General Petraeus Would Rather Betray Us Than Tell Us The Truth, After All.

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

Believe whatever you want but the picture looks worse than you think. Tell me one absolute good news that came out of this surge and I will admit that you are right. By absolute I mean that it is something that is good for Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government. Just one.

You wouldnt admit a damn thing and you know it, so save both of us the bandwidth.

Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

Prior to the surge, roughly 10% of Baghdad was entirely secure. Since the beginning of the surge, in just three months, we have secured roughly 50% of Baghdad; and that percentage is growing every day.

Ramadi, once a hotbed for insurgent and AQ violence, reported no attacks during the month of July.

The number of ING units being spun up to take full control of entire sectors within Iraq has risen dramatically. The units themselves are comprised of Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds working side-by-side in each area.

All of Basrah, in southern Iraq, will soon be handed over to the ING. Most of the British soldiers in Iraq will be going home.

These are all good things that you refuse to recognize as such. Much work remains to be done, of course, but we are certainly progressing militarily in securing Iraq - and doing so is the required first step before any progress can be made politically.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

Believe whatever you want but the picture looks worse than you think. Tell me one absolute good news that came out of this surge and I will admit that you are right. By absolute I mean that it is something that is good for Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government. Just one.

You wouldnt admit a damn thing and you know it, so save both of us the bandwidth.

Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

Prior to the surge, roughly 10% of Baghdad was entirely secure. Since the beginning of the surge, in just three months, we have secured roughly 50% of Baghdad; and that percentage is growing every day.

NEED PROOF. GIVE DEFINITION OF "entirely secure."

Ramadi, once a hotbed for insurgent and AQ violence, reported no attacks during the month of July.

NEED PROOF. IIRC, THE LOCALS BEGAN TO TURN AGAINST AQ IN THE FALL OF 2006, WHICH MEANS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURGE. IF I'M WRONG, PROVE IT.

The number of ING units being spun up to take full control of entire sectors within Iraq has risen dramatically. The units themselves are comprised of Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds working side-by-side in each area.

PROOF. BESIDES, YOU CAN PUT A BADGE ON ALL THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THEIR GOATS AND STILL MAKE THAT CLAIM. PROVE IT.

All of Basrah, in southern Iraq, will soon be handed over to the ING. Most of the British soldiers in Iraq will be going home.

IIRC THE BRITISH WILL BE GOING TO BASRA AIRPORT. HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WHEN THE MILITIAS RUN THE SOUTH?

These are all good things that you refuse to recognize as such. Much work remains to be done, of course, but we are certainly progressing militarily in securing Iraq - and doing so is the required first step before any progress can be made politically.

Your claims are a start. Now back them up.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This whole thread is a farce. The Democrats don?t want the truth out of Iraq, they only want to see more bad news. Anything less than ?we have failed and must leave immediately? will be attacked for not being the truth.

I wish I could find that Pelosi quote that basically says the same thing. Essentially ?no amount of goods news etc etc?

And I'm assuming you want the truth and nothing but the truth? To think I was wrong about you all this time.

The truth is that the situation in Iraq has improved since the surge started. The evidence of this is all over the place. You only have to open your eyes to find it.

The big unanswered question becomes ?is there enough progress to warrant us staying there longer.?

You're claiming something to be true. Either prove it or shut up. Palehorse started, perhaps you can help him out.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

Believe whatever you want but the picture looks worse than you think. Tell me one absolute good news that came out of this surge and I will admit that you are right. By absolute I mean that it is something that is good for Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government. Just one.

You wouldnt admit a damn thing and you know it, so save both of us the bandwidth.

Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

Prior to the surge, roughly 10% of Baghdad was entirely secure. Since the beginning of the surge, in just three months, we have secured roughly 50% of Baghdad; and that percentage is growing every day.

NEED PROOF. GIVE DEFINITION OF "entirely secure."

Ramadi, once a hotbed for insurgent and AQ violence, reported no attacks during the month of July.

NEED PROOF. IIRC, THE LOCALS BEGAN TO TURN AGAINST AQ IN THE FALL OF 2006, WHICH MEANS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURGE. IF I'M WRONG, PROVE IT.

