke, what action does he believe they will take with it? Left unchecked, they'll get there is a reasonably short period of time I'm guessing at this point. I would like to hear his answers on those two questions..dman

[Bronco Bob]

I do have a question for Mr. Paul? Will he stop iran from getting a nuke, yes or no. Second, if iran does get a nuke, what action does he believe they will take with it? Left unchecked, they'll get there is a reasonably short period of time I'm guessing at this point. I would like to hear his answers on those two questions..dman

By nuke, can I assume you mean a nuclear bomb and not just a nuclear power plant for generating electricity?

That sort of begs the question if Iran even wants a nuclear bomb or is working on making one.

So far there is no evidence of either.

In fact the IAEA recently issued a report on Iran that disputed this notion:

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the U.N. nuclear watchdog had a reasonable timetable for Iran to come clean on past nuclear activities, but detractors were not giving the IAEA's efforts a chance to work.

ElBaradei called for an end to the pounding of the "war drums from those who are basically saying 'the solution is bomb Iran.'" He warned against rhetoric that is "a reminder of pre-war Iraq" in comments to reporters in Vienna.

"We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we received any information to that effect — no smoking gun or information from intelligence," he said. "Based on the evidence, we have, we do not see ... a clear and present danger that requires that you go beyond diplomacy."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j74KdFXEJ3wKTIq1_bTf5lDf_39Q

[Taco John]

I do have a question for Mr. Paul? Will he stop iran from getting a nuke, yes or no. Second, if iran does get a nuke, what action does he believe they will take with it? Left unchecked, they'll get there is a reasonably short period of time I'm guessing at this point. I would like to hear his answers on those two questions..dman


Ron Paul is worried about Iran getting a nuke, but believes that our policy is only provoking them further. Rather than going to war with a nation roughly the size of Idaho, with about the same GDP, he would like to see the US to stop playing the role of world policeman and allow for Isreal to handle the situation with their neighbors without needing permission from us to defend their own national soverignty.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I do have a question for Mr. Paul? Will he stop iran from getting a nuke, yes or no. Second, if iran does get a nuke, what action does he believe they will take with it? Left unchecked, they'll get there is a reasonably short period of time I'm guessing at this point. I would like to hear his answers on those two questions..dmanNo one can stop them short of starting another war and invading them if they want to build one. Who has the right to do that, God?

[Rigs11]

I do have a question for Mr. Paul? Will he stop iran from getting a nuke, yes or no. Second, if iran does get a nuke, what action does he believe they will take with it? Left unchecked, they'll get there is a reasonably short period of time I'm guessing at this point. I would like to hear his answers on those two questions..dman

North korea has nukes, so does pakistan. What is this fear that you have over Iran having nukes?What have they done that worries you so?And before you bring up them saying they want to destroy israel it's all talk.north korea said the same thing about the US. Look how diplomacy worked there.

[Rohirrim]

We should also keep in mind that an atomic bomb does not an ICBM make.

[Taco John]

No one can stop them short of starting another war and invading them if they want to build one. Who has the right to do that, God?



If Iran's official policy is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, I would personally make the argument that Israel does.

The United States, however, has no jurisdiction in the matter.

[Rohirrim]

Ted Koppel did a piece pointing out that the draw down had to take place by Spring out of military necessity (due to the sorry state of our armed forces) and the Bush regime, through Petraeus, is just pretending it is due to the success of the surge. It's a dog and pony show. The only troops that will be drawn down will be the 30 thousand they put in for the surge. They will continue to call them up as replacements down the road. They have no intention of ever pulling out of Iraq.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If Iran's official policy is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, I would personally make the argument that Israel does.
The United States, however, has no jurisdiction in the matter.
The right to kill them first (on the suspicion that Iran will try and kill them)?

[alkemical]

Ted Koppel did a piece pointing out that the draw down had to take place by Spring out of military necessity (due to the sorry state of our armed forces) and the Bush regime, through Petraeus, is just pretending it is due to the success of the surge. It's a dog and pony show. The only troops that will be drawn down will be the 30 thousand they put in for the surge. They will continue to call them up as replacements down the road. They have no intention of ever pulling out of Iraq.

nor afg. Which really what good is that doing. Opium production is at an all time *smacks arm* high

[Taco John]

The right to kill them first (on the suspicion that Iran will try and kill them)?



I'm not talking about suspicion. I'm talking about policy.

If Iran has a policy to wipe Israel off the face of the map, it's my opinion that Israel has the right to take defensive measures to prevent that from happening in order to protect their national soverignty. Iran can protect themselves by maintaining peacable policies.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not talking about suspicion. I'm talking about policy.

