The September "Petraeus" Report

Dungheap said:
Damocles - Perhaps you can provide me some citations to Democrats "shouting 'defeat.'" I don't recall that ever happening.
Click to expand...

If you accept lost and defeat as being the same just google Harry Reid and The War is Lost.

Having the Leader of the Senate state publicly the War is Lost stands out as stating defeat to me.
 
Kinda like global warming we will have to be in Iraq for how many years to decide we have lost ?

By all of the Bushco expectations the war is lost.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where are you reading the surge isn't succeeding? By all accounts I've read its been reported that it is showing some success.
 
Thorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's be fine if it were true. It's not. From the August 1, 2007 Tony Snow Press Briefing:

MR. SNOW: You're impugning General Petraeus's ability to measure what's going on?

Q I'm asking how he can give an objective assessment of his own work.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a look again at the report that was filed to Congress, the interim reported July 15th -- no sugarcoating there. You take a look -- and they try to use real metrics on it. General Petraeus is a serious guy who sees his mission not as a political mission, but, in fact, as somebody who reports facts.

Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is -- although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And so we trust him.

[snip]

Q Two questions, Tony. To what extent was the Vice President pre-writing the Petraeus report or setting expectations when he said he thinks it's going to show progress?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think he's pre-writing it. Look, again, the one thing -- if you talk to military guys, the last thing they want to do is get themselves embroiled in politics. What they try to do is to play it straight and to do it straight. And obviously the Vice President has his impressions based on what he's seen, but we're going to have to wait to see what General Petraeus has to report.
Click to expand...

Or from the President himself back in May:

The two questions you asked, one was about General Petraeus's report to -- around September about what's taking place in Baghdad. My attitude toward Congress is, why don't you wait and see what he says? Fund the troops, and let him come back and report to the American people. General Petraeus picked this date; he believes that there will be enough progress one way or the other to be able to report to the American people, to give an objective assessment about what he sees regarding the Baghdad security plan.

It's at that point in time that I'm confident that the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs will take a look at what David Petraeus says and make recommendations about troop levels, based upon the conditions on the ground, which stands in stark contrast to members of Congress who say, we're going to determine troop levels based upon politics, or the latest opinion poll, or how we can get our members elected.
Click to expand...


This whole thing. like everything else with this administration is a total fraud.

P.S. - I'll give a shiny nickel to the first person that can find a Republican spinmeister saying "Of course General Petraeus isn't writing the report, he's too busy winning the war."
 
cawacko said:
If you accept lost and defeat as being the same just google Harry Reid and The War is Lost.

Having the Leader of the Senate state publicly the War is Lost stands out as stating defeat to me.
Click to expand...

It's been a strategic loss for the United States. People don't like to say it, but its true.

Look, we're going to spend a trillion dollars, and maybe 40 or 50 thousand dead and wounded ameircan soldiers on this war....for what???. NONE of any of the original goals of the war were met. Saddam didn't have WMD, the war didn't weaken Al Qaeda, Saddam was not an ally of al qaeda, a Jeffersonian democracy won't spring up in iraq. The war has been the greatest recruitment tool bin laden ever could have dreamed for. The United States' reputation and military have been degraded. For What???

That's really a strategic defeat. The very, very best we can hope for, is to keep a lid on a civil war for a few more years, and hope that some benevolent strongman, or pseudo-athoritarian governemnt emerges in baghdad.
 
cawacko said:
Where are you reading the surge isn't succeeding? By all accounts I've read its been reported that it is showing some success.
Click to expand...


By all accounts I've read its been reported that it is showing some success

That's because you read Drudge ;)


Has violence gone down in Baghdad? According to the Bush admin it has. I haven't seen any independent confirmation. But, its possbile that flooding 20 thousand more american troops in baghdad can limit the violence there. But, it appears the insurgents just move to other areas of the country, and wait for the americans to move again.

And the whole idea of the surge, was to create the opportunity for political reconcilliation. THAT was the overarching goal. And, if you've been getting news from anywhere but FOX, the political situation in Baghdad is worse now, than in january
 
Cypress said:
By all accounts I've read its been reported that it is showing some success

That's because you read Drudge ;)


Has violence gone down in Baghdad? According to the Bush admin it has. I haven't seen any independent confirmation. But, its possbile that flooding 20 thousand more american troops in baghdad can limit the violence there. But, it appears the insurgents just move to other areas of the country, and wait for the americans to move again.

And the whole idea of the surge, was to create the opportunity for political reconcilliation. THAT was the overarching goal. And, if you've been getting news from anywhere but FOX, the political situation in Baghdad is worse now, than in january
Click to expand...

Much worse.
 
Cypress said:
By all accounts I've read its been reported that it is showing some success

That's because you read Drudge ;)


Has violence gone down in Baghdad? According to the Bush admin it has. I haven't seen any independent confirmation. But, its possbile that flooding 20 thousand more american troops in baghdad can limit the violence there. But, it appears the insurgents just move to other areas of the country, and wait for the americans to move again.