The number of ING units being spun up to take full control of entire sectors within Iraq has risen dramatically. The units themselves are comprised of Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds working side-by-side in each area.

PROOF. BESIDES, YOU CAN PUT A BADGE ON ALL THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THEIR GOATS AND STILL MAKE THAT CLAIM. PROVE IT.

All of Basrah, in southern Iraq, will soon be handed over to the ING. Most of the British soldiers in Iraq will be going home.

IIRC THE BRITISH WILL BE GOING TO BASRA AIRPORT. HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WHEN THE MILITIAS RUN THE SOUTH?

These are all good things that you refuse to recognize as such. Much work remains to be done, of course, but we are certainly progressing militarily in securing Iraq - and doing so is the required first step before any progress can be made politically.

Your claims are a start. Now back them up.

I'll wait for the good General to produce the exact sources and figures for you in September.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

Believe whatever you want but the picture looks worse than you think. Tell me one absolute good news that came out of this surge and I will admit that you are right. By absolute I mean that it is something that is good for Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government. Just one.

You wouldnt admit a damn thing and you know it, so save both of us the bandwidth.

Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

Wait until the report, duh.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

Believe whatever you want but the picture looks worse than you think. Tell me one absolute good news that came out of this surge and I will admit that you are right. By absolute I mean that it is something that is good for Iraqi sovereignty, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government. Just one.

You wouldnt admit a damn thing and you know it, so save both of us the bandwidth.

Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

Prior to the surge, roughly 10% of Baghdad was entirely secure. Since the beginning of the surge, in just three months, we have secured roughly 50% of Baghdad; and that percentage is growing every day.

NEED PROOF. GIVE DEFINITION OF "entirely secure."

Ramadi, once a hotbed for insurgent and AQ violence, reported no attacks during the month of July.

NEED PROOF. IIRC, THE LOCALS BEGAN TO TURN AGAINST AQ IN THE FALL OF 2006, WHICH MEANS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURGE. IF I'M WRONG, PROVE IT.

The number of ING units being spun up to take full control of entire sectors within Iraq has risen dramatically. The units themselves are comprised of Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds working side-by-side in each area.

PROOF. BESIDES, YOU CAN PUT A BADGE ON ALL THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THEIR GOATS AND STILL MAKE THAT CLAIM. PROVE IT.

All of Basrah, in southern Iraq, will soon be handed over to the ING. Most of the British soldiers in Iraq will be going home.

IIRC THE BRITISH WILL BE GOING TO BASRA AIRPORT. HOW IS THIS A GOOD THING FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WHEN THE MILITIAS RUN THE SOUTH?

These are all good things that you refuse to recognize as such. Much work remains to be done, of course, but we are certainly progressing militarily in securing Iraq - and doing so is the required first step before any progress can be made politically.

Your claims are a start. Now back them up.

I'll wait for the good General to produce the exact sources and figures for you in September.

No, things don't work that way. You make the claims, you back them up. You, of all people here, claim to work in intelligence yet you wait for a white house written document to convince others. If that's the case, stop saying that the surge is working because you don't have shit to back up your claims.

 

[Lemon law]

I see Narmer has somewhat gotten to the heart of the matter by saying---Enlighten me. Besides, my major is Applied mathematics so proofs need to be rigorous and valid. If your standards are weaker than that, it's forgivable but may I suggest that you be able to backup your claims?

The point being, mathematics is a hard science and definitive answers are both possible and
are demanded in terms of a standard for proof. When we deal with a complex social and emotional problem like Iraq, we know we are going to get anything but a definitive proof from Patraeus, the LA times, or whomever else you want to consider.

But someone like Jackalas is only partly correct in pointing out that we are going to basically reach some sort of binary conclusion. We will either conclude the surge is working
and therefore we should stay the course or we will conclude the surge is too little too late and we should get the hell out of Iraq. And the part where Jackalas is correct on is that we
need to think long and hard about what happens if we just get the hell out. Because the consequences could be very dire.---and even more unknowable than questions regarding the surge or staying the course.

