Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (350769)	9/16/2007 5:13:55 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1573365

Doesn't sound like you're a liberal if you disagree with all of it. Most are from posts by liberals, progressives, socialist, etc. Maybe you didn't post what you meant to say?

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (350769)	9/16/2007 5:43:33 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573365

I am a liberal and none of this s--- represents how I think! Welcome to the thread Nicholas. You best not expect to be taken at face value. According to the right wing wackos, you are what they think you are regardless of what you think you are. Only they are what they think they are unless it's inconvenient.

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (350769)	9/16/2007 9:53:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573365

Sizing up Petraeus' time in the spotlight Column by Nick Clooney What a difference a day makes. On day one of the televised "surge" report, Monday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker clearly triumphed in their testimony before two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives. Their lengthy statements were well-prepared and cogently delivered. They accentuated the positive and handled questions professionally. They had assistance from several sources, two of them unexpected. First, General Petraeus came with built-in credibility. He has had a press honeymoon since he was given the top post in Iraq. Administration officials have all but canonized him. House lawmakers of both parties have spent six months praising his intellect and even-handedness. They could hardly turn on him now. But two other things helped the Monday appearance of the Petraeus-Crocker team. Shrill hecklers in the audience interrupted proceedings. I have always wondered why protesters do not understand that this kind of ranting always works against their point of view. They come off as immature and ridiculous, while their targets come across as dignified and put-upon. More significantly, a liberal organization made a serious blunder by purchasing a tasteless full-page ad attacking the general before he uttered a word of testimony. "General Petraeus or General Betray - Us?" shouted the headline. That was manna from heaven for all who support the current Iraq policy, and left those who seek a change in course there defending their point of view all day. In fact, the words of the ill-conceived ad may last longer than any sound-bite of the testimony and give President Bush and his party a political windfall. However, then came Tuesday. There were no moonlight or roses for the general and the diplomat this time. Hard-bitten senators, at least five of whom have serious bids for president under way, were not bedazzled by General Petraeus' reputation, his uniform, or the pound of fruit salad on his chest, as the U.S. representatives had appeared to be. When questions came, they were sharply worded. Some of the most biting comments and questions came from Republican senators. Senator John Warner of Virginia was gentlemanly but unremitting in his skepticism. He could afford to be. The administration has apparently caved in to his recent call for an immediate draw-down of at least a token number of combat troops "in time for Christmas." Senator Chuck Hagel spoke in anger. The Nebraska Republican and war veteran hammered away at both men, demanding to know why American troops should continue to fight and die for an Iraqi government that can't govern. These two men should be listened to. Both have announced their retirement from politics and aren't running for anything. Another who should be listened to is Senator Joe Biden. He has made foreign policy his bailiwick over the years. The questions he asked had a depth of knowledge behind them, and both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were brought up short and, occasionally, left fumbling for answers. It was a chink in the armor of what, until then, had been a flawless performance. And it was exploited most effectively, perhaps, by Senator Warner, who asked if our efforts in Iraq - whether they were described as a success or a failure - had made the United States safer. After several attempts at talking around the answer, General Petraeus, pressed hard, said, "I don't know." The beginning of wisdom. Historians tell us that the most effective military man ever to deal with Congress was General George Marshall during World War II. He always told the truth, painful as it might be, never masked failure as success and, if he didn't know the answer, he would say so. In that Tuesday moment, General Petraeus wisely followed General Marshall's example. And, after all the testimony, the questions, the comments, what are we left with? What is the Plan? By July of next year, 30,000 troops will leave Iraq; 130,000 will remain, exactly the same number we had there before the "surge" began. For one observer, that is a depressing prospect. news.cincypost.com