PDA

View Full Version : The White House is writing the "the Petraeus report"


jAZ
08-15-2007, 11:58 PM
White House Quotes:
"Obviously, there is going to be a report from Ambassador Crocker and General David Petraeus in September. We'll have to take a look at those." Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070814-2.html)

"The fact is that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be putting together a plan — not really a plan, but a report — that will assess the success to date of the surge, militarily, economically, diplomatically, politically, and so on." Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724.html)

"We're all waiting to see what General Petraeus produces by way of his report back, in September." Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070730-1.html)

"I'm going to wait for ... David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we'll use ... his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be." Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712-5.html)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12548.html

White House to write Petraeus report
Posted August 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

The LAT had a thorough and detailed report today on Gen. David Petraeus’ current thinking about troop duties in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Times piece really buried the lede.

The thrust of the piece focused on Petraeus apparent belief that U.S. troops may soon be able to leave parts of Iraq where security conditions have improved. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean the troops can return home and the overall deployment can shrink — Petraeus may decide to simply move the soldiers from one part of Iraq to more dangerous areas.

But way down in the 28th paragraph of the article, the LAT explained:

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.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

If I’d heard this elsewhere, I’d long since forgotten about it.

For weeks, the White House has responded to every question about Iraq the same way: let’s wait until September and see what Petraeus and Crocker have to say. Given their credibility, the argument goes, their assessments should carry enormous weight. And on the other side of the aisle, critics of the administration have wondered how best to respond to a predictable report, written by Bush allies who have given skeptics reason to worry about their objectivity.

But this entire discussion seems to have been missing the point. Petraeus and Crocker aren’t going to report to Congress; they’re going to provide information to White House officials, who will in turn tell lawmakers how great things are going in Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker will apparently offer raw data, which the Bush gang will happily interpret on their behalf.

In other words, whether you find Petraeus and Crocker credible or not is irrelevant. Their much-anticipated September report will have their names on it, but will be ghost-written by the least credible sources the nation has on Iraq: the Bush White House.

What’s more, the same article (in the 30th paragraph) added this gem:

The senior administration official said the process had created “uncomfortable positions” for the White House because of debates over what constitutes “satisfactory progress.”

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq’s oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

So, when preparing a mandated status report in July, the administration openly considered and discussed the merits of lying to Congress. This apparently made some officials “uncomfortable.”

patteeu
08-16-2007, 12:46 AM
If Petraeus signs off on the report, it's his report, even if he isn't the guy sitting behind the typewriter/keyboard. But I guess it's important for you to lay the groundwork for dismissing the report out of hand if it says anything you don't like.

jAZ
08-16-2007, 12:56 AM
If Petraeus signs off on the report, it's his report, even if he isn't the guy sitting behind the typewriter/keyboard. But I guess it's important for you to lay the groundwork for dismissing the report out of hand if it says anything you don't like.
Good point patteeu. General Petraeus must follow the orders of the Commander In Chief. That is correct.

keg in kc
08-16-2007, 12:57 AM
Is that anything like a Patronus Charm?

jAZ
08-16-2007, 01:05 AM
Wow... the WH actually tried to remove Petraeus from the public testimony completely and instead have Condi and Gates.

:shake:

I guess it creates PR uncertainty for the WH to have the guy who DIDN'T author the report answering questions about the report publicly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281.html?hpid=topnews

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but 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.

...

White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.

the Talking Can
08-16-2007, 06:36 AM
it's just like the fraudulent report on WMDs that Powell gave to the UN...the military's job is to provide fall-guys for Bush...

no one expected anything different from an administration with no credibility....

jAZ
08-16-2007, 08:12 AM
Does anyone still want to deny that Bush fired his top Generals in order to find and install one that would support the NeoCons' plan architected by Fred Kagan?

That Petraeus was used as a tool to try to hammer down criticism coming from inside the military, form the Congress and the public?

Cochise
08-16-2007, 08:41 AM
If Petraeus signs off on the report, it's his report, even if he isn't the guy sitting behind the typewriter/keyboard. But I guess it's important for you to lay the groundwork for dismissing the report out of hand if it says anything you don't like.

It's already going to be something they don't like. Reid and his ilk were declaring that the surge had failed back in April or May, before the troops were even in place. Durbin was even on some Sunday news mag saying that the surge was making progress (despite reciting the line about political solutions are what's really important, etc.)

They called it a failure before it even began, so they have to have an actionable point ready in case it does come out and sounds bad for them. (Bad, meaning, that the security situation has improved). Anyone could have predicted that in the second half of August they'd start poisoning the well.

