View Full Version : No WRITTEN Patraeus Report After All
So, for all the neocon howling of the last few months about how the Cheerleaders For Defeat were already blasting General Patraeus' upcoming report and that he wouldn't get a fair hearing in Congress because of all the hubbub comes the news that no one but George Walker Bush is going to get a report on the effects of the Surge on the ongoing Iraq War. No written report. No statistics on paper to be analyzed. No words from Patraeus himself except what he testifies about before the Congress. Well, what a bill of goods THIS turned out to be after all.
Bush is supposed to report to Congress over progress on the benchmarks. Yeah, like that will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nothing abouit this war has been so far. Why start now?
In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:
A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,” the officer said.
The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.
To recap, first the public was incorrectly led to believe that Gen. David Petraeus would issue his own report about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Then the Los Angeles Times reported that the so-called “Petraeus report” would “actually be written by the White House.”
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) then suggested the White House would probably “tweak” the “Petraeus report.” In an effort to put the controversy to rest, Gen. David Petraeus assured lawmakers that the White House was not going to be involved in the “writing” of the report:
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), told reporters Thursday that Petraeus said he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had briefed the administration on the situation in Iraq, but added that “as far as [Petraeus] is concerned … he is writing his recommendations of that report and testimony.”
Now, apparently there will be no written report from Gen. Petraeus at all. While Petraeus’ statement to Congress will be made available, the public will not know what information he is providing to President Bush. The lack of transparency over Petraeus’ “report” will only intensify the high level of skepticism surrounding his statistics.
UPDATE: In a recent hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) said he recently met with Gen. Petraeus and was shown “the data.” Coleman said the data is “very clear about a reduction in violence. General Petraeus has those charts,” Coleman explained. Apparently, those charts will not be for public consumption.~link~ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/07/no-petraeus-report/)
PatrickHenry
09-08-2007, 08:46 AM
Ask yourself this question..."Why do I trust the politicians, the media and the military?"
And there are just a handful of answers.
I'm brainwashed by my time in government schools and military
I am a mentally deficient individual who can't think for myself
I like being bent over and reamed
I am too busy with liquor, porn or dope to care
I'm dyslexic and think that left is right, and up is down
Me... I don't trust those naked liars...they aren't wearing any clothes...
preservanation
09-08-2007, 10:21 AM
There is no "Petraeus" Report
It is the "Bush" Report.
or at least that is was I've been told by your elected Democrat Congress.
Glad to see all your hard work paid off.
lol
April15
09-08-2007, 04:22 PM
The failure to produce a report that is in writing is just more of the hide and seek process of this administration to avoid criminal prosecution.
...and to avoid accountability. After all, how can you deal with being accountable if there is nothing in writing?
preservanation
09-08-2007, 05:55 PM
The failure to produce a report that is in writing is just more of the hide and seek process of this administration to avoid criminal prosecution.
Good point.
Why hasn't the elected Dems begun impeachment proceedings yet, like you elected them to do?
Hmmmmmm?
Oh yea, they hoodwinked you.
suckers
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 06:59 PM
Oh yea, they hoodwinked you.
suckers
No more than the Republican led congress hoodwinked you when they were in power. Or did you vote them in to overspend?
preservanation
09-08-2007, 07:57 PM
Hate the overspending.
We need a Pres who will reverse that trend, no matter how impossible it seems..
Lower taxes, smaller feds.
Oh to believe the dream!
At least the deficit is on a precipitous decline thanks to Bush's' tax cuts.
A high tide floats all boats
jafar00
09-08-2007, 08:00 PM
Hate the overspending.
We need a Pres who will reverse that trend, no matter how impossible it seems..
Lower taxes, smaller feds.
Oh to believe the dream!
I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan :clapper:
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 08:05 PM
I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan :clapper:
Lots of politicians say things to get elected. When it is time for them to act on their promises they made we usually find out it was all just hot air.
I don't think Ron Paul is any different in that regard.
preservanation
09-08-2007, 08:08 PM
Hate the overspending.
We need a Pres who will reverse that trend, no matter how impossible it seems..
Lower taxes, smaller feds.
Oh to believe the dream!
