At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
It turns out that the Bush White House is going to write General Petreaus's September report on the status of the Iraq War....this whole time I thought we were going to get an Army General's report, so it would be truthful....
Hehehe, Bush sure tricked me, AND I KNOW HE IS SUCH A LIAR, did he trick you??
It turns out that the Bush White House is going to write General Petreaus's September report on the status of the Iraq War....this whole time I thought we were going to get an Army General's report, so it would be truthful....
Hehehe, Bush sure tricked me, AND I KNOW HE IS SUCH A LIAR, did he trick you??
President Bush, it seems, has seized unprecedented power to re-write even history, why would this surprise anyone…the world seems hypnotized by his shouts of fear of an attack on America. Makes me wonder to what ends he would have gone had he been President during the cold war when there were hundreds of missiles pointed toward us. Frankly, he scares me more that the Terrorist.
A couple of thoughts . I do not believe for one second that General Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker would sign off on a report that doesn't reflect their views. Do you really think that either of them have the time to write up an extensive comprehensive report on their own ?
Secondly ;Both men will sit down to what I am sure will be an intense Q & A session with both Houses of Congress.
If you are wondering about the General's integrity then perhaps you should read this article by the Int. Herald Tribune;a sister publications of the NY Slimes .I would certainly question the spin Huffpo puts on this article before questioning the veracity of the General.
While he talks directly with Bush once or twice a week, in interviews he depicts himself as owing loyalty as much to Congress as the White House and stresses the downside, as well as the upside, of the American military effort here.
His view, he says, is that he is "on a very important mission that derives from a policy" made by Congress, "with the advice and consent and resources provided by folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," the White House.
"And in September," he said, "that's how I'm going to approach it." Whether to fight on here, he says, is a "big, big decision - a national decision," one that belongs to elected officials, not a field general.
Talking to American officers during a weeklong counterinsurgency course at Taji, just north of Baghdad, he put it squarely. "We need forthright reports," he said. "We're not trying to sugarcoat things, or put lipstick on a pig, or anything like that."
I just wonder what angst the Democrats will go through if (as the article suggests might happen )the General recommends a draw down .
Edit
A further reading from other sources suggests not a draw down but shifting troops from secured areas to other areas where they could be better utilized .
You seem to be under the impression that the White House should no longer have the authorities of the executive branch. I hope you feel the same way should a Democrat win in 2008.
Don't you think it far more important for the general to focus on the war than to physically prepare this document? And as tom said, do you honestly think the two would "sign off on a report that doesn't reflect their views"? Oh, and can you tell me, which congressmen actually write their own legislation? For that matter, how many do you think actually read the legislation they "write"?
If it makes you feel any better, "they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday."
You seem to be under the impression that the White House should no longer have the authorities of the executive branch. I hope you feel the same way should a Democrat win in 2008.
Don't you think it far more important for the general to focus on the war than to physically prepare this document? And as tom said, do you honestly think the two would "sign off on a report that doesn't reflect their views"? Oh, and can you tell me, which congressmen actually write their own legislation? For that matter, how many do you think actually read the legislation they "write"?
If it makes you feel any better, "they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday."
Either way, it's going to be one helluva fight.
Here is a little more of what we can expect:
Ripley's Believe it or Not.
On May 30, the Coalition held a ceremony in the Kurdistan town of Erbil to mark its handover of security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces from the Coalition to the Iraqi government. General Benjamin Mixon, the US commander for northern Iraq, praised the Iraqi government for overseeing all aspects of the handover. And he drew attention to the "benchmark" now achieved: with the handover, he said, Iraqis now controlled security in seven of Iraq's eighteen provinces.
On May 30, the Coalition held a ceremony in the Kurdistan town of Erbil to mark its handover of security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces from the Coalition to the Iraqi government. General Benjamin Mixon, the US commander for northern Iraq, praised the Iraqi government for overseeing all aspects of the handover. And he drew attention to the "benchmark" now achieved: with the handover, he said, Iraqis now controlled security in seven of Iraq's eighteen provinces.
(Tip of the hat to tom, who reported on this elsewhere)
Thanks, the news item makes my case, it was not handed over to the government of Iraq
"to the Kurdish regional government in the northern city of Arbil. Reponsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces -- Sulaimaniyah, Arbil and Dohuk -- was given to the Kurdish regional government today.
Linear Mode