If I thought they had really expected Petraeus to be sitting there with a laptop writing it all himself, I'd laugh, but since it's just the party line they committed to and have to stick with, not surprising in the least.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 08:52 AM
pat and cochise,
What you claim for the other side is equally as true for your side.
I think it's a foolish and unwise move by the WH to handle it this way, particularly when it's credibility is shot with most of the American people.
Think about that.

CHIEF4EVER
08-16-2007, 08:52 AM
My gracious. Are there people out there who are actually naive enough to think a General of his stature doesn't have a General Staff to generate the reports (at his direction and which he reviews) that he affixes his signature to?

patteeu
08-16-2007, 09:18 AM
Does anyone still want to deny that Bush fired his top Generals in order to find and install one that would support the plan conjured up by the NeoCons' plan architected by Fred Kagan?

That Petraeus was used as a tool to try to hammer down criticism coming from inside the military, form the Congress and the public?

Who's been denying it? Of course Bush replaced his old generals with new ones that had a different plan. That's what you mockers of "stay the course" have wanted all along, isn't it? :shrug:

Your libel against General Petraeus is another story though. By nearly all accounts, General Petraeus has the confidence of his troops and seems to be demonstrating his competence as evidenced by his results in the field so it's pretty small of you to suggest he's merely a tool of the administration. I guess this is what happens when you get too caught up in needing failure in Iraq to recognize that you've gone over the line of decency. :shake:

jAZ
08-16-2007, 09:40 AM
Who's been denying it? Of course Bush replaced his old generals with new ones that had a different plan. That's what you mockers of "stay the course" have wanted all along, isn't it?
You are so transparent in your spin that you've become a caricature of yourself.

The Generals that Bush fired weren't advocating "stay the course". They were advocating what ammounts to the Iraq Study Group plan. And because they weren't willing to support NeoCon and Chicken Hawk Fred Kagan's plan, he shit-canned them and found one who would.

And then he declared (and your shamelessly parrott) that it was not Fred Kagen's plan, or Bush's plan, but "General Petraeus' plan".

What a fraud.

jAZ
08-16-2007, 09:42 AM
Your libel against General Petraeus is another story though. By nearly all accounts, General Petraeus has the confidence of his troops and seems to be demonstrating his competence as evidenced by his results in the field so it's pretty small of you to suggest he's merely a tool of the administration. I guess this is what happens when you get too caught up in needing failure in Iraq to recognize that you've gone over the line of decency. :shake:
He's a general following orders to the best of his ability and making the best of the situation given the constraints put upon him by Bush.

Bush is using him as a tool, and Petraeus is in not position to keep his job and act otherwise. As a soldier his job is to be a tool for Bush if Bush so chooses to use him as one.

patteeu
08-16-2007, 09:47 AM
You are so transparent in your spin that you've become a caricature of yourself.

The Generals that Bush fired weren't advocating "stay the course". They were advocating what ammounts to the Iraq Study Group plan. And because they weren't willing to support Fred Kagan's plan, he shit-canned them and found one who would.

And then he declared (and your shamelessly parrott) that it was not Fred Kagen's plan, or Bush's plan, but "General Petraeus' plan".

What a fraud.

The Generals that were replaced were the designers of what you call "stay the course." I'm sure they were good Generals, but this is how you change course. I'm sorry you still don't like the course we're on.

General Petraeus created this plan. That others had been advocating a "more troops" approach for a while and that Kagen proposed a similar plan doesn't change this. It's sad that you need to try to diminish the man in your pursuit of partisan political advantage.

jAZ
08-16-2007, 09:53 AM
The Generals that were replaced were the designers of what you call "stay the course." I'm sure they were good Generals, but this is how you change course. I'm sorry you still don't like the course we're on.

General Petraeus created this plan. That others had been advocating a "more troops" approach for a while and that Kagen proposed a similar plan doesn't change this. It's sad that you need to try to diminish the man in your pursuit of partisan political advantage.
You live a a fantasy land. Patraeus executed a plan handed to him by Bush, designed by Kagen because when other Generals refused to support the escalation, they were fired for it.

patteeu
08-16-2007, 10:01 AM
You live a a fantasy land. Patraeus executed a plan handed to him by Bush, designed by Kagen because when other Generals refused to support the escalation, they were fired for it.

:rolleyes: It pisses you off that Petraeus is having success doesn't it?

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 10:02 AM
You are so transparent in your spin that you've become a caricature of yourself.



You know something Jiz, you've been spinning crap on here for so long,
I think we should just nick name you Diz instead of Jiz. Incase you need an explanation, Diz is short for Dizzy.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 10:04 AM
:rolleyes: It pisses you off that Petraeus is having success doesn't it?


