I thought Hillary was supposed to be “our girl” who would stand up against the Right Wing machine?

[Kuni]

The “Right Wing machine” is in full gear over the Move-On Ad; but where is Hillary???

Below are examples of Petraeus many lies over the years on how well it was going in Iraq. Him pointing out all the progress we were making. (And I love his Jan. 2005 comment where he let slip that: “Iraqis must provide for their own security. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish”)

Petraeus is even specifically mentioned by Rumsfeld as one of the General who said that more troops were NOT needed in Iraq.

And I sent the following to Hillary at her site last week (maybe over a week ago); hoping she would be “our girl” when it came to taking on the Right Wing machine. I even tried posting them in one of the “discussions” at her site.

So where is Hillary, using Petraeus’ many lies documented below, to Defend Move-On and take on the Right Wing machine?


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3158
September 14, 2003 . . .

. . . Schieffer: Let me ask you one other thing, and that is this intense criticism that seems to be boiling up on Capitol Hill. This story this morning is filled with it, and basically it comes down to that Don Rumsfeld, and I'll just put this straight to you, is stubborn, and that's the reason he won't admit that he made a mistake when he said we have plenty of troops there, and that that's one of the reasons you're having problems on the Hill and within the Pentagon. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that.

Rumsfeld: Sure, I'm glad to. How do you respond to whether or not you're stubborn. I guess you respond this way, we have General Abizaid who is in charge of the Central Command, General Sanchez, who is in charge of Iraq, and then a series of division commanders, good ones, General Petraeus, General Odierno, and they meet regularly, and they ask that question, do we need more U.S. troops, and they say they don't. They do not feel that we ought to bring in more additional troops, why?


Rumsfeld: Just let me respond. Now, should I be stubborn and say, you're wrong? What I do is I say, why do you or don't you need something, and I go and discuss it. And they come back consistently and say they do not need more additional troops, you need more force protection, you need more combat support people if you're going to have more troops. We're managing the skill mix of the troops, because they're not doing a lot of combat, they're doing a lot of presence and a lot of construction, and a lot of assistance, and a lot of forming city councils, 90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in an area that's governed by a city council, or a village council.

Schieffer: So you do not feel that you made a mistake‑

Rumsfeld: If I felt I'd made a mistake I'd change it.

Schieffer: Misestimated, or underestimated.

Rumsfeld: My problem is the people who are saying we need more troops are not giving any good reasons. There's no substance to their arguments, they're just saying we don't have enough. Our military people say we do, and they then explain why they think they do, and why they want the effort on increasing the Iraqi capability. So I listen to the two sides of the argument. I would increase the number of troops in five minutes, if people would come to me and make a decent argument, but all I see is critics saying, you need more troops. Something has to be wrong. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26181
June 28, 2004 – Recent adjustments made to improve Iraqi security forces are working, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said June 27.

Ongoing changes "are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces," Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of the Office of Security Transition in Iraq, reported during a Pentagon Channel interview. . .

. . . "But, there are also areas where we see considerable success," he pointed out. For example, he said, Iraqi security forces had months ago assumed a variety of important security tasks from coalition forces in the north and south of the country. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1643
January 05, 2005. . .

. . . GEN. METZ: No, no. The original plan for the Iraqi army was 27. As we began to grow -- a year ago, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which became the National Guard, that number has changed a number of times since I've been in command. We are focused right now on 45 battalions, but with an expansion program to about the 65-battalion level. That has a relationship to the amount of equipment we can ship in to get them to that level.

So I just don't have all the numbers memorized, but there is a 27-battalion army original plan; 45-battalion National Guard growing to 65 plan. The minister of interior has an ever-increasing and robust structure that he's putting together. The army has made some decisions inside of that original plan to go with intervention forces and change some of the training for the army battalions. He's brought on -- he's working on bringing on mechanized forces.

And so, again, we had a plan before sovereignty and it was a baseline to work from. But the sovereign government has made decisions and is changing things, and we're offering advice. But it's going to be a robust enough structure, I think, in 2005 to take on the insurgent fight here in Iraq, and it will be equipped and trained to do so.

Does that help?

