PDA

View Full Version : The General's Report, Fox, etc.




born2drv
09-09-2007, 02:26 PM
So we all know that General Petraus's report is coming out tomorrow....

And 8PM EST / 5PM PST Ron Paul will be on Bill O'Rielly's show discussing it....

What some people don't know is that at 9PM EST / 6PM PST General Petraus himself will be on Fox being interviewed for 1 hour by Brit Hume.

So how do you think this is all going to play out?

This could be either be very good or very bad depending on what the report says.... if it shows a mixed review, or negative view on the war effort, RP will have a case for withdrawal.... however if it is favorable and recommends staying in at all cost because we're "winning" and meeting all or most of the objectives, it could be detrimental to Ron's campaign, especially if he's seen as one of these "beuorocrats telling the generals how to fight" as they put it.... not to mention the way they set up the general to be following right after RP.

Thoughts?

wgadget
09-09-2007, 02:29 PM
I just hope RP knows.

RP4ME
09-09-2007, 02:33 PM
IMO Petraeus IS going to say it is going well. Paul will know how to respond. The American people do NOt think it is going well and I belive most arent gonna get excieted about Patreaus report.

katao
09-09-2007, 02:33 PM
Here's a preview of what's going to be in the report:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296040,00.html

Notice Fox's spin...

quickmike
09-09-2007, 02:37 PM
So we all know that General Petraus's report is coming out tomorrow....

And 8PM EST / 5PM PST Ron Paul will be on Bill O'Rielly's show discussing it....

What some people don't know is that at 9PM EST / 6PM PST General Petraus himself will be on Fox being interviewed for 1 hour by Brit Hume.

So how do you think this is all going to play out?

This could be either be very good or very bad depending on what the report says.... if it shows a mixed review, or negative view on the war effort, RP will have a case for withdrawal.... however if it is favorable and recommends staying in at all cost because we're "winning" and meeting all or most of the objectives, it could be detrimental to Ron's campaign, especially if he's seen as one of these "beuorocrats telling the generals how to fight" as they put it.... not to mention the way they set up the general to be following right after RP.

Thoughts?


I guess it depends how much the american people will buy into Petraus's bullshit. If they are wide awake americans, they most likely will see it as just another way to stall talks about pulling out, which is exactly what the Bush administration wants. These people will side with Ron Paul and his arguments.

If they are the sheep type people that believed the WMD and all the other lies sold to them to get us into this war in the first place, they will probably continue to believe in it. These people cannot be saved. They will be handed platter after platter of steaming bullshit and beg for seconds. These people will side with Bill O.

70% of the american people are in the first camp, 30% are in the second, so im not too worried about what General "shill" Patreus says either way.

Mr. White
09-09-2007, 02:39 PM
He'll say we can do the job if we had more troops and more time.

Covers his ass, covers Fox's ass, cover's everyone's ass, even when we do pull out.

Johnnybags
09-09-2007, 02:43 PM
Billdo: OK Dr. Paul you just heard General Patreus report, "what say you"
Paul: Well Bill, Its irrelevant....(cut off)
Billdo: Don't you understand they are out to kill us, you kook?
Paul: Listen Bill the CIA's own intelligence tells us...(cut off)
Billdo to producers: Thats it, cut his mic, get him outta here, I am sorry audience but I cannot allow some nut to spin while we have honorable troops in harms way.
Billdo(bright red face):Coming up after the commercial we will have Dennis Miller weighing in
Billdo: Ok Dennis, you saw it, "what say you"
Miller(inebriated): Bill, that nut would not the difference between a terrorist and a Mexican waiter, he so kooky Jack Nicholson looks sane.

Bison
09-09-2007, 02:54 PM
RP should just prepare for a positive report. The General has already been told what to say.

themanhere
09-09-2007, 02:59 PM
I'm sorry this is a dumb thread! Just because it goes good or bad does not give us the right to invade countries and plant flowers. Its still a unjustified war costing lives and tax dollars.

LibertyEagle
09-09-2007, 02:59 PM
"In a two-page letter to U.S. forces in Iraq, dated Friday, Petraeus acknowledged that the gains in security were not accompanied by political gains.

"Many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress. ... One of the justifications for the surge, after all, was that it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle the tough questions and agree on key pieces of 'national reconciliation' legislation," the letter said.

"It has not worked out as we had hoped," Petraeus said in the letter, adding that a summit of Iraqi leaders in late August "has given hope that they are up to the task before them, even if it is clearly taking more time than we initially expected.""

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296040,00.html

CJLauderdale4
09-09-2007, 03:09 PM
I think Ron Paul should stick to the facts, and no matter what Betrayus says, he will be right on:

Fact #1: We went to war unconstitutionally, and never declared war. This is why we're having this entire debate now, that should've happened in 2001-2003.

Fact #2: Preventive war has been opposed in history by every revered President of the United States. Just quote Washington, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan for starters. If we truly play the preventive war ideology to the end, the result is the U.S. invading Iran (getting nukes), N. Korea (testing nukes), Pakistan (HAS nukes and can deliver them), Libya (has uranium), etc., etc., etc.... The U.S. will be invading nearly everyone for one reason or another. Either that, or we get into arguments over which nations to tactically invade next. This is an emprical thought process, and an empire we cannot sustain.