The dems and the anti Bush folks have alot invested in our defeat in Iraq. Thats very sad imo.

Cochise
08-16-2007, 10:31 AM
The dems and the anti Bush folks have alot invested in our defeat in Iraq. Thats very sad imo.

I think they plan on milking it all the way through the '08 election season. They used the issue to help gather power for themselves in 2006 and then didn't do anything about it. They will do the same thing through 2008. Why people who elected them because they expected them to end the war as soon as they were able will vote for them again, I'll never understand.

They don't see ending the war as being as important as implementing their agenda in Washington. If they can use the issue to their advantage again in the next election cycle and get more of them elected, I'm sure they honestly feel that is a greater good. If they could get 60 votes for example, I think that being able to force-feed their agenda to the public without Republicans getting a word in (so much for the rights of the minority we heard about for so long) they would feel that's more important than keeping the anti-war crowd happy. They feel that America will be better in the end if they can parlay this into more seats in Congress.

I'm positive that the Democratic leadership feels deep down that it's more important to implement their health care agenda than ending the war. I bet they feel that advancing their global warming agenda is more important too. They won't say these things, but it's obvious that the war is their best chance to generate political capital in the coming election cycle and they have no intentions of stopping that.

Do you think they care what's going to happen in Iraq after we retreat and that's why we're still there? They think the war on terrorism is "a bumper sticker". They don't think we have a national interest in Iraq. They obviously don't care. I think Barry Obama even said something about preventing genocide not being a good enough reason to stay.

If they could end the war today and hang the ultimate defeat around Bush and the necks of the Republicans, sure, they'd do it. They won't do it anytime soon because they know that it's not what voters want and it will cost them in '08 if they force a surrender now.

HolmeZz
08-16-2007, 10:53 AM
The dems and the anti Bush folks have alot invested in our defeat in Iraq. Thats very sad imo.

Oooohhh, I can play?

The reps and pro Bush folks have a lot invested in the deaths of our soldiers in a meaningless war in Iraq. That's very sad imo.

oldandslow
08-16-2007, 11:05 AM
The dems and the anti Bush folks have alot invested in our defeat in Iraq. Thats very sad imo.

That's BS.

I don't want defeat. What I really want is foreign policy that doesn't force us into unjustified and unneccessary war.

There really is a difference.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 11:06 AM
There is a simple and fair way to handle this matter:

Release Petraeus document to the public or make it available as well as the one the WH version.

See how easy that was?

StcChief
08-16-2007, 11:40 AM
That's BS.

I don't want defeat. What I really want is foreign policy that doesn't force us into unjustified and unneccessary war.

There really is a difference.

The tyrants in ME should have thought about that before 9/11, in their attempt to prove America is weak and will knuckle under.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 11:52 AM
The tyrants in ME should have thought about that before 9/11, in their attempt to prove America is weak and will knuckle under.
Who?
Haven't you realized yet, that's a sweeping generality when it was one group, that lives in a cave that is responsible for 9/11?

When are you going to shift your viewpoint instead of blaming something thatis non-existent. It's illogical.

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 12:48 PM
You know something Jiz, you've been spinning crap on here for so long,


Not that I'd disagree (I think a lot of his posts are crap), but that accusation means so much coming from someone who has so little respect for the rule of law he publicly pines for the days of lynching.


Maybe the KKK should make a trip to go see the perps. Show them the long "loop" of the law.


That's BS.

I don't want defeat. What I really want is foreign policy that doesn't force us into unjustified and unneccessary war.

There really is a difference.

Expecting Chief Henry to admit to that nuance ranks up there with expecting anti Rudy posts from Jake, or support for Ann the Man from meme. He's as much a partisan shill as jAZ, but don't expect him to realize it or admit to it.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:17 PM
Not that I'd disagree (I think a lot of his posts are crap), but that accusation means so much coming from someone who has so little respect for the rule of law he publicly pines for the days of lynching.






Expecting Chief Henry to admit to that nuance ranks up there with expecting anti Rudy posts from Jake, or support for Ann the Man from meme. He's as much a partisan shill as jAZ, but don't expect him to realize it or admit to it.




This comes from a man in the mushy middle...Your general
observations are about as useless as the tits on the front of your chest. I don't expect anything of any significance from your
threads either.

Your thoughts are very insignificant as well.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:19 PM
There is a simple and fair way to handle this matter:

Release Petraeus document to the public or make it available as well as the one the WH version.

See how easy that was?



You won't beleave what it says anyway. So what good will that do.
Harry and Nancy have already given the marching orders on that.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:22 PM
Oooohhh, I can play?