Q Yes, sir, thank you. Just, the 65, is that by the end of this year, or what is --

GEN. METZ: I would say by the end of '05 for sure. I'm sure that we can get you that data. I just -- I apologize, I just don't have it all memorized --

Q Sure, no problem.

GEN. METZ: -- and that's because my good friend, Dave Petraeus, he's supposed to put me out of business. And every time I see him I hug him and say, "Dave, you've got to put me out of business. I'm the Multinational Corps fighting here. You're building the transition security capability -- get on with it." And he is. And we really are a team. We're good friends. But I look to him to memorize all those numbers. And when he gets them trained and they become tactical control, take on to the Multinational Corps, we employ them and they are good troops. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24406
Jan. 10, 2005 – The U.S. Army general in charge of training Iraqi forces said here today that the job is tough, but it is a mission that must be accomplished before coalition forces can leave Iraq.

And, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, added, progress is being made. . .

. . . Iraqis must provide for their own security, Petraeus said. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31204
March 14, 2005 . . .

. . . Petraeus said the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections provided a boost to the security forces. Iraqis manned the two inner lines around more than 5,000 polling places nationwide. Insurgents launched more than 270 attacks on Jan. 30, but did not penetrate any polling place, he said.

Following the elections, the general continued, the Iraqi forces got a boost in morale for their fine showing, and the Iraqi people developed trust in the security apparatus. This respect has meant more recruits for the Iraqi army and police, and a greater role in the defense of their own country.

Iraq has 96 operational combat battalions today, Petraeus said. The battalions are out in the cities and rural areas of the country. They are going on independent operations and they are getting results, the general said. Iraqi forces are "shouldering the burden" in 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces -- the three Kurdish provinces in the north and the nine provinces in the south.

"It's making a big difference. You see it in Fallujah, you see it in Baghdad," he said. "You also see it in places like Tikrit and Mosul." . . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16991
Aug. 2, 2005 – The chief of the coalition command charged with training Iraqi security forces said "enormous progress" has been made in the effort. . .

. . . Petraeus said that while most of the Iraqi units rely heavily on coalition forces for support and guidance, "there are still some three dozen of them that are assessed to be in the lead." By this he means that the Iraqi units are leading the fight against the insurgents with minimal or no help from coalition forces. . .

. . . Given continued progress and acceptable conditions, Petraeus said, the United States may be able to reduce troop presence in the country next year, noting this depends on political progress as well as progress in the security capabilities of Iraqi forces. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18152
Oct. 5, 2005 – The Iraqi security forces have made enormous progress over the past 16 months, the U.S. Army general who oversaw their training for more than a year said during a Pentagon news conference today. . .

. . . Iraqi security force readiness has continued to grow with each passing week, the general told reporters, and will grow even more between now and the Oct. 15 national referendum on a draft constitution. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and that should be close to 200,000 by the time of the referendum," he said.

More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. "Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being 'in the lead,'" he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating.

Level 1 units are labeled as being "fully independent." There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said.

The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18157
Bush Pleased With Progress of Iraqi Security Forces

Oct. 5, 2005 – President Bush said today he's pleased with the progress Iraqis are making in developing a military capable of handling the security challenges of the future.

Bush spoke to the press following a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq. Rumsfeld and the generals briefed the president on the status of Iraqi forces and coalition operations in Iraq.

[ElizabethDC]

1. MoveOn is not synonymous with the Democratic Party, she doesn't have to defend it

Frankly, she's taken a lot of heat for the fact that she hasn't *condemned* the ad.

[Kuni]

4. This is not about the Ad; it is about taking on the Right Wing lying machine.

Defending the Ad is just the excuse. She should be on the offensive and be praising the Ad top draw attention to its content. It’s time to step up and be our girl.

There are enough lies by Petraeus documented above that anyone who is serious about taking on the Right Wing lying machine will have no problems. She made the claim that she was “our girl” to do this.

[niceypoo]

38. So the republicans flip out over the caption on an ad

Let them. It makes them look shallow and foolish.

[Ninga]

43. Hi and welcome to DU. I agree with your take, but it is futile for us to think the GOP led by the

nose mainstream-media will not dance to their tu

The following article makes your point.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092207.html

[Kuni]

56. We have a “media infrastructure”; it called people like Hillary speaking out every time a Mic is . .

stuck in their faces.