Fact #3: We have spent nearly $1 Trillion building 14 bases and a huge U.S. embassy in Iraq. No matter what the General reports, are we really going to abandon 1/2 Trillion dollars in bases the desert?? (Hint: we're not leaving...)


Just stick to the facts and the Constitution, and you'll be just fine, Ron....

brandon
09-09-2007, 03:12 PM
hahahaha gotta love the fox spin on that article. Check out this "paragraph" half way though the article



Reducing troops before spring runs the risk, Petraeus and other commanders have said.



Runs the risk of what??? That is barely an english sentence. "Risk" should not be used as a noun when what the "Risk" is is not specefied anywhere.

That would be like me using this sentence to justify the war.

"We should keep fighting because of a threat." It is empty nonsence

Paulitician
09-09-2007, 03:14 PM
I don't think we have to fret about it. Ron Paul knows he stuff and sticks to his guns.

richard1984
09-09-2007, 03:18 PM
When is the report itself supposed to be released? Surely the FOX interview won't be the first word we hear from Gen. Petraus tomorrow. So maybe Dr. Paul will be aware of the tone, content, etc. of the report before he goes on O'Reilly that night.

CJLauderdale4
09-09-2007, 03:20 PM
My Preview of O'Reilly comments --

- Come on, Congressman. Everyone in America knows that if we pull out of Iraq now, the sectarian violence will be massive and we'll end up needing to financially support the humanitarian effort to help that region...

- You can't seriously think that pulling out of Iraq will help the security of America...

- Hogwash, and you know it! If we leave now, Iraq will become a training groud for Al-Qaeda, and they will follow us home to continue the fight!

- Sorry, Congressman, I think you're way off, and we'll leave it to the American people to decide...

bygone
09-09-2007, 03:21 PM
This is an emprical thought process, and an empire we cannot sustain.

I wonder if you're right. We may find out. I tend to believe that even if things were to completely change course it would only delay the inevitable course events must take... I'd like to believe as some do, that we can all just get along... history suggests otherwise.

I don't expect O'Raunchy to be anything but his usual self.

CJLauderdale4
09-09-2007, 03:30 PM
I wonder if you're right. We may find out. I tend to believe that even if things were to completely change course it would only delay the inevitable course events must take... I'd like to believe as some do, that we can all just get along... history suggests otherwise.

I don't expect O'Raunchy to be anything but his usual self.

Understood. But the fact remains, as the Fouders and previous Presidents have pointed out, that getting involved only makes things worse, by making our nation a direct player in what might otherwise be insignificant to our national interests.

The increase in globalism and our reliance on other areas of the world for natural resources, labor, and goods, makes many places a national interest, that in the past would not have been. This makes our nation very fragile and indirectly places control of our nation in the hands of other nations, or worse Al-Qaeda-types.

Isolationism, to the degree that Ron Paul desires, is not entirely bad, if it allows our nation to become self-reliant, our economy to retain monetary value, our people to be employed, and our soldiers to be protecting our own borders and not fighting foreign wars.

katao
09-09-2007, 03:46 PM
My Preview of O'Reilly comments --

- Come on, Congressman. Everyone in America knows that if we pull out of Iraq now, the sectarian violence will be massive and we'll end up needing to financially support the humanitarian effort to help that region...



Answer: "And everyone in America knows that the same will be true no matter how long we're there - even 20 years. Are you willing to let 20 years worth of American soldiers die to keep trying to save face?"

Alabama Supporter
09-09-2007, 03:47 PM
This will present an excellent opportunity for Ron Paul to get his message out.

1. Oreilly gets the best ratings on cable news.
2. Many more viewers than normal will probably be viewing Fox because the general will be on right after Oreilly.

I just hope there are more people watching than the 30 percenters. (the 30% people who still thinks Bush is credible on the war)

bygone
09-10-2007, 03:47 PM
Understood. But the fact remains, as the Fouders and previous Presidents have pointed out, that getting involved only makes things worse, by making our nation a direct player in what might otherwise be insignificant to our national interests.

The increase in globalism and our reliance on other areas of the world for natural resources, labor, and goods, makes many places a national interest, that in the past would not have been. This makes our nation very fragile and indirectly places control of our nation in the hands of other nations, or worse Al-Qaeda-types.

Isolationism, to the degree that Ron Paul desires, is not entirely bad, if it allows our nation to become self-reliant, our economy to retain monetary value, our people to be employed, and our soldiers to be protecting our own borders and not fighting foreign wars.

If is such a big word when you pin it to all of those things. One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

It has come to my attention recently that while the Founders were wise they did not live during our time. Things are different now than they were then. I am not of the school that believes that the Constitution is quaint; but I do believe that it is not the system that has failed, rather, we have failed the system.

We have not forced ourselves to work within its limits and in doing that we have invalidated it entirely. I don't feel I can say much more but you most likely get the point.

tnvoter
09-10-2007, 04:26 PM
If the General says anything other than the surge is working, guess what, The Commander and Chief will replace him with someone who WILL.