The area where Jackalas is wrong is in exactly the same area. Not only are GWB&co. the idiots who got us into the Iraqi quagmire, they are also the idiots who force what amounts to two extremely unacceptable binary alternatives. The point being there are an infinite range of options between the two bad choices, that we know from accepted military doctrine that its going to take 500,000 troops to run an occupation that can stabilize Iraq, and the USA can only come up with 200,000. Therefore we need to engage the international community to come up with the remaining 300,000 troops. And the Baker Hamilton report is our best available blueprint. Since the US constitution invests all diplomacy with the executive branch, we can conclude GWB&co. is 100% at fault for not exploring other more acceptable options for Iraq. I have been saying exactly this for years. Jackalas only bitches that the other choice that will inevitably become the default is also unacceptable. Because the GWB plan won't work and sooner or later we will abruptly withdraw just like in Vietnam.
Thereby getting the unknowable boobie prize.

So get off the pot or sh!t Jackalas---whats your plan for Iraq?---other than bitch and be a shill for GWB? As Narmer points out, at least try to be logical. And realistic. And what should congress do to break the present logjam and maybe come up with a plan of their own.

But thus far the only really knowable thing is the fact that GWB&co. is stuck on stupid and clueless.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well, if Petraeus does offer a 'Draw-Down', it will answer the question of where the 'extra troops' will come from to support Bush and Cheney's lust for attacking Iran . . .

. . . after all, he is the 'War President'.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This whole thread is a farce. The Democrats don?t want the truth out of Iraq, they only want to see more bad news. Anything less than ?we have failed and must leave immediately? will be attacked for not being the truth.

The Democrats have no reason to expect the truth about Iraq (or anything else) from the Bushwhackos and their lying sycophants when all they've ever gotten is lies.

Thanks to Todd33 the following list from his post on these forums on 8-12-2005:

LIES:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

Backpedaling:

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

More lies

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
George W. Bush, speech to the nation ? 10/7/2002

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Condoleezza Rice, 1/8/2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.?
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

?U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.?
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

?We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Dick Cheney, ?Meet the Press? 3/16/2003

I wish I could find that Pelosi quote that basically says the same thing. Essentially ?no amount of goods news etc etc?

PJ -- You still haven't answered my questions:

• How do you justify squandering any more American lives for those lies?
  
• How many more American lives, other than your own, are you willing to waste for those lies?
  
• If it's such a good idea, why haven't you volunteered to put yours on the line for those lies?

You're the one who gets to live with yourself for your answers. :Q

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

/end thread

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the libs are prempting this report just in case it turns out to not paint the dire picture they so hope.

/end thread

Look what we've been told about this report for months is simply not true so even a partisan hack like yourself should perhaps be questioning its validity.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

General Petraeus would rather betray us than tell us the truth, after all.

Jeebus, it's a bit premature to get hyper like this.

Patraeus didn't come into the military with GWB. He's a career guy, I see no reason for him to lie.

If I were a Dem on one the military committees, I would expect to ask for and receive the basic data/report submitted by Patraeus and others.

I think some stuff should prolly be discussed in closed session. Other stuff I think should be in public. I'd like to hear what Patraeus has to say.

Otherwise, a lot of this hyperventilating seems like some begrugdingly acknowlege the success of the surge and new tactics, and are trying to discredit the report before it's even delivered.

Those on the internet egaging in this do so because they hate GWB and think we'll get a pullout, but those in Washington (polititions) are engaging in this to posture for the '08 elections, and know damn well there ain't gonna be a pullout any time soon.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey

General Petraeus would rather betray us than tell us the truth, after all.

Patraeus didn't come into the military with GWB. He's a career guy, I see no reason for him to lie.

This administration has shown time and time again what happens to military men who don't toe the party line, they get railroaded. There have been plenty of other military men who weren't allowed to speak the truth while they were in their position of power for fear of reprisals.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey

General Petraeus would rather betray us than tell us the truth, after all.

Patraeus didn't come into the military with GWB. He's a career guy, I see no reason for him to lie.