The reps and pro Bush folks have a lot invested in the deaths of our soldiers in a meaningless war in Iraq. That's very sad imo.


What democrat congressman has already admitted to this. It was only about a weeke ago.

When we/USA wins the war on terror, the dems will have lots of egg on there face and maybe there houses too !

HolmeZz
08-16-2007, 01:24 PM
I've been hearing about that victory for years.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:25 PM
That's BS.

I don't want defeat. What I really want is foreign policy that doesn't force us into unjustified and unneccessary war.

There really is a difference.


You don't want defeat ? Then whats your plan or the DEMS plan for
Victory?

HolmeZz
08-16-2007, 01:27 PM
You don't want defeat ? Then whats your plan or the DEMS plan for
Victory?

I can't imagine what it's like to go through life so simple-minded.

Tell me Oh Henry, who do you think we're actively fighting over there? What is victory? What are the conditions to declare it? What would you do to ensure that whenever we actually do leave that the whole thing doesn't just crumble back to pieces?

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:37 PM
I can't imagine what it's like to go through life so simple-minded.

Tell me Oh Henry, who do you think we're actively fighting over there? What is victory? What are the conditions to declare it? What would you do to ensure that whenever we actually do leave that the whole thing doesn't just crumble back to pieces?

I can't imagine going through life with your life !

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 01:42 PM
You won't beleave what it says anyway. So what good will that do.
Harry and Nancy have already given the marching orders on that.
Oh really? I did post somewhere around here if it was working I'd be willing to hang in a bit longer.

Other than that your observation, isn't far off. I just operate on someone lying 127 times indicating behavior in the future. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. That kinda thing.

Guess I just don't believe in conquering other nations by keeping permanent troops in any country in order to police the ME. Nope. I am an American—not an empire builder.

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 01:43 PM
This comes from a man in the mushy middle

Yep, life is a bit more dangerous in the middle of the road, dodging traffic from both sides.

It's still far better than being on the edge of the road in the gutter with you and your fellow ideologues.




If you don't get tonights game, maybe there will be a lynching you can go to tonight. Just ask your local Kleagle.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 01:54 PM
Yep, life is a bit more dangerous in the middle of the road, dodging traffic from both sides.

It's still far better than being on the edge of the road in the gutter with you and your fellow ideologues.




If you don't get tonights game, maybe there will be a lynching you can go to tonight. Just ask your local Kleagle.



Unbeleavable ! Tonights game will be on ESPN. For you pointy headed types. ESPN is Entertainment Sports Programming Network. The lynchings will be on WKKK. I beleave thats run by the NEA or the ACLU.
I think Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is the station manager. I've got him on speed dial for sure.

go bowe
08-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Who's been denying it? Of course Bush replaced his old generals with new ones that had a different plan. That's what you mockers of "stay the course" have wanted all along, isn't it? :shrug:

Your libel against General Petraeus is another story though. By nearly all accounts, General Petraeus has the confidence of his troops and seems to be demonstrating his competence as evidenced by his results in the field so it's pretty small of you to suggest he's merely a tool of the administration. I guess this is what happens when you get too caught up in needing failure in Iraq to recognize that you've gone over the line of decency. :shake:not this mocker...

i haven't wanted a change in generals...

i've wanted us to win in iraq...

but i'm not real fond of the idea of staying there as an occupying force for another 5 or 10 or more years...

we should give it our best shot, then get out as expeditously as we can...

imo, the real key to our getting out is a continuation of the policies that lead to the loose alliances with former sunni insurgents "turning sides" against aq...

now that we've changed our policies and are trying something different (a small change from stay the course) i think we need to stay the course (again)...

go bowe
08-16-2007, 02:16 PM
Who's been denying it? Of course Bush replaced his old generals with new ones that had a different plan. That's what you mockers of "stay the course" have wanted all along, isn't it? :shrug:

Your libel against General Petraeus is another story though. By nearly all accounts, General Petraeus has the confidence of his troops and seems to be demonstrating his competence as evidenced by his results in the field so it's pretty small of you to suggest he's merely a tool of the administration. I guess this is what happens when you get too caught up in needing failure in Iraq to recognize that you've gone over the line of decency. :shake:it's not libel if it's true... :p :p :p

i don't know for sure, but i think public figures have different rules that apply...

go bowe
08-16-2007, 02:20 PM
Who's been denying it? Of course Bush replaced his old generals with new ones that had a different plan. That's what you mockers of "stay the course" have wanted all along, isn't it? :shrug:

Your libel against General Petraeus is another story though. By nearly all accounts, General Petraeus has the confidence of his troops and seems to be demonstrating his competence as evidenced by his results in the field so it's pretty small of you to suggest he's merely a tool of the administration. I guess this is what happens when you get too caught up in needing failure in Iraq to recognize that you've gone over the line of decency. :shake:over the line of decency?

how long have you been here? :Poke:

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 02:44 PM
Yep, life is a bit more dangerous in the middle of the road, dodging traffic from both sides.