If Iran has a policy to wipe Israel off the face of the map, it's my opinion that Israel has the right to take defensive measures to prevent that from happening in order to protect their national soverignty. Iran can protect themselves by maintaining peacable policies.You're talking about a lunatic who currently is the president (with limited power). The mullahs (Shiites) control that country (and the military).

[alkemical]

You're talking about a lunatic who currently is the president (with limited power).

heh - that's funny - ;)

[mhgaffney]

If Iran's official policy is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, I would personally make the argument that Israel does.

The United States, however, has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Iran's President made some inflammatory statements -- but he did NOT say Israel should be wiped from the map. His statement was mis translated by our pro Zionist media and is being used to further inflame the situation.

In fact, Ahmadinejad merely repeated a remark made by one of the former Mullahs -- who called for regime change in Israel. That is very different than calling for the annihilation of Jews.

Regime Change in Israel would be a good thing --

Liars are running our nation and the US media -- people who want another war. According to Ha-aretz, 71% of Israelis also support a wider war against Iran.

If it happens you can kiss good bye the Broncos 2007 run for the Super Bowl -- and a whole lot more.

[Taco John]

Look, I'm not going to pretend to understand Iran's political infrastructure. Which is my point about the original question asked in the first place. The question was brought up about what Ron Paul would do with regards to Iran's ambition to build nukes. I know Ron Paul's answer: leave it to Israel. It's their region, and it's their population who is most affected by it. The average American doesn't understand the politics of the middle-east countries, and even the ones who *do* understand them admit that they are irrational at best.

If in fact, Iran has a policy to wipe Israel off the map, I fully support Israel's right to protect themselves. I don't know that the case has been made there. Honestly, right now I don't care...

The way I see it, it's a local issue for THEM to figure out. If Israel is attacked and needs the support of an ally, I fully support congress having the debate whether we should declare war and go to Israel's aid. Once it's a matter in front of our congress, THAT'S when I'll care about the issue enough to determine for myself what kind of involvement the US should have, and vote accordingly.

[defenseman]

The right to kill them first (on the suspicion that Iran will try and kill them)?

Once it's been utilized, it's too late. What do you do then? Not a damn thing, your done for. Especially a small country like israel. In any case, iran wouldn't overtly take action on israel, they'd provide a weapon to some islamofacists nutcase who would get into israel and become a large scale suicide bomber.
...dman

*I do want to know what mr. paul thinks on this subject. That said, if mr. paul says listen to the islamist extremists on why they are attacking us, then why not give the same creedance to "little hitler" in iran when he overtly threatens israel's right to exist and publically states his goal is to take them out of the picture? Little hitler vs. OBL? One in the same from where I sit.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Once it's been utilized, it's too late. What do you do then? Not a damn thing, your done for. Especially a small country like israel. In any case, iran wouldn't overtly take action on israel, they'd provide a weapon to some islamofacists nutcase who would get into israel and become a large scale suicide bomber.
...dman No kidding? So you think it's cool to destroy another country and it's people on an assumption that they might some day try and destroy you?


*I do want to know what mr. paul thinks on this subject. That said, if mr. paul says listen to the islamist extremists on why they are attacking us, then why not give the same creedance to "little hitler" in iran when he overtly threatens israel's right to exist and publically states his goal is to take them out of the picture? Little hitler vs. OBL? One in the same from where I sit.It's pretty obvious what Paul's position on Iran is.

[defenseman]

He has some interesting takes on where we should go from here. However, I'm thinking he hasn't thought the ME through entirely....dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

However, I'm thinking he hasn't thought the ME through entirely....dman

Oh, the irony... Ha!

[defenseman]

Oh, the irony... Ha!

I take it you have. Sure, whatever you say.....dman

[TailgateNut]

I take it you have. Sure, whatever you say.....dman


I believe he may have eluded to the fact that someone else in power didn't think before he took a leap! Ya know who I mean, don't ya? In fact that particular perpetrator had info to the contrary and still took a leap!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I believe he may have eluded to the fact that someone else in power didn't think before he took a leap! Ya know who I mean, don't ya? In fact that particular perpetrator had info to the contrary and still took a leap!

Ding ding ding! :thumbs:

That "someone else" for whom d-man carries water, to be exact. :D

[Rohirrim]

Look, I'm not going to pretend to understand Iran's political infrastructure. Which is my point about the original question asked in the first place. The question was brought up about what Ron Paul would do with regards to Iran's ambition to build nukes. I know Ron Paul's answer: leave it to Israel. It's their region, and it's their population who is most affected by it. The average American doesn't understand the politics of the middle-east countries, and even the ones who *do* understand them admit that they are irrational at best.

If in fact, Iran has a policy to wipe Israel off the map, I fully support Israel's right to protect themselves. I don't know that the case has been made there. Honestly, right now I don't care...