I didn't know you were a Ron Paul fan :clapper:
To quote lily, "oh, poo!" :)
BoogyMan
09-08-2007, 08:41 PM
What does this "thinkprogress" (not an objective or non-partisan source by any means) article actually say about Petraeus testifying before congress? It was my understanding that he would testify before the congress. Has that changed, or is to be ignored in what seems to me to be another pre-emptive strike on the credibility of what Petraeus will have to say about the surge?
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 08:51 PM
It was my understanding that he would testify before the congress.
If I read the article correctly the problem is he will only be providing an opening statement and not a full report to congress.
BoogyMan
09-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Hmm, this article claims that the only "written" information will be the introduction by Petraeus but surely the man is going to testify before the congress as previously alluded to.
You will have to excuse my incredulity as I think what we are experiencing here is another pre-emptive attack on the credibility of Petraeus as anything he might have to say that is positive is being viewed as damaging to the democratic party agenda.
We have already seen the L.A. Times claim that a written report would not be done by Petraeus, but by the whitehouse. Now we have a ThinkProgress claiming that there will be no report at all.
I will wait and see what Petraeus has to say.
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 09:08 PM
Hmm, this article claims that the only "written" information will be the introduction by Petraeus but surely the man is going to testify before the congress as previously alluded to.
Yes, but what they are alluding to is that the White House is going to pick and choose the "good points" only and not the full report.
And since they are saying that he is only giving the opening statement and not the full report to congress that kinda plays into the whole pick and choosing thing of the white house.
I'll have to see how this is played out, but if true, that seems kinda shady looking at least to me. I mean if this administration wants solid proof that the war is going good, why wouldn't they provide his full unedited report?
Again, this is making a lot of assumptions as to what is going to happen. I'll wait and see before making any judgments for or against.
BoogyMan
09-08-2007, 09:14 PM
Again, this is making a lot of assumptions as to what is going to happen. I'll wait and see before making any judgments for or against.
You know it is really good to have you back, reasonable commentary is in short supply these days. Your skepticism while not accepting the standard line from either side of this issue until the report plays out is refreshing.
It seems to me that Petraeus is under a full scale attack, but I have been saying that for a while now.
I will wait and see what he has to say.
preservanation
09-08-2007, 09:37 PM
The libs have no problem taking the likes of Chavez, Castro and the late-great Saddam at their word, but when it comes to Petraeus, a US Military General...not so sure.
Weird
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 09:51 PM
The libs have no problem taking the likes of Chavez, Castro and the late-great Saddam at their word, but when it comes to Petraeus, a US Military General...not so sure.
Weird
Huh? I am a liberal and I just got done saying that I am going to wait and see what he says first.
And as for Castro and Chavez, when have I ever said I take them for their word?
And as for Saddam it isn't that liberals took him for his words as much as the "stockpiles" of WMDs have never been found.
Labrocca
09-08-2007, 09:56 PM
Yes, but what they are alluding to is that the White House is going to pick and choose the "good points" only and not the full report.
But this is how it was always going to be. We had a thread about this a few weeks ago with the same information. You can't take the same info everyone is already aware of..put it into a new wrapper and claim it's a new story. It's not...old news.
Petraeus is scheduled to testify in front of congress and to give a report to the president. Explain to me what has changed from day one to now.
preservanation
09-08-2007, 10:05 PM
The libs have no problem taking the likes of Chavez, Castro and the late-great Saddam at their word, but when it comes to Petraeus, a US Military General...not so sure.
Weird
Huh? I am a liberal and I just got done saying that I am going to wait and see what he says first.
And as for Castro and Chavez, when have I ever said I take them for their word?
I must have mistaken you for a conservative like Penn and Glover.
oops.
Elrathin
09-08-2007, 10:18 PM
But this is how it was always going to be. We had a thread about this a few weeks ago with the same information. You can't take the same info everyone is already aware of..put it into a new wrapper and claim it's a new story. It's not...old news.
I didn't see this a few weeks ago sorry, but if that is the case I still think that by not showing the full report, it can give the appearance that the white house is cherry picking the good points. If I were wanting to sell this war as improving I would want to provide a full unedited report to show all the good with the bad to say that there is more good than bad.
Petraeus is scheduled to testify in front of congress and to give a report to the president. Explain to me what has changed from day one to now.
Like I said before I didn't see that as the original, only what the article alluded to. And I even admitted that a lot of assumptions were going on and I would wait to see what he has to say before judging.
Thanks for providing the extra info.[hr]
I must have mistaken you for a conservative like Penn and Glover.
oops.
