The September "Petraeus" Report

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Way buried in an article on the upcoming and much anticipated September report that General Petraeus is supposed to issue regarding the situation in Iraq comes this little gem:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
Click to expand...

Isn't that nice. First, we get treated to this claptrap about how Bush listens to the Generals and takes their advise (so long as their advice is what he wants to hear). Then we get the Saint Petraeus of the Blessed Surge treatment (give it a chance, what's the worst that can happen but serveral hundred more dead Americans and thousands more dead Iraqis). Then we get the wait until September and let's hear what the General has to say.

Now, we learn that the report being written by the goddamed White House. I wonder what it's going to say.

By the way, the above-quoted paragraph should be the second paragraph in every single article about the "Petraeus" report, not the twentieth.
 
it will say that progress is being made.
But on the political scene in Iraq we have taken large steps backwards.
 
Dungheap said:
Way buried in an article on the upcoming and much anticipated September report that General Petraeus is supposed to issue regarding the situation in Iraq comes this little gem:



Isn't that nice. First, we get treated to this claptrap about how Bush listens to the Generals and takes their advise (so long as their advice is what he wants to hear). Then we get the Saint Petraeus of the Blessed Surge treatment (give it a chance, what's the worst that can happen but serveral hundred more dead Americans and thousands more dead Iraqis). Then we get the wait until September and let's hear what the General has to say.

Now, we learn that the report being written by the goddamed White House. I wonder what it's going to say.

By the way, the above-quoted paragraph should be the second paragraph in every single article about the "Petraeus" report, not the twentieth.
Click to expand...

You think you've seen it all with these guys, and then you find yourself surprised all over again.
 
uscitizen said:
it will say that progress is being made.
But on the political scene in Iraq we have taken large steps backwards.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you think that the "Petraeus Report" ghost written by W's ghostwriter, none other than Dick Cheney, is going to report progress? Oh, I don't know, I'm going to wait for it to come out before I jump to any conclusions here.
 
They will play with statistics and claim imporvement. And acutally some slight improvement in some areas is probable. I do empahsize SLIGHT though.

Umm I have learned from their past actions and have a high confidence factor in basically what the report will look like. I have been nearly 100% correct on Iraq so far.
 
I've already stated that any improvement at all will be seen as more than it is because the expectation of total defeat was already provided, and repeatedly stressed. I believe it is one of the reasons that after the campaigns the word "defeat" seemed to disappear...
 
Damocles said:
I've already stated that any improvement at all will be seen as more than it is because the expectation of total defeat was already provided, and repeatedly stressed. I believe it is one of the reasons that after the campaigns the word "defeat" seemed to disappear...
Click to expand...

I have not heard the word victory much lately either....
 
Damocles said:
They won't need it. They will work within expectations, even small improvements will be magnified when compared to the "total defeat" that was presented earlier.
Click to expand...

Umm compared to all the other bush and con projections.
we have been defeated already.
6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt if it will last 6 months...
we will be welcomed with open arms.
We will have no casualties.
iraqs oil will pay for the reconstruction, etc etc etc...
 
Last edited:
But we won the war its the occupation which is being fucked up.

You see you dont "WIN" and occupation.
 
"I think for us to get american military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do ?... I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. It makes no sense at all"

Said by Dick Cheny (SOD) in 1991 after gulf war.
 
uscitizen said:
They will play with statistics and claim imporvement. And acutally some slight improvement in some areas is probable. I do empahsize SLIGHT though.

Umm I have learned from their past actions and have a high confidence factor in basically what the report will look like. I have been nearly 100% correct on Iraq so far.
Click to expand...

It will be full of lies, damn lies, and statistics. Two nights ago on the Daily Show Bill Kristol was on. He had just come back from his EXTENSIVE 8 day fact finding mission in the green zone and was happy to report that the surge is going well. Of course the man is a dyed in the wool, Kool-Aid (TM) drinking, Bush goober smoocher. He would not have reported being shot by a sniper if the hole was in the middle of his forehead and the blood kept running into his eyes.

I think that in Bagdad the surge probably is going well. I saw a report on one of the McNews outlets that said the insurgents were moving north but I don't know how accurate that is. The problem here is that we don't have honest partners politically in Iraq. The Shia and the Sunni are playing nice until such time as we leave and then the civil war will break out. Iran may then play a larger role and my biggest fear is that our friends the Kurds will get the nasty end of the stick. This thing has been poorly planned from the beginning and the generals are doing all they can to shore up the situation.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm compared to all the other bush and con projections.
we have been defeated already.
6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt if it will last 6 months...
we will be welcomed with open arms.
We will have no casualties.
iraqs oil will pay for the reconstruction, etc etc etc...
Click to expand...
It doesn't change what I have stated one iota. Expectations are low, any improvement will be magnified because of it, and I believe that it is why the Ds are not shouting "defeat" out like they did during the campaign. It's not like I am cheering about it or something. It is just a quick and dirty analysis.
 
I agree damo that any improvement at all will be fed thru a 1000 watt spin amplifier.
But only the cons will buy it. And not all of them.
 
Damocles - Perhaps you can provide me some citations to Democrats "shouting 'defeat.'" I don't recall that ever happening.
 
Well, it appears that they did cover themselves by saying that the report would "reflect" the findings of Petraeus, et al., not that it would be written by them. It was worded so that the interpretation would be that the generals would actually have some input (and control) of the information contained in the report, which apparently was never the intention at all.
 
Dungheap said:
Way buried in an article on the upcoming and much anticipated September report that General Petraeus is supposed to issue regarding the situation in Iraq comes this little gem:



Isn't that nice. First, we get treated to this claptrap about how Bush listens to the Generals and takes their advise (so long as their advice is what he wants to hear). Then we get the Saint Petraeus of the Blessed Surge treatment (give it a chance, what's the worst that can happen but serveral hundred more dead Americans and thousands more dead Iraqis). Then we get the wait until September and let's hear what the General has to say.

Now, we learn that the report being written by the goddamed White House. I wonder what it's going to say.

By the way, the above-quoted paragraph should be the second paragraph in every single article about the "Petraeus" report, not the twentieth.
Click to expand...


I can't say I'm suprised by this. Virtually everything about Bush's Iraq War has been political. Starting with the Mission Accomplished top gun carrier landing.

The surge isn't succeeding. The political situation in Iraq is worse than in January. And political reconcilation was the overarching goal of the surge.

We're playing whack a mole games now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top