And the whole idea of the surge, was to create the opportunity for political reconcilliation. THAT was the overarching goal. And, if you've been getting news from anywhere but FOX, the political situation in Baghdad is worse now, than in january
Click to expand...

Maybe you think it is not succeeding because you read DailyKos and Moveon.org and Commondreams where any thought which might be perceived to be benefitial to anyone on the right is not allowed. :)

I read the L.A. Times and S.F. Chronicle on a daily baisis. No bastion of right-wing thought there. Try some mainstream sources yourself.
 
A little History Review - here's your track record Cawacko ;):

Year 2003:

Liberals: "Wow, not cool. There's an insurgency brewing"/
NeoCon: "No way! Its just a few dead enders!"

2004:

Liberals: "Things aren't going well in Iraq. We better change course"
NeoCon: "No way. The media isn't reporting the good news. Things are getting better!"

2005:

Liberals: "Iraq is becoming a civil war"
NeoCon: "No way! That's liberal media spin. Stay the course!"

2006:

Liberals: "We really shouldn't be babysitting a civil war."
NeoCon: "Stay the course! We'll stand down as they stand up"


2007:

Liberals: "I don't think we should be surging or babysitting this civil war"
NeoCon: "Well, maybe bush was wrong before. But, the surge is working!"
 
Battleborne said:
You and darla... two peas in a pod...citations were asked for and given...no spin just facts presented...you two are the spin meisters!
Click to expand...


"I don't think Harry Reid, who is one dem by the way, stating that the Iraqi war is lost, equates to "dems running around screaming defeat"

yeah and a couple equates to dems running around screaming defeat. only if you are a spinner.
But then repubs are chicken little types.
Mushroom clouds, WMd's, fight em over there or in Bloomingdales, etc...

BB I recall being told pertty much the same thing back before the invasion when I said ti was a bad idea and would not work.
so those still screaming that I am the spinner impress me not.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
A little History Review - here's your track record Cawacko ;):

Year 2003:

Liberals: "Wow, not cool. There's an insurgency brewing"/
NeoCon: "No way! Its just a few dead enders!"

2004:

Liberals: "Things aren't going well in Iraq. We better change course"
NeoCon: "No way. The media isn't reporting the good news. Things are getting better!"

2005:

Liberals: "Iraq is becoming a civil war"
NeoCon: "No way! That's liberal media spin. Stay the course!"

2006:

Liberals: "We really shouldn't be babysitting a civil war."
NeoCon: "Stay the course! We'll stand down as they stand up"


2007:

Liberals: "I don't think we should be surging or babysitting this civil war"
NeoCon: "Well, maybe bush was wrong before. But, the surge is working!"
Click to expand...

That's my history? I didn't realize I spoke for a whole group of people. Guess I shouldn't underestimate my power.

All that b.s. you wrote still doesn't change the report that the surge has shown success. You put yourself in a position to where admitting it would somehow equate saying something positive about Bush. I would think you can dislike Bush and still root for the war effort but maybe that's not possible.

Do you have mainstream sources that say the surge has had no success because I know the Times has reported success. And let's be clear here reporting success in the surge does not mean the war is going to be over next month or anything dramatic like that. But it does mean we have made advancements and had success militarily.
 
Cypress said:
A little History Review - here's your track record Cawacko ;):

Year 2003:

Liberals: "Wow, not cool. There's an insurgency brewing"/
NeoCon: "No way! Its just a few dead enders!"

2004:

Liberals: "Things aren't going well in Iraq. We better change course"
NeoCon: "No way. The media isn't reporting the good news. Things are getting better!"

2005:

Liberals: "Iraq is becoming a civil war"
NeoCon: "No way! That's liberal media spin. Stay the course!"

2006:

Liberals: "We really shouldn't be babysitting a civil war."
NeoCon: "Stay the course! We'll stand down as they stand up"


2007:

Liberals: "I don't think we should be surging or babysitting this civil war"
NeoCon: "Well, maybe bush was wrong before. But, the surge is working!"
Click to expand...


You can label me whatever you would like but I am not Jewish nor have I been a liberal at another time in my life.
 
what I posted previously is now being proven by some here. Any slight technical success in Iraq will be blown out of porportion by the right wingnuts.
 
Dungheap said:
Damocles - Perhaps you can provide me some citations to Democrats "shouting 'defeat.'" I don't recall that ever happening.
Click to expand...
You don't remember any of the Ds running saying that the war in Iraq is lost? Selective memory perhaps. That's cool, it doesn't matter if you remember it for my analisys to be correct, only that others remember hearing it.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Click to expand...

Things like that... You don't remember them?

Statements like that set any improvement at all up to be better than what was predicted.

As I said before, it isn't like I'm happy about it, but expectations are so very low that almost any improvement will be magnified as exponentially greater than it is.
 
"but expectations are so very low that almost any improvement will be magnified as exponentially greater than it is."

I can agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top