I have a few conservative leanings I'll admit, but for the most part am liberal.
Drocket
09-08-2007, 11:18 PM
Petraeus is scheduled to testify in front of congress and to give a report to the president. Explain to me what has changed from day one to now.
What's changed is that Petraeus has gone from issuing a full report to the White House writing Petraeus for him to Petraeus not having a report at all. It's not real hard to figure out what's changed.
What's changed is that Petraeus has gone from issuing a full report to the White House writing Petraeus for him to Petraeus not having a report at all. It's not real hard to figure out what's changed.
I would agree with you Drocket, but for one thing.......I don't see Petraeus sitting in front of Congress and just giving an opening statement, and then just walk out of the room. The senators are going to have a lot of questions for him and going against the grain here it's my opinion that those questions are going to get a hell of a lot more information than any report will give.........like everyone else, I guess we're all going to have to wait and see.
Todzilla
09-12-2007, 01:22 AM
The transcript I read is just fluffy pablum.
What happened to a quantified assessment of the 18 success measures?
The GAO report of a couple weeks ago says we've only achieve 3 of them.
I'm only half way through the sentate hearings. I don't think a written report is going to make much of a difference. Everything he's said to both the house and the senate is on record.
It's not going to make any difference because we all see that Bush finally has the right man for the job, one that agrees with him 100%. You don't even need a transcript for today's Senate hearings. I can summarize it all in three little words:
Stay The Course.
Well, ECW.........that's true, but we didn't really need a written transcript for that did we? Look on the "bright" side. Petraeus will have a job for at least another 6 months........now if we could just move Parliment to Anbar........where we were told over and over how safe it was, then we might just be able to get them to do some work...you know, since the surge was to stabalize Baghdad.......oh but wait......then they would have to be with the Sunnis......can't have that!
Let me see if I have this correct:
In order to stabilize the country we are training a new army and police force to replace the one that existed under Saddam that was primarily Sunni. The new force is mostly Shia.
The Sunnis have resorted to suicide bombings because they are no longer in power and are in the minority population-wise. Some of those joined AQI to further the fight but now many are returning and are being supplied with American armaments and put into their own police and army units.
The Shias in Iraq are the same religion as the Iranians next door.
The Sunni are the same religion as The Saudis and Jordanians.
Most of the killing of civilians cames from these two factions being armed to the teeth and most of the Americans that are killed are killed by one of these two groups. AQI is an afterthought in that race.
Tell me again how we are bringing "peace" to a country where we are arming the populace tooth and nail? How is the Surge going to stop this again? How long are we going to be in country?
ViolaLee
09-13-2007, 04:28 AM
We can't keep up the surge because the troops already got extended three months from 12 months to 15. If we extend them to 18 months, morale will be shite. They have to come home and there aren't any more to replace them. That's why Patraeus is saying he will bring some troops home.
Our brave, loyal men and women are on their 3rd, 4th and 5th tours of duty.
Enough already. Time to hand it over to Iraq.
What? What's that? We are building many huge permanent bases and a US embassy bigger than the Vatican? We're staying forever?
Yep. Thanks to Bush, supreme asshole.
I think you have it wrong, ViolaLee.
It's thanks to Bush, Worst. President. Ever.
ViolaLee
09-13-2007, 04:44 AM
I think it's both.
Let me see if I have this correct:
In order to stabilize the country we are training a new army and police force to replace the one that existed under Saddam that was primarily Sunni. The new force is mostly Shia.
The Sunnis have resorted to suicide bombings because they are no longer in power and are in the minority population-wise. Some of those joined AQI to further the fight but now many are returning and are being supplied with American armaments and put into their own police and army units.
Partly correct, ECW......you are forgetting in the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons........we still have all of them armed, including al-Sadr and his merry men.
The Shias in Iraq are the same religion as the Iranians next door.
Ah.......but we were told that the Iranians are Persians and they don't get along with Shites.......I think I'll wait for jafar's opinion on that one.
The Sunni are the same religion as The Saudis and Jordanians.
........but we're going to sell arms to the Saudis.
Most of the killing of civilians cames from these two factions being armed to the teeth and most of the Americans that are killed are killed by one of these two groups. AQI is an afterthought in that race.
:ponder: Can't correct you on this one.
Let me see if I have this correct:
In order to stabilize the country we are training a new army and police force to replace the one that existed under Saddam that was primarily Sunni. The new force is mostly Shia.