How is the MSM, or even the Wingnut Media going to be able to ignore the many lies Petraeus has told over the years; if every single Democratic member of Congress points them out everytime they open their mouths.

[truedelphi]

45. Hilary has never been "our girl"

She has never been that progressive.

She was personal assistant and primary attorney for Sam Walton of WalMart for Pete's sake.

There have been many issues where she could have stood up and rallied the troops (I mean, us - not some standing army)

Banking issues

Bankruptcy bills

THE IWR vote in the Senate
Etc.

If it looks like a standard issue, Lieberman style quacking right-ist Dem, and it waddles like a Lieberman-style rightist Dem
And it quacks like a Lieberman-style quacking right-ist Dem -

MAYBE IT IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE KENNEDY-ERA STYLE PROGRESSIVE!

[pnwmom]

24. She DID defend it. She voted AGAINST the measure to condemn the ad. n/t

[Kuni]

28. And that is “a winner who knows how to take them on”? Wow.

Kiss ’08 good by if that is what defines a winner.

[niceypoo]

40. The one thing I do like about Hillary...

...is that she isnt thin skinned and she fires right back at them. I could not see her lying down and giving in to a stolen election like Kerry did. She would not have ignored the flip flop ads or swift boating until it was too late, like Kerry did, also.

[blm]

33. TeamClinton didn't show up on Alito filibuster or Downing Street Memos or

Iraq withdrawal or for Kerry or for Cleland in any significant way over the last 6 years BushInc and the RW machine was in full gear.

Can you name the issue that TeamClinton DID believe BushInc and the RW machine needed opposing?

Here's where she found some cameras:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[liberalnurse]

2. If your post wasn't so damn F**king long

I would attempt to explain it to you.......but it would be a waste of my time since your are posting flamebait. The good thing is that this post is so F**king ling...no one cares.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kuni]

9. Fine, get our butt’s kicked in ’08 by wimping . Just don’t whine about it being ‘stolen’ afterwards.

We let this one slide; we will have shown we can’t fight your way out of a soaking wet paper bag.

This is very, very easy; ALL the facts support Move-On’s premise in the Ad.

[liberalnurse]

12. Since you are so full of venom

for Hillary...please tell me the details of the research you conducted to support your adamant disliking opinion/conclusion for Hillary's Presidential victory.

[Kuni]

34. That’s venom??? You lead a sheltered life if you think that is venom.

Since when has publicly reminding someone of their claims been venom?

My research? Umm; a total lack of Hillary doing anything that would constitute “standing up to the Right Wing machine” on this issue.

[Webster Green]

20. Word!

:rofl:

[Algorem]

42. takes a whole 3 1/2 pages to print out,that's the same as "the rise

and fall of the roman empire" for gawd's sake

[Kuni]

55. It’s my fault you can afford 4 sheets of paper; why?

Do you have a Pay-Pal account; maybe some of your friends should pass the hat around.

[Algorem]

58. guess i should try using the sarcasm whatchacallit sometimes

[mourningdove92]

3. Why are you singling out Hillary?

[Kuni]

7. Because she shot off her gate about being the one we could rely on.

It’s time to see if she’s a woman of her word.

[emilyg]

23. 15 posts - garbage. 'bye

[Clintonista2]

5. Enjoy your short stay!

:hi:

[Kuni]

10. Why? Is this some wimpy Right Wingnut site? Did I read the URL wrong?

Are those on the Fringe right when they told me there were nothing but raving lunatic wimps here?

[Kahuna]

11. Whew!

:popcorn:

[liberalnurse]

13. Oh damn...our cover is now exposed!!!!!!!!!!

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Clintonista2]

19. Yes, you did read your URL wrong

It should say www.freerepublic.com. It's ok, we know you're probably not the sharpest tool in the shed :rofl:

[fenriswolf]

44. no but

their are people who want to believe so badly that hillary is the godsend that we so desperatly need and that they wanna hope against hope that hillary is not a corporate tool so they lash out at anything that points out her faults and flaunt the fact that the "polls" show her in a favorable light. stick with us kid and help enlighten the masses as to a democratic corporate tool is no better then a repub tool.