This administration has shown time and time again what happens to military men who don't toe the party line, they get railroaded. There have been plenty of other military men who weren't allowed to speak the truth while they were in their position of power for fear of reprisals.

If there is an inherent problem, I don't think it rests with a Commander like Patraeus being afraid of the President and trying to lie.

I firmly believe the information Patraeus uses will be based on *ground up* reports generated and submitted by hundreds or perhaps thousands of *sub commanders* in the field. There's no way to get away with fabrication. Moreover, given the confidence of vanity of people like him, I can't see him putting himself up for the eventual discredit & scorn he would earn if he did so. Eventually, academics and others will get this info and analyize the heck out of it. They'll be teaching classes in the various war colleges based on this stuff one day.

The inherent problem as I see it (from my professional background) is that Patraeus will be giving a report on the military progress. A military he is in charge of. There is an inherent lack of objectivity therefore. He is not a *dis-interested party*, which is generally required for objectivity. That objective reveiw will come later, though. But in the meantime, this process will have to do. I don't have any ideas about how to get a very current report without getting it from Patraeus.

Since I remain convinced that we are not going to pullout, I believe the importance of this report is overstated. Sounds like the surge (as far as troop numbers go) will be reversed about the time Washington DC gets the report anyway.

Fern

 

[trenchfoot]

considering how consistent the bush admin has been about putting their very own special kind of spin on everything that comes out of their offices, why should this report from patraeus be any different?

this habit of theirs, which worked really well for getting themselves elected, has been an acchiles heel for them when they applied this methodology toward policy-making; thus their huge losses in '06. the dems have been successfully exploiting this weakness since realizing it as such and will give the patraeus report the same treatment if, as expected, the bush admin falls prey to its own familiar rigidly structured suicidal ways.

the bush admin has been accessorizing and slabbing so much makeup on that pig of theirs named iraq to where at present, that pig is absolutely bizzare-looking. yet, if you follow the spin that the bush admin has been slopping out, putting more makeup on that pig only makes it look prettier and prettier as the days and years go by.

that is some kind of nasty, twisted, and disjointed disconnect right there. scary, actually.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey

General Petraeus would rather betray us than tell us the truth, after all.

Patraeus didn't come into the military with GWB. He's a career guy, I see no reason for him to lie.

This administration has shown time and time again what happens to military men who don't toe the party line, they get railroaded. There have been plenty of other military men who weren't allowed to speak the truth while they were in their position of power for fear of reprisals.

If there is an inherent problem, I don't think it rests with a Commander like Patraeus being afraid of the President and trying to lie.

I firmly believe the information Patraeus uses will be based on *ground up* reports generated and submitted by hundreds or perhaps thousands of *sub commanders* in the field. There's no way to get away with fabrication. Moreover, given the confidence of vanity of people like him, I can't see him putting himself up for the eventual discredit & scorn he would earn if he did so. Eventually, academics and others will get this info and analyize the heck out of it. They'll be teaching classes in the various war colleges based on this stuff one day.

The inherent problem as I see it (from my professional background) is that Patraeus will be giving a report on the military progress. A military he is in charge of. There is an inherent lack of objectivity therefore. He is not a *dis-interested party*, which is generally required for objectivity. That objective reveiw will come later, though. But in the meantime, this process will have to do. I don't have any ideas about how to get a very current report without getting it from Patraeus.

Since I remain convinced that we are not going to pullout, I believe the importance of this report is overstated. Sounds like the surge (as far as troop numbers go) will be reversed about the time Washington DC gets the report anyway.

Fern

The importance of this report was created by Bush and Republicans in Congress, this has been their go-to defense for the past 4 months when trying to justify the surge. So if the report now has an inflated sense of importance, the blame lies squarely with them.

I would agree that Patraeus has a vested interest in making himself and his men look good but I don't think that's even been in dispute nor is that the issue. It's that this was "sold" to us as a straight shooter, no BS report from the ground on whether we are making a difference and now it's revealed that it's going to be written by the WH, a WH who has been less than honest with their appraisals of the situation since it started.