ROFL I must say as apt as that it's still pretty funny hearing it put that way.

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 03:34 PM
Unbeleavable ! Tonights game will be on ESPN. For you pointy headed types. ESPN is Entertainment Sports Programming Network. The lynchings will be on WKKK. I beleave thats run by the NEA or the ACLU.
I think Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is the station manager. I've got him on speed dial for sure.

You really are at a loss for smack when someone doesn't fit your little red state/blue state mindset, aren't you? ROFL

ROFL I must say as apt as that it's still pretty funny hearing it put that way.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here for the rest of the evening, and please tip your waitstaff.

Cochise
08-16-2007, 03:45 PM
Yep, life is a bit more dangerous in the middle of the road, dodging traffic from both sides.

I don't know... I often feel like I'm firmly in "with friends like these" territory.

Dave Lane
08-16-2007, 03:53 PM
:rolleyes: It pisses you off that Petraeus is having success doesn't it?

Explain the logic underlying this conclusion...

Dave

Cochise
08-16-2007, 03:56 PM
Explain the logic underlying this conclusion...

Dave

A glowing report would frustrate everything he hopes to happen politically.

Dave Lane
08-16-2007, 03:59 PM
I'm sorry, I thought you said with his already glowing sucess. So far looks like violence is up year to year so I don't see any improvement yet.

Dave

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 04:04 PM
I don't know... I often feel like I'm firmly in "with friends like these" territory.

I can sympathize. I think that is the case for all of us occasionally, no matter where we fall on the political and social spectrum.

Hang in there, buddy.

patteeu
08-16-2007, 05:07 PM
I'm sorry, I thought you said with his already glowing sucess. So far looks like violence is up year to year so I don't see any improvement yet.

Dave

Sounds to me like you have to stretch to find statistics to tell the story you want to tell.

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 08:45 AM
You're a loose cannon, Petraeus! You're off the case!

Chief Henry
08-17-2007, 09:36 AM
[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]You really are at a loss for smack when someone doesn't fit your little red state/blue state mindset, aren't you?

QUOTE]


I just know where my roots are firmly planted. The mushy middle allows you to blow in the wind like a fallen leaf. If your sitting on a fence,
you could fall very easily.

Being in the middle is the easy way to go through life. Doing things the easy way has never built anything of substance.

the Talking Can
08-17-2007, 09:38 AM
[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]You really are at a loss for smack when someone doesn't fit your little red state/blue state mindset, aren't you?

QUOTE]


I just know where my roots are firmly planted. The mushy middle allows you to blow in the wind like a fallen leaf. If your sitting on a fence,
you could fall very easily.

Being in the middle is the easy way to go through life. Doing things the easy way has never built anything of substance.


your posts make children die

Chief Henry
08-17-2007, 11:33 AM
your posts make children die


Like yours are any better :rolleyes:

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 11:52 AM
[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]You really are at a loss for smack when someone doesn't fit your little red state/blue state mindset, aren't you?

QUOTE]


I just know where my roots are firmly planted. The mushy middle allows you to blow in the wind like a fallen leaf. If your sitting on a fence,
you could fall very easily.

Being in the middle is the easy way to go through life. Doing things the easy way has never built anything of substance.THIS IS MY POSITION RIGHT HERE I CANNOT CHANGE IT THOUGHT IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Like yours are any better :rolleyes:Oh God, you have sarcasm down to an art form!

Chief Henry
08-17-2007, 12:05 PM
Oh God, you have sarcasm down to an art form!



I have changed....I use to be a democrat, anything else :homer:

Ugly Duck
08-17-2007, 01:01 PM
The Bushron administration is now the lamest of all ducks. Americans just don't believe them any more.... we'd be getting out the umbrellas if Bushron told us the sky is blue:

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said he doesn't think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents.

Holland said, "I suspect most people are hearing the words 'general' and 'Iraq' and that's what they're basing their opinion on."

He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 03:25 PM
I have changed....I use to be a democrat, anything else :homer:

I see. You're just another Kerryesque flip-flopper. That explains a great deal. :Poke:

Garcia Bronco
08-18-2007, 01:33 PM
If Petraeus signs off on the report, it's his report, even if he isn't the guy sitting behind the typewriter/keyboard. But I guess it's important for you to lay the groundwork for dismissing the report out of hand if it says anything you don't like.

Or before it's published