The Sunnis have resorted to suicide bombings because they are no longer in power and are in the minority population-wise. Some of those joined AQI to further the fight but now many are returning and are being supplied with American armaments and put into their own police and army units.
Partly correct, ECW......you are forgetting in the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons........we still have all of them armed, including al-Sadr and his merry men.
I didn't forget. I was trying to be concise. I also did not mention that when they disbanded all of the armed services that those men later broke into the armories and stole all the weaponry/ammo since our forces didn't know where those armories were. It's why there are so many weapons in this fight. Everybody and their uncle has a gun.
The Shias in Iraq are the same religion as the Iranians next door.
Ah.......but we were told that the Iranians are Persians and they don't get along with Shites.......I think I'll wait for jafar's opinion on that one.
Who told you they don't get along. Religion is much more important than that in the middle of a war for cultural supremacy. Persians and Arabs may not be the best of friesds but they will fight together against Sunni 99 times out of 100.
The Sunni are the same religion as The Saudis and Jordanians.
........but we're going to sell arms to the Saudis.
... who will make sure that the Sunni tribesman get what they need to fight off the incursions of the Shiite militia. SA is the largest and most powerful Sunni nation in the area. They look out for their own.
Most of the killing of civilians cames from these two factions being armed to the teeth and most of the Americans that are killed are killed by one of these two groups. AQI is an afterthought in that race.
:ponder: Can't correct you on this one.
And the killing goes on regardless of whether Petraeus "writes" up a report or not.
Stay The Course, folks. Stay The Course.
I didn't forget. I was trying to be concise. I also did not mention that when they disbanded all of the armed services that those men later broke into the armories and stole all the weaponry/ammo since our forces didn't know where those armories were. It's why there are so many weapons in this fight. Everybody and their uncle has a gun.
Yep.
Who told you they don't get along. Religion is much more important than that in the middle of a war for cultural supremacy. Persians and Arabs may not be the best of friesds but they will fight together against Sunni 99 times out of 100.
Just checked....sorry he said if the Iraqis and the Iranians want to make another Persian Empire.......ect.........my mistake.
... who will make sure that the Sunni tribesman get what they need to fight off the incursions of the Shiite militia. SA is the largest and most powerful Sunni nation in the area. They look out for their own.
Yep
And the killing goes on regardless of whether Petraeus "writes" up a report or not.
Stay The Course, folks. Stay The Course.
Ah see now we have a new slogan/strategy.
Return on success
Got to keep it to three words. Keep it simple.
Labrocca
09-19-2007, 07:55 AM
Tell me again how we are bringing "peace" to a country where we are arming the populace tooth and nail? How is the Surge going to stop this again? How long are we going to be in country?
Well I agree that arming these people may not be so bright but what choices do we have? Someone has to police the nation ..and you obviously don't believe it should be us.
How long are we going to be there? Not sure really...if on day one Bush had said we will be in Iraq for 12 years would you still be complaining? I certainly don't ever remember him saying we would be out of Iraq quickly. As a matter of fact he stated the opposite and called on Americans to be patient.
Drocket
09-19-2007, 08:05 AM
How long are we going to be there? Not sure really...if on day one Bush had said we will be in Iraq for 12 years would you still be complaining?
No, I'd mostly still be complaining about the fact that they twisted intelligence about WMDs to justify an invasion.
I certainly don't ever remember him saying we would be out of Iraq quickly.
You know, OTHER than the whole "greeted as liberators" and "it could last six days, six weeks - I doubt six months" and "Mission Accomplished". Oh, I'm sure you'll say that it wasn't BUSH who said most those things - just people in his employ repeating the administration propaganda. Well, guess where the buck stops?
Stoner
09-19-2007, 02:20 PM
greeted as liberators
As a whole, yes, we were indeed viewed as liberators. They were murdered and tortured under Hussein's rule. Now they are free and can vote and talk about politics openly.
Liberators is right, Pal.[/quote]
greeted as liberators
Now they are free and can vote and talk about politics openly.
Liberators is right, Pal.
Well.........one thing for sure is they are free. Free to get killed at any given moment........not much of an improvement.......as for voting, you might want to look into that. They didn't know who or what they were voting for until 2 says before the election, because of saftey. Talk openly about politics........I'll give you that one.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.