Now they are trying to keep him away from bringing the report to Congress or at least move it behind closed doors and that is unacceptable, not when we've all been told that so much rides on this report.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey

General Petraeus would rather betray us than tell us the truth, after all.

Patraeus didn't come into the military with GWB. He's a career guy, I see no reason for him to lie.

This administration has shown time and time again what happens to military men who don't toe the party line, they get railroaded. There have been plenty of other military men who weren't allowed to speak the truth while they were in their position of power for fear of reprisals.

If there is an inherent problem, I don't think it rests with a Commander like Patraeus being afraid of the President and trying to lie.

I firmly believe the information Patraeus uses will be based on *ground up* reports generated and submitted by hundreds or perhaps thousands of *sub commanders* in the field. There's no way to get away with fabrication. Moreover, given the confidence of vanity of people like him, I can't see him putting himself up for the eventual discredit & scorn he would earn if he did so. Eventually, academics and others will get this info and analyize the heck out of it. They'll be teaching classes in the various war colleges based on this stuff one day.

The inherent problem as I see it (from my professional background) is that Patraeus will be giving a report on the military progress. A military he is in charge of. There is an inherent lack of objectivity therefore. He is not a *dis-interested party*, which is generally required for objectivity. That objective reveiw will come later, though. But in the meantime, this process will have to do. I don't have any ideas about how to get a very current report without getting it from Patraeus.

Since I remain convinced that we are not going to pullout, I believe the importance of this report is overstated. Sounds like the surge (as far as troop numbers go) will be reversed about the time Washington DC gets the report anyway.

Fern

The importance of this report was created by Bush and Republicans in Congress, this has been their go-to defense for the past 4 months when trying to justify the surge. So if the report now has an inflated sense of importance, the blame lies squarely with them.

I would agree that Patraeus has a vested interest in making himself and his men look good but I don't think that's even been in dispute nor is that the issue. It's that this was "sold" to us as a straight shooter, no BS report from the ground on whether we are making a difference and now it's revealed that it's going to be written by the WH, a WH who has been less than honest with their appraisals of the situation since it started.

Now they are trying to keep him away from bringing the report to Congress or at least move it behind closed doors and that is unacceptable, not when we've all been told that so much rides on this report.

this tactic sounds strangely like the one the bush admin coughed up during the AG AG hearings when they offered to let congress interview some of the admin crew on the condition the interviews be held behind closed doors and not under oath; which gave the admin crew free reign to lie at will. lol. here we go again.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I bet it goes alot like this:

Battling for Iraq
By David H. Petraeus
Sunday, September 26, 2004

The General is in a tuff spot. A mouthpiece for Bush Crime Family propaganda or a legit objective report. Take one for the WH or run the risk of being Shinseki-ed.

What did they do for the reputation of Colin Powell? Only took our nation's most respected public servant and turned him into a clown.

He will say we are making military progress but have work to do.

If he is an ambitous man he's in quite a pickle. He could crush his career now - or crush it for later.

 

[Narmer]

Wow, I was just watching CNN and Bill Schneider said that by law the report will be made by Petraeus and Crocker but it will be produced by the Whitehouse. No wonder the Whitehouse has been pushing this report. It was a setup, folks.

Read it with a deep, deep sense of skepticism.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Wow, I was just watching CNN and Bill Schneider said that by law the report will be made by Petraeus and Crocker but it will be produced by the Whitehouse. No wonder the Whitehouse has been pushing this report. It was a setup, folks.

Read it with a deep, deep sense of skepticism.

"By law"? Did Congress pass this law?

But anyway, I'm pretty sure it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense (Gates), which w/b normal.

If I were a Dem defense committee chair etc, I'd still request to see Patraeus's original report and underlying data.

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Wow, I was just watching CNN and Bill Schneider said that by law the report will be made by Petraeus and Crocker but it will be produced by the Whitehouse. No wonder the Whitehouse has been pushing this report. It was a setup, folks.

Read it with a deep, deep sense of skepticism.

:thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown: - :thumbsdown:

 

[Fern]

The emergency supplemental legislation Congress passed in April called for the July 15 interim report on the surge by. Another report is due by Sept. 15.