[Kuni]

48. I just seen her on Faux News; she does NOT have what it takes to fight back.

She should have come out and said “In answer to your question about me being partisan; is because of lying sacks of shit like yourself and the other lunatics at Faux News who do nothing but lie continually”.

And when the Ad was mentioned; she should have said “And I should speak out against the truth, why? The Move-On Ad was bang on and the NY Times should have run it for free to make up for all the lies they printed from Judith Miller and her Bushevik sources”

[lateo]

6. That is what you get for "thoughting"...

as a former drill Sargent of mine used to say...if you would have been thinking that would not have happened. Hillary is part of the problem not part of the solution.

[superkia]

8. I think you misunderstood her completely!

I'm pretty sure she said stand with the right wing machine. At least her actions say that?

[liberalnurse]

14. Who are you talking about?

I don't know any of our current Presidential Candidates who resemble such a description. Please elaborate as I am interested in your supporting data.

Enlighten Me.O8)

[superkia]

17. Clinton. Her actions and inactions speak on there own.

No need for me to point them out, she does it well enough on her own.

[pnwmom]

26. HRC's voting record puts her among the most progressive members

of the Senate. And most recently she voted in support of MoveOn and AGAINST the measure to condemn the organization.

But who cares about facts, right? It gets in the way of the Hillary-hate.

[leftchick]

57. she literally stands with the right wing! And they throw her Fundraisers!

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

(CBS) To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some peices of legislation, called for a "common ground" on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.




WHY democrats choose to ignore this evil pairing is beyond my comprehension.

[saracat]

15. She didn't mean She'd stand up for anyone other than herself against the RW!!

That was what she meant.Hillary never stood up for Kerry or Cleland.She stood up for herself and Bill.

[w4rma]

47. Exactly. That's what happened in 1994 when Dems lost control of Congress, too. The Clintons were

standing up for themselves, not the Democratic Party, against the RW.

[paulk]

16. well, she did pretty much call him a liar at the hearings

but, as others have pointed out, it's not her job to defend Move On. Voting "no" on the resolution to condemn should be enough, however I realize for some of the more "concerned" members of this website, there is nothing that will ever be enough...


You have a nice day, kuni, and be sure to give your strawman a pat on the butt on your way out the door.

[Kuni]

35. Pretty well??? To do what it takes would entail actually calling him the liar that he is.

And what strawman would that be? The one where I point out that we were told that she was “a winner who knows how to take them on”?

Well, a winner would not be letting Faux News and the rest of the Fringe get away with having a field day wit this.

[journalist3072]

18. Again, another example of people on DU being downright disengenuous and avoiding the FACTS

Sen. Clinton, remind you, voted NO on the Senate resolution, which, in effect, condemned Move On.org....and in the ultimate act of political cowardice, Barack Obama didn't bother to vote at all.....

So remind me again why the original poster started this B.S. thread??

It's scares me that some of the people here on DU are actually voters...because they don't even bother to equip themselves with the facts. They can't seem to get beyond their talking point. No intellectual curiousity at all.

[AtomicKitten]

21. There are facts and then there are not so much facts.

Again, another example of people on DU being downright disingenuous and avoiding the FACTS ... Sen. Clinton, remind you, voted NO on the Senate resolution, which, in effect, condemned Move On.org.... and in the ultimate act of political cowardice, Barack Obama didn't bother to vote at all ...

"Ultimate act of political cowardice????" That's some hyperbole! And a disingenuous melodramatic over-exaggeration of reality. In fact, Obama handled this bit of nastiness precisely correctly: He told the GOP to piss off.

It's scares me that some of the people here on DU are actually voters...because they don't even bother to equip themselves with the facts. They can't seem to get beyond their talking point. No intellectual curiosity at all.

I couldn't agree more and thanks for the demo.

[journalist3072]

22. No.....Obama was being a coward. Plain and simple.

He seeems to have a problem with wanting to be on the record.

He didn't bother to vote on whether the Senate should have a no-confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales. Why didn't he want to be on record as saying 'yes, we should have this no confidence vote' or 'no, we should not.'