The way I see it, it's a local issue for THEM to figure out. If Israel is attacked and needs the support of an ally, I fully support congress having the debate whether we should declare war and go to Israel's aid. Once it's a matter in front of our congress, THAT'S when I'll care about the issue enough to determine for myself what kind of involvement the US should have, and vote accordingly.

Except that we also are supposed to honor the contract made between FDR and the Sauds to protect the royal family of Saudi Arabia (which is the largest funder of terrorism against us with the "protection" money they pay the fundamentalists to leave them alone and attack America instead), and the oil contracts (which allowed ExxonMobil to break every profit record known to man last year) by spilling the blood of our people.

This cabal of idiot oil company sycophants, nursed in the incubator of the Carlysle Group during the Clinton years thought, "Oh, how wonderful it would be if we could overthrow Saddam, install a puppet government that will give us the oil contracts of Iraq for perpetuity (thereby shutting out the Russians and Europeans), and have some leverage against the Saudis and OPEC. It will be peachy." After all, they wrote these plans back in 1991. Like Woodward told us, all they said they needed was some king of catalyst to get it going, like 911 for instance.

Of course, once their plan went down the toilet, and once they realized that it isn't the smartest thing to take the advice of "pretend" generals over real generals, they started bailing out. Israel's puppets, Feith and Wolfowitz, have bailed out (Wolfowitz to the plum job at the World Bank). Rumsfeld is gone. Rove is gone. Addison is gone. Cheney is just sitting tight, waiting for his big cash out from Halliburton. Rice will be getting a seat on Exxon's board, no doubt. Bush has always had a satin pillow to land on after his FUs.

But for us, the American people? Our teat is in the wringer. Bush will leave us a Shiite crescent that extends from Iran to Palestine. Russia and China are allied with that crescent, against us. The big question is not where we are going to get our oil, it's where is our military going to get its oil? I suppose the other question is, when will China replace the dollar with the yen? It's bigger than Israel. In six short years, Bush has f'd America worse that any enemy possibly could.

[TailgateNut]

Except that we also are supposed to honor the contract made between FDR and the Sauds to protect the royal family of Saudi Arabia (which is the largest funder of terrorism against us with the "protection" money they pay the fundamentalists to leave them alone and attack America instead), and the oil contracts (which allowed ExxonMobil to break every profit record known to man last year) by spilling the blood of our people.

This cabal of idiot oil company sycophants, nursed in the incubator of the Carlysle Group during the Clinton years thought, "Oh, how wonderful it would be if we could overthrow Saddam, install a puppet government that will give us the oil contracts of Iraq for perpetuity (thereby shutting out the Russians and Europeans), and have some leverage against the Saudis and OPEC. It will be peachy." After all, they wrote these plans back in 1991. Like Woodward told us, all they said they needed was some king of catalyst to get it going, like 911 for instance.

Of course, once their plan went down the toilet, and once they realized that it isn't the smartest thing to take the advice of "pretend" generals over real generals, they started bailing out. Israel's puppets, Feith and Wolfowitz, have bailed out (Wolfowitz to the plum job at the World Bank). Rumsfeld is gone. Rove is gone. Addison is gone. Cheney is just sitting tight, waiting for his big cash out from Halliburton. Rice will be getting a seat on Exxon's board, no doubt. Bush has always had a satin pillow to land on after his FUs.

But for us, the American people? Our teat is in the wringer. Bush will leave us a Shiite crescent that extends from Iran to Palestine. Russia and China are allied with that crescent, against us. The big question is not where we are going to get our oil, it's where is our military going to get its oil? I suppose the other question is, when will China replace the dollar with the yen? It's bigger than Israel. In six short years, Bush has f'd America worse that any enemy possibly could.


Great Post!

[Traveler]

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Wednesday 12 September 2007

Washington - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chicken****" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Wednesday 12 September 2007

Washington - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chicken****" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
Did anyone really think Bush would put someone in charge over there that wasn't kissing his ass?

[Bronco Bob]

Anyone still wondering why Bush didn't send Admiral Fallon to testify before Congress?

[Traveler]

Anyone still wondering why Bush didn't send Admiral Fallon to testify before Congress?

Great sig!

[Rohirrim]

Some Washington insiders were saying that's one of the reasons John Warner went after Petraeus so intensely. For one thing, he's retiring. For another, he has been the voice of many in the Pentagon who, for one reason and another, cannot speak up themselves, but like much of the country, consider Bush a moron, and Petraeus a lapdog. In other words, all those military officers who were allied with all the other officers that Rumsfeld and Bush fired when they didn't agree to be lapdogs. Let's face it, the only people who keep their jobs in the Bush WH are the ones who know how to kiss ass.

"an ass-kissing little chicken****" Ha!