Link to info on the law

Bwuhahahaha.

All you lefty people bitching about the White House writing the report, hehe that's the way the Dem controlled Congress wrote the law. :laugh:

Too funny.

Fern

Edit: Thomas Law Library lists David Obey as sponsor of the bill.

 

[Lemon law]

There are still 30 days until the report comes out. And we must all admit that there is SOME positive news now that MAY indicate some corners have been turned. Especially since
the military has turned to its best counter insurgency thinker. But I very much wonder if a good deal of what seems to be good news is just a interim period where the focus of the insurgency is shifting gears and consolidating gains. And what looks like good news is really the precursors of a new insurgency. But as the Iraqi government comes straggling back, the upcoming Patraeus report will somewhat dominate thinking for all parties in Iraq.

Up till now, the insurgency of the the 20% of the population has pretty well tied up the entire US military while the much larger Shia insurgency has not done all that much to directly snipe at the US military by day. At night, the Shia death squads have pretty well chased all the Sunnis out of Baghdad. So as the population segregates by sect, the
delineations of self defense zones is now much clearer. And the Sunnis have decided, Al-Quida never was interested in them and hence the Sunni tribal leaders have traded
Al-Quida for the arms they need to defend themselves. Meanwhile the larger Shia insurgency, mostly under the command of Al Sadr, seems to be somewhat fragmenting into
separate fiefdoms. While they wait for the Brits to finally exit from the South. And to the North, the Kurds have their areas totally locked down. And won't even allow an Iraqi flag to fly while they decide to strike out on their own or join an Iraqi coalition.

If my read of the tea leaves is correct, we are seeing a movement to a defacto three state solution as each of the three major factions are gradually asserting self rule. The point being, the active or latent insurgencies of all three groups are going to see the democratically elected central government as the entity to suppress. And the two somewhat latent insurgencies of the Kurds and Shias will soon start to kick in. And suddenly the Iraqi insurgencies could get about four times as active and dangerous. In terms of natural timing, I would expect that timing for a new increase in the insurgencies to occur well after the 9/15 report. But any of the sides could choose, for reasons of their own, to move the time table up.

In short, the choice is up to the Iraqi insurgencies. They can either join the Iraqi central government and self extinguish themselves or they can choose to resist the Iraqi central government. I would prefer the former but am guessing the latter will in fact be the case. And if it goes latter option, its going to take the 500,000 troops to police the streets day and night. We are likely to find out fast because both the Shia and Shia threaten to pull out and there is some somewhat unclear Malki visit to Iran.

And Corn---the Iraqi thread is just beginning and we are only getting to year 4.5.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Narmer
Wow, I was just watching CNN and Bill Schneider said that by law the report will be made by Petraeus and Crocker but it will be produced by the Whitehouse. No wonder the Whitehouse has been pushing this report. It was a setup, folks.

Read it with a deep, deep sense of skepticism.

"By law"? Did Congress pass this law?

But anyway, I'm pretty sure it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense (Gates), which w/b normal.

If I were a Dem defense committee chair etc, I'd still request to see Patraeus's original report and underlying data.

Fern

I would certainly hope the men asking questions knew who was producing this report and asked the right questions as well. But seeing that we have a two party system and it may look "bad" to question a general, I'm not sure what they'll do. Here's hoping for the best.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I bet it goes alot like this:

Battling for Iraq
By David H. Petraeus
Sunday, September 26, 2004

The General is in a tuff spot. A mouthpiece for Bush Crime Family propaganda or a legit objective report. Take one for the WH or run the risk of being Shinseki-ed.

What did they do for the reputation of Colin Powell? Only took our nation's most respected public servant and turned him into a clown.

He will say we are making military progress but have work to do.

If he is an ambitous man he's in quite a pickle. He could crush his career now - or crush it for later.

not to worry heyhey, if patraeus behaves as he areed to when he accepted the position as a sacrificial lamb at the alter of the neocon gods, he also agreed to a robust compensation package that will not appear on any radar screens until it doesn't matter.