Same goes w/ last week's resolution.

It's called political cowardice. He doesn't want to be on record as being for or against certain issues.

[AtomicKitten]

36. If lodging a protest nonvote is "unbelievable political cowardice"

... where do you go from there if he had actually voted "yes" on this dumbass resolution? Do you implode?

It only takes a hint of critical analysis to see there is something wrong with the picture you paint.

Oh, the faux outrage!

[cui bono]

41. That stupid waste of time resolution should never have been up for a vote.

It's pathetic that ANYONE voted on that. Reid should give up his leadership position since he keeps helping the Republicans.

[pnwmom]

27. I was disappointed with Obama and Biden on that vote.

I wish they had voted with HRC and the rest of those who supported MoveOn.

[AtomicKitten]

37. the correct move was calling bullshit on that vote

[AX10]

46. I agree. Hillary had balls to vote the way she did.

I would have voted against that stupid comdemnation too.

[Kuni]

49. No; if she Balls she would have introduced a resolution praising the Ad.

[blm]

59. Now give us a rundown of the last SIX YEARS - or did BushInc not do anything

against the public or the Democratic party that Hillary and TeamClinton could see as worth their efforts to oppose during that time?

Now that so many others took the hits for opposing Bush all those years, Hillary and her team claim THEY are the ones who have been leading the opposition this whole time.

[pnwmom]

25. Hillary was one of the minority of Senators who voted to support MoveON

when the rest of the Senate voted to condemn it.

I don't know why you're singling her out here. It makes no sense.

[Kuni]

29. And that is “a winner who knows how to take them on”? Wow.

I’m singling her out because she shot off her gate. And kiss ’08 good by if that is what defines a winner who know how to take them on.

[cali]

32. Don't know much about politics or campaigns

do you?

Idiotic prognostications do not a competent political analyst make.

[Kuni]

50. I know cut and run when I see it. And so does the voting public.

Petraeus is a proven liar. This is simple shit, if we loose this one, they are going to be able to get away with anything.

The Ad was bang on and the truth should be shouted out from Middle and Left.

[cali]

30. Why the fuck should any dem

have to jump into this idiotic fight and give it more oxygen? Let it go. There's only about 1,000 more important issues.

[Kuni]

51. Sure, cut and run from the one that would be easy to win.

Petraeus is a proven liar. This is simple shit, if we loose this one they will be able to get away with anything.

The facts are very clear, Petraeus has a documented history of lying about progress in Iraq. It doesn’t get easier than this. It’s not like his many lies were ambiguous comments.

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. I think she did a great job on MTP responding to the MoveOn issue

She said no one should question the patriotism of our troops, and she included the swiftboat ads and the ads about Max Cleland. And every time Timmy brought up MoveOn she included the others as well.

She did a great job today.

[Kuni]

53. We seen how well the 'Majority' did on that resolution condemning all Ads.

Are they incapable of adding a condemnation of the Swiftboat liars and Saxby Chambliss’ Ads about Max Cleland to the vote; yet have no problem letting the vote on the Move-On Ad get to the floor?

[Sparkly]

39. And what would YOU say to those quotes, Kuni?

Write what you'd like to hear Senator Clinton say about them.

[Kuni]

52. I would like to her to use them publicly to call Petraeus a know liar about Iraq

And she should also point out that the Move-On Ad is bang on.

She does that; she’ll win in a heartbeat. Because by exposing Petraeus many lies; it brings the debate back to the “substance” of the issue.

[ChiciB1]

54. She's NOT My Girl... & I Won't Support Her Or Campaign For Her...

She's a clever one though, but I'm not going down the lane anymore. To me, it all DLC and I have been bothered for a very long time with the Bill/Poppy Bush relationship!

I just can't do it, and I have decided I won't. I've lived this long with all the crap, guess I'll have to deal with what slaps me in the face as long as I live here. Since I knew a different America it really saddens me, but I'm a Boomer and maybe I won't have to deal with it for very much longer.

Fighting for our rights is what I tried to teach my kids and wanted them to teach theirs, but unfortunately I'm at a point where that old saying "you can't fight City Hall" has finally made sense to me.