[Peace-discuss] Is David Petraeus a 'Lying Liar' About the Drawdown?

[C. G. Estabrook]

  The answer is obvious: conditions on the ground have changed; as Gen. 
McChrystal found, the task is much tougher than it seemed to be (and the 
hampering rules that are designed to to show how careful we are of civilians are 
getting in the way - endangering our troops and making them less effective)...

Answers like that are usually available;  opposing the war by winkling out 
apparent contradictions in official explanations is not very effective, if you 
seem to grant the major premise that the war should exist at all.  We should 
condemn it as a crime and demand its cessation.

"But you said the troops would be home by Christmas!" is not a serious objection 
to Operation Barbarossa.

On 8/19/10 11:26 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> In pushing for more time for the "surge" to "work," David Petraeus is
> doing exactly what he promised in November 2009 he would *not* do: ask
> for more than 18 months for the "surge" to "work," if the "surge"
> didn't "work" within 18 months. If Mr. Petraeus' clear statement in
> November 2009 that he would not ask for more time can not now be
> trusted, why should Congress and the American people trust anything
> else he has to say about the drawdown?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-david-petraeus-a-lying_b_687652.html
>