 |
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Huh? What is the source of your information, Chou? Or have you just been listening to the liberal talking points again?
Hufpo links to a LA Slimes article when they make this claim
Top general may propose pullbacks - Los Angeles Times
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.
David Petraeus, a general who won't sugarcoat - International Herald Tribune
I just wonder what angst the Democrats will go through if (as the article suggests might happen )the General recommends a draw down .Quote:
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."
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."
Either way, it's going to be one helluva fight.
Administration officials said the report would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Remember the July mid-term report which purported to show “satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.” A closer look into those claims revealed that the progress was purely White House spin.
Think Progress » Petraeus' September Report Will Be Written By The White House
That was not part of the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May, or it would not have passed.Quote:
Don't you think it far more important for the general to focus on the war than to physically prepare this document?
Here is a little more of what we can expect:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
In fact, nothing was handed over.
Iraq: The Way to Go - The New York Review of Books
I don't know about the handover being a sham, but this doesn't look so bad to me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/...peshmerga2.jpg
Peshmerga Women Steal the Show at Iraqi Handover Ceremonies
(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 IraqQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
"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.
DC ; is a strong central government desirable ?
Of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:09 AM. |